Shirley MacLaine had some things to say about Dennis Kucinich and UFOs in her new book, Sage-ing While Age-ing. According to Ms MacLaine, Dennis Kucinich had a UFO sighting while he was visiting her home in Graham, Washington, about fifteen years ago. She writes, “And then the smell of roses drew him out to my balcony, where he looked up. He saw a gigantic, triangular craft, silent and observing him. He said it hovered, soundless, for ten minutes or so and sped away with a speed he couldn’t comprehend.” Kucinich was later asked if he really did see a UFO by Tim Russert of NBC News during a debate involving the 2008 Democratic presidential candidate hopefuls and replied, “I did…you have to keep in mind that Jimmy Carter saw a UFO.” I’m guessing that the Congressman felt a need to play the Carter card to add credibility to his answer.

There are a number of important politicians and celebrities connected to the UFO subject in one way or another. Former U.S. Presidents Reagan and Carter have openly talked about experiencing UFO sightings, while President John F. Kennedy had a close encounter that was a little too close for comfort. Carter saw a classic nocturnal light while standing around waiting for a meeting to begin with ten members of the Lion’s Club of Leary, Georgia in October of 1969. The object appeared to change color and shape during the roughly ten to twelve minutes they watched it.

During the 1976 Presidential Campaign, Jimmy Carter talked about his sighting and promised to reveal anything he could find out about UFOs if elected. Although a former Navy Officer, he was considered a dove by members of the military hierarchy. They didn’t trust him and believed Carter was trying to starve them down into smaller and less influential departments through funding cuts. It’s assumed that he was never told anything of substance about UFOs by military insiders.

While many historians choose to paint Carter as having a cozy relationship with intelligence gathering agencies because of his less threatening assessment of the Soviet Union’s military abilities that agreed with some of theirs, this doesn’t mix well with the facts. During his first briefing by then CIA Director George H.W. Bush, President Elect Carter asked to see documents related to UFOs. Bush told him that any documents which might exist about such things were classified above his immediate need to know. If he wanted to see any, he would have to ask the appropriate congressional committee to declassify them. As president, Carter sought to dismantle the CIA superstructure into smaller agencies, but failed.

Ronald Reagan was a completely different story. As a member of Army Air Force Intelligence during World War II, a supporter of military modernization and a president with a vice president that once served as CIA Director, we assume he was told more about UFOs than most elected officials. Reagan’s own interest in and experience with the phenomenon is well known. His daughter, Patti Davis, said he was “fascinated with stories about unidentified flying objects and the possibility of life on other worlds.”

Ronald Reagan had two UFO sightings that we know about. The first occurred while he was still acting in films sometime during the 1950s. After showing up late for a dinner party attended by other Hollywood celebrities, Ronald and Nancy Reagan said they saw a UFO. This story was later confirmed by the Kitty Kelly, Lucille Ball and Steve Allen. The second sighting occurred in 1974 while he was Governor of California.

Less than a month after leaving the presidency in 1989, Ronald Reagan reiterated a story he first told to a Bureau Chief for the Wall Street Journal in 1974:

“I was in a plane last week when I looked out the window and saw this white light. It was zigzagging around. I went up to the pilot and said, ‘Have you seen anything like that before?’ He was shocked and said, ‘Nope.’ And I said to him: ‘Let’s follow it!’

We followed it for several minutes. It was a bright greenish-white light. We followed it to Bakersfield, and all of a sudden to our utter amazement it went straight up into the heavens. When we got off the plane, I told Nancy all about it.”

During his first summer as President, John F. Kennedy retreated to the Kennedy compound along the Nantucket Sound in Hyannis, Massachusetts, for some rest and relaxation. While cruising around in one of the Kennedy motor boats, the president and a few guests reportedly saw a classic disc-shaped object suddenly appear at a low altitude near their vessel. At one point, the disc may have been as close as one hundred feet away. This sent secret service agents in nearby launches scrambling to get the president’s boat to safety. After the object vanished and the motor boat was back on shore, the president told his guests not to talk about what happened.

While Carter, Reagan and Kennedy saw unidentified flying objects and George H.W. Bush probably knew all about them, UFO stories involving Presidents Truman and Eisenhower have become legendary. The story of an alleged meeting between Alien dignitaries and President Dwight D. Eisenhower is one that refuses to die. It stems from a report that the president disappeared briefly during a trip to a Palm Springs resort which occurred in February of 1954.

