Monday, November 23, 2009
However my entire 2009 sports season isn't all that bad with the Giants picking up a win last night and the Devils are in second place but right behind the Penns.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Some may translate this as support for Paterson and I will tell you right now it's not. Paterson as well as Schumer and Gillibrand need to go as well, granted Paterson seemed to have taken his job more seriously than the two that represent New York in the Senate. The fact that Obama and New York Democrats tried to urge him to not to run for a full term makes him look more respectable compared to some of other so-called leaders. Nevertheless Albany is broken and has been for quite a long time but replacing a liberal-moderate statist with a conservative-moderate statist is not the answer.
New York Times Article
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Whenever the question of independent football leagues comes into play, the common response one will hear will be the XFL, the failed brainchild of Vince McMahon of World Wrestling Entertainment and NBC. Granted the fact that yes the XFL was the last independent football league to be on the scene but lets remember that the league was tainted from the start. With Vince McMahon being 50% owner, majority (if not all) of the sports media regarded as a joke and too close to pro-wrestling. It was reported that even XFL cities didn't have any post game coverage in their newspapers and news shows. In addition some of the rule changes in which some were changed mid-season just made your average fan go "what?". XFL's model of more flare (in order to attract a bigger base) over actual football also didn't help either. If you start a independent sports league, you want them to be playing the sport and then you add the flare not the other way around. For these reasons among others XFL (as a whole) shouldn't be considered the last independent league. Personally the last league that deserves that honor is still USFL (United States Football League). Which has it's own plans to make a return in 2010.
So I watched the October 14th game between the Florida Tusks and the Las Vegas Locomotives. My boss was telling me not to expect much that it's going to be like AFL (Arena Football League), it's going to be nothing but has-bens and never-wases. I think a mistake people make when viewing a new league is to expect superstar talent from the get go. The game on the 14th was pretty decent, it was pretty much of a shutout for the Tusks with the Locomotives finally scoring early in the fourth quarter. I was happy because I saw football, not flare with sprinkles of football. The UFL is also playing it smart by not having a large league from the start. The entire league is four teams over a seven week season with the eighth week being their championship game. Although with the Championship game being on Black Friday might have been a mistake but of course only time will tell. UFL has potential to grow and pick up where the XFL failed, there is a market out there for people that want alternatives to the NFL and/College or just want more football in general I believe the UFL has the potential to give fans what they want more football.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
The Conservative Party of New York was formed because of the view of the state Republican Party that they were too liberal and to be a counter to the Liberal Party of New York.
Monday, September 28, 2009
A link to Downsize DC's campaign is support of the Justice Act is found here
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
If someone wishes to buy a new car, then by all mean let them but why should the Federal Government get involved? In a time where Americans are losing their jobs by the day, isn't the Federal Government encouraging bad behavior? Buying a car isn't like buying a pair of sneakers, it takes a lot of research and financial planning. It's easy to go to the dealership and sign either the lease or loan, the hard part is to pay for it. I don't know how it is in other states but in New York if you take out a loan to buy a car (either from the dealership or a car loan from the bank) you are required to get full insurance coverage (collision, liability, etc). Of course the price tag on your insurance varies by the vehicle, your personal driving record and possibly other life factors. As I stated before if one can ride the waves of the financial burden that is involved with a vehicle purchase by all means help out your local dealership. The problem is that Federal Government is encouraging people to drown themselves in debt at a time where we should be saving and cutting unnecessary costs.
Encouraging debt burdens isn't the only thing that the Feds have created with this program. They are also creating more waste, with the destruction of the vehicles. Majority of vehicle owners have felt the bullet of expensive repair jobs with my personal favorite being parts you can only get from the dealership instead at your local Napa. In the CARS program, dealerships are required to destroy the engine although some are refusing either on principal or for profit reasons. The old adage "One person's trash is another person's treasure" comes into play here. Recent market trends have said that used cars sell better than new cars. Why? because it's much cheaper to buy a used vehicle and keep it running as opposed to a new vehicle. If you don't have a lot of money and need a vehicle, going to Bob's used car emporium is much for cost effective than Johnson's Ford. By destroying the "clunker" the Federal Government effectively destroys a potential ride for someone who doesn't have that much money and/or a trove of engine parts that junk yards can salvage and sell at a cheap price as opposed to going to a dealership. Supporters say that the whole vehicle isn't destroyed, just the engine which is true but how often do people need doors, bumpers and other body parts as opposed to say a water pump or a fan belt?
