Happy Halloween!

Happy Halloween! I thought this video was fitting:

(Almost) Final thoughts on the election

Some may say I have been unfairly harsh of John McCain during this election season. With less than a week left before the Presidential Election, I would like to clear a few things up.

First, I have a very legitimate reason for being much more critical and more vocal about my criticism of John McCain than my criticism of Barack Obama. As a Conservative, is it not a given that Obama is going to be a much worse choice according to my political identity? But when someone decides to vote third party instead of for their "parties" candidate, would it not make more sense that I would have to justify that by showing my differences with the Republican Candidate? I believe so.

Also, another thing I would like to put out there are my final decisions who I'm voting for in the major races:

Senate: Dean Barkley

House of Reps: Michelle Bachmann

President: Chuck Baldwin

Now that you know that, I don't want what I'm about to say to be mistaken for an endorsement of John McCain. Chuck Baldwin is my candidate, with Bob Barr at a very close second (If Ron Paul hadn't endorsed Baldwin, and Barr wouldn't have bailed on the third party press conference called by Paul, he would be my candidate). My political views are very different than John McCain. My views are quite similar to both Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr, and I can't justify not voting for them. Some say a vote for them is a wasted vote, but I don't believe it could be further from the truth. John McCain was never entitled to my vote, nor would I vote for someone who doesn't have similar views as me, which he does not.

If you just can't bring yourself to NOT vote for one of the two main parties, and you were considering voting for Obama, I ask that you take a good hard look at what policies you are voting for. Here we have a candidate who is going to promote an economic policy that promotes socialistic 'spreading of the wealth' that goes against everything that makes America a prosperous nation. He is pro-choice, but can't even take a bold stance on that position. Listen to the sound clip of him a few posts ago: he wants to overstep the constraints of the constitution. This is exactly why we have a constitution: to constrain the government! With a senate majority, liberals can push basically any legislation they want which could mean dire consequences for the constitution (loss of free speech, right to bear arms, etc.) and the ballooning of the size and scope of government.

Please, consider these points when casting your vote for Barack Obama. Be aware of the consequences.

To state the obvious: McCain is a much better choice than Obama. If anyone thinks that I believe something else, it's hard for me to even begin to think where those opinions are coming from.

As much as I do not want an Obama Presidency, I do not think it is the end of the world for the GOP. A lot of the attacks by Obama have been that a McCain Presidency would not be different enough from the Bush Administration. If McCain would have taken a much more conservative stance of small-government, balanced budget, attacking the governmental interventions of the bailout, among other things, I think he would have been able to draw a much bigger contrast between him and Obama. But, as we know, there are differences between the two but not nearly enough to make conservatives excited about his position and draw a sharper contrast between him and Obama. His support for military interventionism (The argument that Obama has the same stance, fair enough is what I say to that) did not help either.

Luckily we can vote out the Democrat controlled Congress if they push too much legislation through that cripples individual freedom and destroys our economy.

The GOP must reform and change to changing demands. Ron Paul's message has struck a chord for many conservatives who are not happy with the platform of the GOP. The platform MUST change to one that supports individual freedoms, promotes a much smaller government, and major reform.

Where do I stand on this election? Chuck Baldwin is the only one who stands where I do on many issues. Therefore, my vote goes to him. I think third parties are the best choice in this election for anyone who can't stand the thought of either Obama or McCain winning. If you can not vote third party for whatever reason, John McCain is the only choice (sadly). I do not feel that way, but I know there are some who do. I will continue to promote the third party choices in this election and the message of liberty that Ron Paul has been promoting for years.

Ron Paul on Rachel Maddow 10/29

Last night Ron Paul appeared on MSNBC. Here's the clip:



I liked around the three minute mark where he talked about a lot of young people getting excited about the message of liberty. It's true that college-agers are not willing to stick with the status quo that has brought devastation to our nation. Also, he mentioned how neither Obama or McCain dare touch the topic of our monetary system and answer the question "Why do we have the federal reserve?" Also, it is very true that there is a lot of spontaneous energy resulting from Ron Paul's bid for the presidency.

He spoke about many running for office because of this energy. I have been talking about B.J. Lawson quite a bit lately, and the thing is, he made the decision to run after watching Ron Paul debating in one of the primaries. It wasn't until May of 2007 that Lawson had even known of Ron Paul! It is truly amazing the progress that is being made, and the people that are stepping up and joining this movement for true change.

Some thoughts on the war on drugs

From day to day I like to ask myself the question, "WHY is the war on drugs still continuing even though it's clearly a failure?" The answer can be diverse and wide-ranging.

For one, politicians would rather not touch on a topic as heated as the war on drugs, heck, not even the issue of medical marijuana. I posted a video of Barack Obama a while ago where he would support a bill that legalizes medical marijuana, but that it would not be high on his priority list. Others just avoid the issue altogether.

There are many who benefit from the war on drugs - Pharmaceuitcal companies, government agencies, drug dealers, the media, and many more. With the war on drugs, many stand to profit.

Who does it hurt? All taxpayers (it has been an expensive failure), people who have found marijuana to work for medicinal purposes, people who enjoy using drugs (even in the smallest and most spread out instances), our law enforcement (they are stretched and could have much more time and money if they didn't have to devote so much to the war on drugs), and anyone who stands for liberty.

Most people are mis-informed about the war on drugs. They believe that it is something that is necessary and not to be questioned. In reality, it has caused much more harm than good, and the main purpose (prohibition) simply has failed. If someone wants access to drugs, they surely could get them within a day or two. Over 20 million have been imprisoned on drug-related charges, many have been killed (some innocent individuals during drug raids on the wrong houses...), and millions if not billions have been wasted on this failed effort.

Is drug law reform impossible? I don't believe so. If everyone had even minimal information about the negative effects of the war on drugs, its history, and saw how prohibition simply did not work and caused social injustices, I think that drug law reform is entirely possible. I don't think that it is easy, with so many people and organizations having an interest in continuing the war on drugs, but I do believe it is entirely possible.

What would a free country look like?

The Constitution was written for one specific purpose and that was to restrain the government, not to restrain the people.”
-Ron Paul

What would the United States look like if it were truly free? I have been thinking about this question, and I realized how sad it is that we need to think hypothetically what a truly free United States would look like. We are capable of being the freest country in the world - an example to others of what a truly free society is. Just by the sight of it they would want their own country to be free. But what is free?

The Constitution is the centerpiece of freedom - it is meant, as Ron Paul said, to restrain the government. The yearning for freedom was what brought our nation into existence. Over two centuries ago a revolution for freedom started that could not be stopped. Since then, this excitement about freedom and liberty has truly eroded.

