Friday, December 3, 2010
Monday, November 22, 2010
RIP David Nolan November 23, 1943 – November 20, 201
Thursday, November 11, 2010
People forget that the First Amendment prevents the government from censoring it's citizens, private companies and individuals are not barred from controlling speech. In my research American Medical Response of Connecticut Inc is a private company, not a government agency so the employee has no leg to stand on. My current job has a similar policy regarding all social media that comments regarding my company can get me fired. I personally don't like the policy but it is what it is and I stand by the creed that if you don't like the policy then go and find another job. If you sign the employment contract than your bound by the policies the company puts in place. So before you go off on your boss or a co-worker who pissed you off on your twitter, myspace or facebook, check the policy first.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Some say that such cynicism is unwarranted and takes away from the goal of fighting statism. I say it's healthy to see that is just molding into kicking out hard blue statism to putting soft red statism in it's place. You would think this kind of skepticism would actually resonate with Conservatives, apparently it did but not in the correct way. Melissa Clouthier at Liberty Pundits apparently does not like it when us Libertarians refuse to buy what Conservatives sell.
This had to be my favorite quote in the piece;
And then, the libertarians whine about why they never get A Real Seat at the Republican table. Uh, maybe if you guys actually acted like you were on the team instead of pretending to be some sort of blind line judge, you’d be taken more seriously.
Lets take alook at whats currently at the Republican Table shall we;
1. Religious/Social Conservatives
All three of these groups have no interest in personal liberty, preferring to use government thugs to enforce morality of course in the name of the collective. Granted collective is a bad word so they use; "for the children, promoting values" among others. The first two favor a bankrupting foreign policy that does nothing for the security of the nation, which in fact does the complete opposite. The sick joke of it all is that they claim to be pro-life in the same sentence. This could be contributed to the notion that in their eyes some animals are apparently more equal than other animals as we have seen during the New York City Muslim Community Center episode. The Republican table seems to still be filled with nothing but statist Conservatives and Clouthier wonders why Libertarians are cynical about the current election and the future that it entails.
Clouthier's article also brings up the question; Why should Libertarians continue to waste their time in trying to work with Conservatives?
The Libertarian-Conservative Alliance or Conflict (depending on how you look at it) seem to remind me of an episode between a man in his 40s and a man in his late 20s. Both work together but the man in his 40s clearly see himself as the leader and the man in his late 20s just puts up with it for the sake of getting the project done. Everything is going smoothly until the late 20s man points out that something is wrong and just doesn't set right. The man in his 40s just simply dismisses the concerns as being naive and says that it's his way or the highway. This is the way the Tea Party (originally the Ron Paul Revolution) seems to be turning into. The Psychology Survey site MyType has a huge blog post on this very notion.
The way things are trending, it seems that a new movement may be needed, but who knows my cynicism may be proven wrong but I doubt it.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
This paragraph seems to highlight the main motive behind this suggestion;
The controversy drew wide public attention last month when the United Arab Emirates announced plans to block BlackBerry e-mail, messaging and Web browsing services. Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Indonesia and India are considering or planning similar steps.
I can understand why Balsillie would suggest such a move, he wants to get a piece of the cellular market in those countries. However, kissing up to Big Brother always ends up badly in the long run. Luckily for us BlackBerry isn't the only smartphone company in town, Windows Mobile, IPhone and Android phones tend to be in the same price ranges as BlackBerry. Fighting companies that kiss up to the state should be fought with out wallets, not with more statism.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Credit goes to Govtrack.us
HR 5741 IH
H. R. 5741
To require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, to authorize the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 15, 2010
Mr. RANGEL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services
To require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, to authorize the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title- This Act may be cited as the ‘Universal National Service Act’.
(b) Table of Contents- The table of contents for this Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I--NATIONAL SERVICE
Sec. 101. Definitions.
Sec. 102. National service obligation.
Sec. 103. Induction to perform national service.
Sec. 104. Two-year period of national service.
Sec. 105. Implementation by the President.
Sec. 106. Examination and classification of persons.
Sec. 107. Deferments and postponements.
Sec. 108. Induction exemptions.
Sec. 109. Conscientious objection.
Sec. 110. Discharge following national service.
TITLE II--AMENDMENTS TO MILITARY SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT
Sec. 201. Registration of females.
Sec. 202. Registration and induction authority.
TITLE I--NATIONAL SERVICE
SEC. 101. DEFINITIONS.
In this title:
(1) The term ‘contingency operation’ has the meaning given that term in section 101(a)(13) of title 10, United States Code.
(2) The term ‘military service’ means service performed as a member of an active or reserve component of the uniformed services.
(3) The term ‘national service’ means military service or service in a civilian capacity that, as determined by the President, promotes the national defense, including national or community service and service related to homeland security.
(4) The term ‘Secretary concerned’ means the Secretary of Defense with respect to the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps, the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard, the Secretary of Commerce, with respect to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, with respect to the Public Health Service.
(5) The term ‘United States’, when used in a geographical sense, means the several States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam.
(6) The term ‘uniformed services’ means the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, commissioned corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and commissioned corps of the Public Health Service.
SEC. 102. NATIONAL SERVICE OBLIGATION.
(a) Obligation for Service- It is the obligation of every citizen of the United States, and every other person residing in the United States, who is between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform a period of national service as prescribed in this title unless exempted under the provisions of this title.
(b) Forms of National Service- The national service obligation under this title shall be performed either--
(1) as a member of an active or reserve component of the uniformed services; or
(2) in a civilian capacity that, as determined by the President, promotes the national defense, including national or community service and service related to homeland security.
(c) Age Limits- A person may be inducted under this title only if the person has attained the age of 18 and has not attained the age of 42.
SEC. 103. INDUCTION TO PERFORM NATIONAL SERVICE.
(a) Induction Requirements- The President shall provide for the induction of persons described in section 102(a) to perform their national service obligation.
