GOP/Media complex:

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

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

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

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?

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"

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 !!

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

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?

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!!!