Today we have a government that has ballooned to the edge of bankruptcy. There has been so much intervention in so many ways by the government that it is hard to begin to imagine how we went from protesting taxes by literally dumping goods into the ocean to where we are today. Over half of an individual's annual income can go to taxes. Half a year Americans work to fund our government. Yet, due to the interventions into the marketplace and extreme spending, we are over $10 trillion in debt. We bow to every insistence by the government that certain actions are "for your security" (national id card, increased survelliance, etc.). We lose our sovereignty bit by bit through the United Nations and allowing other countries to have a say in our foreign policy. We raid houses for people committing victim less crimes (which results in the death of innocent people), we have troops located all over the globe, and we spend spend spend.

Is this free? Working over half a year to fund a government that can't seem to balance a budget? There truly does need to be change. We need to be free again.

Why can't we balance a budget for once? In my opinion every year we should be able to balance the government's budget, as over half a year people work to fund our government. Why can't we abolish the federal reserve, end failed policies that are draining our funds, and bring all the troops home? Why can't we use military intervention only when absolutely necessary? I believe we can be free again, but it's not going to happen overnight. I believe that the size of the government can be cut in half, if not more. I also believe (and know) there are others out there who agree with me.

Despite all the negativity that goes on day in and day out, I believe in freedom. There might only be a handful of people in government who stand up for the Constitution and stand up for citizens against the ever-growing government, but you need to start somewhere. The past year I have seen that there is a huge movement for change. Not Obama change. True change. Change that can be described and explained, researched and debated. Change that will bring us the freedom that we so desperately need to return to.

What do you think a free country looks like? I believe that our country has slowly but surely moved in the wrong direction, away from what a free country should be. We can return once again to that spirit of revolution and excitement for freedom and liberty that once existed. We can be free again. We must be free again. The cost of not doing so is too great.

Ron Paul on Lew Rockwell

Ron Paul was recently on the Lew Rockwell show. Heres the youtube videos:





These has a lot of good information about what is wrong with our monetary system. The beginning of the second clip talks a lot about what is wrong with our monetary system in Ron Paul's opinion. Take some time out of your day to educate yourself about why our monetary system is going down in flames by listening to these videos.

Economic Redistribution - Obama talking about best way to do it

I just found this clip on the front page of youtube. It is Obama talking about the best way to redistribute wealth. It is not about whether or not it should happen, it is a discussion about the best way to do it. By all means anyone has a right to vote for Obama, but if you do decide to vote for him it needs to be understood that one of his goals is to redistribute wealth. You have to hear this for yourself:

Lawson Endorsement

Adam Kokesh is a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War and a big anti-war activist. He recently endorsed B.J. Lawson. Here's the video:



Also, he made a rousing speech at the Rally for the Republic a couple months ago. Here is that as well:



Adam has become a huge activist and is very outspoken when it comes to the Constitution. His endorsement of Lawson comes as no surprise, as Adam will support any candidate who is committed to upholding the constitution.

Things I am Excited About

There are a few things that I have become very excited about recently. The first is B.J. Lawson's campaign. I blog about him quite often, and it is exciting to see the campaign going into overdrive and making the final push to get Lawson into Congress. David Price has begun a smear campaign trying to link Lawson to Bush. It is almost comical, as Lawson has such vastly different views than those that the Bush administration have been pursuing.

The second thing I have become excited about is the war on drugs. No, not excited about the actual war, but the movement to END the war on drugs. I have found in the past few months that there are many individuals and groups that are very dedicated to this cause. One of those is NORML.org. They are very much committed to changing the current drug policies and educating everyone about the issue. The major issue, as it is with most things, is an intellectual mindset. Since people have grown up with the war on drugs as a given, there is little thought or time put into debating what is trying to be accomplished and what the negative effects are of the war. B.J. Lawson is for ending the war on drugs, and I find that something to be very excited about.

Anybody who has not looked into the pro's and con's of marijuana legalization/illegalization should really just take some time out and have an open mind. Read this quote from NORML's website:


Marijuana is far less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco. Around 50,000 people die each year from alcohol poisoning. Similarly, more than 400,000 deaths each year are attributed to tobacco smoking. By comparison, marijuana is nontoxic and cannot cause death by overdose. According to the prestigious European medical journal, The Lancet, "The smoking of cannabis, even long-term, is not harmful to health. ... It would be reasonable to judge cannabis as less of a threat ... than alcohol or tobacco."

*Source: NORML.org


Those in support of marijuana legalization do not debate that marijuana is a harmful drug. The debate is not one of medical significance, since medically speaking alcohol and tobacco are proven to be more harmful. What the debate is about is whether or not the government should have a say in a personal decision to smoke something. Who is the victim? The victim is the person who decides to do it. It is a "victimless crime." This is central to the argument of legalization. In order to argue that it should be kept illegal from a medical stance, there is a lot of explaining that needs to be done about why alcohol and tobacco should still be legal while marijuana is illegal. There are also many negative consequences of the war on drugs as I described in a previous post.

All I ask is that anyone who looks into the war on drugs look at it with an open mind and seek out facts. Find out WHY marijuana was made illegal in the first place (hint: it involves racism and turning into bats), look at how effective it has been, look at the negative consequences, and see how well prohibition has worked. A year ago I would have had no opinion about this issue, and now I'm a huge advocate of law reform concerning the war on drugs. Maybe you will be too.

Ron Paul supports Michelle Bachmann

I just received an email from Congressman Ron Paul. I think the title of this blog says it all, but you just have to read this:


Dear Friend,

When it comes to fiscal issues, Congresswoman Michelle Bachman is a strong ally in Washington. She recently stood up with me and voted against the massive Wall Street Bailout, a politically difficult, principled stand for which she should be commended.

Michelle also serves with me on the House Financial Services Committee where she is a consistent ally in our efforts to shine light on the Federal Reserve. Her recent Op-Ed in the Washington Times demonstrates her leadership on the Monetary Issue.

As you may have heard, Congresswoman Bachman has recently come under attack by the liberal media. Her opponent has capitalized and raised some big money in a short period of time. There is even talk of a write-in candidate with no chance of winning that would only syphon votes away from Michelle.

At this time when big government forces are grabbing more and more power, we can not afford to lose a fiscally principled Representative like Michelle Bachman in the Congress. Please join me in supporting Michelle in any way you feel comfortable and, most importantly, please make sure you get the polls and vote for her on November 4th.

In Liberty,

Ron Paul



After reading this letter, I think the choice is obvious which candidate will stand up for fiscal conservatism and a sound economic policy.

