CPAC Civil War: Screaming "War Criminal" At Dick Cheney

Things should have been nice and chummy at CPAC an hour ago. Dick Cheney strolled on stage to cheers and the inspirational tune of Tina Turner’s “Simply the Best” and got began to present the “Defender Of The Constitution” award to Donald Rumsfeld. However, as the chants of “USA! USA!” died down, a voice screaming “War criminal!” could be heard. And then, as Cheney continued to talk up his former colleague, a shouting match began between supporters of Ron Paul and the rest of the convention hall.

The Paul supporters eventually walked out in the middle of Rumsfeld’s speech as way of protest. {more}

CPAC Audience Rejects Donald Rumsfeld

2 Truth Screamers Get Chucked From CPAC For Heckling Rumsfeld while blood thirsty war loving zombies shout USA, USA, USA.

As we all know, Cheney and Rumsfeld were also co-criminal conspirators in the false flag of 9/11.
Traitors, liars, murderers and thieves.

The CPAC Circus featuring crazed Israel firster 
Michele Bachmann.



The Donald and Sarah Palin hair: a CPAC carnival of conservatism

Trump Receives Cheers, Boos After Declaring Ron Paul Can Not Get Elected

Rand Paul on Donald Trump: 'his chances are less than my father's'

Gay Wars: What We Saw at CPAC

CPAC Daily Paul thread 

Anti-Muslim extremist freak and Israel lackey Allen West to give CPAC keynote speech.


While we were at the circus ...

House passes Patriot Act rule, clears way for passage

CPAC Civil War: Screaming "War Criminal" At Dick Cheney

Things should have been nice and chummy at CPAC an hour ago. Dick Cheney strolled on stage to cheers and the inspirational tune of Tina Turner’s “Simply the Best” and got began to present the “Defender Of The Constitution” award to Donald Rumsfeld. However, as the chants of “USA! USA!” died down, a voice screaming “War criminal!” could be heard. And then, as Cheney continued to talk up his former colleague, a shouting match began between supporters of Ron Paul and the rest of the convention hall.

The Paul supporters eventually walked out in the middle of Rumsfeld’s speech as way of protest. {more}

CPAC Audience Rejects Donald Rumsfeld

2 Truth Screamers Get Chucked From CPAC For Heckling Rumsfeld while blood thirsty war loving zombies shout USA, USA, USA.

As we all know, Cheney and Rumsfeld were also co-criminal conspirators in the false flag of 9/11.
Traitors, liars, murderers and thieves.

The CPAC Circus featuring crazed Israel firster 
Michele Bachmann.



The Donald and Sarah Palin hair: a CPAC carnival of conservatism

Trump Receives Cheers, Boos After Declaring Ron Paul Can Not Get Elected

Rand Paul on Donald Trump: 'his chances are less than my father's'

Gay Wars: What We Saw at CPAC

CPAC Daily Paul thread 

Anti-Muslim extremist freak and Israel lackey Allen West to give CPAC keynote speech.


While we were at the circus ...

House passes Patriot Act rule, clears way for passage

Death, Taxes, War and Austerity

It's a pulp fiction political world we're living in. Poorly written, badly put together and dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. This fiction continues to sell because we have a hard time remembering that it's all been told before and we're so trusting that there will be something new. The story was worthless then and it's worthless now.

The old saying goes that nothing is certain but death and taxes but for now we've had a couple more added to the ruling elite's plan, war and austerity.

    And, for an instant, she stared directly into those soft blue eyes and knew, with an instinctive mammalian certainty, that the exceedingly rich were no longer even remotely human.
       William Gibson

Elections get us what? Voting can't even make a dent in the War on Drugs much less the war on humanity. 

We swap out some of the bloody traitors for some soon to be bloody traitors. That's what passes for progress.

Politicians and elections are like dogs fighting over the frisbee. No matter who wins they chew up the prize, toss it aside and expect us to play some more.


Maybe it's time to take a deep breath and try to figure out what to do next. Playing the same game over and over again using rigged rules is obviously not working. Suggestions are more than welcome.

Death, Taxes, War and Austerity

It's a pulp fiction political world we're living in. Poorly written, badly put together and dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. This fiction continues to sell because we have a hard time remembering that it's all been told before and we're so trusting that there will be something new. The story was worthless then and it's worthless now.

The old saying goes that nothing is certain but death and taxes but for now we've had a couple more added to the ruling elite's plan, war and austerity.

    And, for an instant, she stared directly into those soft blue eyes and knew, with an instinctive mammalian certainty, that the exceedingly rich were no longer even remotely human.
       William Gibson

Elections get us what? Voting can't even make a dent in the War on Drugs much less the war on humanity. 

We swap out some of the bloody traitors for some soon to be bloody traitors. That's what passes for progress.

Politicians and elections are like dogs fighting over the frisbee. No matter who wins they chew up the prize, toss it aside and expect us to play some more.


Maybe it's time to take a deep breath and try to figure out what to do next. Playing the same game over and over again using rigged rules is obviously not working. Suggestions are more than welcome.

Baiting the IRS with pulpit politics

The Tennessean is reporting 7 Tennessee pastors will 'bait' IRS with pulpit politics. It's the annual  Alliance Defense Fund stunt and it appears to be Republican only. Glenn Beck speaks out of both sides of his mouth in promoting this initiative in what is nothing but a 'passion play' on the false two party system.

It might not be so bad if the churches were anti-war, anti-IRS and Federal Reserve, even anti-criminal politician urging their flock to clean house and throw out the money changers but that's not what this is all about.

Of course this kind of thing goes on all the time without actually naming who to vote for. Think John Hagee and his christian zionist scam.

I recently was told of a local church where the Democrats sit on the left side with the Republicans on the right so in these kinds of situations promoting one party would cause division. That's why I think the churches participating in the 'pulpit politics' game have figured out the leanings of their congregation.

Will the IRS go after these churches? No, it solidifies the corrupt system with divisiveness and that's what matters most to those at the top of the illusion.

Baiting the IRS with pulpit politics

The Tennessean is reporting 7 Tennessee pastors will 'bait' IRS with pulpit politics. It's the annual  Alliance Defense Fund stunt and it appears to be Republican only. Glenn Beck speaks out of both sides of his mouth in promoting this initiative in what is nothing but a 'passion play' on the false two party system.