(b) Limitation on Induction for Military Service- Persons described in section 102(a) may be inducted to perform military service only if--
(1) a declaration of war is in effect;
(2) the President declares a national emergency, which the President determines necessitates the induction of persons to perform military service, and immediately informs Congress of the reasons for the declaration and the need to induct persons for military service; or
(3) members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps are engaged in a contingency operation pursuant to a congressional authorization for the use of military force.
(c) Limitation on Number of Persons Inducted for Military Service- When the induction of persons for military service is authorized by subsection (b), the President shall determine the number of persons described in section 102(a) whose national service obligation is to be satisfied through military service based on--
(1) the authorized end strengths of the uniformed services;
(2) the feasibility of the uniformed services to recruit sufficient volunteers to achieve such end-strength levels; and
(3) provide a mechanism for the random selection of persons to be inducted to perform military service.
(d) Selection for Induction-
(1) RANDOM SELECTION FOR MILITARY SERVICE- When the induction of persons for military service is authorized by subsection (b), the President shall utilize a mechanism for the random selection of persons to be inducted to perform military service.
(2) CIVILIAN SERVICE- Persons described in section 102(a) who do not volunteer to perform military service or are not inducted for military service shall perform their national service obligation in a civilian capacity pursuant to section 102(b)(2).
(e) Voluntary Service- A person subject to induction under this title may--
(1) volunteer to perform national service in lieu of being inducted; or
(2) request permission to be inducted at a time other than the time at which the person is otherwise called for induction.
SEC. 104. TWO-YEAR PERIOD OF NATIONAL SERVICE.
(a) General Rule- Except as otherwise provided in this section, the period of national service performed by a person under this title shall be two years.
(b) Grounds for Extension- At the discretion of the President, the period of military service for a member of the uniformed services under this title may be extended--
(1) with the consent of the member, for the purpose of furnishing hospitalization, medical, or surgical care for injury or illness incurred in line of duty; or
(2) for the purpose of requiring the member to compensate for any time lost to training for any cause.
(c) Early Termination- The period of national service for a person under this title shall be terminated before the end of such period under the following circumstances:
(1) The voluntary enlistment and active service of the person in an active or reserve component of the uniformed services for a period of at least two years, in which case the period of basic military training and education actually served by the person shall be counted toward the term of enlistment.
(2) The admission and service of the person as a cadet or midshipman at the United States Military Academy, the United States Naval Academy, the United States Air Force Academy, the Coast Guard Academy, or the United States Merchant Marine Academy.
(3) The enrollment and service of the person in an officer candidate program, if the person has signed an agreement to accept a Reserve commission in the appropriate service with an obligation to serve on active duty if such a commission is offered upon completion of the program.
(4) Such other grounds as the President may establish.
SEC. 105. IMPLEMENTATION BY THE PRESIDENT.
(a) In General- The President shall prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out this title.
(b) Matter To Be Covered by Regulations- Such regulations shall include specification of the following:
(1) The types of civilian service that may be performed in order for a person to satisfy the person’s national service obligation under this title.
(2) Standards for satisfactory performance of civilian service and of penalties for failure to perform civilian service satisfactorily.
(3) The manner in which persons shall be selected for induction under this title, including the manner in which those selected will be notified of such selection.
(4) All other administrative matters in connection with the induction of persons under this title and the registration, examination, and classification of such persons.
(5) A means to determine questions or claims with respect to inclusion for, or exemption or deferment from induction under this title, including questions of conscientious objection.
(6) Standards for compensation and benefits for persons performing their national service obligation under this title through civilian service.
(7) Such other matters as the President determines necessary to carry out this title.
(c) Use of Prior Act- To the extent determined appropriate by the President, the President may use for purposes of this title the procedures provided in the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 451 et seq.), including procedures for registration, selection, and induction.
SEC. 106. EXAMINATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF PERSONS.
(a) Examination- Every person subject to induction under this title shall, before induction, be physically and mentally examined and shall be classified as to fitness to perform national service.
(b) Different Classification Standards- The President may apply different classification standards for fitness for military service and fitness for civilian service.
SEC. 107. DEFERMENTS AND POSTPONEMENTS.
(a) High School Students- A person who is pursuing a standard course of study, on a full-time basis, in a secondary school or similar institution of learning shall be entitled to have induction under this title postponed until the person--
(1) obtains a high school diploma;
(2) ceases to pursue satisfactorily such course of study; or
(3) attains the age of 20.
(b) Hardship and Disability- Deferments from national service under this title may be made for--
(1) extreme hardship; or
(2) physical or mental disability.
(c) Training Capacity- The President may postpone or suspend the induction of persons for military service under this title as necessary to limit the number of persons receiving basic military training and education to the maximum number that can be adequately trained.
(d) Termination- No deferment or postponement of induction under this title shall continue after the cause of such deferment or postponement ceases.
SEC. 108. INDUCTION EXEMPTIONS.
(a) Qualifications- No person may be inducted for military service under this title unless the person is acceptable to the Secretary concerned for training and meets the same health and physical qualifications applicable under section 505 of title 10, United States Code, to persons seeking original enlistment in a regular component of the Armed Forces.
(b) Other Military Service- No person shall be liable for induction under this title who--
(1) is serving, or has served honorably for at least six months, in any component of the uniformed services on active duty; or
(2) is or becomes a cadet or midshipman at the United States Military Academy, the United States Naval Academy, the United States Air Force Academy, the Coast Guard Academy, the United States Merchant Marine Academy, a midshipman of a Navy accredited State maritime academy, a member of the Senior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps, or the naval aviation college program, so long as that person satisfactorily continues in and completes at least two years training therein.
SEC. 109. CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION.
(a) Claims as Conscientious Objector- Nothing in this title shall be construed to require a person to be subject to combatant training and service in the uniformed services, if that person, by reason of sincerely held moral, ethical, or religious beliefs, is conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form.
