Conspiracy Theorists Are Winning The War And Correcting The Record

I’ve pointed out in a previous article I wrote that the label of “Conspiracy Theorist” was a tool used to simply create a “no contest” situation where the defender of the official position simply did not have to defend “said” position and could “steer clear” of the facts in the contest. This tactic of labeling “conspiracy theorists” is fueled primarily by a normalcy bias that is supported by the official story. The declining mainstream media is still considered by many to be the “gold standard” of what is true and what isn’t even though those numbers are dropping every day. Many still believe, for some reason, that the media and/or government would not lie to them even though history clearly shows that to not be true. This is also the situation in mainstream education and science whether talking about climate change or simply the underlying causes of historical events. The establishment simply paints a picture that some expert concensus exists that verifies the agenda and many of the defenders of the official story simply do not question it. This is also the “root” cause of blind nationalism which is simply “history written by the victors.”

Dr. Kevin Barrett wrote a piece this past Friday in PressTV that really breaks this all down and cites a study by Michael Wood and Karen Douglas at the University of Kent in the UK entitled “What About Building ? A Social Psychological Study of Online Discussion of 911 Conspiracy Theories” that found that conspiracy theorists are not only starting to outnumber the defenders of the official story across the internet, but that the defenders of the official story are also found to be more “hostile” and more “fanatical.” It brings up the fact that the “Conspiracy Theorist” label was a CIA invention to deter skepticism over the JFK assassination. The article went on to point out that despite the “stereotype” that conspiracy theorists tend to be fanatical about supporting a version of events, the opposite was the reality. The defenders of the official story were far more likely to “blindly” defend the official position than conspiracy theorists were to defend their own version of events. These folks were also found to be victims of strong “confirmation bias” which goes back to a point I made in my previous article that they tend to “cherry pick” data that meets their cause while using smear tactics, straw-man arguments, and other irrational tactics to avoid any and all conflicting data. The article concludes by pointing out that due to the internet and new “free” media, the 44 year old CIA campaign to discredit any opposing views to the official story is coming to an end.

The tactic of labeling someone as a conspiracy theorist just to discredit them “out of the argument” is not only losing it’s steam but is starting to expose those who use the tactic as simply “fools of officialdom” that are incapable or simply unwilling to engage in an open-minded debate on the facts. The hostility that was also pointed out in Barrett’s article is a clear symptom of frustration a person has when they are unable to defend a position or explain why their are conflicts in the the official story. The clear and concise argument that conspiracy theorists tend to provide is far more rational, factual, and void of unnecessary emotion that distracts from the debate. This is a clear return to “rational thinking” that America is in desperate need of these days to start moving us away from the dangerous “jaws” of blind nationalism that really took over during and after World War II.

"Preferential Treatment" Behind "Obamacare" and the Push for Immigration Reform

Like most bills that make their way through congress these days, the new immigration bill is more to do with what you don't know about the bill than what the media and politicians want you to know.  Republicans will meet Monday to try to figure out how to "pander" to a voter block that will never vote for them in the first place (due to their own political brainwashing) and at the same time try to sell to their political base that somehow the bill can be made to work in America's best interest.  The reality is not somewhere in the "middle" but hidden somewhere deep in the thousands of pages of the bill that intentionally gets glossed over.

While disguised as a "path to citizenship" and "common sense" approach to dealing with, quite frankly, the folks fleeing a criminal "narco-state" in Mexico for a better life, the bill is just another attempt to hand out tons of "get out of jail free" cards to folks that entered the U.S. illegally.  It does nothing to actually fix the problem or come up with a solution to avoid the problem coming up again in the future.  It actually encourages the problem to persist. Another component to it is that it's unfair to the many immigrants that go the "legal" route to enter the U.S. from all around the world which is not only a cumbersome process, but can be a very expensive one especially when lawyers are involved.  How can a government, who makes the legal immigration process so difficult justify making it easier and more compassionate for those that "skirt" the legal route?  It's not much different than politicians getting behind "abortion rights" while making it very difficult for willing families to adopt.  It's the illusion of fairness and justice hiding unfair preferential treatment.  More importantly, how can any American citizen or legal immigrant to this country even think to support such a hypocritical position taken by these folks?  For the media and politicians, it's an agenda that goes way deeper than helping poor Mexicans, and for the public....well.... they are just caring, but clueless to that agenda.  By-the-way, try illegally crossing the border into Mexico sometime.  They don't treat you as good as the U.S. Border Patrol does.