It might not be so bad if the churches were anti-war, anti-IRS and Federal Reserve, even anti-criminal politician urging their flock to clean house and throw out the money changers but that's not what this is all about.

Of course this kind of thing goes on all the time without actually naming who to vote for. Think John Hagee and his christian zionist scam.

I recently was told of a local church where the Democrats sit on the left side with the Republicans on the right so in these kinds of situations promoting one party would cause division. That's why I think the churches participating in the 'pulpit politics' game have figured out the leanings of their congregation.

Will the IRS go after these churches? No, it solidifies the corrupt system with divisiveness and that's what matters most to those at the top of the illusion.

Joe the Plumber Heads for the Hills

In today's world being an irrelevant hack doesn't mean that someone or something won't fund you to travel the country endorsing GOP candidates. Who exactly is paying Joe to do this?

Joe literally 'heads for the hills' this Fri. for a meet and greet with sixth district congressional candidate Lou Ann  Zelenik at the appropriately named Joe's Place in Woodbury TN.

But in his overzealous attempt to earn his paycheck, it appears that Joe has endorsed two candidates  in the same race. Heck Joe, just endorse them all and you're bound to pick a winner.

I can understand his confusion. Leaky faucets all look and sound essentially the same.

One candidate in the district that Joe hasn't endorsed yet is Gary Mann who had this to say a couple of months ago.

"Our system of government is based on the Old Testament Israelite system of government."

Sounds also like someone you can relate to Joe.

Joe the Plumber Heads for the Hills

In today's world being an irrelevant hack doesn't mean that someone or something won't fund you to travel the country endorsing GOP candidates. Who exactly is paying Joe to do this?

Joe literally 'heads for the hills' this Fri. for a meet and greet with sixth district congressional candidate Lou Ann  Zelenik at the appropriately named Joe's Place in Woodbury TN.

But in his overzealous attempt to earn his paycheck, it appears that Joe has endorsed two candidates  in the same race. Heck Joe, just endorse them all and you're bound to pick a winner.

I can understand his confusion. Leaky faucets all look and sound essentially the same.

One candidate in the district that Joe hasn't endorsed yet is Gary Mann who had this to say a couple of months ago.

"Our system of government is based on the Old Testament Israelite system of government."

Sounds also like someone you can relate to Joe.

Zionist Racist Rachel Maddow and Rand Paul

I'm not sure about David Duke. He has no problem exposing the murderous state of Israel and the zionist controlled main stream media and groveling politicians but he still goes right along with the 19 Arabs did 9/11 rhetoric of the 'official story.' That's a disconnect I have a problem with. He fails my bottom line litmus test. It can't be that Duke is not aware of the Israeli/Mossad/rogue U.S. officials involvement in 9/11 but just as Ron and Rand Paul do, he embraces the so called 'blowback' theory. What is really going on here?

Zionist Racist Rachel Maddow and Rand Paul

I'm not sure about David Duke. He has no problem exposing the murderous state of Israel and the zionist controlled main stream media and groveling politicians but he still goes right along with the 19 Arabs did 9/11 rhetoric of the 'official story.' That's a disconnect I have a problem with. He fails my bottom line litmus test. It can't be that Duke is not aware of the Israeli/Mossad/rogue U.S. officials involvement in 9/11 but just as Ron and Rand Paul do, he embraces the so called 'blowback' theory. What is really going on here?

Will the Real Rand Paul Please Stand Up?

Will this Dr. Paul have the courage to stand up to the most powerful lobbies in Washington?



photo art from The Peoples Voice



Rand Paul is a novice politician so he's going to make some missteps in trying to maneuver the minefields of the corrupt political system. He makes strides, gets wounded, resorts to damage control and tries to move on.

What's interesting is that Paul gets support from and is attacked from both the left, right and middle.

From the foundation funded left gatekeepers to the corporate controlled media, he takes his hits. He's called everything from neocon to neoliberal. Opposed by still walking free criminals Dick Chaney and Rudy Giuliani and yet supported by still walking free criminal enablers like Sarah Palin. Even one of the most despicable war mongers there is, Bill Kristol, gives a sort of/kind of endorsement. Kristol obviously thinks Paul can be controlled.

Paul's Democrat opponent Jack Conway, another state attorney general, appears to have endorsement from left gatekeeper Daily Kos so some may find that reason enough to vote for Rand in November. The Huffington Post is no friend of Paul and as much as I hate to admit it, they make some points that need to enter into the debate. But it's still all part of the false left/right paradigm.

Most of us don't have a vote in Kentucky so we're just watching from the sidelines for now. Yet whoever wins the general election will eventually have an effect on all of us.

The way I see it is Jack Conway will fall right in with the establishment and not be any help for his state or this country. There is the slight possibility that Paul might disturb the status quo just enough to get some of the real messages out front when this game of getting elected is over. As I was reminded today from someone who I consider an ally, "I care for the message more than the messenger."

We pick and choose our messages. We will never agree with everyone on everything and some compromise is necessary. What we don't agree with perhaps we can try to influence and lead in another direction.

Will, or maybe the word should be can, Rand Paul make a difference in the Senate? Can he stand up to the lobbies, the influence of Israel and the zionists, the military industrial complex, Wall Street and the Federal Reserve, the corporate and political criminals who are destroying us? Can he oppose the wars based not only on the monetary costs but also on the lies that have led us there and the moral and ethical implications?

Despite many of the messages that Rand's father Ron espouses, those that we nod our heads and say yes to, I can't thinks of a single direction in governmental laws and policies that have changed for the better over the last decade. And yes, Ron has had very little help and has faced much subversion. Most good things can't be accomplished alone.

Whether Rand Paul can make a difference or whether his candidacy is a crack pipe dream of the deceived remains to be seen.

What we do know is that the system is broken and we have allowed it to happen.

It'll get more interesting and likely more deadly from here on out.

Will the Real Rand Paul Please Stand Up?

Will this Dr. Paul have the courage to stand up to the most powerful lobbies in Washington?



photo art from The Peoples Voice



Rand Paul is a novice politician so he's going to make some missteps in trying to maneuver the minefields of the corrupt political system. He makes strides, gets wounded, resorts to damage control and tries to move on.

What's interesting is that Paul gets support from and is attacked from both the left, right and middle.