Ron Paul in the Media

Just your daily dose of Ron Paul in the media:

On Fox Business News Last night:



On CNN American Morning:

Thursday Roundup

All the campaigns are making a final push, and it seems as though almost every ad on television is some political ad. Anyone out there who is barely surviving this advertising overload, just remember that in less than two weeks it will all be over! As I'm typing this I have seen about five in a row, and I'm sure there will be another one after this ad...and sure enough there it is, another political ad! Well, I suppose you can't blame them - this is the home stretch.

Last night there were a series of vandalism on houses of politicians from Minnesota. This was directed at both Republicans and Democrats. It really is a sad situation that people have to take their protest so far as to deface private property. If you don't like some candidate, instead of spray painting their house in the middle of the night, how about you promote whatever ideas you have or candidate you are pushing for by engaging in intellectual conversation? This brings up another issue where people have been damaging political signs or damaging property that have certain political signs. That accomplishes nothing besides motivating the other side that you disagree with. I guess some people can't even think logically enough to understand this, though.

I also feel as though I need to make a comment on Michelle Bachmann. If you haven't seen this yet, you can get caught up by watching the clip here:



I believe that this has been blown out of proportion. How could it not be? But there is no denying that this was a huge (and expensive) political blunder that I hope will not cost the Republicans another seat. In direct response to that video clip, Bachmann's challenger Elwyn Tinklenberg raised over $650,000.

Now the Conservative argument in support of Bachmann is this: What is American? After defining that, you can then draw direct comparisons as to what is un-American. It really is more of an opinion. It's true that Obama's connections to 'shady' individuals is something that should be of concern to the American People, and the media in many people's opinoins has not done as much as they should have as far as looking into the issues. But I think Bachmann would have been better off sticking to attacking Obama's 'spread the wealth' statement, showing how it is a socialistic statement, and then drawing the comparison as to how that is un-American.

Regardless, it was a big misstep that has empowered Tinklenberg's campaign. I personally am still planning to vote for Bachmann, as I'm not that crazy about the independent candidate and I respect her for not supporting the bailout. I personally am ready to give her another 2 years and we'll see what happens.

In other news, Argentina nationalized 401k and pension plans. I hope there are enough people in the United States who believe in liberty and freedom that this will never happen here.

An Introduction to BJ Lawson

I have been a big fan of BJ Lawson over the past few months and he is within reach of unseating David Price in the North Carolina's 4th District. Why would I care about somebody over in North Carolina who has never served in political office? Because he stands for all that I believe in politically, and he is the kind of person we need in office. Check out this video.



*special thanks to Minnesota Chris for finding this great video.

Redistribution? Taxing the Rich?

On the front page of the Wall Street Journal today, the top story is a recent poll that shows Obama having a double-digit lead over McCain. In my opinion, if people have not been pushed away from Obama now, they probably won't in the next couple weeks.

I believe that McCain's inability (and it really is not just McCain, it is the party as a whole) to appeal to voters is somewhat troubling. But I also know for a fact there are many out there like myself who are Ron Paul supporters/libertarian leaning who simply cannot justify voting for McCain or some other Republicans who are up for re-election or election. I truly think that as the signs at the Rally for the Republic read, we need to "Bring the GOP to its roots." I firmly believe that those who are choosing to vote third party for whatever reason are not going to budge from their positions and beliefs.

What the GOP needs to do is run on a small-government platform. Why can't we be in support of cutting the size of government in half? What is so wrong with wanting to have a balanced budget for once? Why can't we look at big reforms? There are huge problems today, and they require huge changes.

What I find extremely troubling is that because the GOP cannot 'get itself together' they are fighting an uphill battle. Many who are fighting re-election are fighting extremely tough battles to keep their seats. The only politician I have seen who has gained extreme ground is BJ Lawson against the incumbent democrat David Price. He is making a huge stand, and hopefully he will be able to win that election in a couple of weeks. Funny thing is, he was not warmly received by the Republicans because he has Ron-Paul/libertarian leaning views.

A point I do want to hit, as the title suggests, is the idea that the rich do not deserve to keep the money they have earned, and that it should be 'redistributed.' Obama has been pushing this agenda, and it was specifically hit on the 'Joe the Plumber' points made in the last debate. Redistribution is clearly a socialistic idea, and I don't know about you, but that is the complete opposite of what I think should be an acceptable idea in America. Just look at Barney Frank in the following video:



How can the American Dream be best preserved? Allow people who have wealth to keep wealth. If people believe that they can become rich without it being taken away and huge amounts of taxes levied on them, then the American Dream is alive and well. In a society where one sees those who have 'made it' being attacked and taxed relentlessly so that the wealth can be 'redistributed,' there is something seriously wrong about that notion. Redistribution is socialism, and it should not be embraced in what should be the freest country in the world.

Newsweek - Libertarians to Blame for Crisis

Today when I received the new issue of Newsweek in the mail I was looking it over quickly like I always do when I first receive it. An article caught my eye called, "The Libertarians' Lament" by Jacob Weisberg. Basically to sum it up, Weisberg goes on and on about how libertarian ideology is to blame for the financial and economic crisis we are now going through.

My first reaction, as I think most people who understand the political landscape in Washington now and the past decade (or even further back), was puzzlement as to how libertarians could be to blame for the economic crisis when there are almost no libertarian-leaning elected officials in Washington. The policies that have been pursued can in no way be labeled libertarian. Dr. Paul would be the obvious exception to the norm. Dr. Paul has been predicting this collapse for years. He has not just plainly been saying that there will be a collapse, but often goes in detail in his speeches and writings as to why the collapse was inevitable. Anthony Gregory has a more in-depth response than mine over at LewRockwell.com where he has a Ron Paul quote from five years ago:

If Fannie and Freddie were not underwritten by the federal government, investors would demand Fannie and Freddie provide assurance that they follow accepted management and accounting practices.

Ironically, by transferring the risk of a widespread mortgage default, the government increases the likelihood of a painful crash in the housing market. This is because the special privileges granted to Fannie and Freddie have distorted the housing market by allowing them to attract capital they could not attract under pure market conditions. As a result, capital is diverted from its most productive use into housing. This reduces the efficacy of the entire market and thus reduces the standard of living of all Americans.

Despite the long-term damage to the economy inflicted by the government's interference in the housing market, the government's policy of diverting capital to other uses creates a short-term boom in housing. Like all artificially-created bubbles, the boom in housing prices cannot last forever. When housing prices fall, homeowners will experience difficulty as their equity is wiped out. Furthermore, the holders of the mortgage debt will also have a loss. These losses will be greater than they would have otherwise been had government policy not actively encouraged over-investment in housing. . . .

. . . Congress should act to remove taxpayer support from the housing GSEs before the bubble bursts and taxpayers are once again forced to bail out investors who were misled by foolish government interference in the market.