(b) Alternative Noncombatant or Civilian Service- A person who claims exemption from combatant training and service under subsection (a) and whose claim is sustained by the local board shall--
(1) be assigned to noncombatant service (as defined by the President), if the person is inducted into the uniformed services; or
(2) be ordered by the local board, if found to be conscientiously opposed to participation in such noncombatant service, to perform national civilian service for the period specified in section 104(a) and subject to such regulations as the President may prescribe.
SEC. 110. DISCHARGE FOLLOWING NATIONAL SERVICE.
(a) Discharge- Upon completion or termination of the obligation to perform national service under this title, a person shall be discharged from the uniformed services or from civilian service, as the case may be, and shall not be subject to any further service under this title.
(b) Coordination With Other Authorities- Nothing in this section shall limit or prohibit the call to active service in the uniformed services of any person who is a member of a regular or reserve component of the uniformed services.
TITLE II--AMENDMENTS TO MILITARY SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT
SEC. 201. REGISTRATION OF FEMALES.
(a) Registration Required- Section 3(a) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. 453(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking ‘male’ both places it appears;
(2) by inserting ‘or herself’ after ‘himself’; and
(3) by striking ‘he’ and inserting ‘the person’.
(b) Conforming Amendment- Section 16(a) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 466(a)) is amended by striking ‘men’ and inserting ‘persons’.
SEC. 202. REGISTRATION AND INDUCTION AUTHORITY.
(a) Registration- Section 4 of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 454) is amended by inserting after subsection (g) the following new subsection:
‘(h) This section does not apply with respect to the induction of persons into the Armed Forces pursuant to the Universal National Service Act.’.
(b) Induction- Section 17(c) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 467(c)) is amended by striking ‘now or hereafter’ and all that follows through the period at the end and inserting ‘inducted pursuant to the Universal National Service Act.’.
Monday, August 16, 2010
Dear Neocons, Leftists, and other statists,
I write to you today about the word Liberty, and your misuse of it. We
Libertarians have been plagued for decades by your hijacking of our
words and ideas. It seems that the lower left and lower right portions
of the political spectrum which take turns ruling over the people of
this country, accidentally find themselves speaking of Liberty
whenever out of power, only to thrust further controls upon us once in
power. I am writing this letter to demand that you cease and desist.
Once upon a time, Liberalism was about about freedom and smaller
government. Many Libertarians actually call themselves "Classical
Liberals" still today. But at some point Liberal came to mean being
Liberal with other peoples money, which is as far from Liberty as one
can get. Seeing as to how rights derive from property, you can hardly
liberate someone by depriving them of property. And seeing as to how
one can only be as free as one is self reliant, it is equally absurd
to think that one can be liberated by receiving money from the
government. We've given up on Liberalism, you leftists can keep the
word now, you have tarnished its meaning to the point that it is no
longer useful to us.
So then Conservatism was coined as the word for smaller government and
more Liberty, and boy oh boy wasn't that great. But then the rabid
right wing Christian social tyrants, and warmongering statists, needed
a place to go to build their power base, and so the meaning of the
word conservative became diminished to what we who love Liberty now
call Neocon. You can keep Conservatism for yourselves, it has now
become a dirty thing which we want no part of, with one caveat. We
would request that Neocons who call themselves "Constitutional
Conservatives" but support war, unreasonable search and seizure, gun
control, social security, and other unconstitutional things, drop the
Constitutional part until they actually support constitutional
With the emergence of the "Tea Party Movement" once again, you
statists have stolen from us. This idea began with the Ron Paul
campaign, and was continued in 2008 by the Libertarian Party while
George Bush was still in office. But you have now begun to call it
your own, claiming that it began in 2009 in Setauket, NY. You have
claimed it to represent war, torture, unreasonable search & seizure,
denial of jury trials, defense of medicare, defense of social
security, the patriot act, and so horrid many acts of statist
aggression that we can barely bring ourselves to speak with you. Once
again, we're going to let you keep it, you've rendered it meaningless
by merging with the Republican party establishment, and supporting
rampant out of control statism and big government, we have no more use
But the worst part is, you called it Liberty. You called yourselves
Libertarians. This we will not tolerate, this time we're keeping our
Libertarians REJECT all invasions of privacy, like the Arizona SB1070
"Show me your papers" act, Red light cameras, highway checkpoints, the
Patriot Act, and all your other statist violations of our
constitutionally protected liberties.
Libertarians REJECT your assertions that it is the role of government
to intervene in peoples sexual and romantic relationships, or to
infringe on their right to contract in marriage.
Libertarians REJECT your protection of unconstitutional socialist
programs like Social Security, and Medicare, as taking from the young
to give to the old is every bit as wrong as taking from the rich to
give to the poor.
Libertarians REJECT racial profiling just as much as affirmative
action, because they are the same thing.
Libertarians REJECT your efforts to suppress religious establishments,
especially to violate property rights through the abuse of eminent
domain to do so.
Libertarians REJECT your assertions that America is a Christian
nation, knowing instead that in reality, America is a geographic
location wherein more than 300,000,000 sovereign individuals have
their own thoughts and beliefs, and a secular government exists to
protect the rights of those sovereign individuals.
Libertarians REJECT your efforts to destroy our criminal justice
system by denying the right of trial by jury.
Libertarians REJECT your unjust, unconstitutional, unnecessary, wars
of choice and aggression. There was never any just cause to invade
Iraq, and you have murdered over a million people there in our name,
shaming our entire country for generations to come. There may be
disagreements on whether we should have invaded Afghanistan after
9/11, but what is certain is that there is NO JUSTIFICATION for our
continued aggressions there. Liberty is fully incompatible with wars
of this nature, as all initiation of force is fully repugnant to all
things good and just.
For these reasons and others we demand that anyone who supports these
acts of statist aggression cease and desist to use the words Liberty
or Libertarian in describing themselves or their cause, and also
demand that they admit openly that they do not support our
Constitution, seeking instead to destroy it. We are sick of changing
our name to disassociate ourselves from your statism, racism,
disregard for rights of property, and disregard for our Constitution.
