Tuesday, October 30, 2007

Thank you, Jay Leno!

Thank you, Jay Leno for having Ron Paul on your show, and being gracious and polite to him and letting him talk.

Rock on, Dr. Paul! Well done, sir!

It was great. Best line from Dr. Paul: "there's probably a risk I could win"

Sphere: Related Content

Are Senate Offices Lying To You?

-- Some are claiming there is no Veterans Disarmament Act!

Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place Suite 102
Springfield VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408


Please use the Take Action feature at the bottom of this alert to send your Senators a pre-written letter asking them to read the Veterans Disarmament Act for themselves. They must be urged to read the ENTIRE BILL, not just a few lines here and there. They dare not vote for this bill without having read the text -- and the underlying law and regulations -- for themselves! This alert will address some of the most frequently misunderstood points about the Veterans Disarmament Act and give you the material you need to set your Senators straight.

Friday, October 26, 2007

It's either an enormous bald-faced lie, or it's ignorance at its worst. But then again, whether it's deception or just plain ignorance ... either scenario is found quite commonly on Capitol Hill.

Some senate offices are telling people the Leahy-Schumer bill is only a bill about "school safety" and not a bill about disarming veterans.

"This is not a Veterans Disarmament Act," some offices have told GOA staff. "The bill doesn't say anything about veterans." And one particular office -- that of Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah -- is selectively quoting provisions in the bill to justify his support for the Veterans Disarmament Act.

These arguments have been repeated in different places and at different times. There is even a military website where a broadcast journalist makes the same outlandish claim that, "There is no such thing as the 'Veterans Disarmament Act.'"

But just like journalists shouldn't attempt brain surgery, neither should they try to understand difficult pieces of legislation without an intimate knowledge of the federal code and regulations which are referenced in those bills.

After all, it takes more digging than just doing a word search for the word "veteran" to understand there are dangers hidden in the McCarthy-Schumer bill which would ban hundreds of thousands of military veterans from owning guns. While it's not surprising that a journalist would fail to do this kind of homework, it is surprising that congressional offices would use such an amateurish argument to deflect criticism of a bill.

Of course, the bill doesn't say "Veterans Disarmament Act." (That's a phrase that was coined by Gun Owners of America.) Does anyone really think that Schumer & Co. are going to tell us that their true intentions are to disarm veterans! Heck no. They call it a "school safety" bill, when the real goal of their measure is to disarm gun owners and veterans around the country. The history of legislation in the 20th Century has taught us that legislation -- if not carefully crafted -- can be easily twisted and abused. Remember how the RICO Act, originally enacted to help combat the Mafia, was later used to crack down on peaceful pro-life protesters?

And who would have thought, when the original Brady law was passed in 1993, that it would be used to keep people with outstanding traffic tickets from buying guns... or couples with marriage problems from buying guns... or military vets with nightmares from buying guns?

Those who want to claim that there is no "Veterans Disarmament Act" ignore, first of all, that up to 140,000 veterans have ALREADY BEEN DISARMED by using twisted interpretations of the federal code! That figure was released on August 1 by Congress' own research team -- the Congressional Research Service.

Furthermore, the so-called "school safety" bill that Senators Patrick Leahy and Chuck Schumer are pushing would LEGITIMIZE the very practice that began with President Clinton, when his administration began adding military vets onto the NICS roles. (The bill is numbered H.R. 2640 in the House and S. 2084 in the Senate.)

The Veterans Disarmament Act *Does Change* Federal Law

The fact is, this legislation rubber-stamps regulations that have been issued by the BATFE over the years. The net result is that Section 203(2) of S. 2084 ends up outlawing guns for millions of people (including veterans) who are not "currently prohibited" from owning guns.

You can go to http://www.gunowners.org/ne07013.htm to see in greater detail how these regulations will drive the implementation of the Veterans Disarmament Act.

The bottom line is that this bill will ban a person from owning guns because he or she was merely diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, Alzheimer's, ADHD or bipolar disorder by a government psychologist or psychiatrist in the VA, Medicare, or the IDEA program. This is because the Veterans Disarmament Act will CODIFY regulations that BATFE has issued. (Again, see the URL above for more details.)

False Attempts At Defending The Veterans Gun Ban

Nevertheless, those who merely do word searches for "veteran" -- and thus conclude a bill has nothing to say about veterans -- try to defend what the Clinton administration did. Take Senator Hatch. He says, the Veterans Disarmament Act specifically excludes "any finding of mental illness that consists only of a medical diagnoses [sic] from being included in the NICS."

What Hatch is doing is quoting (or referencing) half a sentence in the bill to make the supposed argument that veterans who are only suffering from PTSD will not fall prey to the gun ban, since they are only subject to a "medical finding of disability."

This is a partial quote from Section 211(c)(1)(C) of S. 2084, which is duplicated in the House bill. But to say this -- that people can't lose their gun rights based solely on a "medical finding of disability" -- is to engage in an outright fraud... because the rest of the sentence in the bill says that they can be added into the NICS system if they represent a miniscule danger to themselves or others or are unable to handle their own affairs.

The legislation states that a person can't lose their gun rights "based solely on a medical finding of disability, WITHOUT A FINDING THAT THE PERSON IS A DANGER TO HIMSELF OR TO OTHERS." (Emphasis added.) You see that? What little freedom is protected with the one hand, is destroyed with the other. What government shrink isn't going to say that a person suffering from PTSD is a potential danger -- even a teensy, weensy danger -- to himself or others?

A BATFE letter from May 9 of this year indicates that this danger does not have to be a substantial threat; it can be just a MINISCULE danger. (This letter can be read on the GOA website at the URL below.)

Yes, this gets slightly technical. But it helps to actually read entire sentences in the bill, rather than to selectively quote a passage here or there; and it especially helps to read the underlying federal code and regulations.

That's why Gun Owners of America has posted the entire bill -- and a scholarly point-by-point analysis of the Veterans Disarmament Act -- on its website. By going to http://www.gunowners.org/netb.htm and reading this information for yourself, you can stay informed on the very real threat posed by this legislation.

When you read through this section, you will understand why the American Legion and the Military Order Of The Purple Heart have both opposed this bill. You will also see the PDF copies of their two letters of opposition, and see Sen. Tom Coburn's letter which GOA reported on last week. Sen. Coburn sent his letter to Veterans Affairs and asked them to explain how they plan to prevent even more veterans from being disarmed without due process.

Earlier this week, USA Today stated that veterans are seeking mental health treatment in increasing numbers... by an almost 70% jump in a recent 12-month period. Can you see why Senator Chuck Schumer and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy want this legislation so bad? Hundreds of thousands of veterans are going to be unknowingly sucked into the gun control dragnet.

This is outrageous and is why your Senators need to keep hearing from you on this issue.

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, October 29, 2007

Sufferin' Succotash

1 large Onion, diced
1 large Ripe tomato, diced
1 can Corn niblets (drain if preferred)
1 can Black beans (drain if preferred)
Vegetable oil or butter for sauteeing onions & tomatoes
Aji amarillo paste or your favorite hot sauce or chile peppers, to taste

(note: neither my wife nor I believe in suffering. We don't promote or condone suffering in any way, shape, or form. We are firmly committed to living well. It was just a fun name for this quick & easy dish) Sautee diced onions in oil or butter 'til done to your taste. Add diced tomatoes & sautee a little longer. Add corn, black beans, and chile, mix well, and sautee 'til done. This recipe is quick, easy, tasty, cheap, and great by itself or over rice. Enjoy!

Sphere: Related Content


STEALTH AMNESTY ATTEMPT– Sen. Durbin Hopes Americans Sleep Through DREAM ACT!
September 26, 2007

Action Alert! Action Alert!

