A little history lesson. If you don’t know the answer take your best guess.
Answer all the questions before looking at the answers.
Who said it?

1) “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”
A. Karl Marx
B. Adolph Hitler
C. Joseph Stalin
D. None of the above

2) “It’s time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by
the few, and for the few…… And to replace it with shared responsibility
for shared prosperity.”
A. Lenin
B. Mussolini
C. Idi Amin
D. None of the Above

3) “(We) …can’t just let business as usual go on, and that means something
has to be taken away from some people.”
A. Nikita Khrushev
B. Josef Goebbels
C. Boris Yeltsin
D. None of the above

4) “We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give
up a little bit of their own … in order to create this common ground.”
A. Mao Tse Dung
B. Hugo Chavez
C. Kim Jong Il
D. None of the above

5) “I certainly think the free-market has failed.”
A. Karl Marx
B. Lenin
C. Molotov
D. None of the above

6) “I think it’s time to send a clear message to what has become the most
profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched”
A. Pinochet
B. Milosevic
C. Saddam Hussein
D. None of the above

Scroll down for answers
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V

(1) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton
(2) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton
(3) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton
(4) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton
(5) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton
(6) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton

THAT IS VERY FRIGHTENING!

BE AFRAID!

http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/articles/ron-paul-silenced-at-cnbc-debate-transcript.html

Some of the lower tiered candidates and their supporters have complained about the presidential debates thus far — complaining that they favor those that are higher in the polls.

The justification given for this is that the voters are to see those candidates with a legitimate shot at winning the nomination, something that is measured by polling data and fundraising numbers. So before we get into the polling data and the fundraising numbers, let’s see how much each of the candidates were allowed to speak.

Our methodology for this is actually quite fool-proof. We take a transcript of the debate and parse each of the words spoken at the debate and count who spoke how many words.

This is what we got.

The top tier candidates according to the latest national polls dominated the debate. Summing up the total number of words spoken by Romney, Giuliani, McCain, and Thompson, you would lead to 66.4% or about two-thirds of the debate.

Each of those candidates fall in line with about where they stand in the polls and in fundraisinig. Well, except for Ron Paul. He spoke the least of all the candidates. Now, we are not going to go so far as to say he should get as much time as Romney or Giuliani — although it would be fair if all the candidates spoke the same amount of time.

But we will claim it irresponsible of CNBC to censor Ron Paul to the point that he spoke the least of every candidate including Tancredo, Hunter, and Brownback.

Here are the reason Ron Paul should have had more air time than Huckabee, Hunter, Tancredo, and Brownback.

(Fundraising) Ron Paul raised $5 million dollars. This translates to REAL support and REAL people that want to hear his message. Ron Paul’s fundraising numbers were comparable to John McCain. Mike Huckabee was only able to garner about $1 million dollars.

(Early States#1) Ron Paul is sitting at double digits among moderates in New Hampshire and and at 8% in Michigan (the state in which this debate took place). And the Republican party is doing a disservice if they try to silence the moderate voice. Read our article on “Ron Paul Surging in the Polls Among Moderates“.

(Straw Polls) Ron Paul has won 15 straw polls (USAStrawPolls.com) nationwide, more than Huckabee, Hunter, Tancredo, Brownback combined! Heck we could even add John McCain to that list and Ron Paul would have beaten them all.

Here is the list of straw polls that Ron Paul has won:

1. Tulsa State Fair, Oklahoma
2. Oregon Straw Poll- Portland, Oregon
3. Gwinnett County GOP, Atlanta, Georgia
4. CWA New Jersey GOP Straw Poll
5. South Sound Ronald Reagan Republican Club
6. Manchester, NH Straw Poll
7. Maryland Straw Poll
8. Allegheny County, Pennsylvania
9. DeKalb County, Georgia Straw Poll
10. West Alabama
11. Ronald Reagan Club (Washington)
12. Strafford County, NH
13. Gaston County, NC
14. FreedomWorks Straw Poll
15. New Hampshire Taxpayers

Fourteen of said straw polls won August or later! That suggest a surge in support.

(Internet) Here is the traffic statistics to ronpaul2008.com. It is brought to you by Quantcast.com. He has more monthly visitors to his campaign website than any of the other candidates — including the top tier. The graph is going up, yet more signs of a surge.

