Right now the elitists have won huge victories in fake environmentalism with Copenhagen, fake Veganism with wanting meat banned which will hurt the health of some that their body needs meat, fake health care movements to dictate our health care rights, and now to finish off that we will suffer at the hands of fake environmentalists, forceful vegetarians, and forceful government run health care activists, but now a Terrorist attack to finish off our end of freedom and soon America will become a carcass of the past. I may have made things worse getting mad at the environmentalist vegans that want to make meat illegal for all but I felt threatened because anything peaceful and non war like I try to do ends up getting nowhere and Obamas crowds keep getting somewhere and sometimes I feel like I am going to suffer because of the manipulation by the hands of the elite. Everyday I keep feeling a more increased sense of insecurity, threatened, and I feel scared because of the more persistent manipulation being done which is succeeding which means the elites brainwashing tools must be getting more powerful even though vegans are committing sins as much as meat eaters proven by science, global warming is caused by the sun proven by science, In America we should be allowed to make our own choices but what makes me hate some environmentalists is when they want to snatch my moral choices away from me as if I am not responsible and have to be told what to do by certain groups of people, Forced government run health care will not make our lives better with the type of system we have it cannot work without innocent tax payers suffering and being put hundreds of thousands in taxes and debt, and increasing security doesn’t not actually stop a determined terrorist organization but more like inconveniences people and scare them away from the airports.

The reason I can’t think too well right now and made that meat eaters rights blog instead of a food choices blog is because I am scared out of my mind that what if we have to go to the black market just for meat? meat that always been legal to eat. I don’t understand why special interest groups that think they know it all want to make all our choices for us and make it illegal to make any other choices. America was suppose to be peaceful, a place of freedom, a place where you can be a vegetarian or a meat eater, a gay hair stylist or a straight barber, a activist or a politician, or whatever but now more and more I see threats to our rights and freedoms being carried out more and more by do-gooders and anti-terrorist crowds. How could we get to this point where Americans may have to start breaking laws in secret because there will be laws against almost anything because of the huge war the elite has started.

There’s literally a war going on right now, and I can list it right now:

1. Vegetarians and environmentalists against the meat eaters
2. environmentalists against the poor people and middle class
3. pro government forced health care activists against those wanting choices and don’t want to pay for abortion
4. Obama worshipers and followers against the anti Obama crowds
5. Hackers attacking those not following the new political messiah
6. Anyone who legitimately cares about the people but doesn’t like the new agendas are all being labeled as pro GOP or republican.
7. I’ve seen opinions from thousands of civilians become more radicalized thus intimidating people like me and making us feel scared and more aggressive normal by instincts to get more aggressive out of excessive fear of the future being manipulated by the very few elite.
8. There’s an increase in violence and fear as our country is going down the tubes and these special interest groups aren’t helping but making it worse and driving America into the dirt.

Even when Obama got elected he got in trough radicalism as well because certain types of people threatened to riot if Obama did not get elected so it seems like ever since he got elected there’s been an increase in radical thought and attacks so it seems like Obama was not medicine to curing our nations problems but more like a virus that the people have created when they elected him. The people have truly forgotten after Bush and the 9/11 attacks what freedom and rights was about. The people have truly forgotten what Liberty is and that is definitely what will start a civil war or revolutionary war and I have a feeling it will happen if radical thoughts keep being exercised by manipulated environmentalists, vegans, health care activists, and others worshiping Obama. Really instead of fighting a war with them we need to find a way to get it through their thick skulls that they are being used and manipulated for the elites, by the elites, and becoming of the elites. The elite is scared that there is alternative press so the elite wants to make us look as though we are GOP agents or pentagon agents as David Wilcock foolishly puts it (That means they brainwashed even spiritual people).

I have never seen a large rise in radicalism in my life even under Bush or Clinton even though I thought they were both bad but Bush was worse then Clinton but under Obama I am seeing more radicalism then ever and it all makes me suffer to think we may be put in a furnace to die because of these peoples radical thoughts. It’s those type thoughts which may lead to the Anti-Christ chopping off heads of those that don’t comply with the evil lord (anyone think about Alice and wonderland? with the “off with their heads!”), and I have a big feeling we will be put in concentration camps if radical thoughts keep being accepted by Obama which we gladly will since the elite which hired him did this to the people. I am tired of radicalism and just want vegans to stay vegans and meat eaters and stay meat eaters, environmentalists to stay environmentalists while those not ready to go green or too poor to go green stay as they are right now unless maybe the poor can be offered a cheaper way to go green without losing any quality of life, and for government run health care to remain optional and not get our nations in debt and if we cure peoples diseases it will solve the whole health care crises in itself and bring relief to doctors tired of seeing their patients suffer till they lose their minds and go crazy or kill themselves.