From the foundation funded left gatekeepers to the corporate controlled media, he takes his hits. He's called everything from neocon to neoliberal. Opposed by still walking free criminals Dick Chaney and Rudy Giuliani and yet supported by still walking free criminal enablers like Sarah Palin. Even one of the most despicable war mongers there is, Bill Kristol, gives a sort of/kind of endorsement. Kristol obviously thinks Paul can be controlled.

Paul's Democrat opponent Jack Conway, another state attorney general, appears to have endorsement from left gatekeeper Daily Kos so some may find that reason enough to vote for Rand in November. The Huffington Post is no friend of Paul and as much as I hate to admit it, they make some points that need to enter into the debate. But it's still all part of the false left/right paradigm.

Most of us don't have a vote in Kentucky so we're just watching from the sidelines for now. Yet whoever wins the general election will eventually have an effect on all of us.

The way I see it is Jack Conway will fall right in with the establishment and not be any help for his state or this country. There is the slight possibility that Paul might disturb the status quo just enough to get some of the real messages out front when this game of getting elected is over. As I was reminded today from someone who I consider an ally, "I care for the message more than the messenger."

We pick and choose our messages. We will never agree with everyone on everything and some compromise is necessary. What we don't agree with perhaps we can try to influence and lead in another direction.

Will, or maybe the word should be can, Rand Paul make a difference in the Senate? Can he stand up to the lobbies, the influence of Israel and the zionists, the military industrial complex, Wall Street and the Federal Reserve, the corporate and political criminals who are destroying us? Can he oppose the wars based not only on the monetary costs but also on the lies that have led us there and the moral and ethical implications?

Despite many of the messages that Rand's father Ron espouses, those that we nod our heads and say yes to, I can't thinks of a single direction in governmental laws and policies that have changed for the better over the last decade. And yes, Ron has had very little help and has faced much subversion. Most good things can't be accomplished alone.

Whether Rand Paul can make a difference or whether his candidacy is a crack pipe dream of the deceived remains to be seen.

What we do know is that the system is broken and we have allowed it to happen.

It'll get more interesting and likely more deadly from here on out.

Distrust, Discontent and Anger Toward Government But War and 'Defense' Get a Pass

A new Pew poll finds historic levels of unhappiness about the federal government and its role in the lives of average Americans, unrest that is at the foundation of what is shaping up to be a strongly anti-incumbent political year.

Nearly one out of three Americans view the US government as a "major threat" to their freedoms, and four out of five say they don't trust Washington to solve their problems.

Just 19 percent say they are "basically content" with the federal government, against 56 percent who say they are "frustrated" and 21 percent who describe themselves as "angry," the Pew Research Center survey found.


The Pew Research Center is a subsidiary of the globalist Pew Charitable Trust, number 22 of the 26 wealthiest charitable foundations in the world, so keep that in mind as you read the details of the 142 page The People and Their Government survey report.

The Tea Party movement, health care reform, Wall Street and a variety of other issues are covered but there was not a question that addressed the costs of war, the military and related 'security' agendas. If indeed one can give any credence to the survey, despite mistrust and anger toward government, the lies and propaganda of war, national defense and empire seem to be working.

Opinions of the Defense Department also are somewhat less positive than in October 1997, although they remain highly favorable (76% then, 67% today).

Views of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the FBI (currently 67% favorable), Veterans Administration, the VA (57%), the Central Intelligence Agency, the CIA (52%), and the Justice Department (51%) are little changed from 1997/1998.

Meanwhile, the Internal Revenue Service (the IRS) is viewed slightly more favorably than it was 13 years ago. Currently, 47% say they have a favorable impression of the IRS, up from 38% in 1997. {page 55 & 56}

Almost 80% of Americans don't trust the government but a majority look favorably at the DOD, FBI and CIA with the IRS not too far behind? There's a disconnect if I've ever seen one. Just who exactly were the people surveyed?

It's typical that a great many people will accuse the government of lying, cheating and stealing for special interests but when it comes to war they remain silent. They trust the government to kill millions of brown skinned people for lies, waste our soldier youth, spend over a trillion dollars a year lining the pockets of war profiteers and pay billions in interest to the bankers for the 'privilege' of their printing money from nothing and loaning it to us. If no enemy exists, create one through deception. It's not only immoral .... it's insane.

So the distrustful, discontented and angry public will take to the streets waving their health care reform scam signs, bitch about taxes and government repression and take to the polls to vote for one criminal over another while thinking they are doing something worthwhile.

But they won't address the biggest destructive force we face that is taking us to ruin .... our war machine.

Defense Spending Is Much Greater than You Think

When President Obama presented his budget recently for fiscal year 2011, he proposed that the Pentagon’s outlays be increased by about 4.5 percent beyond its estimated outlays in fiscal 2010, to a total of almost $719 billion. Although many Americans regard this enormous sum as excessive, few appreciate that the total amount of all defense-related spending greatly exceeds the amount budgeted for the Department of Defense.

In fiscal year 2009, which ended last September, the Pentagon spent $636.5 billion. Lodged elsewhere in the budget, however, other lines identify funding that serves defense purposes just as surely as—sometimes even more surely than—the money allocated to the Department of Defense. On occasion, commentators take note of some of these additional defense-related budget items, such as the Department of Energy’s nuclear-weapons program, but many such items, including some extremely large ones, remain generally unrecognized.

Since the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, many observers probably would agree that its budget ought to be included in any complete accounting of defense costs. After all, the homeland is what most of us want the government to defend in the first place.

Other agencies also spend money in pursuit of homeland security. The Justice Department, for example, includes the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which devotes substantial resources to an anti-terrorist program. The Department of the Treasury claims to have “worked closely with the Departments of State and Justice and the intelligence community to disrupt targets related to al Qaeda, Hizballah, Jemaah Islamiyah, as well as to disrupt state sponsorship of terror.”

Much, if not all, of the budget for the Department of State and for international assistance programs ought to be classified as defense-related, too. In this case, the money serves to buy off potential enemies and to reward friendly governments who assist U.S. efforts to abate perceived threats. About $5 billion of annual U.S. foreign aid currently takes the form of “foreign military financing,” and even funds placed under the rubric of economic development may serve defense-related purposes indirectly. Money is fungible, and the receipt of foreign assistance for economic-development projects allows allied governments to divert other funds to police, intelligence, and military purposes.

Two big budget items represent the current cost of defense goods and services obtained in the past. The Department of Veterans Affairs, which is authorized to spend about $124 billion in the current fiscal year, falls in this category. Likewise, a great deal of the government’s interest expense on publicly held debt represents the current cost of defense outlays financed in the past by borrowing from the public.

