Fred Thompson, helping Ron Paul get elected

Here is an interesting take on what could happen if Fred Thompson decides to run for office (from Liberty Update):

As of right now there are three front runners; Guliani, McCain, and Romney. Each spouting off a very similar big government neo-con message that differs only slightly. If each of these candidates stays out front until the election they will split the big-government neo-con electorate. If this happens, Ron Paul will need only 25%of the Republican primary vote (a few votes will most likely be split among the other 6 neo-cons as well). He'll have the full support of the small government conservatives since there will be no competition for that slot. In a state like Iowa where in 2000 there were 86,000 Republican primary voters he would only need 21,500 votes to win.

A very shrewd and interesting analysis, I'm (wishfully) hoping that he wins the nomination handily and the general election in a landslide. But I'll take the win in whatever form it comes in.

The whole post is here.

Venezuela and the Strongman

Saying "south american dictator" is like saying "smelly frenchman" or "brazilian supermodel" it's just part of the language. Our hemisphere to the south has a tradition of being taken over by strongmen.

It's no surprise that Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez would try to takeover the oil assets of his country (it's the country's most valuable export). It's also no surprise that Chavez would try to eliminate dissenting voices as well. What has been surprising to me has been the reaction to his shutting down the TV station that broadcasts opposition programming critical of Chavez. Students, professionals, other citizens are demonstrating in the streets. Are we going to be witness to the overthrow of a dictator? I hope so. I also hope it's as bloodless as possible.

There are a bunch of links at Gateway Pundit. Also Fox News has continuing coverage as well.

Fox News reporter Adam Housley

6:13 p.m.: We have now moved yet again, our fifth location today. We are now live, the only network in the world, on the street between protesters and the police. Thousands are amassed on the streets to me; to my left, they're chanting and singing, faced off with police; to my right, the police are shoulder-to-shoulder, standing under a major overpass. An armored car is wedged within the line.
6:22 p.m.: Shots ... SHOTS FIRED! I grab a bag and slam it against a cement wall. It's as if I am standing on the banks of a roaring river. I'm close to danger, but safely on the bank. Rocks and bottles fly. The crowd scatters as the police lunge forward. I'm staying close to the ground and behind their shields. They open rapid fire with shotguns armed with rubber bullets. Some turn their heads as the blasts continue. Pop, pop, pop, pop ... we are against the wall. I sneak out, just a bit, to get our remaining piece of gear. My mask is covering my nose and mouth, in case of tear gas. I have goggles over my eyes. Some students have their own military-style gas masks. The police lunge further; the students have stopped about 100 yards away ... more rocks, more bottles. I grab my microphone with the FOX News logo and
hold it up yelling, "PRENSA, PRENSA!" (Press, Press!) I duck in behind the
police to get my photographer shooting video of the clash. Together, we dash
back to safety.
6:25 p.m.: The shooting stops and so does the rock throwing. The crowd chants again and the police retreat. Once again, there is a 20-yard space between the two. We are at an impasse. Periodically, over the next 30 minutes, students approach the officers with their hands in the air. Both sides talk, at least for a short bit and the standoff continues.
6:50 p.m.:
The students are still singing, but now they're sitting by the thousands. They
will not move, and neither will the police. I also get a call; apparently the
same types of clashes are taking place near the American embassy, and I am told
that a local cable station will be shut down by the government tonight.
Globovision is a local cable channel, like RCTV, and it's critical of the
Chavez reforms. Rumor has it that the owners and main anchor will be arrested.

Ron Paul on Bill Maher's Show

Who get's the biggest cheers when you're sitting at a table with PJ O'Rourke, Ben Affleck and Bill Maher? Why Ron Paul of course.

