With well-known anchor, Lou Dobbs, departing his long-term committment to reporting news for Ted Turner’s pride and joy-CNN, you may very well see a move for Lou Dobbs, ” Mr. Independent” his guests and viewers title him, to run as a third-party candidate in the next presidential election. His views are somewhat skewed for an independent platform in politics, leaving the public labeling him a leaner to the conservative party. His potential announcement to join the political arena as a contender would be complete chaos for the Republican Party. With a large devote following he would gather millions of supporters, which as a result would split the ticket- taking away votes for the red-party at election time.

Who knows? Maybe, the conservative backers will change course and vote for an independent. Problem with this is that he has bad blood with big business, and has stated his disgust and lack of trust daily on his radio broadcasting along with his televised program. It is hard to say what will come from this. I do not predict Mr. Dobbs to sell his morals away and take a job at FOX, but Glenn Beck did it so it wouldn’t all surprise me. If I had to predict, I would think he will run as an Independent, it is up to him on whether or not he wants to take the time and effort to take this seriously, the last thing he wishes to happen is to get embarrassed. Whether you agree with his political views or not, the last thing I would want to do as a presidential candidate is debate Lou Dobbs. He would tear you to shreds.

Lou Dobbs/ Glenn Beck Ticket for 2012? Hmmmm… just speculating

www.loudobbs.com
www.loudobbsradio.com

-Jack C. Buck

The Whole Fucking Thing

Is democracy worth all the problems and potential personal risks? Or, would I be more content if I gave it all up and ignored what is wrong? Only dark lonely still nights do I feel it is all a lost cause.

Our social and political views are barriers that will never be dissembled, the steel screws are twisted in far too tight. Hate has put us into contempt and dishonesty towards others-solely because we look at them as ” different” or “weird”. I am beginning to separate myself from fellow bystanders and friends when discussion of politics comes to the forefront of friendly conversation. My once loud voice and fierce argument points against the two-political machines has begun to drive me to this unknown crossroad. Do I ferociously push the limit with everything I have in me? Or do I put out a pathetic, but yet somewhat honorable, attempt at turning what is wrong into what is right.

I do not buy into the stance of political alignment- I shouldn’t have to label myself with a group that I do not wholeheartedly believe in. Nor neither should you.

Why? How dare you settle for mediocrity! Blast, truth has turned its back on us. It shows on election day, how minuscule the alternative candidates and leaders are taken seriously. For they are not even a dot on the map. You would think that a progressive liberal state, such as California, would demand our president to hold to his promises. I guess accountability doesn’t matter.

Why do we continue this misguided falsified path. Every few years a small percentage of us show up at the polling booths to cast our patriotic vote. If you really care so dearly about your country, then why don’t you demand honesty? Why do you let Wall-Street and corrupt politicians decide what is right or wrong?

Aldous Huxley and George Orwell had no faith in the future of democracy, nor do I. If I were a rich gambling man, gambler…yes, rich far from, I would bet everything that the whole house will soon come crashing down- the grand illusion and all. I say awake, awake, awake youth! Until then, I remain.

-Jack C. Buck

To purchase George Orwell’s 1984 Click Here!

AP: After all the fuss, public health plan covers few

AP: Third party challenges in NJ, NY are warning sign

BBC News: South Sudan leader urges split

BBC News: Mubarak avoids talk of succession

CBC News: Montreal’s civic election leaves mess for next mayor

Knock me down with a feather! Neither did I!

He taught a class for a semester in the Institute of Politics on third-party politics.

Very interesting man, Mr. Ventura. I like a man who has so many facets!

The Georgia LP, in an emergency fashion, issued an immediate anti-Keaton resolution resolution that passed overwhemingly. Here it is:

Resolved, the Libertarian Party of Georgia expresses its deep disappointment with the Libertarian National Committee in its continued activities regarding Angela Keaton and it neglect of its proper Party duties, and expresses a desire that the LNC get back on proper course for the LP by actually working for the growth of the Party and advancing public policy in a libertarian direction, instead of engaging in self-destructive, alienating, embarrassing, and pointless internal squabbles.

Hooray for the Georgia LP for attacking this monstrosity.

Doug Craig of the Crazy for Liberty blog writes about former 2008 LP presidential candidate Bob Barr, who urges Libertarians to endorse and support Saxby Chambliss, one of the worst Republicans, for his incumbent, relection bid to his U.S. Senate seat.

