The Burning Flag Campaign.

DEA now a globalist organization.

2005-04-04T17:30:00.000-07:00

DEA team to fight Afgani opium trade

By JAMES GORDON MEEK
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU

FORT BENNING, Ga. - A new corps of DEA agents fresh from commando training will take on Afghan opium lords who are threatening to turn the new democracy into a narco-state.

The possibility of Afghanistan getting overrun by heroin trafficking - which funds Al Qaeda and Taliban remnants, according to some officials - was the shocking warning of a State Department report last month.

Because the Pentagon shies away from drug-busting, blowing up labs processing opium into heroin in the former Al Qaeda haven has fallen to the Drug Enforcement Administration's Foreign Advisory and Support Team.

The 31 agents and four analysts - including two women - mastered hand-to-hand combat and "reflexive" shooting from Army Special Forces here. They drilled in the use of night-vision goggles and learned how to spot land mines.

They will be armed to the teeth with assault weapons and trained for war because raiding an illicit site in the largely lawless country still bristling with terrorists "isn't like hitting a door in New York," said Frank, 33, an agent and ex-Ranger who works in the city.

In late 2004, the United Nations reported that seizures of processed heroin coming from Afghanistan increased dramatically when the U.S. kicked out the Taliban. Only 4% of seizures in 2003 were of unprocessed opium, suggesting drug labs are thriving.

The DEA will target these labs rather than concentrating on crop eradication, which would inflame anti-Americanism among farmers growing Afghanistan's major cash crop.

Agents already in Afghanistan staged their first joint raid with DEA-trained Afghan police on March 15, destroying three labs and seizing 2,200 kilos of opium, officials said.

The DEA project is "one of the most difficult missions a civilian law enforcement agency has ever undertaken," said Gary O'Hara, the team's chief.

The veteran narc got a taste of the dangers in Kabul last week even before his agents arrived, when he escaped injury from a roadside bomb that hit his convoy and injured four, including a Canadian.

Take away the desert fatigues and battle gear and O'Hara's operators could easily go undercover as dopers, bikers and homeless. Each is handpicked.

One analyst is an ex-Jersey City cop, and a New York-based agent was a DEA rep in Kabul last year. An agent from Queens spent time there as a reservist.

John from Vegas fought in the first Gulf War and was an Arlington National Cemetery "tomb walker" standing guard over the Unknown Soldier.

One intensely committed agent worried aloud that if a team member is killed the mission will be shut down by Washington. But a supervisor promised him DEA won't cut and run.

Though the Army provided highly specialized combat training at Fort Benning, negotiations with the Pentagon went until the last minute over such things as the narcs carrying belt-fed machine guns in Afghanistan.

Another hint of the Pentagon's wavering was the practice raids using both Army Black Hawk choppers and a Soviet MI-8 - a war relic typically flown by Afghan forces.

But O'Hara said the military will be his team's lifeline.

"DEA agents won't go up into the mountains alone without protection," he said. "Enthusiasm won't override ability."

Brainwashing 101.

2005-01-22T10:25:00.000-08:00

Brainwashing 101: A new short documentary that does a great job of exposing the liberal fascist bias in americas education system. Its frightning to see the tyranny and discrimination being directed at right wing students by these so called "advocates of freedom".

Pleasant generic religious holiday to you all (except white males)

2004-12-19T15:40:00.000-08:00

Main Entry: political correctness Function: noun:
conformity to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities should be eliminated