So now we have the Federal Government encouraging debt allocation and eliminating vehicles for low income people. What was the objective of this program again? To get people to have more fuel efficient vehicles? The clowns that run Washington need to realize that this is a unrealistic goal. In rural areas having a tiny little Toyota isn't going to do anyone good when there is dangerous amounts of snow on the ground. People (myself included) buy trucks, jeeps and SUVs for a reason, not to be hip like the Yuppies in New York City. Those in Washington need to realize that the more they try to fiddle with the economy the more they make it worse.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
That's why I was kind of surprised among all the hate Dobbs got from liberals when he continued the "birther" saga. For the record I believe Obama is a natural born United States citizen. The funniest parts about the attacks on Dobbs is that he was this right wing extremist. One of the first things he points out is that he believes that Obama is a natural born citizen! Would a right wing extremist support gay marriage, separation of church and state, the minimum wage, and abortion? My guess would be no. Even with stances on those issues most conservatives don't call him a liberal, they typically refer to him as a independent or a populist. The only time I have seen conservatives actually a line themselves with Dobbs is with illegal immigration.
Has this onslaught on Dobbs changed his views on the issues I've stated? Probably not since Dobbs is more rational that most in the media, especially when you compare him to Keith Olbermann. If Dobbs ever let liberals off easy in the past you can bet that he certainly won't now.
As everyone knows Sonia Sotomayor is now a Supreme Court Justice. Right on cue liberals cheered while conservatives and libertarians jeered. This was of course expected with a Democratic majority in congress and as far as the ideological makeup goes there wasn't much change. With the single exception being that Sotomayor sides with the police more than Souter ever did.
Liberal groups and supporters cheered because they feel that they have a lock on the Hispanic vote. Buchanan-type conservatives try to revamp the case for use of the Southern Strategy and other right-populist themes in order to take back Washington. In both cases, both are wrong. For awhile both conservatives and liberals have forgotten the words of Dr. Martin Luther King:
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
When did character translate to group? Last time I checked people where individuals not groups, what my neighbor does to his body does not affect me. Why is it assumed by liberals that putting Sotomayor on the top court will automatically translate to votes? Why do a small group of conservatives think that Sotomayor's personal views are the views of every Hispanic in the country? It's not just the Sotomayor appointment it's also illegal immigration and affirmative action among other issues. The illegal immigration debate has brought out alot of racial and social collectivist thought out and it's pathetic. Sometimes one can't tell if it's debate or just ridiculous name calling and race baiting. It seems that the individual is lost on the partisans and for them it's easier to group people together and scream at their opponent.
In my opinion collectivism is a taught and natural behavior at the same time. Sometimes people naturally won't associate with others that are not like them. Look at High School for a nice example of that. In the taught aspect, those who teach collectivism may use crime statistics, voting data, religion, race and other trait that a person belongs to (typically through no fault of his or her own) in order to paint said group a certain way. Can social collectivism be overcome? Yes it can. Will it happen anytime soon? Probably not.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
So far Obama hasn't done anything yet that warrants any type of positive praise from me until now. With Iran in the mist of chaos and possible revolution, Obama has done the smartest thing a US President has done in regards to a foreign country in a very long time: staying out of their business. Time and time again our meddling in affairs of other nations has done nothing but to fuel hatred for our country and our people.Obama in rare form is showing that he supports freedom for other nations by letting their own people handle their own affairs not using our military to do it for them.
Of course the Neoconservatives cannot have that. Neoconservatives hate national leaders that preach nonintervention in their foreign policy. They prefer leaders who supporting bombing nations that won't bend to our whims. The underlining fact that they forget or choose to ignore is that the Iranian people are very nationalist and hate when others mess in their domestic problems. The last revolution that Iran had shows that Iranians don't want outsiders messing with their politics. The articles claiming Obama is supporting the Iranian regime are coming out in droves and there is no end in sight. it shows you that Neoconservativism isn't dead, nor did it receive a fatal blow when Bush left office. When Obama picked Hillary as his Secretary of State, I already started to think that Bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran might come true. Interesting enough Hillary has been rather quite and out of the spotlight as of late.
