The UFO Event/Fest/ Gathering

An exclusive three day event covering various aspects of the UFO situation, past and present.
Speakers - Videos - Group interaction
Relaxed resort setting
Attendance limited to 40 people
Reserve now !

All three days for

$10.00

The UFO Event/Fest/Gathering
June 13-14-15, 2011
Doubletree Hotel
445 S. Alvernon Way
Tucson, AZ 85711

"Coming together to learn"

Information and registration:

Allen Benz
P O Box 182
Tucson, AZ 85702-0182

E-mail: a-benz@excite.com

The Liberal Zone

You unlock this door with the key of irrationality. Beyond it is another dimension - a dimension of sound, a dimension of sight, a dimension of no mind. You're moving into a land of both shadow and lack of substance, of things and lack of ideas. You've just crossed over into the LIBERAL Zone

FDR or Ronald Reagan - Which way will Obama go?

Commentary: From my perspective, it's already perfectly clear. BHO will do whatever his puppet masters - Kissinger, Rockefeller, Bryszinski, James A. Johnson (Perseus Capital)
( http://www.muckety.com/Perseus-LLC/5001487.muckety?big=true ) want him to do!
AB


By Patrick J. Buchanan.


Barack Obama, it is said, will inherit the worst times since the Great Depression. Not to minimize the crisis we are in, but we need a little perspective here.

The Great Depression began with the Great Crash of 1929. By 1931, unemployment had reached 16 percent.

By 1933, 89 percent of stock value had been wiped out, the economy had shrunk by one-third, thousands of banks had closed, a third of the money supply had vanished, and unemployment had reached 25 percent — among heads of households. And in those days, there was no unemployment insurance, no Medicare, no Medicaid, no Social Security, no welfare.

FDR’s answer: vast federal spending, tough new regulations on business and higher taxes — like Herbert Hoover before him, only more so.

The Depression lasted until war orders from the Allies brought U.S. industry back to life. Before 1940, not once did unemployment fall below 14 percent. In May 1939, Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau testified:

“We are spending more money than we have ever spent before, and it does not work. … I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. … I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started … and an enormous debt, to boot.”
Politically, the New Deal was a smashing success, with FDR’s landslides in 1932, 1934 and 1936 virtually wiping out the GOP.

Yet, economically, the New Deal was a bust, failing utterly to restore prosperity. Despite the indoctrination of generations of schoolchildren in New Deal propaganda, that is the hard truth.
Consider, now, how Ronald Reagan responded to the economic crisis of 1980, the worst since the Depression. In the “stagflation” of that Jimmy Carter era, interest rates had reached 21 percent and inflation 13 percent.

Reagan’s answer was the tight money policy of Fed Chairman Paul Volcker and across-the-board tax cuts of 25 percent, while slashing the highest rates from 70 percent to 28 percent.
While unemployment hit 10 percent in 1982 and Reagan lost 26 House seats, in 1983 the tax cuts kicked in.

From there on out, it was boom times until Reagan rode off into the sunset, having created 20 million new jobs. “The Seven Fat Years,” author Robert Bartley called them.
Reagan had followed the lead of Warren Harding and Cal Coolidge, who had cut Woodrow Wilson’s wartime tax rates of near 70 percent to 25 percent, resulting in “The Roaring ’20s,” a time of unrivaled prosperity.

The JFK tax cuts of the 1960s, also a Reagan model, were equally successful.

Harding, Coolidge, JFK and Reagan all bet on the private sector as the engine of prosperity. All succeeded. Franklin Roosevelt bet on government. And the New Deal failed. It was World War II that pulled the United States out of the Depression ditch of the 1930s.

Comes now the financial collapse and economic crisis of 2008, inherited by Obama, with 40 percent of all stock values wiped out in a year, foreclosures pandemic, and unemployment near 7 percent and surging.

In crafting his solutions, Obama seems to be brushing aside the Reagan, JFK and Harding-Coolidge models, and channeling FDR and the New Deal Democrats.

Already staring at a $1.2 trillion dollar deficit for the year ending Sept. 30, about 8 percent of the entire U.S. economy, Obama intends to add a stimulus package of $700 billion to $1 trillion, yet another 5 percent to 7 percent of gross domestic product. The resulting deficit would be twice as large as Reagan’s largest, 6 percent of GDP, which was the largest since World War II.

And how is this Niagara of money to be spent?

Hundreds of billions will go out in checks of $500 to $1,000 to wage-earners and individuals who do not even pay taxes. This is much like the George McGovern “demogrant” program of 1972, where every man, woman and child, if memory serves, was to get a $1,000 check from the U.S. government.

Other hundreds of billions will go to shore up state and municipal spending. Other hundreds of billions will go for “infrastructure” projects, another name for earmarks, which is a synonym for pork.
Now, as Obama does not intend to raise taxes, at least now, he is going to have to borrow this near $2 trillion from foreigners or U.S. taxpayers, or the Fed will have to create the money. Undeniably, this will have an impact upon the economy. But what will that impact be?

Where in history, other than World War II, is there evidence that such a mass infusion of spending restored prosperity?

Obama and the Democrats are taking a historic gamble, not only with their careers but with the country. If this monstrous stimulus package, plus the trillions in hot money, do not work; if the two ignite rampant inflation, rather than real growth, we are all out of options. The toolbox is empty.

And what will follow may truly resemble the 1930s.

Hey, Hey, BHO ...

Back in the '60s, the chant went "Hey, Hey, LBJ - How many kids did you kill today?" In light of the item below, many the new chant should be "Hey, Hey, BHO - How many kids will have to go?"

Afghanistan could get 30,000 new US troops
By JASON STRAZIUSO

(AP)

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) - The top U.S. military officer said Saturday that the Pentagon could double the number of American forces in Afghanistan by next summer to 60,000 - the largest estimate of potential reinforcements ever publicly suggested.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that between 20,000 and 30,000 additional U.S. troops could be sent to Afghanistan to bolster the 31,000 already there.

This year has been the deadliest for U.S. forces in Afghanistan since the 2001 invasion to oust the Taliban for hosting al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden. Suicide attacks and roadside bombs have become more dangerous, and Taliban fighters have infiltrated wide swaths of countryside and now roam in provinces on Kabul's doorstep.

U.S. commanders have long requested an additional 20,000 troops to aid Canadian and British forces in two provinces just outside Kabul and in the south. But the high end of Mullen's range is the largest number any top U.S. military official has said could be sent to Afghanistan.

Mullen said that increase would include combat forces but also aviation, medical and civilian affairs support troops.

"So some 20,000 to 30,000 is the window of overall increase from where we are right now," he told a news conference at a U.S. base in Kabul. "We certainly have enough forces to be successful in combat, but we haven't had enough forces to hold the territory that we clear."

Overall, there are more than 60,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan. Mullen said any increased U.S. deployment would be directly tied to force levels in Iraq, where U.S. commanders are drawing down troops.

"The Taliban and extremists are more sophisticated and effective," Mullen said. "They haven't won any battles but they certainly have increased the level of violence, and we're very focused on that. That's why the additional forces are so important, to be able to provide security for the Afghan people so these other areas can be developed."

U.S. officials already have plans to send four ground brigades and an aviation brigade to Afghanistan. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has approved the deployment of the aviation brigade, defense officials told The Associated Press. And 10th Mountain Division forces will deploy next month to two provinces that neighbor Kabul - Wardak and Logar, which have seen an influx of militants over the last year.