(Scientific Polls) There are now 8 states in which Ron Paul is averaging 3% or better over the past two months. Those states are New Hampshire (8%), Michigan (5.7%), Texas (5.0%), Arizona (5.0%), Pennsylvania (4.0%), Iowa (3.7%), South Carolina (3.0%), and Wisconsin (3.0%). Let’s see about the other candidates. Duncan Hunter – only 1. Tom Tancredo – 3. Sam Brownback – 3. If you were to sum up the lower tiered candidates of Hunter, Tancredo, and Brownback you would get 7 — it was not enough to outnumber Ron Paul was it?

(Early States #2) In summary , Ron Paul is the only candidate of these “lower tiered candidates” to average more than 3.0% in the Top 3 states of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. And his fundraising numbers were good enough to launch him into top tier status. So why does such a candidate get the least amount of speaking time?

Romney spoke almost 4 times as much as Ron Paul.

The biggest evidence of such blatant censorship of Ron Paul came when Rudy Giuliani challenged Ron Paul by name saying “Where was he on 9/11?”. Ron Paul would have wanted to rebut that to say that no country had attacked us. When a candidate is addressed by name it is only common courtesy to give him time for a rebuttal. Nope, they did not even give him the courtesy of standing amongst the candidates — always at the edge and having the least amount of speaking time.

Help Me Donate to Ron Paul

In fact, I am so upset right now that I am going to make a personal donation to the Ron Paul campaign. And I want your help. I usually pay SEO companies in India/Thailand to do what is called “link building” — they send out emails to other political sites asking them to link to me. In return, I get good search engine rankings. But I figure why give them money when I can use that money to give even MORE to Ron Paul in his quest to prove that the media does not always have to win.

Since the money comes from my personal account, I am a bit strapped for cash but heck, if you help me out, I help Ron Paul out.

So this is what I would like to see, create a link to this article promoting Ron Paul and how the media is biased then email me at usaelectionpolls@gmail.com with the link of said article. And for every link generated, I will add $5 to my personal donation. Let’s see how it goes. I guaranteed someone that it would be 100+ links in total — don’t let me be wrong folks.

Saturday, October 06, 2007 6:39:19 PM

By JASON STRAZIUSO

Six years after the first U.S. bombs began falling on Afghanistan’s Taliban government and its al-Qaida guests, America is planning for a long stay.

Originally envisioned as a temporary home for invading U.S. forces, the sprawling American base at Bagram, a former Soviet outpost in the shadow of the towering Hindu Kush mountains, is growing in size by nearly a third.

Today the U.S. has about 25,000 troops in the country, and other NATO nations contribute another 25,000, more than three times the number of international troops in the country four years ago, when the Taliban appeared defeated.

Barnett R. Rubin, an expert on Afghanistan at New York University, said U.S. leaders in Washington “utterly failed” to understand what was needed to consolidate that original Taliban rout, which started with airstrikes on Oct. 7, 2001, less than a month after the Sept. 11 attacks in Washington and New York.

“The Bush administration did not see Afghanistan as a long-term commitment, and its leaders deceived themselves into thinking they had won an irreversible victory. They did not consider Afghanistan important and always intended to focus on Iraq,” he said.

“Now the U.S. and international community have fallen way behind, and the Taliban are winning strategically, even if we defeat them in every tactical engagement,” he added.

At Bagram, new barracks will help accommodate the record number of U.S. troops in the country.

“We’ve grown in our commitment to Afghanistan by putting another brigade (of troops) here, and with that we know that we’re going to have an enduring presence,” said Col. Jonathan Ives. “So this is going to become a long-term base for us, whether that means five years, 10 years — we don’t know.”

Insurgents have launched more than 100 suicide attacks this year, an unprecedented pace, including a bombing in Kabul on Saturday against a U.S. convoy that killed an American soldier and four Afghan civilians — the third suicide blast in Kabul in a week.

More than 5,100 people — mostly militants — have died in insurgency related violence so far this year, according to an Associated Press count based on figures from Afghan and Western officials. That far outpaces last year’s violence, when the AP count topped 4,000 for the entire year.

Some 87 U.S. troops have also died so far this year, also a record pace. About 90 U.S. servicemembers were killed in all of last year.

