<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
		<rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
		<channel>
	
		<title>FreeRepublicans.com</title>
		<link>http://www.areavoices.com</link>
		<description>FreeRepublicans.com on AreaVoices</description>
		<language>en-us</language>
	
		
		
		
		<item>
			<title>Great Content Like this at FreeRepublicans.com</title>
			<link>http://www.areavoices.com/freerepub/?blog=2993</link>
			<guid>http://www.areavoices.com/freerepub/?blog=2993</guid>
			
				
						<description>
							<![CDATA[ Reasons Why: Part OneFrom now till the election, I will bring you &quot;Reasons Why&quot; Kent Conrad and/or Earl Pomeroy do not represent North Dakotans, American Ideals, or Freedom in general.We begin our series by focusing on HR 1606, “The Online Freedom of Speech Act.”This bill, sponsored by Rep.]]>
						</description>
						<content:encoded>
							<![CDATA[  Reasons Why: Part One<br /><br />From now till the election, I will bring you &quot;Reasons Why&quot; Kent Conrad and/or Earl Pomeroy do not represent North Dakotans, American Ideals, or Freedom in general.<br /><br />We begin our series by focusing on <a href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-1606">HR 1606, “The Online Freedom of Speech Act.”</a><br /><br />This bill, sponsored by Rep. Jeb Hensarling [R-TX], dealt with the FEC’s interpretations of the term “public communications” within the McCain-Feingold law.  Congress identified a large number of mass media that, as “public communications,” would be subject to McCain-Feingold's many restrictions - including broadcast, cable and satellite communications, newspapers, magazines, mass mailings, telephone banks - even “outdoor advertising facilities” are mentioned.  The bottom line is that virtually every type of mass media in America was identified by Congress in the statute, except for one: the Internet. <br /><br />Matt Mechtel, Republican candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from North Dakota, told me via email: “The restrictions put in place by McCain Feingold have been disastrous for challenger races of either party.   The bill has effectively locked the average citizen out of the political process, allowing only Millionaires to run for office against incumbents.”<br /><br />Earl Pomeroy <a href=" http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2005-559 ">voted against this measure</a>; as did 76% of Democrats; with 82% of Republicans voting in favor.  Even though Rep. Frederick Boucher [D-VA], Rep. John Conyers [D-MI], and Rep. Timothy Ryan [D-OH] were full co-sponsors; Congressman Pomeroy still decided to tow the party line.<br /><br />Regarding Pomeroy’s vote, Mechtel had this to say: “The fact that my opposition wants to tighten the stranglehold on free speech with these regulations shows his inability to distinguish what is truly the best interest of the people of this state.   It seems curious that congress has no problem controlling what their challengers might say or print about them.”<br /><br />Opposition to the bill was based in a belief contention that the bill, if passed, would open the floodgates to unlimited corporate and union money being spent on Internet activities to benefit federal candidates and in coordination with federal candidates. One specific charge is that the Hensarling bill, if passed, would allow federal candidates to coordinate with corporations and unions to spend soft money funds to purchase Internet banner and video ads on behalf of candidates.<br /><br />The <a href="http://www.govtrack.us/data/us/bills.text/109/h/h1606.pdf">full text of the bill can be found here</a>,  but the simple fact of the matter is that Earl Pomeroy does not respect the 1st Amendment of the Constitution: <blockquote>“Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.&quot;<br /></blockquote><br /><br />The McCain-Feingold law was a regulation on the 1st Amendment, but even it left out the internet as being regulated.  Representatives like Pomeroy had to go farther in regulating our liberties.<br /><br />Reason #1 Why Earl Pomeroy doesn't represent North Dakotans - he supports limitations on Constitutional Protected rights.  Even worse, he supports using his power as a sitting Congressman to prop himself up as an incumbent.  ]]>
						</content:encoded>
					
			
			<pubDate>Tue, 08 Aug 2006 12:00:00 CST</pubDate>
		</item>
	
		
		
		
		<item>
			<title>New Front Page is Up</title>
			<link>http://www.areavoices.com/freerepub/?blog=2252</link>
			<guid>http://www.areavoices.com/freerepub/?blog=2252</guid>
			
				
						<description>
							<![CDATA[See it at FreeRepublicans.com ...]]>
						</description>
						<content:encoded>
							<![CDATA[ See it at FreeRepublicans.com  ]]>
						</content:encoded>
					
			
			<pubDate>Wed, 03 May 2006 16:57:00 CST</pubDate>
		</item>
	
		
		
		
		<item>
			<title> The State of the Republican Party Today</title>
			<link>http://www.areavoices.com/freerepub/?blog=1722</link>
			<guid>http://www.areavoices.com/freerepub/?blog=1722</guid>
			
