The-G-Blog

Obama Not A Muslim: There are so many better reasons to not vote for Barak Obama

2008-06-18T22:02:00.002-05:00

Hello people. Barak Obama is no Muslim. Even if he was, would it matter? To me, he's just too liberal.

The problem is, The G.O.P. has to find a reason to make you vote against him.

They've given up on trying to get people to vote for John McCain

Huckabee and The Fair Tax - A Match Made In Heaven

2008-01-12T12:09:00.000-05:00

Much has been made about Governor Mike Huckabee's success
with social conservatives. They came out with enthusiasm to support the former Southern Baptist minister in Iowa and helped push him into both the winning slot, but the national spotlight as well.

But the pundits, either by ineptitude (see all the news coverage by the major news outlets in the last 20 years), or choice, have missed the silent support that The Fair Taxers have given him.

Huckabee and The Fair Tax: The Real Reason For His Success

As a baptist minister (and I'm guessing a pretty damn good one from what I've seen of him on television) he brings the progressive attitude that seems to lean toward favoring "The Less Fortunate".

The Fair Tax may well just do that. Ignored or derided by the mainstream media, the 23% National Sales Tax (there's just a little more to it than that) has been gaining support for years, slowly, with the help of a conservative (he says he Libertarian) talk show host Neal Boortz, and FairTax.org.

As the primaries move south, this is an issue that the mainstream media will hopefully no longer be able disregard this idea.

Now lets just hope they present the plan based on the facts. I doubt Anderson Cooper will read "The Fair Tax Book", or it's follow up "Answering The Critics".

The G Blog Is Now Liberty Talk Live

2007-11-07T23:21:00.000-05:00

The G Blog is moving to Liberty Talk Live, an online radio show about Libertarians and liberty issues. Next guest will be the South Carolina Campaign Coordinator for Ron Paul's 2008 campaign.

Make sure to listen Wednesday night @ 9p.m. for this interview. If you've linked to this website, please change your links to the new website.

Oh, and don't worry, I'm leaving the blog up as an archives, but will no longer post here.

Gooch

Iraq, Afghanistan, The U.S. and beyond: Its The Border....Stupid

2007-11-01T17:38:00.000-05:00

As a libertarian, I'm in favor of a relatively open border. The major difference I have with the LP is that I believe we should know who is coming, and have the right of refusal. I've written that a wall wouldn't keep me out, that this is a problem only Mexico can really solve, and I maintain that position.

What surprised me the most at the other nights Democratic debate is the fact that only one candidate (Chris Dodd) raised their hand to say they opposed giving drivers' licenses to illegal immigrants.

It reminds me of what has happened to the country over the last few years.

I've come to the conclusion that its the border.....stupid.

The Afghani Border

In Afghanistan, we didn't immediately secure the border with Pakistan (or Iran for that matter), and have still been unable to achieve this objective to date. This has allowed Osama Bin Laden (who we're no longer concerned about, by the way) to skirt capture for over 6 years. Its also allowed the Taliban to, from time to time, rally and cause trouble for our undersized military force there.

I'm not a professional military strategist, but its seems, we would have secured the border first. The argument is that its virtually impossible to secure the porous mountainous border along the southern part of the country.

That dog won't hunt. If Bin Laden can get to any point on the border, our forces can as well. We just didn't send enough troops to achieve this objective.

Maybe it was never an objective.

The Iraqi Border

The invasion went without a hitch. The occupation (which our military isn't trained for) has not gone so well. We've found that its apparently easy to sneak ordinance across the border (from wherever) to use on our military men and women.

One of the principal problems that war-hawks site when selling their planned invasion of Iran is that they have funded the resistance. They have supplied the terrorists (the ones fighting the sect of Islam that actually attacked the U.S. on September 11th) with arms, IED materials, and even personnel.

Seems like this has been our military planners fault. Was Iran our ally when we invaded (we supported Saddam's side in the Iran-Iraq war of the eighties)? Did we not think that the Iranians would attempt to aid their shia brethren who had been so mistreated under the previous regime's rule?

Were we concerned that Iran, who had the most developed WMD program in the middle-east, who had (even before Akmadenijad) threatened to "destroy Israel", who had actually attacked the U.S. forces in Beirut in the eighties, might try to destabilize the region?

The U.S. border

Our government has obviously made the decision that we are not going to close our southern borders. Its also decided that it will not legalize the illegal immigrants are here, leaving them in a permanent state of purgatory. That's how the government keeps our wages down.

If we were so concerned about terrorists sneaking across the border, we'd have at least made the attempt to secure it. Of course, that would slow down the push for the NAU, which will eventually be the mother of all border situations.

This is not an indictment of the Bush Administration alone. The Democratically controlled congress has not even brought this issue up. They're too busy trying to fund state health care (I want to emphasize the word State in State Children's Healthcare Program or S-Chip) to stand up to our fearful (as in fearful of Al,Queada, Saddam Husein, Iran, Gay marriage, and evidently horses) leader on any meaningful issue.

So I am going to write my representatives, and ask them the question... The question they, the press, or up until now the American people have failed to ask........ What are you going to do about the border situation? The one in Iraq, Afghanistan, and here in The United States.

Its a shame we have to ask.

Ron Paul Revolution - Let Your Light Shine

2007-10-28T12:35:00.000-05:00

You can't drive more than 50 miles on a highway in Northeast Georgia without seeing a "Ron Paul Revolution" sign attached to a fence, a pole, or an overpass. Ron Paul Army shows its minions several ways to support Ron Paul, without spending a bunch of money. The Internet LOVES Ron Paul.

There is no doubt that supporters of Dr. Ron Paul are fervent in their support. Supporters of Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton, Rudolph Giuliani, and even Barack Obama don't have 1/2 the passion for their candidate that Congressman Paul has.

These supporters know that the mainstream media is against their candidate, yet they persist. The fact that the mainstream media ignores Dr. Paul only fuels the fires that his supporters have created.

Most of his supporters know that the mainstream media does not report the news, and the fact that Congressman Paul is all but ignored, is a plus in the minds of many of his "revolutionaries".

Ron Paul is only one candidate. He will likely not win the Republican nomination, and has stated he will not run as an independent candidate in the general election. When he is officially out of the race, will the Ron Paul Revolution die?

I think not. What Ron Paul has done is create an awareness of a Democratic-Republican run disaster that is our official foreign and domestic policy. We spend too much money at home and abroad, and are creating a reliance on government. Reliance on the government is like being addicted to crack-cocaine, crystal meth and heroine at the same time. The federal government has become our country's dealer, and demand only drives the prices up.

To me, Ron Paul represents the best hope of getting libertarian ideals to the masses. Even if he doesn't win, I believe his movement will continue to grow.

Many Americans have seen the light. They've finally realized that the Democratic-Republican party is only a choice between gay marriage, the decorating parameters for government walls, and who will fund our demise. Reliance on Government is not a choice, if you're only aware of the Democrat and Republican parties.

This is why the followers of Paul work so hard to let their light shine. To most people, its not even about Ron Paul. Its what he represents that have potential voters willing to follow him to the ends of the earth.

So, if this is your first time reading my blog, understand I am not just a supporter of Ron Paul. I am a supporter of the Constitution, a humble foreign policy that does not try to dictate our values to other cultures (let alone our own), and a government that is afraid of the American people and not the other way around.

If Ron Paul withdraws from the 08 election tomorrow, I will still be here to shine the light of liberty, and give my hell to the Democratic-Republican party. I will use my keyboard to do my part to make sure that the libertarian ideals that have drawn so many people to Ron Paul, grows for our future. This is my role, and I hope I'm one of the many who do this and take other actions to get the word out that we CAN take our government back.

What am I going to do with this little light of mine?

Let it shine, let it shine, let it shine.

G.O.P To Endorse Hillary Clinton In Her White House Bid

2007-10-23T18:39:00.000-05:00

Sounds preposterous, doesn't it?

On the surface, it does. I've listened to so-called conservatives talk for over a decade about the now junior Senator from New York. She's been called everything except a child of God, including "Hitlery", " Hildabeast" and worse.

But as I watched the post-game of the recent Fox "Not The News" News debate between the G.O.P. candidates, it suddenly occurred to me what the Republican National Committee is trying to do.

The Republicans Are Trying To Get Senator Hillary Clinton Elected!

The biggest rise out the panel judging the debate for Fox always came when one of the can'tidates (as in "We Can't Let Hillary Win" Candidates) mentioned the DNCs probable nominee for President.

The debate crowd heard "Hillary Clinton" much more than "Ronald Reagan" and we should get ready for more of this. They have to know it makes her stronger every time they speak her name. It makes Democrats think "If this is what the party of GWOT is really afraid of, maybe that's what we need".

It almost makes sense to me (except for the whole "she's not really a liberal" thing that no body's figured out).

I've heard callers on talk radio, and talk radio show hosts say they wanted Senator Clinton to win, so that she could mess things up so bad, the country would have to elect a Republican next time.

They're scared Hillary will create a government health care state

President Bush has laid the foundation with the Seniors drug program, and a failure to talk the American Public (or at least a Republican Congress) into supporting.

They know Senator Clinton will "cut-and-run" in Iraq

Uhh, no she won't... Of all the Democrats seeking the nomination, her policy would most resemble President Bush's stance on foreign affairs, and Iraq.

If Senator Hillary Clinton wins the nomination, the Republican Party will have their cake and eat it too. They'll have the President in power most like George Bush, and they'll get to complain about her for 4 (probably 8) years. So-called "Conservative" talk will flourish, and Democrat bashing will abound. Who will be the Kenneth Starr to Bill's Hillary?

After all, if there is one thing we've learned over the last 12 years of "conservative" rule. The G.O.P. makes a much better minority party. They make a better armchair quarterback, than coach. Its better to complain about the way things are run, than actually run them.

The Republican National Committee has figured it out. That's why they're hoping she'll win.

Illegal Immigration: By Presidential Invitation

2007-10-08T15:12:00.000-05:00

Many people have argued that the illegal immigrants are an invading force, sent by the South-American (and Mexican) governments to take back the land that was stolen over the last 500 years.

Latinos are quickly becoming the largest minority, and its safe to say that each year we incorporate a little more Latino culture into our own, for good or bad.

Well, if this is an invasion, what is our government doing about it? Its worth mentioning much of the reason we've not succeeded as quickly as we should have is that we're having trouble securing the borders in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Is this another "Bush Blunder" to be piled on top of one of the large volumes of piles of mistakes made in the past 6 years?

Maybe this is the one Bush strategy that's worked. Maybe this illegal immigration is by invitation.

President Bush, in 2005, signed the "Security and Prosperity Partnership" along with then Presidents Vicente Fox, and Prime Minister Paul Martin. The SPP (which has not been submitted to Congress for review) official purpose is to provide:

"the framework to ensure that North America is the safest and best place to live and do business. It includes ambitious security and prosperity programs to keep our borders closed to terrorism yet open to trade."

If President Bush's long-term U.S. goal was to merge into a European Union style government, this makes perfect sense. Merge the people, then merge the government. Wouldn't that make it that much easier.

The Canadian and U.S. cultures are pretty much the same (basically), so the real hard part is integrating the Mexican culture into these. It takes a long time, with the need for tangling alliances (Read Jefferson), and cooperation from all parties.

The Mexican Government seems to be cooperating, at least. They give instructions to possible border-crossers, and don't even try to hide it. But this wouldn't be possible without the consent of the Commander-in Chief, who could declare this a National Security Risk, and use our valued troops for defending our homeland.

Isn't that what they've been told they're doing 7,000 miles away?

Buy Widespread Panic Music

Giuliani - What Happens If He Becomes "The Decider"?

2007-09-23T10:39:00.000-05:00

The latest Gallup Poll survey found that former NYC Mayer Rudolph Giuliani maintain his lead among Republicans seeking the Presidential election in 2008. Despite Fred Thompson officially throwing his hat into the ring, and a surge by Senator John McCain, Mayor Giuliani has been able to stand on top of the dog-pile, which will only help fund-raising.

Giuliani, a liberal Republican who's already blinked at Hillary Clinton once has already started to take his attention off other Republicans seeking the nomination, and focus his energy on the presumptive Democratic nominee, Senator Clinton.

If there's one thing we've learned over the past 7 years, its that a President most important attribute is the ability to make good decisions, in a timely manner, with an understanding of the consequences.

With that in mind, I decided to look at a few of former Mayor Giuliani's decisions, and see how they went for him, and the people he represented.

Giuliani's Limo Driver For DHS Secretary?

Giuliani takes care of his people. Bernie Kerik, Mayor Giuliani's former driver can attest to that. Kerik evidently drove so well, that he was pushed through the ranks, eventually settling in as NYC Police Commissioner (he was a former detective as well).

Giuliani even recommended his business partner (he headed the Security arm of Giuliani Partners) to his friend President Bush as Homeland Security Secretary.

Problem was, Mr. Kerik had been, well.. should we say, less than ethical (He plead Guilty to 2 ethics violations in 2006), an employer of illegal labor (he admitted he had hired an illegal immigrant as a nanny), and perhaps a tax evader (he is currently under federal investigation).

"We Cannot Let Down Our Guard" Giuliani Style

Rudolph Giuliani is the hero of September 11th. Why do you think he's "America's Mayor"?

Our hearts pound as we watch videos of Giuliani walk toward the burning towers, commanding the city from a makeshift emergency command center.

But why was it a "makeshift" command center?

That's because the one that Giuliani built after the WTC attacks of 1997 was in WTC #7.

They say it was nice. Mayor Giuliani had his own elevator, monogrammed towels, a private office with bullet-proof doors, and even a humidor. Yeah, we can look forward to President Giuliani's brand of GWOT with Pizazz!

Sure, he put it in the worst possible place that it could possibly be built. So what if this led to confusion and possible loss of un-needed life on that fateful day. He's America's Mayor, why should any of that matter?

Giuliani - A Man's Man - Gun Totin, 2nd Amendment Supportin, And Just An All-Around "Ass-Kickin" Kind Of Guy

Candidate Giuliani supports the 2nd amendment. He has said so, many times.

I will let this video, originally from January 17th, 2007 speak for itself

So am I saying that Rudolph Giuliani is the debil? No of course not. I actually agree with many of Giuliani's social positions (the old ones, the ones he had before he ran for President).

My point, is more than his positions on the issues (take your pick on almost any issue, you can find that at some point, he probably supported your position), but his ability to judge situations, analyze his options, and make good decisions.

Mr. Giuliani would be wise not to run any ads on his decision-making prowess. Sure wouldn't work for me

Head-Fake: How Who Wrote The Iraw Report Matters Less Than What They Said

2007-09-16T22:17:00.000-05:00

Democrats have accused General David Petraeus of following orders from President Bush while giving his report to Congress this week.

Republicans have accused these Democrats of being un-American for making this accusation.

Rudy Giuliani thinks Senator Clinton should condemn Move On for their characterization of General Petraeus as General Betray-us, while he takes the same discount he seemed so outraged that Move On got for running the ad.

If we assume that General Petraeus is taking marching orders from President Bush, then we have to at worst accuse him of doing his job. He does take marching orders from the President. The Constitution demands it.

Sure, the numbers in Iraq look better. Of course, a lot of it is because the military has re-classified what it calls war dead. A shot through the front of the head is considered a crime, not an act of war, and is not counted. Only a shot through the back of the head is now considered worthy of being considered an act of war.

And yes, we appear to have stopped counting Sunni on Sunni or Shia on Shia murders as acts of war too.

So what if it appears the violence in Anbar Province relented once we gave power back to the people who controlled the province before the invasion. Sure, they (the Sunni warlords, aka batheists) have what they had before the war (control of their region) and more (tax-payer's money), but we'll call it a victory and no-one will notice (seems to be working).

What's really important is who wrote it. Never mind that it uses fuzzy math that would make Al Gore's head spin. Never mind that we've spent 4 years in Iraq, and are now giving power and money to the people we invaded to remove their power in the first place.

While we argue over who held the shovel, our military is up to its eyeballs in it. The reduction in troops that President Bush touted as a sign of victory was necessary anyway, due to the over-extension of our military in the region over a long period of time.

President Bush was talking to about 10 people (liberal Republicans in the senate and house that keep war-supporters veto power in tact), and it looks like they heard it.

The press once again fell for it, and these few hold-overs got the cover they needed to keep the troops in Iraq until President Bush's replacement takes the oath.

Who ever wrote the report that General Petraeus gave to Congress on Thursday should get promoted. They pulled off the biggest head-fake since 2003, and left the Democrats once again impotent to stop the war.

All the while, our brave men and women serving in Iraq are, once again, left on the fence between several factions fighting to gain control of their country. Lest we forget, they won the war in a month in 2003. They've been waiting like brave warriors since then waiting to come home.

Buy Shawn Mullins Music

The Surge Report - What Does It Mean?

2007-09-11T17:21:00.000-05:00

With the Petraeus/Bush/DOD report on the surge filling all the news networks, both sides of the Iraq issue have claimed victory.

Supporters point to evidence that the surge is working. They note a significant drop in violence in the Anbar Province that points to the influx of troops has had a positive effect.

Opponents use the same data to point out that the surge was directed at the Baghdad area, and the drop in violence in the Anbar Province is due to a deal we've made with former batheists to take control of the areas they held, and had been fighting to re-gain control of since we invaded in 2003.

Truth is they're both right. The surge has worked, militarily, though not as well as Pro-war pundits want you to believe. Our military is the greatest force the planet has ever seen, and more of them means better results. This is why I thought we needed 1/2 a million troops to begin with.

The surge did focus mainly on Baghdad. The Anbar province has been bought and paid for (by our tax dollars by the way) and like the Batheists did in the 1980s, Sunni strongmen have used our money to quell resistance, and beat down what Al Qaeda-friendly groups were ever there to begin with.

I still think that invading Iraq was the worst decision a President has made since Reagan paid for the release of Iranian-held hostages (what a bad precedent to set), but once the President and Congress made the decision to start the invasion, I held my tongue, supported the troops, and hoped for the best.

Both sides have their positions, and they expect you to conform. No middle ground, middle ground makes people like Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich and other 2nd tier candidates arguments more valid.

May I remind you that we won the war a long time ago. Remember, we successfully overthrew the Batheist government, our stated goal......... Then we stayed. We should have left when we won.

Now it doesn't matter. We could leave tomorrow, or stay for 100 years, the damage has been done. We've alienated the world, weakened any bargaining position we had with most countries we need to deal with (Iran may get a bomb soon, but North Korea already has one that can hit North America).

Win or loose in Iraq, we've got a military that's strained (by almost all accounts), and like it or not, the military stands between us and danger on a daily basis, and not just in Iraq.

So think what you want about the war. Believe President Bush or the Democratic Congress at your own peril. They've both lied to us before, and I hear there's a saying in Texas about getting fooled twice.

Will we be fooled again?

Buy Black Crowes Music

Can Ron Paul Get Elected?

2007-07-28T22:43:00.000-05:00

Buy Ron Paul stuff on Amazon

This is a tough question. The optimist in me wants to say: "The American people are starting to see the light, and Ron Paul can help America start to turn the tide".

