Time to Legalize Poker

From ReasonTV:

Just a few years out of college and David "Doc" Sands has already racked up nearly $2.5 million winning poker tournaments, and this January he became the world's top-ranked online tournament player.

Sands sat down with Reason.tv's Ted Balaker to discuss Sand's love of poker and individual liberty, the parallels between marijuana and gambling policy, and the hypocrisy embedded in America's gambling laws. Says Sands, "At the same time they're facilitating lotteries, they're telling us that online poker is a game of chance that we shouldn't be allowed to play."

Natural Born Politicians and Free Speech

Free speech, the enemy of natural born politicians.

Neoconservatives Losing Influence?

Jack Hunter states that conservatives are becoming less enthralled with neoconservative foreign policy.

Do As We Say Not As We Do!

The United Food and Commercial Workers of Nevada pays temporary workers minimum wage to demand fair treatment and wages from Wal-Mart.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Working Stiffed
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Why Libertarian?

John Jay Myers is Running for Congress against Pete Sessions in Texas 32nd District. He is the Vice-Chair of the Dallas County Libertarian Party and he is on the Executive Committee for the Texas Libertarian Party.

Why Libertarian?

by John Jay Myers 9/21/2010

I am asked “Why don’t you run as a Republican? You could do so much good in the Republican Party”. I should not be upset, after all it’s sort of a compliment “they like me, they really like me”! It’s hard to respond, because I don’t feel like knocking any ones attempt at freedom or smaller government.

As a somewhat influential member of the Libertarian Party, some might take exception to my comment “I believe in Principle before Party”. I do believe this, but let me say I also believe the Libertarian Party needs to flourish and become a true option for the American people.

It would be silly for me to tell people that they should not always vote for party and then tell them that they should only vote for mine. However, I would like to take this time to explain the many reasons why I believe people should run, and vote Libertarian.

But My Teacher Says......:

I was forwarded a letter the other day from the Texas Secretary of State, it was an instructional tool for teachers to help them explain to students why we have a two party system.It went on to say that “it helps preserve majority rule in a democratic state.” If you know me, you would understand why this completely gets under my skin. We don’t have a two party system, if you look in the constitution you will not find any mention of having parties whatsoever. I am quick to point out that words majority rule, democratic, democracy, etc are also all not found in the constitution. Not once.

Democracy is the idea that someone can vote themselves things. But the first question is where do things come from? That is where it should hit you, a direct democracy is theft. Legal theft , but not much different than a man with a gun stealing from you. Because if you do not submit to the will of the democracy soon a man with a gun will come and take your stuff, and possibly put you in jail.

A simpler analogy is that Democracy is simply two wolves and a lamb voting on what is for dinner, you can bet that the answer will be lamb chops.

So we actually live in a Republic, the difference is that you have rights. And the government has no power to take them away. This is why we have a constitution so as Thomas Jefferson put it “In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”

I personally do not have any confidence in the man known as a politician except that he is probably a "confidence man" (con-man for you kids out there). Which is why I ask the left and the right, “If we are all so sure the government is corrupt, why be so quick to give them more power”?

When your teacher teaches you that we only have two parties they are robbing you of choice. What you really have is a majority opinion, and no one standing up for the opinion or rights of the minority. Which smells a lot like lamb chops cooking to me.

The Libertarian Party endorses many methods of ending the two party monopoly among them are Ranked Voting or Approval Voting. Either is a step in the right direction from where we are now.

R’s and D’s are opposites?

Let’s play a game:Which side supports the drug war, Iraq, Afghanistan, Patriot Act, Gitmo? If you said Republicans, you would be right, if you said the Democrats, you would be right as well.

Which side supports socialized medicine, bailouts, stimulus, and debt. If you said the Democrats you would be right, and if you said the Republicans, you would be right as well.

Far from being opposites, neither will bring the troops home, restore fiscal responsibility, deal with entitlements, or promote free markets.

You may be starting to see why it is important that we have a strong Libertarian option. Libertarians would have a none of the above approach on all of these issues.

Libertarians are the Party of Principle, the others are Principally Party

America is ripe with Crony Capitalism, Foreign Intervention, Debt and Inflation, Economic Controls, and Ponzi Schemes, yet every election cycle we are led to believe that the major challenges facing us are “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” and Mosques. Well ladies and gentlemen I am here to tell you, we need to focus on those issues that unite us, and stop being divided by the idiocy of the election cycle, it is time to stand up and say “Stop stealing my stuff!”

As long as you remain divided and so full of hate towards one side or the other you will always fail to notice the two major parties slipping out the back with your wallet, your future and your freedoms.