				
						<description>
							<![CDATA[  The Republican Party has been hijacked.]]>
						</description>
						<content:encoded>
							<![CDATA[   The Republican Party has been hijacked. Hijacked by power hungry elitists who have ultra-conservative ideologies that disguise their real agenda; a new form of leftist thinking. This may seem like a strange statement, but if one compares the Machiavellian manner in which the Neo-Cons have taken control, the idea’s that the promote, and the crowd that they surround themselves, one will see the similarities. <br /><br />Like all elitist takeovers, it is a small majority who have supplanted themselves in the hierarchy of the party. Even if it does not go all the way to the top, surely that goal cannot be far off as well.   <br /><br />What has made this coup de taut possible? Good, honest, idealistic individuals looking to make thing better motivated by a sense of public service and personal advancement. Some seek out making a name for themselves within the party, often with the best of intentions. But as they say about good intentions, so too it is true here. <br /><br />Many times, when these individuals do make it to positions of influence within the party, the corrupting influence of our nation’s capital takes over and good people turn into greedy, power hungry people. Absolute power corrupts absolutely and zero accountability makes that corruption even worse.   <br /><br />From a historical stand point the Republican Party platform has stood upon the pillar of conservatism - balanced fiscal policy and where possible balanced budgets, leeriness of foreign wars and alliances, a non-interventionist stance to armed conflict, and a support of traditional values at home. The last bastion of the Reagan Revolution within the mainstream party resides within its tax policy, and even that has become yet another tool of social engineering. As Pat Buchanan has succinctly stated, the current state of the party could be summed up as follows -    <br /><br />“To hell with principle; <br />        what matters is power, <br />                and that we have it, <br />                        and that they don’t.”    <br /><br />Ronald Reagan said “government isn’t the solution, government is the problem.” George W. Bush says “Too often, my party has confused the need for limited government with a disdain for government itself.”   ]]>
						</content:encoded>
					
			
			<pubDate>Wed, 22 Feb 2006 21:02:00 CST</pubDate>
		</item>
	
		
		
		
		<item>
			<title> Selling America’s Security</title>
			<link>http://www.areavoices.com/freerepub/?blog=1676</link>
			<guid>http://www.areavoices.com/freerepub/?blog=1676</guid>
			
				
						<description>
							<![CDATA[How should we measure how our leaders are protecting us?Some would say that it’s based on the amount of money we spend.Or is it based on how many armed troops or police they put on the streets?I would contend that they should be judged by the legislation they draw up and support.Such a case is currently reaching massive attention the Congress this week.Some officials in the government have deemed it proper to allow the control of US Ports be sold to an investment group backed by the United Arab Emirates.]]>
						</description>
						<content:encoded>
							<![CDATA[ How should we measure how our leaders are protecting us?<br />Some would say that it’s based on the amount of money we spend.<br />Or is it based on how many armed troops or police they put on the streets?<br /><br />I would contend that they should be judged by the legislation they draw up and support.<br /><br />Such a case is currently reaching massive attention the Congress this week.<br /><br />Some officials in the government have deemed it proper to allow the control of US Ports be sold to an investment group backed by the United Arab Emirates. <br /><br />The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a U.S. inter-agency panel that reviews security implications of foreign takeovers of strategic assets, already reviewed the transaction and did not object.<br /><br />It is not often that I commend Democrats from putting out a roadblock; much less say that Hillary Clinton in right. “&quot;I will be working [with Senator Menendez] to introduce legislation that will prohibit the sale of ports to foreign governments,*&quot; Hillary said at some point, Bill wasn’t available for comment, he was “busy”.<br /><br />Dubai Ports World, a UAE quasi-corporation, is set to take control of operations in ports in the United States including the ports of New Orleans, Miami, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York, and New Jersey. <br /><br />Some members of the media have pointed this out; most notably, Lou Dobbs at CNN, who has always advocated protectionism at various levels. While he is generally more to the liberal side of things, he is one of the only commentators that are still watch able on cable TV. (FoxNews is all but unwatchable at this point.)<br /><br />Any politician, regardless of party, who support foreign countries and corporations, should be defeated at election time.  <br /><br />&quot;We wouldn't turn the border patrol or the customs service over to a foreign government, and we can't afford to turn our ports over to one either*,&quot; Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey said in a statement.<br /><br />Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Hillary Clinton of New York said they would offer a measure to ban companies owned or controlled by foreign governments from acquiring U.S. port operations.<br /><br />Despite that review, some Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. Congress urged the Bush administration to conduct a more rigorous review. They expressed fears that the UAE was used as a conduit for parts used for nuclear proliferation and that the local banking system had been abused by financiers with possible links to terrorist organizations.<br />The President has come out against those who wish to secure our borders by calling members of the Minuteman Project “vigilantes.”<br /><br />The President has supported amnesty, or work visas, for people who BREAK THE LAW.<br /><br />I will even go so far as to say that if the President Bush supports this sale and works against a bill to block the sale, impeachment proceedings could legitimately occur. <br /><br />P&amp;O, the company Dubai Ports World plans to buy for $6.8 billion, is already foreign-owned, by the British, but the concern is that the purchaser is backed by the United Arab Emirates government*.<br /><br />This case has the appearance that the Security of the Homeland is secondary to profits, in this case.<br /><br /><br />*Reuters  ]]>
						</content:encoded>
					
			
			<pubDate>Fri, 17 Feb 2006 18:22:00 CST</pubDate>
		</item>
	
		
		
		
		<item>
			<title>How to solve the Education Funding Problem in ND</title>
			<link>http://www.areavoices.com/freerepub/?blog=1561</link>
			<guid>http://www.areavoices.com/freerepub/?blog=1561</guid>
			
				
						<description>
							<![CDATA[Profit Sharing.]]>
						</description>
						<content:encoded>
							<![CDATA[ Profit Sharing.  Just like in sports.  I don't know how it would work exactly, but if it works for the private sector, it can work for schools.  More affluent districts forgo things like new gyms and football fields so that the state school system as a whole thrives.  Then we get rid of Mayville State University, Lake Region College, and Williston State College to start with. Use the savings at the other universities to help keep down tuition increases.  Then we make it law that no tax money and no student tuition can go to funding sports. Make that private booster donations only.  At least its a start. At least its a plan. ]]>
						</content:encoded>
					
			
			<pubDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2006 17:39:00 CST</pubDate>
		</item>
	
		
		