We would provide to you however, some suggestions for what to call
yourselves next, so that there will be no confusion and you might keep
your name for decades to come. Racism, Statism, Totalitarianism,
Stalinism, Socialism, Communism, Warmongering, or any combination of
those would do, but perhaps if you want to make it sound nice, just
call it Democracy.
Personally, we'll be working on restoring the republic.
If you wish to know more about Cantwell and his candidacy here is his website
Monday, August 9, 2010
Monday, August 2, 2010
Sunday, August 1, 2010
The government "agreed to broaden the exercise of self employment and its use as another alternative for the employment of those excess workers," Castro said during a biannual session of the National Assembly.
He went on to say that the government would eliminate "numerous" prohibitions to the granting of licenses for private businesses and to the sales of some products, as well as "make the contracting of a work force more flexible."
No doubt that interventionists will use this to show that the embargo is working (no matter the cost to innocent Cubans) when in reality the embargo is a Cold War relic. Fidel uses the embargo as a propaganda tool to keep Cubans in line and nothing more. Capitalism would've taken root years ago if not for the embargo being placed on that country. Nevertheless this is good news for the Cuban people.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Does "religious freedom" mean hate groups should build statues to Hitler in front of Jewish temples in America? Should Americans raise money to build Jewish temples and Christian churches at Mecca? Should Japan build a statue to the bravery of their pilots at Pearl Harbor? Should the U.S. build a statue to the bravery of our pilots at the site of Hiroshima? Aren’t those examples all about “freedom of expression,”
"religious freedom" and property rights? Perhaps, but is it too much to ask for a little consideration and respect toward others?
This proposed building of a mosque on hallowed ground is an ATROSITY towards America. To build a celebration of Islam within steps of 9/11 does nothing to increase religious freedom...it inspires hatred, divides our cultures, and increases the odds of violence and hate crimes. Common sense suggests this mosque, being built in this specific location, is NOT being built as a sign of friendship between Muslims and Americans...but rather as a sign of the lack of respect...a belief in
our weakness...and an attempt to embarrass and belittle us. The financial district of Manhattan is not a residential area with a large number of Muslim residents for the mosque to serve. Therefore common sense suggests that the only possible reason to build it there (rather than in Brooklyn or Queens where there are large Muslim populations) is to show Muslim contempt for Americans by building a monument to Islam in the shadow of the site of their greatest triumph over America.
Notice how he takes the same route as Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich which is emotion with no facts. Which is a tactic of the left, facts be dammed lets just get people riled up. Interesting enough is a favored tactic of radical liberal Saul Alinsky.
Kissing up the Neoconservatives and their ilk was never a good idea in my opinion and Root's disregard for the First Amendment is sickening. Part of being a Libertarian is that you don't compromise on liberty and Root is doing just that in order to get his pat on the head from the statist right and other fake Libertarians like Neal Boortz. It's another reason I'm glad he was never elected Libertarian Party Chair. The other question remains will he actively oppose Warren Redlich who is the Libertarian candidate for New York Governor, who has supported the construction of the Mosque.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Thursday, July 22, 2010
New York City along with the rest of the state has a long history of Eminent Domain abuse. Paladino seems to hope that the people of New York City and the state for that matter forget that in the name of conservative knee-jerk reactions. Private property is one of the corner stones that makes the United States great and Paladino wants to step on that in order to show that he is "tough on terror"and appease busy body conservatives. People may not like the idea of a Mosque up but until someone comes up with ironclad proof that the land for the Mosque was obtained illegally all they can do is complain. It also shows how neoconservatives and their allies can be as political correct as the liberals that they rail against. Redlich deserves praise for being the bigger man and the Constitutionalist in this fight.
Friday, July 9, 2010
But now I hear it is the official policy of the Republican Party to be for all wars, irrespective of our national interest. What if Obama decides to invade England because he’s still ticked off about that Churchill bust? Can Michael Steele and I object to that? Or would that demoralize the troops? Our troops are the most magnificent in the world, but they’re not the ones setting military policy. The president is – and he’s basing his war strategy on the chants of Moveon.org cretins. Nonetheless, Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney have demanded that Steele resign as head of the RNC for saying Afghanistan is now Obama’s war – and a badly thought-out one at that. (Didn’t liberals warn us that neoconservatives want permanent war?) I thought the irreducible requirements of Republicanism were being for life, small government and a strong national defense, but I guess permanent war is on the platter now, too. Of course, if Kristol is writing the rules for being a Republican, we’re all going to have to get on board for amnesty and a “National Greatness Project,” too – other Kristol ideas for the Republican Party. Also, John McCain. Kristol was an early backer of McCain for president – and look how great that turned out! Inasmuch as demanding resignations is another new Republican position, here’s mine: Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney must resign immediately.
One might think that Coulter is turning the corner and may start embracing Ron Paul's ideas but in reality she is trying to find something to remain relevant. Liz Cheney and Sarah Palin have stolen her spotlight as it seems. Like how during the Bush years Pat Buchanan was widely irrelevant until illegal/legal immigration came up as a front issue which has been his issue since his presidential campaigns during the 90s. AntiWar.com sums the noninterventionist reaction to her quite nicely
Cockerill asks if Coulter’s outcry “is progress or mere partisanship? Time will tell.” My gut is this is Ann lashing out at the enemy in her own Long War against the conservative elite at the Weekly Standard and National Review. It is Ann making sure that Obama completely owns the disaster in Afghanistan by rewriting current and past history on a fourth grade reading level. It is Ann making sure we don’t forget she is still around and is one tough broad.
But it is not a step forward, but a shuffle in place, her stilettos still kicking out at the usual “cretins” in her universe, a place where Bush is Popeye and Obama is Olive Oyl, and where Coulter spits, “no grass grows, ever.”