The scam that is the Income Tax (part 6,864)

The inimitable Paul Harvey (listen here and fast forward to 4:10)



Transcript
"For what it's worth, the 9th circuit panel of San Francisco has been reversed. The Internal Revenue service had ruled that Valerie and Robert McKee (or McKey?) had owed the government $31,000 in unpaid taxes until Valerie and Robert demonstrated in court that the tax law was so complex that nobody could understand it. And the court had to agree. The law was so complex that nobody could understand it and the court reversed itself and the IRS gets the bill. The government sought and got a stipulation that this verdict would not be made public. Well, it just was. Paul Harvey, Good day!"

What doesn't kill you...

Jeeez, Memorial day weekend isn't even over, and Lindsay Lohan is in the papers AGAIN. Let's see, she was arrested on Saturday for being intoxicated and for leaving her car after crashing it, the same car that the police found "useable amounts" of cocaine in. Well, it's monday and it turns out there are pictures of her passed out in a friends car this morning as well (maybe to celebrate getting out of jail?)

This is going to end up badly for her. She's not even 21 yet and it seems like she's been around forever. Maybe it won't, but I'm pretty sure that if your diet for the past 5 years has consisted of cocaine, vodka, and semen, it's pretty safe to say that a reexamination of lifestyle choices is in order. (I know I lifted that line somewhere, probably here, he cracks me up)

What's more gay?

What’s more gay?

a. Richard Marx
b. Not being able to find a specific Richard Marx video on the internets
c. Finding a specific Richard Marx song on youtube but having it as background for a Buffy and Angel video montage



The correct answer is d: posting a blog that has Richard Marx in it over a Buffy and Angel montage

Libertarianism, Ron Paul and why Kucinich sucks

Where do you stand politically?

With the Soul of the GOP at stake it's Rudy vs. Ron (Part 1)

All of the political junkies out there who watched the second GOP debate a couple of weeks ago saw an exchange between Rudy Giuliani and Ron Paul that could be considered the first round of battle in what ultimately could be considered the fight for the soul of the Republican Party.

Rudy Giuliani is America’s Mayor. He revived New York City, cleaned up Times Square, reduced crime, and boosted tourism to record highs. It was on his watch that New York City was attacked. By nearly all accounts, he handled that day and its aftermath better than one would have expected. His performance earning him accolades such as a Knighthood from the Queen of England, and Time Magazine’s Person of the Year in 2002. He is a man of accomplishment who has shown leadership in the most trying circumstances.

Dr. Ron Paul is an OB/GYN who has delivered more than 4000 babies. He is an 11 term Congressman from Texas whose initial Congressional campaign run, by his own admission, was done on impulse. His reputation as a principled legislator who unfailingly measures his actions in Congress against what is explicitly expressed in the Constitution has earned him the moniker of “Dr. No”. He and his wife are proud parents of five children, and 17 grandchildren.

The contrasts between these two are numerous. Rudy is the man from the big city. Ron is the doctor from flyover country. Rudy’s personal life has been fodder for the gossip pages for years, having to endure a very ugly and public divorce. Ron, from what I’ve been able to glean from the tabloids, has five children and 17 grandchildren, and a wife named Carol. This is to say, you probably wouldn’t find him in magazines like US Weekly, or People, ever.

It is in the political arena that you would find the most differences, and they are stark. Rudy Giuliani has a campaign machine that is well financed, he is consistently named one of the leading contenders to win the nomination, and he currently polls in the top three as far as popularity among voters.

Dr. Paul has a fraction of the campaign funds that Rudy has. He is considered a second tier candidate, not even warranting inclusion in certain polls because of lack of name recognition. He is truly a grassroots candidate, his supporters, while not legion, are enthusiastic, vocal, energized, and active. They are technologically savvy and, through the internet, are able to communicate with each other as well as spread Dr. Paul’s ideas.

Like with Howard Dean in 2004, the internet is proving to be the great equalizer between Rudy and Dr. Paul in getting the nomination.

Conan and "The Interrupter"

Ron Paul on Neil Cavuto

Girl looking for serious LTR

Cute, lonely girl, looking for serious LTR. Pretty funny.