The Pessimist part of me keeps saying: "He can't win because he doesn't have a fair shake. He doesn't have the p.r. machine, or the money to buy ads, so he can't get his message out".

I'd love to help get Ron Paul nominated for the Republican ticket. That would be optimal.

But because I fear this to be, at this point at least, unlikely I have decided to institute a three chance strategy to help Dr. Paul get more attention, and eventually nominated on a ticket that can compete, at least enough to get enough attention to continue the cause. I'd like to briefly outline this strategy

Vote for Ron Paul in your Republican primaries

1) I will likely vote for Ron Paul in my state's primary. I will also attempt to convince as many readers and friends to do the same. As I mentioned before, this is the optimal situation, though the least likely.

But the more people who learn about Ron Paul through his affiliation with the Republican Party, the more people who will likely follow him (or recruit him, as may need to be the case) to the next chance.

Draft Ron Paul to accept the Libertarian nomination

2) I believe that the Libertarian Party would welcome another Ron Paul Presidential run. He'd bring a lot of attention to the party, and have the best chance to really compete ever. This would be great for the Libertarian Party, and even though Ron Paul has said he's not interested in doing this, its going to be hard for many of his supporters to give up and support Giuliani or Clinton if he's not the nominee. Many of us see that this is not just a Ron Paul Revolution, but an attempt by the people to re-establish control of the government.

Nominate Ron Paul to the Unity 08 ticket

3) I am a founding delegate of Unity 08. If you are not familiar with what Unity 08 is, visit their website. To summarize, the delegates will nominate a Republican and a Democrat to represent the ticket via an online vote. If the winner accepts the nomination, they will be given the ticket's support for the campaign. I feel that if the people who followed him from either the GOP or the LP joined Unity 08, and voted for him in the online nomination process, we could form a powerful block, and shape the ticket to really have a chance to change the way things are run in Washington DC.

So I know, I'm trying to think 3 steps ahead of a process that really hasn't gone into full-speed mode yet. The fact of the matter is, if you support Ron Paul, and are not willing to take no by the GOP for an answer, its time to start thinking about what's next. Vote for Ron Paul in the Republican primary in your state, and tell people to do the same.

Just don't put all of your eggs into a basket that is as badly made as the GOP.

Ron Paul And The Fair Tax: Can I support both?

2007-07-27T13:05:00.001-05:00

So, as you can see, I'm both a fan of Ron Paul, and The Fair Tax.

But does Ron Paul Support the Fair tax?

Actually, it appears that there is not a clear answer to this. He has suggested that he would vote for the Fair Tax if brought to a vote on the house floor, but he does not think its the best possible solution either.

I can understand his position actually. The fair tax would not reduce government income. Those reductions would have to come later.

One of the main problems I have with the Fair Tax, is that it is inclusive. I want people to see how much tax they pay.

For me, the situation is simple. I do not support all of Ron Paul's positions, but that doesn't mean I can't support him. He may indeed be the President that would sign the Fair Tax law, something no candidate (except Mike Gravel) is offering to make a priority, and I'm sure he'd be more likely to force Congress to cut spending than any other major candidate in the race.

Ron Paul is the best chance we have to start to take our government back. If that means the Fair Tax has to wait another 5 years, I'll make that trade and not think twice.

Of course, both would be nice

Republicans for Hilary: Wasting your vote for the good of our country

2007-07-25T18:23:00.000-05:00

What if Republican voters in states that allow open primaries went to the polls to vote for John Edwards?

Or Barak Obama?

What if they went in droves to vote for her to head the Democratic ticket?

As I've stated many times, she's the only way the Republicans can win in 2008, and Republicans have known this for some time.

They've done this before, perhaps on a smaller scale. A few years ago, the Republican party made a deal with Denise Magette to allow her to run unopposed in the general election after many Republicans crossed the aisle to vote against Cynthia McKinney.

I've made it known that this plan will backfire.

It may however create an opening for someone like Ron Paul. Ron Paul is one of the few Republican candidates who is a great deal more conservative than Senator Clinton.

So, as a supporter of independent candidates, Ron Paul, and Unity 08, I say to all good Republicans who don't like to think about the issues, and easily fall for the deamonization of the "other side", go out and do your part. Vote for Hillary Clinton in your local primary.

If you are going to be stupid enough to fall for this "Hitlery" bull-poop (she's more conservative than Rudy Giuliani for heavan's sake), you deserve to waste your vote, which in turn will give those of us who are really trying to change our government that much more power.

Buy Matchbox Twenty Music

Pork Barrel Spending: Why is it so bad?

2007-07-23T18:59:00.001-05:00

According to the Chinese calendar, 2007 is the Year of the Pig. We hear about "Pork Barrel Spending" or "earmarks" all the time when we hear about congressional spending. Supposedly this is when a representative sets aside an amount of money to send to a special project in his or her district.

It helps them get elected.

But besides the politicians, who really benefit from these "earmarks"?

A lot of time, its the people who contribute the most to the Representative's campaign

I'm going to use Lockheed Martin, as an example. Their F-22 Raptor has funding through 2009, even though the Raptor is obsolete, and the Government Accounting office has asked the Defense Committee to stop funding for the project. They build 20 a year, at a cost of $120 Million per ($2,400,000,000 total).

In return, Lockheed Martin gave Georgia Senators Saxby Chambliss $21,000 and Johnny Isakson $23,500 (there is a large complex of Lockheed Martin in Marietta Georgia), and Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) $10,500 (who is on the Defense Appropriations sub-committee) between 1999 and 2004.

That's a pretty good return on your investment. Especially when you are selling a plane who's updated replacement (F-35) costs $35 million each (also made by Lockheed Martin).

That $183,200 they gave to our government officials during only this six year period, costs every taxpayer about $18.35 every year.

This is a disgrace, and it is the major reason that our government no longer thinks it answers to us.

This isn't a Republican Problem (though the Republicans always seem to get the most money) or a Democrat problem (though since they took over Congress earlier this year "earmarks" are at its at its lowest level since 1999).

This is a government problem, and its time we start to let our Representatives (local, state and federal) that we're on to them, and we're going to make a change soon.

Liberty: The Shining City on A Hill

2007-07-20T09:26:00.000-05:00

Once upon a time, in America, we had liberty. Liberty has been good to us.

The United States didn't become a super power because of its great military, great leadership, or even because of capitalism.

Liberty did that for us.

People came to our country for liberty, not money. Liberty made us that shining city on a hill. Not religion. Not overwhelming military force, or the economy.

Immigrants have always known that our country was the best place to live, because if you had a work ethic, and a good idea, you could become rich, or at least make a life for yourself. The government left you alone, and let you live your life as you chose to live it.

Now unfortunately, we're moving away from liberty, and its not just the Democratic party that is trying to take liberty away.

If you want to make something illegal because its morally wrong, you are part of the problem.

If you support wiretapping without a warrant (I support getting a warrant afterwards at least), you are part of the problem

If you support governments over-reaching its authority on eminent domain issues, you are part of the problem.

You see, the Democrat and Republican parties are not the problem. They are a symptom (like a cough tells you that you are sick). After all, we seem to be letting both parties get away with taking our liberties, and we do nothing to stop them. We keep sending them back, and acting like we have to vote for them in blocks, or the other side will "ruin America".

This is why I support a totally write-in election where spelling counts, and you have to know about what you are talking about for your vote to count (maybe you'd have to tell us who Sec of State is or something to that effect).

While the Democrats and the Republicans act like their fighting to keep the chaos factor in check, secretly their both taking our liberty away, little by little.

This is a bi-partisan problem, and it requires a tri-partisan solution.

Cindy Sheehan: Iraq, And The Conservative Bias

2007-07-19T23:13:00.001-05:00

My compadre, on The Hawg Pen, Reg-E recently blogged about Cindy Sheehan, and her run for Speaker Nancy Pelosi's seat in Congress.

He explained that her only issue is the war, and that that isn't reason enough to vote for her.

Cindy Sheehan is one of the founders of Gold Star Families for Peace (along with her husband), and like Reg-E, I think she has every right to protest the war.

I do disagree, however, with Reg's assertion that she has nothing to offer.

She will stand up to end the war. She is running against the speaker of the house, who came to this position because of the American people's disdain with the civilian leadership on the war.

Reg-E is quick to point out that the congress has lower approval ratings than President Bush. This is because of the war. Let's not forget what area Speaker Pelosi represents. I'm sure they aren't happy with her handling of the war issue, since she's come into power.

What has congress really offered as far as meaningful legislation regarding immigration, social security, or education? Not a damn thing.

But the Republican Party would rather us talk about how she's a nut. She's been right about the war from day one, as far as it being a mistake.

Cindy Sheehan may be a nut. I've never met her. But I applaud her determination to get her message out.

I have been disappointed with the Pelosi administration and I hope Cindy Sheehan wins. I'm for sending a message to the "Peace Party" that its time for some freaking peace.

That way, the Republicans could make her higher on the list of people to talk about to distract us from what's going on (never mind that most of America agrees with her on the war issue). She won't be up there with Hilary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Al Gore or Michael Moore. But she'll get just enough attention from fox news so that they don't have to report the news.

The Republican Party picked Cindy Sheehan to be the poster child for the anti-war movement. Now its once again time to deal with the consequences.

2007-07-18T18:57:00.000-05:00

The Hawg Pen will be visiting with T Lee Horne (L - LA) who is campaigning for Governor of Louisiana, on our next show, which is this Saturday @ 10:00a.m. (Eastern Standard Time).

T Lee Horne is probably most famous for his organization of national Libertarian support for private relief after Katrina in 2005, and has been actively campaigning for the seat since 2003.

Sounds like he's taking it pretty seriously to me.

Of course we'll discuss Katrina, and how he'd handle the situation, and what he's preparing to do if he's elected Governor. I look forward to what he has say.

I'm sure that neither the Democrats or Republicans want to hear the 3rd side of this story, considering how well it worked.

So listen Saturday morning. You just may learn something

North American Union: Can the Ron Paul Movement Save us?

2007-07-16T22:53:00.000-05:00

On June 15th, 2007, the first meeting of the North American Competitiveness Council was held. In a world of Paris Hilton, Barry Bonds, and other "real news makers" this went almost un-noticed.

The NACC was established by the 3 governments of North America (U.S. Canada and Mexico), in the words of the website, to "to increase security and enhance prosperity among Canada, Mexico and the United States through greater cooperation and information sharing."

The Website denies being a fore-runner to a North American Union. It claims to not be a replacement for NAFTA.
But it is. The NACC, is a test, a laying of the foundation, if you will (another layer of the foundation anyway) for future unification.

After all, look how its worked over in Europe right.The Euro is rising and the Dollar is falling.
To its supporters, a North American Union would further globalization, "enhance" trade between the 3 countries, and help us compete with the EU.

I don't care how much the Euro is worth right now, Europe is a lost cause. The birth-rate among natives are unsustainable, while the birth-rate among immigrants runs rampant. The Euro boom of the aughts will be compared with the dot-com boom of the nineties. Its fake.This is why the Ron Paul movement is the last best chance to keep our country a sovereign nation. That's why its time you started to listen. Its not just about Ron Paul. Its about changing the way our government works.We all need to educate ourselves about the real issues.

Not abortion, gay marriage, or even immigration compare to the importance of this issue. What good is a secure border, if the border is in Guatemala?

So the next time someone asks you about the flag burning issue, mention the North American Union. Tell them what it is and what it means (Mexico will control about 33% of your economy, government and sovereignty).

Then ask them what flag their grandchildren will fight to keep from being burned.

Buy Daughtry Music

Sneak and Run: Presiden't Bush Answers His Democratic Strategists, er.... uh Critics..

2007-07-12T14:52:00.000-05:00

If a van load of people showed up at your house with guns, turned off your electricity, cutoff your garbage service, and then drove around the house to make sure none of your neighbors tried to fight them, would you greet them as liberators?

What if the head guy had a Jesus complex, and constantly made tactical mistakes?

But it's all good. Don't worry, they're telling you their going to leave when you are able to run your own house. After all, they got rid of that Uncle that kept the rest of the family from fighting because they thought he still had some guns they'd given him 20 years ago.

President Bush, in his press conference today spoke of the need to set benchmarks (most of which we've already met!!!), so we could tell the Iraqi government that it was time for them to step up and take control of its future.

I'd bet we've setup a timetable, that only our two governments know about.

This is the same strategy that the Democrats have been urging for years. The tactics, however are slightly different.

We're not interested in letting the Iraqi rebels (shouldn't that be what they're called, aren't they fighting the duly elected government over there?) know when we're leaving, but we're pretty much telling them we're leaving.

I guess the Bush administration doesn't think the Iraqi rebels will notice us pulling back. If we'd put enough troops in their to get the job done in the first place, there'd be no doubt we were withdrawing. Of course, we wouldn't have been there for going on 5 years if we'd gone in to win in the first place.

As Ive said before, that's why I'm against pre-emptive war. We shouldn't use force unless there is no other alternative. You do know that Saudi Arabia (another country that benefits from the chaos in Iraq) had more to do with 9/11 than Iraq did, right?................right?

President Bush: If you want to enact Democratic plans (like No Child Left Behind, the Homeland Security Department, tax breaks for hybrid cars even if he did laugh at that one to begin with, and the Sneak and Run), would you please do it a little quicker. While you are waiting the 2 months between Democratic suggestion, and your enacting of the plan (after re-wording the Democratic plan to make sure it will never work), our kids are dying over there.

President Bush: Support the Troops.............Enact your cheat of Democratic strategy within 2 weeks of their suggestion. I'll even talk to them about going ahead and really screwing it up (shouldn't be a problem) before it gets to you, so you won't have to stay up past 9p.m. to read it.

Immigration: Mission Accomplished?

2007-07-02T18:42:00.000-05:00

Talk Radio, the conservative movement, and Americans everywhere are declaring victory over last week's defeat of the "Amnesty" bill in Washington.

I think that we should rent an aircraft carrier, put up a sign declaring victory, and get someone cool to ride a plane onto the ship, and talk about how the mission has been accomplished.

Why? Because the victory we're declaring is only the opening salvo in the battle for our nation. Like President Bush, dressed up (he dresses up like a cowboy and a airpane pilot more than anyone I've ever met that wasn't over 10), ready for his flight, with the gleam of arrogance in his eye, the American people have fallen for the great head fake.

All we did was not allow our Federal Government to make the problem worse.... We still have the problem!!

President Bush has failed his Constitutional (You remember that document, right?) responsibilities by not making it a priority to solve this problem in a rational way.

Many former supporters have seen the arrogance ("I'll see you at the bill signing") that I have seen since January of 2001. The arrogance that has turned the world against our nation. The arrogance that has allowed millions of people to cross our borders to work at factories and take Americans jobs. Those factory owners did not vote for Al Gore, or John Kerry, I can guarantee that.

To say the Democrats benefit exclusively from this problem is as arrogant as this administration.

So don't declare victory. The mission is not accomplished. Not by a long-shot.

We still have work to do.

2007-06-23T15:38:00.000-05:00

Hello...... LP!!........ is anybody home?

Between Iraq and a Hard Place

Jackson County GA: Real Estate Boom

I grew up in Jackson County Georgia, about 60 miles northeast of Atlanta on the I-85 corridor. I grew up on Jackson Trail road, back before the developers moved in. And they have moved in. Jackson County is the 43rd fastest growing county in the nation, and has been moving down the list at a very fast pace since 2000. I don't live in Jackson County now, but I still consider it home......Read Real Estate Boom

The Fair Tax: Can it help The dollar compete with the Euro?

If you've been to Europe lately, you may have noticed how weak the U.S. dollar is right now.

The Euro is strong, and there have even been whispers here in America about a new North American Union, a E.U. style body, complete with a common money. (The Amero?)....Read The Fair Tax and the Euro

Ron Paul, No More GOP Debates Please!

After much consideration, I have developed the opinion that Ron Paul should no longer be allowed to participate in any further Republican Debates He does not belong on stage with the rest of the field......read No GOP debates for Ron Paul

Ray McKinney For Vice President: The G Blog Interview

The following are the answers to 10 questions I emailed Raymond McKinney, who is seeking the Republican Nomination for Vice President of The United States......Read Ray McKinney For VP

Get Historic Political Buttons on Ebay and support The G Blog

The Liberals Guide to libertarianism

Have I been ignoring my liberal friends lately?
Maybe.... I think I've been trying to show many liberals that there is a different kind of conservative out there. A Goldwater conservative who'll discuss the issues, not just spout buzzwords and make personal accusations and ignore your points......Read The Liberals Guide to Libertarianism

Hello...... LP!!........ is anybody home?

2007-06-23T15:18:00.000-05:00

Does the Libertarian Party want to win?

I've always referred to my self as "little l" libertarian because I never joined the party. I voted for Libertarian candidates when I thought they had the best platform.

I think the philosophy of The Libertarian Party is grand, but I'm not sure I like their campaign strategy. Or lack thereof, as it would seem.

I've offered to do interviews with candidates who know I may have a slight tendency to support Libertarian Candidates.

I've only offered to interview Libertarians (except for 1 time). They've all either not gotten back to me, said they would accept but didn't answer the questions I spent time writing. George Phillies, whom I continue to support (not just because of the interview, I like his politics) is the exception, and I appreciate the fact that he answered the questions.

Is it too much to ask that a candidate who is running to answer 10 questions?

One Libertarian Candidate held my questions for 2 months, and then the day before the election sent them back. Of course then the campaign posted the questions and answers on their myspace blog and official blog, but didn't link me. I never posted the interview. He finished 8th, in a 10 person race.

Now I wish they hadn't gotten back to me at all.

Hey Libertarian Party..... yeah, I'm talking to you! Its me "Lil l - libertarian". I'm the guy that sent you money 2 weeks ago, but have yet to get my card or a thank you or anything. Do you have to ship the LP Membership cards from Taiwan? I'm no big-barrel blogger (I usually have around 400 people read my blogs between thegblog and myspace), but I'd like to think someone who doesn't have the ability to fire back criticism that I do would be treated better. As far as you knew when I joined, thats who I was.

I'm the guy who has sent email after email, without response for 3 months now.

I'm also the guy who joined as a founding delegate to Unity 08. I actually spoke skeptically about this organization to begin with, but it appears they have stepped up to the plate.

I've had comments on my "official" blog from Unity08 representatives. Not just comments, but questions and responses, and requests for feedback. I've been called by the organization 1 time, and get a weekly email or two. I like politics, so its not overwhelming to me.

So ship up LP, your platform is heavily based on the benefits of competition. We're about to see how you handle the thing that I agree makes America Great.

Are you ready for a change LP? I, and many of my friends are. We're trying to pick you up by the boot-strap, but you've to got to do some of this by yourself.

Between Iraq and a Hard Place

2007-06-17T08:53:00.000-05:00

Beat...... Beat....... Beat..... You can hear them in the distance. The war drums, preparing us for yet another Bush Administration war. Iran, another member of the axis of feeble hears them too.