This is where the constitution comes in, and why must return to it, right now the Republicans and the Democrats are constantly giving deals to Big Insurance, Big Pharma, Big Energy, Big Oil, Big Banks, Big Auto, Big Agriculture, Big Education, Big Foreign Aid, Big Religion, Big War.I ask you by what right? By what right can they do this? It is not our governments job to take our stuff and give it to their politically connected friends, it is their job to protect our life, liberty and property. A relatively simple job the current crop of leaders seems completely unable to handle.

If you turn in your constitution to Article 1 Section 8 you will find the 17 enumerated powers of Government, where do you see the power to give our money to any of those industries? It is not. War is actually in there, but we don’t even have an officially declared war going on, we have strayed far from what our founders envisioned and more towards what Eisenhower warned us about, the corruption of the Military Industrial Complex.

But we can change the Republicans...

No, you can’t. God bless ya for trying, we may be able to get a few reasonably good Republicans in there, in my opinion Ron Paul is one of the greatest men in America, I am bias. But, most of the liberty candidates were shot down, and even Rand Paul has had to fly very low on the radar, and either has intentionally toned down his message or is not as much like his father as I had hoped.

But my question is, where do you think all the hardcore neo-con, nanny staters are going to go? They simply are not leaving. Those people who believe we need to outlaw masturbation, and have a constant war with half the world regardless of the cost or the lack of sense that it makes. Those people who believe fiscally conservative is not good enough, they have to tell people how to live their lives, and in some cases die.

They are not leaving the Republican Party, and their influence and power is growing. Christine Odonell didn’t win the primaries because she wants to end the wars, and let people be free. She won because she is a social conservative. Who is willing to say “We should stop spending money, and live within our means” the meaningless mantra's of every shell Republican who can’t figure out that Barack Obama’s health care plan did not double our debt during George Bush’s 8 years in office.

Do you believe these people are just going to disappear? It’s not going to happen the Republicans will always find themselves bitterly divided and that will not work when it comes to spreading liberty. It is a package deal, you can’t just take a little freedom.

Do you want to spend years of your life pounding your head against a brick wall only to find that half the bricks will never break?

The power of being

This year I think we are going to see some very good poll numbers from Libertarians despite the fact that the media ignores us, they don’t allow us in the debates (because we haven’t gotten enough media attention) and for some reason they say we don’t poll that well while we either aren’t included in the polls, or haven’t been mentioned in the media.

But, there is another reason why we should vote and run as Libertarians, because we are right. Because our message is true, we do not have to sacrifice some of our policies in order to appeal to a hard core wing of our party, we do not have to soft sell the message. The message is freedom, and when we start turning in numbers from 10-20% we just may see that the Democrats and the Republicans who are two sides to the same coin, just might start thinking a little more libertarian. Which to me would be a small victory on the way to major party status.

It is however very important that Libertarians stay true to the message of Less Government and More Freedom, and stand strong behind Social and Fiscal freedoms, including ending the wars, and religious freedom.............and tolerance.

Lastly....some say "but I am an Independent!"

No you are not, you are dependent, you are dependent on the two major parties to come up with a candidate that you are going to vote for. But as we have already shown, both sides are the same. Who is going to get the candidate that shares your belief on the ballot? Now is the time to support a party that most represents you, but to think “the two parties got us into this mess and I am done with parties”..... no you are not. Because you still only have those two.

If those people only knew how hard it is to achieve and maintain ballot access for anyone but the two major parties, they would be begging to help. Libertarians work very hard to get on the ballot especially considering we get no donations from major corporations because when elected they know we would not give them anything.

For those people who say they are independent I say, sorry, you are very dependent. If you don’t help a third party, any third party for that matter, you will always be.

For more information go to http://www.johnjaymyers.com/

Another New Bureau to Serve Big Special Interests

From Texas Congressman Ron Paul:

Are Consumers Finally Winning in Washington?

This past week the administration announced its choice for the first credit czar at the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. This bureau was created as part of the supposed Wall Street reform bill recently passed by Congress. This new bureau, which represents nothing more than another layer of useless Washington bureaucracy, will be housed within the Federal Reserve-- one of the most anti-consumer institutions in Washington.

The appointee named to run the bureau is an Ivy League professor. By her own admission she is an academic, not a business person. She has very little real world business experience with the highly complex financial instruments she will oversee. The administration has done nothing to refute her characterization by some in the financial press as an anti-business, ivory tower leftist with an aversion to free market principles.

She also admits to being told, or warned, that the big banks always win in Washington - yet she trumpeted the creation of this new agency as a win against those banks. I would caution her against declaring victory too soon.

