political assassins

the political arena impacts our daily lives to such a great extent, although ironically politics is one of those "taboo" topics in the social sphere. I always hear people say "never talk about politics or religion" especially when drinking! I generally do just the opposite, because these topics are of the utmost importance to our existence. At our family Christmas dinner (an alcohol-free event) the topic of politics did indeed come up. When it did, i vocalized my thoughts on some of the US Presidential candidates, as I often do, promoting in particular a few of the Republican front-runners. Someone had mentioned about doing their taxes or what they would do with the extra money when they get their tax returns, which got me started on Mike Huckabee and his plans to abolish the IRS. There are always a few in the bunch who do not keep up with the issues, so I proceeded to explain Huckabee's plans to phase out the federal income tax on wages and replace it with the fair tax on consumer purchases. I explained in common-sense terms how this would allow for the illegal workers and people getting paid under-the-table such as drug dealers, who would normally not pay taxes on their income to be taxed the same as everyone else. My mom interjected, "that sounds great but that would never happen. He would get assassinated first." I thought, what a horrible thing to say! I was appalled, but it definitely got me thinking about all the various scenarios for replacement government. Somehow the Democrats need to be in office in order for the North American Union (or as I call it, Camerico) to be implemented as an important facet of the one-world government.

Just last night, an actual presidential assassination did occur, at an election rally in Pakistan. Former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto was shot at by a suicide bomber, who then blew himself up killing about 20 other people nearby as well. There had been an earlier unsuccessful attempt at assassinating Bhutto a few months ago, when she was traveling with her convoy in returning to Pakistan after being in exile. Bhutto is well-loved by many of the Pakistani people, yet the idea of a woman in power completely defies the guidelines of Islamic law. Thus the large Muslim population in Pakistan definitely has some bearing on the opposing - and in this case extremist - uprising against her. President Pervez Musharraf held an emergency meeting in the hours after her death, and said he believed the killers were "the same extremists that Pakistan is fighting a war against." Coincidentally, Bhutto is Musharraf's major political opponent in the next election though the two seem to both be together in fighting extremism.

While revolutionary political leaders continue to make their mark on history, there are always those revolting radicals who do not want to see positive political change. One could theorize that in the same way Mike Huckabee poses a threat to the commonplace with his idealistic utopian expectations for our country, revolutionary ideologies such as those of Ron Paul or Barack Obama would also provide a political target for extremists if either were to be elected. Thinking back to the assassination of Abraham Lincoln (a thought inspired by my recent viewing of the film National Treasure), examples of people displeased by remarkable leaders can be found throughout history. It seems like any leader or ideology that threatens freedom - anything contrary to life as we/they know it, or exposes greed or corruption - is a target for those who embrace hatred and destruction. If one person's voice can make a difference in the world as we have seen throughout history, then one person's gunshot, suicide blast, or threats of national destruction can also have the same type of effect though horrific in nature. Bhutto's death should be seen as a wake-up call to the Middle East, but for world politics in general - are we headed to a global uprising leading to a necessary embrace of one-world government? Peace in the Middle East is definitely on the back-burner as the flames rise in controversy.

men who matter

when I heard that Al Gore had won the Nobel Peace Prize, I was appalled. His scientifically-disproven Global Warming Theory has done nothing but create a sense of fear and condemnation among citizens of the world - hardly a peaceful affair. Of course humans are irresponsible and have contributed to the destruction of the world, both in their actions towards the earth as well as their actions towards each other. But when does leftist political rhetoric justify peace? Only when we tolerate all offbeat human tendencies, from sexual preference to religion (including the religions that aim for our destruction)?

While Al and friends continue to spread their hoax-as-mantra and dominate the political biosphere (remind me not to suck in too much of their private jet fuel in my daily breathing of toxic carcinogens), another man-on-the-move has received equally notable global praise as TIME Magazine's Person of the Year. No, not General Petraeus or even the beloved Al Gore for that matter, but in fact the powerful Communist Dictator Vladimir Putin. As the President of Russia, he has embraced the Axis of Evil, appointing himself as the primary supporter of the Terrorist Nations - both in weapons as well as his own personal support. TIME's Person of the Year is not and never has been an honor or endorsement per se, nor is it a popularity contest. TIME claims that "he has performed an extraordinary feat of leadership in imposing stability on a nation that has rarely known it and brought Russia back to the table of world power." And this, my friends, indeed warrants an award of sorts. A rising Russian Czar, steadily seeking to expand his power, territory and global influence - look out world!

