Liberty ‘08

Some Problems With Palin

Okay, I really need to get caught up on my homework so I have more time to blog here. I plan to (eventually) write my own reasons for rejecting the wolf-in-sheep’s clothing charade that is the McCain-Palin fiasco and instead remain with the reliable and honest Chuck Baldwin and Darrell Castle as my favorites in the 2008 Washington Derby.

for now…see what some of my favorite commentators are saying:

William Grigg / Pro-Libertate : Palin’s pro-life stance is inconsistent. Palin supports protecting unborn lives but has no qualms with sending her own son and countless others do die in needless wars (while harming their consciences for life by killing other young men and fomenting further resentment of America abroad).

Chuck Baldwin / ChuckBaldwinLive : Palin is being used by the McCain campaign. Whatever conservative credentials she does have mean nothing now that she has allied herself with a pro-abortion inflatable government globalist.

and finally, Tammy Houle, the state chair of the Minnesota Constitution Party: Not only has Palin sold her principles to the Republican Party, but she has also sold out her very young children, unfairly relinquishing her responsibilities as a mother. (no link, email ken at liberty08.com if you want me to forward the CPMN email newsletter to you)

update:

check out this summer interview of Palin, notice what she says shortly after 8 minutes, 40 seconds…she currently wouldn’t accept the VP nomination? She laughs and smiles when Glenn Beck refers to (ambiguously) Washington/the McCain campaign as a “den of vipers.” What happened between then and August 28/29? Hmm, I hope somebody in the Washington Media Establishment (WME, hmm, I think that sounds a bit more vicious of a term than the term MM, Mainstream Media) has the guts to challenge her on that point. Perhaps she didn’t care back then because she, like most everyone else, did not believe that she stood a chance next to more experience candidates and people that John McCain actually knows?

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Obama and Biden, the Picture of Opportunism

Consider this post a follow-up to: Obama is Anti-War! Kinda.

For those of you living under a rock (admittedly a relatively safe place during such bizarre times), or simply so consumed with Olympic fever that you block out all other information, Barack Obama has finally announced his running mate: Delaware Senator Joseph Biden.

While the “Mainstream Media” and the McCain campaign are having a ball criticizing Biden for his mouth and his uncanny ability to make up for Obama’s perceived weaknesses (I won’t post a link, do a youtube search or turn on Fox News if you want a discussion on why Americans needs a president that they are comfortable going to the pub with) what isn’t getting much attention by commentators is the fact that the pick of Biden further demonstrates Obama’s shameless opportunism on the issue of the U.S. occupation of Iraq.

Remember during the primary debates when Obama repeatedly bragged that he had opposed the Iraq War from the beginning? He made it an issue of contention between himself and the other candidates. And while his fatuous boasting (since Obama was not in the Senate when the war began and voted multiple times to fund it) was directed mostly toward front-runner Hillary Clinton, by implication he was also setting himself from Joe Biden. Joe Biden, like Hillary Clinton, was a Senator (and a far more influential one) when HJ Res 114 came up for a vote. Lest anyone think that Biden was completely duped by the Bush administration into voting for a fraudulent war, consider that good ol’ Joe had been the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee since 2001 (with a brief interruption). Even if Biden bought the lies, there was no reason that he should have since he had the power and the rank to find and publish more credible information before voting for the authorization for the use of force.

If you are voting for Obama because you believe that he represents Hope and Change, please reconsider your choice. At least in the arena of foreign policy Obama represents more of the same. His Vice-Presidential pick only further demonstrates that while he is willing to make a lot of racket and score a lot of political points by denouncing the Iraq War and the foreign policy decisions of George W. Bush, his actions speak differently. What he is in fact doing is furthering the political career somebody who has already demonstrated their susceptibility to neocon warmongering, somebody that, had Biden been a front-runner, would have been demeaned as “more of the same,” his favored attack against Clinton. Oh, and what was one of the main reasons that Obama (according to his own speech presenting Biden) picked the senior Senator from the little blue state of Delaware? His foreign policy experience. Newsflash for Obama and company: experience does not equal wisdom and ambition does not equal friendship.

update:

oops, my bad

graphic available for re-mixing under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Original photos found via Flickr users World Economic Forum, and pingnews (photo is Public Domain, source: Department of Defense).