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thats right, its nearing the most un-politically correct holiday of the year, so I decided it would be a good idea to post a decent article on the fascism that is political correctness.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The media has recently taken notice of a trend in education that has actually been around for some time. This trend has been obvious to anyone well-acquainted with the goings-on in our citadels of higher learning or even on selected high school campuses. The term Political Correctness, or politically correct speech, covers most of the issues involved. Multiculturalism is often given as the driving ethic that prompts one to be politically correct.
At the foundation of this movement is the belief that all education is political. Nowhere in the curriculum can one find a hiding place from race, class, or gender issues. Added to this assumption is the law of moral and ethical relativism: All systems of thought, all cultures, are equal in value. To assume otherwise is politically incorrect by definition.
Just how important this type of thinking is to those who influence our nation's students is reflected by some of their comments. According to Glenn Maloney, assistant dean of students at the University of Texas at Austin, "Multiculturalism will be the key word for education. I believe that will be the mission of the university in the 90's."(1) Donna Shalala, chancellor of the University of Wisconsin at Madison, adds that this movement amounts to "a basic transformation of American higher education in the name of multiculturalism and diversity."(2)
A recent study of the New York school system found that "African Americans, Asian Americans, Puerto Rican/Latinos, and Native Americans have all been the victims of an intellectual and educational oppression that has characterized the culture and institutions of the United States and the European American worlds for centuries."(3)
The report goes on to state, "Unfortunately, stereotyping and misinformation have become part of the dominant culture enveloping everyone. . . . Because of the depth of the problem and the tenacity of its hold on the mind, only the most stringent measures can have significant impact."(4)
And stringent measures are what have occurred. Curricula, admissions policies, the hiring and promotion of faculty, and the freedom to debate issues have all been modified by those who currently define political correctness. There is a growing body of evidence that quota systems are now in place in many admissions offices across the country. Textbooks are being written and courses changed to promote multiculturalism at the expense of teaching about Western Civilization. Professors are unable to teach their courses or participate in the academic enterprise because their views fail to conform to the new guardians of culture.
What is most appalling is the attempt to remove the freedom of speech from students who fail to conform to the correct position on a broad spectrum of topics. What is ironic is that many of those now attempting to limit the freedom of speech of students in the name of multiculturalism are the very same individuals that began the free speech movement in the sixties, arguing for academic freedom and student input into the curriculum. It seems that the issue was more a matter of gaining power to control the curriculum and inject it with their views rather than truly to promote freedom of academic endeavors.
Ethnic StudiesLet's look at a few places where political correctness has had a major impact. In 1988 the Stanford faculty voted to change the Western Culture course, one of the most popular on campus, to "Cultures, Ideas and Values." The fifteen-book requirement was dropped and replaced with the admonition to give substantial attention to issues of race(5) and gender. The reading list now had to include a quota of works by women and minorities. Out goes Shakespeare, in comes Burgos-Debray.
Shakespeare is deemed to be racist, sexist, and classist, a product of the ultimate evil--Western Civilization. French writer Elisabeth Burgos-Debray is, on the other hand, politically correct. One of her works, now part of the Stanford curriculum, describes a Guatemalan woman's struggle against capitalist oppression. She rejects marriage and motherhood and becomes a feminist, a socialist, and finally a Marxist, arguing politics with fellow revolutionaries in Paris. According to the author, this simple Guatemalan woman speaks for all the Indians of the American continent.(6)
Berkeley, Mount Holyoke, and the University of Wisconsin are just a few of the schools where students must take a course in ethnic studies but are not required to take a single course in Western Civilization. At Berkeley, the ethnic studies course is the only required course on campus, and Wisconsin students can graduate without taking any American history. Ohio State has gone even further, revamping its entire curriculum to reflect issues of gender, race, and ethnicity. The chairman of the English department at Pennsylvania State University has remarked, "I would bet that Alice Walker's The Color Purple is taught in more English departments today than all of Shakespeare's plays combined."(7)
An ironic twist to this revolution is that when writings of third- world authors are included in the curriculum, they rarely are the classics from that culture. Instead, they tend to be recent, Marxist, and politically correct works.
Unfortunately, curriculum revisions are not confined to the college campus. The state of New York recently commissioned a committee to review its statewide secondary-school curriculum. The results were a bit startling, to say the least.