Mullen said that after the additional U.S. troops are added over the next eight months, only improvements in Afghanistan's governance and economic situation will affect the strength of the insurgency.

But the chairman conceded that the U.S. may have misjudged the central government's ability "to have the kind of impact that we wanted."

Afghanistan, Mullen said, has never been run by a strong central government, and the U.S. may look to communities and tribes in the country's provinces to take on a greater role in future strategy.
He called U.S. goals in Afghanistan "moderate," and said the long-term U.S. vision is for a country that can govern itself while respecting international law, while providing both material and economic security for its people.

Media's Presidential Bias and Decline

Media's Presidential Bias and Decline

Columnist Michael Malone Looks at Slanted Election Coverage and the Reasons Why

Column By MICHAEL S. MALONE

Oct. 24, 2008 —

The traditional media are playing a very, very dangerous game -- with their readers, with the Constitution and with their own fates.

The sheer bias in the print and television coverage of this election campaign is not just bewildering, but appalling. And over the last few months I've found myself slowly moving from shaking my head at the obvious one-sided reporting, to actually shouting at the screen of my television and my laptop computer.

But worst of all, for the last couple weeks, I've begun -- for the first time in my adult life -- to be embarrassed to admit what I do for a living. A few days ago, when asked by a new acquaintance what I did for a living, I replied that I was "a writer," because I couldn't bring myself to admit to a stranger that I'm a journalist.

You need to understand how painful this is for me. I am one of those people who truly bleeds ink when I'm cut. I am a fourth-generation newspaperman. As family history tells it, my great-grandfather was a newspaper editor in Abilene, Kan., during the last of the cowboy days, then moved to Oregon to help start the Oregon Journal (now the Oregonian).

My hard-living -- and when I knew her, scary -- grandmother was one of the first women reporters for the Los Angeles Times. And my father, though profoundly dyslexic, followed a long career in intelligence to finish his life (thanks to word processors and spellcheckers) as a very successful freelance writer. I've spent 30 years in every part of journalism, from beat reporter to magazine editor. And my oldest son, following in the family business, so to speak, earned his first national byline before he earned his drivers license.

So, when I say I'm deeply ashamed right now to be called a "journalist," you can imagine just how deep that cuts into my soul.

Now, of course, there's always been bias in the media. Human beings are biased, so the work they do, including reporting, is inevitably colored. Hell, I can show you 10 different ways to color variations of the word "said" -- muttered, shouted, announced, reluctantly replied, responded, etc. -- to influence the way a reader will apprehend exactly the same quote. We all learn that in Reporting 101, or at least in the first few weeks working in a newsroom.

But what we are also supposed to learn during that same apprenticeship is to recognize the dangerous power of that technique, and many others, and develop built-in alarms against them.

But even more important, we are also supposed to be taught that even though there is no such thing as pure, Platonic objectivity in reporting, we are to spend our careers struggling to approach that ideal as closely as possible.

That means constantly challenging our own prejudices, systematically presenting opposing views and never, ever burying stories that contradict our own world views or challenge people or institutions we admire. If we can't achieve Olympian detachment, than at least we can recognize human frailty -- especially in ourselves.

Reporting Bias

For many years, spotting bias in reporting was a little parlor game of mine, watching TV news or reading a newspaper article and spotting how the reporter had inserted, often unconsciously, his or her own preconceptions. But I always wrote it off as bad judgment and lack of professionalism, rather than bad faith and conscious advocacy.

Sure, being a child of the '60s I saw a lot of subjective "New" Journalism, and did a fair amount of it myself, but that kind of writing, like columns and editorials, was supposed to be segregated from "real" reporting, and, at least in mainstream media, usually was. The same was true for the emerging blogosphere, which by its very nature was opinionated and biased.

But my complacent faith in my peers first began to be shaken when some of the most admired journalists in the country were exposed as plagiarists, or worse, accused of making up stories from whole cloth.

I'd spent my entire professional career scrupulously pounding out endless dreary footnotes and double-checking sources to make sure that I never got accused of lying or stealing someone else's work -- not out of any native honesty, but out of fear: I'd always been told to fake or steal a story was a firing offense & indeed, it meant being blackballed out of the profession.

And yet, few of those worthies ever seemed to get fired for their crimes -- and if they did they were soon rehired into even more prestigious jobs. It seemed as if there were two sets of rules: one for us workaday journalists toiling out in the sticks, and another for folks who'd managed, through talent or deceit, to make it to the national level.

Meanwhile, I watched with disbelief as the nation's leading newspapers, many of whom I'd written for in the past, slowly let opinion pieces creep into the news section, and from there onto the front page. Personal opinions and comments that, had they appeared in my stories in 1979, would have gotten my butt kicked by the nearest copy editor, were now standard operating procedure at the New York Times, the Washington Post, and soon after in almost every small town paper in the U.S.

But what really shattered my faith -- and I know the day and place where it happened -- was the war in Lebanon three summers ago. The hotel I was staying at in Windhoek, Namibia, only carried CNN, a network I'd already learned to approach with skepticism. But this was CNN International, which is even worse.

I sat there, first with my jaw hanging down, then actually shouting at the TV, as one field reporter after another reported the carnage of the Israeli attacks on Beirut, with almost no corresponding coverage of the Hezbollah missiles raining down on northern Israel. The reporting was so utterly and shamelessly biased that I sat there for hours watching, assuming that eventually CNNi would get around to telling the rest of the story & but it never happened.

The Presidential Campaign

But nothing, nothing I've seen has matched the media bias on display in the current presidential campaign.

Republicans are justifiably foaming at the mouth over the sheer one-sidedness of the press coverage of the two candidates and their running mates. But in the last few days, even Democrats, who have been gloating over the pass -- no, make that shameless support -- they've gotten from the press, are starting to get uncomfortable as they realize that no one wins in the long run when we don't have a free and fair press.

I was one of the first people in the traditional media to call for the firing of Dan Rather -- not because of his phony story, but because he refused to admit his mistake -- but, bless him, even Gunga Dan thinks the media is one-sided in this election.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not one of those people who think the media has been too hard on, say, Republican vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin, by rushing reportorial SWAT teams to her home state of Alaska to rifle through her garbage. This is the big leagues, and if she wants to suit up and take the field, then Gov. Palin better be ready to play.

The few instances where I think the press has gone too far -- such as the Times reporter talking to prospective first lady Cindy McCain's daughter's MySpace friends -- can easily be solved with a few newsroom smackdowns and temporary repostings to the Omaha bureau.

No, what I object to (and I think most other Americans do as well) is the lack of equivalent hardball coverage of the other side -- or worse, actively serving as attack dogs for the presidential ticket of Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Joe Biden, D-Del.

If the current polls are correct, we are about to elect as president of the United States a man who is essentially a cipher, who has left almost no paper trail, seems to have few friends (that at least will talk) and has entire years missing out of his biography.

That isn't Sen. Obama's fault: His job is to put his best face forward. No, it is the traditional media's fault, for it alone (unlike the alternative media) has had the resources to cover this story properly, and has systematically refused to do so.

Why, for example to quote the lawyer for Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., haven't we seen an interview with Sen. Obama's grad school drug dealer -- when we know all about Mrs. McCain's addiction? Are Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko that hard to interview? All those phony voter registrations that hard to scrutinize? And why are Sen. Biden's endless gaffes almost always covered up, or rationalized, by the traditional media?

Joe the Plumber

The absolute nadir (though I hate to commit to that, as we still have two weeks before the election) came with Joe the Plumber.