Outrageously, she has been appointed as a “special advisor” to design and lead the bureau, but the administration has not disclosed the exact length of her term. There will be no Senate confirmation hearings, nor will the public or the financial industry be allowed to comment on her appointment. We simply are expected to accept the appointment of an enormously powerful regulator without question, and without regard to the constitutional requirement that the Senate advise and consent with regard to her appointment. This means you, as a voter and citizen, effectively have no say whatsoever for the duration of her appointment. In the meantime, she has unprecedented new powers over private business decisions.

The truth is that this new bureau is just more of the same ineffective and damaging regulation we typically get from a crisis. Just as the FDA serves big pharmaceutical companies, not patients, and just as the SEC serves Wall Street, not investors, this agency will end up serving the banks. All regulatory agencies eventually become co-opted by the industries they regulate, and they become chiefly concerned with restricting the entry of new competitors and protecting market share for the big players. This new bureau is not likely to straighten out Wall Street, so much as it will instill a false sense of security in the public about banking and investing again.

No bureaucrat, no federal agency, and no ivory tower academic can replace the regulatory powers of the free market. “Caveat emptor” remains the rule for intelligent investors and depositors. Buyers always need to beware, especially when politicians say they have it all under control.

Real reform starts with transparency and an adherence to the rule of law. The administration would do well to adhere to the law, rather than shoving a new economic czar down our throats without congressional involvement. Real reform would mean taking steps toward restoring sound money and getting back to the Constitution. The Constitution does not allow for favors to special interests, or handing out public money to keep private businesses afloat. The Constitution necessitates a small, impartial government that first and foremost, protects liberty, and sees all citizens as equal. It does not recognize a special banking class. The fact that measures to achieve these ends are still quashed tells me that indeed, the banks do still win in Washington.

Homeschooling

Free Talk Live talks to Tracy Ward about homeschooling:

End of Summer Drive

Summer is coming to an end and I haven't posted a music video in awhile, so time for an end of summer Drive with Cars.



Drive Live:

Imagine If We Did Nothing!!!!

Jack Hunter comments on the bipartisan use of fear by politicians.

Hunter makes a great point to counter all the neocon bluster about the dangers of Islam. The point being if Islam is inherently dangerous to the US, why didn't we have any problems with Islamic Terrorists in the 40's, 50's and 60's. Hunter points out that we didn't interfere in the Middle East in those years to anywhere the extent we do now.

Baghdad Lindsey

Jack Hunter comments on Lindsey Graham's inability to get in touch with reality on the Iraq War and US Foreign Policy.

The War for Terror

Jack Hunter comments on how US policy is really a war for terror. Hunter also correctly states that we have lost the war on terror due to our insane actions since 911.

The Key to Surviving a Nuclear Holocaust? Good Housekeeping!!!

A US government propaganda film from the 50's showing that the key to surviving a nuclear holocaust is good housekeeping!! Yeah right.

Obama is Pro-war

From the Libertarian Party:

Libertarians: Obama is shockingly pro-war

WASHINGTON - Following President Obama's "end of our combat mission" speech, Libertarian Party chairman Mark Hinkle released this statement:

"President Obama needs to stop lying. In his speech, he repeated the ridiculous and false claim that the U.S. combat mission is over in Iraq. He seems to think that if he keeps talking about the war in a nice way, then the war isn't really happening.

"Unfortunately, even though President Obama is the one person on Earth with the authority to withdraw the U.S. military from Iraq, he has chosen instead to keep over 50,000 troops there, risking their lives, and bleeding American taxpayers.

"The Republicans in Congress are just as bad. They have consistently failed to own up to the terrible financial impact of these wars, all the while claiming that they want to cut government. They want to nit-pick Obama's past statements about the war, but in fact they should be showering him with praise for doing exactly what they want.

"This war has been a shameful failure from the beginning. But even if the U.S. military could impose a sustainable modern democracy on Iraq, it would in no way be worth the hundreds of billions of dollars, and thousands of American lives, lost in the process. The Bush-Obama War in Iraq has done nothing to safeguard the rights of Americans -- on the contrary, it has probably made Americans less safe, and certainly poorer.

"The purpose of the U.S. armed forces is to defend the territory of the United States, not to re-engineer foreign societies.

"Contrary to his rhetoric before being elected, the president has proven himself to be shockingly pro-war. In addition to sustaining the American war presence in Iraq, he has greatly escalated the War in Afghanistan. Just like his predecessor, Obama believes that government force is the answer to everything."

The Libertarian Party platform states under "3.3 International Affairs": "American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world. Our foreign policy should emphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid."

For more information, or to arrange an interview, call LP Executive Director Wes Benedict at 202-333-0008 ext. 222.