Let me preface by saying that I personally have no issue with anyone wanting to come to this nation to make a better life for themselves and their families.  I'm also not threatened by the dreaded "doing jobs that Americans won't do" cliche that has been used to exhaustion.  What is a problem is that at a time where only 47 percent of adults have a full-time job in America as pointed out by Michael Snyder of Economic Collapse citing an article from Breitbart, it's just another layer of negative pressure on an already bad economic outlook. More accurately, coupled with the health care law, it's designed to further damage full-time employment in the U.S.

It's already widely known that the health care law had hidden components in it that the media, politicians, and more importantly, the insurance/healthcare agents were not willing to tell you about.  From the rationing to the guaranteed higher premiums for coverage, it was sold as being the opposite to the unknowing and quite frankly, uncaring public who, once again, bought into another scheme.  All they heard from the left-wing was that it would cover the "uncovered" and make health insurance, not healthcare mind you, more affordable.  From the right-wing, it was the dreaded socialized medicine monster that was going to centralize all healthcare to the federal government.  The reality is that it was the same system we already had except with the added component of government/insurance company-backed mandates that would not only make health care less affordable, but would be a far worse system than if they had just went the route of the NHS in the UK or Canadian Healthcare.  As time passed it became more obvious how devious the whole law was. It forced individuals to pay for higher premiums for insurance or be penalized by the IRS and any companies that had more than 50 employees were forced to deal with the mandate that not only forced them to provide benefits to full time employees, but to do so for 30 hours a week or more.  Much of this is covered here, here, and here.   Just think, it's not even fully implemented yet and all these issues are coming out already.

So, the healthcare law not only increases the costs of health care but it also threatens the future of full-time employment by government mandate.  Enter, the Immigration Bill "circus act."  As noted earlier, while on the surface it appears to be a bill dealing with the "illegal" problem, again hidden beneath the compassionate and sensible "window dressing" is the real agenda:  "doubling-down" on economic disruption.  It's bad enough that wages would be further "driven-down," especially in this economy, but that's not the worst part.  Hidden in the bill, once again in true D.C. fashion, is a little "incentive" piece that once again creates an environment of "preferential treatment."  As pointed out by Philip Klein in the National Examiner: "...because newly legalized immigrants wouldn’t be eligible for subsidies on the "Obamacare" exchanges until after they become citizens – at least 13 years under the Senate bill – businesses could avoid such fines by hiring the new immigrants instead." He goes on to point out that it acts as a reverse tariff on the American citizen making it more attractive to businesses to hire newly legalized non-citizens over American citizens.  As Mac Slavo at SHTFplan.com puts it "Leave it to the best and brightest in Congress to craft legislation that does more harm than good."  

So while the government, media, and "pro-amnesty" crowd try to tell you it's about fairness, compassion, and reason, at the end of the day it's all about preferential treatment and other very geo-political interests that range in varying degrees from creating new "voter blocks" to  creating widespread dependence on government support.  Mexicans are just another "political tool" to be used by the federal government as a means to an "end" which, as usual, is cloaked in the darkness until it's right on top of you.  

victoria australia art

allegheny national forest art australian beach art hocking hills art

The "Bird" Heard Round the World

On July 6th 2012, the Chronicle Telegram posted a photo from photographer Bruce Bishop with regards to Obama's most recent trip to northeast Ohio.  If you haven't seen the photo here it is:

As I am writing this the facebook post had gotten up to 828 total comments from followers of the page.  This was an astounding number of responses to what is clearly a very controversial photo.  The comments ranged from outrage to a complete positive response.  The comments were toward the gentlemen in the photo as well as towards the photographer and the Chronicle itself.  Many folks claimed it was "disrespectful" of the office in which Obama occupies and that it was in poor taste.  Some have also claimed it was irresponsible and/or inappropriate for the Chronicle to post such a photo on it's facebook page.  While I can understand what some folks are saying regarding these arguments, I will demonstrate why they are not valid in reality and do not "mesh" with the "Bill of Rights." 