		
		<item>
			<title>Can I get a Candidate?</title>
			<link>http://www.areavoices.com/freerepub/?blog=1549</link>
			<guid>http://www.areavoices.com/freerepub/?blog=1549</guid>
			
				
						<description>
							<![CDATA[Do you or someone you know want a career in politics?  If so and you are 25 years of age or older (for House)           Or   30 years old         (for Senate)  Apply now for the Republican Nomination  Even if you are not a Republican, Apply now while...]]>
						</description>
						<content:encoded>
							<![CDATA[ Do you or someone you know want a career in politics?  If so and you are 25 years of age or older (for House)           Or   30 years old         (for Senate)  Apply now for the Republican Nomination  Even if you are not a Republican, Apply now while Interest Rates are low!  Apply now, and we’ll explain how you can run for Congress Today!  ]]>
						</content:encoded>
					
			
			<pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2006 21:48:00 CST</pubDate>
		</item>
	
		
		
		
		<item>
			<title>North Dakota Bloggers Convention</title>
			<link>http://www.areavoices.com/freerepub/?blog=1360</link>
			<guid>http://www.areavoices.com/freerepub/?blog=1360</guid>
			
				
						<description>
							<![CDATA[ The convention has been put on hold.]]>
						</description>
						<content:encoded>
							<![CDATA[  <p><span style="font-weight: bold;">The convention has been put on hold.<br /> <br /> The current idea is to get a &quot;Blogger's Row&quot; going at the convention in Minot.</span></p><p><br />Right now, it is tentatively scheduled for March 31st in Bismarck.<br /><br />Signed up So Far<br /><br />Northern Conservative @K@ JMiller<br /></p><p><br />Say Anything @K@ Rob<br /></p><p><strong>Open thread for ideas. Suggestions. Etc.</strong></p> ]]>
						</content:encoded>
					
			
			<pubDate>Fri, 20 Jan 2006 10:34:00 CST</pubDate>
		</item>
	
		
		
		
		<item>
			<title>Defining Progressive Conservatism</title>
			<link>http://www.areavoices.com/freerepub/?blog=1398</link>
			<guid>http://www.areavoices.com/freerepub/?blog=1398</guid>
			
				
						<description>
							<![CDATA[The Progressive Conservatism Movement follows the tradition of Jeffersonian liberalism and Teddy Roosevelt style Progressivism, without sacrificing Conservative principles for comprimise.We believe every human being is endowed by nature with inherent rights to life, liberty and property that are properly secured by law.]]>
						</description>
						<content:encoded>
							<![CDATA[ <span style="font-family: Helvetica;" class="fsx03">The Progressive Conservatism Movement follows the tradition of Jeffersonian liberalism and Teddy Roosevelt style Progressivism, without sacrificing Conservative principles for comprimise.<br /><br />We believe every human being is endowed by nature with inherent rights to life, liberty and property that are properly secured by law. We support a strict construction of the Bill of Rights as a defense against tyranny; the expansion of those rights to all voluntary consensual conduct under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments; and the requirements of equal protection and due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.<br /><br />We oppose all restrictions on free and honest expression, most critically those that infringe on political discourse. We oppose public financing of campaigns and any law that allows organizations to collect campaign donations against the wishes of the organization's individual members.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">*This is the summary statement I wrote when I launched NPL2.org  </span></span>  ]]>
						</content:encoded>
					
			
			<pubDate>Wed, 18 Jan 2006 13:14:00 CST</pubDate>
		</item>
	
		
		
		
		<item>
			<title>Whose Who in North Dakota Youth Politics</title>
			<link>http://www.areavoices.com/freerepub/?blog=1365</link>
			<guid>http://www.areavoices.com/freerepub/?blog=1365</guid>
			
				
						<description>
							<![CDATA[ If your involved and say, under 35, submit yourself.]]>
						</description>
						<content:encoded>
							<![CDATA[  If your involved and say, under 35, submit yourself.  I will filter later.  ]]>
						</content:encoded>
					
			
			<pubDate>Sun, 15 Jan 2006 09:45:00 CST</pubDate>
		</item>
	
		
		
		
		<item>
			<title> Theory of General Conservatism</title>
			<link>http://www.areavoices.com/freerepub/?blog=1215</link>
			<guid>http://www.areavoices.com/freerepub/?blog=1215</guid>
			
				
						<description>
							<![CDATA[Reagan said &quot;Trust, but verify.&quot; So anyone who follows Bush blindly is by definition NOT conservative because, for better or worse, nobody can deny that Reagan was a conservative.]]>
						</description>
						<content:encoded>
							<![CDATA[ Reagan said &quot;Trust, but verify.&quot; <br /><br />So anyone who follows Bush blindly is by definition NOT conservative because, for better or worse, nobody can deny that Reagan was a conservative.  ]]>
						</content:encoded>
					
			
			<pubDate>Fri, 23 Dec 2005 16:58:00 CST</pubDate>
		</item>
	
		
		
		
		<item>
			<title>New Site</title>
			<link>http://www.areavoices.com/freerepub/?blog=1213</link>
			<guid>http://www.areavoices.com/freerepub/?blog=1213</guid>
			
				
						<description>
							<![CDATA[Domain is redirected.The new site's XML feed is http://freerepublicans.blogspot.com/atom.xml ...]]>
						</description>
						<content:encoded>
							<![CDATA[ Domain is redirected.<br /><br />The new site's XML feed is <br /><br />http://freerepublicans.blogspot.com/atom.xml<br />  ]]>
						</content:encoded>
					
			
			<pubDate>Fri, 23 Dec 2005 14:11:00 CST</pubDate>
		</item>
	
		
		