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Tracking Liberty (1)

I’ve been rather neglectful of some of the blogs that I subscribe to via Google Reader. Today I made sure to plow through some of the recent archives of blogs that I have tagged as “liberty loving.” Enjoy these links:

Independent Political Report (IPR) and Red Pills discuss the new FISA bill and the immunity for telecom companies who complied with the government in carrying out unauthorized searches. Minnesota’s own Republican Senator, Norm Coleman, is listed as voting for telecom immunity. James Niemackl is the Constitution Party candidate who will be opposing Coleman on the November ballot. James takes a very strong stand against illegal wiretapping. If you live in Minnesota please consider donating to James and voting for him this fall!

Red Pills dissects a Washington Post article and the potential for a schism between conservative Republicans (what’s left of them) and John McCain come September when the party platform will be revised.

IPR, via a local New Hampshire paper, posts on the possibility of two Libertarian Presidential candidates on that state’s ballot.

Pro Libertate compares the Sioux Uprising to current events, most notably the impending possibility of an economic apocalypse.

IPR posts video footage of Bob Barr declaring that he would do “something” to help bail-out federally-subsidized mortgage providers Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

Posted in Quick Posts | No Comments »

NYT: Non-Partisan Voters Practically a Third Party

At least, that paraphrase is my interpretation of a recent bit of news-commentary on the statistics of party affiliation:

the share of the electorate that registers as independent has grown at a faster rate than Republicans or Democrats in 12 states. The rise has been so significant that in states like Arizona, Colorado and North Carolina, nonpartisan voters essentially constitute a third party.

read the rest of the New York Times article here

Of course, being the mass-media establishment that it is, the Times chose to focus the piece on the fact that the Democrats are gaining significant ground on the Republicans, rather than take much time to consider what it means that more and more people are registering their discontent with the two-party circus.

My take: The mainstream media is very content to throw out tidbits like this suggesting that third-parties may be due for a rise in November. After all, if something big did happen, they would want to be able to say that “they were on top of it,” supposedly chronicling history in the making. The truth, quite obviously is that history is being written and made on the blogosphere, that intense web of text, links, audio, and video. On the blogosphere there are far fewer and less powerful editors, thus content flows more freely and opinion is not pitched to the lowest common denominator (bizarre crime stories and celebrity politicians). Where non-partisan discontent will end up finding a home in November is still up for speculation. These people need to know that they have a choice. Minnesota’s state fair is just around the corner and I plan to be there with the Constitution Party, letting people know that there is a choice between McCain and Obama and his name is Chuck Baldwin. The more that concerned citizens, people who are smart enough to know that the two-party system is failing them, are aware of alternatives, the more likely it is that they will get over their fears of “wasting their vote” and do the right thing. 2008 may not see the election of a third-party candidate, but, if we really push for it, this may be the year that millions of voters embrace third party politics. So get out there yourself. Eat food on a stick and let people know that they have a choice!

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Obama is Anti-War! Kinda.

Many voters may not be aware that while Obama has never opted for “staying the course” in Iraq, he has also never committed to a unilateral withdrawl. During the primaries he had many opportunities to clarify his position and it is one that is decidedly moderate, not radical, in regards to bringing our troops home. Consider also that while Barack’s stand on continuing to engage Al Qaeda in Iraq may not be well known, his determination to ramp up the war in Afghanistan has received major press coverage. If you believe that an Obama presidency will mean the end of American Imperialism and Interventionism, keep dreaming.

Q. You’ve argued that the United States should leave behind residual force in Iraq and the region. How large would the force be and how much would be inside Iraq versus the Persian Gulf Region?