Granted I don't see any toughness in Coulter (or for that matter Malkin, Ingram, and other neoconservative women) who's entire shtick is to complain about the complainers. Same would go for the major women in liberal circles Rhodes, Maddow, Miller, etc. Get back to me when the warmongers fight in the wars they advocate instead of just screaming their heads off with the right talking points when they're out of power.
Monday, June 21, 2010
This year, libertarian-Republican candidates for the U.S. Senate — like Paul’s son Rand Paul in Kentucky and Sharron Angle in Nevada — have won Republican primaries with the help of the Tea Party support. Noting the “big libertarian influence in the Tea Party movement,” Paul says libertarian beliefs are making their way into the lexicon of traditional Republicans.
“I think even the issue of the Federal Reserve — that issue is almost mainstream,” he said. “And I think things have shifted because of the financial crisis as well as the bogging down of our foreign policy. So the American people are looking for some different answers.”
It should be noted that while everyone is talking the fiscal talk there is a slim few who actually back it up. Also Rand Paul seems to favor a interventionist foreign policy a complete 180 from his father's position. Granted majority of the Tea Party movement seems to either be interested in keeping the insane status quo or not mention foreign policy at all.
Dr. Paul also mentions that former New Mexican Governor Gary Johnson is one he could support. Personally I've been following Johnson for awhile and he fits Dr. Paul's mold quite nicely. He seems to be the only one at this point in the current sea of Neocon hopefuls.
Do I wish for a true Libertarian (in which one who practices what he preaches, not who panders just to get votes) in the White House? Oh absolutely but lets focus on 2010 first and make sure we don't go bankrupt before 2012.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
For more details click here
..and a video of Redlich talking to a Columbia-Greene Community College class
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Thanks to Ballot Access News for the info.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Friday, May 28, 2010
Current Attorney General Andrew Cuomo
Andrew Cuomo represents what is wrong with New York state politics. He is apart of the many political families who control the state either directly or indirectly. Cuomo's role as HUD secretary under former President Bill Clinton was one of the contributors to the housing crisis.
Andi Weiss Bartczak
Bartczak a chemist by trade and liberal activist had stated her reasoning for running is to bring actual change to Albany. In her view the New York Democratic Party has become nothing but an oligarchy and grassroots organization is subjected to party bosses. She views Cuomo as apart of that oligarchy.
Former Congressman Rick Lazio
Lazio had run for Senate against Hillary Clinton back in 2000. Lazio is currently trying to paint himself as the one who will bring sanity and limited government back to Albany. However his record on gun rights as a congressman, paints a different picture.
Suffolk County Executive Steve Levy
Originally a Blue Dog Democrat who switched to the Republican Party in order to run. Levy's cries that the Democrats have forgotten Conservative Democrats like him and the Republicans are where to be. His record on gun rights is only a few steps above Lazio.
A developer out of the Buffalo area, claiming that he is the Tea Party candidate. His campaign donations in recent elections paint a different picture. He has stated that if he doesn't get the Republican nomination he will run on the Tea Party line.
Guilderland Town Board Member Warren Redlich
Redlich who is also the nominee of the Libertarian Party will be seeking the Republican nomination via New York's electoral fusion system. Redlich claims that he is the true Tea Party candidate and doesn't have the statist baggage that Paladino, Levy and Lazio have.
The Conservative Party of New York claims to be the true conservative alternative to when the Republicans nominate someone who is deemed too liberal in their eyes. The latest noise they made was back last November during the special election in New York's 23rd congressional district. It's party chairman Micheal Long has personally endorsed Rick Lazio. Long has the final say in regards to endorsements, however there are forces within the party that wish to endorse either Levy or Paladino. Redlich has stated that he has no interest in seeking their endorsement citing that the party doesn't actually believe in small government.
The Greens bill themselves as the true liberal party when the Democrats nominate someone they believe to be “too in bed with corporations”. Howie Hawkins who co-founded the national party was nominated at their convention on May 15, 2010.
This would be the first time the Paleoconservative Constitution Party fields a candidate for a New York state office. Birther and Consiparcy theorist Jan Johnson is the nominee. With New York not being a haven for statist social conservatism, ballot access is most likely to be unsuccessful.
Not to be confused with Constitution splinter party American Independent Party. The Independence Party of New York resembles a state version of the now defunct Reform Party. The Party has a Neolibertarian/Populist bent, which either runs their own candidate or endorses either the Democratic or Republican nominee. Currently no noise has been made in regards to who they will put on the ballot.
Personal Freedom Party
The madam that ran the escort service that Former Governor Elliot Spitzer used. Davis was also running for the Libertarian nominee but did not show up to the convention so she was not on the ballot. Her association with Republican political operative Roger Stone as campaign manager who is also responsible for elections of Former Presidents Richard Nixon and George W. Bush made party members very uneasy. Fears that Stone was only helping out Davis in order to make the LP less relevant seem to come ahead when it was discovered that Stone wanted to make a deal with Redlich in order to get Paladino the Republican nomination.
So when I got an invitation to the beta, I looked up the game, liked what I read and gave it a try. I was certainly impressed with the beta so I hoped that the full game would be just as good which it was. The amount of chaos that is created with the various weapons is paramount, positions change in this game very rapidly so not one player can dominate the match. Their is also a mod shop that players can equip a three mod set to their vehicles before a multiplayer race starts. The mods typically alter handling/weight, weapon damage/resistance and how the track environment affects your vehicles. As you progress in multiplayer you gain access to vehicles, game modes, and mods. The progression system is well thought out, it's not just about winning it's also how you perform in the race. If you are constantly attack and defending yourself from other players your awarded Fans (Blur's version of XP). Simply put; the more fans you gain, the faster you move up in level. Fortunately the progression in single player and multiplayer are not linked. This is good for players that have no interest in single player campaigns and just want to plunge right into the multiplayer mayhem.
Overall Blur is a good solid change to an otherwise static game genre.