Middle America, even when they didn't agree with Joe, looked on in horror as the press took apart the private life of an average person who had the temerity to ask a tough question of a presidential candidate. So much for the standing up for the little man. So much for speaking truth to power. So much for comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable, and all of those other catchphrases we journalists used to believe we lived by.

I learned a long time ago that when people or institutions begin to behave in a matter that seems to be entirely against their own interests, it's because we don't understand what their motives really are. It would seem that by so exposing their biases and betting everything on one candidate over another, the traditional media is trying to commit suicide -- especially when, given our currently volatile world and economy, the chances of a successful Obama presidency, indeed any presidency, is probably less than 50/50.

Furthermore, I also happen to believe that most reporters, whatever their political bias, are human torpedoes & and, had they been unleashed, would have raced in and roughed up the Obama campaign as much as they did McCain's. That's what reporters do. I was proud to have been one, and I'm still drawn to a good story, any good story, like a shark to blood in the water.

So why weren't those legions of hungry reporters set loose on the Obama campaign? Who are the real villains in this story of mainstream media betrayal?

The editors. The men and women you don't see; the people who not only decide what goes in the paper, but what doesn't; the managers who give the reporters their assignments and lay out the editorial pages. They are the real culprits.

Bad Editors

Why? I think I know, because had my life taken a different path, I could have been one: Picture yourself in your 50s in a job where you've spent 30 years working your way to the top, to the cockpit of power & only to discover that you're presiding over a dying industry. The Internet and alternative media are stealing your readers, your advertisers and your top young talent. Many of your peers shrewdly took golden parachutes and disappeared. Your job doesn't have anywhere near the power and influence it did when your started your climb. The Newspaper Guild is too weak to protect you any more, and there is a very good chance you'll lose your job before you cross that finish line, 10 years hence, of retirement and a pension.

In other words, you are facing career catastrophe -- and desperate times call for desperate measures. Even if you have to risk everything on a single Hail Mary play. Even if you have to compromise the principles that got you here. After all, newspapers and network news are doomed anyway -- all that counts is keeping them on life support until you can retire.

And then the opportunity presents itself -- an attractive young candidate whose politics likely matches yours, but more important, he offers the prospect of a transformed Washington with the power to fix everything that has gone wrong in your career.

With luck, this monolithic, single-party government will crush the alternative media via a revived fairness doctrine, re-invigorate unions by getting rid of secret votes, and just maybe be beholden to people like you in the traditional media for getting it there.

And besides, you tell yourself, it's all for the good of the country &

This is the opinion of the columnist and in no way reflects the opinion of ABC News.

Michael S. Malone is one of the nation's best-known technology writers. He has covered Silicon Valley and high-tech for more than 25 years, beginning with the San Jose Mercury News as the nation's first daily high-tech reporter. His articles and editorials have appeared in such publications as The Wall Street Journal, the Economist and Fortune, and for two years he was a columnist for The New York Times. He was editor of Forbes ASAP, the world's largest-circulation business-tech magazine, at the height of the dot-com boom. Malone is the author or co-author of a dozen books, notably the best-selling "Virtual Corporation." Malone has also hosted three public television interview series, and most recently co-produced the celebrated PBS miniseries on social entrepreneurs, "The New Heroes." He has been the ABCNews.com "Silicon Insider" columnist since 2000.

Copyright © 2008 ABC News Internet Ventures

************************************************************************************

Commentary

Mr. Malone, an honest journalist, (gee, that's almost a contradiction in terms) has correctly assessed the situation. Maybe he and Bernard Goldberg could get together and actually create an honest and informative publication of some sort.

Let the word go forth to the executive suites of media organizations across the land - keep on with this infernal bilge that you allow your lackeys to spew forth on a constant basis and you will witness an even further erosion of your circulation and / or viewership. Smaller numbers of readers/ viewers means you can't charge advertisers as much i..e decreased revenues. Decreased revenues mean smaller paychecks or maybe even NO paychecks.

This message should also be heeded by the executives of the firms that advertise in the various media. The American public can always decide that they are not going to support your firms and buy other products. Lower sales = lower profits = smaller paychecks

.In summary, message to all members of "management" whether you are CEO, CFO, VP of News, Managing Editor, Assignment Editor, etc. - if you keep on the current path you will be stabbing yourselves in your wallets.

Benz Speaks! 3 ways to lower gas prices

Newt Gingrich speaks on Congress's role in the continuing energy crisis and ways that the American people can help turn the tide on rising energy prices.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=UOpcPfAarjY

Benz Speaks! How much is a billion?

This is too true to be funny.

The next time you hear a politician use the word 'billion' in a casual manner, think about whether you want the 'politicians' spending YOUR tax money

A billion is a difficult number to comprehend,but one advertising agency did a good job of putting that figure into some perspective in one of it's releases.

A billion seconds ago it was 1959.
A billion minutes ago Jesus was alive.
A billion hours ago our ancestors were living in the Stone Age.
A billion days ago no-one walked on the earth on two feet.

A billion dollars ago was only
8 hours and 20 minutes,
at the rate our government
is spending it.

While this thought is still fresh in our brain...
let's take a look at New Orleans ...
It's amazing what you can learn with some simple division.

Louisiana Senator,
Mary Landrieu (D)
is presently asking Congress for
250 BILLION DOLLARS
to rebuild New Orleans ..

Interesting number...
what does it mean?
Well... if you are one of the 484,674 residents of New Orleans
(every man, woman, and child)
you each get $516,528

Or... if you have one of the 188,251 homes in New Orleans , your home gets $1,329,787.
Or... if you are a family of four...
your family gets $2,066,012.

Politicians and Bureaucrats, wherever you are

Are all your calculators broken??

Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL License Tax
Cigarette Tax Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax
Hunting License Tax Inheritance Tax Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax)
IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax Luxury Tax Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Property Tax Real Estate Tax
Service charge taxes
Social Security Tax Road Usage Tax (Truckers) Sales Taxes Recreational Vehicle Tax
School Tax State Income Tax State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Tax
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Tax
Vehicle License Registration Tax Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax

STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY

Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago...and our nation was the most prosperous in the world.

We had absolutely no national debt...

We had the largest middle class in the world...

and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.

What happened?

Can you spell 'politicians!'

And I still have to press '1' for English.

I hope this goes around the USA at least 100 times

What the heck happened????

Benz Speaks! An Arab-American Woman Speaks To The Muslim Community

A reader writes:


Allen,

"Can you put this on your blog or write it to publish? This is one of those messages that needs to be heard far and wide........One voice of wisdom in the chaos of the media. Like Bill Cosby's message to the Black community, this one speaks to all Muslims to clean up their own act before slashing everyone else's. Ever wonder why we call ancient people "civilizations"? They all ated in barbaric ways to their conquered people....kill and rob in all directions. Help yourself to any others anytime anywhere.....The superior force got to slash and burn. Maybe this woman is trying to say that it's time human beings stop murdering in the name of religion of any kind and spend their energies not in revenge but in contructive pursuits. I agree with her. She is brave andcourageous....."



WATCH THIS BEFORE IT'S TAKEN OFF THE WEB

It is extremely surprising that the Arab financed TV in Dubai would allow this to air.

Be sure and watch this, it is so powerful. She is one impressive woman. Here is a powerful and amazing statement on Al Jereeza television.

The woman is Wafa Sultan, an Arab-American psychologist from Los Angeles.

I would suggest watching it ASAP because I don't know how long the link will be active.