During the last two republican debates, many of the candidates have discussed Iran, and possibly using tactical Nukes to destroy any nuclear facility in the Persian Empire. Nine out of Ten (the tenth being Ron Paul) candidates refused to take the option off the table during the most recent debate.

That, to me is a good-enough reason to refuse to vote for any Republican (like I would anyway, I know) candidate, and to be honest, this is the scariest thing I've heard in a long time.

I could discuss the environmental effect (people that don't believe in Global climate change should stop reading, I'm going to make sense for a minute) would be disastrous to the region.

The political effects would be much worse for the Middle-East, and The U.S.

If we killed 10,000 people with these tactical nukes (considering the after effects seen at Chernobyl, I believe this estimate to be low), we'd create 100,000 terrorists

This would be seen as a declaration of war by Iran, as it should. They would immediately invade Iraq. This would cause Saudi-Arabia (You remember them, the country that actually had more to do with September 11th than Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan.....follow the money.....) to come to the defense of their Sunni brothers in Iraq.

And they're all going to attack Israel.

I believe this is likely to happen when we pull our troops out of Iraq before the next election anyway. But at least our troops won't be there to get stuck in the middle of a regional war.

It is time for people to W A K E U P ! ! ! Seriously. The Sheet of Glass theory is ridiculous, and it will only cause more harm to our nation. I'm trying to be clear on this point. If you support pre-emptive nuclear attacks, you have no business being State Senator, much less President of The United States. Nuclear weapons should only be used if they are used on us. No exceptions. A pre-emptive nuclear attack on Iran is direct support for Al Queda (A Sunni organization) and it would give comfort and aide to the 50 or so al queda members left fighting us in Iraq.

The Bush Administration has created more Islamic extremists than it has eliminated. The Republican Candidates (except Ron Paul) want to create more.

They are playing on your fears. Fears they created. Its one big circle of fear. Fear of Iran, Fear of Iraq, and Al Queda. Fear of a Democratic Administration. Fear of everything except the American People.

Our government should fear us above all else. It hasn't feared us for quite some time.

2007-06-10T11:54:00.000-05:00

updated June 10th

Powell would close Gitmo 'not tomorrow, but this afternoon'........The Raw Story

Fatal Forcast.............Times Record News

The GOP debates Health care..........Cato.org

Karzai unharmed in Taliban rocket attack.........Reuters

Video of The Day: see more at youtube.com/thegblog

Jackson County GA: Real Estate Boom, and The Old County

2007-06-10T10:45:00.000-05:00

So I've been blogging for about 2 and 1/2 months now, and I can say it has become a rather fun hobby for me. Mrs. G Blog works weird hours right now, so a lot of the time its just me and the pets. Hopefully, things should settle-down some soon, and we can resume our "normal" lives.

Every blog I've posted to date has been about politics. That's what this site is all about. This one is a little different.

I grew up in Jackson County Georgia, about 60 miles northeast of Atlanta on the I-85 corridor. I grew up on Jackson Trail road, back before the developers moved in. And they have moved in. Jackson County is the 43rd fastest growing county in the nation, and has been moving down the list at a very fast pace since 2000. I don't live in Jackson County now, but I still consider it home.

As a Libertarian, I understand that this is a product of a competitive marketplace, and that it financially benefits the people of Jackson County.

As a product of the rural south, I cringe at the thought of suburbia creeping toward my homeland, devouring acre upon acre of farm land, and spitting out cookie-cutter homes, Bradford pear trees, and asphalt and concrete. My closest neighbor lived 1/4 mile away when I was growing up. The house now has 3 houses to its west, and a 50+ house subdivision adjoining to its south property line. We used to have to drive to hear our neighbors, and now you can see them from the kitchen window.

Land Values are up in Jackson County, and so are the spirits of the locals. Like other rural areas, the real-estate boom has been good to people that live in this area. Like I said, its the free market at its best.

But Jackson County isn't the same place where I grew up. With all the new Red-lights, subdivisions, 4-lane roads, fast-food restaurants, businesses, cars, schools and people that are there, I hardly recognize the place. I'm not saying its not better, its just different.

Maybe that's what they mean when they say "you can never go home".

The Fair Tax: Can it help the U.S. compete with the Euro?

2007-06-06T17:43:00.000-05:00

If you've been to Europe lately, you may have noticed how weak the U.S. dollar is right now.

The Euro is strong, and there have even been whispers here in America about a new North American Union, a E.U. style body, complete with a common money. (The Amero?)

This blog isn't about NWO (The New World Order) and its attempt to globalize government and the economy, though I do feel my readers should acquaint themselves with this topic. Agree or disagree with the NWO movement, you need to know about it. (I strongly disagree, for the record).

This is a blog about The Fair Tax, and how it can help resurrect the dollar's power in Europe and the world.

The Fair Tax would give the U.S. the title of "wolds best tax haven". Many of the businesses who moved overseas would move back, new businesses would be created, and businesses that had never thought about moving to the U.S. would jump on the first plane here.

Implementation would spur the economy, and it would be real growth, unlike much of the dot.com bubble which was over-inflated, just as our taxes are today.

The Fair Tax would resurrect the dollar, and put the U.S. back on the growth map, and set an example for states and countries all over the world.

The Fair Tax is NOT A Tax cut. It can be, because its a tax you choose to pay. It could also mean a tax rate for people who aren't frugal, but again, they choose to pay the tax, that's why its called The Fair Tax. Its a different way of collecting taxes. The only problem I have with the Fair Tax, is the fact that it is not embedded. I'd like for us to know how much we pay the federal government every time we see the receipt. I bet taxes would go down then, but that's my humble opinion.

So, say no to the NWO movement, to the plunging dollar, and a sputtering economy.

Say yes to the Fair Tax. Its the choice that lets you choose how much you contribute to your government.

Ron Paul: No More GOP Debates Please!!

2007-06-06T17:36:00.000-05:00

After much consideration, I have developed the opinion that Ron Paul should no longer be allowed to participate in any further Republican Debates He does not belong on stage with the rest of the field.

That's right, I said it, and I stand behind the statement.

I mean, should the Republicans allow Mike Gravel to debate with the serious GOP candidates? I think not. He's a Democrat, for heaven's sake

Well, Ron Paul is a Libertarian. He even ran for President as the LP candidate in 1998.

I've said several times that if Dr. Paul does not win the GOP nomination, he'd run as the Libertarian nominee. Until recently, I fully felt that my prediction would come to fruition.

But what about Unity08?

I've blogged about this "non" party before. Sometimes I wonder how serious the Libertarian Party is about getting major candidates elected. Or at least noticed.

Either way, I believe its time that Dr. Paul admit he's not a Republican. Or at least what other people think about when they think about Republicans.

I understand what Representative Ron Paul is doing. He's trying to fight the party from within. Its not working Dr. Paul. On my radio show, even the Republican co-host didn't really know much about Ron Paul's ideas. And he's generally well-informed.

Dr. Paul is not going to be able to continue to get his message out to possible Republican Voters. He's tapped that market. Its time to move on to the next.

Organize libertarians Dr. Paul. We are going to support you!! Many of us who are cautious about supporting a Republican candidate want to spread your message. Liberty Liberty Liberty. Its all about the liberty.

We get you Rep. Paul... Now help us get you support.

Real News

2007-06-06T17:30:00.000-05:00

updated June 6th

Cyclone Gonu Hammers Oman Veering toward Iran........Times Record News

Iraqi Lawmakers Pass Resolution That Could End Occupation.......... Alter Net

Report Raps Rice on State Dept. Staff Morale...............................News Max

Former U.S. Commander In Iraq: War is Lost..............................Think Progress

Oil rises on report of Turkish troops in Iraq..................................Reuters

Video of the Day

The Environment: Hawgpen BOTW

2007-06-05T22:42:00.000-05:00

Its hard to look at this photo and say "climate change doesn't exist". To say its not happening is not really a defensible position.

Now I think that two reasonable people can debate whether its caused by human activity or not. Credible evidence can be given to support both sides of this argument. I personally believe that human activity is speeding up a climate change that was going to happen eventually.

Of course, I was a D student in science class, so I'm not claiming to be a knowledgeable source.

I would rather my great-grandchildren laugh at my generation because we tried to stop something we couldn't stop and didn't cause, than my great-grandchildren hate my generation because we did nothing, and we could have.

I believe that green technology and green business and products are a great example of capitalism at its best, and I think that we have an opportunity to take the lead in this market. Our private industries should invest in green technology, so that they can be more efficient. It makes good business sense.

I believe the military could lead the charge toward energy independence. The military invented the Internet. And the A-Bomb. If you give them a goal, they will work to achieve it.

Are we doomed? I sure hope not. But I don't think we should sit around and do nothing.

Ray McKinney for Vice President: The G Blog Interview

2007-06-05T22:33:00.000-05:00

The following are the answers to 10 questions I emailed Raymond McKinney, who is seeking the Republican Nomination for Vice President of The United States. To get more infromation about Mr McKinney, visit his website. He also has a myspace profile

1: Why are you running for Vice President, and not President?

To be quite honest, I want this job. I started off as frustrated with the way politicians were handling things. I did my research and I believe this is the best job I am qualified to do starting on day 1. I have a high regard for all of the offices of government, just not a high regard for many of the people in these offices. I am not egotistical enough to believe I am ready or worthy to lead this country. I believe I need experience in Washington to have the credibility. Can I make hard decisions? Yes. President of the United States should not be on-the-job training. I do believe that the position of Vice-President is perfect training for the Presidential post.

2: As Vice-President, your Constitutional power would be limited. What do you think you could accomplish?
Precisely one of the reasons for taking the position. The power is very limited, I would basically be an assistant to the President. However, there are many things I can accomplish. The first would be putting fear of the voter in every politicians mind. In my opinion that is a good thing. The next is, while I would not have much in the way of final say, I would be a DIRECT link between the American People and the office of the President. Every day I would be there to remind the President and all of the others on Capital Hill that they work for the people and the people are watching.

3: Describe your "Say Yes To Nukes" energy stance:

I am referring to nuclear power. A field that I have been intimate with for over 20 years. I have had unescorted access to over 40 reactors in the United States. This is the cleanest form of VIALBLE energy on this planet. The only source with greater potential is Fusion Power which is still in the research stage. Our fossil fleet is aging and we are currently at capacity on our power grid. Future growth of this nation depends on cheap, available power. Fossil plants create 81% of the CO2 in the US. I want to build more of these plants. I want private companies which are begging to build more of these plants do so. The enormity of this project would create hundreds of thousands of high paying jobs. The take rural areas and bring billions of dollars, private dollars. The resulting surge in factory orders will revitalize our steel and machining industry. It will REDUCE our dependency of foreign sources of energy and it will give us a product that the rest of the world is already demanding that we can EXPORT. We could streamline the industry, the design, the process and we can market that product, the pumps, valves, electronics, software, engineering and even construction around the world.

4: What is your position on Immigration reform?

After 6 months of taking office I would immediately enforce existing laws. Cut off the supply of money from employers. Treat a crime like it is a crime. Seize assets of illegal immigrants, the car you find them in, the apartment they are living in. Use the fines to cover deportation. Give them a choice, leave on your own and get in line or face deportation and a life time ban. Cut off the money and the support. There will be no incentive to stay.

5: Tell us why you support The Fair Tax:

First off it is the most researched tax plan out there. Simply put, it removes all taxes from low income workers. All taxes will be paid from anyone buying a new finished product. The drug dealer will pay taxes, the illegal immigrant will pay taxes, the tourist from France will pay taxes. There will be no loopholes for the rich to hide taxes. It will eliminate the cost (Billions) just to prepare taxes. A Snickers bar has over 21 points at which the Federal Government collects taxes. Remove the incentive for politicians to put in loopholes for constituents. The ramifications are tremendous. It would force interest rates to plummet. No interest deduction? Well, rich people would have no need to finance, they would just pay cash. Businesses have no need to “lease” to protect assets. The demand for borrowed money would drop, lenders would look for new markets to loan. With no taxes on interest earnings, lenders could make the same profit margin by lending at a lower rate. Who would borrow? The people that needed to borrow, people like me and you or the low income people. With no taxes and a smaller demand, interest rates would drop and it would be easier to borrow money. It is a win/ win for every American taxpayer.

6: If you were forced to vote for one Democrat currently running for President, who would it be?

Your really scaring me with this one. Every one I have looked at has a policy of increased spending to “solve” problems and I do not believe that is the answer. I think almost anyone of them would wreck our economy. If you locked me in a booth, I would have to write in my own name.

7: If you were elected Vice-President, and for some reason you had to assume a Presidential role, what would you do to reform the U.N.?

Seriously, I would suggest that we treat the UN much like we do the Olympics in that the headquarters be moved from one city to the next every 6 years. I suggest Havanna for the first move. I know it sounds ludicrous but my point is the UN has turned into a joke. I think the idea is noble but in reality it has been degraded from within. I would like to turn the UN building into a Friends of the United States building and invite all FUS members to set up a delegation. I would still remain a member of the UN but in a lesser role. They continually use us as a whipping boy and frankly I am sick of it. We have no business playing monitor to a bunch of kindergarten children. The FUS would do real things and solve real problems. The UN is not interested in solving problems, the goal of the UN is to bring down the US to their level.

8: How do you think we can solve the looming Social Security crisis?

While the age levels may change with further discussion this is basically what I want to do with SS. First off, I want to say that if you or I had come up with the original plan and managed it this way (as a private plan) we would be in Federal Prison for fraud and many other charges.

50+ You are in, you get your stated benefits under the current plan.

45-50 You can choose to stay in the plan or opt for the new plan.

16-45 You are in the new plan and you choose from the following options. YOU CHOOSE!

New Plan

Based upon your contributions to date you will be credited with a refund to put in the following accounts. All future contributions will go to your choice.

a: Treasury Bond account. You will be paid the current treasury rate. All future government borrowing will be from the US SS accounts before selling to foreign sources. Our money stays here.

b: Money Market account. You will be paid the current market rate that the government uses to borrow money. Before borrowing from any institution, the Government will borrow and pay interest on our money.

c: Mutual Fund account. You choose who and how much to invest in mutual funds. You take the risk you get the benefit. The money you choose to invest in mutual funds is NOT guaranteed by the Federal Government.

You choose any combination of the 3. If you don’t know what you are doing, then just put all of your money in a or b. The money is yours. You can collect it Tax Free at age 62 in a lump sum or monthly payments. If you die, the money goes to whoever you indicate. The money never goes back to the Federal Government.

9: If you were put in charge of the RNC, what would you change?

The perception of the RNC is that the middle class in invisible. The stories I can tell you. The RNC ignores so many of our population. They do not think outside the box. They are still driving the Titanic and arguing over how bad the dinner was while taking on water. The are not proactive, they are reactive. People have lost faith in the leadership. I would seek to reach out to people that we have given up on and people that have given up on us.

10: Do you think voting for Ray McKinney for Vice-President would send a message to the Republican Party without jeopardizing a possible Republican Presidency?

I look at it this way. Whoever gets the nomination will get the vote of the base even if they had Mickey Mouse on the ticket. Look at people like Quayle. Who knew who the heck he was. The base is going to vote for their nominee. We have a chance to use the VP slot to draw people that the other candidates won’t even talk to. My policies, which I will push for, are good for the lower class and are especially good for the union workers in this country. We can solve major problems not by government spending but by setting loose the American worker and getting government and regulations out of their way. I believe I can reach out to the Independents and even Democrats that no other candidate can.

It would be quite simple, actually to determine this. Give me a shot. Let me be heard. Show people that the GOP is a place for average Americans. If I do not get the poll numbers, then I was wrong and you can put whoever you want in the VP slot, BUT, if the numbers show that I am attracting out of the base voters then why would you not want to put me on the ticket?

Look at it from the average guy/gal position. What choices are the RNC giving us now? They are all basically carbon copies of professional politicians, people who have been lying to us for years. Why do you think Barak is so dang popular? It is not because of his experience, in fact he is currently running on his LACK of experience as a good thing. People are attracted to Barak because he is NEW.

I don’t think he can win the nomination but I do believe he will be the VP nominee. Why? Because if he is not, the DNC will lose a lot of votes from his supporters. The DNC is building a tag team this cycle. Currently it is Hillary/Obama. But whatever it turns out to be, the are reaching our all over the place. The RNC is not doing that. All of the candidates are fighting over the base vote. I am reaching out for the other votes. Any current team you put together for the RNC only attracts the base.

Respectfully,

Raymond McKinney

Campaign Finance Reform: A different perspective

2007-06-04T18:43:00.000-05:00

Everyone has their opinion about campaign finance reform.

Many want to publicly fund it, while others wish to deregulate it altogether. There are also many people who favor a "compromise" position on the issue.

I think if you look at what campaign financing does to our government, you will agree it is the biggest problem our citizens face as we try to take our government back.

Of course, I have a position of my own, that I don't think fits any of the categories above.

Why don't we make all paid advertising by any candidate running for office illegal?

We could limit advertising to the candidates "official" website, and and they could post the code for anyone to embed into their website or play on the television, as long as the people did not accept money to post them. If the Coweta County VFW wanted to get Dr. George Phillies to give a speech, they could fly him in, and pay for the flight, rental car or cab (or a limo for that matter), a hotel (I wouldn't want to put limits on how nice they were either), and the ticket home. Nothing else. No fund raisers would be needed or allowed.

Same thing for "soft money" ads, or "issue ads." You know the ones that don't tell you how great someone is, but how bad the other guy is. These PACs distort the issues, and generally do a dis-service to people trying to educate themselves on the issues.

Do you think this violates our 1st amendment right to free speech? I don't necessarily think that it does (if I thought it did, I wouldn't be proposing it to you.) Its not censorship. We disallowed cigarette ads and others before. Allowing people with the money to pay for votes infringes on other candidates' first amendment right to free speech..

In Abraham Lincoln's time, it was thought to be rude to campaign for political office. Now its a requirement. Of course, Fred Thompson seems to be doing a pretty good job of not campaigning for President right now.

If we didn't allow political ads, maybe candidates would have to get their message out the old-fashioned way. By earning it.

I'm not saying we shouldn't allow candidates to do interviews in the newspaper and on television and radio. I just don't think they should pay to do it. Is John McCain's message really that better than Tom Tancredo? Its hard to tell, we don't get to hear his message much. Same could be said for Ron Paul, Mike Gravel, and all of the candidates running for President in a 3rd party, or independently.

Grass-roots movements are the only movements that truly work. This would force anyone seeking political office to start at the grass-roots level.

Well, here's the part where you call me Communist. I promise, this to me, is all about fair competition, you know: whoever offers the best product wins. These expensive ads place "unofficial" regulations on anyone trying to run for political office.

The best way to solve this problem, is by eliminating it altogether.

Libertarian Radio: The Hawg Pen Is Now On The Air

2007-06-02T21:36:00.000-05:00

The G Blog is proud to announce the formation of The Hawg Pen, a libertarian political talk show on blogtalkradio.com

We have taped our first show, and is available for listening now!

Gooch (that's me) , Reg-E and Bobrooney, along with Shayla taped the first episode this morning.