Weisberg believes that libertarians are 'scurrying' to explain the crisis and make it fit their ideology. This couldn't be further from the truth. The political climate in Washington has been far from libertarian and the policies pushed cannot be labeled libertarian no matter how you look at them. Libertarianism has not been given a chance, but we can be assured big government has had its fair share and we are now seeing the results.

In other news, the Ben Bernanke endorsed the idea of a new stimulus package. Go figure.

BJ Lawson talking about health care

The problems with America's health care system can be mind-boggling. The pure depth of the issue is overwhelming. How did we get to where we are today? This video of BJ Lawson explains in clear terms some of the reasons why health care is the way it is.

New PBS Documentary on Torture

Holding 'war criminals' indefinitely is a serious human rights violation. There is no ability for any of these detainees to prove their innocence, and especially no innocence until proven guilty. Some of the stories behind the war on terrorism are astounding, and finally there is a PBS documentary called "Torturing Democracy" that will be set to air after Bush's Presidency. But anyone can see it right now online for free. It specifically addresses torture that was used on the detainees during the war on terrorism.

My reaction to this documentary is anger at what the most developed nation in the world took part in. In our common day and age, torture should never be used. The violation of human dignity is outrageous - both for those who are tortured and the effects on those who actually do the torturing.

To see the extreme human rights violations that happened throughout the war on terror take some time out and watch the Torturing Democracy documentary.

Now, I know that many people have disagreed with the Supreme Court's ruling this summer that the Guantanamo Bay detainees should have the right to trial and cannot be held 'indefinitely.' Instead of just blindly formulating this opinion, I challenge you to watch the documentary I linked to above, and then decide whether or not the decision is right.

As far as where I stand, it is hard to deny that there were some extreme human rights violations on the part of the USA throughout the war on terrorism. What kind of opinion do we expect the Middle Eastern countries (and the rest of the world) to have of our country? We should be holding ourselves to the very highest standard when it comes to the issue of torture; when it comes to the issue of human rights; when it comes to the issue of foreign policy. Above all, we must hold those in power accountable for their actions. I am a huge advocate about educating ourselves as much as possible about political issues. Education is the key to holding those in power accountable for their actions.

*A note on commenting: Please only comments in reaction to the documentary - others will likely not be published.

Sarah Palin on SNL

Last night Sarah Palin appeared on SNL. Here are a couple clips:

Opening Sketch

Weekend Update

What Washington is Doing is Exactly Wrong

Ron Paul on the Alex Jones Show yesterday. It is a little long (14 minutes total) but I would highly recommend taking the time to listen to this. It talks about taking the central bank system a step forward to creating a new global financial order, where there is a single central global bank on top of all the central banks for each individual country.

Ron Paul calls for an audit of the Federal Reserve and I think that is a great place to start. We need to know what the Fed is doing, and not allow everything to happen behind closed doors. More and more people are realizing the shortcomings of our monetary system and realizing that change is absolutely necessary.

He also addresses such issues as privacy, property rights, and the carbon tax that Obama has come out and said has his full support. Again, these clips are well worth your time.

Ron Paul on CNN - Speaking the Truth, as usual

Ron Paul was on CNN's "American Morning" earlier today, addressing the economic crisis. He talks about how this is the crashing of the monetary system we have had in place since 1971. He condemns McCain and Obama for approving the bailout.



My favorite point: Maybe limited government and freedom works.

How to Cut Government Spending - and solve a few other problems while we're at it

Today I was just thinking of a few ways the government could cut spending (and in turn, the size of government). Why do we need to cut spending? Last time I checked we were over $10 trillion dollars in debt.

1) End the War on Drugs - tax marijuana as a commodity

This is the most obvious solution i.m.o. Look at the Drug Clock for this year. We have spent billions upon billions on this unsuccessful attempt at prohibition. Don't forget about the tax dollars spent to incarcerate all the 'criminals' (over 20 million have been arrested on drug charges) and the long prison terms that some receive. The amount of money that could be saved is astounding. Not to mention if it is taxed like cigarettes the government could pull in a ton of tax dollars.

2) End American Military Imperialism

According to Ron Paul, this is one of the main policy decisions that will bankrupt America. America cannot afford to have troops all over the world, nor should we be intruding on other nations sovereignty as we have. How would we feel if foreign troops were permanently stationed in the United States? Probably pretty upset (at least we should be). There are 737 Permanent U.S. military bases worldwide. We have over 70,000 permanent troops in Germany. We are over $10 trillion in debt.

3) Abolish the Federal Reserve

The Federal Reserve is a private bank that has no oversight whatsoever. They can print money whenever they feel the need to. When extra money is printed, there is inevitably inflation. You might not know this, but inflation is a tax. Don't believe me? Bernanke admitted this not too long ago (surprisingly).



Also, apparently they have some insider knowledge about what the interest rate should be. Seems to be working out really well.

4) Abolish the Department of Education

No where in the constitution does it say that the federal government should have anything to do with education. Also, last time I checked, it did say any of those powers not stated in the Constitution were reserved for the states. Abolishing the Department of Education would cut out a big chunk of un-Constitutional Bureaucracy, as well as bring influence on education closer to where it belongs: in the hands of parents.

5) Leave the United Nations

The United Nations infringes on the sovereignty of the United States. It violates the Constitution, which is literally the rulebook for government. Don't just take my word.


I would hate to take credit and call these 'original ideas' because obviously they are not. What politician supports these initiatives? If you said The Good Doctor, Dr. Paul, RP, Congressman Paul, Representative Paul, any of these are correct! Ron Paul (when he was in the running) was the only Presidential candidate who would bring about these drastic changes that would cut government spending exponentially, as well as solve a few other problems while we are at it.

While it is unfortunate that our two major "choices" for President do not advocate any sort of drastic spending change (eliminating earmarks will not get us out of debt) thankfully we have real choices in this election in Ron-Paul-endorsed Constitution Party Candidate Chuck Baldwin and the libertarian candidate Bob Barr who share similar views as those stated above.

No Choice for Bankers

Executives from the top nine largest banks in the United States sat down with Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson yesterday. What was the purpose of this meeting? It was not to brief the executives, nor was it to negotiate any specifics of the recently passed bailout legislation and what kinds of actions were going to be taken. Instead, each of the banks was given a term sheet that gave the specifics of how the government was going to take a combined $125 billion stake in their companies.

I saw this story on the front page of The Wall Street Journal this morning, and immediately it struck my curiosity. You would think that someone would raise a protest, yet the only one who really put up a fight (if you can call it that) was Wells Fargo Chairman Richard Kovacevich, who did not understand how this was so necessary. But sure enough, after a few hours all nine had signed onto the plan.

What I find disturbing is that my deepest fears (and those of many others) are coming true - the bailout legislation gave the Treasury so much power that they are and will continue to hold a no-negotiation my-way-or-the-highway attitude. How far have we come in our country, now with the government using billions of taxpayer funds to intervene so blatantly into the private sector. This is a serious form of socialism that Americans should not be taking lightly. Any Republican who has voted and favored this legislation is not deserving of any conservatives vote, and my reasons for that statement can be seen simply by looking at the effects and implications of that legislation. It is without doubt the biggest government intervention into business, ever.

The NY Times has a pretty good article on this tragedy as well.

As always, you can count on Ron Paul to speak the truth about the bailout. This is a clip from him on Fox Business News Tuesday morning:

Online Gambling - Will Government Adapt to a Changing Market?

Online Gambling is a new market that has not been around for very long, as most people know. What they do not know, though, is that online gambling is a huge industry. Where does the United States Government stand on this issue? On a federal level, there is no ban on online gambling. They do make it difficult, though, for businesses in that industry to pursue the United States Market. The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 makes it illegal for financial institutions to transfer funds to an internet gambling site (with the exceptions of online lotteries, horse racing, and fantasy sport sites). This has made it very difficult (thought not impossible) for people to transfer funds into such sites as Pokerstars, UltimateBet, etc.

There is potential that in the future the government will make an outright ban. According to the Poker Player's Alliance (PPA) over 80 countries worldwide have legalized online poker and actively regulate the industry. So far the United States has been resilient in its opposition of foreign companies who want to tap into the American market for online gambling.

Let's look at some of the reasons that the United States should legalize online gambling:

• This is an issue of privacy - Why should the government dictate what Americans do in the privacy of their own home?
  
  
• Betting on Horse Races online is legal - Again, why should government dictate what form of gambling Americans can take part in online?
  
  
• Con argument: If we legalize online gambling, millions of underage kids will start gambling online. Actually, if online gambling was legalized and the government enforced regulation that required companies to have the best software on the market as far as registration, age screening, etc. it would be a lot harder for underage gamblers to get on a site.
  
  
• The government is missing out on millions, if not billions, of tax revenues. I am not one for taxes, as you know, but it is true that the U.K. successfully regulates online gambling, taking a nice cut in taxes .
  
  
• Poker in particular has exploded in popularity in the United States. Why should Americans have to drive or even fly somewhere to take part in a game when they can do so from the comfort of their home?

Where I stand: Legalize online gambling. Regulate it if you must, but for freedom and personal choice's sake, legalize it.

*Anyone who knows me knows that I like to play poker, and in turn, could say that me addressing this issue is too bias'ed. If you think this, re-read my arguments. These arguments should make sense even for someone who has no interest in poker whatsoever. Again, it's an issue of privacy and free choice and I can tell you that I do not believe that the government should dictate how people should choose to spend their money.

Ron Paul, Presidential Candidates, on War on Drugs/Medical Marijuana

Just found this great video from the Rally for the Republic where Ron Paul specifically addresses the War on Drugs. Check it out:



The War on Drugs is a big issue with me. It seems so wrong. The results speak for themselves. Marijuana can be used for medical purposes, and there are thousands of testimonials from people who have chronic medical problems who have found marijuana to be the best medical drug to ease their pain. We should not be arresting people for this. It has become a serious social injustice within the United States.

Sorry for the low sound quality on this video, but it is McCain addressing one of those people who have found marijuana to be the most effective drug in treating their condition:



And to be fair, an Obama video:




As far as where I stand, this should be a state issue not a federal ban. As Ron Paul points out, this is an issue of depriving Americans of choice. They should be able to choose what they want to do to their own body. I do find it ironic that Legislatures who strongly support the war on drugs at the same time take part in using the drug alcohol. There are much more negatives to the war on drugs. Specifically a point that must be raised whenever talking about the war on drugs must be its targeting of minorities. I go into more detail in my previous post about the War on Drugs. Also, check out a great blog by the people over at NORML about why a Presidential commission on marijuana needs to be put together asap.

I must say, I find it astounding that the Democrats have been the leaders in changing the government's stance on the War on Drugs and Medical Marijuana. It is a war that has been harmful to personal rights, extremely expensive to the taxpayer, and inevitably has increased the size of government.

"To get high on a hemp cigarrete, the cigarettte has to be big as a telephone pole!"
-Ron Paul

I can't stand when politicians do this...

Over 130,000 views when I posted this.

So I have been looking through some blogs and other information sources, and apparently with everything else going on that I've been paying attention to, I've missed ethics allegations brought against Norm Coleman this election season. Apparently gifts below $250 to Senators do not have to be disclosed. Also, apparently somebody is trying to build up some favors from Norm Coleman. This clip is pretty ridiculous. Clearly all gifts above $250 are most likely (though we can't know for sure) reported, the question is about gifts below $250, which wouldn't be disclosed. There are only 100 Senators in the United States. It is an elite position. If you cannot be honest with the Americans who gave you this honorable position, then there is a problem. Again, I may be extremely critical of our represented officials, but I also believe it is absolutely necessary that we are.

We need actual change in Congress, and the only person running for Minnesota Senate who will do this is Dean Barkley.

Bailout Unconstitutional - Norm Coleman Simply Wrong

Ron Paul talks about the bailout bill, and yet again he hits it spot on. The bailout allows government to interfere with contracts. Clearly this is wrong, and I think anyone who understands the Constitution and contract law will agree. It's sad how almost every day I stumble upon yet another aspect of the bailout legislation that is unconstitutional, unjust, bleeds the taxpayers, and/or gives government more power over the American People. Also today I got a long letter from Senator Norm Coleman explaining his stance on the bailout bill. It basically said he did not like the bill, he was not happy, but he just had to vote for it that there really was no other option. Right. So you did not have a choice, but Michelle Bachmann did? Interesting.

Read this article filled with quotes that should not be coming from a Senator who is supposedly conservative. Coleman is a FAR cry from the conservative representatives we need.

Here is a much more sensible explanation from Michelle Bachmann

In other words: Every American who has played it safe and smart to avoid debt is being asked to spend the rest of his or her life paying off the debts of Washington and Wall Street. We are well on our way to privatizing profit but socializing risk. We're well on our way to eliminating moral hazard from economics altogether. This is antithetical not only to the free-market basis of our economy, but also to the rich heritage of liberty we've long enjoyed. It runs counter to the American Dream, unless you're a fat cat rolling the dice with taxpayer dollars.

I am extremely lucky to have someone like this representing me in Congress, and I will proudly give her my vote this November.

Glenn Beck sees it

Finally, someone in the mainstream speaking the truth. My respect for Glenn Beck has risen dramatically the last few months -

Government Wastes your Money

Government will necessarily spend taxpayers’ money inefficiently. Check out David Bartel’s recent blogWhere he quotes Milton Friedman’s explanation of why this is such. It is quite insightful, and makes sense. The only reason government would spend taxpayer money efficiently for the taxpayer is if they feel a very strong moral obligation to do whatever they can within their capacity to spend the money efficiently. As Bartel’s says, “I have seen this firsthand working in government myself the past few months. The way people talk about spending huge sums of taxpayer dollars on a whim was shocking to me at first. The shock is wearing off a bit by now. One must become desensitized after awhile.” Imagine a career in government; what kind of convictions can be left? This is why I am constantly impressed by Dr. Paul as well as other Congressmen who feel that it is their obligation to the people of America to not waste our money. This is also why I feel that the government needs to be relentlessly held in check by the people.

The tax issue alone should give us cause enough to be relentless in our evaluation, criticism, and at times, praise of those who make up our representatives. But it goes beyond that, consider all the policy issues that they are involved in: when/where/how we send troops overseas and fight wars, what drugs are legal and illegal (alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, etc.), healthcare, business regulation, infrastructure construction, personal rights and liberties, etc. The list goes on and on. Does this mean that we all need to spend 12 hours a day poring over political information? Absolutely not. But I do think it should be one of our highest priorities to stay informed, involved, and formulate an opinion. We cannot simply ‘trust’ our representatives to spend our money as efficiently as possible, and I think if you check out the quote on Bart’s blog, you will understand.

A Wasted Vote?

As I was driving today, I turned on KTLK, a conservative radio station just to see if they were talking about anything interesting. What I found was quite surprising. The Chris Baker show was on and he was talking about the Minnesota Senate race. He was talking about how he was going to vote for Dean Barkley, and that Coleman and Franken were not being fair to voters. The main concentration of their campaigns has been on whether or not Al Franken has paid his taxes. Neither candidate would appear on Baker’s show even once to answer questions for listeners. What I found even more interesting is that he is planning on voting for Bob Barr in the upcoming election. He dislikes McCain and of course is not an Obama fan. Someone called in and said it doesn’t matter if you like McCain or not, you have to vote for McCain because it is a vote against an Obama Presidency. But what Baker said, that I completely agree with and will be where I stand for as long as I live, is that we can’t know if a candidate has a chance to win because of this mindset. Barkley is polling in the high teens, but surely there are many who are not happy with Franken or Coleman who would vote for Barkley but believe it is a “wasted vote” or “taking votes away” from either Franken or Coleman. But really, if everyone voted for the candidate who they believed represented them best and did not consider everyone who tells them their vote is wasted, it takes away votes, etc. then there would be a significantly different turnout on election day. Polls have shown that many people are unhappy with both of the major candidates. So what allows the two big parties to keep a stranglehold on the election process? In part it is the belief that a vote for a third party candidate is a wasted vote for someone who has no chance for winning. Of course if everyone thinks like this third parties do not have a chance to win!

Personally, it is easy for me to defend my choice of voting third party. My vote for a third party member does not ‘take away a vote’ for McCain. My vote was never intended for John McCain! If it was, I would vote for him! But clearly there are huge differences in my political ideology and John McCain’s. So please, if someone tells you they are voting third party do not even try to tell them they are taking votes away: if their vote was intended for John McCain or Barack Obama, they would vote for them. By deciding not to, obviously they are not intending their vote for the two major party candidates. Anyone who votes third party should be proud of their vote; they are standing up and voting for the candidate they intend to vote for; not someone who will not represent their political beliefs.

If you are not happy with either of the major candidates, what makes you think you will be happy when one of them gets elected? And if you won’t be, then why would you support them through your vote? Consider the alternatives – You have a CHOICE:

Check out the third Party Campaign Sites

Libertarian Party - Bob Barr
Constitution Party - Chuck Baldwin
Independent - Ralph Nader
Green Party - Cynthia McKinney

Lawson Money-Bomb a Huge Success

Anyone who reads my blog on a consistent basis knows I am extremely excited about BJ Lawson. Yesterday was his money-bomb, and it was a huge success. Over $200,000 was raised due to the effort, and this will surely help him get his word out to even more voters in his district. What I found was extremely impressive was the thousands of people who donated from all across the United States. There is a recent donor image that changes every so often and as I was watching it, it was amazing how there were people from Minnesota, Oregon, California, New York, Texas, and all the other states who were donating to Lawson’s effort. It is obvious why that is. Though he is a representative from North Carolina, his views will represent people from all over the United States – people who believe that the Constitution must be abided by, that the stranglehold the special interests have on our government needs to end, and Congress needs to start representing the people. I truly believe that he is one of the, if not THEE, most important candidate in the upcoming elections for the cause of liberty. I think the people of North Carolina are ready for ‘change’ and the 20 plus year incumbent to be unseated.

A Liberal Move by McCain

John McCain proposed that government use $300 billion dollars of the $700 billion dollar bailout package to buy up bad mortgages and re-negotiate these mortgages so homeowners who would otherwise face foreclosure would be able to stay in their homes. This was one of the first things he talked about in the debate last night, and it is something that conservatives should not be happy about. For obvious reasons, this is something that liberals have pushed for a long time. It is a step away from Conservatism towards Liberalism. I can understand how he would lean towards ‘bailing out’ homeowners instead of bailing out large corporations, but that is not the bill he voted for. The bill he voted for does not include this provision. We need people in Washington who will speak up about the changes they would like to see in a bill BEFORE they approve the bill. If you are a “conservative” who is going to approve a bailout bill (I don’t see how you can call yourself a conservative when you vote for a bill with such huge tax implications for the taxpayer) you would think that this idea would be brought up and debated before it is approved. I am calling out McCain on this one, even though his support of the bailout is cause enough to be unhappy with his economic policies.

This Should Upset You

It can be said, without doubt, the children of Nazi Germany were brainwashed into believing many things. They were indoctrinated into the Nazi ideology. In the United States, you would not expect to see something of this sort. Children have not developed to the point where they can debate and rationalize different ideologies (politically especially). When I saw this video, it made me sick. I saw a video of this, except followed by Nazi Germany children singing about Adolf Hitler, but I thought the image at the end of the video w/Obama in Mid-eastern garb was unfair, so I did not put that up. Regardless if you are a McCain, third party, or Obama supporter, I think we can all find common ground in denouncing such practice as what is shown in the following video:

Debate, Drug Clock, and Money Bomb

What can we expect out of tonight's Presidential debate? The debate tonight will be held in a town-hall sort of format, the only debate of this form that Obama agreed to. McCain thrives in these small settings, while Obama thrives in arenas. This is a debate that McCain desperately needs to 'win.' A win for McCain in my opinion would be to appeal to disgruntled Republicans and swing voters. If McCain's ratings in key states do not increase after this debate, he is in trouble.