According to the report, no topic is culture-free. The Eurocentric, white, American culture currently dominating the curriculum must give way to one which represents all cultures equally. Even math and science were cited as culturally biased because they failed to give credit to contributions from other cultures.(8)
In the social sciences, even more radical demands have been made. One Black Studies professor charges that the current curriculum in New York's high schools reflects "deep-seated pathologies of racial hatred." He argues that time spent studying the U.S. Constitution, which is seriously flawed in his opinion, is grounds for miseducation. He adds that studying the Constitution is egocentric and blatant White Nationalism.(9)
Instruments of ExclusionIn chapter 2 of his book Illiberal Education, Dinesh D'Souza takes up the case of high school senior Yat-pang Au. To make a fairly long story short, Yat- pang received a rejection letter from the University of California at Berkeley in 1987 although he had graduated first in his high school class, scored 1340 on the SAT, earned letters in track and cross-country, served on the student council, and won seven scholarships from groups such as the National Society of Professional Engineers. What went wrong?
It wasn't his credentials. In fact, Yat-pang was considerably above the Berkeley average in his qualifications. His only real problem was his race, and what chancellor Ira Michael Hayman called "a little social engineering." Under Hayman the university began to devalue the importance of merit and achievement in admissions in order to achieve a racially balanced student body, one that reflects the population at large.
As a result, this family of immigrants from Hong Kong found that their son could not go to Berkeley although ten other students from his high school had been accepted with lower qualifications. The policy of racial balance which seemed so fair to Hayman was anything but fair to the Au family.
If Yat-pang had been Hispanic or Black he would have had no problem attending Berkeley. Asians, many of them immigrants, are now being excluded from Berkeley because they happen to be a too-successful minority that values the family and education.
Unfortunately, Berkeley is not the only place one can find this type of discrimination. Harvard, UCLA, Stanford, Brown, and others have been charged with discrimination towards Asians. As D'Souza writes, "Quotas which were intended as instruments of inclusion now seemed to function as instruments of exclusion."(10)
Even if we set aside Yat-pang's individual rights, does this policy make sense for the minorities it is trying to help? Often it does not. D'Souza notes that Blacks and Hispanics admitted under reduced academic requirements do not fare well at Berkeley. In one study, only 18 percent of the Black and 22 percent of the Hispanic affirmative-action students graduated within five years. Almost 30 percent of Black and Hispanic students drop out at the end of their freshman year.(11) Because we have set aside academic preparation as the criterion for admission to our top schools, many students who cannot compete are being admitted. They simply drop out, more frustrated and angry than before.
Another issue that goes hand-in-hand with admissions is the issue of testing itself. Many argue that since some groups do better than others on the SAT, the test is biased. A New York federal judge has ruled that, since women do not do as well as men on the SAT, using the test as a criterion for awarding its Regents and Empire State scholarships violates state law.(12)
What is remarkable about this trend is that testing was installed in the 1920s to fight arbitrary bias in admissions. When one removes testing, which even the critics must agree is still the best way to predict academic success, all other criteria except race and gender are subjective.
In light of this fact, College Board president Donald Stewart, who is black, has argued that the test covers words and ideas necessary for success in college, regardless of cultural background.(13)
Freedom of SpeechThose who consider themselves politically correct have inflicted grave damage on the concept of free speech. It is interesting to note that Christians have endured free-speech restrictions for years, but only recently have others who hold to politically incorrect positions experienced this form of discrimination.
Restrictions on speech come in three different forms on campus. The most widespread form is the conduct code. Another is the refusal to allow conservative speakers to address groups on campus. And last is the censure of faculty members who step outside the sphere of politically correct thought.
The University of Michigan has been a leader in restricting First Amendment rights. Responding to a student radio disc jockey who invited other students to call in their favorite racial jokes, the university began a long crusade to stamp out racism, sexism, and a multitude of other "isms." Instead of just punishing the offender, all students were now under suspicion, and all speech would be monitored carefully.
A new policy on discrimination and discriminatory harassment was approved. It defined as punishable "any behavior, verbal or physical, that stigmatizes or victimizes an individual on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, creed, national origin, ancestry, age, marital status, handicap, or Vietnam-era veteran status."(14)