Now thanks to the terrorist attack it will bring fourth more Pro Obama radicalism instead of less which will lead to the end of the Constitution. We are heading more and more into a police state because of the fact that manipulation keeps being pressed against the people including increased pollutants and drugs in the water, and more brainwashing through the HAARP program and daytime TV Shows.

Theres been a lot more security lately and now after the terrorist attacks it will be the finishing blow to the almost dead carcass of America. The reason I said some stuff that sounds off topic is because it is related to what I am trying to say that we already have rises in Elite Radical propaganda and manipulation which is leading our freedoms, rights, and choices off a cliff and now the terrorist attack at the airport of Detroit will be used as the finishing below to our rights and freedoms as well know it and accept that even if Obama is doing the same stuff as George W. Bush people will be brainwashed to accept the new ways of life dictated by Obama and the elite. We are 30 seconds from midnight and the clock is ticking for the doomsday device bomb Obama has set and once the bomb goes off America will be under the elites control and anybody unique will be executed by radical groups being built by the elitists.

Many thinks we are defeating the terrorists by increasing airport security but right now I believe we have a terrorist right in the white house as the president of the united states. I was even going to gather enough notes of information to start a documentary describing how Obama could be Osama Bin laden or his brother because he looks like a lot alike Osama in certain ways so it would be weird if Bush was also related to Osama Bin Laden because I found one time that in Wikipedia that Barack Obama was related to george Bush as the 11th cousins. if that is true and Obama is Osama then George Bush and Barack Obama is related to the top Al Qaeda terrorist leader and since Osama brainwashed many to blow up people and themselves and Obamas methods seem pretty similar with increases in radicalism it would be weird if people started killing themselves here for Obama or killing others that disapprove of his political decisions.

I guess a terrorist plot possibly ordered by Obama himself would be a perfect opportunity to enslave the nations and finally turn America into a full fledged police state

Source: USWGO

Others stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs

Why Did We Lose Our Rights if the Government Isn’t Even Keeping Us Safe?

Why Wait? Put Me in Jail Now

Obama allows Interpol immunity to arrest and detain within United Stated borders

The U.S. government is broke. Nevertheless, Washington is currently fighting two wars: one is ebbing while the other is expanding. How to pay for the Afghan build up? Democrats say raise taxes. Republicans say no worries. The best policy would be to scale back America’s international commitments.

The United States will spend more than $700 billion on the military in 2010. The administration’s initial defense-budget proposal, minus the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, was $534 billion, almost as much as total military spending by the rest of the world. Even though the Iraq war is winding down, its costs will persist for years as the government cares for thousands of seriously injured veterans.

Afghanistan cost about $51 billion in 2009 and had been expected to run $65 billion in 2010. However, the president’s build up is estimated to add another $30 billion annually. And if this “surge” doesn’t work—U.S. troop levels still lag well behind the minimum number indicated by Pentagon anti-insurgency doctrine—the administration will feel pressure to further increase force levels. Every extra thousand personnel deployed to Afghanistan costs about $1 billion.

Although the president reportedly plans to emphasize deficit reduction in his upcoming budget, he continues to propose new programs even with $10 trillion in red ink predicted over the next decade. The cost of the Afghan war will be yet another debit added to the national debt.

Some Democrats are demanding measures to pay for the war. For instance, Appropriations Committee Chairman Representative David Obey is advocating a special war tax to “share the burden.” He, along with Rep. John P. Murtha and Rep. John B. Larson, have introduced the Share the Sacrifice Act of 2010. They complain that “the only people who’ve paid any price for our military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan are our military families.”

While Rep. Obey would impose a temporary surcharge on people earning as little $30,000 annually, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin proposes adding a new, higher tax bracket to pay for the wars. However, the latter admits that a recession may not be a good time to hike taxes—a sentiment widely shared on Capitol Hill.

Senator Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist, argues: “If you’re going to have a presence there [in Afghanistan], you just can’t pass the bill on, as we did in Iraq, to our kids and our grandchildren. I think that’s wrong. I think that’s immoral.” However, he has proposed no specific fiscal response.