First and foremost, this is an exercise in "freedom of speech" and expression.  This, above all, must be protected.  What one deems as "reasonable" freedom of speech, another may deem as "outrageous."  This is why no-matter-what an individual is doing or saying in protest, as long as it's not harming others it must be protected to ultimately protect all our rights as citizens.  It must also be pointed out that the gentlemen in the photo is neither a "fan" of the Democrat or Republican party and is not exhibiting a political bias either way.  While I don't know the man's personal motivation for such an act, it may very well be a symbolic act toward the politics and questionable behavior that is happening in Washington today.  For me, personally as a constitutionalist and supporter of the Bill of Rights, I can understand and relate to the frustration with the "dog and pony" show that is rolled-out to the American people everyday from the government to the media outlets across America.  This is most certainly how many folks feel today about Washington and the people who occupy these positions such as the president.  This is also the reason why, coupled with freedom of speech and freedom of the press, I support the Chronicle's decision to post this on their page. 

Today, the media is typically consumed with showing either a conservative bias or a liberal bias in these issues.  In this case, they like to show the pro-Obama folks and the anti-Obama folks.  They like to give you visuals of supporters and non-supporters, but do so in a "prism" of left vs. right.  They like to show you everything based on politics that is spoon-fed to the masses with regards to issues, morals, and ways to run government.  All too often is left out the totally disgruntled folks who have a position of "no confidence" in the system itself.  They feel betrayed by a government that is monopolized by two political parties that have more in common with wall street, big corporations, big foundations, big agendas, and policy-making groups than with the common person.  Many see the government as engaging in unconstitutional, immoral, or even criminal behavior.  Many of those folks can provide very valid points for these claims as well.  It's these folks that are typically deemed "outcasts" with regards to politics as the public is typically conditioned to ignore this possibility.  It's refreshing to see folks like these get their exposure.  This exposure, however, came with a major backlash from many people.

The motivation for this backlash typically comes from two groups.  The first is the folks that are vested either in Obama (pro or con) or the political parties and the politics that go with it.  The other group is the people that hold a certain level of "nationalism" and see the office as "sacred ground" to not be offended and held in some solemn level of respect.  The first group has a political bias that more often-than-not will be relative to what they see as appropriate and typically comes into play. Their levels of "censorship" tend to change depending on if their "guy" is the target of the controversy.  The second group, while I do understand their motivation, do not understand the position for which they are deeming "sacred."  The president, like the folks in congress are "public servants" and are elected to hold positions to represent "we the people."  They are not our bosses, our parents, our elders, and certainly not our kings and queens.  They are elected to do the "bidding" of the American people and represent our interests.  Harsh criticism of our public officials is a healthy exercise in maintaining this relationship and a reminder to them of who works for who. I personally believe that today's disconnect between the common folks and these folks in Washington has prompted this type of "disrespect."  Many folks feel the "disrespect" was started in Washington and not at Washington.  It must also be pointed out that folks criticisms of this photo is also protected and must also be allowed to "stand" even when some of them are also engaging in what some would see as inappropriate commentary. 

The folks that are "wrong" on this issue are the ones that call for "censorship" of this photo or demand that it be taken down.  They do this based on their biased interpretation of what they see as "crossing the line" of free speech.  They label it as "offensive" or "inappropriate" to be viewed in a media source.  The problem with the reasoning is that others may find other stories or photos inappropriate based on their personal beliefs or threshold of tolerance.  Should everyone that makes this personal "call" be given what they want?  Obviously if we really value freedom of speech and freedom of the press, we can't do this based on what one deems appropriate.

If folks insist that it's inappropriate for a media outlet like the Chronicle to post a photo of this nature, they need to look no further than a week or so ago when hundreds of media outlets and publications showed this photo from a gay pride reception at the White House:

While some would also find this equally offensive, others would let their personal bias make a different judgement.  For this reason, the folks in both these photos as well as the photographers and media outlets have "protected rights" to show this and regardless of any one's opinion of appropriateness, it's actually very American to do so. 

foggy lighthouse art black swamp art swamp water art wetland marsh art terminal tower prints cleveland prints pictured rocks prints hocking hills prints hocking hills photos red tulip canvas prints

The Left-Wing Ignorance of Wall Street

Note to the left-wingers that think they are doing anyone a favor by portraying themselves as anti-capitalist/wall street revolutionaries: Stop!


Please stop helping the establishment to “short-circuit” the legitimate movement to expose the global bankers through the Federal Reserve System. Your new-age “revolution” against Wall Street is like going after the mob by taking down a “speak-easy.” Going after the casino front that is Wall Street will not stop the powers behind the curtain.