Debate on these topics was to be restricted in fear that someone might be stigmatized by the discussion. The so-called marketplace of ideas that colleges are supposed to represent had been shrunk down to convenience-store size.
Since one cannot be certain that even the most balanced discussion of a topic such as gay rights or religious cults might not stigmatize a fellow student, one must refrain from entering into that territory. The result of this type of policy is to guarantee a monopoly to the radical Marxist and feminist ideas now being promoted by the faculty and administration on many of our campuses.
Fortunately, this policy was successfully challenged by an unnamed psychology professor who realized that most of the subject matter he dealt with in class might stigmatize someone. In a strange twist, the ACLU was on the right side of this issue and represented the professor. Eventually a U.S. District Court struck down even a modified version of the code. But there are still codes in effect at Emory, Middlebury, Brown, Penn State, Tufts, and the Universities of California, Connecticut, North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and others. Many more schools are considering implementing codes.(15)
Some groups on campus have used more blatant tactics to keep conservatives from speaking. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Conner, U.N. ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick, and Secretary of Health and Human Services Louis Sullivan have all been victims of censorship in the form of gay and pro-abortion groups shouting them down. In one case, black students with clubs disrupted a meeting for the National Association of Scholars, a conservative group of professors, charging that they were actually supported by the Ku Klux Klan.(16)
Another form of censorship is the silencing of faculty. Alan Gribben, a professor at the University of Texas, made the mistake of voting against the politization of a writing course in the English Department. As a result he was ostracized by the department and decided to leave after seventeen years on the faculty.(17)
The "Ism" ProliferationThe goal of the political correctness revolutionaries on campus is the removal of any remnant of racism, sexism, class elitism, and even lookism, the practice of treating people differently because of their looks. There are also specific positions on ecology, foreign and domestic policy, homosexuality, and animal rights that are politically correct.
The hope behind all of this is the creation of a society where each culture and social group is appreciated for its contributions. But the fallout has been to encourage people to find some reason to declare oppression, for it seems that only those who are oppressed are in a position to determine what is politically correct. White, middle-class males are the great Satan incarnate--even the most repentant among them must be watched closely.
Politically correct people argue that they are calling for a philosophy of inclusion. They are not thought police, they say; they are only concerned with correcting centuries of unfairness. In reality the effect of this movement has been to silence or remove from campus those who differ from the politically correct position. If a professor opposes racially based admissions policies, he is racist. If a student holds to religious convictions concerning homosexuality, she is homophobic. The issue really goes beyond mere tolerance; the goal of this movement is to remove opposition to the plans of the radical left.
Since those who are politically correct agree that Western Civilization is the cause of all evil in the world, one might ask what should replace it. Not surprisingly, the writers and heroes of this movement tend to be Marxist, feminist, and gay. It is interesting that Marx, a white male European, is still considered politically correct, although he held quite incorrect views on racial issues (in fact, he spoke positively concerning slavery in America).(18)
If true multiculturalism were the issue, these folks would be calling for the study and implementation of traditional cultures from around the world, which, by the way, are just as racist and far more male-dominated than our own. Whether one looks at Islam or the teachings of oriental traditions, one finds that a dim view is taken of both modern feminist thought and homosexuality.
The tradition of Western thought has been to deal with ideas that transcend race, and it has been anything but homogeneous in its conclusions. The irony of the accusations leveled at Western thought by the politically correct is that the ideas they favor have been most fully developed in America and Europe. Even with all of its faults, Western Civilization has been the most open and tolerant of all societies. It has been eager to find and incorporate ideas that are beneficial from other cultures.
All the important issues considered on our campuses have religious elements. Whether one is considering the uses of technology or the relationships between the sexes, everyone is informed by his or her religious presuppositions. Placing a prior restraint on someone's freedom to speak because he is coming from a different position not only violates our historic view of freedom of speech but also can be used to further remove Christian thought from our schools.
What those in authority on our campuses really hope to accomplish is the unquestioned implementation of a world view that releases man from his moral obligation to a creator God, a God who sees all men and women, regardless of their color, as in need of redemption. As Christian parents and alumni, we need to make certain that colleges remain places where students can seek and find the truth.