Why Ron Paul?

If anyone out there saw the GOP debate last week, you would have seen this:



The exchange between Rudy Giuliani and Dr. Ron Paul certainly brought to life an event which up, until that moment, would more accurately be described as a Debate In Name Only (DINO). Out of the 10 candidates that night, 9 of them seem pretty interchangeable. Sure, Mitt Romney might have a better tan and more hair than Rudy. Also, John McCain is the only candidate I’ve seen who actually tried to paraphrase/sing the Beach Boys (badly and awkwardly at that). But if you look really closely, they aren’t much different from each other. I get the feeling that if the nomination came down to those three, I couldn’t bring myself to, once again, vote for the candidate who sucks the least.

If you take a look at my recent posts, it’s obvious I’m a Ron Paul supporter. Why him? Hope. History is littered with the wreckage of failed empires, the map of which our country is following. Entangling alliances, oppressive government policies on it own citizens, failure to protect and defend its borders, continued currency devaluation. It’s all there. I’m just waiting for the other shoe to drop. Ron Paul gives me hope that it is not too late. That the ills our country faces in the near and long term can be cured. That the constant and increasing intrusion of our government into our lives can be stopped and the correlating freedoms that have been stamped out can be restored.

He gives me hope because he knows that the map to restoring our greatness exists, it is tried and true and it will work. When I say greatness, I don’t mean having the biggest and best military, we have that. There is greatness in the people that make up this country; for the most part we are generous, hardworking, optimistic, law-abiding citizens. When I talk about restoring greatness to this country, I am talking about setting its people free. Free to pursue our dreams, free to think what we want, free criticize our government, free to defend ourselves, free to choose how we live and free to fail and accept the consequences of that failure.

That is what America is about, choosing the path that makes the most sense to us. The audacious idea that each and every one of us has the ability to choose the life they want to lead because we know what’s best. That is what attracts people to us. That is why we won the great war against communism. That is what made my parents move half a world away with only each other to build their life around. That is what will save us from an economic and political meltdown.

I didn’t mean to turn this into a flag waving exercise but it turned out that way. I did intend to say that Ron Paul is the man whose vision of what our country once was and once again can be, and how to get there is most aligned with mine.

Randolphus

Sarah Connor is on TV this fall

and she's played by the same actress that was Leonidas's wife in "300". And I think that the young girl is the same one from the movie "Serenity"

Classic moments from Ari Gold Superagent

Ron Paul on CNN Sunday Edition

Ron Paul on Tucker Carlson

Things to think about

From economist Walter Williams:

Question: What do Virginia Tech's 32 murders, Columbine High School's 13 murders, Jonesboro Westside Middle School's five murders, Germany's Gutenberg High School's 16 murders, the murder of 14 legislators in Zug, Switzerland, and the murder of eight city council members in a Paris suburb all have in common?

Answer: All the murders were committed in "gun-free zones."

So a reasonable question is: Does legislation creating gun-free zones prevent murder and mayhem?

I've always liked him.

Pat Buchanon defends Ron Paul

From Worldnetdaily.com:

What Ron Paul was addressing was the question of what turned the allies we aided into haters of the United States. Was it the fact that they discovered we have freedom of speech or separation of church and state? Do they hate us because of who we are? Or do they hate us because of what we do?
Osama bin Laden in his declaration of war in the 1990s said it was U.S. troops on the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia, U.S. bombing and sanctions of a crushed Iraqi people, and U.S. support of Israel's persecution of the Palestinians that were the reasons he and his mujahedeen were declaring war on us.

Is he right?

Breakdancing and Babies

withleather has video of a baby tragically getting kicked when he wanders into the path of a rogue break dancer:




well that wasn't the end of the story. Someone took the footage and edited it for clarity, and I can't... stop...laughing. I'm going to hell.