This film clip ( 05:28 ) should be shown around the world repeatedly!

http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ai=214&ar=1050wmv&ak=nul

Benz Speaks! - As we approach this Memorial Day Weekend...

... in a lot of the corporate boardrooms across America, there is no patriotism. Many of America's largest companies have rejected various requests to say the Pledge of Allegiance before the start of their annual stockholders' meetings. The pieces below, I think, show this quite. well.

Corporate Elites Reject Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S.

by Ralph Nader

Dozens of America's largest and most famous corporations have refused a modest request to recite the pledge of allegiance at their annual shareholders meetings. In response to a written request by left-leaning free trade opponent Ralph Nader, only one of 100 CEO's of America's biggest corporations said that reciting the pledge was a good idea. Most did not respond or rejected the idea outright.

In his letter, Nader asked the CEO's "to establish a regular practice at every annual shareholders meeting whereby you and the board of directors stand and, in the name of your domesti­cally chartered corporation, pledge allegiance to the flag and to the Republic for which it stands.....

Carol Sanger, vice president of Ohio-based Federated De­partment Stores, Inc., gave the only positive response, saying "we...think it would be a positive statement on many levels." But the other tycoons ignored the request or denounced it as a bad idea.

Aetna Insurance CEO Richmond Huber told Nader, "I be­lieve that demanding recitations of allegiance -in language that may not reflect the beliefs of all persons present -is actu­ally contrary to the principles on which our democracy was founded."

August Busch of Anheuser-Busch said his company does not want to be linked to the U. S., saying "While our company headquarters remains in St. Louis, we are a global company."
He said that the company's shareholders meetings "include many international employees, shareholders, representatives, and visi­tors."

Other responses to the pledge request:

Allstate: AMOCO: Anheuser-Busch ARCO: Caterpillar: Citicorp: Delta Airlines: Ford: GM: Hewlett-Packard: Johnson & Johnson: J.P. Morgan: Kimberly-Clark: Kodak: 3M: MCI: Motorola: New York Life: Prudential: RJR Nabisco:

"inappropriate" "does not plan to include" "we see no reason to" "no plans to do so" "would not be productive" "not our practice" "will not implement" "inappropriate" "unnecessary" would "not be productive" "not appropriate" "we do not agree" "not. ..appropriate" "would not be productive" "unacceptable" "unacceptable" "will not be adopting" will "not consider" "do not plan on" it "not at this time"

Patriotism in the Boardroom

by Patrick J Buchanan

Not until two-thirds of the states ratified the Constitution did America become one nation under God. Yet some patriots still date the birth of the nation to Philadelphia, July 4, 1776.

And as we celebrated the 222nd anniversary of that glorious day, many feared we are losing our country. The new century, we are instructed, wilI see an end of nations, as each surrenders its sovereignty to immerse itself in the Global Economy.

Across the Atlantic, the nations of Europe are giving up control of currencies, economies and borders to the European Union. New power centers replace old capitals, and a mighty rival has risen up to chalIenge the nation-state -the transnational corporation.

"General Motors now has a bigger budget than the government of Denmark," writes the traditionalist newsletter Triumph of the Past, "Toyota surpasses Norway, WalMart tops Poland, and Ford exceeds South Africa. Mitsubishi and Unilever outsize Indonesia and Vietnam. In fact, the hundred biggest economies in the world are equally divided between businesses and governments." As America headquarters more of these behemoth businesses than any country, we are told the future belongs to us.

But are these transnationals completely loyal to America?

Corporate gadfly Ralph Nader decided to test the issue. He wrote to the 100 largest U.S. corporations, urging that, at their next shareholders meetings, their CEOs lead the company in the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States. From the responses, one would have thought "Tailgunner Joe" McCarthy had just demanded that the entire 1950 Harvard facl,llty take a loyalty oath.

"[D]emanding recitations of allegiance -in language that may not reflect the beliefs of all persons present -is actually contrary to the principles on which our democracy was founded," thundered Dick Huber of Aetna, of a pledge some of us took every school day.

Allstate said the pledge of allegiance would be "inappropriate at a business meeting." Why? Countless unions open their meetings with it. August Busch of Anheuser-Busch declared, "While our company headquarters remains in St. Louis, we are a global company." Our shareholders' meetings, he went on, "include many international employees, shareholders, representatives and visitors."

But if U.S. Olympic medal winners can stand in silence as the national anthems of other athletes are played, why cannot foreign visitors stand in respect as August A. Busch III booms out the pledge of allegiance to the flag and republic of the United States?

Arco and Amoco said no. AT&T said it would consider it. Defense contractor Hewlitt-Packard said a pledge of allegiance to the flag would "not be a productive use of time." Said Boeing, "It is the opinion of the board that it is not necessary to institute the practice you propose." Boeing's CEO Phil Condit two years ago expressed his hope that the world, 20 years hence, would no longer see Boeing as an American company but a global one.

,Bristol-Myers found the suggestion of a pledge of allegiance "an interesting one which we have not considered before.... We will have to carefully consider whether the proposal advances the best interests of the company, its shareholders and employees."

Caterpillar "concluded that a symbolic once-a-year gesture would not be a productive use of our time at our stockholders' meeting." But a recital of the flag pledge takes 15 seconds!

Calling itself an "international company," Coca-Cola said, "If a share owner were to propose that we pledge allegiance, we would certainly consider it in the context of our global business." Dayton-Hudson called the pledge not "consistent with the goal of running an efficient annual meeting."

Delta said no.

Kodak said a pledge of allegiance to the flag "would not be a productive use of our shareholders' time." Kodak must "maintain a global perspective to compete effectively in a global economy."

Ford Motor does "not believe that the concept of 'corporate allegiance' is possible." 3M said it would be "disrespectful" to other countries where it operates "to ask them to be bound by a pledge of allegiance to a country not their own." But in what country does 3M belong?

American taxpayers guarantee the Export-Import Bank loans of these companies; we bailout their investments via the International Monetary Fund; U.S. Marines have been sent to protect their property; and U.S. consular officials and presidents have promoted their sales. If they cannot pledge loyalty to America, why should Americans be loyal to them?

Consider the response of Federated Stores: Good idea; we will take it up!

Happy Independence Day! And may Americans never stop celebrating it, our global corporate elite notwithstanding.

Benz Speaks! - - Approval of U.S. Congress lower than Bush

Gee! What a surprise!!

I wonder why??

Could it possibly have something to do with behavior of its members -- both at work and after work?????

Published: May 14, 2008 at 10:23 AM

WASHINGTON, May 14 (UPI) -- The approval rating of the U.S. Congress dropped to near-record levels and is lower than U.S. President George Bush's mark, a Gallup poll indicates.The telephone survey of 1,017 U.S. adults indicates 18 percent of those interviewed May 8-11 approve of the current Congress. The score matches record lows from similar Gallup polls in August 2007 and March 1992.Gallup said Wednesday the reason for the low approval rating is because "rank-and-file Democrats are providing no support cushion for the Democratic-controlled institution."The same poll indicated approval ratings of Bush hover around his record lows, with 29 percent of respondents voicing support for the president.Gallup reported a sampling error of 3 percentage points.

Benz Speaks! - When ordinary lying isn't enough, you need help!

Ron Paul is interviewed by John Roberts on CNN's American Morning

Benz Speaks!

Recently ( April 28, 2008) , Ron Paul was interviewed by John Roberts on CNN regarding his (Paul's) new book - - The Revolution - A Manifesto and also Paul's continuing campaign for the Presidency. Watch the almost eight minute video posted on YouTube. Click the title to go to YouTube.