APC is now offering you a quick and easy way to multiply your efforts and help win more battles! Simply click to send this APC Action Alert to up to TEN of your friends! It’s fast, it’s easy, and most of all, it’s extremely effective in KILLING LEFTIST POLICIES!

The open-borders Axis of Evil is back at work in the U.S. Senate trying to sneak "immigration reform" by the American public, hoping you’re not watching. Senator Durbin (D-IL), Majority Whip, plans to attach Senator Kennedy’s DREAM Act as an amendment to the 2008 Department of Defense authorization bill. The DREAM Act is a massive amnesty "for the children" - those millions who illegally entered the United States as children under the age of 16. Do not be fooled! This is a sweeping amnesty for untold millions of illegals. It also grants eligibility for federal student loans and federal work-study programs, encourages law-breaking invaders to join our military, and invites, and in fact rewards, states that defy federal immigration laws, challenging the very foundation of our republic. The DREAM Act must be put to sleep! You must take immediate, aggressive action to ensure the Senate kills this very dangerous legislation!

Under the DREAM Act, any illegal who applies for this amnesty is immediately given "conditional" lawful permanent residence (green card) status, valid for six years. This can be easily converted to non-conditional status, allowing aliens to then seek green cards for the parents who brought them illegally to the U.S., thus providing backdoor amnesty for potentially many tens of millions of illegals who brought their children with them into the U.S.

Any illegal alien can claim eligibility; there are no particular documents required. The DREAM Act has no upper age limit, no set time period during which the alien must have entered the United States, and basically allows just about any illegal alien to evade the law. Absurdly, whether or not an application is valid, the federal government will be prohibited from deporting any illegal alien who files an application, and may not share information from that application with another federal agency (think IRS, DHS, FBI, etc.)!

Beyond amnesty, the DREAM Act also makes invader aliens eligible for federal student loans and federal work-study programs. They will even have the option of serving a two-year hitch in the armed forces of the United States in order to convert to non-conditional permanent resident status. Can you imagine, potentially tens of thousands of non-English speaking invaders swelling the ranks of our nation’s defense forces? Just what is Senator Durbin thinking?

Of equal concern, the DREAM Act provides in-state college tuition rates, nationwide, to illegal aliens. This is shockingly bad public policy, amounting to forcing American taxpayers to pay for the college education of invading aliens! This is outrageous, and an especially nasty slap in the faces of those Americans who struggle to, or simply cannot, afford to put their own children through college. At a time when tuition rates are raising the roof, this expense would be staggering and uncontainable. According to an article (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/bg2069.cfm) written by Kris W. Kobach, Professor of Law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City and a Visiting Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, California alone "pays more than $100 million annually to subsidize the college education of thousands of illegal aliens," in violation of federal law.

A 1996 federal law prohibits any state from offering in-state tuition rates to illegals unless that state also offers such rates to any U.S. citizen. Yet 10 states entice alien nationals to violate federal immigration law, gifting them with lower tuition rates than those available to out-of-state U.S. citizens and law-abiding foreign students.

The DREAM Act would sponsor state-subsidized lawbreaking. Currently, 10 states (California, Illinois, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, and Washington) have passed laws (mostly under cover of darkness to avoid strong public opposition) that offer in-state tuition rates to invading aliens, in willful disregard of Congress and the U.S. Constitution. The DREAM Act offers these 10 states a pardon by retroactively repealing the 1996 federal law these states violated; in essence, the 1996 law would be as if it never existed.

I’m certain you remember all the pundits just three short months ago who assured you immigration reform was a dead issue (at least until after the 2008 presidential election). What a crock! The "grand amnesty" may have failed, but the push is on to achieve it piecemeal. Anyone who understands President Bush’s agenda for continental integration (and then hemispheric, and then global – but I digress) knows this issue will not die… at least until after the 2008 presidential election, and quite probably not for a number of years after that.

Please – you cannot allow yourselves to be discouraged. Open-border groups, stung by your June victory, are mobilized, reportedly financed by open-border billionaires, and determined to generate more faxes and phone calls than you can. But remember, there are a whole lot more of us than them. Show your own determination! It’s time to show these mutts what Americans are made of. These criminal invaders want to steal your national home, your tax dollars, your children’s education, and your livelihoods. You should be mad as Hell! And you better leave NO DOUBT in your Senator’s mind how s/he must vote on this issue.

It appears many of the Senators who voted against Comprehensive Immigration Reform last June now favor the DREAM Act Amnesty. In fact, Roy Beck (www.NumbersUSA.com) states his Capitol Hill Team cannot identify one Senator that it can guarantee will vote against the DREAM Act Amnesty this week! You must press the Senate hard! If the DREAM Act passes your elected "representatives" will be emboldened to push other amnesty measures later this fall. The DREAM Act must be put to sleep!


Call Senator Durbin’s office.
Call both of your state’s Senators.
Call the Majority Leader, Senator Reid.
Call the Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121. A switchboard operator will connect you directly with the Senate office you request. You do not have time to write them a letter, as the vote is expected this week. And Senators may change their fax numbers and email addresses, so call them.

Tell them all - - - NO AMNESTY, NO WAY!

No SKIL Act!
No AgJOBS Act!
No Amnesty or Expedited Paths to Citizenship of any kind!
No taxpayer funded federal student loans for illegal invaders!
No taxpayer funded federal work-study programs for illegal invaders!
No illegal invaders in our armed forces!
No rewards for illegal behavior!

D THIS MESSAGE TO AT LEAST TEN MORE PEOPLE! APC is now offering you a quick and easy way to multiply your efforts and help win more battles! Simply click http://www.referralblast.com/rblast.asp?sid=5906 to send this APC Action Alert to up to TEN of your friends! It’s fast, it’s easy and most of all, it’s extremely effective in KILLING OPPRESSIVE POLICIES!

Sphere: Related Content

Exposing the Hand of TxDot

From American Policy Center:

Exposing the Hand of TxDot

Some of the very best information on how the Trans Texas Corridor is being forced on the people of that state comes from an organization called Corridor Watch. Their revelations and early call to arms was instrumental in forcing the Texas Legislature to finally recognize there was really an effort to create a NAFTA Super Corridor straight through Texas.

Here are just a few of the details Corridor Watch has exposed on their web site www.corridorwatch.org:

The Trans Texas Corridor (TTC) will be a quarter of a mile wide. It will travel straight up the center of Texas. It will take by Eminent Domain more than 580 thousand acres of private land, much of it prime Texas farmland. It will displace more than one million Texans.

The full plan for the TTC by the Texas Transportation Commission (TxDot) outlines 4,000 miles of corridors that crisscross the state. The corridor is so wide that it will literally divide the state in two. There are very few plans for overpasses to cross it, yet it will be impossible to cross without them. The TxDOT has basically told local communities that if they want overpasses, then the communities will have to supply them – at an estimated cost of about $2.5 million each. Without the overpasses fire, police and ambulances will not be able to serve their communities. Property owners may find it cuts down the middle of their land. To get from one side to the other they may have to travel many miles to an overpass.

The TTC is not highway improvement for Texas. There are few exit ramps planned for the TTC. Car lanes will be in the center of the corridor. There will be few opportunities to get on and off the TTC. Communities that how depend on traffic from existing highways for such services as restaurants and gas stations will lose that business. Instead, the Spanish company Cintra, which has the 50-year lease to build and operate the TTC will establish facilities down the center of the corridor and control that business.

The key to the lease with Cintra is a legal document called a "Comprehensive Development Agreement" (CDA). These contracts often include equity guarantees, debt guarantees, exchange rate guarantees, subordinated loans, shadow toll payments, and minimum revenue guarantees. In other words, the state has signed a 50-year lease with Cintra, giving it absolute guarantees of a specific rate of return on its investment. TxDoT is turning over assets paid for by the taxpayers of Texas and guaranteeing that no highway will compete in any way with the TTC. To achieve these revenue guarantees, there is no way for the Texas government to control what Cintra charges for tolls and there will be no alternative route for drivers to take if the tolls are too high.