Continue…

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — Two provisions of the USA Patriot Act are unconstitutional because they allow search warrants to be issued without a showing of probable cause, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.

U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken ruled that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, as amended by the Patriot Act, “now permits the executive branch of government to conduct surveillance and searches of American citizens without satisfying the probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment.”

Portland attorney Brandon Mayfield sought the ruling in a lawsuit against the federal government after he was mistakenly linked by the FBI to the Madrid train bombings that killed 191 people in 2004.

The federal government apologized and settled part of the lawsuit for $2 million after admitting a fingerprint was misread. But as part of the settlement, Mayfield retained the right to challenge parts of the Patriot Act, which greatly expanded the authority of law enforcers to investigate suspected acts of terrorism.

Mayfield claimed that secret searches of his house and office under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act violated the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure. Aiken agreed with Mayfield, repeatedly criticizing the government.

FIND MORE STORIES IN: Justice Department | Madrid | Federal Bureau of Investigation | Patriot Act | Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act | Fourth Amendment | Brandon Mayfield | Provisions

“For over 200 years, this Nation has adhered to the rule of law — with unparalleled success. A shift to a Nation based on extra-constitutional authority is prohibited, as well as ill-advised,” she wrote.

By asking her to dismiss Mayfield’s lawsuit, the judge said, the U.S. attorney general’s office was “asking this court to, in essence, amend the Bill of Rights, by giving it an interpretation that would deprive it of any real meaning. This court declines to do so.”

Elden Rosenthal, an attorney for Mayfield, issued a statement on his behalf praising the judge, saying she “has upheld both the tradition of judicial independence, and our nation’s most cherished principle of the right to be secure in one’s own home.”

Justice Department spokesman Peter Carr said the agency was reviewing the decision, and he declined to comment further.

The ruling probably won’t have any immediate affect on enforcement under the Patriot Act, according to legal experts who predicted the government would quickly appeal.

“But it’s an important first step,” said Jameel Jaffer, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s national security project.

Jaffer noted that the Patriot Act carries dozens of provisions and that several have been challenged — but that this is one of the first major rulings on Fourth Amendment rights.

“This is as clear a violation of the Fourth Amendment as you’ll ever find,” Jaffer said.

Garrett Epps, a constitutional law expert at the University of Oregon, said the ruling adds to the poor record that the Bush administration has piled up in defending the Patriot Act.

“It’s embarrassing,” Epps said. “It represents another judicial repudiation of this administration’s terrorist surveillance policies.”

A federal judge in New York this month handed the ACLU a victory in a challenge to the Patriot Act on behalf of an Internet service provider that was issued a “national security letter” demanding customer phone and computer records. The judge in that case ruled the FBI must justify to a court the need for secrecy for more than a brief and reasonable period of time.

Mayfield, a Muslim convert, was taken into custody on May 6, 2004, because of a fingerprint found on a detonator at the scene of the Madrid bombing. The FBI said the print matched Mayfield’s. He was released about two weeks later, and the FBI admitted it had erred in saying the fingerprints were his and later apologized to him.

Before his arrest, the FBI put Mayfield under 24-hour surveillance, listened to his phone calls and surreptitiously searched his home and law office.

The Mayfield case has been an embarrassment for the federal government. Last year, the Justice Department’s internal watchdog faulted the FBI for sloppy work in mistakenly linking Mayfield to the Madrid bombings. That report said federal prosecutors and FBI agents had made inaccurate and ambiguous statements to a federal judge to get arrest and criminal search warrants against Mayfield.

Congress passed the Patriot Act with little debate shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to help counter terrorist activities. It gave federal law enforcers the authority to search telephone and e-mail communications and expanded the Treasury Department’s regulation of financial transactions involving foreign nationals. The law was renewed in 2005.

In early August, the Bush administration persuaded lawmakers to expand the government’s power to listen in on any foreign communication it deemed of interest without a court order, even if an American was a party. The expanded surveillance authority expires early next year. As Congress takes a closer look at the law, many Democrats want to rein in language that many consider overly broad.

SOURCE: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-09-26-patriotact-lawsuit_N.htm

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

We’re almost up and running with the blog so please check back soon. All new information and updates will be posted as well. Thank you and have a nice day!

- BNB