No, the Other Palin for President

On the other hand, I think this video says it all when it comes to Palin and the Presidency.



read more | digg story

Unless it's covered in this video, that is.




read more | digg story

I know it's a parody because the Hillary character is, in fact, funny. Megalomaniacs generally aren't people that I find amusing. On the other hand, I laugh at people who believe the same things Sarah Palin does, pretty much every day. They're always funny. Until people vote for them, that is.

Majority Support Libertarian Inclusion in Debates

Open Debates issued this press release today.

MAJORITY OF VOTERS SUPPORT INCLUSION OF THIRD PARTY CANDIDATE BOB BARR IN DEBATES

For Immediate Release

September 5, 2008

Contact: George Farah

Washington, D.C. – The majority of likely voters support the inclusion of Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr in the 2008 presidential debates.

A Zogby poll has found that 55% of likely voters want to see former Congressman Bob Barr participate in the upcoming presidential debates with Republican nominee John McCain and Democratic nominee Barack Obama. The Zogby also poll found that 45% of likely voters supported the inclusion of independent candidate Ralph Nader in the presidential debates. However, despite support from a majority of likely voters for Bob Barr's inclusion, Barr will be excluded from the presidential debates. The Commission on Presidential Debates, a creation of the Republican and Democratic parties, established candidate selection criteria that ensure that only the major party candidates will be eligible to participate in the debates.

“The Commission on Presidential Debates should serve the interests of the American people, not the interests of the two major parties,” said George Farah, executive director of Open Debates. “The Commission on Presidential Debates should include candidates that a majority of Americans want to see participate in the debates.”

The Commission on Presidential Debates was created by and for the Republican and Democratic Parties. In 1986, the Republican and Democratic National Committees ratified an agreement “to take over the presidential debates” from the League of Women Voters. Fifteen months later, then-Republican Party chair Frank Fahrenkopf and then-Democratic Party chair Paul Kirk incorporated the Commission on Presidential Debates. Fahrenkopf and Kirk still co-chair the Commission on Presidential Debates, and every four years, it excludes candidates that most voters want to see debate.

read more | digg story
I don't think enough can be said about this subject. Pundits talk endlessly, day in and day out, about The Will of the People. Shall we disregard the will of the people on this subject, then?

How can there be informed consent, or free and fair elections, when the true breadth of opinion on politics is excluded from open debate?

Ron Paul Statement to the National Press Club

Ron Paul held a news conference today at the National Press Club. Sixty percent of the American people do not approve of either of the two major party candidates, in part because;
We cannot expect withdrawal of troops from Iraq or the Middle East with either of the two major candidates. Expect continued involvement in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Georgia. Neither hints of a non-interventionist foreign policy. Do not expect to hear the rejection of the policy of supporting the American world empire. There will be no emphasis in protecting privacy and civil liberties and the constant surveillance of the American people. Do not expect any serious attempt to curtail the rapidly expanding national debt. And certainly, there will be no hint of addressing the Federal Reserve System and its cozy relationship with big banks and international corporations and the politicians.

read more | digg story
His advice? vote for a "third party" candidate. All of the candidates (except the major ones) agreed to the following four principles as part of being mentioned by name by Ron Paul in his speech;
Foreign Policy: The Iraq War must end as quickly as possible with removal of all our soldiers from the region. We must initiate the return of our soldiers from around the world, including Korea, Japan, Europe and the entire Middle East. We must cease the war propaganda, threats of a blockade and plans for attacks on Iran, nor should we re-ignite the cold war with Russia over Georgia. We must be willing to talk to all countries and offer friendship and trade and travel to all who are willing. We must take off the table the threat of a nuclear first strike against all nations.

Privacy: We must protect the privacy and civil liberties of all persons under US jurisdiction. We must repeal or radically change the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the FISA legislation. We must reject the notion and practice of torture, eliminations of habeas corpus, secret tribunals, and secret prisons. We must deny immunity for corporations that spy willingly on the people for the benefit of the government. We must reject the unitary presidency, the illegal use of signing statements and excessive use of executive orders.

The National Debt: We believe that there should be no increase in the national debt. The burden of debt placed on the next generation is unjust and already threatening our economy and the value of our dollar. We must pay our bills as we go along and not unfairly place this burden on a future generation.

The Federal Reserve: We seek a thorough investigation, evaluation and audit of the Federal Reserve System and its cozy relationships with the banking, corporate, and other financial institutions. The arbitrary power to create money and credit out of thin air behind closed doors for the benefit of commercial interests must be ended. There should be no taxpayer bailouts of corporations and no corporate subsidies. Corporations should be aggressively prosecuted for their crimes and frauds.
Reads like an essential list of principles to me. Based on this list, even I would vote for Ralph Nader. But I'm still pulling the lever marked "L" and voting for all the Libertarian candidates, just as I have done for the last 16 years.

Here's Ron Paul on the Glenn Beck show discussing the substance of the news conference;



He was also on Wolf Blitzer. You can watch that one on the Campaign for Liberty site, I'm not posting it here. I found Blitzer's wheedling of both Dr. Paul and Ralph Nader (trying to get them to admit they want to ruin the election for Obama) to be so transparent as to be disgusting. May the ghost of Edward R. Murrow haunt you for the remainder of your (limited) days, Mr Blitzer. Yellow journalism doesn't begin to describe your function in life. You are no more, and no less than a common propagandist; and of which you are nothing in comparison to Ol' Joey himself.

It's being reported that C-Span will have the conference available on the website after it airs.

I think it's a good sign that the so called "third parties" have come together to present a united opposition to the sham that is the US election cycle. If only one of them could be elected instead of one of the Mc-bamas.

My money is still on the guy with the better teeth and hair. Not that I think he'll do a good job, I just think Americans are really that shallow when it comes right down to it.



The Raw Story has a video clip from CNN of the News Conference. It is also available as a purchase from C-span, or you can watch it in 9 segments on the Campaign for Liberty Channel on YouTube. Here's the first segment:

Glen Beck, Penn Jillette on Election

I'll avoid going through the blow by blow, and just give you the video.



read more | digg story

I don't watch Glen Beck (his views on American military adventurism scare the hell out of me) but it's interviews like this one that make me wish I did. He at least will interview known libertarians, and even lets them say words like 'anarcho-capitalism' on TV without censoring them.

If you want more Penn, you should check out his Crackle channel.