While we are on the topic of Men Who Matter (and the Axis of Evil, and religions we should tolerate although they want us dead) this week marks the beginning of the annual Hajj, or Islamic pilgrimage to Mecca. Mahmoud Ahmedinijad, another Powerful President, is in attendance for his first time at this highly-revered event in Saudi Arabia. As he stopped on Mount Arafat to pray, do you think he was praying for his greatest desire to manifest - the destruction of Israel? Not too long ago, he met with Putin regarding their shared political agendas and necessary weaponry for facilitation of such. Shortly thereafter, a US intelligence report revealed that Iran was not actually manufacturing these weapons. Many questioned President Bush's OWN intelligence, though he himself continues to identify Iran as a threat contrary to the (left-influenced?) reports. As a Man Who Matters, President Bush continues to lead America AGAINST the Axis of Evil and its Evil Kremlin, and is often criticized for his own keen global agenda. Who IS the most powerful man in the world, in this struggle for world power?

One final man comes to mind in the global power struggle, though he is hardly struggling over in his corner of the world. French President Nicolas Sarkozy has recently been seen in public with a famous model, just weeks after his divorce from former wife Cecilia. While he was not up for TIME's Person of the Year (surprising? yes), he is gaining more and more power worldwide. The Bible indicates that the AntiChrist will rise from the European nations, perhaps as the leader of the EU, of Jewish descent, and that he will not be married. Whether or not my personal speculation will manifest as per the End Times Prophecies, I enjoy watching Sarkozy become more and more popular and powerful with each passing day. Regardless, no one can argue that each of these Men Who Matter play a vital role in Global Domination, and perhaps in the destruction of the warming, deteriorating planet.

one nation

after traveling to Europe and the Middle East and comparing the other countries to my own, I realized that we have it pretty good here in the United States. Our progressive democratic society is quite unique with its own inherent forms of diversity, yet a very new country relative to the rest of the world. However, the challenge for many global thinkers in the US lies within the very nationalism on which we pride ourselves. When asked where I was from by other people I encountered throughout the world, many were pleasantly surprised that I was from America. I thought, upon leaving this country that the negativity which abounds within would be shared upon the world stage - but this isn't always the case. I'd either get those people who thought America was the best country in the world (and they wanted to go there but could not get a visa), or the rare few who would bash Bush thus bashing the nation's government. I would usually tell them I liked Bush, and the conversation would often stop there. But worldwide, the popular view seemed to be that America IS the promised land - the land of the free and the home of the brave.

so what happened - and do these outsiders even realize what we have become inside our borders? We were founded as "One Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all" - does this ring a bell? It reminds me of my elementary school days, the first seeds of patriotism planted at a very young age, and shared by many Americans who grew up in my era or earlier. Yet since this time, our nation has undergone many significant changes, for better or for worse. I do not believe that the same Pledge of Allegiance is chanted as in my day - the nation no longer under God - as the school bell proceeds to ring to the tune of political correctness, and our borders open to cultural diversity and tolerance... of that which our Founding Fathers would have never dreamed. Justice for all indeed, liberties abounding as to not racially discriminate or alienate the aliens - in the form of illegal immigrants (who wouldn't WANT to come here after all?) as well as those practicing Biblically-forbidden relations in order to capitalize on the privileges induced by our rewards-driven society.

This past week two very important political events happened in America: the Middle East Summit meeting held to discuss the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process, and the Republican Presidential debate held to familiarize the voting public with the candidates. Ironically, the Peace meeting was merely a diplomatic formality as a legitimate Palestinian state is not realistic in the wake of the current PA government and territories, and the Debate was somewhat of a staged "show" intended to stir up ill feelings amongst the candidates. Many people suspected that the opposing Democratic party had "planted" questions to make the Republicans look foolish, or to cause overall difficulty for the participants. Fortunately the majority of the candidates stood their ground, and provided solid responses regardless of how foolish the questions were, proving their dedication and patriotism appropriate for the candidacy. Naturally, much political rhetoric has emerged from both of these events, from the media and other politicians, as to continue the ongoing debate amongst our One Nation, Indivisible. One member of the opposing party even concocted a staged hostage situation a few days later, in order to propel herself further into the public eye, thereby diverting media coverage from the Republican candidates. Although we are One Nation, living together within our borders, our diversity may soon become our demise.