To estimate the size of the entire de facto defense budget, I gathered data for fiscal 2009, the most recently completed fiscal year, for which data on actual outlays are now available. In that year, the Department of Defense itself spent $636.5 billion. Defense-related parts of the Department of Energy budget added $16.7 billion. The Department of Homeland Security spent $51.7 billion. The Department of State and international assistance programs laid out $36.3 billion for activities arguably related to defense purposes either directly or indirectly. The Department of Veterans Affairs had outlays of $95.5 billion. The Department of the Treasury, which funds the lion’s share of military retirement costs through its support of the little-known Military Retirement Fund, added $54.9 billion. A large part of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s outlays ought to be regarded as defense-related, if only indirectly so. When all of these other parts of the budget are added to the budget for the Pentagon itself, they increase the fiscal 2009 total by nearly half again, to $901.5 billion.

Finding out how much of the government’s net interest payments on the publicly held national debt ought to be attributed to past debt-funded defense spending requires a considerable amount of calculation. I added up all past deficits (minus surpluses) since 1916 (when the debt was nearly zero), prorated according to each year’s ratio of narrowly defined national security spending—military, veterans, and international affairs—to total federal spending, expressing everything in dollars of constant purchasing power. This sum is equal to 67.6 percent of the value of the national debt held by the public at the end of 2009. Therefore, I attribute that same percentage of the government’s net interest outlays in that year to past debt-financed defense spending. The total amount so attributed comes to $126.3 billion.

Adding this interest component to the previous all-agency total, the grand total comes to $1,027.8 billion, which is 61.5 percent greater than the Pentagon’s outlays alone.

In similar analyses I conducted previously for fiscal 2002 and for fiscal 2006, total defense-related spending was even greater relative to Pentagon spending alone – it was 73 percent greater in fiscal 2002 and 87 percent greater in fiscal 2006. In fiscal 2009, the ratio was held down in large part by the reduced cost of servicing the government’s debt, owing to the extremely low interest rates that prevailed on government securities. This situation cannot last much longer. As interest rates on the Treasury’s securities rise, so will the government’s cost of servicing the debt attributable to past debt-financed defense outlays.

For fiscal 2010, which is still in progress, the president’s budget estimates that the Pentagon’s spending will run more than $50 billion above the previous year’s total. Any supplemental appropriations made before September 30 will push the total for fiscal 2010 even farther above the trillion-dollar mark.

Although I have arrived at my conclusions honestly and carefully, I may have left out items that should have been included—the federal budget is a gargantuan, complex, and confusing collection of documents. If I have done so, however, the left-out items are not likely to be relatively large ones. (I have deliberately ignored some minor items, such as outlays for the Selective Service System, the National Defense Stockpile, and the anti-terrorist activities conducted by the FBI and the Treasury.

For now, however, the conclusion seems inescapable: the government is currently spending at a rate well in excess of $1 trillion per year for all defense-related purposes. Owing to the financial debacle and the ongoing recession, millions are out of work, millions are losing their homes, and private earnings remain well below their previous peak, but in the military-industrial complex, the gravy train speeds along the track faster and faster.

National Security Outlays in Fiscal Year 2009 (billions of dollars)
Department of Defense	636.5
Department of Energy (nuclear weapons & environ. cleanup)	16.7
Department of State (plus intern. assistance)	36.3
Department of Veterans Affairs	95.5
Department of Homeland Security	51.7
Department of the Treasury (for Military Retirement Fund)	54.9
National Aeronautics & Space Administration (1/2 of total)	9.6
Net interest attributable to past debt-financed defense outlays	126.3
Total	1,027.5
Source: Author’s classifications and calculations; basic data from U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2011 and U.S. Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970.

source - Robert Higgs

Distrust, Discontent and Anger Toward Government But War and 'Defense' Get a Pass

A new Pew poll finds historic levels of unhappiness about the federal government and its role in the lives of average Americans, unrest that is at the foundation of what is shaping up to be a strongly anti-incumbent political year.

Nearly one out of three Americans view the US government as a "major threat" to their freedoms, and four out of five say they don't trust Washington to solve their problems.

Just 19 percent say they are "basically content" with the federal government, against 56 percent who say they are "frustrated" and 21 percent who describe themselves as "angry," the Pew Research Center survey found.


The Pew Research Center is a subsidiary of the globalist Pew Charitable Trust, number 22 of the 26 wealthiest charitable foundations in the world, so keep that in mind as you read the details of the 142 page The People and Their Government survey report.

The Tea Party movement, health care reform, Wall Street and a variety of other issues are covered but there was not a question that addressed the costs of war, the military and related 'security' agendas. If indeed one can give any credence to the survey, despite mistrust and anger toward government, the lies and propaganda of war, national defense and empire seem to be working.

Opinions of the Defense Department also are somewhat less positive than in October 1997, although they remain highly favorable (76% then, 67% today).

Views of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the FBI (currently 67% favorable), Veterans Administration, the VA (57%), the Central Intelligence Agency, the CIA (52%), and the Justice Department (51%) are little changed from 1997/1998.

Meanwhile, the Internal Revenue Service (the IRS) is viewed slightly more favorably than it was 13 years ago. Currently, 47% say they have a favorable impression of the IRS, up from 38% in 1997. {page 55 & 56}

Almost 80% of Americans don't trust the government but a majority look favorably at the DOD, FBI and CIA with the IRS not too far behind? There's a disconnect if I've ever seen one. Just who exactly were the people surveyed?

It's typical that a great many people will accuse the government of lying, cheating and stealing for special interests but when it comes to war they remain silent. They trust the government to kill millions of brown skinned people for lies, waste our soldier youth, spend over a trillion dollars a year lining the pockets of war profiteers and pay billions in interest to the bankers for the 'privilege' of their printing money from nothing and loaning it to us. If no enemy exists, create one through deception. It's not only immoral .... it's insane.

So the distrustful, discontented and angry public will take to the streets waving their health care reform scam signs, bitch about taxes and government repression and take to the polls to vote for one criminal over another while thinking they are doing something worthwhile.

But they won't address the biggest destructive force we face that is taking us to ruin .... our war machine.