This is what he wrote on the blog:

Bob Barr urges us to vote for one of the worst Republicans in the country.

    I am no fan of Saxby Chambliss but it looks like Bob Barr is.
 I see no reason for Barr to go to bat for Saxby. He knows people were not happy with him giving money to him earlier this year in a race in which we had a great candidate running. I have not been happy with since Denver and this is just another example.
 Here is the email

Dear Doug,

In Tuesday December 2nd’s runoff election we have a choice between 
incumbent Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss and Democratic challenger 
Jim Martin.

I urge you to vote for Saxby Chambliss.

Sen. Chambliss is closer to the Libertarian position on a number of key issues 
including: shrinking the size of government, less government spending, 
abolishing the IRS, replacing the income tax with a consumption tax and 
ending the government bailouts.

And there is one other major consideration: the Legislative branch of 
our government should not be a rubber stamp for the Executive branch.

There should be a check and balance between the two. The Democrats are 
close to obtaining a majority of 60 members of the Senate which means 
the opposition party, the Republicans in this case, will have very few 
opportunities to have meaningful input on legislative actions.

To me, one party rule in both the Legislative and Executive branches 
is a prescription for bad public policy decisions.

Please join me in voting for Saxby Chambliss in the US Senate runoff 
election.

Sincerely,

 

Bob Barr

LNC attorney Bill Hall, who hails from my home state (that being Michigan) by the way, issues a memo to the Committee, stating that he’s tired of the infighting in the LP and LP and LNC members second guessing his opinions.

The Libertarian National Committee’s (LNC) financial package of 2008 is now publicly available for downloading and viewing.

LP member and activist Stephen Meier has recently remitted an open letter to the Libertarian National Committee (LNC) regarding the Committee’s publicly-leaked agenda, which entails a scheduled 30 minute repudiation of LNC Regional 7 At-Large Representative Angela Keaton for her investigation into former LP Executive Director’s Shane Cory’s severance pay in the wake of his resignation from his paid party staff position. That occurred in the aftermath of a successful kiddie-porn smear campaign launched by the Bob Barr and Wayne Allyn Root camps who were, at the time, vying for the LP presidential nominations earlier this year. (See the Let Liberty Ring blog’s archives for details on that mess.)

This is what Meier’s open letter states in the following, which was published on the Independent Political Report on November 26, 2008:

Nov 26th, 2008

To: Libertarian Party National Committee

Subject: Angela Keaton

In regards to the upcoming LPNC meeting to be held Dec 6th and 7th in San Diego, CA. An agenda has been published at:

http://lncregion7.blogspot.com/2008/11/agenda-san-diego-lnc-meeting.html

This published agenda includes the line “Discipline of Angela Keaton 30 minutes”.

I am deeply disturbed by what appears to be a very autocratic and arbitrary action by the LNC against one of its members who was elected by the party members at a national convention.

The LNC operates its meeting under Robert’s Rules of Order. The Libertarian Bylaws State

ARTICLE 13: PARLIAMENTARY AUTHORITY

The rules contained in the current edition of Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised shall govern the Party in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with these bylaws and any special rules of order adopted by the Party.

Robert’s Rules of Order require that notes be taken and that the meetings minutes be drafted and approved. Robert’s rules go on to state

The minutes should show:

All main motions (except such as were withdrawn) and motions that bring a main question again before the assembly, stating the wording as adopted or disposed of, and the disposition–including temporary disposition (with any primary and secondary amendments and adhering secondary motions then pending;

From the September LNC minutes (not yet appearing at http://www.lp.org/lnc-meeting-archives but can be found at http://pauliecannoli.wordpress.com/2008/11/01/an-error-in-the-september-lnc-meeting-minutes/ and at http://lncregion7.blogspot.com/2008/10/minutes-of-sept-mtg-lnc.html)

Angela Keaton

After a break, the Chair announced Angela Keaton had blogged on the Internet some information that had been revealed in executive session.

Pat Dixon moved to censure Angela Keaton for having blogged what she had put onto the LastFreeVoice website.

Angela Keaton left the room after having admitted to the transgression.

Michael Jingozian read the passage to the body.

Aaron Starr moved a substitute motion: It is the belief of this body that Angela Keaton should resign for having disclosed material in executive session.

Everyone in the room voted for the substitution.