Writen by Don Closson.

Dude...Where's my revolution?

2004-12-19T13:30:00.000-08:00

This rant has been brought to you on behalf of myself, and every conservative who has been wondering Dude...Where's my revolution?

Now, it seems to me that the Democratic Underground, along with several other liberal (fascist) groups made threats of revolution in the situation that Bush was re-elected. Now, im not one to support a communist takeover, but where the fuck is this revolution? Liberals spent this entire election trying to convince us that they were a trustworthy political group that would make good on their promises, yet I have yet to see a single liberal fight against the government. Not that im surprised, liberals dont have a leg to stand on in a revolution. What are they going to wage war with? Guns? I think not, they've spent too much time depriving americans of their right to bear arms to wage a war with guns. It seems that the liberal party is just another shock and awe political group with no intention of keeping their word.

Rant over.

Cast your ballots!

2004-10-30T08:47:00.000-07:00

Lo' and behold its election time once again. Its time to fill out your ballots and decide who will be the next leader of the free world: John Jackson, or Jack Johnson (to paraphrase futurama). For those of us with common sense, the suspense is long over. We can tell you right now which party will be the next to wear the crown, it is the same party that won last election, and every election since the civil war: The single party. Those of us with the ability to color inside the lines discovered long ago that the two parties were far from polar opposites.

Judging Your Option(s):

Most of us have heard that action speak louder than words, and by this standard, the republican party is...well...mute. The complacency of the republican party remains unrivaled in the political world, a relatively large disappointment for all the freedom lovers who were hoping for an effective "lesser of two evils" approach. On the other hand, we have the democratic party, with a target audience consisting mainly of feminists and radical anti-gun zealots. The thought of stripping you of your right to self-defence is a wet-dream to these people, and unfortunately, these people are willing to go the distance.

As the old saying goes "The republican party is the choice for people who want a larger government at a slower rate".

Obviously, the odds of a third party candidate winning the office is, to put it optimistically, non-zero. Government restrictions set in place by the Single-Party will eliminate any chance a third party will ever have of getting into office.

I think now would be a good time to cover a few voting strategies:

Lesser of two evils: By far the most common strategy, it involves voting for the Single-Party candidate that deviates less from your ideals. Unfortunately, it eliminates any chance a truly freedom-loving candidate has of getting into office. This strategy is used by partisan idiots.

Guess the winner: Quite possibly the most moronic voting strategy in existance, it involves voting for the candidate that scores highest in the polls. This strategy is practiced only by those with the intelligence of a 4 year old.

Actuall voting: This strategy involves using your vote the way it was meant to be used, by voting for the candidate that best represents your views. This strategy is used by people who posses the ability to think for themselves.

Affermative action: This involves voting for the party that has the lowest chance of winning. It is used by usefull idiots.

Non-vote: Just as the title suggests, this involves refusing to vote on election day. It is used by people who recognize that the electoral system is damaged beyond repair.

Vote from the rooftops: Lee Harvey Oswald did it, John Wilkes Booth did it, and several other people have attempted it. Just as you have probably figured out, this strategy involves a high-powered rifle scope and a 7.56mm full metal jacket round. Though I dont encourage this type of voting, I must say, its a sure-fire way to guaranty that your candidate is the winner.

Make your choice wisely.

The war on terrorism.

2004-09-26T13:13:00.000-07:00

This looks like a good oppertunity to inform you all of a new forum. Its called "The war on terrorism" and its dedicated (obviously) to the war on terrorism.

Here's the link
http://zerometal.net/twot/index.php

Misconceptions about the party system.

2004-08-09T23:21:00.000-07:00

As you all should be aware, election time is drawing nearer and it is time to seriously consider which candidate will recieve your support.