Recent remarks by the likes of Michael Moore and Roseanne Barr do nothing to help bring a legitimate message to the masses. In-fact, figures like Moore are actually doing the bidding of big globalist power-brokers like Warren Buffet and George Soros. Moore recently stated that capitalism is the problem and needs to be eliminated. This has always been his consistent message but by downplaying the Federal Reserve he shows that he has no real interest in going after the handlers of this system. Besides the fact that Moore is a hypocrite who has used capitalism and the free-market to make himself a pretty sizeable fortune, he either has no idea that the banker bailouts had nothing to do with capitalism or he doesn’t care. I’m betting on the latter. Barr is now calling for a violent approach to dealing with the situation. Calling for re-education camps and “beheadings” is hardly a warm and fuzzy left-wing solution. It also puts a “radical” face on a serious movement with a nice aroma of fascism.

The controlled left-wing movement is a “scorched-earth” policy that has more to do with supporting an easily corrupt and wealth accumulating centralized collective than an anti-greed and corruption movement. Too many well-meaning liberals are getting themselves caught in this “bear-trap” much like the neo-conservatives get caught into thinking the Federal Reserve System is just good free-market policy. This is hardly in line with reality. The Federal Reserve is just a consortium of global powers that control both political parties and have the ultimate goal of stopping any legitimate resistance to their authority.

Liberals need to listen to the words of one of their own. John F. Kennedy laid it out quite plainly when he called out these same powers-that-be and began the process of eliminating the Federal Reserve System. His assassination ended this, but today brings an opportunity for Democrats to pick up the Kennedy mantle, become truly informed, and take a positive and productive stand against the globalists that seek to bring this nation into receivership. Capitalism didn’t do this to you, the ever expanding federal government power that has a public/private relationship to the bankers did.

glen canyon dam art page az art bryce canyon national park art south rim art glen canyon framed prints bryce canyon prints bryce canyon national park prints hoodoo prints swamp water canvas prints campfire prints stratosphere prints cute squirrel prints squirrel prints harp prints rock house prints yellow tulip prints checkerboard mesa canvas prints

Conspiracy Theory: The Convenient “No Contest”

I have to say it never ceases to amaze me how people’s selective acceptance of facts based on personal desire for a particular conclusion to be met. Nowhere is this more on display than with the two-party political system. As a “truther” I have to admit, I feel a little used by these left-wingers and right-wingers. Like all the other “truthers” out there, I’m kind of tired of sniffing and digging for the facts on all these pertinent issues just to have these two political camps “cherry pick” what they want to be truth and what they want to be “conspiracy.”


Of course I’m not at all really upset about being used, but it still is quite a disturbing sight to watch this behavior of selective “truth” acceptance. What this shows is that the conclusion is more important to these folks than the facts. This is not a surprise considering both of these political camps are based on half-truths and often all-out-lies. So, when the facts do happen to fit with the political conclusion, it’s “chest thumping” time for the victors of that particular argument. They scored political points and it’s time to gloat even if the referee missed a call or the ball never really crossed the goal line to use a football analogy. If, however, the facts don’t fit the desired conclusion, well it’s time to pull the “conspiracy” card out of the deck. Both of these political factions have done this at nauseam.

For the left-wingers it’s the new-age religion of Man-Made Global Warming Theory. For Right-wingers it’s the mythology of the official 911 story. Both sides will be astute “fact-finding” hounds quick to pounce on any evidence that supports their position. No stone left unturned. No piece of evidence left unanalyzed. Of course, this is if the facts and evidence lead them to the conclusion they are seeking. When that conclusion is not supported by the facts and evidence, well, time to put away the detective gear and get out the dogma. It’s time to go from being a patriot to being a nationalist or from an independent thinker to a gatekeeper. Suddenly motivated, not by truth regardless of where it leads you, but out of desire of a spokesman doing “damage control” when your “guy” finds himself in a public relations disaster. The easiest and quickest solution for this is to deflect questions. This is no different than when the facts don’t add up to your conclusion.

“Conspiracy Theory” is a nice little label that is a quick fix for deflecting the facts. It’s this designed automatic disqualifier that is used to short circuit the argument before the data is even analyzed. Conspiracy Theory is just defined as an explanation of an event as being the result of a plot by some group often behind the scenes. It has been twisted into being used as a label to discredit any viable theory as “fantastical” or “unlikely” and to be automatically filed next to Big Foot and the Loch Ness Monster. Mind you, any event that had been planned by a group either openly or in secret is a conspiracy by definition. Otherwise, it’s coincidental. If you listen to some of these folks who use the “conspiracy card” you’d think Watergate was never possible.