First having reviewed the minutes as published I can not find where the meeting went into Executive Session in compliance with Section 2 Paragraph F. of the Libertarian Party Policy Manual. To be in an executive session during an LNC meeting a motion must have been made and seconded and voted upon and passed by by a majority or by 2/3 of the voting LNC Members depending on if all the reasons given in the motion are among the list of reasons in Section 2 Paragraph F sub paragraph 3 “Identified Topics for Discussion in Executive Session”

In the published minutes the LNC entered Executive Session

Campaign Finance Litigation

The LNC entered executive session to discuss potential campaign finance litigation with Alan Mura and the LP membership list rental.

Coming out of executive session, Jim Lark recommended the LNC express its appreciation to Alan Gura for his work for Liberty. Without objection, the motion passed.

It is expected that to have entered into this Executives Session that the minutes would note that some member of the LNC made a motion, the minutes would state what the motion was, the minutes would state who seconded the motion; the minutes should state that the motion passed by some method of voting or another and what the vote total was or if the vote was unanimous or at least no objections. But the minutes as presented have no motion, no second and no vote thus no Executive Session under the Libertarian Party Policy Manual.

This same (at least according to the minutes) non-entry into a Executive Session happened twice more

Counsel’s Report, Continued

The LNC entered executive session for the remainder of Counsel’s report.

Coming out of executive session, Sean Haugh wanted it reflected in the minutes that he had preferred to discuss matters involving him in open session.

and

The LNC entered executive session to discuss the Barr Root campaign and personnel matters.

Now what could Angela have blogged about that could have happened in one of these policy violating “Executive Sessions”?

Could it have been

Quick: Dead guy gave us money. More than FEC allows. Sue to claim that dead people cannot be corrupted.

Patriot Alan Gura of the Heller Case (frm. IJ intern in his law school days) will on the cheap challenge the Fascist State on this issue. We are discussing on to whether to move forward.

Gura is offering to wave certain fees and cap others so the costs are about 15K. If the suit drags on for several years, he might charge UP TO an extra $7500 (Make sure you actually read the minutes b/c it is harder to type and keep track. Sullentrup may be a closet Republican but he does do something quite difficult very very well.)

if it was how different is this then what the Minutes reported as

Coming out of executive session, Jim Lark recommended the LNC express its appreciation to Alan Gura for his work for Liberty. Without objection, the motion passed.

Aaron Starr moved to proceed with campaign finance litigation engaging the law firm of Alan Gura, to sue the FEC to overturn the contribution limits for bequests left to the LNC, budgeting $15k in 2008 for that purpose with disbursements beginning no earlier than November 2008.

Could it have been about the Barr Campaign when Angela blogged

Said in ExSession. I’m within my rights to reveal this:

We don’t have a contract b/t the Barr Camp and LNC b/c….Cory asserted to both Carling and Redpath that they were afraid that someone would reveal data. I didn’t know what the hell they were talking about until it was further explained that Cory was afraid that I would misuse “data.”

Why this is ExSession? No idea. To Redpath’s credit, he, Ruwart and several other believed that this was an excuse. That I am a scape goat.

Lets take this apart. For this to be a topic of a discussion within an executive session it would have had to have been part of the motion to enter that executive session. What motion? Second it has to be one of the stated reasons in

and as such it might fit under Section 2 Paragraph F sub paragraph 3 or the motion must have the support of two thirds of the voting membership.

vi. Strategic issues (only those requiring confidentiality)

But to do so it would have to require confidentiality. What would be the reasons for requiring confidentiality? To protect Angela? Not likely since she is the one who released the information. To protect the accuser? Since when have we (other then the despised patriot act and military tribunals) allowed an accuser to remain anonymous?

On to the motion to kick Angela off of the LNC. The motion was revised to read

The LNC shall suspend the membership on the LNC of Angela Keaton for breaching confidentiality in executive session as denoted in Article 8 Section 5 of Bylaws, in the event she does not apologize with 10 days and commit to never repeating the offense again

Article 8 Section 5 states that the LNC may suspend the membership of an at -large member for cause. What is missing from this motion is a detailed statement of what the cause is. The lack of a clear accusation and supporting evidence makes this motion appear arbitrary and capricious.

Stephen Meier

Fremont, CA

 

Let’s bring back the meaning of endorsement.

Get back to the real thing, here: It is not a prediction and it is not a popularity contest. This endorsement is not in favor of the guy who is bound to win anyway. It is a return to the public policy-oriented version that should bring topics to the fore instead of inculcate the readers to a choice, that may not be based on policies at all (but rather the hope of an ego-boost by supporting the guy who wins).

Is this election about the big things – race relations, a different foreign relations angel, an end to aggressive Reaganesque policies, and a change in the American Dream? To some extent, but it also is another rendition of the traditional two-party race in which both candidates with give up and soften his position on the “issues” as they become less politically viable.

So this endorsement is for a reinvention of endorsements. Newspapers are not in the business of winning elections, but increasingly they seem to be sucked into that mind frame. We are supposed to be giving everyone a fair shake, shedding light on the pros and cons of each choice, even if they are far-fetched, as third party candidates. Because the underlying function of the media is to show us what’s out there – hold up that mirror – and let people decide based on the facts. That’s unfortunately not what has been seen in this and many past elections. Instead we’ve seen an inescapable circle of probability take over coverage. The risk there is that if people believe that the papers are saying the third-party members have no chance, because the people say they have no chance.

So here’s to endorsing the endorsement. May the best man win.

Welcome to the Freeman Chronicles!

This blog is for LP, BTP, and third party loyalists who are tired of the crap they’ve seen on Last Free Voice and the Independent Political Report. This site was created on Election Day yesterday, so forgive me if this site doesn’t seem like it is in the best of shape. In the days and weeks to come, hopefully more people will blog here. Anyone who wants to be a blogger on this site, please email me. I’m looking for people who are not happy with blogging at LFV and the Independent Political Report.

I promise that I will not pull the same crap that Elf Nino’s Mom and her husband has pulled on you, so please let me know and I’ll be glad to add  you on board.

Thanks, and let’s fight for liberty.

Yours Truly,

Todd Andrew Barnett

El Head Honcho

Do you think the Pentagon is a weapon of mass destruction, or a department of national defense. Perhaps a strange question, but one to ponder, for today our sitting politicians, in my opinion, have failed in making decisions in the interest of the American people. The facts regarding the stiching of lies (weapons of mass destruction) by US intelligence and the Bush State Department in the lead up to our current military ‘intervention’ in Iraq should show anyone a dishonesty that has sapped (and is sapping) our financial resources, devasated the infrustructure of a sovereign nation, and killed more then a million, people, American and Iraqi, as reports have it. Also going back to 1990, America’s stated ‘hands off’ policy in the lead up to the Gulf War by Bush senior’s administration, regarding tense border dispute, between Iraq and Kuwait, in retrospect, seems to exhibit duplicity. The face of American foreign policy has prouded itself on its peace keepers, sent often in NATO allied initiatives from the continent of Africa to the Eastern regions of Europe. This face, also is shown as one that mediates when conflicts erupt between neighbors, in the name of saving lives and defending sovereignty, but when mysterious illnesses inflict our war veterans, and the profits made by outsourced services, to huge corperations, rise, during war, we might be able to see that the United States may very well have two faces.  Where in lies the word deceit if such a duality exists, and who is doing the deceiving. Upon who does such deceit fall?  Such questions may be a good starting point, leading to a vast web of intrigue, beyond the Pentagon and State Department, to one that may extend from the exercised consolidation of huge media interests to our two party system, itself, and those in office. The words monopoly and cartel, are often used in reference to oil and opium producers, as well as pharmaceutical companies here in the US, but could it be that our government, and those that it has as its interested parties, are a cartel, or that they have a monoploy on policy, while media and image making gives a false impression to the world, and a false belief to the citizenry of the US, which is that of a democratic process of government that holds its voting population as its interested party?  

I would argue that there may be enough evidence, of a cartel, a chain of special interests and power brokers, financial globalists, who in sum monopolize policy making here in the US, from the uses, and from, what I see as misuse, of our focres of national defense. Highlighting monopoly and special interests, one may see regulation, or the lack of it, as well as the use of it, as mechanisms of those who are in power, who represent favored interests, such as defense contractors, and drug companies.  Such a monopoly may even regulate what we, as Americans, read, hear and see, via the media, which I would say, should be the lifeblood a true democracy, but today, in part, in may support agendas of special interests, whether war or reported supportive claims of drugs such as prozac, undermining the free market of ideas and knowledge with special interests and controls.   

The media may be seen as a conduit that either prevents truth, or helps to build truth. The media works in respective ways, both in dictatorships, and democracies. If the media fails to inform citizens, and works instead to sustain or hide a reality, then that country’s media is not behaving in democratic ways, and instead panders to industrialists, war profits, and special interests.  It becomes a vehicle by which the cartel that monoploizes the powers within our government create myths, sustain status quos, and sends people into war.   

One might be able to see the Pentagon as something different from a department of national defense, when we look at the recent use of our military. Is it not a treasonous act to send soldiers into war, after having painstakingly created lies and fabricated evidence, as laying down the foundations for deployment? Is that what we saw in the year 2003? One must ask, if one is to take such a statement as fact, how deep is the deceit and where might it end, and who is paying for that deceit. What might be the driving force of such deceit.  Is this, if so, a failure of our current two party monopoly in Washington, and the nation in general. By default, America, I would say, has allowed for power to be monopolized by two parties, and over time, the mechanisms of these two parties have become saturated with special interests, as well as power, but not in actuality representing the people. Of course, this word, special interests, is heard from the news and the media, especially during election time, but the media has long failed, in my opinion, to be a source of information that would keep inflated, the life preservers of the democracy our founding fathers had created, as our politicians, in no uncertain way, play into the hands of special interests. and the media, in many different ways, placate, while pandering to that special interest. This is how the Penagon and the State Department could launch the overt aggression that it did in 2003, and this is how the citizens of the US, in large part, still in shock from the 911, were either indifferent, or supportive, leaving a minority in protest of the invasion. -this blogger

In just hours after the 911 attacks, our sitting Secretary of Defense (reported by CBS ‘Plans For Iraq Attack Began on 9/11), was making initiatives for planning a war on Iraq, though evidence, in the years leading up to the Iraq invasion, was controversial, and what evidence there was, soon became suspect.  One must ask, as an American, or a memeber of the world community of nations, what were the reasons for sending the US military into war? The measures of destruction and deaths in Iraq since 2003, the subsequent unleashing of sectarian violence, and the strain, as well as death, inflicted on US combatants, are not being presented in a realistic fashion, in my opinion. These are being hidden, rather than highlighted, by the media, as justification waves banners reading ’democracy‘. Glossed over, are the realities, with words such as ‘winning the war’, while the words‘ending the war‘ become ‘lose the war’  Such words echo in other ways, and that echo is reflected in the word hegemony, as for decades, national defense has dissovled into gray arenas termed of military ‘interventions‘.   Media reportage and articles in the press can be, and are, used in similar ways as in advertising, to get the public to buy something, to induce or reduce emotional responses, guide sentiments, or hide realities.

On Media and Public Opinion: Edward S. Herman & Noam Chomsky: Manufaturing Consent from Third World Traveler 

Noam Chomsky, The Futrure of Iraq and Us Occupation  http://www.chomsky.info/talks/20050126.htm

Interview, and Review of James Bamford’s Pretext for War: Inventing A Pretext For War

Gulf War Syndrome 

A larger syndrome of policies founded on special interests, rather then democratic values, policies that have proven successful for some, those seeking profits, but unsuccessful to values adhered to when considering sovereignty, and value for human life.     

gulf war syndrome: http://www.immed.org/illness/gulfwar_illness_research.html

Reported, Gulf War Vets passing on illness to offspring: http://operationpurpleheart.blogspot.com/

http://www.gulfwarvets.com/part-1.htm

Regarding this, information is plentiful, though composit is inconclusive. Have our politicians failed in addressing certain issues that inflict pain on war veterans, and a military that has its secrets?  Secret Military Experiments on Americans……http://www.all-natural.com/bio-chem.html

I have not researched this beyond what I have read and heard in the news in years past, but find that it needs to be looked at. As the Gulf War Sydrome may be just one manifestation in a larger syndrome, and that may be how our military has been used, in an undemocratic fashion, and for greed and power.  It is always easy to find pretextes for actions, such as spreading democracy to regions of the world, or protecting ‘American interests’, but one must ask firstly, what are the interests of extending our military in ways that we have seen in the last decade, while condemning other nations for ‘meddling’ in regions that have hold interests for them.  As America’s military is spread in combat, from the Persian Gulf to the terrains of Central Asia, and as a nation we still have not come to terms with the preplexing posture of our government had in the lead up to Saddam Hussain’s invasion of Kuwait. Furthermore, the current syndrome effecting military soldiers returning home with unpresidented reports of PTSD and other psychological illnesses, as suicides of veterans inflict families accross the expanse of what has we call America, rises. The government and our elected officials, are their actions showing concerns for what they have been elected into office for? The issues impinges on just more then the eroding heath of veterans, who return home from the strain of ill planning by the defense department, and the effects inflicted on families, as one may make the claim that our military has extended itself beyond the frontiers of national defense, to defending and preserving the interests of corperations, from oil to fruit growers, in recent decades. From our involvement in Central and South America, with covert operations, highlighted by the climatic Reagan administration’s Iran-Contra scandal, to the initiative of George Herbert Walker Bush in his effort to extract Saddam Hussain’s military from Kuwait. If we follow a logic, that of establishing false pretextes for sending our military into war, there is a common thread woven between Bush Senior and that of his son, who is now the sitting president of the United States, and in command of our military.  If we read what this logic says, we may make some conclusions concerning the profit driven defense industry, the financial interests of the Bush family, those who surround the current president, and how our democracy may be functioning as an empire as opposed to a democracy, an empire with a cartel mantality, and a monopoly on on the minds of Americans.   

• Renegade Men and the US Government, false pretenses for sending our troops abraod.   

Stated as fact, and reality, that western countries, including the US, had industrialists invest and supply Iraq’ s chemical and biological arsenal. According to Elson E. Boles, as well as others (John King: Arming Iraq, The History of US Involvement), the US, along with a few other NATO countries, as well as Russia, supplied Iraq’s military with weapons, while the US aided in planned implementation of chemcial weapons systems, during the years Iraq was engaged in its war with Iran: http://www.counterpunch.org/boles1010.html

Needless to say perhaps, is the fact that Iraq was armed and supported politically by the United States during its 8 year war with Iran, and this war led to massive bloodshed on both sides, while straining both economically. One could say that this economic strain on Iraq led to the President’s a proposed rising the price of world oil to OPEC. The proposal was refused. Seeking to remedy economic woes, incurred, in part, or primarily from the 8 year war, Saddam Hussein sought a provacative posture towards Kuwait in disputes over a border region, which included allegations by Iraq’s President that Kuwait was in violation of national boundaries by syphoning oil from oil field within, but on the edge of Iraq’s borders with Kuwait.      

April Glaspie, U.S. ambassador to Iraq relayed a message to Iraq’s president that the US would take no position on the disputed boarder contecting Iraq and Kuwait.  Was this a green light for Saddam Hussain to invade Iraq. Many at the time critical of this war thought so.

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php  

With our military extended in such strained condition, as soldiers return with record high rates of PTSD, and resulting suicide, it is needed that every American reevaluate our State Department’s use of US military in decades past. Bill Clinton was hand tied with the military due to the disasterous and embarassing results of Senior Bush’s actions in Somalia, and many see the 911 attacks as being in part the result of Clinton’s missle attack, after the Kenyian and Tanzanian emabssy bombings, on a supposed Sudanese chemical facility identified by intellignece as producing chemcials, for it ignited hatred within the arab population, and feeding the fires of the militant sector of pan-arabism, namely terrorists groups. Many state that Clinton’s failure to implement an all out ‘offense’, in a ‘pre-emptive’ strike, led to his mainly ‘for show’ strike on the Sudanese chemical facility. One may say, that any military strike in the regions from north africa to Persia, and places in between, by the US, or NATO, is throwing gasoline onto fire. US involvement does fit into the matrix of underlying forces that facilitated the Iran and Iraq war, as well as the opened the hidden doorways to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, and the subsequent Gulf War, which saw deployment of American troops to a region and terrain which supplies 28 percent of the world’s supply of oil (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Persian_Gulf/Background.html), while the United States sitting president at the time, George H. Bush, and his Secretary of State, James A. Baker, and their repective families, held, and today still hold, huge interests in American oil companies. It is difficult to see the United States as an oligarchy, but when the pretext for war is spreading American democratic values, along with faulty alligations of WMD, one may get a clearer picture, as most combatants come from working class backgrounds, and recruiting agents use snazy commericialized tactics to lure working class urban african americans. 

Do you think the Pentagon is a weapon of mass destruction, or a department of national defense. Perahps a strange question, but one to ponder.   

• Links: Bush oil interests:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CAV111A.html   

http://www.bushwatch.org/oil.htm

• Recommended:

Ralph Nader, The Meaning of Freedom in the United States Today: http://www.pdxjustice.org/#Nader_13May2008

Noam Chomsky, The Futrure of Iraq and Us Occupation  http://www.chomsky.info/talks/20050126.htm

John, in the comment box of his post-debate post:

[I]t seems to me that the major party candidates would be able to get away with a lot less of their B.S. if they had to share space with candidates who were offering something different. Obama would never have pressed McCain about, e.g., how his supposed “constructionism” squares with the free speech restrictions in McCain-Feingold or how his claim to want to shrink the size of government is empty in the face of the fact that he wants to, well, grow it, nor would McCain ever have pressed Obama on how the right to privacy permits abortion but doesn’t disallow domestic spying, etc. – but if they’d been up against a candidate who didn’t feel bound by those same rules, then the rules would have begun to change, and they’d have been pressed to be much more transparent and articulate then they need to be when both they and their MSM questions are coming at things squarely from the mushy middle. Doesn’t that seem reasonable?

          [My emphasis. - NPO]

Post-script: My humblest, sincerest apologies for the ultra-light (read: non-existent) web-logging lately; the workload has picked up, but in class and my assistantship, and the newspaper, which I hope to God on high we finish tonight, has occupied more time than I had ever expected. This weekend is me-weekend, though; well, me-plus-many, many-hours-in-the-studio weekend. 

All of these so-called liberal or faux progressive groups such as the Huffington Post, Daily Kos, Moveon.org, etc., are essentially beating a dead horse. The Democratic Party is not the solution, it’s the problem. These organizations that channel legitimate progressives into supporting whatever middle of the road candidate that the Democrats offer up, are not going to accomplish much (if anything at all) in the short or the long run. There would be much better results if these groups called for the Democratic candidate to endorse a platform that they’d construct together. And if the Democratic candidate refused, then they would tell their supporters to support Nader or the Green candidate, or another third party progressive candidate. This makes much better sense for advancing a progressive agenda, than simply getting behind any and every Democrat that runs for elected office; this will only produce more of the same (which Barack Obama says he’s running against, but he’s not he’s lying).

From Barr’s letter to Dr. Paul [PDF]

While ballot substitution is restricted for a presidential candidate and limited at this point in time, in many states, substitution is still permitted for vice presidential candidates. But time is short.

As my campaign staff has proposed to you, I ask that you join the Libertarian presidential ticket as the vice presidential candidate.

According to the campaign e-mail

Barr’s running mate, Wayne Allyn Root, expressed support: “As the Libertarian Party vice presidential nominee, I believe in one thing above all else-principle. There can be no compromise on the ideals of limited government, lower taxes, lower spending, and more freedom for the American people. Those are the principles to which I’ve dedicated my life. The GOP and Democratic candidates only give lip service-at best-to these ideals and principles. It is only an act at election time every four years.”

“I want to end the charade once and for all,” Root continued. “I am willing to sacrifice anything to advance the cause of liberty, freedom, smaller government and to enable the American taxpayer to keep more of their own money and property. Understanding Dr. Ron Paul’s reputation and name recognition in the freedom movement, I am willing to step aside as Libertarian vice presidential candidate if he would be willing to take my place. I will pledge to work day and night, just as I have as the vice presidential nominee, to support Dr. Paul. I believe this is a wonderful opportunity for the Libertarian and freedom movements. I encourage Dr. Paul to accept Congressman Barr’s offer. The campaign is making this offer because we believe there is no sacrifice too large when it comes to improving the lives of the American people and American taxpayers.”

I’m not sure that this would be particularly effective — assuming Dr. Paul were to accept — but it would be amazing, and Dr. Paul is, undeniably, a more appealing candidate than Mr. Root. And if anything can catalyze the sort of tremendous shift that we need to see in American electoral politics, this might just be it. I wonder what Chuck Baldwin thinks about this, and what he’d think would Dr. Paul accept.

Dr Paul declines. Expected, but disappointing, nonetheless. The press conferences seem to have been interesting, if not distressing to Richard.

The second Skypecast between Scott and I is up. We discuss the possibility of Third Party Politics.

Reihan Salam article I mention: http://thecurrent.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/04/democratic-party.php

Websites of the Third Party Candidates we mention:

http://www.bobbarr2008.com/splash/?s0820
http://www.votenader.org/

The link for the skypecast is here:

skype-20080821-1908

I make a historical error by referring to Great Society landslide in ‘68–that should have been ‘64. Also must have been smoking crack bringing about a moment of numerical dyslexia on the number in the US House. But it only supports my case (actually Sabato’s case) for expansion.

–

Update I: I just now figured out why the number 530(ish) was on my mind. Because of the Electoral College (538=total votes in Electoral College).