Showing posts with label libertrian. Show all posts
Showing posts with label libertrian. Show all posts

Sunday, October 28, 2007

Ron Paul Revolution - Let Your Light Shine


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.


Tuesday, May 8, 2007

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

Monday, May 7, 2007

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!!