Do I believe Obama is fully committed to nonintervention? No but Iran is a damm good start
Friday, June 19, 2009
While I didn't seem to think that the illegal immigration debate wouldn't come up till after Sotomayor was nominated or not it seems that Obama is intent in doing some serious multitasking. Libertarians for the most part are divided on this issue but this division will come back to bite us if we don't put up a common front.
As most of us know the illegal immigration debate is divided into the following groups:
1. Grant amnesty, keep immigration flowing
2. No amnesty, restrict immigration 2a. no immigrants period 2b. no immigration from non-white countries
3. No amnesty, keep immigration flowing but eliminate the red tape
Conservatives who fall in the second category are attempting to paint Libertarians as apart of the open borders left. I saw a video from the Cato Institute that had Jim Harper discussing on how our immigration policy should be structured and the Fox News anchor tried to pin him in the same league is Nancy Pelosi. Interesting enough Sarah Palin said before the election that she didn't believe in mass deportation of illegal immigrants but that barely made a peep among conservative voices.
The stereotype that Libertarians don't believe in the rule of law has been used like a billy club by conservatives especially on this issue. We have to get the message out there that we support a third option in the illegal immigration debate. Contrary to what the left and right tell say more people would support the third option than the first or second. It's not like we don't have a voice in the media who supports the third option. Lou Dobbs of CNN is on tape saying that he is very pro-legal immigration but is against amnesty, he is someone we can work with despite being an economic protectionist.
During the height of the swine flu "scare" the national party issued a statement for Obama to close the border with Mexico until the "scare" had passed. I didn't think much of it until I got an email from the local libertarian group that the national party was supporting xenophobia. I had emailed them back supporting national's decision to do that because at the time it was a national security issue, never got a response back by the way. I can understand why some Libertarians would see this move xenophobic since xenophobia and bigotry is very anti-liberty but we also should remember that complaining about bigots only gives them legitimacy. Sadly the left has yet to learn this lesson. Yes there is no denying the fact that racist and/or anti-immigrant groups (neo-nazis, kkk, coalition of conservative citizens, minutemen, etc) have used the illegal immigration debate as a cover to spread their bigotry. There is no denying of this fact but in addition to acknowledging them keeping the issue open only makes their cause stronger. If and when illegal immigration is solved the correct way these groups won't have anything to stand on (for the time being) and will self expose their true colors when they no longer have a banner to hide behind.
The illegal immigration issue is another great chance for us to inject our influence into the Republicans and/or the Democrats. We cannot let the ultra nationalist Paleoconservatives, other anti-legal immigrant groups and the pro-amnesty left win this fight. We must stand for liberty and the rule of law.
Normally I am a person who sticks to the issues and typically ignores petty fights unless it really somehow connects to an issue. With all the left and right wing whinnying something has to be said.
Politics isn't a nice game and nor will it ever will be. Not to say however that everyone in politics is a complete asshole it's just a game that one must go into with hard nerves. Do people want a decent political process that is just focused on issues? Yes. Will it ever happen? No. The 2008 Presidential election most likely marked the death for nice guy politics, they say nice guys finish last and that nice guy was John McCain. Even his supporters didn't like the fact that he didn't come down on Obama like a hammer.
It's very rarely that I ever agree with Big Government Social Conservatives but they are right in the fact that majority of people need thicker skin. Some may view this as agreeing with bigots, racists and anti-Semites, when in fact that's not it at all. For example I am of Hispanic descent and people like cold warrior Pat Buchanan use Judge Sotomayor as a vehicle (in addition use the illegal immigration debate) to criticize all Hispanics in his typical racial collectivist fashion. For the record his views on race hold about just as much water as Nancy Pelosi's views on taxes. It human nature to defend oneself from personal attacks but in politics you have to keep your eye on the prize and not be distracted by petty insults and attacks. I'm sure most of your parents have taught you or for your parental readers you have taught your kids to be the bigger person and walk away. If I may borrow a line from Teddy Roosevelt "Speak softly and carry a big stick". Political Bullies typically win when you engage them with the same petty insults instead of facts.
Currently now conservatives are up in a fury over Letterman's retarded joke about Palin and her daughter. I'll say right off the bat that this was another thing that when I heard about it I shrugged my shoulders and went on with my life. Letterman has been trumpeted as a liberal shill since the election I personally don't know nor do I care since I don't watch Letterman or much TV at all for that matter. Conservatives say this is the conservative equivalent of the Don Imus episode and the liberal reactions to it which isn't true since Imus's attack was at private citizens while Palin is a politician, a national figure and has made her family somewhat public. Some say that Imus isn't a conservative either but that's another argument for another day. From what I have read Palin seemed to be the bigger woman in this whole ordeal by just ignoring Letterman and leaving at that. I commend Palin for this because I am sure as a Governor she has better and more important things to do. What astounded me is the reaction from conservative pundits everywhere behaved like liberals and called for Letterman's head. I though conservatives had thicker skin but it seems that the incident has dyed down and won't be continuing for weeks on end like other gaffs from various national figures public and private.
While there hasn't been a major incident that has gotten liberals riled up as far as I know anyway. Some conservative pundits are accusing the nut jobs who killed Dr. Tiller and the shooter at the Holocaust Museum of being liberals. This hasn't though made much noise on the news networks just among liberal sites. Although one thing that has been going on and off has been those who criticize Obama are racists. Like Conservatives, Liberals must learn to roll with the punches, besides it's better to point and laugh at idiots and let their ownstupidty from both left or right expose themselves than to engage them.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
It's a thought that has been floating around in Libertarian circles since the election. Hell even it's been discussed at my local party meetings. Some say that for the good of the country we are going to have to swallow our pride, others believe that conservatives deserve to wallow in the mess they created by betraying their so-called principals for power. One my own personal gripe is why should we trust them when all they do is just pay us lip service and if they aren't paying us lip service they will use the fear game of the Democrats being in power.
Peter Schiff gave a speech to a group of Connecticut Libertarians a few days ago saying that the only way to get Libertarian minded people elected is to infiltrate the Republicans. Some say that it's impossible due to the fact that the influence the big government Christian Right and Neoconservatives still have. Then there are the Paleoconservatives who are mostly composed of old Cold Warriors who believe in economic crushing protectionist policies. With these three different types of conservatives who support big government one way or another it's really no wonder why we are skeptical of this idea, despite the amount of respect we have for Peter Schiff.
In all of our differences the one single thing that unites us is taxes for the most part. Things aren't getting better and time is getting short. If we are to take back the country from the right and left wing statist we are going to have to make a choice and hope it's the right choice.
Here is the video of Peter Schiff suggesting the idea
Friday, May 15, 2009
I'm never a person that likes to throw ad hom attacks around unless they actually fit and unfortunately the current one being thrown at the clown and chief is very inaccurate. Let me start out by saying that Soviet Communism is dead and buried. Even Putin with his love for old days of the Union and Stalin knows that Communism has failed in addition the remaining Soviet strongholds in the world are seeing that fact as well, with Cuba being the last one waking up to that fact.
Yes Socialist and Communist are great buzzwords to get people riled up but if you stop and think it's not really a good way to describe Obama. Let us not forget that the Hammer and Sickle aren't the only totalitarian ideologies on the block. Lets take the nationalization Obama and his crew have done. Now under a Socialist President, a government stooge would've been put in as CEO to run these companies and that the management and its board of directors know that they are no longer running the show. In it's current state, the illusion is still there that they (the CEO, board of directors, management,etc) are running it and the government is just being a "watchful eye". This kind of action is not socialism, its government run capitalism which also has another name which is called Fascism. Although if you really want to go down to the true nitty gritty, socialism and fascism have alot of simliar characteristics despite the extreme hatred the ideologies have for each other.
It also wouldn't be fair to label him a fascist either since Fascism requires alot of ultranationalism. Obama fails in this characteristic in his trip to Latin America and his bowing to the Saudi King. Obama in my opinion seeks to believe in the third way of politics, he wishes to have it both ways. Populist might be a better term but even populism would be too board. I would have to say that Obama is creating an American version of Peronism. Peronism was the ideology of former Argentinian Dictator Juan PerÃ³n. Peron believed that capitalism wasn't bad per say but just needed some roughing up a bit which unfortunately for the Argentinian economy lasted from 1946 to 1955.
