Norm Coleman or Al Franken?

My answer to the above question is simple: Neither.

I am planning on voting for Dean Barkley in the upcoming Senate election. Dean Barkley was Jesse Ventura’s campaign manager when he won governor a few years back, and he was appointed to the Senate following the tragic death of Paul Wellstone. Dean Barkley announced his candidacy this summer after Jesse Ventura decided against a Senate run. I am excited about a number of his positions, which include opposition to the war on drugs, opposition to the war in Iraq, balancing the budget (ACTUALLY balancing the budget), and also protection of Constitutional Rights.

I truly believe that we need change. Lots of politicians throw around the word change, but the extremely low approval rating of both President Bush and Congress shows that people are simply not happy with the way Government has been functioning. I’m one of those, and perhaps you are. We can not go to the polls on election day, vote for the same people that are in office, and expect that change to come about. It is a lot easier for me to support someone like Dean Barkley because I’ve made a conscious choice that on election day I will not vote for someone whose views I do not agree with. Dean Barkley’s political positions are much closer to mine than are Coleman’s and of course Franken’s. Needless to say, I throw my support behind Dean Barkley and I encourage you to look into his campaign yourself.

Dean Barkley’s Campaign Site





”Minnesota's politicians are no different. Sen. Norm Coleman has presided over a more than $3 trillion increase in the debt and Al Franken has offered more government spending that we simply cannot afford.”
-Dean Barkley

Videos concerning the Bailout

Just a few videos concerning yesterdays events:

1) Ron Paul's speech before the vote on the bill


2) Ron Paul after the vote


3) Sarah Palin in support of the Bailout:


A few notes on the Sarah Palin bit: I wasn't aware that the bailout involved healthcare. Then she starts talking about lowering taxes? In connection with the bailout? Hmm thats an interesting connection...Considering the bailout actually heaps a ton of burden onto the taxpayers. Interesting theory, but sorry Sarah Palin, I don't think anyone is buying that.

Bailout Rejected 228-205

Today the House was split on the bailout legislation, and as a result it was rejected. For all truly in support of small government and reduced government intervention this was a major landmark rejection. I was so happy to see that my Representative rejected the bill (I thought she may give it a thumbs up) that I sent Michelle Bachmann an email thanking her for not going along with this horrible piece of legislation. If you want to see what your representative (or any for that matter) voted click here.

Also, if you want to see what those over at the Mises Institute are saying, click here. David Bartels actually just pointed me to this blog yesterday, and I couldn't believe I hadn't seen it before! They have some great insight as far as economic reasons/implications for minimal government intervention.

David Price, as expected, voted for this legislation. He is the incumbent candidate in North Carolina's fourth district who is being challenged by B.J. Lawson. I have become a big fan of Lawson the past couple months, and decided to inform Congressman Price that his vote for the bailout motivated me to make a donation to Lawson's campaign. I wonder how he feels knowing that Lawson has donors from all over the country?

This is pretty dated but also a humorous beginning to the Lawson Campaign:



As far as the bailout goes, my Finance prof. this morning said that the bailout would be the beginning of turning things around but in reality we have no idea how long this downward spiral will go for. She said it's like walking down a dark path and not knowing when the path will finally end.

I'm sorry, but why should we as taxpayers be FORCED to buy up billions of dollars of bad debt? The national debt is already ballooning, and the day that the United States will run a surplus seems decades away.

Observations of Afghanistan

I just read a very insightful post on another blog, called Where in the World is Miel... It talks about some of her observations of Afghanistan, specifically why they are no better off today then when the USA went over after 9/11. She has been working there for over a year now, working on an international development project in the area of higher education. Take a look, its pretty interesting:

They Hate Us

Thoughts on the First Debate

As the debate went back and forth about the issue of Iraq, there was the question of who was 'more right' about the war. Who had the best judgment, the best predictions, and who supported the 'right' positions throughout and before the war. McCain attacked Obama's opposition to a troop surge, and how he thought it would be a miserable failure. Obama lashed back bringing up the point that he did not support the war before it began, and that McCain was in the camp that believed it would end swiftly, they would find WMD's, and that we would be greeted as liberators, none of which came true. As most people know, I believe the war in Iraq was a huge mistake for an endless number of reasons. McCain speaks of us leaving winners. We are "winning" the war. The problem is, the purpose of the war now has changed. Our original purpose was to attack Iraq because they 'may' have weapons of mass destruction that 'may' be used against the United States or given to terrorists. Also they 'supposedly' had ties to 9/11, which also was proven false, admittedly so by those leaders who supported the war originally. So when do we stop? This is the problem that arises when we do not address war with narrow goals. We need to be sure that we address war wisely. There should not be any question for the reasons we go to war; they should be so obvious that there is not a question of it. And we should leave as soon as these goals are accomplished. The Iraq war was unnecessary, wrong, and it is unclear when our 'job' is really done.