This is another attempt by the most independent political blog on the net to help get the message out that the end of "politics as usual" is near.

Give us a listen (Do you think we should take a class to loose our southern accent?) add us to your favorites, add us to your myspace friend's list and spread the word.

Real News: Recent News In Politics

2007-05-30T17:55:00.000-05:00

updated May 30th, 2007: Recent News In Politics

U.S. Soldiers with missing limbs allowed to return to active duty.......Times Record News

Neo-Con 'Hopes, Prays' Bush will Bomb Iran............The Raw Story

The Religious Left Is Left Out By Commercial Media....Alter Net

Thompson May Announce July 4th For President....News Max

Bush To Meet Putin In July At Kennebunkport......News Max

RNC for Hillary Clinton:

2007-05-30T17:30:00.000-05:00

I have been aware of the RNC's almost overt strategy to force the Democratic party's Presidential nomination onto Senator Hillary Clinton for some time now. Its getting more intense as we count the days until November 2008.

The strategy is obvious, and the tactical operations are already under way. There are signs all over Atlanta (paid for by the local radio station) blasting Senator Clinton while advertising for Shawn Hannity's radio show.

The RNC understands that Senator Clinton is their best chance to get any Republican elected in 2008. They need her, and they need her to be successful.

With Democratic nominee Clinton, the Republicans think they have the perfect storm setup to keep control of the White House, and re-assume control of both houses of Congress.

The Republicans will be able to appeal to their base (conservatives who are anti-Clinton to the core), and with Mitt Romney or Rudolph Giuliani (or Newt Gingrich, as I have predicted) as the Republican nominee and their base secured, they can make a b-line toward the center of American Politics.

You remember the center, right? The center elected George W. Bush President. The center also put the Democrats back in charge at the beginning of this year.

With the base energized, and the center in your corner (believe me, the Republican nominee will be hopping a jet plane to the center as soon as he can), you cant loose.

This is going to backfire on the Republican Party, and the result could likely be a 2nd Clinton Administration.

You see, the center is starting to wake up. The center is beginning to understand what both the Republican and Democratic parties are all about. They are about whatever it takes to win an election. They are about using fear (of a Clinton Presidency for the right, and Iraq for the left) to maintain a strangle hold on power.

Neither party has been about governing for quite some time.

We are going to have a major 3rd party candidate this year. Whether it be Ron Paul, Michael Bloomberg, George Phillies or someone else, it is inevitable. And it will affect the outcome of the election. This 3rd way will divide the center into 3 separate but unequal blocks of voters. Check out those first two names. Do you really think either one of them are going to take votes from Hillary Clinton?

The RNC is firing up their base. But they're also firing up Senator Clinton's base, and getting her votes. The cente-left is going to vote for Senator Clinton if she's nominated. Because of Iraq (it doesn't make sense, I know, but I'm not wrong), and the Bush Administration's incompetence to govern (this one makes complete sense to me.) The center-right is going to either not vote (because they don't think they have a choice) or vote for the 3rd party candidate.

I do not support Senator Clinton because of her policy ideas. I do not believe government health care is wise, nor do I think that throwing more money into the educational system that needs a total overhaul to be in the best interest of our country. I don't call her names because I understand her positions, and that is reason enough for me not to support her. I don't think she's Hitler. I just think she's wrong.

But the RNC is going to get Hillary Clinton elected President of the United States. So remember the next time you throw the word "libtard" or "Hitlery" into your comment to Doc Jay's blog that you probably just helped give Hillary Clinton one more vote.

That's why I'm blaming you when she takes the oath. Not the liberals. Not the 3rd party voters. Not Hillary Clinton. At least she's smart enough to realize what's going on and embrace it.

That shows a political shrewdness of the highest order, and I think we can thank the most conservative President since Richard Nixon (I'm talking about Bill Clinton) for seeing it, and taking advantage of the RNC strategy.

After all, it worked for him twice, didn't it?

Real News

2007-05-28T11:31:00.000-05:00

updated May 28th, 2007

Part 2 of 2

Memorial Day Message

2007-05-27T17:27:00.000-05:00

I wanted to take this opportunity on the day we set aside for our fallen military personnel to share my feelings about the brave men and women that have and continue to pay the ultimate price in defense of our great nation.

I am able to publish this blog because men and women for over 200 years have fought and died in the name of liberty, and the American way to protect my right to dissent.

People can make their own judgement about whether our current foreign policy is working. We'll have a referendum in about a year and a half mainly on this issue, and men and women have died to protect that right to make the choice. We owe it to them to take advantage of this chance, but we must not forget their sacrifice.

As I've said before, the men an women of our military have achieved every task they've been given, they have fought with honor and dignity in almost every case, and whether they agree with the conversation going on here about the war, every one of them is a hero, and we shouldn't let them forget that.

In these brave men and women's honor, let us make sure our government understands that it must give the troops the tools to win the war, and goals with a plan to achieve it. Lets make sure they have the armor they need. Lets make sure we provide funding and world-class care through our V.A. (don't forget FisherHouse), and help our troops get the medical care they deserve. Lets make sure they are given plan to win, or send them home. Let's not keep them on the fence in Iraq, Afghanistan, or anywhere else they are.

These are our son's and daughter's, our brother's and sisters, every one. They don't ask for anything in return for their life. They died fighting for us. Not a foreign policy. Not the Republican or Democratic party. They are doing it for you, so that you can do what you are doing right now.

Don't they deserve a government and citizen body that takes better care of them, in battle or at home? One that honors the many fallen heroes memory by working for our soldiers in harm's way right now.

I personally think they deserve so much more. I want to thank them for the price they and their family (lets not forget them either) have paid.

They should all be our heroes.... And we should never forget their sacrifice.

Real News

2007-05-27T09:00:00.000-05:00

updated May 27th, 2007

U.S. Security Contractors Open Fire in Baghdad.....Washington Posthttp://www.bradblog.com/?p=4594

Cheney criticizes Geneve Convention..........................The Raw Story

Representative Confronts American Empire.............Alter Net

25 Democratic Consultants.................................Real News Project

Robert Gates: The Military Must Be Non-political....News Max

The Goods On Goodling, and The Keys to The Kingdom....The Brad Blog

The Reaganomics Of Immigration

2007-05-24T08:00:00.001-05:00

I'm trying to keep on top of the immigration battle on capital hill (the battle between the people and the government that is), and it looks like we're going to be cutting the number of guest workers we allow into our country by 1/2 (from 800,000 to 400,000).

I think the Republican party should step forward and stop this from happening

After all, they are the party of "supply-side economics", or as I like to call it "tinkle-down-economics".

A condensed and G-Blog opinionated version example of Supply-side economics:

You've got a company that makes televisions. In order to spur the economy, supply-siders wish to target the company with tax cuts and credits. This will allow the company to hire more employees, build more televisions, and those employees buy products and services from other companies who have lower prices because there is a higher supply. Presto!!: You have an economic upturn.

Now for the record, I've never been a big fan of supply side economics for tax policy. As a libertarian I do not think the government tax burden should be large enough to effect the economy to begin with.

But Republicans love Reaganomics. Why don't they think it should apply here? If we increase the supply, won't it lessen the demand, which keeps illegal immigration down?

Reagan would say it does.

This bill is wrong for liberals, conservatives, libertarians, immigrants, aliens and all Americans alike. This is what happens when you band-aid a problem to cut the discussion out of the election process.

It's playing politics on both sides, and we should not take this anymore.

Contact your Senator, Representative and President to let them know how you feel about this bill. Then show them how you feel about it at your next election.

Real News

2007-05-24T07:30:00.000-05:00

updated May 24th

Giuliani: Suggestion 911 was invited absurd............Rawstory.com

Unholy Trinity: Katrina, Albaugh and Brown..........The Real News Project

The Next Generation Of Politics

2007-05-23T14:47:00.000-05:00

I've been blogging for about 2 months now, and I can tell you I have met some of the smartest, most interesting people in our country here on the Internet. Every comment, positive or negative has made an impact on me, and even if I don't respond, know I read them. I'm constantly re-evaluating my positions on the issues, and I'd ask you to do the same.

One of the more interesting people that I've communicated with is Daniel Myers. Daniel is the host of a blogtalkradio show and publishes a blog, both of which are called "Politics One".

Daniel interviews candidates from all parties, and independent, on what I think is a personal quest to help get political candidates' ideas out to people who might not otherwise hear them. He also talks about the issues, and allows people to call in to his shows.

He was the sole political analyst on the blogtalkradio show that hosted the Libertarian Party Forum the other night. He's listed on Mike Gravels' Official website. He's interviewed most of the major Libertarian candidates, and many of the independents running for President on his radio show. I'd say he knows more about politics than just about anyone reading this, and I'm including myself!!

Oh yeah.......And he's only 16.

I wanted to ask 10 questions of Daniel, hopefully so he could tell us if he thought other people his age are turned off by politics, and see if he could tell us why he obviously was not. Thankfully, he answered my questions, and I want to share them with you:

1: When did you first become interested in politics?

When my dad first ran for public office, I was 10 years old. I learned a lot about politics on the local level at that time, and since that point (7 years ago) I have now learned more about Politics than most people have as an adult.

2: Tell us about your first radio show: How old were you? How did it go?

My first radio show was conducted on March of this year, I only had about 9 LIVE Listeners and only about
22 Archived. Today I average 65 LIVE Listeners and about 2,000 Archived

3: How are your grades? (sorry, I have to ask this one!!)

I have been a straight A Student up until my 8th grade year I made my first B. When I got into High School my grades kept the same except in Science, I normally average a low B High C.

4: Do you think you'll ever run for office?

I would be surprised if I didn't. I believe I can do a lot in the Communications Part of it, but I would love to serve in Political Office.

5: Generally, how would you describe your political views?

My Blog, Show, Myspace, and everything I do with Politics One, is strictly Bi-Partisan. That's something you wont see from a lot of Political People. You have Conservatives, Liberals, and then you have the "Bi-Partisan" Independents. I am neither. I strictly give you the POSITIVE, NEGATIVE, and Inside Scoop on all parties and people. However my views do tend to be slightly Conservative.

6: Do you have a hero, someone you look up to in the radio or political world?

Honestly, No. I have never really had a hero in Politics other than my Father.

7: Do you think most people your age care about politics? Why or Why not?

If you would have asked me this question 5-10 years ago the answer would have been NO, however I feel that teenagers and other young adults are beginning to realize that everything we know is ran by the Government, Education, Taxes, Social Security, Health Care, Civil Rights is all in the hands of our Government. And the only way to change the Government is to change Politics.

8: If the Presidential election was today, who do you think would win?

Giuliani. I think Rudy Giuliani would win because people see Compassion and Commitment in him. He is not a career politician, he isn't someone who has been in DC voting against what the people want and voting for what the people don't want.

9: Tell us about the most interesting radio show you've done:

The most Interesting radio show would have to be when I interviewed an Independent running for President who wanted to turn America back to the ways of Camelot. That was the best just for the laughs.

10: What do you think is the most important issue in politics today?

Immigration. Some might say National Security, but my response to that is take care of Immigration and you'll get rid of half our National Security Problems.

----------------------

Agree or disagree with what he says on the radio, you can't deny the passion he has for politics. Listen to his shows and you'll see what I mean. When I was his age, the last thing I thought about was the national debt, illegal immigration, party politics or anything related to politics at all. He talks about these issues every Tuesday and Thursday.

Daniel's answer to question number 7 (Do you think most people your age care about politics? ) surprised me. Pleasantly I must say.

Maybe the next generation will be the one to turn politics around, so it works for the people again. I'd like to do it now, but maybe its our destiny to set the stage.

Either way, Daniel Myers has gotten one heck of a head start.

Politicsone.blogspot.com blogtalkradio.com/politicsone

John Bootie: The-G-Blog Interview

2007-05-22T17:15:00.000-05:00

When I posted the interview with Dr. George Phillies, I got a few emails from other hopefuls wishing to get their message out.

In the interest of being independent, I conducted an e-interview with John Bootie, who is running as an independent for President.

I emailed 10 questions (in red) and I did not tamper with his answers.

Notice, I do not endorse anyone for president...Yet.

I just want to make sure people who want to make a change get their word out.

1: Why are you running for President?

When I was growing up it was a boy's dream to be president or astronaut or baseball player. I believe in the saying either your one of the sources of the problem or your one of the causes of a problem.. I believe I have the ability to do this Job as well as and I believe even better than the candidates I have seem say their running so far... I am not saying I have more experience I am saying I believe we honestly need New Blood in the Office. Someone who is not a so called insider.

2: How would you be the next Lincoln-Reagan?

Lincoln and Reagan were servants to the People as I will be. I also see in their service to the People they relied heavily on Prayer, the Bible, and GOD to make the hard decisions. I believe that the 3 of us have one very rare virtue COMMONSENSE.. I have a PhD. in Commonsense. from the School of Life.

Lincoln served with Great Humility and Reagan served with wit and charm to get the JOB done. Both men and I have always believed this Nation is the greatest Nation on earth and want to keep it that way.

3: Tell us why your different than other candidates running?

I am single so I can devote my entire energies to the Office. I am a fiscally responsible, Social Conservative, Ultra Conservative when it comes to money, and Hard Line when it comes to this Nations defense.. I am Willing to make the Hard choices no matter the Political winds or what polls say. And as I have said in my profile, if I didn't TRY to make the changes I run ON. I wouldn't run again. This doesn't mean if I can't get them done because of partisan politics. I know their will be a hard fought fight to get this government on a new track for reform. I just hope these people in Washington are ready for a guy like me.

4: If you had to vote for one Democrat and one Republican currently running for President, who would your vote be for?

I would not Vote for any Democrat that is running so far but if Zell Miller (GA) were to run. I would vote for him in a heart beat. As for the Republican candidates so far. It would at the minute probably be Mitt Romney, it is way to early to tell what the political winds will do.

5: What would be your immigration policy, if you were elected?

I would Request For a period of 6 month's (NO visas) Shut the border to legal and Illegal Entry. Then Start the Fence with the funds that are available to it. And request more. Then after we have a Handle on legal Entry (Yes I know it will take more than 6 months to build the fence) we can open the border to LEGAL entry.. During the Six month's I would Start my Special US Attorney I campaigned on to start Legal Proceedings including Prison time, against any Judges, Mayors, States, Attorneys, Employers that have either professed to have safe havens or that just don't enforce the Laws as they are on the books.. I don't believe we need to write new ones. We just need to enforce the ones we have... Along with this I would start work on revoking any and all free programs directed at ILLEGAL ALIENS... This is only part of my border plans. sorry long winded.

6: How do you feel about the war on drugs?

I honestly haven't seem much results. But to be honest I am not in a position to be in the loop on subjects like this.... YET..... I do see that we have a long way to go with respect to ending the access to Illegal DRUGS.. I would have to get a whole NEW understanding as to just how bad it really is. And Act from there. This may sound short sighted but in the case of the drugs and our people. I need more information.

7: Would you support The Fair Tax?

Yes but I also have Tax Idea's: I am Big on the Flat Tax Idea: I want to explore getting the Congress to do away with the IRS as it is today and Go to the Flat Tax system... Probably Estimating 17 or 18% Federal, 4 or 5% State, and 1 or 1 1/2% Local. (our local County is a flat tax system Lancaster County Pa)

8: If you could repeal one constitutional amendment, and replace it with a new one, what would they be?

I can't say I would repeal any of the Constitution or the amendments. But I would say the free speech amendment needs re-written. It needs clarification.. First off their is nothing in the Constitution to even draw question to free speech.. The fact is today most people have Never read the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or the Declaration of Independence. It's clear "Congress shall NOT enact laws governing the free speech of people". It's so clear that people are not able to just say anything they wish. As in Yelling Fire in a crowded building or saying Bomb in an Airport or on a plane.

9: How do you feel about government and religion?

I am A Born Again Christian.. And Proud TO say it that way.... I believe there is a problem in the belief's of people today. when it comes to Church and Government. The federalist papers were addressing the State Of Connecticut when Jefferson wrote about church and state. He was addressing the State endorsing a church and he was addressing the problems there of. I honestly believe he never wanted the total separation of the Church from the Government or everyday life.

10: What would you say to people who say you can't win?

I have said it already. I put my total trust in GOD to see me through this. I have asked him to close doors and he opened more doors. I am and will always include GOD in every step of this campaign and my years in office as President. I know it's a daunting and Huge Up hill battle with having No past political experience or past Name recognition. But these both can be valuable assets as well. I am running as an Independent just because of the nay Sayers, I know when the primaries are over I wouldn't be able to continue if in a party.
------------------------------

Let John know what you think. You can visit his website or his myspace profile and I'm sure he'll be more than happy to answer any questions you have.

Let me know what you think about the interview and Mr. Bootie as well. As always, your participation is key to this process

The LP Candidate Forum

2007-05-21T21:54:00.001-05:00

Tonight I listened intently as the majority of Libertarian Presidential candidates discussed their views in a forum on blogtalkradio.

It was very interesting to hear the candidates discuss the issues. This was not a debate. Each candidate had 6 minutes to present their appeal to Libertarians everywhere

I agree with Daniel Myers from Politics One that Wayne Allen Root definitely presented the best case tonight, though I'd be concerned at how seriously a "reality show" candidate would be taken by the media, members of the LP, and the American People.

But it could get the message out, like nothing else has. I'm really not sure about this one, but its worth discussing I guess

I'd say Dr. Phillies comfortably took the 2nd place position, and Bob Jackson was a closer-than-expected (for me anyway) third.

Christine Smith wasn't there, and the man reading her speech didn't seem make the case perhaps she could have. The speech, to me was too general. Libertarians want to know the issues. Of course, maybe I should give her the benefit of the doubt since she wasn't there.

In any event, it was great to hear the candidates speak. I look forward to more of this in the future. Libertarians should take advantage of the Democrats and Republicans early start.

All the candidates have plenty of time now to show why neither of the other parties is working for America anymore.

I'm going to try to get the rebroadcast on my blog. Until then, click the blogtalkradio link here or above to be taken to the site where it aired.

Real News

2007-05-20T08:53:00.001-05:00

updated May 20th 20007

Iraq's Sadr Overhauls His Tactics....................Washington Post

Left Off The Information Superhighway.........Alter Net

Israel Threatens Stronger Military Steps In Gaza........Reuters

Bloomberg Holds 'Third Party' Wild Card......News Max

The Most Biased Name in News............................Fair.org

Ron Paul Supporters should read this...................User Mode

Another One Of Our Babies Is Missing........The Black Informant

found Real News: Let us know!

The Liberals' Guide To libertarianism

2007-05-18T19:46:00.000-05:00

Have I been ignoring my liberal friends lately?

Maybe.... I think I've been trying to show many liberals that there is a different kind of conservative out there. A Goldwater conservative who'll discuss the issues, not just spout buzzwords and make personal accusations and ignore your points

For the most part, I believe most of my conservative friends comments have shown this, and it makes me proud. I wasn't sure there were actually still people like me around who don't like whats going on with neo-conservative politics.

But I've always had a soft spot in my heart for liberals. To me, they are the conscience of our nation, and I think we should give them more credit for that. I don't always agree with my liberal friends, but I think most of them want the same thing I do.