The TTC is being built for one reason and only one reason – massive profits for corporations who want the highway to run goods as cheaply as possible. Once built there will be no chance for anyone or any community in its path to obtain justice for taken property or reduce toll rates. Local courts will have no say in the matter. All disputes will be handled by an International court system either through NAFTA or the SPP.

These are just some of the facts Corridor Watch has been able to expose to the people of Texas. Revelation of these facts has caused an uproar in the grassroots and in the Texas Legislature.

See also: The Chronological History for the Establishment of the North American Union

Sphere: Related Content

Sunday, October 28, 2007

Hurricane Box Salad

Why is this called 'Hurricane Box Salad'? Because we lived in Florida and kept hurricane supplies, including canned food like asparagus and hearts of palm, in a big box. Every year we would eat up the cans from the previous year, and one year I invented this salad.

‘Hurricane Box’ salad

1 can asparagus, drained & chopped
1 can hearts of palm, drained & chopped
1 cup finely chopped raw onion
1 cup finely chopped raw celery
1 cup dry-roasted shelled pistachios
1 tsp chopped roasted garlic
Vinaigrette (or whatever your favorite) salad dressing to consistency
Chop asparagus & palm hearts and mix all the ingredients.

Corn/Artichoke/Palm salad
1 can corn niblets
1 can quartered artichoke hearts, drained & chopped
1 can hearts of palm, drained & chopped
2 tbsp tahini (sesame seed paste)
2 tbsp olive oil
2 tbsp toasted sesame oil
1 tbsp lime juice
1 tbsp flax seeds
1 tbsp sesame seeds
1 tsp chopped roasted garlic
1 tsp celery seeds
1 tsp caraway seeds
Fresh ground black pepper to taste
Chop the artichoke and palm hearts and mix all the ingredients.

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, October 25, 2007

Abuse of Veterans' Rights

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408

Thursday, October 18, 2007

Senator Tom Coburn isn't going to go away quietly. As you know from previous GOA alerts, the Republican Senator from Oklahoma has placed a hold on the noxious legislation that is being pushed by Senator Chuck Schumer of New York.

Because of his actions, the Veterans Disarmament Act (HR 2640 and S2084) has been stalled in the Senate for a few weeks. But not content to remain silent, Sen. Coburn sent a pointed letter to the Department of Veterans Affairs, asking them to justify their actions.

Coburn states in his letter that the Veterans Affairs continues to send the names of "approximately 1,000 additional veterans" to the Department of Justice every month. According to the Congressional Research Service, Coburn says, this has resulted in "approximately 140,000 Veterans" being added into the NICS background check system.

"This situation is concerning to me," he continues, "as the vast majority of these veterans have committed no crime." Coburn correctly notes that if these veterans should continue to own a firearm, they could "unknowingly be in violation" of federal law.

Interestingly, Coburn notes that the VA gun ban for veterans is not based on their being a "danger to him/herself or others" but rather that they supposedly can't manage their own financial affairs.

Coburn ends his letter with a very pointed request: "I respectfully request that you share with me your plans to prevent the release of more veterans' names without due process."

That's the key: these brave souls are being denied their gun rights WITHOUT DUE PROCESS. Some have claimed that this bill would provide relief for those who are being unjustly denied. Of course, this is very questionable since Congress has, since 1993, defunded the ability of the BATFE to restore the rights of veterans and other victims of gun control. (This is the result of a Chuck Schumer amendment.)

Certainly, GOA would support avenues to provide relief. But the Veterans Disarmament Act is not the vehicle to do this, since the bill actually CHANGES federal law to LEGALLY BAN those 140,000 veterans from owning firearms. (1) Once the bill is enacted and those veterans and other Americans are LEGALLY DISARMED, the bill
then provides some limited avenues for pursuing relief -- although Americans will face an uphill battle as they will have to spend tens of thousands of dollars pressing their case in court where THEY WILL HAVE THE BURDEN of proving their innocence.

Even if these expensive court battles prove s uccessful, they are still not guaranteed to get their gun rights back. Sen. Schumer can simply offer another amendment which prevents the FBI from removing names from the NICS system, just as his 1993 amendment still defunds the ability of the federal government to grant relief TO THIS DAY.

Sarah Brady Is Lobbying Hard For The McCarthy-Schumer Bill

It's no wonder that the Brady Bunch is plugging so hard for this bill. Several news agencies have stated that passage of this bill would represent the "first major gun control law in more than a decade". (2)

Sarah Brady wants this bill bad. Her organization led a bunch of Virginia Tech survivors to Chuck Schumer's office this week to get media attention in favor of the Veterans Disarmament Act.

And she sent out an e-mail last week urging members to donate to her organization, thus helping to get the McCarthy-Schumer bill passed. "In July, the U.S. House of Representatives took a courageous first step to keep guns out of the wrong hands by passing HR 2640, the NICS Improvement Act," Brady said. "The Brady Campaign is working full force to convince the U.S. Senate to pass this bill immediately."

Those who would disarm us are working hard to diminish your rights.
Have you written your Senators recently?


(1) See GOA's extensive write-up on the Veterans Disarmament Act. By going to http://www.gunowners.org/netb.htm on the GOA website, one can read an analysis of the bill, plus see what others are saying about it as well.
(2) "NRA, Democrats Team Up To Pass Gun Bill", CBSNews.com, June 13,
2007; and "House Tempers Background Checks for Guns," Associated Press, June 14, 2007.

ACTION: Please use the letter below to contact your Senators and urge them to join Sen. Coburn in putting a hold on the Veterans Disarmament Act. You can use the pre-written message below and send it as an e-mail by visiting the GOA Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm (where phone and fax numbers
are also available).

----- Pre-written letter -----

Dear Senator:

I urge you to OPPOSE the efforts of the Brady Campaign. This organization, led by Sarah Brady, is PLUGGING HARD for the Veterans Disarmament Act which has been opposed by the American Legion and the Military Order of the Purple Heart.

Have you told Senator Tom Coburn yet that you will join him in putting a hold on this legislation (HR 2640 and S 2084) which is being actively pushed by one of the most anti-Second Amendment legislators in the entire Congress -- Senator Chuck Schumer?

If you have not yet added your name and placed a hold on this noxious
bill, please tell me why.

Also, Senator Coburn has authored a letter (addressed to the Veteran Affairs) which asks them to justify why they have determined more than 140,000 veterans ARE NO LONGER ALLOWED TO OWN A GUN!

These veterans have been denied WITHOUT DUE PROCESS and even without a determination that they are a danger to society. They have been denied simply because they supposedly lack the ability to "manage [their] own financial affairs."

Please let me know when you have joined the Coburn "hold" on the Veterans Disarmament Act. Thank you.


Sphere: Related Content

Concealed Carry on Campus

The following is forwarded from the Firearms Coalition:

During the Gun Rights Policy Conference I met a group of very impressive young people dedicated to ending the stupidity of disarming students and faculty at our institutions of higher education. Students for Concealed Carry on Campus is a grassroots effort by college students, for college students, and they are picking up momentum across the nation.

They have scheduled a nationwide week of protest for next week; here is the announcement:

During the week of October 22-26, 2007, college students throughout America, organized under the banner of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, will attend classes wearing empty holsters, in protest of state laws and campus policies that stack the odds in favor of armed killers by disarming law abiding citizens licensed to carry concealed handguns virtually everywhere else.

I apologize for the late notice on this; I have been trying to get these folks hooked up with other organizations that can help them and to get others with e-mail lists like this one to help spread the word and neglected to let you guys know about it.

If you know any college students (or people who know college students), please let them know about this group and the planned protest. For more information go to: http://concealedcampus.org/

Let's do our best to help make this protest a success!