The War Is Making You Poor Act is elegant in its simplicity. Instead of financing these longstanding conflicts outside of the regular budgeting process, where they’re not factored into deficit projections, Grayson’s bill would make the DoD work within its means, and the money would instead be used for an across-the-board tax cut that would make the first $35,000 each American earns tax-free.
From the looks of things, it sounds like a good bill but will the warmongers in congress support it? Who knows.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Sunday, May 16, 2010
"And if you stand up to evil, you are yourself an extremist". Israel correctly perceives that the regime in Tehran is serious in their threats to "wipe Israel off the map'. As Israel's ally we cannot ignore the seriousness of the Iranian threat."
Ok that's Israel's problem, not the problem of the American Tax Payer. Last time I checked Israel wasn't a nation with a third rate military. Their military is one of the most powerful in the world and the most powerful in that region.
"The Obama Administration's policy of "engaging" the regime in Iran has utterly failed. Continued sanctions against the Iranian regime are utterly worthless."
So a third war that we just flush our hard earned money into is the answer? How well are those other two doing?
"Sanctions may make the Obama Administration and some in Congress feel better, but sanctions will only provide Iran with additional time to pursue development of
the nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles they seek to use agaist Israel."
Wait...so when did Israel become a US state?
I'm always amused how neocons try to make Israel's problems, our problems. Hell I had conservatives tell me in the election that Obama was going to flush all our money into Africa. Which is wrong, but when you mention of cutting aid to Israel and the rest of the world for that matter, your called a terrorist, Anti-Semite (despite Arabs are also Semites) and the like. Pardon me for being consistent on fiscal policy. It's become high time to dump socialism at all levels and that includes the military socialism that conservatives like Staudenraus support.
I can't say that I'm not surprised since like I mentioned since Obama's election Root seems hell bent on getting approval from Neoconservatives, Paleoconservatives and others of the Statist Right than opposed to show how they are wrong. This of course just brings a whole host of problems especially since Root is running to become Chairman of the Libertarian National Committee. If Root becomes chair it will become just another arm of the Republicans and the party will be even less relevant. As any Libertarian knows, Conservatives are not interested in our ideas, just our votes. People like Root and Beck aren't Libertarian they are statist conservatives under a different name. I refuse to buy into the argument that they are making Libertarianism more appealing to people. As to who should be the LNC chair, I'm still in decision mode but I sure as hell don't want Root.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Of course Kagan isn't the first person to have her identity focused on in regards to a high political position. If people paid more attention to Obama's positions instead of this stupid crap of him being a Muslim or a secret Kenyan he probably wouldn't have been elected.
Friday, April 30, 2010
"All he has said is that he is not going to continue the moratorium on drilling but ... no additional drilling has been authorized and none will until we find out what happened here and whether there was something unique and preventable here,"
In other words they can indefinitely suspend drilling in the guise of a disaster.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Her site is here
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
You may wonder why I would be upset over a program that has (relatively speaking) very low impact compared to rest of the abused welfare programs. Well today I had a customer who wanted to buy one of the high end Virgin mobile phones priced at $100. At least that’s what I was able to understand since he spoke ghetto-ese. I asked him if he had service with Virgin Mobile already or was starting new service. He replied that he had this Assurance service which uses Virgin Mobile phones in to which I said “oh so your just replacing a broken phone”. I was told that his phone wasn’t broken he just wanted a better one. At the time I didn’t think much of it until I looked up Assurance and found out it was a tax payer funded cell phone. In addition the guy paid for the phone with a government assistance card and I noticed food stamps in his wallet! Of course however this type of abuse happens with all the welfare programs. I remember one time selling a 32” LCD television to someone who lived in a HUD housing area.
Which angers me the most about this program is that the market has already fixed the problem of getting a ways of communication to low income people. It’s called pre-paid, I could understand the point of this back when the act was passed in 1996 when cell phones were still pretty expensive even for the most basic of service but that’s not the case anymore. At least in New York there are at least five pre-paid carries and all the major contract wireless carriers offer pre-paid service. Hell now a days Sprint’s minimum credit deposit for those that fall into that category is $50 and basic talk service typically falls into that price range. The wheels of the market may be slow but they turn up with better results than any government program can hope to dream of.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Of course that something has been for at least the past two years. The last title the Mets captured was the 2006 NL East title. Some say thats only a three year playoff/championship drought but it doesn't seem like the team wants to improve. ESPN reported during offseason that the Mets were the biggest spender in the National League. Ok fine, what happened to that spending when Matt Holliday was a free agent? We had a chance to get one of the hottest free agents in the NL and apparently Minaya wanted to be a tight wad. Not to take away from Jason Bay, but Holliday would've been a great addition to the team. Which leads me to my next point; You can only blame the players so much. You can have a solid team but it means jack if your management can't run the team effectively.
Jerry Manuel and Omar Minaya were able to save their skin with the fact that the team got destroyed by injuries. As I said, the players can only be blamed for so much. Not only do the Mets need good players but Management needs a change too. As much as I hate the Yankees, they know how to run a team. In the Bronx, management has a one and done policy. You don't win, see you later. Fred Wilpon needs to light a fire through the entire organization, and do it now. It's not just the Mets that can learn from the Yankees, the Rangers, the Nets, and the Knicks as well. All four of these teams continue to keep bad management around and do nothing about it. The Jets learned, by getting a new coach and a new quarterback. Granted this past season the overall record didn't improve but the team got to the AFC title game which we haven't done in since the 98 season.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Paladino has given to such Democratic stalwarts as presidential contenders Hillary Rodham Clinton, Richard Gephardt, John Kerry and Al Gore, a favorite “tea party” whipping boy. Besides $4,600 to Clinton’s presidential campaign, Paladino gave $5,100 to her Senate bankroll, and he gave Sen. Charles E. Schumer $1,000 last June.