A. I have not ascribed particular numbers to that and I won’t for precisely the reason I was just talking to Michael about. I want to talk to military folks on the ground, No. 1. No. 2, a lot of it depends on what’s happened on the political front and the diplomatic front. Even something as simple as protecting our embassy is going to be dependent on what is the security environment in Baghdad. If there is some sense of security, then that means one level of force. If you continue to have significant sectarian conflict, that means another, but this is an area where Senator Clinton and I do have a significant contrast.

I do not believe that we can remove troops at the pace, for example, that Governor Richardson was talking about. I do think it is important for us not only to protect our embassy, but also to engage in counter-terrorism activities. We’ve seen progress against AQI [Al Qaeda in Iraq], but they are a resilient group and there’s the possibility that they might try to set up new bases. I think that we should have some strike capability. But that is a very narrow mission, that we get in the business of counter terrorism as opposed to counter insurgency and even on the training and logistics front, what I have said is, if we have not seen progress politically, then our training approach should be greatly circumscribed or eliminated.

I am happy to train a government that is functioning as a national government. I do not want us to be in the business of training and equipping factions or militias that are going to be turning on each other. I want to be absolutely clear about this, because this has come up in a series of debates: I will remove all our combat troops, we will have troops there to protect our embassies and our civilian forces and we will engage in counter terrorism activities. How large that force is, whether it’s located inside Iraq or as an over the horizon force is going to depend on what our military situation is.

What we’re not going to be doing is engaging in broad-based counter insurgency. We’re not going to be providing long-term and constant embedded training operations and logistical training operations and the sort that, I think, Senator Clinton has in some cases talked about. We’re certainly not going to be engaging in what I consider mission creep, where we are structuring our forces based on preventing Iranian influence in Iraq, something that Senator Clinton has talked about as a possibility in a previous interview. We’re not going to be using forces there to strike at what she’s called other terrorist organizations, without being clear as to whether those are just terrorist organizations inside Iraq or terrorist organizations outside Iraq. We’re going to be focused very narrowly on making sure that Al Qaeda in Iraq and terrorist activities in Iraq are prevented.”

(emphasis added)
read the rest of the interview at the NYT website.

The above photo was made by Ken Hood and is freely available for re-use and re-mixing under a CC 3.0 By-SA License. The source image was retrieved from Flickr user “Philgarlic,” at this link.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

38 Percent of Republicans Equate Obama and McCain

A recent nationwide poll by pew tells some startling facts about the lack of enthusiasm for presidential candidate John McCain.

the highlights:

Read the rest of the poll and commentary >here.

The column points out that in such a climate of GOP-fatigue the atmosphere is ripe for a Barr [or Baldwin] protest vote to make a huge difference in the electoral college.

My take: Even die-hard Republicans should be wary of McCain. If he can’t move the conservative base say goodbye to this presidential election and say hello to the possibility of party stagnation for the next decade as Democrats push hard for higher majorities in both houses, riding on the coattails of Obama. Conservatives who don’t believe Baldwin has a chance of winning should still consider voting for him. A powerful statement now that the GOP base won’t stand for Republicans-in-Name-Only will go a long way towards convincing the rest of the party that it can’t survive another McCain. Conservatives want a leader who has a strong commitment to free-enterprise energy and transportation solutions, a strong commitment to ending our insane and burdensome system of taxation, a strong commitment to the Second Amendment, and an unswerving commitment to ending the tyranny of Roe v Wade. Even if you don’t believe that Chuck Baldwin can deliver these things, believe this: John McCain, even if he were to be elected, does not have a strong commitment to the above values. If conservatives want their discontent to be known they need to show up at the polls and vote for a candidate who truly represents their core values.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Book Review: Just How Stupid Are We?