Regardless of the facts that came out during Climategate, the left-wing proponents of Global Warming are going to continue to label deniers as proponents of a corporate/oil company conspiracy to undermine “their” position regardless of the fact that most oil companies and corporations support the position that they take. On the other side, the right-wing (and the left-wing to a degree too) are going to look at all the evidence of Al-Qaeda and CIA ties and chalk it up to conspiracy theory even though the connections are well documented across a wide spectrum. So facts, depending on who you present them to, will either be the “smoking-gun” or of no practical significance.

In the end, human beings have a desire to maintain a “worldview” that often outweighs the need to know the truth. This is the essence of why humans are so easily tribalised and set against each other. People are not divided on the facts, but on the lack of desire to accept facts on certain issues. It does take strength to go after the truth, regardless of where it leads you because quite often it leads you to a place you don’t want to go. People have to learn that “truth” is the light that will unite us all and “willful ignorance” is the mother of all sins. It’s one thing if you are simply not informed. It’s another to not want to be and give labels to others who are.

pine bark art hoodoo art fire element art bright angel trail art snow-covered pine trees photos horseshoe bend photos lamp post prints niagara falls framed prints yellow tulip art

Pick Your Poison

The United State Government, run by globalist/off-shore interests, have given the people of this nation two choices going forward.  These choices are basically a loyalty to "state" choice that "we the people" are being forced to make.  Before we get to these two options, let us review what has transpired to bring us to this point in a system that is alledgedly run by "the people" in a so-called "free market society." 

Without going too far into history and detail, basically we've been told that our resources are dominion of the federal government and/or corporate interests for our economic, environmental, and sustainable well being.  We've been told it's "off limits" to drill in many places for oil in this country, not necessarily just for any environmental impact, but for some "twisted" economic reasons of market/price control and conservation built on the idea of "peak oil."  Yet, the government, and mega global corporations like BP and GE, as exhibited multiple times in history, have done far more damage environmentally, economically, and socially than the phantom "strawman" that they claim to protect us from in the first place.  That "strawman," by the way, is you.  

As a result, our government, military, and mega-corporations have entrenched their "will" in many nations across the globe.  Countless examples of regime changes, overthrows, false-flag operations, financial backings of extremist dictators and murderers, and ultimately the expansion of a new-age global empire that claims the "will" of the global community has taken place much to our complacency. 

Now as the middle east goes through a new round of destabilization ultimately being pushed by the globalists on many of their own puppets in these countries and riding the backs of well-intentioned middle easterners that just want the foreign imperialism to end, we see a new round of spiking energy, food, and other costs making it harder for the average american to get by. Local, state, and federal government officials and media "talking-heads" are now promoting each institution in a state of "bankruptcy" to scam the taxpayers out of more tax dollars, liberties, and individual non-dependence on the "welfare state."  All this to centralize power to the banking elite and resource monopolies.  This leads us to the choice. 

The first option is that we continue to support "imperialism" across the globe so that we can go on having our "standard of living" at least until they finish off bankrupting and killing-off the rest of American productivity in the economy.  This will result in making us all debt slaves and serfs while they continue to limit our access to our own resources.  This option will lead to more troops dying, more radical regimes and terrorists (many backed by our own government), and likely many more millions of innocent civilians around the world getting killed.  None of this has anything to do with protecting you from terrorists or keeping you safe.  In reality, it does the opposite and connects you as a willing accomplice to the crime.  When they get finished using this nation as the driving force behind globalism, you will be left to "pay the price" for all the damage done, not them.  You will be left undefended against the angry hordes around the world as they condition the rest of the world that it's your lifestyle and selfishness that led to the exploitation of their lands.  Like a parasite, they will simply attach to a new host and continue the tyranny abroad.  Hello China. 

The second option is that we see option #1 as a pretty bad idea and proven to only benefit globalist interests and don't stand for this any longer.  Then you will need to prepare as they will continue to squeeze us as a society until we submit to the empire.  High prices, chaos, food shortages, and whatever else they throw at us will be difficult to deal with, but rarely is doing the "right thing" ever easy. 