Book Description (via Amazon.com)

This Much Is True:

You Have Been Lied To.
The government is expanding.
Taxes are increasing.
More senseless wars are being planned.
Inflation is ballooning.

Our basic freedoms are disappearing.

The Founding Fathers didn't want any of this. In fact, they said so quite clearly in the Constitution of the United States of America. Unfortunately, that beautiful, ingenious, and revolutionary document is being ignored more and more in Washington. If we are to enjoy peace, freedom, and prosperity once again, we absolutely must return to the principles upon which America was founded. But finally, there is hope . . .

In THE REVOLUTION,Texas congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul has exposed the core truths behind everything threatening America, from the real reasons behind the collapse of the dollar and the looming financial crisis, to terrorism and the loss of our precious civil liberties. In this book, Ron Paul provides answers to questions that few even dare to ask.

Despite a media blackout, this septuagenarian physician-turned-congressman sparked a movement that has attracted a legion of young, dedicated, enthusiastic supporters . . . a phenomenon that has amazed veteran political observers and made more than one political rival envious. Candidates across America are already running as "Ron Paul Republicans.""

. About the Author

Ron Paul, a ten-term congressman from Texas, is the leading advocate of freedom in our nation's capital. He has devoted his political career to the defense of individual liberty, sound money, and a non-interventionist foreign policy. Judge Andrew Napolitano calls him "the Thomas Jefferson of our day."

After serving as a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force in the 1960s, Dr. Paul moved to Texas to begin a civilian medical practice, delivering over four thousand babies in his career as an obstetrician. He served in Congress from 1976 to 1984, and again from 1996 to the present. He and Carol Paul, his wife of fifty-one years, have five children, eighteen grandchildren, and one great-grandchild.

Ron Paul, the New York Post once wrote, is a politician who "cannot be bought by special interests."

"There are few people in public life who, through thick and thin, rain or shine, stick to their principles," added a congressional colleague. "Ron Paul is one of those few."

Benz Says! - - Build The Border Fence

Sign This Petition To Congress:

Join the chorus of citizens from coast-to-coast who are demanding Congress ...

Build the Border Fence as Promised! Click Here To Sign

The Alert: In a backroom deal just prior to the Christmas break, Congress passed the omnibus Appropriations bill which included the Hutchison Amendment that gutted the Secure Fence Act. Her amendment essentially guaranteed that the DHS didn't have to build the fence!

For more click here.

After Grassfire broke the "Secure Fence Hoax", key members of Congress took action in an effort to "undo" what the Hutchison amendment did, by restoring deadlines and double fence mandate for the entire 854 miles of border.

Two bills have already been introduced that Grassfire is supporting. Each of these bills demand Congress make good on their original promise to build the border fence:

Click here to see Clinton and Obama reiterate fence opposition

H.R. 4987-Fence By Date Certain Act (Jones R-NC)
H.R. 5124-Reinstatement of the Secure Fence Act of 2008 (Hunter R-CA)

The Action:

Grassfire finds the actions to undo the Secure Fence Act reprehensible. In response, we've launched a national petition demanding Congress build the border fence as originally promised!

Grassfire is working closely with both Congressional offices to touting the merit of these bills on Capitol Hill and with grassroots Americans. Grassfire is aggressively moving to rally 200,000 citizen petitions to be presented to members of Congress who are taking a leadership role in securing our borders.

BREAKING NEWS: Grassfire will be presenting ALL petitions at a Capitol Hill press event for the Jones legislation on Thursday, April 17. Help us reach our goal of 200,000 petitions by alerting your friends and urging them to sign as well!

Total signers: 162,969

Your Sponsor: Mr. Shane Eden

The Petition States:

The "Build The Border Fence As Promised" petition states:As a concerned citizen, I am signing this petition calling on Congress and the President to reinstate and fully fund the original mandate of the Secure Fence Act.

I am appalled that Congress took action to undo the Secure Fence Act. I find the actions of those involved reprehensible, and demand the following:

Repeal the Hutchison Amendment.
Restore the Secure Fence Act.
Restore the deadlines for construction of the 854-mile fence.
Restore the double-layer mandate that was promised.
Existing fencing does not count in satisfying the mileage requirement.

Specifically, I support H.R. 4987 and H.R. 5124 which repeal the Hutchison amendment and restore the specific provisions of the Secure Fence Act

.As the San Diego fence has proved, border fences do work. That's why I am calling on leadership to put the will of the people first and take the necessary steps to protect our borders from invasion--first by undoing the damage of the Hutchison Amendment and then by building the border fence as originally promised.

Benz Speaks! -- Here is a leader!

Yesterday, we posted a piece by Lee Iacocca asking "where are the leaders?"

Sometimes, you find leaders in the most unusual and unsuspecting places. Patrick Murphy is a leader. Patrick Murphy is only 11 years old, but he assumed the mantle of leadership when the occasion arose. And it came on a school bus in Cleveland, Ohio.

The following piece from the Good Morning America website tells the story better than I can.
Patrick, his brother and mother appeared on the show this morning (April 9, 2008)



Boy Safely Steers Out-of-Control School Bus
David Murphy Was Worried He'd Get Into Trouble for Driving the Bus

By IMAEYEN IBANGA and KAREN COMPTON

April 9, 2008 —

An 11-year-old Cleveland boy is being heralded for his heroic actions after he steered a school bus full of children to safety Monday when it began rolling down a hill.

"The bus had started rolling. Then there was a truck in front of it, and I looked up and it was rolling. Then I decided to get in front of the wheel to turn it from the truck," fifth-grader David Murphy said today on "Good Morning America."

David, who was scared he would get into trouble for driving the vehicle, maneuvered the unattended bus with 26 schoolmates aboard away from the two-lane street where traffic was headed toward the bus and into the Inner Belt Bridge support. He eventually crashed the bus into a pillar.

The riders panicked with some girls beginning to cry when the bus began heading down the hill.

"They was freaking out. Everybody started screaming and hollering," David said.

About four children began to jump off the bus to escape, said David's 12-year-old brother, Patrick Murphy.

"They got off from the front of the bus," he said. "I was about to jump off. I didn't. I decided not to because I didn't want to leave my brother."

When the commotion ended, the bus looked almost as if it had been parallel parked on the side of the road.

"I took the wheel and I had turned the wheel on the sidewalk and aimed for [the pillars]," David said.
The boys' mother, Patricia Murphy, said David was still in shock over the incident. Initially, she said, he was very quiet over what happened.

"He was terrified. I thought the reason why he wasn't talking [was] because I think that him driving behind the wheel just scared him enough," she said. "He was so quiet."

Patricia Murphy said she was surprised to learn of her son's heroics.

"I was amazed. I was in shock. The way the bus looked and when I seen the position of the bus, it seemed like it was parked," she said. "I couldn't believe that he had that strength and that direction."

She questioned her son afterward, and David told her he aimed for the pillars because he really didn't want to go down the hill. He also had enough foresight to jump into the nearest seat after he saw the bus going toward the pillar because he didn't want to get thrown out of the window.

"David is absolutely the most modest hero I've ever met, but [if not] for his actions, that bus would have went right down into the river. He saved all of those children's lives," said the Murphys' lawyer and family friend Brian Seitz. "I think it has yet to really sink in. He's very, very modest. I want to commend him. I've known the family for quite some time. But [if not] for his action, 26 of his classmates and possibly his own life would have possibly  could have been a horrible tragedy."

Copyright © 2008 ABC News Internet Ventures

Benz Speaks! - - Your federal tax dollars at work

Since March, 2007 ATF has spent over $3 million trying to close down a small gun store in south central Idaho. Good thing it isn't a church or they would have to bring in the tanks and burn it down.

Ah, yes! Another shining example of your federal government at work!

The whole story is detailed in the following posting.

Benz Speaks! - "Moses" dies - I will grieve!

Legendary film star and gun-rights advocate Charlton Heston died Saturday at his Beverly Hills home. He was 84. Let us remember the man through his words.

The Second Amendment:
AMERICA'S FIRST FREEDOM

Charlton Heston addressed a blistering attack on media bias during a speech to the National Press Club, Washington, D.C. Following is the full text of Mr. Heston's address.

"Today I want to talk to you about guns: Why we have them, why the Bill of Rights guarantees that we can have them, and why my right to have a gun is more important than your right to rail against it in the press.

I believe every good journalist needs to know why the Second Amendment must be considered more essential than the First Amendment. This may be a bitter pill to swallow, but the right to keep and bear arms is not archaic. It's not an outdated, dusty idea some old dead white guys dreamed up in fear of the Redcoats. No, it is just as essential to liberty today as it was in 1776. These words may not play well at the Press Club, but it's still the gospel down at the comer bar and grill.

And your efforts to undermine the Second Amendment, to deride it and degrade it, to readily accept diluting it and eagerly promoted redefining it, threaten not only the physical well-being of millions of Americans but also the core concept of individual liberty our founding fathers struggled to perfect and protect.

So now you know what doubtless does not surprise you. I believe strongly in the right of every law-abiding citizen to keep and bear arms, for what I think are good reasons.

The original amendments we refer to as the Bill of Rights contain ten of what the constitutional framers termed unalienable rights. These rights are ranked in random order and are linked by their essential equality. The Bill of Rights came to us with blinders on. It doesn't recognize color, or class, or wealth. It protects not just the rights of actors, or editors, or reporters, but extends even to those we love to hate.

That's why the most heinous criminals have rights until they are convicted of a crime. The beauty of the Constitution can be found in the way it takes human nature into consideration. We are not a docile species capable of co-existing within a perfect society under everlasting benevolent rule.

We are what we are. Egotistical, corruptible, vengeful, sometimes even a bit power mad. The Bill of Rights recognizes this and builds the barricades that need to be in place to protect the individual.

You, of course, remain zealous in your belief that a free nation must have a free press and free speech to battle injustice, unmask corruption and provide a voice for those in need of a fair and impartial forum.

I agree wholeheartedly... a free press Is vital to a free society. But I wonder: How many of you will agree with me that the right to keep and bear arms is not just equally vital, but the most vital to protect all the other rights we enjoy?

I say the Second Amendment is. in order of importance, the first amendment. It is America's First Freedom, the one right that protects all of the others. Among freedom of speech, of the press, of religion, of assembly, of redress of grievances, it is the first among equals. It alone offers the absolute capacity to live without fear. The right to keep and bear arms is the one right that allows "rights" to exist at all.

Either you believe that, or you don't, and you must decide.

Because there is no such thing as a free nation where police and military are allowed the force of arms but individual citizens are not. That's a "big brother knows best" theater of the absurd that has never boded well for the peasant class, the working class, or even for reporters.

Yes, our Constitution provides the doorway for your news and commentary to pass through free and unfettered. But that doorway to freedom is framed by the muskets that stood between a vision of liberty and absolute anarchy at a place called Concord Bridge. Our revolution began when the British sent Redcoats door to door to confiscate the peoples' guns. They didn't succeed: The muskets went out the back door with their owners.

Emerson said it best:

By the rude bridge that arched the flood,

Their flag to April's breeze unfurled,

Here once the embattled farmers stood,

And fired the shot heard round the world.'

King George called us 'rabble in arms.' But with God's grace, George Washington and many brave men gave us our country. Soon after, God's grace and a few great men gave us our Constitution. It's been said that the creation of the United States is the greatest political act in history. I'll sign to that.

In the next two centuries, though, freedom did not flourish. The next revolution, the French, collapsed in the bloody terror, then Napoleon's tyranny. There's been no shortage of dictators since, in many countries. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Idi Amin, Castro, Pol Pot. All these monsters began by confiscating private arms, then literally soaking the earth with the blood of tens and tens of millions of their people. And, the joys of gun control.

Now, I doubt any of you would prefer a rolled up newspaper as a weapon against a dictator or a criminal intruder. Yet in essence that is what you have asked our loved ones to do, through an ill-contrived and totally naive campaign against the Second Amendment.

Besides, how can we entrust to you the Second Amendment, when you are so stingy with your own First Amendment?

I say this because of the way, in recent days, you have treated your own - those journalists you consider the least among you. How quick you've been to finger the paparazzi with blame and to eye the tabloids with disdain. How eager you've been to draw a line where there is none, to demand some distinction within the First Amendment that sneers 'they are not one of us.' How readily you let your lesser brethren take the fall, as if their rights were not as worthy, and their purpose not as pure, and their freedom not as sacred as yours.

So now, as politicians consider new laws to shackle and gag paparazzi, who among you will speak up? Who here will stand and defend them? if you won't I will. Because you do not define the First Amendment. It defines you. And it is bigger than you - big enough to embrace all of you, plus all those you would exclude. That's how freedom works.

It also demands you do your homework. Again and again I hear gun owners say how can we believe anything the anti-gun media says when they can't even get the facts right? For too long you have swallowed manufactured statistics and fabricated technical support from anti-gun organizations that wouldn't know a semi-auto from a sharp stick. And it shows. You fall for it every time.

That's why you have very little credibility among 70 million gun owners and 20 million hunters and millions of veterans who learned the hard way which end the bullet comes out. And while you attacked the amendment that defends your homes and protects your spouses and children, you have denied those of us who defend all the Bill of Rights a fair hearing or the courtesy of an honest debate.

If the NRA attempts to challenge your assertions, we are ignored. And if we try to buy advertising time or space to answer your charges, more often than not we are denied. How's that for First Amendment freedom?

Clearly, too many have used freedom of the press as a weapon not only to strangle our free speech, but to erode and ultimately destroy the right to keep and bear arms as well. in doing so you promoted your profession to that of constitutional judge and jury, more powerful even than our Supreme Court, more prejudiced than the Inquisition's tribunals. It is a frightening misuse of constitutional privilege, and I pray that you will come to your senses and see that these abuses are curbed.

As a veteran of World War II, as a freedom marcher who stood with Dr. Martin Luther King long before it was fashionable, and a grandfather who wants the coming century to be free and full of promise for my grandchildren, I am... troubled.

The right to keep and bear arms is threatened by political theatrics, piecemeal lawmaking, talk show psychology, extreme bad taste in the entertainment industry, an ever-widening educational chasm in our schools and a conniving media, that all add up to cultural warfare against the idea that guns ever had, or should now have, an honorable and proud place in our society.

But all of our rights must be delivered into the 21st century as pure and complete as they came to us at the beginning of this century. Traditionally the passing of that torch is from a gnarled old hand down to an eager young one. So now, at 72, I offer my gnarled old hand.

I have accepted a call from the National Rifle Association of America to help protect the Second Amendment. I feel it is my duty to do that. My mission and vision can be summarized in three simple parts.

First, before we enter the next century, I expect to see a pro-Second Amendment president in the White House.

Secondly, I expect to build an NRA with the political muscle and clout to keep a pro-Second Amendment Congress in place.