I recently finished a book titled Just How Stupid Are We? by Rick Shenkman. The book is a very brief discussion (nine chapters in 183 pages) of what Shenkman perceives to be a principle and neglected problem of modern politics: voter idiocy. While this book could quickly get boring, Shenkman skillfully engages the reader and challenges him to re-think his own convictions about the myth of “The People.” The author doesn’t want people to just accept his work as true, he wants to use it as a springboard for a broader public debate. Although Shenkman does not hide his academic credentials he keeps the footnotes to a minimum and intentionally presents a broad argument that should be digestible by any American adult, regardless of political orientation or their ability to name the three branches of our federal government. The only point at which he departs from snappy historical anecdote and sociological survey is in the final chapter (tellingly entitled “Coda: Hope”). Anyone eager to critique Shenkman’s work or throw scorn on his methodology would probably want to start at this point. However, as much as I would disagree with Shenkman’s suggestions for solving the problem of an ill-informed electorate, it did not sour the rest of the book for me. I would even recommend this book over others that present a similar argument.

ps - for a book review that offers a very different reaction to Shenkman’s inquiries check out this one published at Salon.com

Posted in Quick Posts | No Comments »

Chuck Baldwin on John McCain

McCain Madness

(This article is also a demonstration of Baldwin’s efforts to recruit Ron Paul for the Constitution Party ticket. While some may insist, unfairly, that every politician is motivated by power and greed this article is a clear indication that Baldwin was very willing to support somebody else for president before, not after like Huckabee, Romney, etc, his own name was taken down as a possible nominee.)

Posted in Quick Posts | No Comments »

NRLC Chooses the “Lesser of Two Evils”

If you googled “John McCain pro-life” just a few months ago (no quotes) you would have seen a thought-provoking article entitled “How John McCain Threatens the Pro-Life Cause.” That article has since been removed and now if you go to the NRLC (National Right to Life) website you will see a very clear attempt by NRLC to throw their massive weight behind Senator John McCain. While I understand that NRLC can do whatever it pleases, in the interest of public discussion of the issues I wish that they were more transparent about their endorsement process. After all, McCain wasn’t the only presidential nominee to “veer right” on the issue of life in order to garner support from social conservatives. If Romney had ended up with the GOP nomination (a fact that could have been reality had he not dropped out after Super Tuesday) would the NRLC be singing the same tune?

Consider also the GOP’s increasing acceptance of pro-choice candidates. For months Giuliani was considered the GOP “front-runner” with many voters and pundits deciding that the party’s pro-life credentials were not as important as its national security credentials or the ability to defeat well-known Democratic candidates. A similar case is that of California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. It is hardly any surprise that the Republican governor of the most influential state in the electoral college has had to play as a moderate in order to gain acceptance among voters. What is surprising is how the rest of the GOP so warmly embraces a man who holds social positions far to the left of the GOP on “gay rights” and abortion. McCain is a close friend of the govenator and not surprisingly his own stance on “gay rights” is somewhat murky (see links). How far will the Republican party go in embracing “social conservatives” who only wear that hat when it is convenient? Are social conservatives really going to continue to be happy with a party that, despite a lengthy majority in Congress and a hold on the Presidency, failed to end the regime of Roe v. Wade? Are social conservatives going to continue to support a party that indicates that when the pressure is on they flake out?

Playing games with sentiment is wrong. Social conservatives need representatives who take them seriously as a base of support. We need to take a hard look at the Constitution Party and we need to support men like Chuck Baldwin, resisting the temptation and fear to choose the “lesser” of two evils.

PS - the deleted article from NRLC can still be found at the Internet Archive: link

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Budget Hawk Or Budget Bluster?

I made this image today. Feel free to re-use it under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Share-Alike license. The source photo of McCain was retrieved from a CC-loving flicker user (thanks soggydan!).

ps, if you still believe McCain’s assertions that he is a “budget hawk,” take a gander at these diverse sources criticizing his budget proposals and Senate history: 1, 2, 3, 4

While McCain may want us to think that he is an enemy of big government, just remember the wars in Iraq and how much the “American empire” is costing this country. No amount of earmark elimination can make up for the vast amount of treasure we are lobbing into the Middle East. Chuck Baldwin has sworn to get us completely out of Iraq (no jumbo-sized embassy or thousands of troops left “at the ready”) and end our role as world police (aka, the UN’s pet).

signing out for now,
-Ken

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »