Here Comes Ron Paul

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

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

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:

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

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

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

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?

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

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.