Most of you have probably cast your vote towards either the republican or the liberal party, some of you may even be supporting a more radical group such as the libertarian party. But what you must ask yourselves is whether or not your vote will make a difference. Most poeple are under false inpression that whichever there are huge differences in party ideologies, in reality the opposite is true.

There are two types of parties.....

Mainsteam parties - This catagory consists of the republican and liberal parties. Surprisingly there is almost NO difference between these parties. Both are rightwing-moderate parties that support statism and elitism. The difference lies in trivial civil rights issues such as abortion, gun control, and free speech. (these issues are by no means trivial, but are insignificant when it comes to the big picture) The place where these parties differ the most lies in the area of economics, though the liberal party is by no means socialist, it does advocate higher taxation and welfare. The republican party, however, advocates just the opposite, though the republican party tends to be complacent, it takes no steps towards lowering taxation or eliminating welfare.

Third parties - This catagory consistes of parties such as the libertarian party, the constitution party, and the national socialist (nazi) party. I will not devote a large amount of time explaining their policies (as it would take weeks) but it will suffice to say that the majority of these parties offer more freedom than you cound ever hope for with a mainstream party. There is a catch of course, third parties dont win elections.

You are therefor forced to make a choice. You can vote for a statist-collectivist party that will slowly erode your freedoms, or you can vote for a party that has no chance of winning. Most people will tell you that voting for a third party is a waste of your vote, I consider this to be bullshit, the only way you can waste your vote is if you vote for a party that doesnt share your beliefs.

I hope this has made you re-think your support for some of the mainstream parties, or at the very least, I hope you now realize that there are planty of choices out there. Then again, you can always take the high road and not vote at all.

Leave of absence

2004-07-23T22:16:00.000-07:00

Sorry about the lack of updates, I was on vacation in the wonderful land of British Columbia. I would have posted before I left but I was too lazy. Anyway, I hope to begin updating the site again soon.

The 2004 elections.

2004-06-27T15:05:00.000-07:00

As you all know, it is almost time to elect a new leader for this wonderful nation of ours. Obviously the candidate you vote for will depend greatly on your stance on certain issues, so I have decided to list a few of the more influential candidates.

GEORGE W. BUSH (republican party)

POLITICAL: GOP nominee for Congress, 1978 (47%). Senior Advisor, George Bush for President Campaign, 1988. Governor of Texas, 1995-December 2000 (Elected 1994, re-elected 1998). President of the United States, 2001-present (Elected 2000 - 47.9% - 271 Electoral Votes).

PROFESSIONAL: Managing General Partner, Texas Rangers pro baseball team, 1989-94. Founder & CEO, Bush Exploration Oil & Gas Company, 1975-86. Pilot, Texas Air National Guard, 1968-73.

EDUCATION: B.A., Yale University, 1968. M.B.A., Harvard Business School, 1975.

PERSONAL: Born July 6, 1946 in New Haven, Connecticut. Married to Laura Welch Bush. Two daughters. Methodist. Grandson of the late US Senator Prescott Bush (R-CT). Son of former President George H.W. Bush (R-TX). Brother of Governor Jeb Bush (R-FL).

JOHN F. KERRY (democratic party)

POLITICAL: Democratic nominee for Congress, 1972; Lieutenant Governor, 1982-85 (elected 1982); US Senator, 1985-present (elected in 1984, re-elected in 1990, 1996 & 2002). Chair, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, 1987-89.

PROFESSIONAL: US Navy, 1966-69 (awarded the Silver Star, Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts for combat action in Vietnam). Attorney. Assistant District Attorney, 1977-82.

EDUCATION: B.A., Yale University, 1966. J.D., Boston College, 1976.

PERSONAL: Born December 11, 1943, in Denver, Colorado. Married to Theresa Heinz Kerry. Two children; three step-children. Catholic.

MICHEAL PEROUTKA (constitution party)

POLITICAL: State Chair, Constitution Party of Maryland. Member, Constitution Party National Executive Committee. Founder and Director, Institute on the Constitution (conservative non-profit organization).