Yours for the Second Amendment,

Jeff Knox
Director of Operations
The FirearmsCoalition

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

Vote Today To Stop Tax Wolf in Sheep's Clothing (Prop 12)

TexasTollParty.com Like the "Boston Tea Party"

Prop 12: Beware of the Hungry
Tax Wolf in Sheep's Clothing.
VOTE NO on Prop 12!

The revenue hungry "Tax Wolf" is rearing its ugly head again with Proposition 12, which is carefully crafted to trick Texans to vote for debt, future tax increases and toll roads paid for with our tax dollars (an unaccountable double tax).

In recent years, TxDOT has claimed they’ve run out of money, while they spend billions of our tax dollars to shift our public highways to toll roads and push the equally unpopular Trans Texas Corridor (TTC). Also to blame are Texas legislators, who have diverted billions of our tax dollars intended for transportation, into their pet projects, while they allow TxDOT, a rogue agency, to run amuck.

The State Auditor caught TxDOT inflating it’s needs by $45 billion dollars this year and TxDOT continues to ignore the public by spending millions of our tax dollars on an ad campaign to sell us toll roads and TaxTags.

Proposition 12 is the largest proposed new debt on the ballot this year. It would authorize up to $5 billion dollars of state road debt to be repaid with general revenue, instead of dedicated transportation funds. Yet another accountability breech as TxDOT is eager to become an unaccountable taxing authority.

In 2001, Prop 15 (the first Tax Wolf in sheep's clothing) was put on the ballot and politicos promised it would help solve our transportation crisis by estab lishing the Texas Mobility Fund. Texans trusted TxDOT and le! gislator s and voted for "mobility" and Prop 15 became a constitutional amendment. Much like this years Prop 12, the ballot language of Prop 15 did not openly inform voters that TxDOT would use Texas Mobility Fund exclusively to shift our freeways to toll ways. Prop 15 took accountability and the will of the people out of the equation - so special interests could seize OUR LAND and OUR ROADS for profit.

Don’t be fooled again, help stop the tax wolf and vote NO on Prop 12 - get everyone you know out to the polls! Early voting begins Monday Oct 22. Election day is Nov 6th.


The SLEAZY SIX ignored the public and voted to spend nearly a1 Billion tax dollars to shift our Central Texas freeways to toll roads! Their terms end in 2008, and are our targets for the coming weeks and months. email me for more info.

From left to right, the “Sleazy Six”: State Representative Mike Krusee, Travis County Commissioner Gerald Daugherty, Round Rock Mayor Nyle Maxwell, Georgetown Mayor Gary L. Nelon, Cedar Park Mayor Bob Lemon, Kyle Mayor Miguel Gonzales

Together we will!
Sal Costello
Founder of People for Efficient Transportation

If you'd like to be removed from this private list please ask. Please understand that it might take a few days to have you removed. People for Efficient Transportation PAC (PET PAC) is a not-for-profit political action committee registered with the Texas Ethics Commission. PET PAC is not tax deductible.

Sphere: Related Content


The DFW MeetUp Groups have a tremendous opportunity in November - The NASCAR races at Texas Motor Speedway will bring HALF A MILLION people to us! Help us bring RON PAUL to them !

We have more than enough local volunteers to work the races - we had close to 200 volunteers come out for the Texas Straw Poll. One of our volunteers is selling Ron Paul Car Wraps and Decals. What we need is help paying for the booth. $5000 will get us a 20'x 20' booth beside the track gate November 1st thru November 4th. Once we have the booth, we can go ALL OUT - balloons, slim jims, buttons, stickers, video screens, you name it! The GRANNY WARRIORS will be there! We have Ron Paul airplane banners flying over the track during the races! We have 3 tent camp sites reserved and YOU ARE WELCOME TO COME AND PARTICIPATE IN THIS EVENT! We will have tents & sleeping arrangements for you ready to go! Please donate and please attend this event! Just call my me at the telephone numbers below if you want to come!

With the potential to reach 500,000 people, that's an advertising cost of less than $.01 per contact - pretty cheap advertising! If there's a couple of TV cameras that catch us, that's all the more people we can reach!

Please help any way you can to get us to our $5000 goal. GO TO

DONATE TODAY - Every little bit will help us win this race!!!


Debra Reineke

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, October 23, 2007

An Open Letter to Sean Hannity

An Open Letter to Sean Hannity
by William R. Tonso
by William R. Tonso


Dear Sean:

It really ticks me off royally when you and your allegedly conservative talk-radio colleagues dismiss all critics of the Iraq War as liberals who are interested in nothing more than winning back the presidency and/or who hate America. There may be liberal war critics out there who are primarily concerned about putting Hillary or Obama or Edwards or any Democrat in the White House, or who hate America, but you know full well that there are many Americans with impressive conservative/libertarian credentials who consider the war to be not only a blunder but downright criminal.

For several months, I’ve considered calling you to take you to task for misleading the listeners who consider you to be such a great American. But I used to listen to you regularly and still listen to you occasionally, and I know how you treat callers or guests with whom you disagree. My intention was to put you on the spot by simply naming a number of prominent conservative opponents of the war and to ask you to explain to your listeners why you don’t acknowledge these folks and their arguments. But I knew that you’d simply talk over me and accuse me of being a liberal, an accusation that to you and your "great American" listeners is enough to discredit anything the person so labeled says. So I considered presenting my anything-but-liberal pedigree first, but I’ve heard you talk over many callers and guests who have tried to resist your dismissal of them as liberals. So I decided to cope with my frustration through an open letter to you, as I once did with one to your pompous colleague, Rush Limbaugh.

You’ll probably never see this letter, but that’s all right, because though I’m writing it to you, it’s really aimed at your listeners, and some of them will have it brought to their attention by friends who aren’t as impressed by your rants as your listeners are. Even if I had called you, I was going to try to avoid arguing with you, as tempted as I’m sure I would have been to do so. No, I’m not afraid to argue with you, because I don’t think you’re that sharp. It’s just that I know your position on the war, I consider it to be simplistic, and I also know that I’m not going to change your constipated mind, so why should I argue with you on your court playing by your rules?

Sean, you’ve had George Will on your show a number of times, and you apparently consider him to be conservative. Yet the following comments he made to the libertarian Cato Institute don’t seem in sync with the prevailing Bush-bunch assumption going into the war that the Iraqis were just chafing for liberty and that a western-style democracy would be established in Iraq in a matter of months.

Tony Blair – a good American – gave a speech about values to a joint session of Congress three months after Baghdad fell. He said that our values are not Western values, they are values shared by ordinary people everywhere. False. The world is full of ordinary people who do not define freedom as we do, who do not value it as we do, who prefer piety, ethnic purity, religious solidarity, military glory, or the security of despotism. There are still all kinds of competing values in the world, and liberty has to be fought for and argued for and defined. It is a learned and acquired taste.

Isn’t George skating on thin ice here? Doesn’t he seem to be questioning the administration and talk-radio-conservative mantra about all those purple-fingered Iraqi voters with their new constitution being good to go if it weren’t for those foreign terrorists causing problems? Is George a closet liberal, Sean?

And then there’s your buddy Pat Buchanan, who you have on your show rather often. I subscribe to his The American Conservative magazine and regularly read his columns on the Internet. Pat seems to think that he’s conservative, yet he’s adamantly opposed to the Iraq war and so are all of those who write about it in his magazine. According to Pat, the war in Iraq "was not thought through. It was not only mismanaged, it was an historical strategic blunder to begin with." And in a recent issue of The American Conservative, he noted that if we buy Bush’s claim that we’re "fighting for the right of Islamic peoples ‘to speak, and worship, and live in liberty,’" we’re caught in a dilemma. "Devout Muslims in Islamic lands do not believe people should be free to blaspheme or insult the Prophet. They do not believe all religions are equal or should be treated equally. They do not believe Christians should be free to preach in their lands. The punishment for those who do, and for those who convert from Islam in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia as well as Iran, is death." He goes on to note that wherever free elections have been held in the Middle East Islamists have won over Western secularism and asks: "Should U.S. soldiers die for democracy in the Islamic world, when democracy may produce victory for the political progeny of the Muslim Brotherhood? Is that worth the lives of America’s young?"