For more info on Peronism
|(If applicable, start typing the city the subject matter refers to. A list of matching cities will appear. Select the city that the article refers to.)|
Monday, May 4, 2009
To start off I am pro gay marriage because there is no evidence on how it affects my rights what so ever. It wouldn't very Libertarian of me to believe the Government jack boot should be allowed to enforce private morals.
When I heard about Miss California saying that she was against gay marriage I shrugged it off and went about my business. Unfortunately others didn't want to take that lying down and the fashion left began their assault. Well the assault had a side affects; the freepers, the evangelicals and every other right wing group out there picked it up on their radar screens and went to defend her from the "evil" liberals. Since the social and religious right have no actual facts to oppose gay marriage other than religious reasons they use situations like this to further the lie that there is the so called homosexual agenda. The typical lies that are said are that homosexuals are going to molest children, make religion illegal, introduce socialism (despite majority of socialist/communist countries outlawed homosexuality) and other bs. Oh course most people know these attacks are nothing but lies but when they use these attacks along side when someone is criticized for not supporting gay marriage it will sometime resonate in the minds of people that are still in the middle when it comes to the issue.
I can understand that those who support gay marriage must fight it's critics at every turn but this isn't a battle worth fighting. Miss California isn't a politician and she doesn't head a PAC although with this incident the woman might have been turned into a social/religious right crusader but who knows. Attacking her does not help the movement and only plays into the hand of the opposition. One should take a page out of the Conservative play book and ignore insignificant threats. When Specter switched to the Democrats the Conservatives shrugged and went about their business, they also do this when the Hollywood left opens their mouths. They know that attacking a private citizen (as in not a politician) doesn't do much good in the eyes of public opinion. It shows that they are nothing but bullies, and now the left and gay rights groups look like the bully. If Perez Hilton didn't go off on Miss California it wouldn't made much of a big deal. Yea the religious and social conservatives would've brought it up to show that another high profile American is against gay marriage but thats it. All it would've shown is that Miss California has a opinion just like everyone else.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
So this past week another memo from our glorious Department of Homeland Security with it's list of potential terrorists, extremists and the like. Once again innocent and non-violent groups are lumped into with neo-nazis, skinheads, anarchists, black panthers and other violent organizations. There really wasn't much difference between this memo and the one that popped up in Missouri last month with the exception of also mentioning clothing styles of extremists oh and now the Puerto Rican Independence movement is now listed. Granted that there is a political party in Puerto Rico that supports that idea but since when do Feds do any actual fact checking. It kinda makes me want a Klan and Black Panther come back just for the clowns that run DHS can see what a real extremist is.
I don't about some of you but I was considered a traitor way before Obama and his boys got into the White House. I was against the neoconservative project of nation and empire building, the blind support for Israel, the millions of tax payer money going to other countries, government legislating morality and faith-based programs. I support the Church State Separation, actual diplomacy with talking instead through the barrel of a gun, you know the type of foreign policy Thomas Jefferson believed in. Of course to the Conservatives in the Bush era said I was a Communist (despite having a Vietnam Vet for a Father and an Uncle, while some of the biggest voices in Conservative media never wore the uniform), terrorist sympathizer, anti-American oh and an illegal alien being Hispanic and all. I heard the usual Support the President and the like and I said no. I can't support someone who is engaging in activities that I firmly believe are wrong. Of course that was then.
Now that the Liberals are in power and I don't have too much love for their polices either so in their eyes I'm the extremist, the threat and whatever else label they can come up with. I personally did not attend the Tea Party in my area because they didn't like the fact that I didn't support Bush and alot of other neoconservative polices. Not to say that all the Tea Parties were neoconservative whinefests just the one by me was. As a rule I always let my opinions known to make sure that the particular protest I go to actually has to do with the subject at hand and not just an anti-liberal, anti-conservative jack off fest. With Conservatives along side us Libertarians being targeted by the Federal Government jack boot some are starting see that they were wrong in the last go around. Others still defend the police harassment of anti-war, and other left wing groups. I sometimes gloat at the fact that what had went around during Bush has came around under Obama but realize that I can gloat in private.
Some may say that I'm not taking this seriously, but I am but I also refuse to go hysterical about it. Honest and proper disagreements are much better in a civilized society than screaming liberal and conservative talking points. The Bill of Rights and the Constitution still exist in this country and if I'm a Communist or a Fascist because I believe in both than so be it. I rather be an enemy of the state than cattle mooing for the pat on the head.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
While much of the Specter love and hate has pretty much come to head, one must wonder what is the big deal? Like most Republicans in the Northeast, he was a Liberal one sometimes referred to as the Rockefeller Republican (named after former NY Governor and former Vice President Nelson Rockefeller) but most of the time referred to as a RINO (Republican in name only). A big government Republican joining the Democrats isn't news, it's just being honest. I'm surprised that he didn't do what New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg did and just become an "Independent". At least if he became an Indy he wouldn't be apart of the Oligarchy in Washington that disguises itself as a two party system. Of course the real reason now is that Specter wants to continue to be trenched in Washington after showing a very poor polling in a potential primary against Pat Toomey. Can't say I blame the guy, since that's what politicians are there for, power and nothing more.
Of course seconds after word got out, Democrats and Liberals welcomed him with open arms. Specter claims that he won't be the automatic 60Th vote but only time well tell if he actually means it. They are trumpeting that the Republicans are on death beds which can be no farther than the truth but being the sport I am I will let them have their fun. It wouldn't be very Libertarian of me if I didn't. Little do they realize that they have got themselves into a corner with Specter joining them and if Al Franken becomes Minnesota's next Senator then guess what they are fully in control. With a filibuster-proof congress that means that they are responsible for the future pains that are on the road ahead. They won't be able to blame it on the Republicans or anyone else for that matter because they and they alone have the keys. They won't be able to create any cute little "Days of No" videos because the opposition will be ineffective in their small minority status. Democratic supporters better be prepared when it starts to crash down on them because it will and it will hit hard.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
With Kim Jong Ill giving it another go at joining the nuclear club the weapons debate has been renewed. President Obama called for a nuclear weapons free world in Europe. Like Bush, Obama fails to understand why does North Korea and in this case Iran as well want nuclear weapons? There is a saying out there that goes "Nuclear countries don't get invaded." It's a pretty accurate statement, nobody, no matter how ballsy they think they are will invade Russia, China, Britain, France, India, Pakistan and of course our own nation without rising having a nuclear missile dropped in their capital for retaliation. Iran and North Korea believe (or at least try to get their people to believe) that we want to invade them and change the leadership in those countries. While some here wish we do just that, most of us believe that it's not in the country's' best interest to start a third war.
I never bought into the loads a crap that I heard in regards to Obama handing the nation over to Bin Laden. I didn't think Obama was going to stop the empire building, since all he is doing is taking troops from Iraq and planting them in Afghanistan. So much for change in our foreign policy. Obama calling for nuclear disarmament is a serious and scary thing. Our nukes are what keep our big enemies from trying anything stupid. Of course this could be just empty rhetoric just to impress the Europeans, only time will tell.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Why must Obama and his cohorts punish success? He current excuse is
that he has to help those who are feeling great pain by the current
economic climate. Some people think he is just stupid and doesn't know the basics about economics. Personally I don't, the main basis of liberal economic policies is that the private sector can't be trusted or at the very least the private sector can't help the public enough. Their polices seek to hinder the private sector so much that eventually people realize that it's more of a pain to run a business than it's worth. When jobs in the private sector dry up then the government steps in whether it be local, state or federal. When the government creates jobs it creates more of a burden for the tax payer. Since it is the tax payer that pays the wages of civil servants regardless of position. People tend to take civil service jobs when the economy is tight because it's guaranteed work. While I have no problem with civil service, hey it's a job my main problem is that people become entrenched with these jobs and won't find a job in the private sector. Civil service jobs were designed for those who can't find work (disabled, elderly, etc) in the private sector not for those who won't find work elsewhere. When you depend on the government for work your less likely to criticize it's policies and it's actions. Becoming dependent on the government in my opinion is a bigger threat to freedom in this country than anything Bin Laden can throw at us. I would like to be proven wrong that Obama doesn't seek to create a populace dependent on the government but I don't see that happening any time soon.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Citizens Against Marijuana Prohibition
Here is the PDF of the ruling
Monday, February 16, 2009
One can look at Huntsman change of heart in a few different ways. One can dismiss this as just hot air for the following reasons. In the very conservative state of Utah the chances of even a civil union bill being passed through the state legislator is very small. Rumors float the Huntsman might make a run for President in 2012 and is just pandering. The last reason would be that Huntsman can't legally run for a third term so taking a side on a issue that many religious and social conservatives oppose wouldn't matter to him politically. These are pretty good reasons to believe that Huntsman doesn't believe what he says. I don't blame them either, especially how this does smell of a Mit Romney redux move. Romney was Governor of Massachusetts when gay marriage became legal in that state. He took a lot of flak for it when he campaigned for President this past cycle. Low and behold as soon as he started to campaign for the Presidency his views on gay marriage changed in split seconds. If Romney didn't pull that flip flop along with a whole host of others I probably would've voted for him instead of Ron Paul but whatever. Personally I'm going to take a wait in see attitude to Huntsman. Huntsman does bring alot to the table economically wise and does have presidential material written on him but only time will tell.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Kristen Gillibrand represented New York's 20th District in the House of the Representatives. She was currently on her second term as a member of the house. She has a 100% rating from the NRA, a 100% rating from the ACLU, believes in gay rights and was one of the few Democrats in New York to slam Former Governor Eliot Spitzer when he proposed to give driver's licenses to illegal aliens. According to her Wikipedia entry she is also a Blue Dog Democrat, which is a Democrat that believes in sane economic polices. Gillibrand is my kind of Democrat and I am proud to say that she is my senator. The question remains if she will run for a full senate term in 2012 but that would also depend on how good of a job she does. She has the potential to be a good senator especially after the fool that has been representing the state the past eight years. Only time will tell.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
My stance on this current episode of the Israel/Arab conflict is that Israel has it's full sovereign right to defend itself against any attack on it's land and people. Hamas had a truce with Israel and they broke it so they have to reap what they sowed, or as my boss puts it "you poke us with a stick, we hit you with a mallet". My view on the conflict as a whole is that we as a nation need to stay out of it. Let the Israeli's and the Palestinains kill each other and God can sort them out. In addition after seeing time and time again how Israel can take care of itself I believe there is no need to keep giving them foreign aid. This also falls into my general view of foreign policy is that the US tax payer shouldn't have to subsidize other countries.
The groups that believe that we should intervene on Israel's behalf would be;
1. The Fundamentalist Christian Right
Now if you want to support another country for whatever reason, I have no problem with that. My problem is those who want the rest of us to do it with them with our hard earned tax money. America needs to take care of it's own people within it's own borders and no longer be the nanny to the world we cannot afford it anymore.
Monday, January 5, 2009
Those who support the Drug War say that it's for the public good. Remember the last time people claimed that banning a substance was for the public good? Prohibition was the last time we tried banning a substance people consumed on their own free will. Remember how well that turned out? Al Capone, politicians, police, judges and other local officials being bought to protect crime bosses and their allies from justice. All this corruption was for what? To prevent people from having a good time with alcohol. Well at the same things happen with the current drug war. Police, judges and local politicians are payed by organized thugs to look the other way and selectively enforce the policies.
Another reason to end the Drug War besides saving federal and state budges money is that the Drug is considered racist. According to recent statistics 72% of drug users are white while 37% of those arrested for drug related crimes are black. Many of those who support the war on drugs tend to have racist tendencies. True anti-racists like Ron Paul believe that the war on drugs is nothing but a huge failure. It has been proven that throwing someone in jail for having drugs. Drug addiction should be treated as a medical problem not as a criminal one. Would throwing an alcoholic or a gambler in jail help them break their addiction? NO it wouldn't, so why do pro-Drug War people think it would be different for a drug addict? The fact is that the drug war has been another social engineering experiment that has failed and has wasted enough of the tax payers money.
Here is a YouTube Video with Ron Paul explaining his views on the drug war