Don't we all want a world that is peaceful, healthy, and prosperous? I'd say most of us do, we just may have different ideas about how to make it work.

With That in mind, I'd like to take the time to hopefully better explain why my liberal patriotic friends should take another look at my libertarian ideas. I've broken many the core beliefs into 10 mini-blogs. I'd like to call it: "The Liberals' Guide To libertarianism":

Part 1: Taxes and Spending
Part 2: Immigration
Part 3: The Environment
Part 4: Foreign Policy
Part 5: Social Security
Part 6: Health Care
Part 7: Gun Laws
Part 8: Freedom of Speech
Part 9: Government and Religion
Part 10: Drug Policy
Conclusion

Here Comes Ron Paul

2007-05-17T12:44:00.000-05:00

Ladies and Gentlemen of the American jury,

The Republican party is not the conservative party anymore. Senator Barry Goldwater started the modern conservative movement, and you'd think it was dead if you only paid attention to the mainstream media.

But then out of nowhere, here comes Ron Paul

I'm a Libertarian, so I doubt I'll vote for the Republican nominee for President. Unless Ron Paul is nominated, that is.

Folks, as I've said before, Ron Paul appears to be the real deal. Now, he doesn't support The Fair Tax (which I do,) but other than that, we appear to be on the same wavelength. He's a "don't tread on me" libertarian if I've ever seen one that has experience in Washington, and a honest-to-god true conservative. He wants the government out of your life (and mine too!!), and he's serious about it.

By most polling accounts, Ron Paul has won both debates thus far. Yet he still doesn't get the attention he deserves. That's because the Republican Party Leadership doesn't want him to win.

Why should they? They'd loose almost all of their power to run your daily life.

If you are a Republican and you don't nominate Ron Paul, then the Libertarian Party will.

If that happens, it doesn't matter who you nominate. Your candidate won't win. You think Ross Parot caused a stink when he took votes away from the Grand Old Party?

Wait until you see what Ron Paul can do.

Real News

2007-05-17T06:40:00.000-05:00

updated May 17, 2007

Democrats Make Budget Proposal ..........................Washington Post

Vet Prosecuted for Protesting Military recruitment......Alter Net

A Baffling Texas Supreme Court Ruling...........................Alter Net

Zogby: Romney, Edwards Lead In Iowa.........................News Max

Found News? Email us and if we post it, we'll give you credit

Real News

2007-05-16T11:19:00.001-05:00

updated May 16th
----

Bush Taps Skeptic of Buildup as "war czar"...................Washington Post

Germany slams Wolfowitz as bank baord meets...........Reuters

Gonzalez Tried to get John Ashcroft to sign onto wiretapping program on his sick bed.......................Alter Net

Giuliani Calls Ron Paul Absurd on 9/11....................News Max

The National Initiative for Democracy:

2007-05-15T17:47:00.000-05:00

The National Initiative for Democracy is a movement that proposes to change the US Government by introducing a Constitutional amendment that would add a 4th layer to our checks and balance system.

This proposed extra layer would be a "legislature of the people" who would act as another layer of "eyes" to make sure the people's will is done.

Former Senator Mike Gravel (D-Alaska) supports it, as does Ralph Nader. This is a cause that has been developing, evidently, over the last decade, and it appears to be one of Mike Gravel's central issues (#3 onhis website under issues after Iraq and Iran) in his run for The Presidency.

The question is, do we live in a Democracy?

Of course we don't. We live in a Republic. This was how the Constitution was written.

So should we change that?

I think not. I believe that our problem is the people we choose to run the government, not the setup itself.

If we start voting on the issues directly, why even have a congress? Wouldn't people vote on some issues, and not others, which would give us an incomplete portrait of our values and culture.

Would the congress be forced to write laws that laymen could understand (that actually sounds good to me?)

What about a bill with several sub-bills? Could we start accusing our neighbors of voting for it before they voted against it?

It sounds like their motivation is noble. I don't think this is an effort by the left to "permanently take government over."

I just think they're wrong, that's all.

We have a chance to do this every 2, 4, and 6 years. We need to challenge more people to take advantage of this opportunity, not add another layer of confusion.

I generally Like Mike Gravel (he supports The Fair Tax for one), but on this one, I do believe he's wrong.

Real News, May 15th, 2007

2007-05-15T16:13:00.000-05:00

updated may 15th

McNulty Responsible in U.S. Attorney Firings......................................................Reuters

Nuclear War Play..................................................................................Alter Net

Disseminate Information, Protect Democracy.....................................................The Nation

Seattle Students Walkout Against The War..........................................................Seattle Indy Media

Know about real news? Let me know @ thegblog@gmail.com

Libertarian Choices For President: George Phillies

2007-05-13T17:43:00.000-05:00

Libertarian Choice for President:

The-G-Blog has been listening. I know that many of you seek an alternative to the Democratic and Republican Parties. The most independent blog on the net wants to provide you with as many choices, and perspectives as it can.

Recently, The-G-Blog conducted an e-interview with Dr. George Phillies, who is seeking the Libertarian nomination for President of the United States.

Let me and Dr. Phillies know what you think

> 1: Why are you running for President?

I am running to make America a better place to live. I will do this by strengthening the Libertarian party and putting our issues before the general public.

> 2: Why do you think tax credits for education will benefit all of our children, and the poorer areas in general

The key issue is that I advocate attaching the tax credit to the child, not the parents, so that anyone can invest in the education of some child, even if not their own. Thus Americans revolted by the DC School system can rescue DC Schoolchildren from the school District for which Congress is Constitutionally responsible. For full details, see my statements on my official website.

> 3. Describe your stance on the “War On Drugs”:

The War on Drugs is grossly racist in operation, with one standard for whites and another, far harsher, for blacks and Hispanics. It is also a total failure. Ask any teenager: In your school, is it easier to get
beer or pot? We should not continue to do bad things to the American people.

> 4: As President, would you have invaded Iraq? Evaluate the war, and give us your strategy to win the war in Iraq once you are Commander-In-Chief:

The War on Iraq was built on lies from stem to stern. Note that the Bush people cannot even address our Iraqi opponents by name. They are 'the enemy' because we are not even clear who is shooting at us. All war objectives, for better or worse, have been accomplished without firing a shot. We should simply come home.

> 5: Why are you a Libertarian?

I support small government, social and economic liberties, and the entire Bill of Rights without any compromises. No other political party
does this.

> 6: Give us an idea of your tax policy, were you to be elected:

We should make massive cuts in government programs, starting with the most invidious of all taxes, the Grandchild tax. That's the national debt: We spend the money, and give our small children the bills to pay. That's a terrible thing to do to small children, and we should stop.
All other tax cuts will follow.

> 7: How would you address Iran?

Politely. After all, Iran has not attacked a foreign country in several centuries. Notwithstanding our historical differences, we should try to have civil relations with one of the few countries in the middle east that does have an elected government, even if their election process is badly flawed by our standards.

> 8: Name one Republican and one Democrat (alive or not) that you think would best describe how you’d govern:

Barry Goldwater. Thomas Jefferson.

> 9: What would be your energy policy?

Energy is going to get more expensive. For its own energy needs, I advocate that the Federal Government should adopt carbon replacement, in which long term fixed price contracts are used to buy energy for Federal use from new, renewable sources. Details are on the Phillies 2008 web site.

> 10: What do you say to people who say you can’t win because your not Democrat or Republican?

Your vote counts twice. Once for the candidate. And once for his issues.

When you VOTE LIBERTARIAN! , you are supporting the party of small government, civil liberty, and the whole Bill of Rights. That's a position that politicians of other parties will notice.

When you vote for a Republican or a Democrat, you are voting for the parties that have brought us warrantless wiretaps, warrantless searches,detention without trial, extraordinary rendition, and torture.

When you Vote Libertarian!, you are supporting the Party that supports real American values. When you vote for a Republican or a Democrat, you are voting against our traditions and our way of life. Besides, some Libertarians have actually won.

For more on my positions, visit my official website . Your support as a volunteer or donor will be most welcome.

*************************************************************************************

So now you know. You don't just have the choices the corporate media presents. If you like what you've read, be sure to support Dr. Phillies. If not, keep looking (I'll try to help!)

Dr. Phillies and his fellow candidates depend on your vigorous support, but that doesn't mean they can't win. Do your part, research your choice. You make the decisions that control your lives.

Visit Dr. Phillies on his official website, and his myspace page

The Real News

2007-05-13T13:26:00.000-05:00

updated May 14th, 2007
Found some news? Email me @ thegblog@gmail.com

Hamas Uses Mickey Mouse To Push Islamic Supremacy.........CNS News

Newt Gingrich: 'Great Possibility' I run...................Newsmax

New Yorkers back Bloomberg over Giuliani in poll.....Reuters

Third Way Is the Wrong Way....................................Alter Net

updated May 13th, 2007

Election Theft Goes Global.....Alternet.org

General Says He Needs More Troops..............LA Times

Radical Paramilitary Compound Flourishes In New York.........Canadian Free Press

Voters In Dallas Suburb OK Immigration ordinance...................Huffington Post

Romney Faults W.H. For Iraq Mistakes.......................................News Max

Found some news? Email me @ thegblog@gmail.com

School Choice: Can It Fix Our Broken Schools?

2007-05-13T10:03:00.000-05:00

So why is the American Educational system seem to be falling behind?

Is it a lack of money?

Teacher’s unions?

How about a lack of discipline (educational and behavioral?)

We can debate all of these issues, and I’d say you could probably make a case for all of the above and more.

But What’s the answer?

Conservatives in particular have been pushing the notion of vouchers and “tax credits” that could be used to help (if not totally pay) tuition at either another public school of a parent’s choice, or a private school, for years now.

Basically, every child (their parent’s rather) would receive a voucher (we’ll use that term from now on) that they could use to pay for the school of their choice. If the public school in the child’s area wasn’t very good, the parent could send their child to another, better school. Or use the voucher as partial (or total, depending on the school) payment of private school tuition.

Opponents feel that it will handicap the public school system. They say that only the bad students will stay in a public school. Maybe those students have parents who do not care about their children’s education.

Vouchers would benefit mostly poor neighborhoods where the public school systems are not on the same level as others. Conservatives rarely get credit for this compassionate idea.

Cleveland has had a celebrated voucher system for years

Utah passed the bill allowing vouchers in February of 2007.

Are vouchers, or tax credits the answer to our education crisis? Let me know what you think.

Opinon Journal commentary on vouchers

General says he needs more troops

2007-05-13T07:49:00.000-05:00

THE CONFLICT IN IRAQ: PLEA FOR MORE TROOPS (L.A. Times)

U.S. commander for northern Iraq cites the growing violence in Diyala province.

By Peter Spiegel, Tina Susman and Garrett Therolf, Times Staff Writers
May 12, 2007

Map

Related
-	Latest coverage of the Iraq war

BAGHDAD — The commander of U.S. forces in northern Iraq said Friday that he did not have enough troops to deal with the escalating violence in Iraq's Diyala province, an unusually frank assertion for a top officer and a sign that American military officials might be starting to offer more candid and blunt assessments of the war.

Army Maj. Gen. Benjamin R. "Randy" Mixon also said that the Iraqi government had failed to help the situation in the restive province and that it has been a hindrance at times by failing to support local army and police forces. Diyala borders Baghdad on the east, and violence in the province has grown as U.S. troop levels have been bolstered in the capital.

Mixon's call for help coincides with a rise in the number of sectarian death squad killings in Baghdad. U.S. officials had heralded an earlier decline in such deaths as a sign of the success of the security clampdown in the capital that began Feb. 13.

Iraq's Interior Ministry said 234 people — men whose bodies were found throughout the capital — died at the hands of death squads in the first 11 days of May, compared with 137 in the same period of April. The tally so far for May is more than half the total for all of April, when 440 bodies were found. That was a decline from previous months.

Calling the increase "very minimal," U.S. military spokesman Army Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV said that "there has been a slight uptick, and we're obviously very concerned about it."

Mixon, speaking Friday by teleconference from Camp Speicher, outside Tikrit, to a Pentagon news conference, said that he did not have enough soldiers to provide security in Diyala. The local government is "nonfunctional" and the central government is "ineffective," he said.

"I'm going to need additional forces," he said, "to get that situation to a more acceptable level, so the Iraqi security forces will be able in the future to handle that."

It is rare for an officer of Mixon's rank to publicly call for more troops. When Donald H. Rumsfeld was secretary of Defense, there was intense pressure on officers to not make such requests, even privately, according to officers who served in Iraq.

Mixon was withering in his criticism of the Iraqi government, saying it was hamstrung by bureaucracy and compromised by corruption and sectarian discord, making it unable to assist U.S. forces in Diyala.

The province is ethnically mixed and has long been home to elements of the Sunni Muslim-based insurgency. As the number of American forces has increased in Baghdad and Al Anbar province in the west, radicals in the insurgency and in Shiite Muslim death squads have moved into Diyala, which has fewer U.S. troops.

There is one U.S. Army brigade, or about 3,500 troops, in the province, compared with 10 brigades in and around Baghdad and four in Al Anbar. Sixty-one U.S. soldiers have been killed in Diyala this year, compared with 20 last year, according to icasualties.org, an independent website that tracks casualties.

Mixon emphasized that he had asked for more troops shortly after arriving in Iraq in September, well before the U.S. troop buildup began in Baghdad.

Mixon said he saw that violence was rising and that the region was becoming a stronghold for Sunni extremists tied to the group Al Qaeda in Iraq.

He said that he had been given a battalion, or about 800 soldiers, as reinforcement and that Army Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the day-to-day commander in Iraq, has said he would send additional forces when possible.

"The level of violence began to increase before the surge," Mixon said, referring to the Baghdad buildup. "It has increased, of course, during the surge … [because] we are sure that there are elements, both Sunni extremist and Shia extremist, that have moved out of Baghdad."

Mixon's comments were the first of what could be a succession of blunt evaluations by officers under Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, said retired Army Maj. Gen. William L. Nash, a veteran of the Bosnian conflict who is now an analyst with the Council on Foreign Relations.

"I suspect the new Defense secretary has told general officers to speak their minds," Nash said.

"It's going to be hard for some in the administration — suddenly they're going to feel it from the inside. I think you're going to see more of it," he said.

One Pentagon official said Mixon's public request was being viewed as an attempt to pressure the new commander in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, into sending more troops to Diyala from Baghdad, since the overstretched Army is unable to send substantial numbers of reinforcements from the U.S.

But Mixon is not known for dealing with private disputes in such ways, said one recently retired Army general who is close to the commander. Instead, his frankness probably stems from a new "command climate" under Petraeus that is more conducive to blunt evaluations, the general said.

Many Army generals also have been stung by disclosures by officers. A recent article in the Armed Forces Journal by Lt. Col. Paul Yingling, an Iraq veteran who is deputy commander of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, accused the Army's top generals of botching the war and misleading the American public and Congress.

"That's weighing on the consciences of the general officers of our Army," Nash said. Yingling "said they failed to live up to their sacred oath of telling the truth. As a consequence, I think everybody is saying: 'Not me. I'm not going to be guilty of that.' "

In Baghdad, where the Interior Ministry reports the number of bodies found on the city's desolate streets, in its rubble heaps and empty lots and under overpasses and bridges, there is little indication of who is doing the killing or whether the victims are Sunni or Shiite.

Death squad killings have generally been linked to Shiite militias. At the start of the Baghdad security crackdown, the militias reined in their activities as U.S. and Iraqi troops set up dragnets to enforce the plan. The pullback also came at the order of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada Sadr, who was lending support to the Shiite-led government.

The security plan, however, has failed to quell attacks on Shiites by Sunni insurgents, so it was natural that some Shiite militiamen would return to action, said Joost Hiltermann, an expert on Iraq's sectarian war at the International Crisis Group in Amman, Jordan.

"It is consistent with what we know, which is that the Sadrist movement, which melted away once the surge was announced, is very unhappy about the leadership ordering them to go underground," Hiltermann said. Now, he said, many Shiite fighters, both from Sadr's Al Mahdi militia and from the Badr Organization, a rival Shiite group, have been provoked by escalating suicide bombings.

Hiltermann said many of them probably were operating independently, as Shiite leaders have continued to urge restraint.

"It is still limited compared to what it was" before the security plan, he said, when masked gunmen often set up illegal checkpoints. Sunnis traveling through Shiite areas or Shiites traveling through Sunni areas could be dragged from their cars and executed if stopped at such checkpoints.

In January, death squads killed 830 people, and it was common for more than 40 bodies to be found each day. The toll dropped to 530 in February, when the security plan began, and was 542 in March.

GOP/Media complex:

2007-05-12T07:58:00.000-05:00

This post originally appeared on Mercury Rising.

The GOP/Media Complex, always ready to shove nonsense down our throats:

On the May 10 broadcast of Sean Hannity’s nationally syndicated radio show, radio hosts Jim Quinn and Rose Tennent repeated baseless allegations that they had reportedly made on their own XM Radio show that Democratic National Committee (DNC) chairman Howard Dean was behind Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius’ assertion that equipment shortages due to the war in Iraq had impaired the Kansas National Guard’s ability to respond quickly after a tornado leveled the town of Greensburg, Kansas. […]

The DNC has issued a cease-and-desist letter to XM Radio stating that the allegations are “false and defamatory [and] libelous and slanderous” and demanding that Quinn and Tennent broadcast “an express and specific retraction of these statements” on their show.

In fact, if Quinn had bothered to look at the facts instead of whatever talking points his Republican buddies were feeding him, he’d know that Sebelius’ concern about the depletion of the National Guard forces — a concern shared by many if not most of her fellow governors — is of long standing:

Moreover, Quinn’s claim that Dean and other national Democratic leaders instigated Sebelius’ statements about Guard resources being depleted because of the war in Iraq is undermined by Sebelius’ numerous past statements of concern about the impact on the Kansas Guard of the war in Iraq.

As Media Matters for America has documented, Sebelius has — on several occasions well before the Greensburg tornado — highlighted the need for additional National Guard funding and equipment because of deployments for the Iraq war:

On January 21, 2006, The Kansas City Star reported: “In a Dec. 30 [2005] letter to [then-] Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Sebelius urged the return of Kansas National Guard equipment shipped to Iraq and Afghanistan. ‘The Guard was critical to responding to recent blizzards and floods in Kansas, yet its ability to respond to similar situations is being diminished by a lack of equipment,’ she wrote. She said Rumsfeld had not responded.”
On June 29, 2006, The Topeka Capital-Journal reported that Sebelius provided Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey with a list of equipment the state of Kansas lost to the Iraq war, noting, “Sebelius and other governors have said the loss of equipment leaves states vulnerable in emergencies or natural disasters.”
On September 5, 2006, the AP reported that “Kansas’ congressional delegation, Sebelius and governors from around the country have been lobbying the Pentagon for increased funding to replace National Guard equipment that has been left in Iraq or damaged beyond repair after repeated use in war.”
On February 27, 2007, Sebelius’ office issued a press release stating: “The reliance on National Guard troops and equipment in Iraq is leaving states vulnerable. … Sebelius expressed strong concern that sending the National Guard on repeated tours through Iraq compromises states’ ability to respond to natural disasters, terrorist acts, and other threats to public safety.”