Defense Spending Is Much Greater than You Think

When President Obama presented his budget recently for fiscal year 2011, he proposed that the Pentagon’s outlays be increased by about 4.5 percent beyond its estimated outlays in fiscal 2010, to a total of almost $719 billion. Although many Americans regard this enormous sum as excessive, few appreciate that the total amount of all defense-related spending greatly exceeds the amount budgeted for the Department of Defense.

In fiscal year 2009, which ended last September, the Pentagon spent $636.5 billion. Lodged elsewhere in the budget, however, other lines identify funding that serves defense purposes just as surely as—sometimes even more surely than—the money allocated to the Department of Defense. On occasion, commentators take note of some of these additional defense-related budget items, such as the Department of Energy’s nuclear-weapons program, but many such items, including some extremely large ones, remain generally unrecognized.

Since the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, many observers probably would agree that its budget ought to be included in any complete accounting of defense costs. After all, the homeland is what most of us want the government to defend in the first place.

Other agencies also spend money in pursuit of homeland security. The Justice Department, for example, includes the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which devotes substantial resources to an anti-terrorist program. The Department of the Treasury claims to have “worked closely with the Departments of State and Justice and the intelligence community to disrupt targets related to al Qaeda, Hizballah, Jemaah Islamiyah, as well as to disrupt state sponsorship of terror.”

Much, if not all, of the budget for the Department of State and for international assistance programs ought to be classified as defense-related, too. In this case, the money serves to buy off potential enemies and to reward friendly governments who assist U.S. efforts to abate perceived threats. About $5 billion of annual U.S. foreign aid currently takes the form of “foreign military financing,” and even funds placed under the rubric of economic development may serve defense-related purposes indirectly. Money is fungible, and the receipt of foreign assistance for economic-development projects allows allied governments to divert other funds to police, intelligence, and military purposes.

Two big budget items represent the current cost of defense goods and services obtained in the past. The Department of Veterans Affairs, which is authorized to spend about $124 billion in the current fiscal year, falls in this category. Likewise, a great deal of the government’s interest expense on publicly held debt represents the current cost of defense outlays financed in the past by borrowing from the public.

To estimate the size of the entire de facto defense budget, I gathered data for fiscal 2009, the most recently completed fiscal year, for which data on actual outlays are now available. In that year, the Department of Defense itself spent $636.5 billion. Defense-related parts of the Department of Energy budget added $16.7 billion. The Department of Homeland Security spent $51.7 billion. The Department of State and international assistance programs laid out $36.3 billion for activities arguably related to defense purposes either directly or indirectly. The Department of Veterans Affairs had outlays of $95.5 billion. The Department of the Treasury, which funds the lion’s share of military retirement costs through its support of the little-known Military Retirement Fund, added $54.9 billion. A large part of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s outlays ought to be regarded as defense-related, if only indirectly so. When all of these other parts of the budget are added to the budget for the Pentagon itself, they increase the fiscal 2009 total by nearly half again, to $901.5 billion.

Finding out how much of the government’s net interest payments on the publicly held national debt ought to be attributed to past debt-funded defense spending requires a considerable amount of calculation. I added up all past deficits (minus surpluses) since 1916 (when the debt was nearly zero), prorated according to each year’s ratio of narrowly defined national security spending—military, veterans, and international affairs—to total federal spending, expressing everything in dollars of constant purchasing power. This sum is equal to 67.6 percent of the value of the national debt held by the public at the end of 2009. Therefore, I attribute that same percentage of the government’s net interest outlays in that year to past debt-financed defense spending. The total amount so attributed comes to $126.3 billion.

Adding this interest component to the previous all-agency total, the grand total comes to $1,027.8 billion, which is 61.5 percent greater than the Pentagon’s outlays alone.

In similar analyses I conducted previously for fiscal 2002 and for fiscal 2006, total defense-related spending was even greater relative to Pentagon spending alone – it was 73 percent greater in fiscal 2002 and 87 percent greater in fiscal 2006. In fiscal 2009, the ratio was held down in large part by the reduced cost of servicing the government’s debt, owing to the extremely low interest rates that prevailed on government securities. This situation cannot last much longer. As interest rates on the Treasury’s securities rise, so will the government’s cost of servicing the debt attributable to past debt-financed defense outlays.

For fiscal 2010, which is still in progress, the president’s budget estimates that the Pentagon’s spending will run more than $50 billion above the previous year’s total. Any supplemental appropriations made before September 30 will push the total for fiscal 2010 even farther above the trillion-dollar mark.

Although I have arrived at my conclusions honestly and carefully, I may have left out items that should have been included—the federal budget is a gargantuan, complex, and confusing collection of documents. If I have done so, however, the left-out items are not likely to be relatively large ones. (I have deliberately ignored some minor items, such as outlays for the Selective Service System, the National Defense Stockpile, and the anti-terrorist activities conducted by the FBI and the Treasury.

For now, however, the conclusion seems inescapable: the government is currently spending at a rate well in excess of $1 trillion per year for all defense-related purposes. Owing to the financial debacle and the ongoing recession, millions are out of work, millions are losing their homes, and private earnings remain well below their previous peak, but in the military-industrial complex, the gravy train speeds along the track faster and faster.

National Security Outlays in Fiscal Year 2009 (billions of dollars)
Department of Defense	636.5
Department of Energy (nuclear weapons & environ. cleanup)	16.7
Department of State (plus intern. assistance)	36.3
Department of Veterans Affairs	95.5
Department of Homeland Security	51.7
Department of the Treasury (for Military Retirement Fund)	54.9
National Aeronautics & Space Administration (1/2 of total)	9.6
Net interest attributable to past debt-financed defense outlays	126.3
Total	1,027.5
Source: Author’s classifications and calculations; basic data from U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2011 and U.S. Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970.

source - Robert Higgs

No Mr. Biden, Dick Cheney is not a fine fellow

And neither are you Joe ...











Both Biden and Cheney are creepy war mongering liars whose degenerate pubic displays in the media are continuing signs of the decline of America sinking further and further into a criminal state.

Cheney's words on torture yesterday are clear reminders that he and many others from the Bush syndicate should be indicted for crimes against humanity. I'd say he misses those regular torture tape viewings from gitmo and elsewhere.

Backers of the Cheney endorsement on torture are still beating the drums for more ... if necessary.

"Let's take your hypothesis a bit further. We have captured a terrorist, but he is a hardened character. We cannot be certain that he will crack in time. We have also captured his wife and children".

Torture the wife and children.
{more}

What should be happening here is taking place in Spain today.