Let's face it, the war on drugs is not on the forefront of everyone's mind. I think that needs to change. We need to realize the social injustice that has come from this event, and take a different approach. I haven't blogged much about it besides my first post a month or so ago, but it is something that I will try to concentrate on more in the future. These statistics are staggering.

The markets continue to collapse. Not just in the United States, but worldwide. The bailout legislation was supposedly supposed to provide immediate assistance but now Bush claims "It's going to take a while." Even when the specifics are battled out, the reasons to oppose this bill are tremendous, and the actual result of the legislation will not be what was expected. It seems like more negatives concerning the bill come out every day. BJ Lawson recently wrote in his blog about how new powers will be given to the IRS through the bailout bill. It really is a sad situation, and the economy will continue its tailspin in the meantime.

Speaking of BJ Lawson, today is the money bomb for his campaign. They've already received over $50,000 in donations today and are well on their way to their $500,000 goal. Hopefully this will provide him with the funds to make the final push and win the election next month.

Is that Tina Fey or Sarah Palin??

I found this skit hilarious. Tina Fey does such a good Sarah Palin impersination it's almost scary. If McCain wins the upcoming election, let's just say that we can expect to see a WHOLE lot more Tina Fey on SNL.

Saturday Roundup

Stocks plunged after the Senate approved the bailout legislation, and the same event occurred following the approval by the House. Prior to the passing of the bailout, stocks were up 313 points. By the end of the day they were down 157 points. The fact is that even though stocks are driven in part by public opinion, the passing of bailout legislation does not immediately provide credit. There still needs to be a process of buying up of bad debt (with taxpayer money) and turning around the financial institutions that will receive this aid. This legislation will not provide a quick-fix as it has promised, because the financial crisis is so far-reaching that this interventionism will not solve the problems that have been in creation for years. Though people praise the passing of the bailout, there are still many, many problems to be dealt with. Payrolls were down 159,000* (meaning, after all the jobs added and those removed, there was a net loss of 159,000 positions) positions. Unemployment is at 6.1%, as well as unemployment including those who are working part-time who would rather be working full time is at 11%. Every day you hear about new aspects of the financial crisis, and this is not something that will go away easily.

As a finance major and econ minor, I want to step away from politics for a moment to talk about what I think is one of the most essential aspects of our careers and our future: retirement savings. I have been reading a lot of articles about those who are working into their 70s or later just to get by because they have no retirement savings. I have heard some startling statistics about how much people have saved for retirement when they are well into their fifties, and it is not that much. There is only a small fraction of people who actually have saved and built a retirement fund that allows them to experience the same quality of life through retirement as they do when they are in their working years. What has happened to America, and the hope of prosperity? The mindset is credit, credit, credit, debt, debt, debt. I personally believe that we need a change of mindset where our priorities rest with living within our means and not taking on insurmountable debt. This is one reason I am so interested in finance. The question of how can we save and live a life that will give us sustainability and the certainty of a retirement that is comfortable and available. As prices rise, market uncertainty is higher than ever, we need to have a plan that involves savings and consideration of worst-case scenarios. As the number of people reaching traditional “retirement age” increases, and the number of people not being able to retire due to lack of savings increases, it will be a big issue in the future. I just wanted to touch on that point as it surely will be a huge issue in the coming years with the financial crisis wrecking havoc on 401k’s and other investments.

I also want to put on Ron Paul’s response following the passage of the bailout.



In other news Al Franken has taken a big lead over Norm Coleman according to a recent poll. Al Franken was polling at 43 percent, while Norm Coleman polled at 34 and Dean Barkley at 18. Franken also had a fundraiser at the U of M with guest Al Gore, as well as citing his opposition to the bailout bill and Norm Coleman’s support of Bush economic policies. He will be at my school, The University of St. Thomas, on Wednesday afternoon. I'm not sure when/if Coleman or Dean Barkley will be making a visit.

My favorite candidate in any election this fall, BJ Lawson, is having a ‘money bomb’ on May 7th. Anyone who is not familiar with what a money bomb is, it is basically a fundraising tactic where the campaign tries to get as many donations in one day as possible. It doesn’t matter if people can only donate five dollars; their goal is to get as many individuals to contribute as possible. Ron Paul set fundraising records when in December he raised more than $6 million in BJ Lawson is endorsed by Ron Paul, and he recently sent out this email to supporters:

Dear Friend,
A lot of folks have begun calling B.J. Lawson the next Ron Paul. The comparison is very flattering. . . for me.
For those who are not yet familiar, B.J. Lawson is a wonderful young candidate running for Congress in North Carolina's Fourth Congressional District. B.J. is a medical doctor, family man, Constitutionalist and a fierce defender of individual freedom. We need B.J. Lawson in Congress to stand beside me in the fight for liberty, and against the corporate socialism that has overtaken our economy!
B.J. is running against an entrenched big government liberal who voted for the $700 billion taxpayer bailout of Wall Street and has a long history of voting for huge spending, raiding your social security trust fund for pet projects, and even voted for the Patriot Act.
A recent poll shows B.J. Lawson within striking distance in this election, but he needs your help!
B.J. needs $250,000, right away, to run the campaign he needs to take this race right down the the wire. I know that if we band together, we can help him get the money he needs.
I am asking you, as a fellow Defender of Liberty, to mark the four week countdown to this November's election and join with me and donate to B.J. Lawson's campaign this Tuesday, October 7th. I know times are tough, but that is all the more reason why we need to send a message and help B.J. Lawson.
Contributions can be made at http://www.lawsonforcongress.com
This one-day "Money Bomb" could be what it takes to propel the next Ron Paul into Congress. I hope you will join me to support B.J. Lawson with your on-line contribution this Tuesday, October 7th.
Sincerely,
Ron Paul

Check out a great BJ Lawson video that premiered at the Rally for the Republic:




As far as the VP debate a few nights ago it really did not do much for me. Basically it was a restatement of statements and talking points that were present in the Presidential debate. It was the most viewed Vice Presidential debate in history, though, which is quite impressive. But all in all there is not much to comment on as each candidate made restatements of points that were already known. Nevertheless, if you want to watch all or part of it you can see the video here.