		
		<item>
			<title>Format Change</title>
			<link>http://www.areavoices.com/freerepub/?blog=1212</link>
			<guid>http://www.areavoices.com/freerepub/?blog=1212</guid>
			
				
						<description>
							<![CDATA[This AreaVoices will now become the North Dakota Only section.The FreeRepublicans.com domain will be redirected to a blogspot address.Please update your bookmarks to mirror this change.Thank you for reading.]]>
						</description>
						<content:encoded>
							<![CDATA[ This AreaVoices will now become the North Dakota Only section.<br /><br />The FreeRepublicans.com domain will be redirected to a blogspot address.<br /><br />Please update your bookmarks to mirror this change.<br /><br />Thank you for reading.<br />  ]]>
						</content:encoded>
					
			
			<pubDate>Fri, 23 Dec 2005 13:47:00 CST</pubDate>
		</item>
	
		
		
		
		<item>
			<title>Executive Order 12949</title>
			<link>http://www.areavoices.com/freerepub/?blog=1194</link>
			<guid>http://www.areavoices.com/freerepub/?blog=1194</guid>
			
				
						<description>
							<![CDATA[                        THE WHITE HOUSE                     Office of the Press Secretary________________________________________________________________________For Immediate Release                                   February 9, 1995                        EXECUTIVE ORDER 12949                            - - - - - - -               FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE PHYSICAL SEARCHES       By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitutionand the laws of the United States, including sections 302 and 303 of theForeign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (&quot;Act&quot;) (50 U.S.C.]]>
						</description>
						<content:encoded>
							<![CDATA[ <blockquote><em>                        THE WHITE HOUSE</em><br /><br /><em>                     Office of the Press Secretary</em><br /><br /><em>________________________________________________________________________</em><br /><em>For Immediate Release                                   February 9, 1995</em><br /><br /><br /><em>                        EXECUTIVE ORDER 12949</em><br /><br /><em>                            - - - - - - -</em><br /><em>               FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE PHYSICAL SEARCHES</em><br /><br /><br /><em>       By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution</em><br /><em>and the laws of the United States, including sections 302 and 303 of the</em><br /><em>Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (&quot;Act&quot;) (50 U.S.C.  1801,</em><br /><em>et seq.), as amended by Public Law 103- 359, and in order to provide for</em><br /><em>the authorization of physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes</em><br /><em>as set forth in the Act, it is hereby ordered as follows:</em><br /><br /><em>       Section 1.  Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the</em><br /><em>Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a</em><br /><em>court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of</em><br /><em>up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications</em><br /><em>required by that section.</em><br /><br /><em>       Sec. 2.  Pursuant to section 302(b) of the Act, the Attorney</em><br /><em>General is authorized to approve applications to the Foreign</em><br /><em>Intelligence Surveillance Court under section 303 of the Act to obtain</em><br /><em>orders for physical searches for the purpose of collecting foreign</em><br /><em>intelligence information.</em><br /><br /><em>       Sec. 3.  Pursuant to section 303(a)(7) of the Act, the following</em><br /><em>officials, each of whom is employed in the area of national security or</em><br /><em>defense, is designated to make the certifications required by section</em><br /><em>303(a)(7) of the Act in support of applications to conduct physical</em><br /><em>searches:</em><br /><br /><em>       (a) Secretary of State;</em><br /><br /><em>       (b) Secretary of Defense;</em><br /><br /><em>       (c) Director of Central Intelligence;</em><br /><br /><em>       (d) Director of the Federal Bureau of</em><br /><em>  Investigation;</em><br /><br /><em>       (e) Deputy Secretary of State;</em><br /><br /><em>       (f) Deputy Secretary of Defense; and</em><br /><br /><em>       (g) Deputy Director of Central Intelligence.</em><br /><br /><em>       None of the above officials, nor anyone officially acting in that</em><br /><em>capacity, may exercise the authority to make the above certifications,</em><br /><em>unless that official has been appointed by the President, by and with</em><br /><em>the advice and consent of the Senate.</em><br /><br /><br /><em>                         WILLIAM J. CLINTON</em><br /><br /><br /><em>  THE WHITE HOUSE,</em><br /></blockquote><pre>      February 9, 1995.<br /><br /><br />http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm<br /></pre>  ]]>
						</content:encoded>
					
			
			<pubDate>Wed, 21 Dec 2005 19:56:00 CST</pubDate>
		</item>
	
		
		
		
		<item>
			<title>Executive Order 12139</title>
			<link>http://www.areavoices.com/freerepub/?blog=1193</link>
			<guid>http://www.areavoices.com/freerepub/?blog=1193</guid>
			
				
						<description>
							<![CDATA[ By the authority vested in me as President by Sections 102 and   104 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C.]]>
						</description>
						<content:encoded>
							<![CDATA[  <blockquote><pre><em>By the authority vested in me as President by Sections 102 and<br />   104 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C.<br />   1802 and 1804), in order to provide as set forth in that Act (this<br />   chapter) for the authorization of electronic surveillance for<br />   foreign intelligence purposes, it is hereby ordered as follows:<br /><br />     1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence<br />   Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General<br />   is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign<br />   intelligence information without a court order, but only if the<br />   Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.<br /><br />     1-102. Pursuant to Section 102(b) of the Foreign Intelligence Act<br />   of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(b)), the Attorney General is authorized to<br />   approve applications to the court having jurisdiction under Section<br />   103 of that Act (50 U.S.C. 1803) to obtain orders for electronic<br />   surveillance for the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence<br />   information.<br /><br />     1-103. Pursuant to Section 104(a)(7) of the Foreign Intelligence<br />   Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1804(a)(7)), the following<br />   officials, each of whom is employed in the area of national<br />   security or defense, is designated to make the certifications<br />   required by Section 104(a)(7) of the Act in support of applications<br />   to conduct electronic surveillance:<br /><br />       (a) Secretary of State.<br /><br />       (b) Secretary of Defense.<br /><br />       (c) Director of Central Intelligence.<br /><br />       (d) Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.<br /><br />       (e) Deputy Secretary of State.<br /><br />       (f) Deputy Secretary of Defense.<br /><br />       (g) Deputy Director of Central Intelligence.<br /><br />   None of the above officials, nor anyone officially acting in that<br />   capacity, may exercise the authority to make the above<br />   certifications, unless that official has been appointed by the<br />   President with the advice and consent of the Senate.<br /><br />     1-104. Section 2-202 of Executive Order No. 12036 (set out under<br />   section 401 of this title) is amended by inserting the following at<br />   the end of that section: ''Any electronic surveillance, as defined<br />   in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, shall be<br />   conducted in accordance with that Act as well as this Order.''.<br /><br />     1-105. Section 2-203 of Executive Order No. 12036 (set out under<br />   section 401 of this title) is amended by inserting the following at<br />   the end of that section: ''Any monitoring which constitutes<br />   electronic surveillance as defined in the Foreign Intelligence<br />   Surveillance Act of 1978 shall be conducted in accordance with that<br />   Act as well as this Order.''.                          <br /><br /></em></pre></blockquote><pre><em>http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm                                                              Jimmy Carter.</em></pre>  ]]>
						</content:encoded>
					
			
			<pubDate>Wed, 21 Dec 2005 19:54:00 CST</pubDate>
		</item>
	
		
		
		
		<item>
			<title>Are you kidding me?</title>
			<link>http://www.areavoices.com/freerepub/?blog=1172</link>
			<guid>http://www.areavoices.com/freerepub/?blog=1172</guid>
			
				
						<description>
							<![CDATA[KABUL, Afghanistan -- A human rights group is alleging the United States operated a secret prison near Afghanistan's capital as recently as last year.The  group claims that music by Eminem and Dr.]]>
						</description>
						<content:encoded>
							<![CDATA[ <blockquote><em><strong class="Dateline">KABUL, Afghanistan -- </strong>A human rights group is alleging the United States operated a secret prison near Afghanistan's capital as recently as last year.The  group claims that music by Eminem and Dr. Dre were used as instruments of torture.<br /><br /></em></blockquote><strong>Thats just laugh-out-loud funny.  Eminem is torture?  I know he's not most people over 35's cup 'o' tea, but if its torture, I must be self-abusing.<br /><br />Pulling fingernails ala Syriana is torture.  This is not.  And if John McCain says Eminem is torture, he's lost all creditability.<br /><br /></strong><blockquote><em>New York-based Human Rights Watch has issued a report saying the United States operated a secret prison in Afghanistan and tortured detainees. The report quoted an Ethiopian-born detainee as saying he was kept in a pitch-black prison and forced to listen to Eminem and Dr. Dre’s rap music for 20 days before the music was replaced by &quot;horrible ghost laughter and Halloween sounds.&quot;</em></blockquote><strong>Oh no, they stopped playing Eminem and started playing Holloween sounds.<br /><br />Are Haunted Houses that children goto every year torture too?<br /><br /></strong><blockquote><em>The report said detainees at the facility -- known as &quot;Dark Prison&quot; -- were deprived of sleep, chained to walls and forced to listen to loud music in total darkness for days.<br /><br /></em></blockquote><strong>Sounds like some wierd alternative lifestyle fetish to me.<br /><br /></strong><blockquote><em>      The group said the allegations are credible enough to warrant an official investigation.      American officials say the United States doesn't engage in torture.  CIA officials have no commented on the allegations.<br /><br /></em></blockquote><strong>Of course they do.  Cause Rap is torture.  Maybe these people need to be investigated for being racist.</strong><br /><br /><br />http://www.kcra.com/news/5577000/detail.html<br />  ]]>
						</content:encoded>
					
			
			<pubDate>Mon, 19 Dec 2005 20:13:00 CST</pubDate>
		</item>
	
		
		
		
		<item>
			<title>Some questions that are un-answered?</title>
			<link>http://www.areavoices.com/freerepub/?blog=1169</link>
			<guid>http://www.areavoices.com/freerepub/?blog=1169</guid>
			
				
						<description>
							<![CDATA[1)  Is anyone actually reading this blog?2) Does the sub-title of the site make sense based upon the pieces I am writing?(*Too lazy to write on an actual topic right now) ...]]>
						</description>
						<content:encoded>
							<![CDATA[ 1)  Is anyone actually reading this blog?<br /><br />2) Does the sub-title of the site make sense based upon the pieces I am writing?<br /><br /><br />(*Too lazy to write on an actual topic right now)<br />  ]]>
						</content:encoded>
					
			
			<pubDate>Mon, 19 Dec 2005 16:58:00 CST</pubDate>
		</item>
	
		
		
		
		<item>
			<title>Bush Loves Activists Judges</title>
			<link>http://www.areavoices.com/freerepub/?blog=1158</link>
			<guid>http://www.areavoices.com/freerepub/?blog=1158</guid>
			
				
						<description>
							<![CDATA[     The idea that Bush is opposed to activist judges is a joke.]]>
						</description>
						<content:encoded>
							<![CDATA[  <strong><br /><br />    The idea that Bush is opposed to activist judges is a joke.  Lets recall back to a time not so long ago when a group of activist judges interceded in a little thing called the 2000 Florida Election.  <br /><br />    Of course the outcome was what was best for the nation.  That is not the issue tackled here.  <br /><br />    This is about the fact that if it weren’t for a group of activist judges, aka the Supreme Court, Bush would not be able to appoint so-called “not activist judges.”  The media would have forced the issue and Gore would be president for badder and worst.  <br /><br />    The Electoral College required that states submit certified results by December 18th.  Instead, the Supreme Court sent down the biggest defeat for states-rights since Brown vs. Education; maybe even since the Civil War.  <br />                                    <br />End Rant. </strong><br /> ]]>
						</content:encoded>
					
			
			<pubDate>Sat, 17 Dec 2005 20:58:00 CST</pubDate>
		</item>
	
		
		
		
		<item>
			<title>Rewriting, make that, Clarifying History</title>
			<link>http://www.areavoices.com/freerepub/?blog=1153</link>
			<guid>http://www.areavoices.com/freerepub/?blog=1153</guid>
			
				
						<description>
							<![CDATA[Anyone who says that 9/11 was the start of the War on Terror is ignorant, uneducated and should be tested to find if he/she is clinically mentally retarded.This is not another defending Bush piece; those aren’t fun anymore.]]>
						</description>
						<content:encoded>
							<![CDATA[ <br /><strong>Anyone who says that 9/11 was the start of the War on Terror is ignorant, uneducated and should be tested to find if he/she is clinically mentally retarded.<br /><br />This is not another defending Bush piece; those aren’t fun anymore.  More importantly they are ineffective and actually make things worse.    <br /><br />I wont even go back to Iran hostages, Beirut, WTC I, or Kobar Towers.  No, the current War on Terror (which is redundant since “war” is meant to cause terror) started in 1998 when One Man declared war on the Infidel, that’s us by the way.     <br /><br />From a hideout in the mountains of one of the most backwards countries in the world launched a strike on American interests in the Sudan and Kenya.     What was the U.S. Administration’s answer?  To launch 75 cruise missiles, at a cost of a million per, with the goal of killing One Man.  <br /><br />The greatest military power in the world, attempted to kill One Man by raining fire down from the sky.     His response?  Attack a Navy Destroyer that, fancy that, carried cruise missiles.  This however was not responded upon.   <br /><br />Thomas Friedman calls this One Man a “super-empowered angry individual.”     <br /><br />Before 9/11, Bush was pushing the missile defense shield to defend against a threat that did not yet exist.  At the same time he did just as little towards the bin Laden threat that did exist as Clinton did.     As strong as the “Clinton had 8 years, Bush had 8 months” argument is, it is still fairly weak.     <br /><br />Just as weak is the argument that because Clinton dismantled the military, Bush was hamstrung when 9/11 happened.  True, but if the Bush Administration realized when they entered office that the military was in trouble it should have acted starting Day 1.   <br /><br />I could go on, but you would probably wonder what my point has been this whole time.  <br /><br />My point is, when it seems that time lines and history are being rewritten maybe there is something else going on. <br /><br />Consider for a moment that the people trying to rewrite what has happened are actually trying to tell us that they realize that they were wrong but are too thick-skulled to actually admit it outright.</strong>  ]]>
						</content:encoded>
					
			
			<pubDate>Sat, 17 Dec 2005 15:29:00 CST</pubDate>
		</item>
	
		
		
		
		<item>
			<title>North Dakota&apos;s Air - Formerly Known as Clean Air</title>
			<link>http://www.areavoices.com/freerepub/?blog=1124</link>
			<guid>http://www.areavoices.com/freerepub/?blog=1124</guid>
			
				
						<description>
							<![CDATA[ I've travelled the country.]]>
						</description>
						<content:encoded>
							<![CDATA[  <strong>I've travelled the country.  I've been to the the big cities.  The air sucks.  Goto a place like D.C. and its like a blanket over your face.  North Dakota's air is still very clean by those standards. <br /><br />That said, this state must stop selling its soul and whoring itself out to the energy producers that are pretty much the entire basis for our economy at this point.<br /><br />We here in North Dakota have gotten to the point where we are dependent on  the money that the energy industry has pumped into the economy.  This is great, I would never say anything bad about the fact that this industy has been good for the economy and the income levels in this state.  But high paying jobs are not enough.<br /><br />Teddy Roosevelt came to North Dakota for the clean and open air that was not in New York City and was literally killing him in NYC.  Luckily there isn't much pollution out west, but in the Mercer County (where I grew up) and the Bismarck area the air is not nearly what it should be.<br /><br />I am not a tree hugger.  Typically, can't stand enviromentalist wacko's who think of everything in terms of 'enviromentally friendly.'<br /><br />Rather, this issue should be looked at from the point of view of 'human friendliness.'  <br /><br />North Dakota is a conservative state, as am I a conservative person.  But it has always been my feeling that there isn't nearly enough conservation within the conservative movement.<br /><br />This state should make a concerted effort to not only be energy independent and self sustaining, but also a 'clean' or 'green' state, whichever your political leanings tell you is better.<br /><br />North Dakota's economic success should not be at the cost of its clean air and its children's respiratory health.<br /><br />Conservatism cannot be genuine without conservation; whether that is fiscal, social, or enviromental.<br /></strong>  ]]>
						</content:encoded>
					
			
			<pubDate>Wed, 14 Dec 2005 18:07:00 CST</pubDate>
		</item>
	
		
		
		
		<item>
			<title>Pomeroy makes Drudge at the top of the page</title>
			<link>http://www.areavoices.com/freerepub/?blog=1083</link>
			<guid>http://www.areavoices.com/freerepub/?blog=1083</guid>
			
				
						<description>
							<![CDATA[For telling Howard Dean to &quot;shut up.&quot;And you know what? I agree with what he said.]]>
						</description>
						<content:encoded>
							<![CDATA[ <strong>For telling Howard Dean to &quot;shut up.&quot;<br /><br />And you know what? I agree with what he said.  He actually made some sense.  We give props where props are deserved.</strong><br /><br /><br />http://www.drudgereport.com<br />http://www.bismarcktribune.com/articles/2005/12/09/news/state/106702.prt<br />  ]]>
						</content:encoded>
					
			
			<pubDate>Fri, 09 Dec 2005 14:10:00 CST</pubDate>
		</item>
	
		
		
		
		<item>
			<title>What Jim Gilchrist&apos;s 25% Really Means</title>
			<link>http://www.areavoices.com/freerepub/?blog=1057</link>
			<guid>http://www.areavoices.com/freerepub/?blog=1057</guid>
			
				
						<description>
							<![CDATA[Yesterday, California's 48th Congressional District had a special election.]]>
						</description>
						<content:encoded>
							<![CDATA[ <strong>Yesterday, California's 48th Congressional District had a special election.  The Republican John Campbell won with 44% - defeating the Democratic (28%) candidate as well as the founder of The Minuteman Project, Jim Gilchrist (25%) running under the American Independent Party label (part of the California Constitutional Party).  <br /><br />3rd place may not seem that big, but 25% for a 3rd Party is huge in any Federal Election.  Could this be sign for '06 and '08?<br /><br />Many, including myself have predicted that Border Security would be THE issue to divided the conservative base in upcoming elections.  After Bush declared The Minutemen on the Mexican border to be nothing more than Vigilantes, the tide turned and in the eyes of many conservatives who believe this to be the central issue today saw Bush as the enemy.<br /><br />This will be the issue that splits the conservative vote in upcoming elections.  If an &quot;America First&quot; type neo-isolationist party can get a 25% showing, the Republican Party will be in trouble.  That is, unless it changes its ways and adopts the view of its base.<br /></strong><br />  ]]>
						</content:encoded>
					
			
			<pubDate>Wed, 07 Dec 2005 16:05:00 CST</pubDate>
		</item>
	
		
		
		
		<item>
			<title>Kerry on the verge of Treason</title>
			<link>http://www.areavoices.com/freerepub/?blog=1045</link>
			<guid>http://www.areavoices.com/freerepub/?blog=1045</guid>
			
				
						<description>
							<![CDATA[ I thought he was &quot;For the Troops&quot; but &quot;against the war&quot;?  Now he says the troops are terrorists?http://64.34.217.22/~politeen/video/kerrysaidwhat.wmv Statement by Kerry spokesman David Wade: 'Ken Mehlman’s filthy and shameful lie about a decorated combat veteran is disgraceful.]]>
						</description>
						<content:encoded>
							<![CDATA[  <blockquote><strong>I thought he was &quot;For the Troops&quot; but &quot;against the war&quot;?  Now he says the troops are terrorists?</strong><br /></blockquote><strong><br /><a href="http://64.34.217.22/~politeen/video/kerrysaidwhat.wmv">http://64.34.217.22/~politeen/video/kerrysaidwhat.wmv</a><br /><br /></strong><blockquote><blockquote><blockquote><blockquote><tt> Statement by Kerry spokesman David Wade: 'Ken Mehlman’s filthy and shameful lie about a decorated combat veteran is disgraceful. Political hack Ken Mehlman and draft dodging, donut eating Rush Limbaugh have something in common. Neither of them know anything about how to make American troops safe. John Kerry will continue to speak out about how to succeed in Iraq and protect brave American troops'...</tt></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><strong><br /></strong>  ]]>
						</content:encoded>
					
			
			<pubDate>Tue, 06 Dec 2005 15:24:00 CST</pubDate>
		</item>
	
		
		
		
		<item>
			<title>Lieberman Gets It</title>
			<link>http://www.areavoices.com/freerepub/?blog=987</link>
			<guid>http://www.areavoices.com/freerepub/?blog=987</guid>
			