Ron Paul

I'm posting the comments I've made at www.ace.mu.nu because it's a crapload of typing I did over there in reaction to Ron Paul at the debate. I tried to format it and fix some links that were broken. You can see the whole thread here:


My original comment:

I'm putting my support behind Ron Paul because he's the "strict
constructionist" candidate. I don't think for a second that if Congress formally
declared war after 9/11 against Al Qaida Paul would have a problem sending
troops, ships, or nukes (if necessary) to whatever craphole needed to be
douched.

It bothers me that we, as a party, want to send judges to the Supreme
Court who will follow the the Constitution to the letter but when it comes to
electing a President or Congress it doesn't apply.
Posted by: Randolphus at
May 16, 2007 03:48 AM (5naUR)

171 I'm putting my
support behind Ron Paul because he's the "strict constructionist" candidate. I
don't think for a second that if Congress formally declared war after 9/11
against Al Qaida Paul would have a problem sending troops, ships, or nukes (if
necessary) to whatever craphole needed to be douched.

How do you reconcile that
belief with his anti-interventionist rhetoric? Paul made his views on
foreign policy very clear last night.
Posted by: Slublog at May 16, 2007
09:15 AM (R8+nJ)

172 I don't care how
many advanced degrees he has, anyone who believes what Paul said last night, is
a moron. And anyone who thinks that Paul believes exactly the opposite of
what he said, is also a moron. People like Paul, and anyone who plays
apologist for him, should be shunned.And don't bother with the fancy latin words
for name-calling. As far as I'm concerned, sometimes it really is that
simple. Truther = Moron.
Posted by: Mob at May 16, 2007 10:19 AM
(f+cPk)

173 I don't think
for a second that if Congress formally declared war after 9/11 against Al Qaida
Paul would have a problem sending troops, ships, or nukes (if necessary) to
whatever craphole needed to be douched.

So exactly what do you call it when Congress authorized the United States to commit what are unquestionably
open-ended military acts of war against other powers? I did not notice the
Constitution's required form for a declaration of war. Is it in an
appendix maybe?

As for the "debate" over whether an MD can be a moron, some ideas
are so amazingly dumb they seem to require advanced degrees for people to
promote them.
Posted by: VRWC Agent, BA, BA, JD at May 16, 2007 12:51 PM
(Z3AmO)

174
I'm
putting my support behind Ron Paul because he's the "strict constructionist"
candidate.

Being a strict constructionist doesn't come close to excusing The
Crazy. I'd love to see the federal government return to performing only
those powers allowed for in the Constitution and the end of the 10th Amendment
being ignored, but that's not going to happen overnight, and it sure as hell
isn't going to happen under Ron Paul.
In closing- Fuck You for supporting
this Blame America First Truther douchebag.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at May 16,
2007 01:16 PM (plsiE)

175 How do you
reconcile that belief with his anti-interventionist rhetoric? Paul made his
views on foreign policy very clear last night.

I believe that since he's a
strict constructionist, Ron Paul would act and prosecute a war if it was
declared by Congress. To not do so, would be failure to discharge his duties as
President. The question then becomes, do people think that he wouldn't follow
the Constitution to the letter? I would say following the Constitution is what
makes him appealing.
Posted by: randolphus at May 16, 2007
01:20 PM (5naUR)

176 So exactly what
do you call it when Congress authorized the United States to commit what are
unquestionably open-ended military acts of war against other powers?

An abdication of Congress in its duty. By authorizing military force, it gives
Congress cover if the war doesn't go as planned, it can be blamed on the
President. By declaring war, its a commitment from Congress to say yes or no,
not it depends.
Posted by: randolphus at May 16, 2007 01:48 PM
(5naUR)

177 I believe that since he's a strict constructionist, Ron Paul would act and prosecute a war
if it was declared by Congress. To not do so, would be failure to discharge his
duties as President. The question then becomes, do people think that he wouldn't
follow the Constitution to the letter? I would say following the Constitution is
what makes him appealing.

Where in the Constitution does it spell
out the need for a non-interventionist foreign policy? I don't have a
problem with Paul's reading of the Constitution - I have a problem with his
refusal to see the world as it is.We no longer have the luxury of
isolationism.
Posted by: Slublog at May 16, 2007 02:09 PM (R8+nJ)

178 By authorizing
military force, it gives Congress cover if the war doesn't go as planned, it can
be blamed on the President. By declaring war, its a commitment from Congress to
say yes or no, not it depends.

Huh? Sorry, dude, but
authorizing the use of military force against someone is a declaration of
war. Unless you believe it is possible to blast an enemy's infantry, raze
their buildings and roll tanks down the streets of their capitol without making
war on them. The Constitution does not require a magic phrase to be
uttered when war is declared and no magic phrase would prevent the traitorous
left from undermining any war in which our interests are at stake. Had the
war resolution been called "The Really Super-Official and Extra-Explicit
Constitutional Declaration of War By Congress," the phrasing would not change a
single criticism or strategy to undermine the war effort. Not one.Your
argument is silly.
Posted by: VRWC Agent at May 16, 2007 08:34 PM (gjy1/)

179 Had the war
resolution been called "The Really Super-Official and Extra-Explicit
Constitutional Declaration of War By Congress," the phrasing would not change a
single criticism or strategy to undermine the war effort. Not one.

The February 6, 2006 testimony of Alberto Gonzales to the U.S. Senate Judiciary
Committee Hearing on Wartime Executive Power and the National Security Agency's
Surveillance Authority, indicates there is a distinction:
GONZALES: There was
not a war declaration, either in connection with Al Qaida or in Iraq. It was an
authorization to use military force. I only want to clarify that, because there
are implications. Obviously, when you talk about a war declaration, you're
possibly talking about affecting treaties, diplomatic relations. And so there is
a distinction in law and in practice. And we're not talking about a war
declaration. This is an authorization only to use military
force.

There is absolutely a difference between an AUMF and a
declaration of war (which grants much more power to the Executive
branch). One of the biggest being that Congress doesn't have as much room to
politicize the prosecution of the war. If you look at our declaration of
war against Germany in 1941, you can see that the language has no caveats.
Compare that to the AUMF in Iraq. I would argue that with a formal war declaration, criticisms such as warrantless wiretaps, and holding terror suspects in Guantanamo would have been neutralized to a certain extent because there is justification in doing so http://johnshadegg.house.gov/RSC/DeclarationofWar.PDF see page 3. Posted by: randolphus at May 17, 2007 03:03 AM
(5naUR)

180 Where in the
Constitution does it spell out the need for a non-interventionist foreign
policy? I don't have a problem with Paul's reading of the Constitution - I
have a problem with his refusal to see the world as it is.We no longer have the
luxury of isolationism.

I don't think that non-interventionist and
isolationism are synonymous. Isolationism to me means we don't trade or have
contact with anyone outside of the US. Non-interventionist means to me we don't
get into places like Darfur, or Somalia, or Kosovo because it's none of our
business. We get our troops out of Europe and Japan and Korea and let them pay
for their own defense. We get out of the UN and kick them out of Turtle Bay. If
you want to trade with us, then lets trade. The other (and more
important) part of a non-interventionist policy would be to make it clear
that if you fuck with us then we turn into Denzel in "Man on Fire" and tear
apart who ever it is and their families piece by piece. The failure of
Clinton's foreign policy was that terror groups thought they could strike us
(and they did) and our response would be weak (and it was). So much so that on
9/11 there was footage on the news from some country (in the Middle East) where
people were out in the streets cheering. If there were any other blatant sign of
our foreign policy shortcomings at that time I can't think of it. The only
reactions that I should have seen on the news that day were expressions of
sympathy and allegiance with us. Or, silence because of the collective worry
and "oh shit we shouldn't have done that" that was going through the minds
of our enemies from what our response was going to be.