On Monday February 15 in Madrid, Judge Baltasar Garzon will convene an investigation of War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity allegedly committed by U.S. government officials and others during the Bush administration.

The first witness called to testify will reportedly be American international human rights lawyer Dr. William F. Pepper. Dr. Pepper, who convened the International Human Rights Seminar at Oxford University, stated that he was, “asked by the Court to file an Opinion and testify as an expert on the issue of jurisdiction of the Spanish Court with respect to the various crimes being alleged.” He may also testify as to his opinion on the validity, or invalidity, of the most likely defenses to be offered by defendants should criminal charges result, namely ‘Sovereign Immunity’ and ‘Superior Orders’ (more commonly known as ‘The Nuremberg Defense’).

In his Opinion submitted to the Court last spring, Pepper concluded:

“… from the U.S. government’s own documents and the public statements of its leaders, that there is prima facie evidence of the following crimes:

• 
  
  • Torture and the Conspiracy to Commit Torture
  • War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity
  • Waging Aggressive War
  • Illegal (Arbitrary) Detention

[He] places varying degrees of responsibility on particular government officials including George W. Bush and Richard Cheney and dismisses as inapplicable to serious international crimes the relevant defenses available to them and their subordinates including the government lawyers who [he argues] have a special professional responsibility.”

He further concluded that the Spanish Court, “is fully able and obligated …under international law and Universal Jurisdiction” to prosecute if the evidence indicates that prosecutions are legally justified.
{more - The Desperate Blogger}

Cheney never misses an opportunity to hype the CIA/Mossad Al Qaida creation. On ABC he says:

... the situation with respect to Al Qaida to say that, you know, that was a big attack we had on 9/11, but it's not likely again, I just think that's dead wrong. I think the biggest strategic threat the United States faces today is the possibility of another 9/11 with a nuclear weapon or a biological agent of some kind, and I think Al Qaida is out there even as we meet trying to figure out how to do that.

Being out of office, Cheney would have a hard time being an integral part of another false flag as he was on 9/11. I really think he misses that. Biden is a sociopath but not quite the psychopath that Cheney is so it's doubtful he would play much of a role in an attack on the U.S. He would be a big part of the cover up if it happened.

Cheney's world view may play in Peoria but in other places there is much doubt on exactly what happened on 9/11 as evidenced by the growing foreign media acceptance of questioning the official story.

From Elizabeth Woodworth at Global Research:

The Media Response to the Growing Influence of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

In the past year, in response to emerging independent science on the 9/11 attacks, nine corporate, seven public, and two independent media outlets aired analytic programs investigating the official account.

Increasingly, the issue is treated as a scientific controversy worthy of debate, rather than as a "conspiracy theory" ignoring science and common sense.

This essay presents these media analyses in the form of 18 case studies.

Eight countries – Britain, Canada, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway and Russia – have allowed their publicly-owned broadcasting stations to air the full spectrum of evidence challenging the truth of the official account of 9/11.

This more open approach taken in the international media – I could also have included the Japanese media – might be a sign that worldwide public and corporate media organizations are positioning themselves, and preparing their audiences, for a possible revelation of the truth of the claim that forces within the US government were complicit in the attacks – a revelation that would call into question the publicly given rationale for the military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

The evidence now being explored in the international media may pave the way for the US media to take an in-depth look at the implications of what is now known about 9/11, and to re-examine the country's foreign and domestic policies in the light of this knowledge. {more}

Cheney undoubtedly thinks he is beyond prosecution. Many a criminal also live in this delusion. Obama, Biden and Hillary Clinton included.

Dennis Kucinich summed it all up for both the current and past administrations:

“We have a 'gangsta' presidency and a Congress that isn’t any better.”

No Mr. Biden, Dick Cheney is not a fine fellow

And neither are you Joe ...











Both Biden and Cheney are creepy war mongering liars whose degenerate pubic displays in the media are continuing signs of the decline of America sinking further and further into a criminal state.

Cheney's words on torture yesterday are clear reminders that he and many others from the Bush syndicate should be indicted for crimes against humanity. I'd say he misses those regular torture tape viewings from gitmo and elsewhere.

Backers of the Cheney endorsement on torture are still beating the drums for more ... if necessary.

"Let's take your hypothesis a bit further. We have captured a terrorist, but he is a hardened character. We cannot be certain that he will crack in time. We have also captured his wife and children".

Torture the wife and children.
{more}

What should be happening here is taking place in Spain today.

On Monday February 15 in Madrid, Judge Baltasar Garzon will convene an investigation of War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity allegedly committed by U.S. government officials and others during the Bush administration.

The first witness called to testify will reportedly be American international human rights lawyer Dr. William F. Pepper. Dr. Pepper, who convened the International Human Rights Seminar at Oxford University, stated that he was, “asked by the Court to file an Opinion and testify as an expert on the issue of jurisdiction of the Spanish Court with respect to the various crimes being alleged.” He may also testify as to his opinion on the validity, or invalidity, of the most likely defenses to be offered by defendants should criminal charges result, namely ‘Sovereign Immunity’ and ‘Superior Orders’ (more commonly known as ‘The Nuremberg Defense’).

In his Opinion submitted to the Court last spring, Pepper concluded:

“… from the U.S. government’s own documents and the public statements of its leaders, that there is prima facie evidence of the following crimes:

• 
  
  • Torture and the Conspiracy to Commit Torture
  • War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity
  • Waging Aggressive War
  • Illegal (Arbitrary) Detention

[He] places varying degrees of responsibility on particular government officials including George W. Bush and Richard Cheney and dismisses as inapplicable to serious international crimes the relevant defenses available to them and their subordinates including the government lawyers who [he argues] have a special professional responsibility.”

He further concluded that the Spanish Court, “is fully able and obligated …under international law and Universal Jurisdiction” to prosecute if the evidence indicates that prosecutions are legally justified.
{more - The Desperate Blogger}

Cheney never misses an opportunity to hype the CIA/Mossad Al Qaida creation. On ABC he says:

... the situation with respect to Al Qaida to say that, you know, that was a big attack we had on 9/11, but it's not likely again, I just think that's dead wrong. I think the biggest strategic threat the United States faces today is the possibility of another 9/11 with a nuclear weapon or a biological agent of some kind, and I think Al Qaida is out there even as we meet trying to figure out how to do that.