Sen. Ben Nelson, the key swing vote for the $2 trillion Senate health-care bill, proposes issuing war bonds—that is, more debt. Doing so, he contends, would “reduce our dependence on foreign creditors and support for our service members and America’s mission.” Of course, in fiscal terms there is no difference between civilian bonds and war bonds. And the proposal mimics the “Patriot Savings Bonds” promoted by the Bush administration in 2001.

Some Democrats want the administration to lead. Rep. Mike Honda opines: “If the president intends to go in over our objections, he should have to bear the burden of asking for a tax to pay for it.” The administration refuses to endorse either surtaxes or bonds, but plans on including the cost of the Afghan war, including the surge, in the 2010 budget. The Bush administration preferred to hide the cost of its conflicts by placing war spending in supplemental bills. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton explained: “The president is committed to making it fully accounted for.”

“Pay-as-you-go” proponents have a point. Although the Republican Party historically supported balanced budgets, President George W. Bush and the Republican congressional majority turned a surplus into a deficit while upping domestic outlays across the board, creating a big new health care program (the Medicare drug benefit), and initiating two wars. For the GOP to now rail against wasteful spending is a bit of shameless political theater all too typical for Washington.

However, the Democrats’ new-found concern for fiscal responsibility also looks suspect. Rep. Obey, who in 2007 proposed a similar levy for Iraq, complains that the money spent in Afghanistan “will cost us on education, on our efforts to build the entire economy.” Rep. Lynn Woolsey similarly objects that the war has “diverted funds from desperately needed domestic priorities.” Sen. Levin admits that he wants higher taxes in principle—the wealthy “have done incredibly well”—arguing that taxes should have been raised during the previous administration.

In rebuttal, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell lost no time in pointing out the obvious: “The Democrats are willing to bust the budget to pass a domestic program that the American people are against, but all of a sudden find it offensive to do something that is absolutely essential to the security of Americans here in the United States.” There’s little evidence that attempting to build an effective, pro-Western central government in Kabul, essentially where the mission is heading, has much to do with U.S. security, but Sen. McConnell’s broader point remains valid: Democrats were far less concerned about excessive borrowing when they were voting for hundreds of billions of dollars for social programs, bailouts and “stimulus” packages. For this reason Republican legislators have proposed to pay for the Afghan surge by freezing discretionary outlays, using unspent “stimulus” funds, and delaying debates over health-care reform and cap and trade. There likely is another objective lurking beneath the surface of the proposed tax hike. Just as Rep. Charles Rangel advocated reinstating conscription in an attempt raise the perceived public cost of the Iraq war, surcharge advocates may hope to highlight the cost of the Afghan war.

Frederick Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute complains that “Certain members of the progressive caucus see this as very attractive because it has the chance of increasing the unpopularity of the war.” Roberton Williams of the Urban Institute-Brookings Institute Tax Policy Center makes the same point: “Look at who’s pushing this. It’s people opposed to the war.”

While Republican politicians continue the raise the alarm over new domestic spending initiatives, they fall curiously silent when it comes to America’s oversize military budget and war costs.

Indeed, the conservative Heritage Foundation, long a proponent of reduced spending, put out a special handout entitled “THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN: Costs in Context.” According to Heritage, $95 billion in 2010 is “a small price to pay,” “a tiny fraction of federal spending,” “small relative to America’s past wars,” “far less than TARP, bailouts, and the stimulus,” and “smaller than the annual growth in entitlements.”

These are all true as far as they go, but spending on almost every federal program is small compared to the overall deficit. When Rep. Woolsey complained that war outlays had “exploded the lid off our national debt,” she could have made the same comment about a myriad of domestic programs as well.

Moreover, Heritage’s statements are not ones conservatives typically make regarding proposals for new domestic spending initiatives. And the military spending adds up: since 2001 Washington has spent nearly $1 trillion on Afghanistan and Iraq. The Congressional Budget Office figures the cost over the next decade could run $1.6 trillion. The interest on war-related debt adds another $100 billion. And the Obama administration is hiking non-war related military outlays, merely slowing the rate of increase.

Washington is spending far too much. There is no easy way to pay for an expanded war in Afghanistan. Higher taxes at least impose the real cost on the present generation. More debt continues the dishonest fiction that the American people can get something for nothing.

But the solution is to cut expenditures. The fact that Washington is spending too much money on domestic programs is no excuse for unnecessary military expenditures. Defense outlays need to be evaluated critically on their own terms.