Third, is a promise to the next generation of free Americans. I hope to help raise a hundred million dollars for NRA programs and education before the year 2000. At least half of that sum will go to teach American kids what the right to keep and bear arms really means to their culture and country.

We have raised a generation of young people who think that the Bill of Rights comes with their cable TV. Leave them to their channel surfing and they'll remain oblivious to history and heritage that truly matter.

Think about it - what else must young Americans think when the White House proclaims, as it did, that "a firearm in the hands of youth is a crime or an accident waiting to happen?" No - it is rime they learned that firearm ownership is constitutional, not criminal. in fact, few pursuits can teach a young person more about responsibility, safety, conservation, their history and their heritage, all at once.

It is time they found out that the politically correct doctrine of today has misled them. And that when they reach legal age, if they do not break our laws, they have a right to choose to own a gun - a handgun, a long gun, a small gun, a large gun, a black gun, a purple gun, an ugly gun - and to use that gun to defend themselves and their loved ones or to engage in any lawful purpose they desire without apology or explanation to anyone, ever.

This is their first freedom. If you say it's outdated, then you haven't read your own headlines. If you say guns create only carnage, I would answer that you know better. Declining morals, disintegrating families, vacillating political leadership, an eroding criminal justice system and social mores that blur right and wrong are more to blame- certainly more than any legally owned firearm.

I want to rescue the Second Amendment from an opportunistic president, and from a press that apparently can't comprehend that attacks on the Second Amendment set the stage for assaults on the First.

I want to save the Second Amendment from all these nit-picking little wars of attrition - fights over alleged Saturday night specials, plastic guns, cop killer bullets and so many other made-for-prime-time non-issues invented by some press agent over at gun control headquarters that you guys buy time and again.

I simply cannot stand by and watch a right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States come under attack from those who either can't understand it, don't like the sound of it, or find themselves too philosophically squeamish to see why it remains the first among equals: Because it is the right we turn to when all else fails.

That's why the Second Amendment is America's first freedom.

Please, go forth and tell the truth. There can be no free speech, no freedom of the press, no freedom to protest, no freedom to worship your god, no freedom to speak your mind, no freedom from fear, no freedom for your children and for theirs, for anybody, anywhere, without the Second Amendment freedom to fight for it.

If you don't believe me, just turn on the news tonight. Civilization's veneer is wearing thinner all the time.

Charlton Heston's NRA Keynote Speech

May 1999

"I have been advised not to be here. I apologize for this disruption, but from our friends in the national press corps, we have received some very good late-breaking news. According to reports Yugoslavia has agreed to release our three American P.O.W.'s, perhaps, this note says, within 24 hours. That's the best news we could have.

I was advised not to be here, not to speak to you here, that's not the first time. In 1963, I marched on Washington with Dr. Martin Luther King, long before Hollywood found civil rights, um, fashionable. My associates advised me not to go. They said it would be unpopular, and may be dangerous. Thirty-six years later, my associates advised me not to come to Denver. They said it would be unpopular, and may be dangerous. Here I am. Let me tell you why...

I see our country teetering on the edge of an abyss. At its bottom brews the simmering bile of deep, dark hatred. Hatred that's dividing our country: politically, racially, economically, geographically, in every way- whether it's political vendettas, sports brawls, corporate takeovers, or high school gangs in cleats, the American competitive ethic has changed from 'let's beat the other guy, to let's destroy the other guy.' Too many, too many are too willing to stigmatize and demonize others for political advantage, for money or for ratings. The vilification is savage. This week, Representative John Conyers slandered three million Americans when he called the NRA 'merchants of death' on national television as our first lady nodded in agreement.

A hideous cartoon by Mike Peters ran nationally, it showed childrens' dead bodies sprawled out to spell N-R-A. The countless requests we've received this last week or so for media appearances are in fact, summons to public floggings, where those who hate firearms will, predictably don the white hat and give us the black one. This harvest of hatred is then sold as news. As entertainment. As government policy. Such hateful, divisive forces are leading us to one awful end--America's own form of Balkanization. A weakened country of rabid factions, each less free, united only by hatred of one another.

In the past ten days, we've seen the these brutal blows attempting to fracture America into two such camps. Now one camp would be the majority- people who believe our founders guaranteed our security with the right to defend ourselves, our families, and our country. The other camp would be a large minority of people who believe that we will buy security--if we would just surrender these freedoms. This debate would be accurately described as those who believe in the Second Amendment versus those who don't but instead it is spun as those who believe in murder versus those who don't.

A struggle between the reckless and the prudent, between the dim-witted and the progressive. Between inferior citizens who know, and elitists who know what's good for society. But we're not the rustic, reckless radicals they wish for. No, the NRA spans the broadest range of American demography imaginable. We defy stereotyping, except for love of country. Look in your mirror, your shopping mall, your church, your grocery store--that's us. Millions of ordinary people and extraordinary people. War heroes, sports idols, several U.S. Presidents, and, yes, movie stars.
But the screeching hyperbole leveled at gun owners has made these two camps so wary of each other, so hostile and confrontational and disrespectful on both sides they have forgotten that we are first Americans. I am asking all of us, on both sides, to take one step back from the edge, than another step and another... however many it takes to get back to the place where we are all Americans. Different...different, imperfect, diverse, but one nation, indivisible.

This cycle of tragedy-driven hatred must stop, because so much more connects us than that which divides us because tragedy has been, and will always be with us. Somewhere right now, evil people are planning evil things. All of us will do everything meaningful, everything we can do to prevent it, but each horrible act can't become an ax for opportunists to cleave the very Bill of Rights that binds us. America must stop this predictable pattern of reaction. when an isolated, terrible event occurs, our phones ring, demanding that the NRA explain the inexplicable. Why us? Because their story needs a villain. They want us to play the heavy in their drama of packaged grief. To provide riveting programming to run between commercials for cars and cat food.

The dirty secret of this day and age is that political gain and media ratings all to often bloom on fresh graves. I remember a better day, where no one dared politicize or profiteer on trauma. We kept a respectful distance then, as NRA has tried to do now. Simply being silent is so often the right thing to do. But today, carnage comes with a catchy title, splashy graphics, regular promos and a reactionary passage of legislation. Reporters perch like vultures on the balconies of hotels for a hundred miles around. Cameras jockey for shocking angles as news anchors race to drench their microphones with the tears of victims.

Injury, shock, grief and despair shouldn't be brought to you by sponsors. That's pornography. It trivializes the tragedy it abuses. It abuses vulnerable people, and maybe worst of all, it makes the unspeakable seem commonplace. And we're often cast as the villain. That is not our role in American society, and we will not be forced to play it.

Our mission is to remain, as our Vice-President said, a steady beacon of strength and support for the Second Amendment even if it has no other friend on this planet. We cannot, we must not let tragedy lay waste to the most rare, and hard-won human right in history. A nation cannot gain safety by giving up freedom. This truth is older than our country. Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Ben Franklin said that.

Now, if you like your freedoms of speech and of religion, freedom from search and seizure, freedom of the press, and of privacy, to assemble, and to redress grievances, then you'd better give them that eternal bodyguard called the Second Amendment.

The individual right to bear arms is freedom's insurance policy. Not just for your children, but for infinite generations to come. That is it's singular sacred duty, and why we preserve it so fiercely. Now, no, it's not a right without rational restrictions, and it's not for everyone. Only the law-abiding majority of society deserves the Second Amendment.

