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

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

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

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

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"?

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

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?

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