The Surge Report - What Does It Mean?

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?

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?

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

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?

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

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

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.

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?

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..

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.