Moreover, a May 9 New York Times article on Sebelius’ comments reported that Guard officials in Kansas and elsewhere echoed Sebelius’ concerns about the depletion of Guard resources:

In Kansas, the National Guard is operating with 40 percent to 50 percent of its vehicles and heavy machinery, local Guard officials said. Ordinarily, the Guard would have about 660 Humvees and more than 30 large trucks to traverse difficult terrain and transport heavy equipment. When the tornado struck, the Guard had about 350 Humvees and 15 large trucks, said Maj. Gen. Tod Bunting, the state’s adjutant general. The Guard would also usually have 170 medium-scale tactical vehicles used to transport people and supplies — but now it has fewer than 30, he said. On the other hand, General Bunting said, it had more cargo trucks than it needed.

The issue is not confined to Kansas.

In Ohio, the National Guard is short of night vision goggles and M-4 rifles, said a Guard spokesman, Dr. Mark Wayda. “If we had a tornado hit a small town, we would be fine,” Dr. Wayda said. “If we had a much larger event, that would become a problem. […]

Two recent reports have raised questions about Guard preparedness. An independent military assessment council, the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves, released a report in March that stated: “In particular, the equipment readiness of the Army National Guard is unacceptable and has reduced the capability of the United States to respond to current and additional major contingencies, foreign and domestic.”

Another report, released in January by the Government Accountability Office, concluded that the ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have “significantly decreased” the amount of equipment available for National Guard units not deployed overseas, while the same units face an increasing number of threats at home.

Packed Into Prisons, With No Relief in Sight

2007-05-12T07:30:00.000-05:00

Civics & Society · Nation · News You Might Have Missed · May 10, 2007

Crowded jails from the Mexican border to North Carolina have prisoners packed into cells, sleeping in day rooms and struggling with overflowing sewers and waste water.

There's plenty of money in Arizona for boosted border patrols, which capture more illegal immigrants who are then charged with felonies.

But the Christian Science Monitor reports that funding is in short supply for overwhelmed courts and jails along the border.

The federal caseload in Arizona increased 94 percent between 1996 and 2006 -- so many new cases that attorneys are forced to spend less time on each suspect.

In the Navajo Nation, most lawbreakers never do time in local jails, which are overcrowded and plagued by sewage overflows.

Inmates are sometimes sent to state prisons in Arizona and New Mexico, which are also too full to take them long-term.

Tribal officials say federal funding is scarce and only covers staffing, not construction or repair costs.

In Greensboro, North Carolina, where jails are over capacity and in decline, county officials are trying to build a new facility, but don't know how to pay for it.

Some favor asking voters for a bond measure, while others believe funding should go to services that would divert the mentally ill from prison and put some inmates under house arrest.

In the meantime, prisoners are crowded into cells, and frequently turn to beatings and fights to resolve disputes.

Sources:

"U.S. border crackdown jams federal courts"
Christian Science Monitor, May 7, 2007

"Navajo Nation struggles to house inmates"
Associated Press, May 6, 2007

"Bursting at the seams"
News-Record (NC), May 6, 2007

The Democrats And Their Politics Of War

2007-05-11T14:09:00.000-05:00

I’ve said it before, but it’s worth repeating.

The Democratic leadership has got to stop playing this political game. It’s not very becoming.

Has sending the bill to President Bush calling for a withdrawal date (and peanuts) worked for them politically?

Yes, of course it has. The American people are unhappy with the conduct of the war by the civilian leadership, and they overwhelmingly think that the war was a mistake.

Sometimes when you stand on the fence, you’re the first to get shot.

The President has made it very clear. He will not withdraw from Iraq while he is President. I do not believe the current President to be the most trustworthy, but I take him at his word on this one.

So that leaves Congress with two choices. Support the war, or vote to cut funding.

We had a chance to change civilian leadership in 2004, and we chose to “stay the course”. The President is Commander In Chief. He’s the decider. As funny as that sounds, and as wrong as he is on many other issues, he’s got the constitution to back his play on that statement.

I was against going to Iraq, and I’m opposed to staying unless we fight to win. I believe the President has made it clear that he’s not interested in making that happen.

Tell your Representative and Senators to take a stand, either way, on this issue, Tell them we’re tired of the politics of war, and we’re ready to either fight to win, or leave.

If not, its our honorable military that we keep on that fence. They deserve better.

L.A. Times: Libertarian article posted March 25th, 2007

2007-05-11T13:06:00.000-05:00

Libertarians' silver lining

The third party may not have much electoral success, but its free-market ideals are becoming popular.

By Brian Doherty, BRIAN DOHERTY is a senior editor at Reason magazine and the author of "Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement."
March 25, 2007

LIBERTARIANISM may seem hopelessly marginalized in American politics. The national record of the Libertarian Party since 1972 — the first year it fielded candidates — isn't too bright. Ed Clark, the party's presidential candidate in 1980, received 921,000 votes, the highest ever, but Michael Badnarik, the 2004 nominee, garnered merely 397,000.

Americans continue to be suspicious of radical third-party alternatives — if they are lucky enough to be aware of them — thanks largely to media that foster a feedback loop of "they can't win, so why cover them?" However, including about 600 candidates on every level — local, state and federal — the Libertarian Party attracted more than 13 million votes in 2006.

But counting votes for third parties isn't the best way to judge the growth and prospects of libertarianism in the United States. Libertarian ideas should never be counted out in this country because they are at the heart of its founding.

The central insight of libertarianism is in the Declaration of Independence. We have the right to life, liberty and the ability to pursue happiness (though no guarantee of achieving it). Government's only purpose is to help protect those rights — and if it fails, we have the right to alter or abolish it.

But from the declaration on, in some libertarians' telling, it has been downhill for liberty in this country. Certainly libertarian sensibilities were offended by the expansion of government's ability to tax, manage and regulate the economy and our private lives in the 20th century, and by the projection of U.S. military might overseas for reasons other than direct defense of the American people.

In the immediate aftermath of the New Deal, the modern American libertarian movement first began to coalesce in the works of such feisty American female novelists and philosophers as Isabel Paterson, Rose Wilder Lane and Ayn Rand, and in the insights of Austrian economists Ludwig von Mises and F.A. Hayek.

But the libertarian movement began as a reaction to how alien the ideas of unbridled individual and market liberty had become. When former Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce chief Leonard Read launched the first libertarian think tank, the Foundation for Economic Education, in 1946, his ideas about limited government and free markets were so marginal in the United States as to seem almost seditious.

Lane was investigated by the FBI in the early postwar years for daring to write on a postcard that Social Security was the sort of socialistic government management of people's lives we fought wars against. True Social Security, she insisted, was canned vegetables and slaughtered pigs in your cellar. She and Paterson refused to accept anything from the Social Security system.

In 1950, the Buchanan Committee, a House panel investigating lobbying efforts, found Read and his foundation positively un-American because they opposed price controls, public housing, the draft and loyalty oaths. The committee subpoenaed records, called Read to testify and ordered some of his supporters to report on which organizations they backed. One foundation funder, Southern California Edison Vice President William Mullendore, denied Congress' right to make such a "harassing and burdensome inquiry" into his attempts to influence his government. Mullendore got away with his defiance — but today's campaign finance laws allow such governmental intrusion.

When, in 1964, Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater used libertarian ideas to decry the excessive growth of government, he was defeated by what was at the time the largest margin of votes in U.S. history. He also was condemned as "psychologically unfit" by more than 1,000 psychiatrists (who never met him) for his belief that the managerial-welfare state in the United States had strayed too far from the country's roots.

Libertarian ideas had a tumultuous period of expansion in the years after Goldwater. Rand became a campus favorite, selling novels of uncompromising libertarianism to tens of millions. A Harvard philosophy professor, Robert Nozick, won a National Book Award for his 1974 book, "Anarchy, State and Utopia," which rigorously maintained that if we have rights, then most of the functions of the modern state, including redistributing wealth and outlawing certain drugs, are philosophically illegitimate.

Also in 1974, Hayek won the Nobel Prize for economics. Hayek is best known for his 1944 book, "The Road to Serfdom," which demonstrated to those who believed in a benign socialism that government economic control tends inexorably toward political tyranny. Two years later, Milton Friedman, a man as well known for his libertarian polemics as for his economic contributions, also won the Nobel Prize for economics. Libertarian ideas were moving toward the mainstream.

And then Ronald Reagan, who declared that "the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism," won the presidency. Libertarians never believed that Reagan fully lived up to his small-government promise. But his libertarian ideas were a key part of the GOP's electoral appeal.

Over the decades, both major parties have successfully run on libertarian fumes: see Reagan's talk of tax cutting and entitlement reform; control over inflation since the 1980s, largely thanks to Friedman's monetarist ideas (Friedman also persuaded President Nixon to end the draft in 1973), and President Clinton's overhaul of the federal welfare system, which echoed the beliefs and data in libertarian Charles Murray's 1984 book, "Losing Ground." One of the biggest policy debates of the Bush presidency has been about privatizing Social Security, an idea in the works at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, since the 1980s. Introducing market incentives and competition into government services — ideas that originated at the Reason Foundation in Los Angeles — are increasingly popular with local and state governments looking to cut costs and improve services.

A full libertarian victory is certainly unlikely, as a cursory survey of the leading presidential candidates going into 2008 shows. But libertarians can take heart in Americans' growing dissatisfaction with military intervention overseas, with the prospect of an entitlement state in which recipients far outnumber taxpayers and with government manipulations and intrusions in education, immigration, abortion and stem cell research. In such a political context, libertarian wisdom about keeping government out of our lives as much as possible looks more and more promising.

Unity 08: Could This Be The Ticket?

2007-05-10T21:36:00.000-05:00

The-G-Blog has noticed a trend among the readers here.

A lot of people seem to be unhappy with both major parties, no matter what your persuasion.

I’d say that these people have very good reasons, and I’d tell them I’d agree with them on a lot of them.

And then I hear “Ron Paul can’t win. Gravel, won’t get the nomination. Libertarians don’t have a chance.

Well, now I think we may be able to fight back.

During some of the comments on one of my blogs, one of my readers mentioned she wished there was a better way. I suggested to her what I’m now suggesting to you.

Go to Unity08.com. It appears they are going to have their own nomination process, and delegates will be selecting a unity ticket to run for President. I’m not aware of any candidates endorsing this “unity ticket” yet, but I’m sure as the candidates start falling off the Republican or Democrat consciousness, they may be willing to make a new home.

How about a Gravel-Paul Ticket? How about Christine Todd-Whitman and Former Senator Sam Nunn? It could happen, with the Unity Ticket.

I’ve lurked around the site some, and it still looks like they’re still getting things figured out. I saw a moderator disrespect a delegate in one of the forums, but I suppose that kind of thing will happen at the beginning.

Could this be what people are looking for? I think its too early to tell, but its worth some research.

If you decide that you do wish to become a “founding delegate”, please send me a message, because I’d like to get credit for the referral (I wouldn’t get money, but I’d hopefully be able to use the referrals to gather more information to share with you). I'd send you a form email, and you could take it from there.

They’re on myspace as well, and I’ve sent a request for more information. No response yet, but, like I said, its still early.

As always, let me know what you think. Remember, I’m not endorsing this ticket, and I’ve stated many times that I’m a Libertarian.

I’m just trying to live up to my reputation as “the most independent political blog on the net”!!

V.P. Cheney to Iraq: "Its Game Time"

2007-05-09T08:16:00.000-05:00

Vice President Cheney, fresh on the ground in Iraq, is telling The Iraqi governent "Its Game Time".

Isn't it way past game time? Wasn't game time in 2003? This is not a game, Mr. Vice President, this is war.

So basically, The Vice President is starting to say what Democrats have been saying for years. That seems to be a trend in this administration. Dis the plan and then use it.

You are doing a great job showing us the Democrats plans wont work, Mr. Vice President. Bravo!!!

To me this is just another sign that we'll pretty much be out of Iraq by the 2008 election.

Online Poker: The G Blog's First Ever Blog !!

2007-05-08T14:02:00.000-05:00

This is a repost of my 1st ever blog. It was on my personal myspace page. I saw the ban mentioned on a Libertarian for President's website, so I thought I'd post it here. The dates have changed, but I think its still fairly accurate:

President Bush, last Friday, signed the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 into law. The act was attached to the more known Terrorism bill which was passed with bi-partisan support after heated debate. This legislation is aimed to cutoff credit card payments to from overseas gambling sites to or from the U.S.

I have never gambled online. I have spent countless hours playing the free games that they have on most of these websites. I don't generally wager money on anything that's not a sure thing, but I am very upset that this decision has been taken away from me.

This legislation is an election year attempt by our government representatives to show the religious right that they haven't forgotten about them. Evidently most religious zealots only gamble in private games, football pools, the state sanctioned lottery, or on business trips to Las Vegas, Biloxi, and other state regulated casinos. I'd like to see how many of our elected representatives that voted for this bill have spent time doing any of the above mentioned activities, and how many of them have (or had) accounts on online poker websites.

How can the government forbid something it has already essentially left up to the states to regulate? 44 states have legalized gambling for lotteries, and almost 30 states have casinos. Shouldn't each state be the sole decider on what they allow its citizens to do? That has always been a rally-cry of the conservative movement, and appears to be the standard when it comes to gambling regulation. Supporters, I'm sure, will tell you it is a national responsibility because it involves international bank accounts. That's just their excuse. The state or federal authorities aren't able to tax these transactions, so they're essentially left out of a loop they have been so cozy within for years when it comes to state-sanctioned gambling.

I'm disappointed with the Democrats for supporting this legislation. I'm disappointed with online gamblers who voted for the Republicans who supported this action, because they should have known they were setting themselves up for something like this. I expected this from President Bush who has consistently erred on the side of less freedom since he took his oath of office.

Its too late to change the law now. Anyone who has seen government in action knows that there will never be enough support to change this legislation on its own. Our choice is to lobby our Representative, Senator and President to hide a repeal in another bill (preferably in something that sounds patriotic and American, people don't read those bills), or to support people who want to hire lawyers to challenge this, and hopefully find some loophole that can give us some paradigm of freedom.

The president and congress weren't asleep at the wheel on this one. America was.

P.S. Please visit my friends @ www.kickasspoker.com and show your support. They offer a referral service that is totally freee, legal and above-board, and they are becoming innocent victims of the government intrusion into our private lives

The-Three-State Solution In Iraq

2007-05-07T16:15:00.000-05:00

Senator Sam Brownback (R -KS) supports the Three-State-Solution. Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) has been talking about this strategy for years.

Independent news is talking about it.

The Corporate media (CNN-Time WARNER, FOX, ABC, CBS, NBC -MSNBC, COX Media, etc), well they don't really report the news anymore..

The Three-State Solution would break Iraq into 3 separate states with a weaker national government. States rights supporters should love this idea. It would let the Shia control Shiite areas, Sunni to control Sunni areas, and the Kurds to control the North. The current plan proposed by Biden at least would divide oil profits among them, and the Iraqi people themselves (I know, where's our take, right).

This could be implemented quickly and efficiently, and allow us to get out, and I believe claim victory (although it be 4/12 yrs too late in coming)!!

I called The White House (you can do that, you know) to find out President Bush's official position.

I was transferred to comments, and was told I needed to call the press office. Without a press pass, I couldn't get thru to the press office. I was transferred to the white house website, which did not list a Three-State-Strategy, and then to the public liaison, where I spoke to Blake, who said that I'd need to speak to HOMELAND SECURITY?!?!. I'm emailing them the question, and I'll let you know the official answer.

Senator Johnny Isackson (my senator) supports a unified Iraq, and not a separation into 3 sem-autonomous states with a weaker central government

Senator Saxby Chambliss's office (my other senator) said they'd get back to me. I'll post the answer.

My Representative, John Linder's office (who I like, by the way) said they'd get back to me as well.

(contact info on your reps can be found on the left)

Could this be the plan that saves Iraq? I'm not sure, but I'd sure like to discuss it more.

Let me know your thoughts about a Three-State-Strategy in Iraq.

Can it work?

Should we try it?

Do you think its too late?

Of course its all up to President Bush. Its our job to ask the question!!

*******
UPDATE: President Bush's email response:

On behalf of President Bush, thank you for your correspondence.
We appreciate hearing your views and welcome your suggestions.
Due to the large volume of e-mail received, the White House cannot
respond to every message.

Thank you again for taking the time to write.

*******
I guess there's our answer!!

George Tenet Wants Me To Read His Book?

2007-05-06T16:06:00.000-05:00

George Tenet has something to say. And he wants to make sure everyone knows it.

1) He did not jump up and down and tell President Bush that WMDs were a “slam dunk”. I mean, he did tell President Bush that the case for the war with Iraq was a “slam dunk”, but he did not jump up and down about it.

2) He also wants us to know that he spoke to Richard Pearle on September 12th, 2001 who told him "Iraq had to pay for the attack" . Of course, he says that the days get jumbled up and it may have been as late as late September or Early October when he said it, but he wants us to know he said it.

Mr. Tenet, I think I heard you loud and clear. You don’t want the blame for the war. And you want us to pay for a book so you to tell us this?

As far as I’m concerned George Tenet and should have been fired on September 11th, at about 12p.m.

Say what you want about September 11th (and I’ve heard a lot of different ideas, believe me), but there were definitely signs.

Tenet was a holdover from the Clinton Administration (HW Bush advised his son to keep Tenet on when he took office), and therefore had plenty of time (and information, we find in retrospect) to connect the dots.

But he did not. And now, here we are.

Mr. Tenet, I wish you’d have written a book entitled “How I Stopped An Arial Attack On America In 2001".

Now that would be a book worth reading!!!

The Fair Tax Is The Best Solution For American Taxpayers

2007-05-05T23:32:00.000-05:00

As someone who considers himself a conservative (even if nobody else does), I generally like to concentrate on social issues, the issues that I tend to disagree with other "conservatives" on. There are two main reasons for this

1. I like to argue. If I concentrated on taxes and spending, I couldn't highlight the differences between myself and the Republican party, and have good-spirited debates with other conservatives on the issues. So I agree with a lot of Democrats on a lot of social issues, that's okay with me. Be sure, they'll have their chance to disagree with me, and now might be a good chance.

2. After much thought and some reservations, I've decided to support the Fair Tax. To me, the Fair Tax would solve most of the problems associated with today's complicated tax code, and would give the power back to the taxpayer.

I'd like to discuss the Fair Tax with you. That being said, I'm not going into too much detail, because I don't want to bore you (its figures and taxes, fun!!). I do, however, have resources. ---

Basically, the Fair Tax is an embedded 23% sales tax on retail purchases. This has nothing to do with either state sales taxes, or Social Security taxes. These taxes won't change. But everything you buy (at the retail level) would contain a 23% embedded sales tax, which would replace the income tax.