When did Clinton, Kerry and Gore become bastions of liberty? Did I miss the memo? All three of these politicians support wealth redistribution, in addition Kerry and Clinton supported the Patriot Act and endless warmongering. I would think that a business owner like Paladino would understand that giving money to economy crushing Democrats is a bad thing. Which only means that Paladino didn't get what he wanted from Clinton, Schumer and former Governor Eliot Spitzer (who he also donated money to). So surprise when political donor doesn't get what he or she wants, they run against the politician that they donated to.
Of course a few questions remain in the light of this latest news;
1. Will the Conservative Party still endorse him?
The Conservative Party of New York bills themselves as the Conservative alternative when the Republicans nominate a candidate that is too Liberal in their eyes. Their most recent nomination was Neocon Doug Hoffman for the special election in New York's 23rd Congressional District in which he lost to 24 hour flip flopper Bill Ownes. In the past they also threw their support for gun grabber Rick Lazio (who is also running for the Republican nomination for Governor) when he was a member of the House. Will the Conservative Party be most interested in winning or principal? Only time will tell.
2. Will the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association support him?
Currently they have yet to put out a public endorsement for any of the current candidates but in an personal email exchange I had with Tom King the organizations President, he was very enthusiastic over Paladino. When I asked him why Paladino over Warren Redlich and Kristen Davis, King cited that while he has known Redlich for years, Paladino is using much of his personal money for his campaign. Of course again this was a personal exchange between me and him so things can change.
So currently if no one else steps up to the plate Warren Redlich and Kristen Davis are the only two who are fully pro-liberty candidates. Redlich is running for both Republican and Libertarian lines, while Davis is also running for the Libertarian line but will run as a Personal Freedom Party if she does not get the nomination for the LP.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Thursday, March 25, 2010
An article on Politico shows that Armey is under fire from the Religious Right and anti-immigrant (both illegal and legal) groups. Both groups complain that Armey's group FreedomWorks doesn't promote the statist agenda of the Christian Right and that Immigration (legal and illegal) isn't mentioned.FreedomWorks as an organization mainly focuses on economic issues and not on social issues. Neocon Malkin calls him a "amnesty stooge" when in fact during the big amnesty push in 2007 FreedomWorks sent emails to it's supporters condemning amnesty and encouraging them to contact their congressman to oppose it. If I rightly recalled I got at least one notice to contact my representative from them every other day. Just because one isn't as militant on the issue as Pat Buchanan and Frosty Wooldridge doesn't make them amnesty lovers.
Am I calling Armey a Libertarian? No I am certainly not but I rather have him as an ally than statists Malkin and Perkins.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Pistol Association (New York's biggest second amendment organization) to see what Levy's gun record had been. According to Jacob J. Rieper, Vice President of Legislative
& Political Affairs, Levy had received an F when he served in the State Assembly and only improved somewhat as Suffolk County Executive.
Bottom line Levy is another political opportunist taking advantage of the broad anti-statist movement. He was quite crafty about it, meeting with Republican leadership to show the people that he is about state and not party, then changes his affiliation from Democrat to Republican. Levy should be nowhere near Albany, the state has had enough of gun grabbers, regardless of the outcome of the Chicago case currently going on in the Supreme Court. So currently as it stands only three candidates remain on the pro gun side Warren Redlich, Kirsten Davis (which both are fighting for the Libertarian nomination) and Tea Party candidate Carl Paladino.
Friday, March 12, 2010
There are two theories that I have been able to gather in regards to the low key mentions of the culture wars; 1. People are more concerned about their economic situations and 2. When looking at states where gay marriage is legal (Massachusetts, Iowa to name two) people's lives didn't go through this drastic change and upheaval as opponents of gay marriage would like others to believe. I found this one quote by Tony Perkins who at one time was tinkering with the idea of running for David Vitter's Senate seat;
Groups such as FreedomWorks, said Perkins, bring a libertarian bias that doesn’t represent the “true tea parties.”
Apparently Tony Perkins knows what all Tea Parties stand for, despite the fact that the movement is widely considered a broad movement and also the movement sparked out of Ron Paul's 2008 Presidential Campaign. In regards to the culture war Paul has stated that issues like gay marriage and abortion should be decided by the states as it's outlined in the 10th Amendment. Apparently that doesn't sit well with some evangelicals. The fact of the matter is that Libertarians oppose statism and government cohesion in the names of "morality" and "helping people". That doesn't sit well with big government conservatives like Perkins and his bunch, but I don't expect them to change their ways that's just as much as a pipe dream as Obama's tax pledge. However the fact that the anti-gay speaker at CPAC Ryan Sorba was booed off the stage by the next generation of voters is a sign that statist social conservatism is being rejected which is good for personal liberty.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Last week I got an two emails from an Examiner.com writer I follow documenting two attacks on Libertarians. The first one was a claim by the conservative magazine The American Spectator that the Southern Poverty Law Center has included Libertarians in a report titled Rage on the Right - The Year in Hate and Extremism. The Examiner article reports that neither Libertarians nor the Libertarian Party is mentioned in the report. I have also read through it and searched for the word Libertarians and the Libertarian Party and came up with nothing. That means only one thing that the Spectator is lying and/or the author of the article Robert S. McCain (no relation to the Arizona Senator) has a problem with the Libertarian movement. Which even in itself is abit confusing since the Spectator publishes writings from Libertarian thinkers Thomas Sowell and P.J. O'Rourke. Pinning it all on McCain wouldn't be too truthful either since (at least according to his wiki) he supported Bob Barr in the 2008 election although this could've just been out of dislike for John McCain. From reading his wiki his fight with the SPLC might have been the chief motivator to write up the lie. If McCain has a problem with the SPLC thats all fine and dandy but I would ask him not to create lies to get others to fight on your side. Thats a trait of collectivists.
The second article is from a site called renewamerica.com which from what I've from various authors on the site seems to be a mix of Paleoconservative, Neoconservative, and Religious Right thought, although Neos and Paleos hate each other. None of these groups have a history of being a friend of Libertarianism, so in turn I'm not shocked by this paleoconservative attack. Granted we share a very, very, very thin ground with paleoconservatives, although in my opinion like regular conservatives, paleos will dump us as soon as they're back in charge.