On Saturday, February 20, 1954, some members of the white house press corps noticed that President Eisenhower missed a planned event. They contacted his spokesperson who seemed unable to provide an immediate explanation for the absence. After it became obvious that the president was no longer at the Palm Springs resort, rumors flew that he might have become seriously ill and been moved to a military infirmary or hospital for treatment. Finally, a besieged spokesperson told the press that the president chipped a tooth during a meal and was taken to visit a nearby dentist.

A steak barbeque was held a few days later and the dentist who allegedly treated Eisenhower was introduced to the press. The man seemed embarrassed and nervous. Years later his widow was unable to provide any particulars about the president’s visit to the dentist’s office that was located in their home. Instead, a number of stories have surfaced about a late night trip that President Eisenhower made to Edwards Air Force Base.

Eisenhower’s alleged visit to Edwards has always been a point of conspiratorial contention. Some say it had to do with an invitation to view some new super weapon or secret military aircraft. Others claim that Eisenhower actually met and signed agreements with some type of Aliens. Personally, I believe he was shown what remained of a crashed UFO and its occupants from any one of several crashes that may have taken place in the Southwest USA during the late 1940s or early 1950s.

President Harry Truman has become an enigmatic figure within UFO research thanks to a series of documents that tell the tale of a quickly-formed scientific advisory committee known as Majestic Twelve. The committee was ordered into existence by Truman in 1947 and consisted of twelve people which included prominent scientists, members of the military and elected officials. Originally created to study all available evidence that UFOs might be extraterrestrial crafts and offer advice to the President, the group may have evolved into a government within a government to deal with UFOs and Aliens in a manner that was completely separate from other U.S. Government departments or agencies.

John Lennon’s UFO experiences are among the most popular and controversial celebrity UFO events ever discussed and all are said to have occurred in New York City. Most people have heard about the August, 1974 sighting, so I will relate that story first. It began with the return of Lennon and May Pang from a long day at the Record Plant East where Lennon was working on tracks for his upcoming Walls and Bridges album. The two were staying at his 52nd Street Apartment which had a commanding view of the East River and the sky.

Sometime after 8:30pm, May was taking a shower while Lennon went up to the roof. After a few minutes, he began yelling for her to come up there. May rushed to the roof and found John pointing to what looked like a classic disc-shaped UFO that was silently hovering about 100 feet from them. The object seemed to change shape as it rotated and moved slowly towards the United Nations Building and out over the East River. Before it moved away, May ran and retrieved a 35mm camera from the apartment. She was able to get back to the roof in time to snap off a few photos of the object.

After the disc moved away, Lennon and May returned to the apartment. John made arrangements to have the film developed immediately by a photographer who was also a friend. Bob Gruen came and picked up the film. He returned to his studio and developed the film along with two rolls of his own. Gruen’s film developed perfectly, but he said that Lennon’s was blank. Fortunately, Lennon started making sketches of what he and May saw while it was all still fresh in his mind.

Another story about Lennon and a possible UFO experience comes from Uri Geller. He met Lennon in November of 1974 during a concert that Elton John was giving at Madison Square Garden. Geller was a kind of mystic to the Stars in those days and Lennon was in need of any help he could find. Distraught over his separation from Yoko, he wanted her back and asked Geller to use his alleged psychic powers to help. Yoko phoned John within thirty-six hours, the lovers reunited and John and Uri became friends.

Sometime after their reconciliation, Geller was eating with John and Yoko in a New York City restaurant. Yoko was pregnant, so it had to be sometime before Sean Lennon was born in October of 1975. Geller says that John became very serious and asked him to step over to a smaller table in a quiet corner of the restaurant. Once seated, Lennon spoke in discreet tones and told Uri about an incident that happened six months before. He and Yoko were asleep in bed when John suddenly woke up and noticed a blazing light shining through the cracks and keyhole of their bedroom door.

Thinking there was a fire or someone with a powerful flashlight trying to get into the room; he jumped out of their bed and opened the door. He was confronted by four beings. Lennon said, “They were, like, little. Bug-like. Big bug eyes and little bug mouths and they were scuttling at me like roaches.” He tried to resist the beings, but they kept coming at him. Lennon said that his next memory was of being back in bed with Yoko.

