A Lot about a Little - Dean T. Hartwell's Site
  • Home
  • Planes without Passengers
  • WTC7
  • Jury Duty
  • MOTION DISMISSED!
  • Essays
  • Testimonials
  • Contact

If Our Leaders Gave Us What We Need, We Would Never Want

10/29/2010

1 Comment

 

If Our Leaders Gave Us What We Need, We Would Never Want

What do you want from the next Congress?

Lower taxes?
It sounds great to pay less in taxes.  But there are consequences worth considering:

Debt reduction?
A lower debt also sounds pretty good.  We would pay less in interest for it over time.  But reducing the debt means one or both of two unpopular ideas:
(1) Raise taxes.  Good luck!  No one believes that they are not being taxed enough!
(2) Cut spending.  But that will get a strong reaction.  That is because almost all of us are affected by government spending.  Consider:

Do you know of anyone who depends upon Medicare or Social Security?  Odds are you probably do.  Try telling them government spending is bad.  It seems that when people want spending cuts, they think it won't affect them.  And they don't want to handle the consequences of those spending reductions.

Governments exist to tax us and spend the money for collective purposes.  Few would argue that the government needs to spend on defending us, assisting the sick, the young and the elderly and in maintaining infrastructure like freeways and bridges.  These kinds of expenditures take up most of the budget and are not seriously debated among members of Congress.

What about the part of the budget that is debated?

These expenditures are known as "discretionary" because they go beyond the typical outlays each year. 

One example of discretionary spending is the money spent on fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Some have calculated total expenditures so far to be in the trillions for both.  It shouldn't be hard to cut this spending, perhaps even completely, on the grounds that neither nation was any threat to us.

But the problem is that wars are not fought with any sense of rationale or any attempt to win.  The fact is that we have not fought a war for the valid reasons of self-defense in several decades.  Our wars, at least from Viet Nam on, have been fought to enrich the "War Party" of contractors, generals and those who live to challenge the patriotism of others.  Winning the war is not the goal; helping this party of people make a stack of money is.

What if we wanted something environmentally or otherwise socially responsible?  We could agree to a tax raise to fund an extravagant and efficient train system, modeled after the one in Japan.  But how could we stop the automobile lobby, which usually opposes this idea?  Or convince people to give up their cars which cause so much of the pollution that we breathe?

There is nothing new for Congress to offer us anymore.  Our relationships with those in power no longer have anything to do with money, other than the usual "pork" given to some members of our districts.

Now is the time to focus on the things our elected officials should really provide: the courage to confront the criminals among their own, the candor to tell us the truths we do not want to hear and the creativity with which to solve new problems.  Some day we may yet mend the rift in trust that the public has with those in power.  And with that trust we would feel better about who we are and where we live.

Sometimes it is better to get what you need rather than what you want.


1 Comment

How to Fix a Broken Government

10/24/2010

1 Comment

 

How to Fix a Broken Government

How many times have you gone to a public agency and asked for help on an issue you had, only be told one of the following:

“That’s not our department.”

“I don’t have the authority to do that.”

“Rules are rules.”

This type of run-around gives bureaucracy that bad name that it has with most people.  As someone who works for a public bureaucracy and who is also a customer, I write now to present ideas on how our government can address the issue and make itself more accessible to the public.

The new structure needed is simple: the public has answers and the government has an obligation to provide them.

If the government wants to do its best to provide answers, then it has an obligation to send its most knowledgeable people to discuss matters with the public.

Who are the most knowledgeable people?  These people are usually the ones who have been within a given subject, the ones who have moved up in the ranks and who have acquired the most knowledge of specific rules and laws.

This person typically occupies the position of head of the department.  Or at least they should be.  In any event, a department head, from my observation in having worked at different cities, spends quite a bit of time at meetings, public ceremonies or other “official” duties.

Some of these duties may truly be necessary, but the public would benefit more if the department head sat at the table across from customers and gave the official answers to their questions.

That way, the customers can (1) get an answer from the person required to stand by it, (2) avoid the delay of going through other people and (3) receive the respect they need right away, especially if the question is especially difficult.

The bureaucracy will benefit as well.  No longer will mistakes made by subordinates of the department head cause delays in the government’s ability to resolve the dispute.  The department will also get through its cases much more efficiently.

Adjustments can be made in the office to suit the department head’s schedule.  When the department head must go out of the office (vacation, educational course, etc.), they can designate someone to be in charge.  This substitute would receive the best kind of training possible: on-the-job training.

And what about everyone else who currently handle customer questions? 

They should rotate sitting next to the boss to learn more about the difficult questions that the public asks the department.  They will learn more about what issues the department handles and what should be sent to another department (with the specific person’s name and title to be contacted).

Changes to the way the government handles matters do not have to be major or sweeping.  They just have to respond to the needs of the people who keep our government in “business”: the public.

1 Comment

The Hartwell Manifesto - Creating Dialogue the USA Needs Now

8/20/2010

1 Comment

 
The United States has no solid answers in response to the numerous problems facing us.

Unemployment is still double-digits in many areas. So we wonder about our economic security, without which we can do so little.
Two wars, Afghanistan and Iraq, fought for no good reason, continue. So we wonder about our nation's future in foreign affairs and about those who volunteer for the armed forces.
The government will still not release relevant information pertaining to events such as the JFK Assassination. So we wonder about the honesty of those who lead us.

We are a nation without answers because we do not ask the right questions. Political discussion, to be of use to our society, would revolve around identifying problems like the ones above, asking questions so as to determine their cause and use hypothesis to test for solutions. Instead, our discussion has been about whose fault something is and how it will affect the two main political parties in the next election.

Instead we hear people's feelings about political parties and candidates and outrage over who has done or said what. Two recent news stories, of Dr. Laura using the "N-word" on the radio and the proposed building of a mosque and cultural center near the World Trade Center, have stirred far more emotion than sense in those talking about them. We should respond to fear by calling upon reason. I really believe that we can do better than this and here is what I propose:

For every opinion like "Obama is not a natural-born citizen," we can use the reason of a summary judgment argument to determine if it is worthwhile to continue. In other words, we could stipulate or say for the sake of argument that the statement is true. Then we ask if it matters. Even if Obama is not a natural-born citizen, there is nothing Congress or anyone else can do to remove him from office. So we should drop the subject or put it into the political file for his opponents in 2012.

For every opinion like "The 'terrorists' are going to get us" we can employ facts over fear. We should ask who "they" are. If one responds the "Muslims" or "Radical Islam," we could ask for facts, such as any facts pointing to radical Muslims in regards to 9/11. Keeping accusers honest is imperative to keeping down the threshold of prejudice and bigotry in our society.

For every opinion like "Public employees are fat cats," we can address ad hominem attacks. Such statements stereotype a group of people unfairly and are becoming common after the City of Bell fiasco in which members of the City Council and other city employees arranged for huge salaries and pensions. The fact is that not all public employees are so well off: the average retired public employee receives $20,000 per year as a pension.

Reason tells us that it is wrong to attack those who cannot fight back. Good discussion is fair and affords everyone a chance to respond. Even if one wants all illegal immigrants deported, the scapegoating of this group or anyone without a voice in power destroys this basic tenet.

We need a dialogue, not a monologue. We can ask questions and listen to others to answer. In fact, we must do this or risk further dividing this nation based on emotions, prejudices and biases.

Here are four questions that we as a nation should answer as part of a dialogue:

What is the proper role of our government and how can we apply this role to basic issues?
Do we support the equality of opportunity and if not, to whom do we deny it and why?
How do we decide when it is time to go to war?
What is a reasonable expectation of privacy in this day and age of the Internet and cell phones?

The public should know the basics of law. Simple knowledge of legal rules like the presumption of innocence, that a law is presumed constitutional upon its passage unless a proper court rules otherwise and that the Bill of Rights refers to the government's suppression of rights like free speech and not the private sector's actions.

We can find the answers to what troubles us and make our nation a better place to live. That's my opinion. What is yours?
1 Comment

Reverse the Revolution of 1963

8/13/2010

0 Comments

 
Complaints about President Obama's foreign policy can be heard among those who voted for change from his predecessor.  But determining what to do about Guantanamo Bay, the rights of suspected terrorists and even finding ways to end the failed wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will only address symptoms of a deeper problem.

Not even a revolution will cause substantial change if no one knows the root of what harms our nation.  We should understand that we had a revolution in 1963.  It would serve us well to recall how we got from there to here:

In November of that year, several shots fired from different directions felled President John Kennedy in broad daylight in Dallas, Texas.  An innocent man, Lee Harvey Oswald, was framed for the crime and the authorities missed several leads, such as dozens of “ear” witnesses who said the fatal shot came from in front of the president’s motorcade.