Being out of office, Cheney would have a hard time being an integral part of another false flag as he was on 9/11. I really think he misses that. Biden is a sociopath but not quite the psychopath that Cheney is so it's doubtful he would play much of a role in an attack on the U.S. He would be a big part of the cover up if it happened.

Cheney's world view may play in Peoria but in other places there is much doubt on exactly what happened on 9/11 as evidenced by the growing foreign media acceptance of questioning the official story.

From Elizabeth Woodworth at Global Research:

The Media Response to the Growing Influence of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

In the past year, in response to emerging independent science on the 9/11 attacks, nine corporate, seven public, and two independent media outlets aired analytic programs investigating the official account.

Increasingly, the issue is treated as a scientific controversy worthy of debate, rather than as a "conspiracy theory" ignoring science and common sense.

This essay presents these media analyses in the form of 18 case studies.

Eight countries – Britain, Canada, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway and Russia – have allowed their publicly-owned broadcasting stations to air the full spectrum of evidence challenging the truth of the official account of 9/11.

This more open approach taken in the international media – I could also have included the Japanese media – might be a sign that worldwide public and corporate media organizations are positioning themselves, and preparing their audiences, for a possible revelation of the truth of the claim that forces within the US government were complicit in the attacks – a revelation that would call into question the publicly given rationale for the military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

The evidence now being explored in the international media may pave the way for the US media to take an in-depth look at the implications of what is now known about 9/11, and to re-examine the country's foreign and domestic policies in the light of this knowledge. {more}

Cheney undoubtedly thinks he is beyond prosecution. Many a criminal also live in this delusion. Obama, Biden and Hillary Clinton included.

Dennis Kucinich summed it all up for both the current and past administrations:

“We have a 'gangsta' presidency and a Congress that isn’t any better.”

Glenn Beck to Rick Perry ~ "Rick, I think you and I could French kiss right now."

Where some of the more 'normal' media whores would just high five their allies after they complete a hit on an opponent, Glenn Beck likes to talk about french kissing a partner in crime, Texas governor Rick (Friend of Zion - Mr. Mandatory HPV vaccine) Perry.

"He's a damn handsome man, looks good in a pair of jeans" Beck and his gay talking sidekick said.

I don't know much about Debra Medina, the republican alternative candidate for Texas governor running against Perry and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison but she seems to be a libertarian, a states rights advocate and a good person. Considering her rivals, she is a welcome fresh face.  According to polls she was gaining ground. That is until today.

She made a big mistake and went on the Glenn Beck radio show. In an attempt to possibly gain some votes, I suppose she was just too naive to think that Beck, the Perry and Palin ass kisser, would be fair and objective and not have an agenda to shut her momentum down.

Early in the interview, Beck took intimidating jabs at Medina repeatedly asking her about her background in an attempt to throw her off balance. It was clear from the beginning that Beck had no intention in gathering information as he would not allow Medina to finish her sentences and clearly was not listening.

What became obvious later in the interview was the question that Beck was holding in the back of his mind which would score the necessary points the portly pundit craved. He then asked Medina if she was a "911 Truther". This was a clear attack on Medina's association with Ron Paul who has many followers who question the myriad of unsettling discrepancies regarding the events that took place on September 11, 2001. This was the perfect opportunity to relegate a viable grassroots candidate into the arena of "fringe".

Medina's answer was appropriate.

"I don’t have all of the evidence there, Glenn, so I’m not in a place, I have not been out publicly questioning that. I think some very good questions have been raised in that regard, there are some very good arguments and I think the American people have not seen all the evidence there, so I have not taken a position on that."

Perry must have been working with Beck because he immediately attacked Medina and twisted her words.

Gov. Rick Perry is dismissing a suggestion from a Republican primary rival that the U.S. government was involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Perry said GOP candidate Debra Medina's remarks Thursday "were an insult to the thousands of Americans who lost loved ones."

Perry countered that anyone "should be ashamed" for suggesting the administration of former President George W. Bush played a role in the attacks. Bush was Perry's predecessor as Texas governor. 

The rest of the compliant media jumped all over the story. 

Then Medina makes another mistake. She issues a statement saying that she's not a 'truther' and proceeds to give the same old bullshit line, "Muslims did it." She should have left it alone.

I was asked a question on the Glenn Beck show today regarding my thoughts on the so-called 9/11 truth movement. I have never been involved with the 9/11 truth movement, and there is no doubt in my mind that Muslim terrorists flew planes into those buildings on 9/11. I have not seen any evidence nor have I ever believed that our government was involved or directed those individuals in any way. No one can deny that the events on 9/11 were a tragedy for all Americans and especially those families who lost loved ones.

Here's the last bit of her response to Beck's interview and it was all that she needed.

The real underlying question here, though, is whether or not people have the right to question our government. I think the fact that people are even asking questions on this level gets to the incredible distrust career politicians have fostered by so clearly taking their direction from special interests instead of the people, whether it's Rick Perry and his HPV mandate or Kay Hutchison and voting for the bank bailout. It is absolutely the right and duty of a free people to question their government. Texas does not need another politician who tells you what you want to hear, then violates your liberties and steals your property anyway. I fully expect to be questioned and to be held accountable as Governor, and that's the underlying issue here: should people be questioning their government. And the answer is yes, they should be. {source}

Beck and his cronies at Fox must still be laughing. They'll be back slapping and french kissing each other all night long as they revel in their power to earn their blood money by manipulating and crushing those who don't toe the neocon line.

What's really sad is that 9/11 was a government sponsored false flag and even the most well meaning politicians are scared to death of facing the truth and speaking out about it for fear of losing votes from the brain dead population.

Bye bye Debra ... we hardly knew you.

Glenn Beck to Rick Perry ~ "Rick, I think you and I could French kiss right now."

Where some of the more 'normal' media whores would just high five their allies after they complete a hit on an opponent, Glenn Beck likes to talk about french kissing a partner in crime, Texas governor Rick (Friend of Zion - Mr. Mandatory HPV vaccine) Perry.

"He's a damn handsome man, looks good in a pair of jeans" Beck and his gay talking sidekick said.

I don't know much about Debra Medina, the republican alternative candidate for Texas governor running against Perry and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison but she seems to be a libertarian, a states rights advocate and a good person. Considering her rivals, she is a welcome fresh face.  According to polls she was gaining ground. That is until today.