Q: How did they come up with 23%

A: This is the average income tax embedded into each item you buy. For instance, if you buy a TV for $100, 23% of that went to pay income taxes for the people who made it, shipped it, and sold it

Also, each family would receive what is called a "prebate" from the government each month. This "prebate" would equal the amount of taxes that someone would spend for the basic necessities. If you only buy what you have to, you don't pay taxes (this is where the "prebate" kicks in). If you buy a luxury item, or more than is necessary to live on, you pay a tax on those items.

Q: Will this mean less money will be paid to the government

A: NO, this is a revenue-Neutral tax. The Government should take in the same amount of money. It is also not a tax cut. It is just a different (and simpler) way of collecting taxes.

The Fair Tax would eliminate the need for April 15th (not the day, but the tax deadline) for individuals. It would put business in charge of tax record-keeping and writing the check to the government each quarter. The IRS probably couldn't be eliminated (there would still be a need for some oversight, but not on the level we have today), but it would be reduced dramatically.

Also, that extra 23% that you'd pay for the item would eventually decrease, (the businesses don't have to pay the income tax, anymore and competition would reduce the price). A few years ago, an airline tax expired, and congress forgot to re-instate it. Before the end of the next day, almost all of the airlines had reduced their ticket price by about the same amount as that tax. It only took one company, trying to get a few extra customers, to get the ball started.

Q: Will I still be able to deduct things like student loan interest, and business expenses?

A: NO. You would not pay income taxes, therefore there would be no reason to deduct these items.

Q: What about my retirement, will it be affected?

A: YES. You won't have to pay income taxes on that money, or interest made from that money.

Q: The-G-Blog, you make it sound so simple, is it?

A: NO. I don't have time to go into really specific details. I've linked the sites and books below to help you gather information, and I'll be glad (and I hope some of my other readers that have more knowledge than I do) try to answer any specific questions you have in the comments, but ultimately, you are going to have to really look at the proposal to see what you think.

The Fair Tax bill has been re-introduced in this Congress (Senate S 1025, and House H25). It has some bi-partisan support, but it needs more. Rep Charlie Rangel (D NY) has supposedly agreed to really look at this bill, and he is the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, so maybe we can at least have a debate.

Remember, lobbyists don't like the Fair Tax because it takes deduction, and special provision powers away from them in the tax code. Many in congress don't like it because it hampers their ability to spend our money on pork for their district. That should be reason enough to give this bill a chance!!

As always, thanks for the comments. I'm sure I missed something important, so if you have any questions or comments, don't hesitate to post.

FairTax.org

Wikipedia/Fair TAx

Fair Tax Article

Blogging To Change America!!

2007-05-05T00:37:00.000-05:00

If I told you that I had the answers to most of the world’s current problems, would you care to listen??????

Well, I’ve got it, and for $free.99 (I stole that from a Kanye song, sorry) I’ll share my secret.

Its respect. Its that simple.

I’m sure that each and everyone of you could find many things to disagree with me about. I encourage that. Maybe you can change my mind (probably not). I try to respect your position, and I hope you respect mine. That doesn’t mean either of us is evil. Most of us want the same thing (A peaceful, healthy and prosperous world), sometimes we just have different ideas about how to achieve the objective.

When I started this blog, I wanted to open up a forum for debate. Yeah, I’m more conservative than liberal on a lot of things, but I’m more liberal than conservative on others. I hoped this wouldn’t be like many of the other conservative blogs (I’m a Libertarian, for the record), where it generally resorts to name calling and motive accusations.

I don’t really see the same trend in many of the more liberal blogs I read, and that makes me feel bad for the conservative movement. Usually when its there on the liberal blogs, its one of those conservative profiles doing the accusing and name calling.

Senator Barry Goldwater’s movement deserves more than this!

Recently, I’ve had some trouble with one of my readers (I’m not going to promote him, but if you read my blogs, you know who I’m talking about), who I personally think is a fraud. I know, I know, I’ve had several people tell me this, and I’d already “outed” him on his blog (he took those posts down). I’ve sent several messages to this profile, and he’s yet to come clean.

Either way, I wish he’d pick on someone else.

If he’s a fraud, then this isn’t the type of place he should be concentrating on. I promote debate here.

If he’s for real, its still a joke. But either way, its not funny. I laid into him pretty hard, because I want to send a message that this type of thing isn’t tolerated here.

Anyway, I implore my conservative friends to discuss the issues. Name calling will never convince someone of your position. I’d give the same advice to my liberal friends as well.

From what I’ve seen, most of us LOVE IT and would never want to LEAVE IT so we all need to figure out a way to make the American Experiment a more perfect union, the goal our founding fathers shared.

As always, thanks for the comments, keep them coming!!
Make sure to visit The-G-Blog on the net

2007-05-04T12:09:00.000-05:00

Happy Independence Day. In honor, I'm posting an audio blog. Listen to The Hawg Pen's recent conversation with Raymond McKinney, who is seeking The Repulican Party's nomination for President of The United States.

Mr. McKinney is not an independent candidate, but he has an independent streak, and some positions that I think could be described as "independent".

The Fair Tax: Why Won't Republicans Support It

2007-05-04T00:16:00.000-05:00

Its fair to say that we need more debates. We have enough candidates to choose from, and I don’t think many people who hadn’t decided who they support before the debates were convinced. I think that’s good.

It’s okay if you have a chosen a candidate to support, as well, but not all of us have made up our mind yet. I’ve got a feeling candidates aren’t done throwing their hat in the ring for 2008, so maybe I’ll keep my options open.

As many of you know, I am a supporter of the Fair Tax. Governor Huckabee mentioned his support for the Fair Tax tonight, as did Governor Tancredo. Senator Mike Gravel has also pledged his support for the Fair Tax.

I did some quick research on these three candidates to see more of their thoughts.

I had trouble finding Mike Huckabee’s official website. A Google search revealed his exploratory site, and some fan pages, but no “official” Huckabee for president site. Weird! Let me know if I’m wrong

Anyway, none of these pages mention the Fair Tax, and his exploratory site mentions signing the No-Tax pledge, but this isn’t the Fair Tax

Governor Tancredo does appear to have an official site. It states that he supports either a flat tax or a national sales tax, but does not mention the Fair Tax

Senator Mike Gravel, however does support the Fair Tax, on his official site. Its on the 2nd line of his issues, on the front page.

I did some research to see Rep Ron Paul’s position. There is no official position, but from what I’ve read, he won’t support it because its revenue neutral. His supporters should explain to him that this is a tax that you choose to pay, so it can be a tax cut if you want it to be.. Its your decision, and I think he could respect that

So, a Democrat is the only major Candidate that specifically supports the Fair Tax. Why is that? This is a conservative idea, but conservatives won’t support it.

Is this a case of another Democrat who’s willing to step up, and actually address the issue with ideas, while Republicans scramble for wiggle room? I think it is, and it’s why I don’t generally vote Republican.

One of many, many reasons!!

A Compassionate Deficit

2007-05-02T16:58:00.001-05:00

I would like to personally thank your children for funding my government.

Thanks!

Ronald Reagan did it. George HW Bush did it. Bill Clinton.. (oh yeah that's right he had a surplus at the end of his 2nd term). George W. Bush is doing it. Why is the only time we've had a balanced budget in the last 26 years was when a Democrat was President? (Don't bother with "Bill Clinton had a Republican congress" bull-poop. So did President W. Bush, and they all had veto power)

Maybe the Republicans don't care about your children (well, after they're born, anyway.)
I had a good deal of credit card debt when I was in college. The government won't let me make my children pay for that. Why? I mean because I went to college, I'll make more money, so my kids will have a better education, and in turn make even more money. Why not make them pay for that privilege? That seems to be the American way of late.

We have soldiers overseas fighting for our freedom, and we're told if we don't support them, we're un-American. I'm afraid they're funding themselves, they just have to do it with interest. To me, that's not supporting the troops, in the most literal sense. And its not like even when Congress funds them, they get the equipment they need, and deserve. We have the ability to protect our troops from roadside bombs, we just can't get them on their vehicles.

Whitney Houston believes the children are our future. President Bush believes the children are our financiers. I have to agree with Ms. Houston on this one

Gangsta's Paradise Remix

2007-05-01T15:27:00.000-05:00

I found this video, and it may be old news (I seem to behind on some of my posts, forgive me, I'm still pretty new).

I wanted to post this, and see what thoughts my readers have to say. I'm honestly not sure what to think. Its very interesting.

Gangstas Paradise Remix

So You Say You Want A Healthcare Revolution? Libertarians and Health care

2007-04-30T23:04:00.000-05:00

Well, we all want to change the world.

But there is a better way. Now I’m sure my liberal and conservative friends can agree (finally, The-G-Blog, a uniter, not a divider) that the current way is not working. So do we let the government step in to once again solve our problems (like the war on drugs, like the prescription drug plan, etc).

Healthcare is outrageous. So is health insurance. So why shouldn’t the Federal Government implement a plan to solve the crisis?

Because they’ll make it worse, that’s why.

The government requires insurance carriers to carry certain coverages on all policies they sell. So if you are a 70 year old female who’s had your tubes tied, most likely you are required to buy pregnancy coverage through your healthcare provider, I guess just in case. Silly requirements like these drive the price up. You can’t go out and get a simple policy that covers an unexpected loss. Not because these policies wouldn’t make money, but because the state requires them to add on extra coverages, which cost extra

What about the cost?

If you have healthcare insurance through your company, the company pays about 50% of that premium (on average). So when we move to Government healthcare, your taxes will need to be increased by 2x the amount you pay now toward healthcare. And do you think that once competition is eliminated, the hospitals are going to lower their price?. Is that what we need, solve the problem by doubling our burden? I say not.

Now, I’m all for a non-profit healthcare program sponsored by the government to offer basic healthcare to those who don’t get it through their company. I would also like to see a safety net for those who couldn’t afford the premiums that the non-profit program provided. Call me the libertarian Dennis Kucinich if you will.

We should concentrate on Tort reform, more competition, and less government intervention. It’s the American way... Or at least it used to be!!

Gore And Gingrich: A Match Made In Heaven: blogs from a Political Standpoint

2007-04-28T17:49:00.000-05:00

If I could get one wish, I’d make it a Gingrich-Gore Presidential race in 2008. Say what you want about their policies, and idiosyncracies, but both of these non-candidates could really change the course of our country.

Vice President Gore has experience in the Senate, and in the Executive branch that no other candidate has (even Hillary Clinton). He knows foreign relations, he understands complex issues, and for heaven’s sakes, he invented the internet! I think he would have read into the memo that stated Bin Laden was determined to attack the US with planes. Sure, he might go a little overboard with the environmental cause, but it beats war, and I doubt he’d get many of his pet environmental projects through a divided Senate.

Newt Gingrich is the father of the line-item veto, and the “Contract with America”. Agree, or disagree with his ideas, this is an intellectual man (he’s a former history professor) with a lot of ideas about changing our country. He’s not your run-of-the-mill Republican, and he could really convert the middle. Sure, he’s had personal issues, but haven’t we all? I’ve always thought of him as an intellectually honest man, even when I didn’t agree with his position. Like Gore, I believe that he would have read into the memo that stated Bin Laden was determined to attack the US with planes.
I hate to say it, but I’m not sure we’ve got the best of the best candidates running for President on either side of the Aisle right now. I like Huckabee, Edwards, Obama , and sometimes McCain. But in my opinion, only two people have the experience and the ideas that could lead us into a new decade for America. Both have not decided to run yet.

Is that smart? I think it is. Its just another reason that they are on another level, at least where politics are concerned. These guys are going to wait for the Also-rans in their party to eliminate each other. Then they’re going to try to take the winner.

I think they’re winning already

The Leftist Media Declares Victory In Iraq

2007-04-28T09:35:00.000-05:00

I was watching CNN the other day, and get ready for this........
Two correspondents, Heidi Collins and some other guy were discussing the fact that we seem to have, in part of the country anyway, found a way to win the war in Iraq.
It appears we have made agreements with several former Bathe Party leaders to give them local power in exchange for the elimination of Al Qaeda in those areas. And it seems to be working.
So now instead of U.S. troops fighting Batheists and Al Qaeda, we're letting Batheists fight Al Qaeda. Basically Saddam's army is fighting Bin Laden's army. But I thought they were friends?
Say what you want about Saddam Hussein, but he was not an Islamic Fascist. I mean, he was a Fascist, and he was Islamic, but he ran a non-sectarian government. Tariq Aziz, one of Saddam's right hand men was a Christian. He had Sunni's and Shia in his upper "management". In case you didn't want to be tortured by a Sunni, he could have a diverse group of men hang you by your toenails.
Maybe we should not tell President Bush about this. We seem to do better when he's doing the YMCA to African music. The administrations excuse always appears to be "we didn't know it was happening". Sometimes I believe them.
Of course, this is only one part of Iraq. The Shiite majority have no ties to Al Qaeda and "the list" never really got into this part of the country (Bin Laden is a member of the Whabi (sp) sect of the Suni Muslims, and we all know sunni and shia don't play nice right now). Our biggest problem now seems to be with this group. Also, where Shia and Sunni (who once lived in relative peace under Saddam) live in the same neighborhoods, there are still many issues. Neither seem to be getting better.
Maybe when Saddam's army beats Al Qaeda, we can sic them on the rest of the country. It worked for Saddam, why wouldn't it work for us?
So now it appears the best case scenario is for the Bathe Party to control the country, the elimination of Al Qaeda in Iraq, and a Stable centralized government, ran by the largest minority in the country.
That's the exact scene as the day before we invaded Iraq. But at least Haliburton and Exxon made a killing, right?

Virginia Tech Shooting

2007-04-16T16:58:00.000-05:00

I know today's school shooting at Virginia Tech has really been terrible, on so many levels. I pray for the people who did and didn't make it, their family and friends, and anybody associated with Virginia Tech who has been personally affected by this tragedy.
I think it's a good time to have a discussion about gun-control. I'll give my thoughts first, and I hope everyone else can give their perspective.

But First:

2nd amendment:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

I think that most Democrats want to forget it's there, and most Republicans don't read what it says.

Well-regulated means, well,,,,regulated. This is why I never believed the Brady Bill to be unconstitutional. I could site specific disagreements with the bill (some things are on there that shouldn't and some things aren't on there that should), but overall, I believe it to be constitutional.

I don't hunt. I'm not against it, bu to me ts boring, and I'm not sure I could pull the trigger. I like to eat the meat though, and I think that anyone who wants to go out and hunt, should, because I know a lot of people who really enjoy it. But you usually have to wake up early, I'm warning you!
I do own a gun. I don't get to carry it everywhere, but you better believe I can get to it if I need it (thank God I never have). If you knew what I did for a living (don't worry its legal), you'd understand.

"If firearms are outlawed, only outlaws will have them". There's some truth to that (I hate buzz words, but this one make sense) statement. I mention that because if someone in the Virginia Tech dorm or classroom other than the gunman had a gun, the story would not have ended the same, and if the shooter knew someone would, he might not even have tried.

http://www.wbir.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=43109
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/OthWr/principal&gun.htm

I could go on, but I want to make this short. I'm sure nobody is going to agree with The-G-Blog on this one, so let the debate begin!!

2007-04-14T17:00:00.000-05:00

I wanted to title this blog "Imus Isn't Half As Bad As Your Government Is", but I'd already used my mandatory Imus headline.

The drug war has done to more harm to society, minorities in particular, than the Iraq war has. Richard Nixon coined the term "war on drugs" in 1971 after my parents got to have all their fun (BOO!)

Approximately 55% of federal inmates are drug offenders. (http://www.drugwarfacts.org/prison.htm) It costs us about $22,000 per inmate, per year (http://www.november.org/razorwire/rzold/22/22006.html) to keep these people in Federal prison (Republicans: This could have been a tax savings of about $19,133,840,000).

The "war on drugs" has torn families apart, clogged up our prisons and courtrooms, created terrible governments at our door in South America (Don't even let me get started about Afghanistan), and created a vacuum of poverty and crime (that does suck!!) in many low-income areas all over our country. (Democrats: if we taxed drugs, you'd be able to try to fund rehab programs, after school programs, all kind of spending :))

I'll be honest. I've wrestled with this issue, as far as crystal meth is concerned (thought it might need to be excluded from legalization), but the current way isn't working.

One of my good friends has become addicted to that crap (don't ask me how, I have no idea), and the last time I saw him, he was a shell of the person he was before. He's gone to jail several times, had to hire attorneys, pay fines, and a bunch of other things. If he'd taken the money he's spent on fines and attorneys, he could have gone to rehab by now. If he wasn't constantly having to look for it, he'd probably still have his job. My friend is not a criminal, he's got an addiction.

There has to be a better way.

The Government is winning the war on drugs. They just didn't tell us, we are the targets
This is an issue worthy of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

My "Mandatory" Imus Headline

2007-04-13T23:30:00.000-05:00

News and Politics

Sorry, Everybody's got a "Imus" headlines now, and I kinda felt left out
But I think we've got bigger fish to fry.

I don't think the Republicans or Democrats are being intellectually honest with us about the war in Iraq, or Afghanistan. (In unison, YEAH!!)
We need to have a serious debate (not just here, but in the White House as well) about our foreign policy. (YEAH!)

Our government is cashing checks that our kids are going to have to pay for (with interest). We've got to figure out a way to stop that now. (YEAH!,,,,,, YEAH!!!)
I think we should eliminate the Postal Service and open the market up to regulated competition. (WHAT THE.&^%#!!).

I think I could convince a Postal carrier to support my position. But we need to solve the 1st three problems first. I'll blog about that another time (I'm supposed to leave you wanting for more, right?). Until then, lets discuss these issues until we can demand answers from our representatives.

Read my blog "info on tonight game" (www.myspace.com/thegblog). This whole thing is just another great example of the media (which I think is Republican biased by the way), chasing us off the government's sent. I agree, it is an issue, but there is a lot of things that aren't getting payed attention to right now. And everybody in the government is happy about that.

My Mandatory Imus Headline

2007-04-12T17:02:00.000-05:00

Sorry, Everybody's got a "Imus" headlines now, and I kinda felt left out
But I think we've got bigger fish to fry.

I don't think the Republicans or Democrats are being intellectually honest with us about the war in Iraq, or Afghanistan. (In unison, YEAH!!)

We need to have a serious debate (not just here, but in the White House as well) about our foreign policy. (YEAH!)

Our government is cashing checks that our kids are going to have to pay for (with interest). We've got to figure out a way to stop that now. (YEAH!,,,,,, YEAH!!!)

I think we should eliminate the Postal Service and open the market up to regulated competition. (WHAT THE.&^%#!!).

I think I could convince a Postal carrier to support my position. But we need to solve the 1st three problems first. I'll blog about that another time (I'm supposed to leave you wanting for more, right?). Until then, lets discuss these issues until we can demand answers from our representatives.

Read my blog "info on tonight game". This whole thing is just another great example of the media (which I think is Republican biased by the way), chasing us off the government's sent. I agree, it is an issue, but there is a lot of things that aren't getting payed attention to right now. And everybody in the government is happy about that.

I'm Coming Out Against Gay Marraige

2007-04-11T17:03:00.000-05:00

I am against gay marriage....