Enter Lyndon Baines Johnson, sworn in next to the late president’s widow, who still had his blood on her clothes.  As soon as LBJ covered up the JFK assassination by appointing enemies of JFK to "investigate" the coup was complete.  The revolution began and has never stopped.

Johnson went on to reverse JFK’s draw down of our involvement in a war in Viet Nam.  And after using false reports of U.S. ships being fired upon in the Gulf of Tonkin to get “authority” to prosecute the war, he never looked back.  He attempted to fund social programs to fight poverty and the war.

Enter Richard Nixon who said we had to choose one or the other.  Guess which one he chose?

The war ultimately took the lives of millions of Vietnamese people along with over 58,000 of our troops.  The public found out by that time that our leaders had lied about the war thanks to the Pentagon Papers and other reports.

No matter.

Enter Jimmy Carter.  Elected after the only non-elected President, Gerald Ford, took over from Nixon, Carter said he would not lie.  But even the president who used military force least often among recent presidents got us involved in a covert war in Afghanistan.  He shipped weapons illegally through Pakistan to a group of people who fought alongside Osama bin Laden.

We had to stop the communists!

But the CIA wanted more covert action to fight the communists in Nicaragua.  Carter wouldn’t do it.  Not a problem.  The revolution continued with some new leaders.

Enter Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.  Reagan was the front man who talked tough about Iran who held our people hostage.  Bush was the guy in the back room making deals with the Ayatollah by sending him weapons in exchange for a delay in the release of the hostages.

Since then, we have continued with a succession of presidents who have kept the military happy.  Bill Clinton went for Somalia and Bosnia, while George W. Bush used a false 9/11 story about terrorists as a pretext for invading Afghanistan and Iraq.  Now Obama has kept the war drums going in both nations.

People such as military generals, arms contractors, politicians, those with stock in the contractors and the idiots who wave the flag no matter what have a major hand in this problem. They make up the "War Party." Though a minority, they have conned the rest of us into accepting a new kind of war.

Instead of fighting wars that we could win or even battle to a draw (like the Korean War), we started getting involved in wars for the sake of fighting wars.


Of course that sounds like unwise policy, so:

The War Party has employed phony arguments like Tonkin and 9/11 and phony enemies like bin Laden.

They have factored the phrase "national security" into public announcements of decisions but no one ever says what it means.

They told us we had to stop the "domino effect" in Viet Nam, but even though we lost South Viet Nam, the dominos did not fall.


They told us that we had to oppose the communists who don’t believe in freedom though South Vietnamese, our allies, never held free elections during the time we occupied their nation.

They told us Saddam Hussein was an ally, then they later said he was another “Hitler.”

They have told us both China and Cuba are evil communists, but that it is OK to trade with China but not Cuba.

They have told us bin Laden did 9/11 but fail to tell us that they have never indicted him for it. 

They told us that we must be “tough on terrorists” while they traded arms to try to free them.

 

We cannot understand change without understand what got us where we are.  Ignorance of history and its consequences is far more of any enemy than President Obama or any politician could ever be.

We could say we are victims of the War Party but by tolerating them we become accomplices to their greed.   Understanding our own role in perpetuating the revolution is the first step in causing its demise.

0 Comments

Blame for City of Bell Salary Fiasco Belongs to Residents

7/23/2010

0 Comments

 
You want to start throwing stones at the City of Bell (California) for changing its charter to allow outrageous salaries for its council members?  OK, but first let me say this:

The City did nothing illegal when it amended its charter in 2005.  It simply changed its status from “general law” to “charter law.”  This change allowed them to ignore the limits that the state places upon the salaries of members of a city council.

How did they make this change?

They asked the voters.  And, in a city of 40,000 people, a grand total of 336 voters showed up to vote, according to today’s edition of the Los Angeles Times.

Some have pointed out that the ballot, which contained only the vote on whether to become a charter city, made no mention of city council salaries.  That is true.  But did the voters who bothered to show up really believe that something put on the ballot would have no effect if it passed?

The voters should have done a little homework.  Were there no lawyers among them who understand the difference between a general law city and a charter law one?  The distinction allows a charter city to make many of its own rules.

A check on Wikipedia would have told them: “A city organized under a charter may choose different systems, including the ‘strong mayor’ or ‘city manager’ forms of government.”

I would call the Bell system a “strong city council” form of government, but the point is that with a little diligence, some of the voters reading their sample ballots could have sensed some big changes.  Apparently, no one did much about it because the initiative passed.

Now, about those who did not vote.  How many of them have shown up recently to Bell City Council meetings to protest this outrage?  Maybe some of these non-voters will start voting now that they see the consequences of elections.  But shame on those who sat the election out and who now cry about it.

And what about the whopping city manager and police chief salaries?  It is not at all surprising that those who got their hands in the trough fed a few of those who might otherwise have complained about the city council salaries.  Corruption feeds corruption, but this happens when people do not watch those who govern them.

Now the people of Bell have a mess on their hands.  They have pushed the council to fire the same people they fed big salaries to.  The consequence will be that people across the state will have to pay, in part, for their big pensions.

Cast stones at whomever you want.  But if you don’t pay attention to the people whom you have allowed others to serve you, one of the stones will come back and hit you.

The author is a city government employee in the State of California.

0 Comments

A Public Liaison Would Give Us a Dialogue with Our Leaders

5/17/2010

2 Comments

 
For almost fifty years, researchers of the JFK assassination not convinced that our government has provided satisfactory answers about this event have petitioned representatives for satisfactory answers.  But no one has provided those answers.

Officially, our leaders still believe in the long-discredited single bullet theory, the guilt of an innocent man, Lee Oswald and have not released information such as Oswald’s last tax returns, which would likely confirm his status as a government informant.

Other controversies have come up since then as well, such as the events of 9/11.  But the government has done no better in providing information requested by the public than it did with the JFK assassination.  Authorities have still not released video footage of the Pentagon, which could help determine what really struck the building that day.

No one can seriously regard our leaders as honest partners in their informal contract with us.  Those of us who work, pay taxes and better our society deserve something more than reports that whitewash what really happened.

We deserve, at the very least, a dialogue with those who serve us.

Not a ten second “meet-and-greet” handshake from our representatives, not a form letter from the White House thanking us for our concerns or assurances from anyone who won an election that they will work for us.  These things have their place but we need to know that we have recourse if we are not satisfied with what those who govern us say.

A single person could serve as our liaison to the government.  They could be appointed by Congress or the President.  And every Friday, they could be required by law to stand in a city hall or other public building anywhere in the United States and answer questions that people ask them.

Undoubtedly, the liaison may well be tempted to dismiss questions about Oswald or the 9/11 Pentagon on the grounds of “national security.”  But it would be much harder to give this answer in front of hundreds of people in person (and, perhaps, television cameras).  Especially when they know they are going to hear it over and over again.

The liaison could also be requested to provide documents, tapes, photographs, etc.  And they could explain what they are able to release and what they are not.  And the public who attend the meetings could ask why.

A dialogue, not a monologue like the speeches we have been given about lone assassins who fire more bullets than their guns have available.

A real person to approach, not a report to mislead us into accepting whatever our leaders tell us.

Answers, not just questions that merely assure us we are on the right track.

Appointment of a Public Liaison will not answer our questions by itself, but it would give us the standing to ask the right questions and to continue to stand until we are given the respect we deserve and which we give to our leaders.
2 Comments

The Lies That Bind: Why the Public Must Cross-Examine Its Leaders

3/3/2010

0 Comments

 
 “Nixon Gives Medal of Freedom to G. Gordon Liddy”
 “Experts agree that AIDS is a myth”
 “Clinton Removed from Office for Lying about Consensual Affair”
  
   What do you think about these headlines?  You may quickly conclude that none of them ever happened and that is true.  But there is more to it.
   These are headlines that could have happened if citizens simply accepted what their leaders told them and refused to question anything.  It demonstrates that we have it within ourselves the power to research what we are told.
   Upon the news of a break-in at the Democratic National Headquarters in June 1972, much of the media and the public figured it was just politics.  Even when allegations mounted that President Nixon had covered up White House connections to the break-in, most people believed Nixon when he said that there would be "no whitewash at the White House."
   The decision by Bob Woodward, Carl Bernstein and some leaders in Congress to pursue the matter further was a decision to challenge or cross-examine the President's story.  They were willing to acknowledge the possibility that Nixon had lied and covered up the matter, which first took the understanding of why Nixon had a motive to lie.  Like most leaders, he feared embarassment of getting caught and had trouble coming up with a convincing apology after the story took hold.
   By his silence over the issue, President Reagan implied that there was no AIDS problem in the United States in the early to mid-1980s.  As the number of cases of people, particularly young gay men, contracting a mysterious illness skyrocketed, more and more community leaders demanded action from Congress and the President to identify this disease and to fund research to find a cure for it.  Yet it took years for Reagan to comprehend the problem and to speak of it.
   Those who urged a new policy on AIDS challenged Reagan and other politicians on the grounds that government is not always a superior source of information.  Politics often determines who leads government agencies charged with handling a general issue.  Ignorance among politicians about the disease and, to some extent, homophobia prevented them for taking the problem seriously.
   When the news broke that President Clinton had had an affair with Monica Lewinsky and then lied about it at a deposition, most Republicans and some Democrats wanted to impeach him.  When Clinton made it clear he wasn't going to leave without a fight, Republicans in the House went ahead and impeached him.  Name calling over his misconduct continued and was reported frequently to the public, with some going as far as to say that it was not only a legal issue, but a moral one.
   With Clinton clearly guilty as charged, a sizeable group in the public decided to defend the President against impeachment and removal from office.  In doing so, they saw through the emotional pleas that some leaders made that leaving Clinton in office was a catastrophe in the making.  These defenders calmly read the Constitution and concluded that Clinton had not committed treason, bribery, high crimes or misdemeanors (his lie at the deposition was not a crime, but rather a matter handled by the judge who fined him, reinstated a case against him and suspended his law license).
   We must remember these lessons when we hear lies from our leaders.  They have motivation to lie to us about serious matters because they are humans who have their own agendas - not just policies but their own viability as politicians.  The government is also not the best source of information.  On issues in which government agents may be involved (ex: Watergate, 9/11, etc.), we should not expect full candor or honesty from our leaders.  And we should never cave in to a threat of a disaster without reasoning.  Abandoning reason and failing to read history is the greatest disaster of all.  
0 Comments

    Author

    Dean Hartwell keeps pursuing the truth about those who govern us.

    Categories

    All
    9/11
    9/11
    9/11 Flights
    9/11 Flights
    9/11 Flights
    9/11 Lies
    9/11 Lies
    9/11 Myth
    9/11 Passengers
    9/11 Passengers
    9/11 Passengers
    9/11 Passengers
    9/11 Phone
    9/11 Planes
    9/11 Planes
    9/11 Planes
    9/11 Plot
    9/11 Relatives
    9/11 Truth
    9/11 Truth
    9/11 Truth
    Acars
    Addiction
    Adventist
    Adversity
    A Fans Folklore5e0914a21d
    Afp
    Agent
    Agents
    Allies
    Amazon
    American 11
    American 77
    American 77
    American Free Press
    Amnesty
    Argument
    Armed Forces
    Assassination
    Associated Press
    Atheism
    Author
    Authority
    Authors
    Barbara Olson
    Barnes And Noble
    Baseball
    Battle
    Belief
    Bible
    Bill Giltner
    Bin Laden
    Bin Laden Framed
    Bipolar
    Bipolar Disorder
    Birthers
    Blogtalkradio
    Bob Fox
    Book
    Book Review
    Books
    Broncos
    Budget
    Bullies
    Bully
    Bureaucracy
    Burley
    Bush Administration
    Calpers
    Campaign
    Campaign 2016
    Candor
    Cell Phone Calls
    Change
    Charles Giuliani
    Cheating
    Cheney
    Choice
    Christianity
    Chuck Ochelli
    Cia
    Cimino
    Circle
    City Of San Bernardino
    Cleveland
    Colin Powell
    Comments
    Communication
    Conflict
    Conformity
    Conspiracy
    Constitution
    Constructiveness
    Contract
    Conversation
    Corporations
    Country
    Court
    Critical Acclaim
    Critical Thinking
    D
    Danne Burleyb5f49f8b7f
    Danne Burley Show3cf92a4960
    David Cay Johnston
    Dead Men Talking
    Dean Hartwell
    Debate
    Decisions
    Deficit
    Democrats
    Deportation
    Depression
    Detectors
    Dialogue
    Dick Cheney
    Discussion
    Dishonesty
    Disnformation
    Distortion
    Dont Ask Dont Tell
    Drugs
    Economy
    Election 2000
    Empowerment
    Enemies
    Error
    Euphemism
    Evidence
    Facts
    Facts Talk
    Fair Elections
    Faith
    Fakery
    Fantasy Football
    Fate
    Fear
    Fetzer
    Flight 11
    Flight 175
    Flight 77
    Flight 93
    Flights
    Football
    Footnotes
    Foreign Policy
    Free Agency
    Freedom
    Free Will
    Fuqua
    Future
    Game
    Gatekeepers
    Gay Rights
    Gays
    Gingrich
    God
    Gop
    Government
    Government Lies
    Government Responsiveness
    Grand Chessboard
    Guardian
    Gumshoe News
    Gun Control
    Gun Rights
    Happiness
    Hartwell
    Hijackers
    History
    Hoax
    Homophobia
    Hope
    Hypocrisy
    Identity
    Idolotry
    Illegal Immigration
    Immaculate Reception
    Immigration
    Infiltration
    Inlaws4243aba70b
    Innocence
    Integrity
    Intel Hub
    Intelligence
    Internet
    Interview
    Interviews
    Intuition
    Irancontra8ce74f07fb
    Isolation
    Issues
    Jack Tatum
    Jesus
    Jfk
    Jfk Assassination
    Jim Fetzer
    Jim Mason
    Jim Viken
    Joe Paterno
    John Anderson
    John B Anderson4f095ea31b
    John Madden
    July 15
    Juror
    Jury
    Jury Duty
    Justice
    Kennedy
    Kennedys
    Ken Stabler
    Killtown
    Kindle
    Kohan V Nbc
    Law
    Lawsuit
    Leaders
    Leadership
    Lee Harvey Oswald
    Lee Oswald
    Lessons
    Liaison
    Lies
    Life
    Lisa Jefferson
    Logic
    Loyalty
    Lying
    Malaysian Flight
    Manipulators
    Mary W Maxwell
    Mayor White
    Mcgreal
    Media
    Memoirs
    Mental Illness
    Mh370
    Military
    Mirsch
    Mistakes
    Modern Life
    Morality
    Movie
    Myth
    Mythology
    Nation
    Nationalism
    Nbc
    Needs
    New Media
    Newt Gingrich
    Nfl
    Nixon
    No Hijackers
    No Hijackings
    No Holding Back
    No Plane
    No Planers
    No Planes
    Oakland Raiders
    Obama
    Observations
    Occupy Wall Street
    Ochelli
    October Surprise
    Official Theories
    Olson
    Oped News
    Osama
    Osama Bin Laden
    Oswald
    Parole
    Passengers
    Paterno
    Patriotism
    Peace
    Penn State
    Pension
    Pentagon
    People
    Permanent War
    Perpetual War
    Pers
    Personal
    Persuasion
    Petition
    Philosophy
    Pictures
    Pilots For 911 Truth5753843a5f
    Planers
    Planes
    Planes Without Passengers
    Planes-without-passengers
    Planted Evidence
    Pledge Of Allegiance
    Podcast
    Policy
    Politicians
    Politics
    Power
    Praise
    Presidents
    Public
    Public Policy
    Question
    Questions
    Radio
    Raiders
    Ramona Rees
    Reagan
    Real Deal
    Reason
    Recommend
    Records
    Relatives
    Religion
    Republican Party
    Republicans
    Researchers
    Responsibility
    Resurrection
    Review
    Reviews
    Revolution
    Rfk
    Righteousness
    Rights
    Risk
    Robert Kennedy
    Romney
    Ronald Reagan
    Rules
    Rumors Fly
    Samesex Marriage05ed85f18c
    San Bernardino
    Satire
    Scams
    Scapegoats
    Script
    Secrecy
    Secret
    Self Help
    Selfhelp1a7d6cf1cb
    Selfhelp930f0ee660
    Shanksville
    Shepard
    Show
    Sirhan
    Sites
    Solutions
    Stabler
    Story
    St Peter64b59c8f07
    St Peters Choicef4a5414f38
    Strategy
    Summers
    Super Bowl
    Super Bowl Xiv
    Swan
    Taxes
    Team Sports
    Tea Party
    Technology
    Ted Olson
    Terrorism
    The Detectors
    The Detectors Featuring Dean Hartwell
    The Ochelli Effect
    Theories
    Thurman Munson
    Time Management
    Todd Beamer
    Tolerance
    Trump
    Trust
    Truth
    Type I
    Type Ii
    United
    United 175
    United-175
    United 93
    United-93
    Values
    Vancouver Hearings
    Video Fakery
    Voice
    Voters
    Wants
    War
    War On Terror
    War Party
    Was 9/11 A Movie?
    Watergate
    Will And Grace Case
    World Series
    Wrong
    Youtube
    You Tube

    Archives

    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    December 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    April 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    April 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.