I hate to even address this issue and hear McCain and Obama talk about the financial situation. It is clear they know little to nothing about economics. It is actually painful to watch. The moderator was asking them about how their decisions will be affected by the financial crisis. Both talked about cutting different programs, this or that, shaving money here or there, but really they lack an understanding about what caused our financial situation. I think Ron Paul has a pretty good grasp (see post below). I can think of just a few places we could start cutting spending - abolish the Federal Reserve, end the War on Drugs, and end our expensive and unaffordable military imperialism.

On a side note, Ron Paul on the Federal Reserve (This will be a good video to watch to understand his statement - posted below - a little bit better):

Ron Paul's Response to Bush

George Bush addressed the nation a couple nights ago. He told many of us the things we already know: the economy is falling apart, companies are going bankrupt, etc. He also pushed the $700 billion dollar "rescue plan." Please, take a few minutes and listen to an opposing point of view, the good doctor:

Dear Friends:

The financial meltdown the economists of the Austrian School predicted has arrived.

We are in this crisis because of an excess of artificially created credit at the hands of the Federal Reserve System. The solution being proposed? More artificial credit by the Federal Reserve. No liquidation of bad debt and malinvestment is to be allowed. By doing more of the same, we will only continue and intensify the distortions in our economy - all the capital misallocation, all the malinvestment - and prevent the market's attempt to re-establish rational pricing of houses and other assets.

Last night the president addressed the nation about the financial crisis. There is no point in going through his remarks line by line, since I'd only be repeating what I've been saying over and over - not just for the past several days, but for years and even decades.

Still, at least a few observations are necessary.

The president assures us that his administration "is working with Congress to address the root cause behind much of the instability in our markets." Care to take a guess at whether the Federal Reserve and its money creation spree were even mentioned?

We are told that "low interest rates" led to excessive borrowing, but we are not told how these low interest rates came about. They were a deliberate policy of the Federal Reserve. As always, artificially low interest rates distort the market. Entrepreneurs engage in malinvestments - investments that do not make sense in light of current resource availability, that occur in more temporally remote stages of the capital structure than the pattern of consumer demand can support, and that would not have been made at all if the interest rate had been permitted to tell the truth instead of being toyed with by the Fed.

Not a word about any of that, of course, because Americans might then discover how the great wise men in Washington caused this great debacle. Better to keep scapegoating the mortgage industry or "wildcat capitalism" (as if we actually have a pure free market!).

Speaking about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the president said: "Because these companies were chartered by Congress, many believed they were guaranteed by the federal government. This allowed them to borrow enormous sums of money, fuel the market for questionable investments, and put our financial system at risk."

Doesn't that prove the foolishness of chartering Fannie and Freddie in the first place? Doesn't that suggest that maybe, just maybe, government may have contributed to this mess? And of course, by bailing out Fannie and Freddie, hasn't the federal government shown that the "many" who "believed they were guaranteed by the federal government" were in fact correct?

Then come the scare tactics. If we don't give dictatorial powers to the Treasury Secretary "the stock market would drop even more, which would reduce the value of your retirement account. The value of your home could plummet." Left unsaid, naturally, is that with the bailout and all the money and credit that must be produced out of thin air to fund it, the value of your retirement account will drop anyway, because the value of the dollar will suffer a precipitous decline. As for home prices, they are obviously much too high, and supply and demand cannot equilibrate if government insists on propping them up.

It's the same destructive strategy that government tried during the Great Depression: prop up prices at all costs. The Depression went on for over a decade. On the other hand, when liquidation was allowed to occur in the equally devastating downturn of 1921, the economy recovered within less than a year.

The president also tells us that Senators McCain and Obama will join him at the White House today in order to figure out how to get the bipartisan bailout passed. The two senators would do their country much more good if they stayed on the campaign trail debating who the bigger celebrity is, or whatever it is that occupies their attention these days.

F.A. Hayek won the Nobel Prize for showing how central banks' manipulation of interest rates creates the boom-bust cycle with which we are sadly familiar. In 1932, in the depths of the Great Depression, he described the foolish policies being pursued in his day - and which are being proposed, just as destructively, in our own:

Instead of furthering the inevitable liquidation of the maladjustments brought about by the boom during the last three years, all conceivable means have been used to prevent that readjustment from taking place; and one of these means, which has been repeatedly tried though without success, from the earliest to the most recent stages of depression, has been this deliberate policy of credit expansion.

To combat the depression by a forced credit expansion is to attempt to cure the evil by the very means which brought it about; because we are suffering from a misdirection of production, we want to create further misdirection - a procedure that can only lead to a much more severe crisis as soon as the credit expansion comes to an end... It is probably to this experiment, together with the attempts to prevent liquidation once the crisis had come, that we owe the exceptional severity and duration of the depression.

The only thing we learn from history, I am afraid, is that we do not learn from history.

The very people who have spent the past several years assuring us that the economy is fundamentally sound, and who themselves foolishly cheered the extension of all these novel kinds of mortgages, are the ones who now claim to be the experts who will restore prosperity! Just how spectacularly wrong, how utterly without a clue, does someone have to be before his expert status is called into question?

Oh, and did you notice that the bailout is now being called a "rescue plan"? I guess "bailout" wasn't sitting too well with the American people.

The very people who with somber faces tell us of their deep concern for the spread of democracy around the world are the ones most insistent on forcing a bill through Congress that the American people overwhelmingly oppose. The very fact that some of you seem to think you're supposed to have a voice in all this actually seems to annoy them.

I continue to urge you to contact your representatives and give them a piece of your mind. I myself am doing everything I can to promote the correct point of view on the crisis. Be sure also to educate yourselves on these subjects - the Campaign for Liberty blog is an excellent place to start. Read the posts, ask questions in the comment section, and learn.

H.G. Wells once said that civilization was in a race between education and catastrophe. Let us learn the truth and spread it as far and wide as our circumstances allow. For the truth is the greatest weapon we have.

In liberty,

Ron Paul

Chuck Baldwin for President

Ron Paul has recently endorsed the Constitution Party’s Candidate Chuck Baldwin. This came a few days after his press conference at the National Press Club, where four of the major third party candidates (Chuck Baldwin, Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney, and Bob Barr) agreed to four main points. To see these points, see the link below:

Four Points

At the last second, Bob Barr decided to not join the other three candidates as well as Ron Paul at the press conference. The purpose of the press conference was to show that there are several points agreed upon by the third parties, as well to call out the two-party system. Ron Paul calls it “a charade” and believes there is little difference between the stances of the two major candidates, simply different rhetoric. Bob Barr decided to not attend because of Ron Paul’s neutrality and for his not throwing support behind any one candidate.

This action by Bob Barr literally killed his campaign. I, as well as many other Republicans who will not vote for McCain, have decided to vote for Chuck Baldwin. I previously wrote a blog about Bob Barr and that my intentions were to cast my vote for him. I since have decided against it, as I have extreme amounts of respect for Ron Paul in comparison to Bob Barr, and I have to trust Ron Paul’s judgment (as I agree with him on almost every issue). To me there is little difference between the libertarian party and the constitution party, so making the switch to Chuck Baldwin is no problem at all. Some have said that we must vote for McCain solely so that Obama will not win. This argument is made every four years, and while I respect those who have this argument, I couldn’t disagree more. Chuck Baldwin’s political positions are much, much closer to mine than are John McCains. As a constitutionalist and a conservative, I will not be voting for John McCain. I follow Ron Paul’s choice, and I will be voting for Chuck Baldwin. Again, if your argument is that we cannot vote for someone who has no chance of winning, I respect your choice in how you think it is best to vote, but I think it is time we stop playing this two-party game and make a move toward a multi-party system, allowing Americans a REAL choice. Who are you going to support between McCain and Obama if you don’t believe the bail out was a good idea? It does not matter – they have the same view. I will be voting third party, and I encourage anyone who is not happy with their party’s candidate, to consider the same.

Chuck Baldwin's Campaign Site


In RP’s own words

McCain snubs Letterman

For anyone that does not know, David Letterman has been a big supporter of John McCain. He has appeared on his show a number of times throughout the years, and even announced his candicy for President on his show last year. Yesterday McCain was scheduled for another appearance on Letterman's late night show, but he said he had to cancel because he had to return to Washington to deal with the economic crisis. Letterman found out during his show, though, that McCain was just blocks away.

Economic Implications of the Bailout

The $700 billion dollar bailout may seem like the only solution (and a good one) at first glance, but if you take a look at the economic implications, the bailout is not such a great idea:

Support of a Free Internet

Most people do not know what Net Neutrality is, nor can they comprehend an internet where they can only access certain things depending on which provider they are customers of. This is a new issue that has not hit the mainstream, but is very important when it comes to protection of freedom of speech which does not involve providers picking and choosing what content will be allowed to be viewed by their customers. Why would they do this? Ultimately it comes down to, as many things do, money. For example, if some political group did not like DavidCarlsonPolitics.com (I can think of a few…) they could pay Comcast or some other ISP (Internet Service Provider) to slow down or not allow DavidCarlsonPolitics.com to show up on your browser. Therefore, the neutrality of the internet is essential for it to remain the free resource that it has always been. Here is a video that is on the front page of YouTube for most viewed videos today:



This brings up a whole other issue: as the internet becomes increasingly important in the everyday lives of people all across the world, would it not make sense that politicians be knowledgable about this issue? Of course, there is somewhat of a generation gap as most 70+ year olds don’t use or know much about the internet. Of course there are other important issues facing Americans, but should a presidential candidate really be completely ignorant about the internet and what net neutrality is?* That is a question that I think will gain influence in the coming years and decades.

Net neutrality is a little more complex than it seems at first. Ron Paul opposes it, and it is because government (under the bills that have been introduced in Congress) would have oversight and actually be able to act as a filter of the internet. This video is a little bland but the information is great:



This is just some things that should help you start thinking about what your views are on net neutrality, as well as what you personally think is the best way of going about it. Be it through government oversight as Barack Obama proposes, or be it through a private group who will be watchdogs. Either way, I think we can all agree that keeping the internet as open and unfiltered as possible is the best option.



*Jon McCain is ignorant of medical marijuana and its potential benefits, so its not surprising to see his ignorance on other issues.

Lawson - Opposition to the War on Drugs

B.J. Lawson, who I have already written a blog post about, is bringing common sense to the debate concerning the war on drugs. I came across a great blog post written by him on his campaign site. Check it out:

http://blog.lawsonforcongress.com/2008/09/16/taking-the-pulse-law-enforcement-against-prohibition/

Denouncement of an unethical practice

Decades and centuries ago, prisons were a far cry from the advanced incarceration facilities that make up the present-day facilities found all across our nation. It is exponentially more difficult today for a prisoner to escape a facility than it was years ago. The odds of a person in a maximum-security holding facility escaping are almost non-existent. Justification for capital punishment way back when was that a town or city would not be at ease knowing that a serial killer or even just a murderer was incarcerated, because of the small chance that he would escape and live to murder again. This would cause the town to live in terror of this possibility. Therefore, capital punishment may be the best solution. But what is the justification for capital punishment in our present day society?

The American Civil Liberties Union states that as of June 2002 (this is a dated figure, but still relevant) 108 people including 12 death row inmates have been found innocent through DNA testing. The number today is even higher. This statement basically ensures that some have been killed for crimes that they had no part in. How can we as an advanced society support laws that allow individuals to be sentenced to death? Human error is inevitable, as can be seen by the above statistic. There is no reason that we could not simply incarcerate those individuals for the remainder of their life. The death penalty takes away civil liberties. I do not believe that we as humans have the right to condemn others to death.

Lets look at it from a poor monetary standpoint, forget any moral or ethical cases against capital punishment; let’s look at the money. It is more expensive to impose the death penalty than a life sentence. This is because of the number of appeals that must be heard, and the number of lawyers that need to be paid to argue these cases. The below quote is from the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice, July 1, 2008:

"Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present system ($137 million per year), the present system after implementation of the reforms ... ($232.7 million per year) ... and a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty ($11.5 million)."

From simply a monetary perspective, why would you want to pay higher taxes to fund something when we can give someone life instead? Seems a bit odd to me. Factor in the fact that some have been found innocent after being sentenced to death causes it to really not make sense, as we pay much more to promote a system that kills innocent people.

Capital punishment has been abolished in 47 out of 50 countries in Europe. For many, it has been decades since the last execution. Why do we persist in something that simply makes no sense? Other countries have seen the shortfalls and moral issues surrounding capital punishment, and we as a free nation need to step up and recognize this as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Europe

For me: I will never support the death penalty, for any reason. I don’t believe that it is ethical in any circumstance, and I will be a lifelong advocate for the abolition of capital punishment.



Please see the page below concerning executions that have taken place where there has been compelling evidence for innocence:
http://www.law.northwestern.edu/wrongfulconvictions/issues/deathpenalty/executinginnocent/

For What Purpose?

The War against Iraq is something that I believe many people do not support (either have never supported it, or are now opposed to it). Many do not believe there are reasons justifying our invasion, or the never-ending occupation that we are now a part of. Looking at the evidence for the War (whatever evidence that may be) can in no way compare to the mountain of reasons for us NOT to have been there in the first place. As long as we are in Iraq and the United States continues following a failed foreign policy that has been proven to be ineffective, you will find me speaking out in opposition to such actions.

One thing that many do not understand is that the Iraq War really is an illegal war. In the Constitution, it clearly states that the Congress alone holds the power to declare war. This is an important aspect of the balance of power. If a President can at any time initiate aggression, then we as a people are giving the President the power to pursue military action that he deems necessary. There is no debate between the hundreds of members of Congress who collaboratively decide and vote on whether a situation is so dire that it requires military intervention. Now, instead of placing all the blame on the current presidential administration, it must be pointed out that members of Congress gladly handed that power over to the President. They gladly gave that responsibility to him. That is why things need to change in Congress, when only a few really are devoted to upholding the Constitution (Ron Paul wrote a bill that would have declared war on Iraq. He made it a point that he would aggressively argue against his own bill, but deemed it necessary for upholding the Constitution. It never made it out of committee).

Now people may say, "But the Congress is the only source of military funding." Whoever argues this puts way too much trust in Congress to make educated and Constitutionally-sound votes (remember, they already gave the power to declare war to the executive branch...). Heaven forbid a Congress member votes against military funding. The attacks of 'they are unpatriotic' and 'they don't support the troops' and 'they are putting our troops at danger by not giving them the proper protection and tools.' So basically, the President can wage a war whenever he deems necessary, and on top of that if you deny him funds you are seen as unpatriotic and you receive relentless attacks about putting troops in harms way. Don't forget, many who are in the House of Representatives must campaign basically all the time as they need to be elected every two years. Any bad press such as the above will clearly put them at a huge disadvantage. See what I’m getting at?

I believe most people agree that war should only be waged when it is completely necessary for the defense of our nation. The Iraq War was and is unprecedented. A third-world impoverished nation, half a world away, who has never committed acts of aggression against the United States, who UN weapons inspectors say have no evidence of 'weapons of mass destruction,' and a country that really doesn't have much of a military, was invaded by the richest and most prosperous nation in the world.

"They may attack us in the future, they may develop nuclear weapons and use them against us." Never before has the United States had pre-emptive war on its agenda. This policy could be used to invade a number of nations who have not attacked us because they may attack us. Quite frankly, there are nations that are much more dangerous than Iraq (could you classify Iraq as dangerous to the United States? Hard case to make).

For the sake of.....ummm....wait why were we in Iraq again? Weapons of Mass Destruction that they supposedly were hiding from us? No that couldn't have been the reason, that couldn't justify thousands of American Soldiers being killed, destroying a nations infrastructure, causing extreme social unrest, and hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians being killed.....but there has to be some reason? Saddam, that must be it! He was an evil, evil, dictator! I think someone forgot to check the history books on this one, we were allies with him when he committed genocide against the Kurds through the use of gas. We allied against Iran, because that’s what made the most sense for the United States at the time. Seems like we are on both sides of every conflict these days...

One thing Iraq has is oils, and lots of it. Few will admit that that was a major driving force behind our invasion of Iraq, as well as a big reason we are so involved in the Middle East.

What is the purpose of staying in Iraq until 'the job is done'? The reasons for going there are flawed, it is an illegal war, it has made America less safe, it has been expensive beyond measure, and the implications of this war will stay with us for a long, long time. It was time for us to end this foolish foreign interventionism and war before it began, but now is better than never. We owe it to our thousands of servicemen and women to put their lives at risk Only When Absolutely Necessary. Anything less is a dishonor and disrespect to them.


If you are interested, watch this video. Its from the organization Iraq War Veterans Against the Iraq War. Take a look:

9-11 Seven Years Later – Is Our Nation Safer?

On The Seventh Anniversary of the tragedy that occurred on September 11, 2001, I want to ask a necessary and proper question. Are We Safer? Can we walk the streets and conduct our daily lives knowing that since that devastating event, we are safer? Has the government treated the aftermath of this even with respect and duty to the protection of the American People? Why has this even happened to us, the supposedly freest and most prosperous nation in the world?

Well I can tell you one thing, I do not feel safer. I do not feel that the government has treated the American People with respect and proper actions in the aftermath of 9/11 in order to ensure our safety, to the best of their abilities. I feel that there is still a very flawed belief in the mainstream as to why we were attacked.

Blowback. Have you ever heard that term? Do you believe that every action has a consequence? Please see the below clip, which changed the way I look at Rudolph Giuliani:

Ah yes Rudy Giuliani and the 9/11 card. Too careless to look into the real reasons why we were attacked, comes back with a very intellectual response to Ron Paul:

MR. GIULIANI: Wendell, may I comment on that? That's really an extraordinary statement. That's an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. (Applause, cheers.)
And I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that. (Applause.)


My favorite was Ron Paul’s reading list for Rudy, announced a couple days after the debate:

1) Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror by Michael Scheuer
2) Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism by Rpert Pape
3) Blowback, Second Edition: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire by Chalmers Johnson
4) The 9/11 Commision Report by National Commission on Terrorist Attacks


Blowback is basically the belief that our American Empirialism does have consequences, and the attacks on 9/11 were one of those. We have been involved in the Middle East for years and years now, backed different governments, placed and supported different governments, and today our activity is higher than ever! As Dr. Paul says, “They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free. They come and they attack us because we're over there. I mean, what would we think if we were -- if other foreign countries were doing that to us?” The fact that we have been involved for years in the middle east, occupying different countries influencing politics and just being the American Empire that we have become, has surely enraged certain groups of people. Going to Iraq was probably the worst thing we could do for the safety of the United States. Not only do we give Islamic extremists more motivation to continue their war against us, but we have upset many allies in the process. The Iraq war was an unpopular and is an unpopular war because it is simply a wrong war. It is not justified whatsoever. The worst part is that, if blowback theory is correct, if they didn’t attack us simply because we are “free and rich” (in which case we can’t really do too much about that - except continue on the course we are on concerning extreme debt and governments non-fiscally sound monetary policy and non-balanced budgets) then we are quiet literally making America much LESS safe. If you buy into the argument that we are safer because we are ‘fighting over there instead of here,’ stop a moment and think. Do you really think our borders are so extremely safe that a group of, say, 20 terrorists could not get through the border and carry out another attack? If they wanted to, I’m sure they wouldn’t be so preoccupied in the Middle East that they couldn’t spare 20 individuals to carry out a much bigger mission.


How do you feel about your safety? Do you feel like there is less of a chance of another terrorist attack, or that our policies are asking for another one? Please consider the issue of foreign policy and National Defense when you vote. And please, if you think there is a reason for the Iraq War that outweighs all the cons, let me know.


In any case, remember those who passed away on September 11th. You and I both owe it to them to think with our heads and not be blindly led to believe one thing or another.

Bob Barr

I am planning on voting for Bob Barr, the libertarian candidate, in the upcoming Presidential election. I am not crazy about Bob Barr the candidate, but I must say I love the platform.

Voting for Bob Barr, at least in my case, is making a statement. I do not like Barack Obama's ideas and viewpoints, as he is very liberal. But I also do not like Jon McCain's viewpoints (See post below). What do some/most voters do when they do not like either candidate? They either decide they are not going to vote or they vote for the "lesser of the two evils."

First, allow me to adress the second option, and why I think this is a horrible mentality that must change. People will tell you that third party candidates simply "take away votes from this or that candidate." That argument will come up every presidential election, but is essential that this advice be ignored. Here is a personal example: A few months ago I said I will vote for Ron Paul instead of Jon McCain. In response to this comment, someone said to me that "this is not the year to make a statement" and that it is a "pure numbers game" and "a vote for anyone other than Jon McCain is a vote for Obama." When it gets down to it, how silly is this argument! My vote was never FOR Jon McCain, and it definetely is not a vote for Barack Obama! My vote is not intended for Jon McCain, someone who does not believe the same things as I do, and is certainly not conservative. My vote is not for him, so it is hard for me to believe these candidates are "taking away" votes from McCain. Why is McCain entitled to my vote? It is important to note that our political system will not change if people who are not happy with a candidate and STILL chooses to vote for them. The precedent they are setting is one of indifference to those individuals opinions, as politicians and parties will figure they have your vote no matter what because the only other alternative is a more conservative/liberal candidate. Do not let someone tell you a vote for a third party candidate is a wasted vote; it has more value than you know.

I really do think that everyone should vote. It is an extremely powerful right that is given to us. A vote is your voice, and if you are not happy with how things are going in politics, it is even more important that you do vote. If you do not like either of the mainstream candidates, i urge you to look at the third party candidates. You do not have to agree with all their views, as this will rarely happen as I'm sure you have seen. But please, above all, vote.

Now I would like to go over a few of Bob Barr's Positions:

He respects the constitution.
He wants to drastically cut government spending. The USA now has over a 9 trillion dollar debt. The budget is not balanced, and the national debt continues to increase daily.
He is pro-privacy: he wants unlawful government intrusion to end. He obviously opposes the national ID card.
He is against the Iraq war and views the invasion and occupation of Iraq as two huge mistakes. Hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of American (and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives) have been lost in Iraq.
Is pro-property rights; does not believe the government should be able to confiscate private property and sees it as a serious attack on individual liberty.
Tax Reform beginning with immediately lowering government spending.
Foreign Intervention: America has hundreds of thousands of troops deployed overseas with over 700 permanent military bases. Bob Barr wants to bring the troops home and end this foreign intervention that makes us financially worse-off as well as makes America less safe.

For more information check out his campaign page http://www.bobbarr2008.com


To sum it up, vote! And do not let anyone tell you a vote for a third party candidate is a "wasted" vote.

Why I will not vote for Jon McCain

Why I will not vote for Jon McCain:

He is promoting the continuation of a failed foreign policy, and a morally detrimental foreign policy. He wants to continue a war against a third world nation that never committed an act of aggression against the United States. In an unprecedented move, we attacked them because they “might” attack us at some future date. The war was never approved by Congress; according to the Constitution the president does not have any authority to wage a war at his willing it must be approved by Congress. This never happened though. Jon McCain is for lower taxes, supposedly but really what is bankrupting us is continuing our world empire with permanent military bases in over 100 countries. We can’t afford to be so militarily involved throughout the world, and it also makes our nation less safe. Jon McCain does not believe medical marijuana is true; he believes that there are better medicines. This is pure ignorance, as anyone who looks into the issue realizes this is just not true. The war on drugs has cost billions and billions and many lives have been lost due to it. Alcohol is more harmful than most drugs that are illegal, yet for some reason this failed ‘war against drugs’ continues. McCain won’t even address that issue. Supposedly McCain has the solution to the economy, yet when asked what his economic plan was in a debate he said he would ask his staff and cabinet members as they know more about him and he’s not educated in that field. Maybe if the federal reserve stopped printing money then just maybe inflation wouldn’t be skyrocketing. In fact, the federal reserve is an illegal central bank that should be ended, but McCain won’t address anything about the economy because he’s not an expert of course. He believes its okay to hold ‘enemy combatants’ indefinitely (often for more than a few years) without charging them, giving them no way of trying to prove their innocence. There has been American citizens thrown into these prisons with no formal charges, who are guilty of nothing. Jon McCain has not shown enough support of personal privacy, personal liberty, and smaller and limited government. This is just the beginning of the problems I have with him. Don’t let anyone tell you Jon McCain is conservative, because he is not.