The LP is America's third-largest political party, founded in 1971. The Libertarian Party stands for free markets and civil liberties. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party at our website.

Obama Lies, Americans Die

Ron Paul discusses the disasters in Iraq and Afghanistan and how Obama is deceiving the public by saying America's combat role has ended in Iraq.




More from Ron Paul:

The President’s announcement that all U.S. combat troops have left Iraq is no more believable than the ‘Mission Accomplished’ declaration was in 2003. Once again, we are being told the mission has been accomplished and our brave men and women are coming back home. Though the people are hopeful they remain skeptical, and rightfully so.

The biggest problem is that success in Iraq is undefinable since the mission was never defined. The reasons given for the invasion were based on misinformation. Now, the war has cost us hundreds of billions of dollars and this has contributed significantly to our economic woes.

Forty-four hundred Americans are dead, thirty thousand severely wounded, and more than a hundred thousand are suffering from serious health problems related to Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome. This alone should tell us that it was not worth the investment and the needless sacrifice of our young people and the taxpayers.


It is deceitful to imply we will avoid hostilities with this new policy. We still have to contend with:

–the 50,000 troops carrying weapons remain in Iraq

–the 100,000 contractors that remain, with more expected to go to Iraq

–the 9,000 special ops personnel trained in assassinations that remain in Iraq

–a huge embassy, bigger than the Vatican, that will remain

–dozens of military bases that will stay

–the al Qaeda organizations that did not exist in Iraq before the war

–Muqtada al Sadr, a strong nationalist, has gained much political power

–the fact that Iran benefits tremendously with the Shiites now in power in Iraq and is a close ally of al Sadr

Osama bin Laden wins by ‘proving’ that America has an agenda of occupation in the Middle East. And, we continue to walk into his trap and hand him up his best recruitment tool in his efforts to incite hatred and terrorism against the United States.

What’s worse, President Obama made it clear last night that the troops and resources leaving Iraq will not come home to defend our country or ease our economic woes. They will instead be diverted to Afghanistan, perhaps also Pakistan and, I fear, even Iran.

From my viewpoint we are the losers in this fool’s errand of endless war. Tragically, this new policy is not one of peace but merely a charade that will severely undermine our national security and continue us down the path to bankruptcy—a threat that we best not long ignore.

Mission Accomplished Part II: Obama's Turn

Texas Congressman Ron Paul comment on Obama's version of Mission Accomplished:

Iraq - An End or an Escalation?

Amid much fanfare last week, the last supposed “combat” troops left Iraq as the administration touted the beginning of the end of the Iraq War and a change in the role of the United States in that country. Considering the continued public frustration with the war effort, and with the growing laundry list of broken promises, this was merely another one of the administration’s operations in political maneuvering and semantics in order to convince an increasingly war-weary public that the Iraq War is at last ending. However, military officials confirm that we are committed to intervention in that country for years to come, and our operations have in fact, changed minimally, if really at all.

After eight long draining years, I have to wonder if our government even understands what it is to end a war anymore. The end of a war, to most people, means all the troops come home, out of harm’s way. It means we stop killing people and getting killed. It means we stop sending troops and armed personnel over and draining our treasury for military operations in that foreign land. But much like the infamous “mission accomplished” moment of the last administration, this “end” of the war also means none of those things.

50,000 US troops remain in Iraq, and they are still receiving combat pay. One soldier was killed in Basra just last Sunday, after the supposed end of combat operations, and the same day 5,000 men and women of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment at Fort Hood were deployed to Iraq. Their mission will be anything but desk duty. Among other things they will accompany the Iraqi military on dangerous patrols, continue to be involved in the hunt for terrorists, and provide air support for the Iraqi military. They should be receiving combat pay, because they will be serving a combat role!

Of course the number of private contractors - who perform many of the same roles as troops, but for a lot more money - is expected to double. So this is a funny way of ending combat operations in Iraq. We are still meddling in their affairs and we are still putting our men and women in danger, and we are still spending money we don’t have. This looks more like an escalation than a draw-down to me!

The ongoing war in Iraq takes place against a backdrop of economic crisis at home, as fresh numbers indicate that our economic situation is as bad as ever, and getting worse! Our foreign policy is based on an illusion: that we are actually paying for it. What we are doing is borrowing and printing the money to maintain our presence overseas. Americans are seeing the cost of this irresponsible approach as our economic decline continues. Unemployed Americans have been questioning a policy that ships hundreds of billions of dollars overseas while their own communities crumble and their frustration is growing. An end to this type of foreign policy is way overdue.

A return to the traditional American foreign policy of active private engagement and non-interventionism is the only alternative that can restore our moral and fiscal health.