One of my favorite contributors to The American Conservative, Andrew J. Bacevich, would have answered Pat’s question with a resounding NO! even before he recently lost his Army lieutenant son in Iraq. Bacevich, himself a retired Army colonel who now is a professor of international relations and director of Boston University’s Center of International Relations is the author of The New American Militarism: How Americans are Seduced by War. You probably haven’t heard of this book, Sean, because I suspect that it’s not on the neocon/warmonger reading list. But the blurb on the inside of the dustcover pretty well sums up Bacevich’s argument, and it’s short enough to not tax your attention span.

In this provocative book, Andrew Bacevich warns of a new and dangerous obsession that has taken hold of so many Americans, conservatives and liberals alike. It is the marriage of militarism to utopian ideology – of unprecedented military power wed to a blind faith in the universality of American values.

This perilous union, Bacevich argues, commits Americans to a futile enterprise, turning the United States into a crusader state with a self-proclaimed mission of driving history to its final destination: the world-wide embrace of the American way of life. This mindset invites endless war and the ever-deepening militarization of U.S. policy. It promises not to perfect but to pervert American ideals and to accelerate the hollowing out of American democracy. As it alienates others, it will leave the United States increasingly isolated. It will end in bankruptcy, moral as well as economic, and in abject failure.

And Sean, even your late friend the outspoken Colonel David Hackworth (USA retired) believed that going to war with Iraq had nothing to do with combating terrorism and was a blunder. In one of his columns, he wrote:

So, fighting Iraq bears not the slightest resemblance to our triumphant World War II march across Europe. Almost the entire Arab world views us not as liberators occupying that bludgeoned country solely to pull Iraqis up by their sandal straps, but as Crusaders who’ve returned to finish the dirty work the Christian world started a thousand years ago. Deep in the hearts of most Arabs, we’re just the latest wave of infidels who are into violating their sacred land.

Are you beginning to see a pattern here, Sean? Are George Will, Pat Buchanan, Andrew Bacevich, and the late David Hackworth liberals and/or America haters because they’ve pointed out that other peoples aren’t like us and don’t appreciate the attempts by our government to make them like us? And is former Republican strategist Kevin Phillips a liberal for writing in his American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21 Century that while the attack on Iraq was "at bottom about access to oil and U.S. global supremacy," it also had other intentions. "One was to fold oil objectives into the global war against terror. A second was to cement the U.S. dollar’s hegemonic role in global oil sales – and thus in the world economy. A third was to keep the invasion’s purpose broad enough to allow the biblically minded Christian right to see it, at least partially, as a destruction of the new Babylon, on the road to Armageddon and redemption."

I can just hear you – "Phillips is just an establishment Republican, not a real conservative." Okay, then how about columnist Paul Craig Roberts, the assistant secretary of the treasury under your idol Ronald Reagan, and a strong constitutionalist?

The evil that America has brought to Iraq transcends the tens [more likely hundreds] of thousands of Iraqi civilians who have been killed and maimed in the conflict. The evil goes beyond the destruction of ancient historical artifacts and the civilian infrastructure of a secular state and the decimation of lives, careers, and families of millions of Iraqis. The violence and killing that Bush brought to Iraq has spread antagonism between Sunni and Shiite throughout the Middle East with potentially draconian consequences. Bush’s war has turned Muslim hearts and minds against America and made terrorism an acceptable means to resist American hegemony. With his mindless war, Bush has created more terrorism than the world has ever seen.

Funny, Sean, how someone like you who is always talking about evil fails to see the evil done by our own government in our name in Iraq and elsewhere.

Here’s another interesting comment from Roberts for you to mull over:

American public opinion is being manipulated. In the name of protecting ‘American freedom and democracy,’ the Bush regime rides roughshod over both as it ignores both the public and Congress and proceeds with a catastrophic policy supported by no one but the Bush Regime and a cabal of power-mad neoconservatives.

Nothing can stop the Regime except the immediate impeachment of Bush and Cheney. This is America’s last chance.


I doubt if you ever read Charley Reese’s column, Sean, but he’s another strong constitutionalist and he made an interesting observation about a speech Bush made at West Point. "He didn’t talk about world terrorism. He talked about reshaping the Middle East, a fool’s errand if there ever was one. Our precious people are not dying for peace and freedom in Afghanistan and Iraq. They are dying for corporate profits and to make the Middle East a safer place for Israel. The only people who are dying for freedom are the Iraqis and the Afghans who want to free their countries of our presence." Yeah, I know, to you and your simpleminded ilk anyone who comes close to criticizing Israel is an anti-Semite, another label like "liberal" that allows you to stigmatize your opponents and avoid rationally examining their arguments.

Funny how you guys get so understandably rankled when you’re accused of being racists for justifiably criticizing the NAACP, or Jesse Jackson, or affirmative action, but are so ready to label anyone anti-Semitic who justifiably criticizes Israel, our political establishment’s relationship with that country, or even neoconservatives. So here’s another such comment from another strong constitutionalist, columnist and former National Review editor Joe Sobran:

No matter how much you love the Zionist state, it’s absurd to say it represents ‘our vital interests’ [as did Republican Senator John Warner of Virginia]. The opposite is more nearly true. We are embroiled in endless futile wars in the Middle East because our government supports Israel – a state based entirely on what in this country would be flagrantly illegal racial and religious discrimination – no matter what it does. It’s hard to say which is the worst feature of American policy in the Middle East, its shameless venality and hypocrisy or its sheer irrationality. It would make sense only if huge oil reserves were discovered under Tel Aviv.

Not being in his head, I don’t know if Sobran is an anti-Semite or not – but I doubt that he is. I DO KNOW THAT I’M NOT AN ANTI-SEMITE, however, and I agree with his comments. I thought that I’d better capitalize and bold type my disclaimer, because I know that you and your faithful are as good at selective reading as are the liberals you always criticize. Probably still won’t do any good, though. There was a time when I was a great admirer of Israel. I saw it as a spunky little country whose people had learned from the Holocaust that it doesn’t pay to be meek or weak. But then a few years back, I was listening to Benjamin Netanyahu explain why a certain policy in the Middle East would benefit the United States, when it dawned on me that the policy he was pushing might well benefit Israel but it wouldn’t do anything good for the United States. I’ve become ever more distrustful of Israel and its American neocon and theocon supporters since then.

Sean, I could go on giving examples of people you ignore on the political right who never approved of the war or who have changed their minds about approving of it. I’ve never heard you dwell on Bill Buckley’s defection. A number of the original war opponents on the right have been listed by neocon David Frum in his National Review article "Unpatriotic Conservatives." Those on Frum’s list that I’ve already mentioned include Buchanan, Reese, and Sobran, and, with the exception of columnist Robert Novak, most of the rest have links to the paleoconservative Rockford Institute and its magazine, Chronicles, or to Lew Rockwell and his libertarian blog.

Incidentally, I recently heard your fire-breathing, chicken-hawk, and I might add, obnoxious, buddy, Mark Levin interview Novak about his recently released autobiography. Though Novak was one of the conservatives Frum accused of being an unpatriotic America hater for opposing the Iraq War, and he acknowledges his opposition to that war in his autobiography, that fearless interviewer Levin, who regularly accuses opponents of the war of being liberal America haters, didn’t say a thing about the war and had nothing but praise for Novak. This, even though Novak, whose heritage is Jewish, has lamented in writing that "the hatred toward the United States today by the terrorists is an extension of hatred of Israel," and that "the United States and Israel are brought ever closer in a way that cannot improve long-term U.S. policy objectives."