Ultimately, whichever choice you make, you will get both "poisons" from the elites.  You will end up in the same place and at some point you will have to fight the "forced-feeding" of both "poisons" for the sake of the future generations.  Faced with these two choices should serve to wake-up the masses to the "corner" they have been forced into.  The elite have been clever about making you believe the corner doesn't exist and that the room is endless.  They have also convinced most that the two poisons are merely two flavors of kool-aid.  One is "patriot" flavored and one is "conspiracy" flavored.  If you drink the "patriot" flavor, you are a good American and care about it's future.  If you drink the "conspiracy" flavor, you are crazy and dangerous to America and you don't care about protecting it from phantom foes.  It's now up to you to see the fraud and decide how important you see yourselves and your future generations.

north rim art thor\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s hammer art glen canyon photos lake powell photos lower slot canyon photos lower antelope canyon photos slot canyon photos lake powell prints american falls framed prints peach blossom framed prints glen canyon prints

SB 1070 -- A Symptom of Two Deteriorating Nations

The situation in Arizona is not going to benefit anyone except those that have a "stake" in keeping the border open. This comes from creating and maintaining chaos and violence for border towns on both sides, drug trade, feds., and global interests that want the borders gone along with national soverignty for both the U.S. and Mexico.

Bill SB 1070, if nothing else, has brought massive amounts of attention to the deteriorating situation along the U.S./Mexican border.  That is one positive aspect that has come from this.  The "firestorm" that has been created by this controversial bill, however, has polarized people into groups and factions with their own interests and political beliefs.  While this issue has been going on now for decades, the situation is starting to flare-up as states are now making moves in response to failure and chaos resulting from "open-borders" policy.

It's easy to get swept up in all the media hype and misconceptions that exist regarding Arizona's new bill.  Therefore it's vital to breakdown what has led to this, who is responsible, who gains and loses, and what is the endgame in all of this.  What's certain is that people on both sides of the establishment created "political spectrum" are being misled by very powerful elements that have a vested interest in the chaos.

This orchestrated chaos leads folks to "wildly" throw around terms like nazi, racism, hate, brown people, anti-mexican, etc.  This tends to be the "fuel" for the fire that the "left" uses to excuse the lax enforcement of the border.  Putting it into perspective, Mexico uses much stricter and violent means to secure their borders, especially regarding their southern border.  It is also important to point out that if this issue was happening on the Canadian border, this would have been resolved a long time ago as the "race" component would not have come into "play" by open border apologists wanting to maintain lawlessness.  At the same time, the political "right," in particular the neo-con factions have been used and demonized, much like tea-party movements, to discredit border security as mere racism and some form of neo-nazi facism.  In reality, one need only look at the literal "drug war" that is taking place in border communities on both sides which is causing widespread violence and death. 

What is fueling this border chaos are various groups that are involved in the destabilization of both the Mexican government and U.S. sovereignty.  From the CIA instigated drug war (see also poppy in Afghanistan) to globalist's interests in using the border destabilization as an excuse to further NAFTA and a North American Union, it is a bad situation for both Americans and Mexicans alike.  Mexico is a failed state that has been taken over by druglords and the few multi-billionaires that benefit from the chaos on the border as they use the U.S. as a pressure release valve for their self-inflicted problems.  Washington D.C. politicians use the border for political reasons to stump for supporters and hand-out dependency to illegals.  However, both sides are bought and controlled by off-shore banking interests that have control of both nations.  This is how a simple national issue such as legal passage from one nation to another regardless of what citizenship you have, gets turned into a "maelstrom" of misinformation and emotional agendas. 

The Arizona bill, while bringing attention to the problem and showing the desperation of border states to do something, has some inherent problems as it can indeed be abused and misused on legal citizens in Arizona by enforcement.  As the U.S. is becoming more of a "police-state" as Mexico already is, a bill like SB 1070 can end up being worse than doing nothing.  Open border policy creates conditions which drives state governments to consider these methods of enforcement.  This is then what drives civil libertarians and minorities to then be concerned about things like profiling and search and seizure issues.  For those folks that have these concerns, remember, the feds and race-baiting groups like La Raza are also using this situation to further their own agendas. 

In the end, the only benefactors of this will be a large and ever-oppressive federal govenment, globalists, and the off-shore bankers who will "cash-in" on the chaos.  Americans and Mexicans will both lose in the end.  They will lose liberty and their nations respectively. antelope canyon photos bryce canyon national park photos bryce canyon photos horseshoe bend prints fire pit art bryce canyon greeting cards glen canyon greeting cards black and white tulip prints peach orchard prints grand canyon sunset framed prints