Of course, I'm against any government sanctioned marriage, so don't start calling me a homophobe yet (they'll be plenty of room for that in the comment section)

Being gay, to a gay person, is as normal as being straight is to me. I've always been straight, and don't remember ever deciding not to be gay, so I'm pretty sure its not a decision that gay people make either. I've seen my gay friends put up with vandalized vehicles (from spray-painted slurs to keying to knifing the tires), unwarranted comments and accusations, people treating them differently because of who they sleep with at night, and act like it never happened. I've gotten a lot more hostile at the word "faggot" spray painted on a vehicle of one of my friends than he did. He said "you have to get use to this kinda stuff when you are gay." Well I don't think they should. But I guess I can see his point.

Oh yeah, gay marriage.........I've got a better idea.

Lets spend our time and resources (Americans, not just gay Americans) removing social engineering from the government altogether. Lets take away the carrot (which we pay for in dollars and liberty) that the government dangles in front of us to get us to behave the way they want us to.

Many companies offer benefits to gay couples, and I think if your gay, you'd be wise to try and get a job with one of those companies (if your companion needs the benefits). Buy from companies that offer that benefit (I"m for boycotting companies that do if you disagree with their stance, so don't start with hypocracy accusations), and boycott companies who don't. It'll do a lot more to get the company to change its ways (either way), than asking the government to step in.

If a Baptist minister doesn't want to marry a gay couple, that's within his (I don't think they allow women Baptist ministers) rights (I've not really heard the gay community say otherwise), but homosexuals feel that they deserve the same rights as someone who isn't gay, and marriage is the carrot that is dangling. Well I say keep it all out of the governments hands. We (Americans) don't really have the habit of sending our best and brightest to Congress (or the state legislature for that matter), on either side of the aisle. I'd rather them make less decisions about my life than more. I feel I'm pretty consistent on that issue.

This is an open forum, but more than one line of your beliefs regarding homosexuality is a waste of your time and cyberspace (I"m sure I'm going to get them anyway).

This shouldn't be a debate about whether they're going to hell, or tearing down our nation. I'd like it to be a debate about government involvement in our personal lives. But the comments are yours to make.

Enjoy!

The Ron Paul Store

2007-02-27T00:09:00.000-05:00

Show your support for Ron Paul and support The G Blog at the same time.

AFA exposed: Anti-Families Of America

2007-02-12T12:58:00.000-05:00

The-G-Blog is growing every day. I’ve invited most of you here, and I appreciate those of you that have stayed.

I've spent a lot of time blogging, and researching, and updating my site, so I don’t get to spend as much time exploring my friends blogs as I’d like. Maybe I should slow down some. I love all of your perspectives on my blog, and I’ve found that I always learn every time I post. Many of you have made me rethink my positions. Isn’t that what America is all about.

I took the time to read a little more from one of my newer friends. It appears that she is somehow involved in the publishing of a website for the American Family Association!

I thought this was interesting, so I visited the site. There’s an add for a Christian alternative to insurance (very interesting), a story about Europe’s Demographic winter (Interesting, I’ve been interested in a while about the declining population in Europe), and then two articles (near the top) about homosexuals.

Why is a “family” organization discussing someone’s sexual orientation? I thought that a Christian family organization wouldn’t want to discuss sex on their website, especially when they’re the first two articles you see.

This isn’t a family website. This is a propaganda tool, and its my job as the most independent blog on the net to expose it:

The first article mentions the Hate Crimes Act of 2007. This isn’t the first place I’ve heard this, and I hate picking on a reader (well, I guess a former reader now), so I’ll say, I’m not just directing this at just you. I’m just going to quote your site:

“ The same day that ENDA was introduced, another bill — commonly called the Hate Crimes Act (HR 1592) — cleared committee for a full vote by the House. The Hate Crimes Act criminalizes a vast array of state and local acts and threatens religious leaders with criminal prosecution for their thoughts, beliefs, and statements.

The intent of the Hate Crimes Act is to give special status to homosexuals. Republicans tried to expand the “protected class” in the bill to include senior citizens, pregnant women, prior victims, children under 18, the unborn, court witnesses, the military and more. Democrats defeated all amendments, projecting the welfare of homosexuals above other classes of citizens. The House Judiciary Committee then passed the bill on strict party lines —20 Democrats for and 14 Republicans against”.

I read the bill HR 1592 . Granted, all laws are too difficult to read (that’s on purpose by the way). Here’s what it actually says:

“SEC. 6. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN HATE CRIME ACTS.

(a) In General- Chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`Sec. 249. Hate crime acts

`(a) In General-

`(1) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person--

`(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and

`(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--

`(I) death results from the offense; or

`(ii) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

`(2) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, OR DISABILITY-

`(A) IN GENERAL- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of any person--

`(I) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and

`(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--

`(I) death results from the offense; or

`(II) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.”

To break it down a little for you, it basically says that the penalty for a crime committed because the victim was a homosexual will mean a mandatary 10 year sentence

So tell me, how does this “criminalizes a vast array of state and local acts and threatens religious leaders with criminal prosecution for their thoughts, beliefs, and statements?”

The answer: it doesn’t. It only ups the sentence to a minimum of 10 years when you commit an actual crime because of someones race, religion sexual orientation etc.

The only people who want to criminalize thought are on your side AFA.

Why did the AFA say this? They didn’t think you would read the bill. It was a pretty sure bet.

But they didn’t count on The-G-Blog. They didn’t suspect that anyone who’d read their propaganda would verify it. It says family in the name, why should we?

Conclusion

2007-02-02T21:10:00.000-05:00

The aim of this guide wasn't necessarily to convert my liberal friends. You'll notice I generally use a small l when I describe myself as a libertarian (if I capitalized one here or there, please forgive me.) That's because I am not an official member of the Libertarian Party. I'm just a fan.

I just want my liberal brothers and sisters to understand that libertarians aren't just a branch of the Republican Party.

We are as upset with the current way things are going in the world as you are. We are hard to pin down as conservative or liberal, because we just don't think those labels apply to us.

We abhor what is going on in Washington D.C. with our government, just like you do.

We represent personal liberty to the core. We invite everyone who is willing to help take our country back to help!

After all, we all want the same thing, a peaceful, healthy, and prosperous world. We want a culture of growth, opportunity, and liberty for everyone of every religion, nationality, color, or sexual orientation. We may have a different idea about how to achieve this objective, but we're on the same side.

We want what you want.

A better America for all, and opportunity for everyone.

Home

Liberals' Guide To libertarianism

Drug Policy

2007-02-02T09:49:00.000-05:00

The War On Drugs has been a complete success for our government. The problem is, we've been the targets the whole time...

Many libertarians believe that the war on drugs has been used as a tool to ensure dependence on government.

The war on drugs has targeted poorer areas, minorities in particular, and uses it to continually alter the family in these communities, which then makes it even more difficult for them to break the cycle and and get the chance to seek the American Dream.

Check out the average prison sentence for cocaine, crack, and meth. This isn't just a racial issue, its a cultural one as well. Rural areas are being attacked by crystal meth, and the government solves the problem by taking the addict away for a while, and then they fine the addicts, who also sometimes have to pay attorney fees. There's also probation fees, and drug testing fees.

There has to be a better way.

Most libertarians favor the legalization of drugs. Different libertarians have different ideas about this, but the core issue is personal freedom.

Heroine bought at a pharmacy would be safer, cleaner, and less expensive. Addicts don't break into your house because they're high. They do it so they can get money for their next high. The mark-up on illegal drugs is enormous (over 1000% sometimes), and that is the real problem.

Treatment works better than incarceration does anyway.

Conclusion

Liberals Guide to libertarianism

Freedom of Speech and Press

2007-02-01T21:09:00.000-05:00

Libertarians do not believe in governmental censorship in any form, or at any level. The libertarian movement has been the recipient of a lot of the spoils of the Internet.

Many libertarians are weary of government intervention, especially in electronic media. I'm sure the Democratic and Republican party are both unhappy you are reading this.

Most of us believe that the mainstream media isn't liberally or conservatively biased. We believe most of the real news isn't being reported on Fox News, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, radio conglomerates or in the corporate owned news papers and services.

Fox News does not report the news. I've decided!

Part 9: Government And Religion

Liberals' Guide To libertarianism

Health Care

2007-02-01T21:06:00.000-05:00

We, as libertarians are generally opposed to government provided health care

We're not cold without feelings, we just think there's a better way.

Health care should be affordable for every American. The best way to make that happen is through good old-fashioned competition.

Monopolies are never cheaper, and rarely more efficient than a competitive market. Regulation after Regulation, after special bill after special bill for the health care industry have brought our health care system to the state its in today.

Health care was cheaper, and more accessible before government started meddling.

The Libertarian Party's website does a better job of explaining this than I could, so I'm just going to refer you there to get a better understanding of the party's position

Part 7: Gun Laws

Liberals' Guide to libertarianism

Social Security

2007-02-01T21:05:00.000-05:00

Libertarians want to privatize this function of the federal government.

This is simple economics. You'll get more money when you retire through a private retirement system, than you will through social security.

Why shouldn't you be able to opt out of Social Security if you'd like? We don't trust the Democrats or Republicans with our retirement, and libertarians want to let you control this part of your life.

Chili, Great Britain, and Australia have transitioned away from a government retirement plan and have now implemented private accounts.

Why can't the United States do the same thing?

Right now, the government wants to control you in so many ways. Isn't it time to cut the cord!

Part 6: Health Care

A Liberals' Guide to libertarianism

The Environment

2007-02-01T21:03:00.000-05:00

If you had 3 guesses to figure out who our nations biggest polluter is, could you guess correctly?

Unless you guessed our federal government, you would be wrong!!

We are letting the fox watch the hen house on this issue. The federal government cannot be trusted with our environment, at least not our current government anyway.

Landowners are better stewards of our environment than our government is. Someone who owns the land wants to protect it, so they can use it for generations to come. People who rent Government land (Bureau of Land Management controls an area almost twice the size of Texas, including nearly all of Alaska and Nevada) do not have the incentive to protect it.

Check out the Libertarian website which sites specific examples of how private ownership has helped the environment around the world.

Libertarians believe we should save the environment just like many liberals do. We just think we have a better way.

Part 4: Foreign Policy

Liberals' Guide to libertarianism

Immigration

2007-02-01T21:02:00.000-05:00

Most libertarians believe in a relatively open border. Surprised?

It's true!!

Libertarians believe that immigrants generally help create new jobs for Americans, not eliminate them. We believe we get the "best of the best" from other countries to come here, and try to build the American Dream. We encourage legal immigration of any law abiding private citizen who wishes to strengthen our country.

The biggest problem that the libertarian movement has with immigration is the burden they put on state programs. Eliminating welfare programs would help with this burden, but a true libertarian would leave it to each individual state to decide the best way to deal with this problem.

The immigration debate is something that both major parties have used to try and divide the nation along cultural lines. Libertarians do not wish to exploit this divide, but rather to bring our country together under a smaller federal government that doesn't have the power to tread on our civil liberties

Part 3: The Environment

Liberals' Guide to libertarianism

Gun Laws

2007-02-01T21:01:00.001-05:00

This is probably the link that made you roll your eyes.

Many liberals disagree with the libertarian stance on gun ownership. I couldn't, in good faith, ignore this subject, because its a pretty big issue within the libertarian movement.

Most libertarians believe that firearms are essential in fighting tyranny and crime. We've learned that the less you have to depend on the government for protection, the more protected you'll be.

Generally, we don't envision a wild-west type scenario in a modern world. We just want to be able to protect ourselves.

After all, if a criminal breaks into your house and has a gun and you don't, you are the one who doesn't have the gun. That doesn't usually end well.

Part 8: Freedom of Speech

Liberals' Guide To libertarianism

Taxes And Spending

2007-02-01T21:01:00.000-05:00

Taxes And Spending:

So we're supposed to be a bunch of rich white men that don't want to pay their taxes. I've heard that, and to be honest, there has been some truth to this statement in the past.

Libertarians want to eliminate or drastically reduce most federal taxes and services..

What does that mean?

Libertarians want to give states and local municipalities more control over the services that are provided to you on every level. Candidates on the local and state level have more accountability, and are easier to reach than your President or Senator. If bureaucracy is holding up a service, its doubtful that your Congressman is going to help you. That's just not what they do.

But if you live down the street from the lady that controls the local budget, you can generally get your message to her without having to file a class-action lawsuit. Besides, your local government knows its area better, and can better help figure out what is best for the area. Not all areas are the same.

If you live in a liberal state, chances are, that if the federal government stops supporting a local program, the state or local government will take that program over. This would likely be more efficient, because it hasn't had to go through a bunch of conservative Senators from Georgia to get signed into law.

There's a good chance that Massachusetts's' social programs would increase, probably without the large tax increase you'd see from the federal government if they did the same

Of course, if you live in Mississippi, there's a good chance your social programs and taxes would both decrease dramatically. If you live in a large metropolitan city down south, maybe the local government would pick-up the program and tweak it for efficiency. A true libertarian would be against this, but we're all about choice!

And then there's the competition factor. If you have 50 different ways to test something out, before long the other 49 states will adapt to compete for jobs and quality people. This doesn't happen with a centralized system.

Part 2: Immigration

Liberals' Guide to libertarianism

Government And Religion

2007-02-01T20:01:00.000-05:00

We don't think they mix well at all.

We're not against Christians, Muslims, Jews or any other person of faith becoming office-holders, we just don't want the melting of the two entities into one omnipotent machine that controls how you live your life.

That's the last decision our government should make for us. Faith is a personal issue, not a governmental one.

Most libertarians have faith. We're proud of it!! But we feel many of the leaders in Washington that talk about their religion use it to get votes. If you look at what they do, its not Christian at all.

Its wrong, and we should keep them as far away from each other as we can.

Part 10: Drug Policy

Liberals' Guide to libertarianism

Foreign Policy

2007-02-01T19:56:00.000-05:00

Libertarians are generally non-interventionist, not isolationists. We should have good relations with as many countries as we can, but we can't afford to get involved in internal politics of a nation. Most of us believe we never should have invaded Iraq, and think we should get out of the region all together.

Libertarians want to listen. Many countries have legitimate gripes with our current foreign policy. Our current foreign policy sends mixed signals, and doesn't want to talk about why so many people around the world are developing a negative opinion of our country.

Many libertarians also believe that we should stop the welfare programs for struggling governments. We don't want to intervene. The money we send doesn't get to the people that need it, and once the money starts flowing, its rare that a country is able to get off the drug and stand on its own feet.

A thriving U.S. economy will allow businesses to invest in abroad, which will truly put a spark in a local economy. The Congressional Budget office, in 1994 said: "Critics rightly argue that the broad policies of the major Western countries -- trade policies, budget deficits, growth rates, and the like -- generally exert greater [positive] influence on the economies of developing countries than does aid."

Part 5: Social Security

Liberals' Guide to libertarianism

sendelbach

2007-01-01T23:22:00.000-05:00

The-G-Blog will be posting answers to 10 questions asked to Libertarian Dr. Jim Sendelbach, who is running in a June 19th special election in the 10th GA Congressional district. Check back with this site, and The-G-Blog on myspace!!

Go to my Dr. Sendelbach link page, for more resources and keep checking back for updates!!!

LATEST UPDATE: I spoke with the Sendelbach Campaign on Thursday (May 10th), and they explained should have Dr. Jim's answers back to you very soon. Appreciate your support. Yours in Liberty!

I want to give my G-Blog on the web some links to help reasearch Dr. Jim Sendelbach .

Here is the Wikipedia entry for the 2007 special election.

Check here to see what district you're in, if you are not sure .

Sendelbach for Congress (official Website)

Dr. Sedelbach's Myspace page

Georgia's Libertarian Party

Please check back, and let everyone in Ga's 10th district know about this blog, and Dr. Sendelbach's candidacy!!

Thanks The-G-Blog

Friends of The-G-Blog

2007-01-01T18:44:00.000-05:00

Kickass Poker

Market Myspace

Lee Wells, Artist

Other Libertarian Blogs

2007-01-01T18:38:00.000-05:00

Politics One
Better Politics
Brick Cheney
Don't Trip Up
Girl In Short Shorts
Half Sigma
Militant Libertarian
Rebellion Coffee
Wandering Donkey

Political Parties

2007-01-01T18:32:00.000-05:00

Libertarian Party

The Green Party

The Constitution Party

Unity 08

The Democratic Party

The Republican Party

Nall

2007-01-01T15:30:00.001-05:00

I spoke to Ms. Nall's campaign today, and they have agreed to accept my answers. I will keep you updated. Remember if you subscribe, I'll let you know as soon as its posted, and share my personal insights I won't put in the blog.

Loretta Nall For Governor website

Loretta Nall's Myspace Page

Wikipedia entry for Loretta Nall

Phillies

2007-01-01T15:30:00.000-05:00

I spoke to the Phillies campaign via email on May 12th, and the candidate is traveling, but I was promised that my questions would be forwarded to him soon.

Here are some links in the meantime. Remember if you subscribe, I'll let you know as soon as its posted, and give you my personal thoughts that won't be posted on the net

Official campaign website

Dr. Phillies myspace page

Wikipedia entry for Dr. Phillies

thefairtaxpage

2007-01-01T14:54:00.000-05:00

This is The-G-Blog's doorway to The Fair Tax. Please do your research, email me with any questions (thegblog@yahoo.com) or updates you see than need to be made to this page.

Thanks,

The-G-Blog

Outside Reading Fairtax.org

Official John Linder Congressional website

Wikipedia/Fair TAx

Fair Tax Article

The-G-Blog Interviews:

2007-01-01T09:15:00.000-05:00

In an effort to help 3rd party candidates get their message out, The-G-Blog is beginning to solicit interviews from candidates around the United States.

Here's a list of candidates that have agreed to accept my questions:

Dr. Jim Sendelbach: Candidate for US Congress (GA's 10th, district)

George Phillies: Candidate seeking the Libertarian Party nomination for President (posted!!)

Loretta Nall: Candidate for Governor of Alabama.

John Bootie: Independent running for President Of The United States

I'll keep you Posted. Subscribers will get 1st notice of posted interviews, and some of my personal views that won't be posted on the net.

I'm constantly trying to get more information out to my readers. If you know a candidate who would be interested in a e-interview, ask them to contact me at thegblog@gmail.com. Thanks

2005-11-03T10:15:00.000-05:00

Pork Barrel Spending: Why is it so bad?

2001-01-01T18:59:00.000-05:00

In return, Lockheed Martin gave Georgia Senators Saxby Chambliss $21,000 and Johnny Isakson $23,500 (there is a large complex of Lockheed Martin in Marietta Georgia), and Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) $10,500 (who is on the Defense Appropriations sub-committee) between 1999 and 2004.

This isn't a Republican Problem (though the Republicans always seem to get the most money) or a Democrat problem (though since they took over Congress earlier this year "earmarks" are at its at its lowest level since 1999).

This is a government problem, and its time we start to let our Representatives (local, state and federal) that we're on to them, and we're going to make a change soon.