Bill Passed With Little Resistance

Well, the national debt took a big jump today. Wall Street was bailed out, and a dangerous precedent of 'bailing out' private businesses by United States Taxpayers was set. The government believes that it has the ability to prevent recession by pulling our nation into deeper debt. It believes that it can artificially prop up the economy, and turn around the capitalist market. They don't believe that this will cause long-term problems, nor do they even consider that notion.

The debate in the house was not about the economic implications, long-term effects, and what kind of precedents this bill will set. There was not debate about whether this is the most effective use of taxpayer money, or the details of the bill. There were few that would step up and bring up the problems with the bill, the reasons why it shouldn't be passed, and the economics of the bill. Instead, we have representative after representative who join with the popular opinion because they know that it will be easier to defend that position than to defend the RIGHT position. Congratulating each other for their leadership on the bill, for their support on the bill, it is almost like peer pressure has taken over these individuals and the ability to think independently is non-existent. What I was happy about was that there were 171 members of the House of Representatives that did not change their vote. They were not going to be swayed over to vote for a bill that did not make sense. They kept a level head. I'm glad that Michelle Bachman was one of these who did not change their vote:



Is there really no choice? Both Presidential Candidates, our President, and the masses of the Senate and the House of Representatives support the bailout legislation. They are all thinking short-term, not long-term. I believe it is Congress' duty to figure out how legislation they pass will help towards a solution in terms of the original problem. $700 billion is a lot of money. It is your money, it is my money, it is American Taxpayer's money. It is our right that they use our money only with the most rigorous questioning as to whether it is the proper use. It should only be used when it is unquestionably in the best interest of the American People. It is obvious that this did not happen today.

Ignorant Attack

This clip is a couple weeks old, but when I first heard this clip on the radio I was astonished that someone could think that by interpreting the constitution as our founding fathers meant it to be, implied that that person is in favor of slavery. Whoopi Goldberg makes an incredibly ignorant comment, and John McCain actually handled it quite well. If it were me, I could definetely see myself stopping and saying, "wait, did I really hear that?" And then she tells him that 'some things in the constitution had to change.' I'm sure John McCain, a politician for many years, had no idea that there were amendments made to the constitution. This is an ignorant attack at its worst, on national television.

More Revelations about the Bailout

My friend James over at dinksfinance has put up a great blog explaining some of the more troubling provisions of the bailout legislation. Check it out, its well worth your time.

"New" bailout bill headed to House

Well, the bailout bill passed through the Senate with flying colors. A few changes were made, of course, to sugarcoat and distract people from the real meaning of this bill.

• $100 billion in tax breaks for businesses and the middle class
• Raise from $100,000 to $250,000, the cap on federal deposit insurance
• Provides $8 billion in tax relief for those hit by natural disasters in the Midwest, Texas and Louisiana

These provisions were made to win over Republicans and get the legislation through. This does not deny the fact that the bills main purpose is still to buy up bad debt held by financial institutions. Jim DeMint, a republican Senator from South Carolina said the bill was "leading us into the pit of socialism."

Of course, I was not surprised to see Norm Coleman giving this bill the green card. It is a slap in the face to conservatives of Minnesota, and at a time where he desperately needs their support. We will have to see what happens in the house, and whether or not 'conservative' leaders stand up and reject this legislation that would put a huge burden on taxpayers for years to come.

Also, I have to mention, I like the way David Bartel's thinks:

"I previously was trying to decide between not voting, or figuring out which of the two major candidates is the "worst of two evils". I have since changed my thinking. I have heard about so many people who do not actually like either candidate in this race and yet will end up "settling". But it is because of a mentality like prevents independent candidates from becoming a viable possibility. Perhaps it is not the people who are "wasting their vote" on an independent candidate that we need to be angry about, but those who are allowing a system of two bad choices to continue by supporting one of them."



The power of the people is in one simple, yet so complex, mechanism. That is our vote. I have become more and more convinced that voting is something that I must hold in the highest regard, and i do hold in the highest regard. Your vote is your voice, and it puts power in your hands. We are born with this power, it is not something we had to work for years and years to attain, nor did we have to 'buy' it. We are given this power, yet so many people take it lightly or are apathetic towards it. What I believe must be the mindset is that voters who are not happy with a candidate/Senator/Representative should not vote for them simply because "there is no other viable choice, I have to vote for them or look at this other guy over there." Well what are you expecting? Some big change by voting for someone you are not excited about? Somebody who you show reluctance toward representing you? I just encourage everyone to think about this. Congress has an extremely low approval rating. If you are unhappy, you should not be voting for more of the same, but for ACTUAL change. Voting for "the lesser of the two evils" is not going to bring about change. That is where I stand, and that is why I will be casting my vote for Dean Barkley and Chuck Baldwin this fall.

Doubletalk Express

These two videos speak for themselves.

Sarah Palin. I'm scratching my head as to how this is a "great" Vice Presidential choice. Not just because of things that the below video shows, but for many reasons.



As well as my favorite compilation of John McCain's bits:



Say what you want about these videos, negative or positive, but I believe that we need to keep politicians honest. I will post tomorrow about the bailout legislation.

Good old Norm

Statement from Norm Coleman:

September 29th, 2008 - Washington, D.C. - “Failure to address the financial crisis is not an option. Capital is the lifeblood of our financial system, and today that system is in danger of a complete meltdown. This crisis touches each and every Minnesotan. Jobs, retirement savings, and access to credit are all at stake. We must try again – these are times that call for statesmanship, not partisanship. I remain hopeful that we can act on a bipartisan compromise that addresses the crisis while at the same time protecting taxpayers and holding Wall Street accountable. We are facing an unprecedented financial crisis, and all of us, Democrats and Republicans, Congress and the Administration, must find a way forward for Minnesota families and our economy. Now is the time for action and I am hopeful that we can come together and pass a package that will have real reform – no golden parachutes, no blank check, and above all, protect the American taxpayer. We must have real results that will stabilize our financial markets and return liquidity to the system.”


Norm Coleman is facing fierce competition for his Senatorial Seat in Al Franken. After reading this response, I think it is obvious what Coleman is planning on doing if he faces the choice of bailout or no bailour: bailout. He will spin it a certain way, making it seem like it is a bill that doesn't hurt taxpayers, that is necessary, etc. Basically, he is trying to sidestep this whole situation: vote yes on the bill, but make it seem like a necessity. If he shot it down, he would face relentless attacks from Al Franken. But the thing is, as a Conservative, there is no reason he should be voting for a bill that inevitably puts the burden on taxpayers. Basically, we would be forced to buy junk that is worthless, there is no getting around this. Awaiting the vote today on the 'new' version of the bailout, I would be extremely shocked to see Coleman voting against it. He might not be killing his campaign, but he will be shooting himself in the foot with approval of the bailout.