Sean, our former representative from southwestern Indiana, Republican John Hostettler, was one of six members of the House to vote against war with Iraq. If people hereabouts heard you call him a liberal, you’d be inundated with lawsuits brought by folks you caused to hurt themselves laughing. And then there’s Ron Paul, another of that six who, as you know and much to your chagrin, is now running for president on the Republican side. You try to ignore him as much as possible, but he’s the only person in the race on either side who has integrity, principles, and is a strict constructionist and original intenter concerning the Constitution. He also takes seriously the philosophies of the Founders that, as I pointed out in my open letter to Rush, you so-called conservatives ignore. George Washington: "The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible" (emphasis added). Thomas Jefferson: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none" (emphasis added). John Quincy Adams: "America . . . goes not abroad seeking monsters to destroy." I know, you don’t think that Paul has a chance, and you may be right – but you don’t know why. He has the whole establishment against him.

As far as the war and its disastrous impact on our Bill of Rights go, you and your talk-radio so-called conservatives are nothing but useful idiots for the establishment. You all uncritically support wars anyplace the neocons tell the bumbler in the White House to start them, and any police-state method implemented in the name of security, but then you all get upset with that same bumbler when he and many on the Hill, including liberals, refuse to clamp down on illegal immigration and to protect our national sovereignty. Do you ever stop to wonder how the guy you think is so right when it comes to war and measures impacting the rights of ordinary Americans can be so wrong when it comes to protecting our own borders and sovereignty? Might there be some connection between his foreign and domestic policies? The following comments by LewRockwell.com blogger Steven LaTulippe, like Paul a physician and former Air Force officer, might give you something to think about. That should be a new experience for you.

When evaluating his [Paul’s] chances, it’s important to accept one fact about contemporary America. This is not a democracy, and certainly not a constitutional republic. America is actually a carefully concealed oligarchy. A few thousand people, mostly in government, finance, and the military-industrial complex, run this country for their own purposes. By manipulating the two-party system, influencing the mainstream media, and controlling the flow of campaign finance money, this oligarchy works to secure the nomination of its preferred candidates (Democratic and Republican alike), thus giving a ‘choice’ between Puppet A and Marionette B.

Unlike the establishment’s candidates, Ron Paul is a freelancer running on three specific ideas:

The federal government must function within the strict guidelines of the Constitution.

America should deconstruct its empire, withdraw our troops from around the world and reestablish a foreign policy based on nonintervention.

America should abolish the Federal Reserve Bank, eliminate fiat currency and return to hard money.
This is not a political agenda. This is not a party platform. It is a revolution. The entire ruling oligarchy would be swept away if these ideas were ever implemented. Every sentence, every word, every jot and tittle of this agenda is unacceptable, repellent and hateful to America’s ruling elite.

Did you understand any of that, Sean? Who benefits from both open borders and the war? Not the American people. The various factions of our establishment aren’t concerned about us or our country; they’re interested in cheap labor (Indian, Chinese, Mexican, or any other), oil and other natural resources, manipulating our currency, selling expensive weapons systems, or implementing Utopian domestic or international agendas, etc., and maintaining social control through police-state methods and/or social engineering, primarily in order to acquire money/power for themselves and, in some cases, secondarily, for selected allies, associates, or clients.

As you may have guessed, I’m a supporter of Ron Paul, the non-establishment candidate, whether he has a chance or not. He’s the only politician to come down the pike in my nearly 74 years who I can truthfully say I support without qualification. I’m tired of choosing between Puppet A and Marionette B. I’m ashamed (with qualification) to admit that I voted for Bush II twice. The qualification is that my votes actually were against Al Gore and John Kerry from the liberal side of the establishment who I still think would have been worse than W, both domestically and internationally – though in my mind, the gap between them and him has narrowed considerably. I hoped – silly me – that W and his side of the establishment meant it when they promised not to engage in the nation building so dear to the hearts of the Clinton bunch. And, though I had no faith that he would appoint Supreme Court justices to my liking, I knew that neither Gore nor Kerry would do so. Even after he and his neocons had launched their criminal war with Iraq, I pinched my nose real tight and voted for Bush again. I didn’t see the Kerry side being any better on the Middle East, was still concerned about the Supreme Court, and knew that if Kerry won he’d push to extend or make permanent the idiotic and unconstitutional Clinton "assault weapon" ban. I’m a no-compromise supporter of the Second Amendment-guaranteed right to keep and bear arms as the teeth of the Bill of Rights. It’s not a guarantee of sportsmen’s rights. And since I’ve written many critiques of the gun-prohibitionist movement, a number of which can be found on the Internet, you can check my claims yourself if you think that I’m just some liberal not willing to admit it.

I despised the Clinton Administration, with its meddling in the Balkans and elsewhere, coziness with the UN, massacre of American citizens at Waco, and attack on the right to keep and bear arms and general trashing of the Constitution even without the excuse of 9-11. And I never thought that the day would come that the Republican side of the establishment wouldn’t provide me with a viable lesser evil to Hillary Clinton if she became the Democratic candidate for president. It has come. I won’t vote for any of the collection of establishment fools, fascists, and socialists that the major parties are offering up this time. I can no longer find any lesser evils among the establishment candidates, and I won’t make the mistake of voting for a warmonger again.

I suspect that you’ve never heard of Smedley Darlington Butler, even though you’re a worshipper of military heroes and Butler was certainly a military hero. So I’ll tell you a little about him drawing on a guest column I wrote for our local newspaper, the Evansville Courier & Press. In 1898 at 16, Butler lied about his age so that he could join the Marines, get a commission as a second lieutenant, and fight in the Spanish-American War. He was brevetted captain during the Boxer Rebellion before he turned nineteen, and became the Corps’ youngest major general when he was 48, retiring at that rank in 1931. He was one of only 19 people to win two Medals of Honor, and one of only 20 to receive the Marine Corps Brevet Medal that was awarded to Marine officers before they were eligible to receive the Medal of Honor. Pretty impressive, huh?

But when Butler looked back on his career, he not only didn’t like what he saw, he wrote and spoke about what he didn’t like, which I suspect is why you haven’t heard about him. In War is a Racket, his 1935 book, Butler wrote: "For a great many years as a soldier, I had a suspicion that war was a racket. Not until I retired to civil life did I fully realize it." He defined a racket as "something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small ‘inside’ group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."

In a 1935 magazine article, Butler wrote:

I spent 33 years and four months in active military service, and during that period I spent most of my time as a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico, and especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

And Butler made it clear that it was the guys who were propagandized into fighting them, particularly those who don’t come back or who come back maimed or psychologically damaged, who foot the bill for wars. He wrote about them eloquently. You regularly help propagandize guys into fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, Sean.

Butler was a Republican candidate for the Senate in 1932 and a popular speaker through the 1930s. He spoke to veterans and pacifists, communists and church groups. He believed "in the adequate defense of the coastline, and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we’ll fight." He believed that our army shouldn’t leave the country, that our navy shouldn’t go more than 200 miles beyond our shores, and that our military planes shouldn’t go beyond 500 miles for patrol purposes. I suspect that he might extend those limits, if he were still around, to compensate for today’s advanced air and sea technology, but I doubt that he would change his overall position. He wrote: "I wouldn’t go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights" (emphasis added). BRAVO!!!! An admirer wrote that Butler "demonstrated that true patriotism does not mean blind allegiance to government policies with which one does not agree." I would add that while he was often a hero when he was in the military, he became a patriot after he left it, but you and your useful idiot colleagues might find it difficult to understand that, Sean. For you guys, criticizing Bush and his neocons is the same as hating America.