Yoko didn’t wake up during the incident, but later when she did it was obvious that John was very upset and confused. He couldn’t tell her what happened right away and waited for an unspecified period of time before he did. Exclaiming that he was sober and wasn‘t doing any drugs at that time, Lennon said it wasn’t some sort of hallucination or lucid dream. According to Geller, John’s assertion about the reality of what happened was backed up by physical evidence.

When Lennon woke up, he claimed to be holding a small egg-shaped object in his hand. After eventually telling Yoko about the incident, he showed it to her. He also showed it to Geller. None of them had ever seen anything like it. However, apart from the golden color and egg shape, little is none about the object and it would be up to Geller to proceed with any investigation of its properties. Many abductees have told stories of being given various objects by their Alien abductors, only to have them taken back later

Having met many celebrities over the years, I can appreciate their need to weigh any statement they might consider making about anything carefully in the balances before speaking or writing it for public consumption. A fickle public and press can easily turn on someone famous for the smallest indiscretion. Imagine how they might react to news that a famous celebrity or important politician has had a UFO or other paranormal experience.

Visit http:www.CanYouStandTheTruth.com for the complete, unabridged article and more.

The Canadian political system as it is known today was first drafted by the “Fathers of Confederation” at the Quebec conference of 1864. This then became law when the constitution act was passed in 1867. This act gave the formal executive authority to Queen Victoria (Queen of Great Britain) which made Canada a sovereign democracy. The Canadian political system is therefore loosely based on the British system.

Now, Canada is an independent Federal state with the Queen still the head of state. Her powers are extremely limited however, as the Parliament passes the laws which the Queen gives the “Royal Assent” as the final step. The Governor General of Canada is the Queens representative in Canada and carries out all the Royal obligations when the Queen is not in Canada. The Governor is always a Canadian chosen by the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister. The length of office is normally five years for the Governor General.

The Houses of Parliament (housing the Federal Government) are located in Canada’s capital city, Ottawa. There are 3 main sections to the Canadian Parliament. The Queen as the Head of state; the Senate (appointed on the Prime Minister’s recommendations) and the elected House of Commons.
The Federal Government has the power to “make laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada” which includes International policies, Defence, Immigration, Criminal Law, Customs and Border control.

The Senate

The Senate is made up of 105 Senators who are appointed by the Governor General on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. These Senators are men and women from all of the Provinces and from a wide variety of backgrounds. They can serve on the Senate up until age 75 and have to be a Canadian citizen, over age 30, own £4,000 of equity in land in their home Province, have over £4,000 as personal net worth and live in the province represented. Each Province or Territory has a set number of Senators - 24 each from the Maritimes, Quebec and Ontario, 6 each from Alberta, BC, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, 6 from Newfoundland and Labrador and a further 1 each from the three Territories.

The main role of the Senate is to read over and examine the “Bills” sent from the House of Commons though they can also initiate Bills. This process ensures that no rogue bills will become law, though only rarely do the Senate reject a Bill - sending it back to the House for amendment. The Bills are subjected to the full legislative process by the Senate and if passed will be given to the Governor General for Royal Assent and thus become Law.

House of Commons

The real power is held by the House of Commons. Here, the members of Parliament (MP’s) are elected by the general public during a Federal election - normally every 5 years. The country is split up into constituencies (total 308 by population size) and whichever candidate has the most votes wins the right to represent that constituency and take their “seat” in the Parliament.

Each Most candidates represent a particular political party and the party with the most “seats” takes over as the Government. The main parties in Canada are Paul Martins Liberals (ruling), Stephen Harpers Conservatives, Jack Layton’s New Democratic Party, The Bloc Quebecois and The Green Party to name the largest.

The leader of the political party that wins the election becomes the Prime Minister of Canada (currently Paul Martin of the Liberals). The Prime Minister effectively runs the country with the support and advice of his Cabinet. The Cabinet is made up of “Ministers” chosen by the Prime Minister to be responsible for certain areas of the Government. There are ministers of Health, Finance, Defence and Immigration to name a few. These areas of responsibility are called “Portfolio’s” and each minister will have a large team of civil servants (normally the experts in that field) working for himher. Only the ministers change during an election - not the civil servants.