Abuse it once, and lose it forever. That's the law. But, curiously, the NRA is far more eager to prosecute gun abusers than are those who oppose gun ownership altogether. As if the tool could be more evil than the evil-doers. I don't understand that. The NRA also spends more and works harder than anybody in America to promote safe, responsible use of firearms. From 38,000 certified instructors, training millions of police, hunters, women and youths, to 500 law-enforcement agencies promoting our Eddie Eagle gun-safety program Wen told you about distributed to eleven million kids-eleven million and counting.

But our essential reason for being is this: as long as there is a Second Amendment, evil can never conquer us, tyranny in any form can never find footing within a society of law-abiding, armed, ethical people. The majesty of the Second Amendment that our founders so divinely captured and crafted into your birthright guarantees that no government despot, no renegade faction of armed forces, no roving gangs of criminals, no breakdown of law and order, no massive anarchy, no force of evil or crime or oppression from within or from without can ever rob you of the liberties that define your Americanism.

And, so, when they ask you well, indeed you would uh, bear arms against Government tyranny? The answer is no. That could never happen, precisely because we have the Second Amendment. Let me be absolutely clear. The Founding Fathers guaranteed this freedom, because they knew no tyranny can ever arise among a people endowed with the right to keep and bear arms. That's why you and your descendants need never fear fascism, state-run faith, refugee camps, brain-washing, ethnic cleansing, or especially submission to the wanton will of criminals.

The Second Amendment, there can be no more precious inheritance- that's what the NRA preserves.

Now, if you disagree, that's your right. I respect that. But, we will not relinquish it, or be silenced about it, or be told: 'Do not come here, you are unwelcome in your own land.'

Let us go from this place, this huge room, renewed in spirit and dedicated against hatred. We have work to do, hearts to heal, evil to defeat, and a country to unite. We may have differences, yes, and we will again suffer tragedy almost beyond description. But when the sun sets on Denver tonight, and forevermore, let it always set on we the people, secure in our land of the free, and home of the brave.

I, for one, plan to do my part.

Thank You."

Benz speaks! - - Fun and games with America's toughest sheriff

Maricopa County (metro Phoenix, AZ area) was spending approx. $18 million dollars a year on stray animals, like cats and dogs. Sheriff Joe offered to take the department over, and the County Supervisors said okay.The animal shelters are now all staffed and operated by prisoners. They feed and care for the strays. Every animal in his care is taken out andwalked twice daily. He now has prisoners who are experts in animal nutrition and behavior. They give great classes for anyone who'd like to adopt an animal. He has literally taken stray dogsoff the street, given them to the care of prisoners, and had them place in dog shows

The best part? His budget for the entire department is now under $3 million.The prisoners get the benefit of about $0.28 an hour for working, but most would work for free, just to be out of their cells for the day. Most of his budget is for utilities, building maintenance, etc. He pays the prisoners out of the fees collected for adopted animals.

I have long wondered when the rest of the country would take a look at the way he runs the jail system, and copy some of his ideas. He has a huge farm, donated to the county years ago, where inmates can work, and they grow most of their own fresh vegetables and food, doing all the work and harvesting by hand. He has a pretty good sized hog farm, which provides meat, and fertilizer. It fertilizes the Christmas tree nursery, where prisoners work, and you can buy a living Christmas tree for $6 - $8 for the Holidays, and plant it later. .

Yup, he was reelected last year with 83% of the vote.Now he's in trouble with the ACLU again. He painted all his buses and vehicles with a mural, that has a special hotline phone number painted on it where you can call and report suspected illegal aliens. Immigrations andCustoms Enforcement wasn't doing enough in his eyes, so he had 40 deputies trained specifically for enforcing immigration laws, started up hishotline, and bought 4 new buses just for hauling folks back to the border. He's kind of a 'Git-R Dun' kind of Sheriff.

To those of you not familiar with Joe Arpaio ,he is the Maricopa County (AZ) Sheriff ( http://www.mcso.org/index.php?a=GetModule&mn=Sheriff_Bio ) and he keeps getting elected over and over.

This is one of the reasons why:' Tent City Jail': (http://www.mcso.org/include/modules/Our_Jails/Jail_Facilities/tent_city.php)

He has jail meals down to 40 cents a serving and charges the inmates for them.
He stopped smoking and porno magazines in the jails.
Took away their weights.

Cut off all but 'G' movies.

He started chain gangs so the inmates could do free work on county and city projects.

Then he started chain gangs for women so he wouldn't get sued for discrimination.

He took away cable TV Until he found out there was a Federal Court Order that required cable TV for jails so he hooked up the cable TV again only lettting in The Disney Channel and The Weather Channel.

He cut off coffee .When the inmates complained, he told them, 'This Isn't The Ritz/Carlton...If you don't like It, don't come back.

'He bought Newt Gingrich's lecture series on videotape that he pipes into the jails.When asked by a reporter if he had any lecture series by a Democrat, he replied that a democratic lecture series might explain why a lot of the inmates were in his jails in the first place.

With temperatures being even hotter than usual In Phoenix (116 Degrees ), the Associated Press reports:about 2,000 inmates living in a barbed-wire-surrounded tent encampment at the Maricopa County Jail have been given permission to strip down do their government-issued pink boxer shorts. Hundreds of men wearing boxers were either curled up on their bunk beds or chatted in the tents, which reached 138 degrees inside.

Many were also swathed In wet, pink towels as sweat collected on their chests and dripped down to their pink socks. 'It feels like we are in a furnace,' Said James Zanzot, an inmate who has lived in the tents for 1 year. 'It's Inhumane.'

Joe Arpaio, the tough-guy sheriff who created the tent city and long ago started making his prisoners wear pink, and eat bologna sandwiches, is not one bit sympathetic.

He said that he told all of the inmates: 'Its 120 degrees in Iraq and our soldiers are living in tents too, and they have to wear full battle gear, but they didn't commit any crimes, so shut your damned mouths!'

Way To Go, Sheriff!

Maybe if all prisons were like this one there would be a lot less crime and/or repeat offenders. Criminals should be punished for their crimes - not live in luxury until it's time for their parole, only to go out and commit another crime so they can get back in to live on taxpayers' money and enjoy things taxpayers can't afford to have for themselves.

The People Speak

One of our readers has opined on the upcoming tax rebate coming forth from Uncle Sugar.

As you may have heard the Bush Administration
said each and every one of us would now get a nice
rebate.

If we spend that money at Wal-Mart, all the
money will go to China.

If we spend it on gasoline it will all go to
the Arabs.

If we purchase a computer it will all go to
India.

If we purchase fruit and vegetables it will all
go to Mexico, Honduras, and Guatemala.

If we purchase a good car it will all go to
Japan.

If we purchase useless crap it will all go to
Taiwan and none of it will help the American
economy.

We need to keep that money here in America, so
the only way to keep that money here at home is to
buy prostitutes http://www.bunnyranch.com/index1.html
and beer,http://nimbusbeer.qwestoffice.net/
since those are the only
businesses still in the US.

Benz Speaks aka "The Idiotorial"

If you think that what you get from the various "news media" is the "truth", the "whole truth" and "nothing but the truth."You are sadly mistaken. The "news" that you get is modified, distorted, hidden or eliminated by the various "news" outlets as dictated by owners, major advertisers or government entities as needed. Three examples come readily to mind. One has to do with the non-coverage of Prince Harry in Afghanistan. The other two have to do with people that have recently spoken out on the controversial topic of UFOs. One of these was a resident scholar at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C. The other was a reporter at a small newspaper in Texas. I could go on and on, but why should I. I think you get the picture.