				
						<description>
							<![CDATA[ Frankly, Joe Lieberman (whom I have always thought was the most practical Democrat and would probably have won in 2000 if the party hadn't casted him aside) makes a much better case for 'staying the course' than the President himself does.]]>
						</description>
						<content:encoded>
							<![CDATA[  <font size="3" face="&quot;Trebuchet MS&quot;, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Frankly, Joe Lieberman </strong>(whom I have always thought was the most practical Democrat and would probably have won in 2000 if the party hadn't casted him aside)<strong> makes a much better case for 'staying the course' than the President himself does.  Of course just by saying the words 'stay the course' he doesn't give much supporting information or reasoning. <br /><br /></strong></font><blockquote><em><font size="3" face="&quot;Trebuchet MS&quot;, arial, helvetica, sans-serif">More work needs to be done, of course, but the Iraqi people are in reach of a watershed transformation from the primitive, killing tyranny of Saddam to modern, self-governing, self-securing nationhood--unless the great American military that has given them and us this unexpected opportunity is prematurely withdrawn.</font></em></blockquote><strong>Logical.  Solid.  To the point.  <br /><br /></strong><blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Times"><font size="3"><em>I</em></font><em><font size="3" face="&quot;Trebuchet MS&quot;, arial, helvetica, sans-serif">t is a war between 27 million and 10,000; 27 million Iraqis who want to live lives of freedom, opportunity and prosperity and roughly 10,000 terrorists who are either Saddam revanchists, Iraqi Islamic extremists or al Qaeda foreign fighters who know their wretched causes will be set back if Iraq becomes free and modern. The terrorists are intent on stopping this by instigating a civil war to produce the chaos that will allow Iraq to replace Afghanistan as the base for their fanatical war-making. We are fighting on the side of the 27 million because the outcome of this war is critically important to the security and freedom of America. If the terrorists win, they will be emboldened to strike us directly again and to further undermine the growing stability and progress in the Middle East, which has long been a major American national and economic security priority.</font></em></font></blockquote><strong>Why isn't the administration able to put it in these succinct of terms?<br /></strong><font size="3" face="&quot;Trebuchet MS&quot;, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><em><br /></em></font><blockquote><font size="3" face="&quot;Trebuchet MS&quot;, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><em>Does America have a good plan for doing this, a strategy for victory in Iraq? Yes we do. And it is important to make it clear to the American people that the plan has not remained stubbornly still but has changed over the years. Mistakes, some of them big, were made after Saddam was removed, and no one who supports the war should hesitate to admit that; but we have learned from those mistakes and, in characteristic American fashion, from what has worked and not worked on the ground. The administration's recent use of the banner &quot;clear, hold and build&quot; accurately describes the strategy as I saw it being implemented last week.<br /><br /></em></font></blockquote><strong>This may be the best PR the administration has had in all of 2005.  <br /><br />...<br />If more Democrats thought the way that Lieberman does the NeoCon Republican Party as we know it would cease to exist because there is no need.<br /><br />Not only that but Lieberman is also more fiscally conservative than Bush ever has been.<br /><br /></strong><br /><strong>...<br />Read the entire piece.  Its actually some of the best writing I've seen in a while.<br /></strong>http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007611<br /> ]]>
						</content:encoded>
					
			
			<pubDate>Thu, 01 Dec 2005 16:40:00 CST</pubDate>
		</item>
	
		
		
		
		<item>
			<title>50 Cent feat. Dubya</title>
			<link>http://www.areavoices.com/freerepub/?blog=966</link>
			<guid>http://www.areavoices.com/freerepub/?blog=966</guid>
			
				
						<description>
							<![CDATA[50 Cent and Kanye West are the only ones selected to be GQ's &quot;Men of the Year&quot; who have no false modesty about it — both of the hip-hop stars justify their big egos in the mag's pages.]]>
						</description>
						<content:encoded>
							<![CDATA[ <blockquote><em><span class="blkPnkHover"><span style="text-align: left;" class="storyCopy"><strong>50 Cent</strong> and <strong>Kanye West</strong> are the only ones selected to be GQ's &quot;Men of the Year&quot; who have no false modesty about it — both of the hip-hop stars justify their big egos in the mag's pages. But they also have more on their minds </span><span class="storyCopy">than just themselves. Like <strong>George W. Bush</strong>, for one. 50 thinks the president is &quot;incredible ... a gangsta.&quot; &quot;I wanna meet George Bush, just shake his hand and tell him how much of me I see in him,&quot; 50 told GQ. If the rapper's felony conviction didn't prevent him from voting, 50 said he would have voted for Bush. Meanwhile, Kanye basically called Bush a racist on national television, and has since rethought his strategy for speaking out. &quot;When NBC edited it out on the West Coast, that was a wakeup call,&quot; West told the magazine. &quot;It let people know how censored we still are. This is supposed to be America, but you can't get your opinion out. There's all kinds of things I want to say, but I need to pace myself, to make sure my opportunities to say these things aren't taken away too abruptly.&quot; Kanye says after giving us entertainment, his next goal is to give us &quot;inspiration.&quot; 50's next goal? He wants to market a condom. ...<br /><br /></span></span></em></blockquote><strong>I don't know if this funny, scary, or cool.  After seeing <em><u>Get Rich or Die Trying </u></em>its not shocking that he felt this way.  The movie was a &quot;F*** the system/government/police&quot; message, but it did have stong &quot;pull yourself up by the boots straps&quot; undertones.  <br /><br /><br />Funny how opponents of Bush call him a 'cowboy,' which is the term for the type of person that tamed the west, and its a bad thing.  Now when someone calls him a 'gangsta,' the type of person who has created a negative image of minorities, its concidered a good thing - at least by the person who says it.<br /><br /><br />Who says American culture isn't diverse?</strong><em><span class="blkPnkHover"></span></em><br /><em><span class="blkPnkHover"><span class="storyCopy"></span></span></em><br /><em><span class="blkPnkHover"><span class="storyCopy"></span></span></em><br /><em><span class="blkPnkHover"></span></em><strong>And yes, I quoted MTV News.</strong><br /><br />http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1514482/20051123/50_cent.jhtml?headlines=true  ]]>
						</content:encoded>
					
			
			<pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov 2005 13:03:00 CST</pubDate>
		</item>
	
		
		
		
		<item>
			<title>Disgusting</title>
			<link>http://www.areavoices.com/freerepub/?blog=945</link>
			<guid>http://www.areavoices.com/freerepub/?blog=945</guid>
			
				
						<description>
							<![CDATA[Needs no comment at all, read for yourself.http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1892696,00.html ...]]>
						</description>
						<content:encoded>
							<![CDATA[ Needs no comment at all, read for yourself.<br /><br />http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1892696,00.html<br />  ]]>
						</content:encoded>
					
			
			<pubDate>Mon, 28 Nov 2005 14:02:00 CST</pubDate>
		</item>
	
		</channel>
		</rss>
	