This is where congressional Democrats should mount their attack. Neither higher taxes nor new war bonds is the issue. The problem is the extension of the U.S. occupation of Iraq and expansion of conflict in Afghanistan. Even more dubious are military deployments protecting prosperous and populous allies throughout Asia and Europe. Americans no longer can afford to subsidize rich friends and remake poor dependents all around the globe.

The United States is attempting to run a quasi-empire on the cheap. How we do the paying is less important than what we are paying for. Much of today’s “defense” spending has nothing to do with defending America. Washington should bring our foreign ends into conformity with our domestic means.

Source: Small Government Times

Other stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs

Glenn Beck and O’Reilly calling for higher taxes?

Video: The Hashish Army- Afghanistan. Is this what we are fighting for?????

New tax should pay for Afghan war?

The use of Tasers has become increasingly controversial over the last year, following high-profile cases such as the Tasering of a 10-year-old girl who had refused to take a shower and video of a 72-year-old great-grandmother who was Tasered following a driving offense. Now a federal appeals court in San Francisco has set down new rules for when police officers are allowed to use Tasers. In particular, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Tasers can’t be used simply to force a non-violent person to bend to an officer’s will. The court’s reason was that Taser’s X26 stun gun inflicts more pain than other “non-lethal” options:

The physiological effects, the high levels of pain, and foreseeable risk of physical injury lead us to conclude that the X26 and similar devices are a greater intrusion than other non-lethal methods of force we have confronted.

The ruling followed a case in which an officer Tasered a man named Carl Bryan after pulling him over for driving with an unbuckled seat belt. Bryan was verbally abusive, but obviously unarmed and non-violent.

The use of Tasers as compliance tools — means for compelling behavior — has generated a huge amount of protest. For many, the famous “Don’t Tase me, bro” incident, in which student Andrew Meyer was Tasered at a political debate, signaled an alarming new form of oppression. (Others have accusedMeyer of setting the whole thing up as a stunt.) Perhaps the distinguishing feature of the Taser, compared with other forms of enforcing compliance, is that it can be used with one finger. Police have always been able enforce their wishes using batons or manual force, but a Taser is a much easier option, and perhaps this makes it more prone to abuse. Whether it’s zapping an unruly student protester, an uncooperative 11-year-old or an abusive driver, the trite observation that power corrupts may have some truth here.

“It sounds like this court is attempting to raise the bar for non-lethal use of force,” retired Los Angeles Police Department Captain Greg Meyer told the Los Angeles Times. The ruling specifies that the Taser X26 and similar devices should only be used where there is “strong government interest [that] compels the employment of such force.” This rules out any situation in which there are alternative means of dealing with the situation. Some may see the new ruling as a great step forward for human rights. But there are reasons to be a little more cautious.

A recent study in the American Journal of Public Health looked at 24,000 cases in which police officers had used force, including Tasers, pepper spray, batons and manual methods. After controlling for factors such as the amount of resistance shown by the suspect, the study found that Taser use reduced the overall risk of injury by 65 percent. In other words, restricting Taser use could triple the number of injuries caused in this sort of incident.

It would be naïve to assume that there will not be any market response to the ruling. We have recently seen a rash of new devices aimed at police forces, including assorted laser dazzlers and pepper ball guns as Taser alternatives. There are also portable pain beams in prospect, both microwave and infrared laser varieties, not to mention various acoustic blasters. The ruling is likely to lead to more experimentation, both technical and in the courts, to find out just what the acceptable level of pain and suffering is and how it can best be delivered.

The ruling is also a potential boost for devices such as the LED Incapacitator, which does not rely on pain but other physiological effects (disorientation, loss of balance and nausea). Funding of more advanced non-lethal devices using assorted electromagnetic effects to paralyze or otherwise disable painlessly may also become more attractive.

Taser International is also likely to respond legally and technically. Having already developed several generations of Taser, the latest versions rely on muscular paralysis to incapacitate a target. The substantial pain is a side effect. A Taser that paralyzes without causing (perceived) pain would be an obvious avenue of research.

The new ruling is likely to have a significant effect on police on the streets. Many commentators will be watching evidence to support claims that it will make things better — or worse.

Source: Wired

Other stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs

Sheriff: Tasing Of A 10-Year-Old Boy Was Justified

Tased Inmate Dies: Third time in five months for this kind of death at jail

Cops Caught Plotting To Frame Motorist