PROFESSIONAL: Health Initiatives Analyst/Attorney, US Department of Health & Human Services, 1976-87. Attorney (private practice),1987-present. Founder and Director, American College for Cultural Studies (Biblical-Constitutionalist education program).

EDUCATION: B.A., Loyola College. J.D., University of Baltimore, 1981.

PERSONAL: Born 1952. Married to Diane Peroutka. Three children.

DAVID COBB (green party)

POLITICAL: Co-Founder, Texas Green Party, 1999. Texas State Coordinator, Nader for President Campaign, 2000. General Counsel, Green Party of the United States, 2000-03. Green Party nominee for Texas Attorney General, 2002 (41,000 votes - 1%). Campaign Director, Reclaim Democracy, 2002-03. Board of Directors, Democracy Unlimited of Humboldt County, 2003-present.

PROFESSIONAL: Attorney. Former construction worker.

EDUCATION: B.A. (Political Science), University of Houston. J.D., University of Houston Law School, 1993.

PERSONAL: Born 1963 in San Leon, Texas

MICHEAL BADNARIK (libertarian party)

POLITICAL: Libertarian nominee for State Representative, 2000 (2nd place - 15,200 votes - 17%) and 2002 (3rd place - 1,100 votes - 2%).

PROFESSIONAL: Self-employed computer consultant, 2001-present. Nuclear power industry computer programmer, 1977-2001. Skydiving instructor, 1998-present.

EDUCATION: Indiana University, attended 1972-77.

PERSONAL: Born August 1, 1954, in Hammond, Indiana. Single.

WALT BROWN (socialist party)

POLITICAL: Oregon State Senator, 1975-87 (served as a Democrat). Malheur County Counsel, 1989-91 (served as a Democrat). Member, Socialist Party USA since 1948. Founded the Socialist Party of Oregon, 1992. Socialist Party USA nominee for Congress in 1998 (6%), 2000 (2%) and 2002 (3%). Legal Counsel, Socialist Party USA.

PROFESSIONAL: Semi-retired attorney, currently. Deputy District Attorney, 1989-91. Former Professor, Northwestern Law School. US Navy & US Navy Reserve, 1944-70 (World War II veteran; retired at the rank of Commander). Aircraft riveter, mailman, construction worker and warehouseman (before attending college).

EDUCATION: B.A. and J.D., University of Southern California. M.A. in Government, Boston University. M.L.S., University of Oregon. Attended courses at Harvard Law School. Rhodes Scholar nominee, 1948.

PERSONAL: Born in 1926. Widower, father and grandfather. Recently remarried.

JOHN PARKER (workers world party)

POLITICAL: Member, Workers World Party National Committee. Regional Coordinator, International ANSWER (WWP front group), Los Angeles office. Regional Coordinator, International Action Center (WWP front group), Los Angeles office. Coordinator, Los Angeles Coalition to Free Mumia Abu-Jamal (WWP front group).

PROFESSIONAL: Former classroom teacher. Militant unionist and communist political organizer (since age 18). Correspondent, Workers World (official WWP newspaper).

EDUCATION: Unknown.

PERSONAL: Married.

All information was obtained at www.politics1.com. As the election draws nearer I will post more information on the candidates.

Welcome

2004-06-25T22:23:00.000-07:00

This is a blog devoted to exposing the hypocrisy of our perfect society. This is a rant against their belief that they can do no wrong, their belief that they are Gods gift to the world, their belief that they are a shinning becon of hope to civilization. This is a blog that will deal with the most unpopular, controversial aspects of society and government.

Let me start by introducing myself.

I am Martyr-Machine, at least that is my alias. I am a libertarian who firmly believes that our country is headed in the wrong direction. I feel that both ends of the political spectrum are fucking with America, and our freedom. I stand firm against Bush, and though I support the war in Iraq, I feel that the war on terror could be better fought in nations such as Syria and North Korea.

I hope to update this site frequently, and I hope to keep you all up to date with current events and the war on terror.