She made a big mistake and went on the Glenn Beck radio show. In an attempt to possibly gain some votes, I suppose she was just too naive to think that Beck, the Perry and Palin ass kisser, would be fair and objective and not have an agenda to shut her momentum down.

Early in the interview, Beck took intimidating jabs at Medina repeatedly asking her about her background in an attempt to throw her off balance. It was clear from the beginning that Beck had no intention in gathering information as he would not allow Medina to finish her sentences and clearly was not listening.

What became obvious later in the interview was the question that Beck was holding in the back of his mind which would score the necessary points the portly pundit craved. He then asked Medina if she was a "911 Truther". This was a clear attack on Medina's association with Ron Paul who has many followers who question the myriad of unsettling discrepancies regarding the events that took place on September 11, 2001. This was the perfect opportunity to relegate a viable grassroots candidate into the arena of "fringe".

Medina's answer was appropriate.

"I don’t have all of the evidence there, Glenn, so I’m not in a place, I have not been out publicly questioning that. I think some very good questions have been raised in that regard, there are some very good arguments and I think the American people have not seen all the evidence there, so I have not taken a position on that."

Perry must have been working with Beck because he immediately attacked Medina and twisted her words.

Gov. Rick Perry is dismissing a suggestion from a Republican primary rival that the U.S. government was involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Perry said GOP candidate Debra Medina's remarks Thursday "were an insult to the thousands of Americans who lost loved ones."

Perry countered that anyone "should be ashamed" for suggesting the administration of former President George W. Bush played a role in the attacks. Bush was Perry's predecessor as Texas governor. 

The rest of the compliant media jumped all over the story. 

Then Medina makes another mistake. She issues a statement saying that she's not a 'truther' and proceeds to give the same old bullshit line, "Muslims did it." She should have left it alone.

I was asked a question on the Glenn Beck show today regarding my thoughts on the so-called 9/11 truth movement. I have never been involved with the 9/11 truth movement, and there is no doubt in my mind that Muslim terrorists flew planes into those buildings on 9/11. I have not seen any evidence nor have I ever believed that our government was involved or directed those individuals in any way. No one can deny that the events on 9/11 were a tragedy for all Americans and especially those families who lost loved ones.

Here's the last bit of her response to Beck's interview and it was all that she needed.

The real underlying question here, though, is whether or not people have the right to question our government. I think the fact that people are even asking questions on this level gets to the incredible distrust career politicians have fostered by so clearly taking their direction from special interests instead of the people, whether it's Rick Perry and his HPV mandate or Kay Hutchison and voting for the bank bailout. It is absolutely the right and duty of a free people to question their government. Texas does not need another politician who tells you what you want to hear, then violates your liberties and steals your property anyway. I fully expect to be questioned and to be held accountable as Governor, and that's the underlying issue here: should people be questioning their government. And the answer is yes, they should be. {source}

Beck and his cronies at Fox must still be laughing. They'll be back slapping and french kissing each other all night long as they revel in their power to earn their blood money by manipulating and crushing those who don't toe the neocon line.

What's really sad is that 9/11 was a government sponsored false flag and even the most well meaning politicians are scared to death of facing the truth and speaking out about it for fear of losing votes from the brain dead population.

Bye bye Debra ... we hardly knew you.

Palin Coming to Nashville to Charge Up the 'Tea Party' Troops

Charge them up to the tune of maybe $100,000.


Daily Paul today reminds us of the upcoming National Tea Party Convention.

If you think this is a grassroots political movement of the working class, think again. This is mainly a ploy from the Republicans, neocons and their warmongering media buddies to extort big bucks from some who may actually think these people and groups are trying to create change for the better. Mostly it's a bunch of shills out for money, political power and self promotion.

The Tea Party Nation's list of speakers, besides headliner Sara, include World Net Daily's Joseph Farah, Fox News Contributor Angela McGlowan and Republican reps Michele Bachman and Marsha Blackburn. Nashville's own 'lover of all things war' WWTN Talk 99.7 is also a contributor.

First let's check the cost to get in. A ticket for everything is $558.95, skip the banquet and it's only $358.71. Opryland Hotel is very nice and you can get a room for $110 or $175 with an atrium view (plus charges and taxes). Definitely not for the common folks.

The organizers have stated this is not about the creation of a third party ... surprise surprise. Anyone looking for an alternative to the two party crime syndicate had best try and figure out something else. Most people I know are tired of this flipping of power between Dems and Repubs with essentially the same results; more taxes, more war, more laws, less freedom.

The co-opting of the tea party movement by moneyed interests is a deception and a recipe for failure. True constitutionalists and criminal government and media observers see through it. Perhaps the rest of the folks who once saw the potential for a grassroots movement will also see this faction for what it is and let it die.

Instead of expensive conventions we need to take to the streets against the power structure ... peacefully and by the millions. That's a message the oligarchy may understand.

Palin Coming to Nashville to Charge Up the 'Tea Party' Troops

Charge them up to the tune of maybe $100,000.


Daily Paul today reminds us of the upcoming National Tea Party Convention.

If you think this is a grassroots political movement of the working class, think again. This is mainly a ploy from the Republicans, neocons and their warmongering media buddies to extort big bucks from some who may actually think these people and groups are trying to create change for the better. Mostly it's a bunch of shills out for money, political power and self promotion.

The Tea Party Nation's list of speakers, besides headliner Sara, include World Net Daily's Joseph Farah, Fox News Contributor Angela McGlowan and Republican reps Michele Bachman and Marsha Blackburn. Nashville's own 'lover of all things war' WWTN Talk 99.7 is also a contributor.

First let's check the cost to get in. A ticket for everything is $558.95, skip the banquet and it's only $358.71. Opryland Hotel is very nice and you can get a room for $110 or $175 with an atrium view (plus charges and taxes). Definitely not for the common folks.

The organizers have stated this is not about the creation of a third party ... surprise surprise. Anyone looking for an alternative to the two party crime syndicate had best try and figure out something else. Most people I know are tired of this flipping of power between Dems and Repubs with essentially the same results; more taxes, more war, more laws, less freedom.

The co-opting of the tea party movement by moneyed interests is a deception and a recipe for failure. True constitutionalists and criminal government and media observers see through it. Perhaps the rest of the folks who once saw the potential for a grassroots movement will also see this faction for what it is and let it die.

Instead of expensive conventions we need to take to the streets against the power structure ... peacefully and by the millions. That's a message the oligarchy may understand.