Though the MP’s represent their local constituency, their main duties are debating the laws to be made and, depending on their Party, either supporting or opposing the Government. The opposition is the political party with the second most seats in the House and their main job is to hold the government accountable for their decisions.

A Government with a lot of seats in the House will be strong and able to pass most laws they want through Parliament. Conversely, a weak Government (such as now) doesn’t have the majority of the seats and has to rely on the support of another party to form an effective Government.

After each election, the Senate and the House of Commons either elect (House) or appoint (Senate) a Speaker. The Speaker is in charge of proceedings and has to be impartial, enforcing the rules of the HouseSenate during debates and votes. The Speaker presides over the House from a raised chair with the Government MP’s om the right and the opposition on the Left.

Making the Laws

To start with, the House of Commons members introduce a “Bill” (legislative proposal). The details of the Bill are read in the House without debate and then the Bill is printed (the first reading).
During the second reading the principles of the Bill are debated followed by a vote. If successful, the Bill is then sent to the Committee stage.

A committee will listen to testimony, examine the Bill and then submits a report to the House recommending it as it is, with amendments or scrapped. From here it goes to the report stage.
In the report phase, any amendments are debated and voted on. Then it will pass to the third reading. This is where the House finally debates and votes on the final draft - if it passes the vote it is sent to the Senate.

The Senate put the Bill through the same process as the House - if it comes through all that (normally does!) it is given Royal Assent and becomes Canadian Law!

For more detailed information go to http:www.onestopimmigration-canada.comcanadian_political_system.html

Politics seems to be the hot topic of discussion these days, and many innocent conversations turn into screaming matches with neither party being able to get a word in edgewise.  It is well known that the country is divided on many political topics, and people seem to feel stronger about certain issues than ever before.  Many people engage in political discussions for the express purpose of changing another person’s mind, but often tempers flare and no one leaves the conversation having learned anything. There is a difference in taking a political discussion seriously and simply having a heated argument with someone.

The general definition of the word discussion is to exchange ideas. Quite often so-called political discussions couldn’t be further from this definition. When people feel very strongly about a subject they often refuse to see another
person’s point of view, let alone listen to them. If you feel that someone you know could learn something from you about politics keep in mind you could probably learn something from them as well.

To take a political discussion seriously you must be willing to listen, not only speak. Understand that part of what makes up a person’s feelings and opinions is their experiences. Since you certainly haven’t had the same experiences as someone else you can’t expect to see eye to eye on everything. Discussions require each party to allow the other to speak in turn and have a chance to say their piece.

When engaging in a political discussion with someone who holds differing opinions, be prepared to learn if you expect them to. No one likes to be told they are wrong, and if you really want someone to see where you’re coming from you need to pay them the same respect. Name calling and general rudeness will get you nowhere, and your civil political discussion will soon turn into an argument.

Always keep your cool during a discussion. If you aren’t willing to listen to the other person, then perhaps you shouldn’t bother trying to engage them. Starting discussions simply to rile the other party or insult them is both juvenile and lacks any constructive purpose. The other party probably feels as strongly about certain issues as you do, so don’t expect them to concede to your points right away.  A good political discussion may have no outcome other than
an opportunity to understand someone else’s view points and why they hold them.

It is important to engage in civil political discussions, even if you feel you’re not getting anywhere in terms of changing someone else’s mind. We all live in this country together, and no matter what party is currently in power and it is important to be sympathetic to all our fellow country people.

We have all read about Jack Abramoff and how lobbying is done in Washington. Trips, dinners, campaign funding, and other perks paid for by lobbyists in return for favors the politicians can do for their clients.

But our Supreme Court Justices should be beyond reproach. They are not elected, but appointed. They are in that position for life or until they decide to retire. They also should go out of their way to be unbiased and out of the reach of special interest groups, people whose cases might come before the Supreme Court, and lobbyists.

While other Justices may walk the line of impropriety, Justice Scalia proudly struts over the ethical line and is smug about it. Remember Leona Helmsly when arrested for income tax evasion? She said “taxes are for the little people”, or something to that effect. Justice Scalia has a similar attitude when questioned about his activities.

Not too long ago, the Supreme Court was hearing a case that affected the ability for the Bush administration to hold prisoners indefinitely. Just before the case was to be heard, Justice Scalia went on a hunting trip with Dick Cheney that didn’t cost Scalia a dime. When asked if that might present a conflict of interest and that he should possibly recuse himself from the case, he called the idea ridiculous and stayed on the case. His vote favored the Bush Administration.

Yes, it might have been in favor of them anyway. No, the trip may not have influenced him in any way. However the appearance of impropriety, unethical behavior, or conflict of interest is enough to make going on that trip the wrong theng to do. And after doing so, thumbing his nose at people who raised the question was also the wrong thing to do.

Now, all the justices were at the swearing in of Justice Roberts, well all of them but Antonin Scalia. He was playing tennis and going fly fishing at the Ritz-Carlton hotel in Bachelor Gulch, Colo, all on the dole. All paid for by the Federalists Society.

“I was out of town with a commitment that I could not break, and that’s what the public information office told you,” he said.

According to ABC News, One night at the resort, Scalia attended a cocktail reception, sponsored in part by the same lobbying and law firm where convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff once worked.

On a side note, Supreme Court Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has repeatedly said that he has no memory of belonging to the Federalist Society, but his name appears in the influential, conservative legal organization’s 1997-1998 leadership directory.

Members of the Federalists Society stated they think the trip was ethical because they have no cases pending with the Supreme Court and are unlikely to have. Yes, as a group, but how many of it’s members might have cases pending now or in the future?

From the “Why Join” page of the federalists society, “Interaction with prominent public officials, judges, and scholars”. So someone with an agenda might be encouraged to join.

On the about us page it lists their goals as those that bring conservatism back into the judicial system and “In working to achieve these goals, the Society has created a conservative and libertarian intellectual network that extends to all levels of the legal community.” Yes it does, evidently, all the way to the Supreme Court and Antonin Scalia.

More from their website;

“Founded in 1982, the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians dedicated to reforming the current legal order.” Overall, the Society’s efforts are improving our present and future leaders’ understanding of the principles underlying American law.

It seems the Federalists Society is a conservative organization, although they endorse no polictical party, and it actually has no cases before the Supreme Court and is unlikely to have as an organization. However, it’s membership includes over 35,000 lawyers and that makes it likely that some of their members have or will have cases pending before the Supreme Court.

So as a lawyer, who presents cases to the Supreme Court, all I have to do is join this group and have access to Supreme Court Justices in intimate surroundings, where of course, I would never discuss a case that was pending.

All I am saying here is that we as Americans have the right to expect a higher ethical standard from Supreme Court Justices. We sure can’t get it from the legislative or executive branch of government, but we deserve it in the Judicial branch.

Accepting trips from groups with political and judicial agenda and gifts from private parties who may at some point have business before the court should not be allowed.

Like a lot of folks in the United States, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as they see fit. In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test, which I have no problem with. And the main reason I have no problem with a drug test is because I have nothing to hide. What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who are doing drugs and never have to pass a urine test.

Shouldn’t one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check, because I have to pass one to earn it for them?

Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sit on their butt. Could you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?

A 1999 Michigan law called for a pilot program of random substance abuse testing in at least three counties. Drug testing started at the beginning of October in Alpena, Presque Isle, and Berrien counties and a designated area of Western Wayne County, including some of Detroit’s west side neighborhoods.

All the new applicants for that area had to provide a urine sample to officials or give up their right to any government aid. In addition, any applicants already in the system had to submit to random testing.

A class action lawsuit was filed by the Michigan chapter of the ACLU two days prior to schedule testing. The suit charges that the program violates the constitutional rights of welfare recipients. Two Michigan mothers and a Detroit organization (The Westside Mothers) were named in the suit. The organization focuses on representing hundreds of welfare recipients and their families. Kary Moss, executive director of the ACLU in Michigan says, “The Fourth Amendment guarantees that no individual in this country can be subjected to a search by the government unless there is reasonable suspicion that they have committed some crime, welfare recipients may be poor, but that’s not a crime not yet, anyway.”

I have spoken to a number of people in person and on forums about their thoughts and the ones that oppose this have the same stance, that it is unconstitutional. In my opinion, it seems that I am not pushing random drug test onto any random citizen. The welfare recipient chooses to get help from the government. So just like submitting paperwork, you must submit a urine sample. Another stance people talk about is false positives. Well if they claim false positive, then do a hair follicle test.

If urine test are unconstitutional, then scrap the whole welfare program. Let your voice be heard on Political Majority.com.