This attack is directed at Ron Paul personally resorting to the same smears he faced back in his 2008 campaign; kooky, out of touch, blaming America, etc. The article starts by comparing him to the rabid dog in the Steven King novel "Cujo", Cujo was the name of a nice and gentle St. Bernard who got rabbis and went insane. Apparently Paul A. Ibbetson is one of those paleos that can't take legitimate criticism of Reagan when he negatively notes that Dr. Paul was a huge critic on how Reagan used the CIA. The man doesn't seem to keen on personal liberty (shocking I know) with Dr. Paul's position on the drug war, despite Paul himself has stated that he has never done drugs in his life. His negative reaction to the CPAC poll isn't surprising at all since the site seems to be touting Palin as the next Conservative messiah. Little news for you Mr. Ibbetson, you can't win without the youth vote anymore. He says that Paul is the albatross of the Republican Party and hes right, a man who believes in true liberty is an albatross to a statist and military socialist party.
So Paleos, Neos, and regular Conservatives, continue your smears and Liberal-style attacks on Dr. Paul and Libertarians it will only make us stronger.
American Spectator article
Friday, March 5, 2010
Don't fret fellow New Yorkers there is one candidate so far that is committed to the right to bear arms and his name is Warren Redlich. David Codrea a gun rights writer for Examiner.com has put out a simple questionnaire for gun owners to ask politicians who want their support. Redlich was kind enough to provide answers to the questionnaire and it shows that Redlich is committed to the Second Amendment for all New York citizens.
Answers to the questionnaire are here
Warren Redlich's Answers
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Times Herald Record story
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
My suspicion came about when I saw virtually no mention of foreign policy in most of the MSN covered Tea Parties. Paul has said which is supported with hard facts that our disastrous foreign policy combined with our economic polices are the main reasons why our nation is such in bad shape. Some argue that the lack of mention of foreign policy is to co-exist with Conservatives. Co-exist typically means power sharing not taking over and expecting us to sit down and keep quiet. Sure they agree with us in fiscal policy but addressing only half the problem will only result in a lackluster fix. With the exception of Pat Buchanan what MSM conservatives have openly criticized our foreign policy? The only other conservative that comes to mind is George Will and I would put him in the somewhat column. The truth of the matter is that the bulk of MSM and talk radio conservatives still openly support mindless war no matter what the cost. It’s not even being touted as a Liberty movement; I’ve heard it called a Populist Conservative movement. What is Populist Conservativism? Is it Military and Police Socialism?
Sadly it seems that the Neocons are winning; the election of Scott Brown, Palin being trotted as the new Conservative messiah and the three primary challengers to Paul’s reelection. Currently those are the three I can think of at the top of my head. With the midterm elections in November we cannot afford to be silent for the sake of unity. The Socialist Left and the Neocon Right won’t go quietly so we will have to fight them at every turn. November will be the pop quiz for our movement, we cannot afford to fail or we will be back were we started in 2012.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Like a moth to a flame the politicization of Dr. King and his legacy is always expected. Liberals like Jesse Jackson (who was once apart of Dr. King’s inner circle) and Al Sharpton have used his legacy to enrich themselves and their allies. While all the while supporting candidates and policies that are counter to what Dr. King fought for. Programs like Affirmative Action were probably necessary in that time period (don’t know since I didn’t live in that era) but in modern times where people like David Duke and Neo-Nazis are regarded as pathetic extremists by most rational thinking people such programs are no longer needed. To the credit of Liberals however it was Liberal Democrats and Liberal Republicans who got the Civil Rights Act passed which as we know was signed by Liberal President Johnson.
Then of course there are Conservatives who try to claim Dr. King’s legacy for themselves. Not all of them of course, Paleoconservatives to this day still attempt to paint Dr. King as a Communist and believe that racism is a Liberal concept that doesn’t really exist. Yes Dr. King was a Republican, but not in the Republican mold of Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney. King’s views on war and civil liberties would clearly place him in the camps of Barry Goldwater, Ron Paul and Gary Johnson. Like Albert Einstein, Dr. King was no Conservative; he was a Libertarian at heart.
Dr. King wouldn’t have supported the war in Iraq and probably would’ve started asking questions about Afghanistan’s current situation. I can picture a facepalm on Dr. King’s face if he saw the whole ordeal in how President Obama was treated with kid gloves by his supporters in the news media and likewise the treatment he got from the opposition in how he was and still compared to Adolf Hitler. He wouldn’t have approved the forced integration either. Has Dr. King’s dream been fully achieved? I would say about 80% but that 20% isn’t up to the Government it’s up to individual people.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
2010 is upon us and
Not much noise has been made from any of the opposition parties in regards to taking on
Gillibrand was never a favorite among NY Democratic leadership with her positions on guns, taxes and illegal immigration. The day Governor Paterson appointed her to the Senate the jeers began from liberal leaders contesting that she’s a Republican in disguise. Gillibrand won her election against John Sweeney in the 20th congressional district due to her Blue Dog views. Not too long after the appointment Carolyn McCarthy became heavily speculated in challenging her but decided ultimately to drop out and support her election instead. My personal guess would because Gillibrand has voted for the debacle that is being touted as a “health care” bill.
Two Democratic challengers have stepped up to the plate though; Populist Dr Scott Noren from
After taking the reigns when Eliot Spitzer decided to have some happy time and get caught the budget crisis reared its ugly head. It seemed that early on Paterson made a turn to the right in regards to fiscal policy but even the well intentioned Paterson couldn’t overcome the schoolyard fighting that is Albany. As it stands now we were able to stay afloat after Christmas when reports came out that the state would’ve been broke by then. Due to fears from National and Local Democrats that
Currently the only speculated primary challenge
It’s early in the election season so anything can happen I will try to keep everyone posted on who does what in what race. Hopefully 2010 will be year