Back in the days when I was of military age, all able-bodied males were eligible to be called up for military service. Having grown up during the flag-waving days of WWII, and since service was expected, though I never considered making a career of the military, I wanted to serve and eagerly jumped at the chance to get a commission through Southern Illinois University’s Air Force ROTC program. I did nothing heroic, but I’m quite proud of my service, because I spent most of my active-duty years at radar stations of the North American Air Defense Command. Those were the days, the mid-to-late ’50s, when the big concern was that the Soviets would send their bombers over the polar route to nuke us. If they had come, it would have been up to crews like those of which I was in charge to detect them, and to ground control interceptor (GCI) directors like me to guide our interceptors to their targets via radio and ground radar and set them up on their attack vectors so that the bombers could be shot down. Purely defensive – Butler would have approved. I was never called upon to harm people in other parts of the world who happened to be bugging our establishment at the time. Though I never thought about that in those days, I often think about it since the neocons got us stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I should have thought about it back in Vietnam days or even before then.

Sean, you’re always saying that our troops in Iraq are fighting for our freedom. Bull! A case could be made that American troops haven’t fought for OUR freedom since the Revolution, or with some qualification, the War of 1812, since the British were back on our turf then. Since then only the USSR could have done us great harm and we managed to avoid fighting them. The Confederate States were trying to leave the Union (as they had a right to do), not to conquer it, and the Union fought to keep them from leaving, not to free the slaves. Various American Indian tribes, Mexico, Spain, the Kaiser’s Germany, North Korea, North Vietnam, and Iraq weren’t interested in conquering the United States, and couldn’t have done so if they had been interested, and Islamic militants can’t conquer us now. Washington, D.C. is far more of a threat to our remaining freedoms than are Islamic militants. And as nasty as the Nazis and Japanese imperialists were, many folks including John Toland in Infamy: Pearl Harbor and Its Aftermath, Thomas J. Fleming in The New Dealers’ War: FDR and the War Within World War II, and even his supporters like Robert Stinnett in Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor and most recently, George Victor in The Pearl Harbor Myth: Rethinking the Unthinkable, have convincingly shown that Franklin D. Roosevelt, the darling of the neocons, provoked them into fighting us when they were doing their best to avoid doing so. Butler was right – war is a racket.

Well, I’ve had my say, Sean – and got across much more than I would have if I’d called you. If, on the basis of their rejection of the neocon stand on Iraq you think that people like George Will, Pat Buchanan, Andrew Bacevitch, the late David Hackworth, Kevin Phillips, Paul Craig Roberts, Charley Reese, Joe Sobran, Robert Novak, and Ron Paul are, or were, liberal America haters who want nothing more than to have Democrats run the country, you’re an idiot. If you don’t think that these guys and others on the right who agree with them on Iraq are so motivated, you’re misleading the listeners you claim to be faithfully informing. If you aren’t aware that such prominent Founders as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and John Quincy Adams strongly warned against our country messing around in the internal affairs of other nations, you’re ignorant. If you are aware that they opposed such interference in the affairs of other nations and reject their position, you’ve neglected to inform your listeners of the Founder’s views and explained why it’s conservative to reject them. If you’ve never heard of General Butler, that’s understandable, since the militarists you worship aren’t inclined to publicize the war-is-a-racket philosophy he acquired through hard-earned experience. If you are aware of what he wrote years back and you can still cheerlead for what’s going on in Iraq today, you’re disgusting. Many of us are on to you, Sean. You’re far from being a Great American. RON PAUL IS A GREAT AMERICAN! As far as the war goes, you and your so-called conservative colleagues are nothing but useful idiots to our own establishment – no faction of which, left or right, could care less about protecting our national sovereignty or the original intent of our Constitution – and that establishment is a far greater threat to us and our remaining freedoms than any Middle Eastern religious/political movement.

William R. Tonso

August 25, 2007

William R. Tonso [send him mail] a retired sociology professor (University of Evansville) who has written a lot on the gun issue, both sociological and pro-Second Amendment. His recent book, Gun Control=People Control, is a collection of eleven of his essays previously published in Liberty, Reason, Chronicles, and Gun Week.

Copyright © 2007 LewRockwell.com

Sphere: Related Content

Friday, October 19, 2007

Message from Ron Paul

The other day, my old sparring partner in so many Congressional committee hearings, Alan Greenspan, was on the Fox Business Channel. After Alan promoted his new book, the reporter asked if we really needed a central bank. Greenspan looked stunned, and then said that was a good question; he actually talked about fiat money vs. a gold standard. Now, the ex-Fed chairman is not about to endorse our sound monetary policy, but you know our Revolution is working when such a question is asked in the mainstream media, and this powerful man gives such an answer.

You and I are reopening a whole host of questions that the establishment thought it had closed off forever: on war, on taxes and spending, on inflation and gold, and on the rule of law and our Constitution.

A few years ago, I asked a famous conservative columnist a question. What did he think about the prospects for a restored Robert Taft wing of the Republican party? He thought I was joking. As you know, I was not.

After all the aggressive wars, the assaults on our privacy and civil liberties, the oppressive taxation, and the crazed spending and deficits, I believe that many Republican voters are ready to return to our roots. And the big boys feel it too. It is no coincidence that the Republican National Committee invited me to a fundraising dinner involving only "top-tier candidates."

Some of the opposition claims that I am not a "real Republican," whereas I am the only one in the race. And our campaign is registering new Republican voters by the boatload. None of my opponents is doing anything approaching that.

Of course, they pooh-pooh our success. "He's just registering Democrats and Independents and people who have never voted before." Well, yes. It's called growth. We are laying the groundwork for the primaries.

All over America, our support is wide and deep and growing, and young people are joining like never before. After the Dearborn debate, I went to the University of Michigan for a rally. 2,000 students turned out, something that has happened to no other candidate this year.

The crowd cheered all our ideas, but especially our opposition to the Federal Reserve, and our support for real money of gold and silver, as the Constitution mandates, instead of prosperity-wrecking fiat money. American politics hasn't seen anything like this in many decades. It is truly revolutionary.

But time is getting short. We must do massive radio and TV advertising, open many small offices (three in just South Carolina the other day), staff them, pay all the bills, and turn out our vote with massive organizational and phone-bank efforts.

As you know, the blackout is ending; our campaign is starting to get mainstream media attention, thanks to growing donations and volunteers. And contributions are the key to more attention, and to our being able to do the actual work of victory. Good news: our recent green-eyeshade analysis of all the candidates' net finances, which got so much press attention, shows our campaign as one of only three in the top-tier.

But we must keep moving up, and the Iowa caucuses are now on January 3rd. The New Hampshire primary may be in early December!

As always, everything depends on you. Please, make the most generous donation you can as soon as you can. I need your help so badly.

The other day, an 8-year-old boy handed me a small white envelope. It contained the $4.00 he had saved from his allowance, as a donation to our campaign. I can't tell you how seriously I take my responsibility to work hard, and spend frugally and effectively, to be worthy of his support, and yours.

Please help me keep working, even harder and more effectively, for all we believe in. Without you, I'd have to pack it in. Donate now. We have more than an election to win. We have a country to save.


Ron Paul

Sphere: Related Content

There Are Two Kinds of People

There are 2 kinds of people in this world: those who divide everyone into 2 groups, and those who don't.

But seriously, it could be said that there are two types of people in this world: those who seek independence, and those who seek interdependence.

Those who seek interdependence tend to be liberals/socialists and love the nanny state.

Those of us who seek independence tend to be libertarians and want the nanny state off our backs. This seems to be the dichotomy we face going into the 2008 Presidential election. Do we continue to say Yes to an ever-increasing nanny state? If so, all you have to do is vote for ANYONE except Ron Paul.

You nanny staters have had your way with our lives, our government, our freedoms, and our money for quite some time now. What you seem to overlook is that, while socialism is a great system if you happen to be a bee or an ant or some other hive insect, it goes against basic human nature.

Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff. - Frank Zappa

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, October 18, 2007

Let's get Open Carry in Texas!

I found a great new site: Texas Citizens Defense League, Supporters of the Political Initiative for Open Carry of Handguns in Texas

Update: The TCDL site has been down for a while now. I recommend OpenCarry.org.

Here's their Introduction, and I agree with it:

Dear Fellow Texans,

Did you know that there are 43 states in the union that permit Open Carry of firearms? 11 of these states are known as “Gold Star” states where, with few restrictions, law abiding citizens may exercise their 2nd Amendment Constitutional Right, and openly carry on their person and in their vehicle a loaded side arm for personal protection. 11 other states have Open Carry laws that allow their citizens to carry their handguns openly with a permit, and the remaining 21 states allow open carry with various additional restrictions.

Texas gun laws are clearly behind the times. Many citizens of states that currently enjoy Open Carry are surprised to learn that the great Lone Star State does not allow its law-abiding citizens to Open Carry. Many of your fellow Texans and fellow gun owners feel strongly that the time is right for us to unite together in support of a Texas Open Carry Law.

The TCDL is a non-profit, grassroots movement of fellow Texans who are dedicated to supporting our Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms. We know that it will be a long, hard process to enact this law in Texas but we feel our mutual labors will be rewarded in the end. We are asking for your support in this great effort.

One of our first tasks is to assemble a large data base of supporters. As the list grows we will begin sub-dividing the state into local contact zones. Each zone will work to promote this initiative in its geographical region to more effectively reach out and communicate the progress and needs of the TCDL. Already hundreds of Texans have signed on to work together toward this common goal. But it will take all of us together to successfully push the bill through the Texas legislature.

This is not about money, but about numbers! There is no charge at this time for joining TCDL. All we are asking is for you to say “yes” - you are willing to help us with this noble goal . Please complete the membership form and we will enter your name and email address in a confidential data base. You will then periodically receive our newsletter and updates on our progress as well as suggestions on what you can do to further the cause.

The TCDL is a serious group of pro-gun, pro-2nd Amendment TKBA supporters. Please join us NOW! If you’ve never experienced Open Carry – you don’t know what you are missing! We can do this – and you will be able to look back and proudly say you were an integral part of bringing Open Carry to Texas!

We sincerely thank you for your support.

Sphere: Related Content

Friday, October 12, 2007

Open letter to Allen Wastler of CNBC

Here's what Allen Wastler of CNBC had to say to Ron Paul supporters this morning:

"22 hours ago
An Open Letter to the Ron Paul Faithful
Topics:Economy (U.S.) Economy (Global) Economics Politics & Government White House
Editor's Note:

Dear folks,

You guys are good. Real good. You are truly a force on World Wide Web and I tip my hat to you.

That's based on my first hand experience of your work regarding our CNBC Republican candidate debate. After the debate, we put up a poll on our Web site asking who readers thought won the debate. You guys flooded it.

Now these Internet polls are admittedly unscientific and subject to hacking. In the end, they are really just a way to engage the reader and take a quick temperature reading of your audience. Nothing more and nothing less. The cyber equivalent of asking the room for a show of hands on a certain question.

So there was our after-debate poll. The numbers grew ... 7,000-plus votes after a couple of hours ... and Ron Paul was at 75%.

Now Paul is a fine gentleman with some substantial backing and, by the way, was a dynamic presence throughout the debate , but I haven't seen him pull those kind of numbers in any "legit" poll. Our poll was either hacked or the target of a campaign. So we took the poll down.

The next day, our email basked was flooded with Ron Paul support messages. And the computer logs showed the poll had been hit with traffic from Ron Paul chat sites. I learned other Internet polls that night had been hit in similar fashion. Congratulations. You folks are obviously well-organized and feel strongly about your candidate and I can't help but admire that.

But you also ruined the purpose of the poll. It was no longer an honest "show of hands" -- it suddenly was a platform for beating the Ron Paul drum. That certainly wasn't our intention and certainly doesn't serve our readers ... at least those who aren't already in the Ron Paul camp.

Some of you Ron Paul fans take issue with my decision to take the poll down. Fine. When a well-organized and committed "few" can throw the results of a system meant to reflect the sentiments of "the many," I get a little worried. I'd take it down again.


Allen Wastler

Managing Editor, CNBC.com

Questions? Comments? Write to politicalcapital@cnbc.com."

Well, Allen, as someone else said: you guys are smug, really smug.

Here's my emailed reply to politicalcapital@cnbc.com:

"Allen Wastler:

I'm not buying your garbage. We Ron Paul supporters are way more numerous and way more dedicated than you'd like to admit.

But it seems you have your head stuck in a dark place.

Your attempts to marginalize Ron Paul are obvious, and now a matter of public record. CNBC stinks, frankly.

Have a nice day.


Now it seems CNBC has changed their tune: http://www.cnbc.com/id/21270546

"My Open Letter To Ron Paul Supporters
Posted By:John Harwood
Topics:Presidential Politics (2008) Print Media Politics & Government White House

I have been reading e-mailed complaints from dozens and dozens of you about CNBC.com's decision to take down our online poll gauging results of the CNBC-MSNBC-Wall Street Journal presidential debate.
Ron Paul
I agree with the complaints. I do not believe our poll was "hacked." Nor do I agree with my colleagues' decision to take it down, though I know they were acting in good faith.

My reasoning is simple: Political dialogue on the Internet, like democracy itself, ought to be open and participatory. If you sponsor an online poll as we did, you accept the results unless you have very good reason to believe something corrupt has occurred--just as democracies accept results on Election Day at the ballot box without compelling evidence of corruption. I have no reason to believe anything corrupt occurred with respect to our poll.

To the contrary, I believe the results we measured showing an impressive 75% naming Paul reflect the organization and motivation of Paul's adherents. This is precisely what unscientific surveys of this kind are created to measure. Another indication: the impressive $5-million raised by Paul's campaign in the third quarter of the year.

To be clear: I believe that Ron Paul's chances of winning the presidency are no greater than my own, which is to say zero. When he ran as the Libertarian Party candidate for president in 1988, he drew fewer than a half-million votes. In last week's Wall Street Journal-NBC News Poll of Republican primary voters--which IS a scientific poll with a four percentage point margin for error--Paul drew two percent.

He lacks the support needed to win the GOP nomination, and would even if the media covered him as heavily as we cover Rudy Giuliani. Why? Because Paul's views--respectable, well-articulated and sincerely held as they are--are plainly out of step with the mainstream sentiment of the party he is running in.

The difference we are discussing--breadth of views vs intensity of views--is a staple of political discussion and always has been in democracies. Highly motivated minorities can and do exert influence out of proportion to their numbers in legislative debates and even in some elections. They most certainly can dominate unscientific online polls. And when they do, we should neither be surprised nor censor the results.
--John Harwood "

Fair enough. I'll be updating this post with my reply in the next day or so. OK, here it is:

Open Letter to John Harwood:

I do not believe your colleagues were acting in good faith. After all the crap CNBC has already pulled, you guys have zero credibility.

I believe you have a duty to the public to cover all the candidates fairly and equally. Clearly you disagree, you have your own agenda. As far as I'm concerned, you have no journalistic integrity. Are you just sock puppets for the oligarchy?

I have searched your site in vain for a Code of Ethics, but couldn't find one, presumably because you have no ethics.

Consider this my public vote of No Confidence for CNBC.


Sphere: Related Content

Monday, October 8, 2007

An Open Letter To The Pro-gun Community

Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102
Springfield, VA 22151 (703)321-8585

Thursday, October 4, 2007

It may be a cliche, but it is true: This letter is written not in anger, but in sorrow and concern. It is written to our friends about NRA staff who, tragically, have taken a course which, we believe, would be disastrous for the Second Amendment and the pro-gun movement.

Two of us are Life Members of the NRA -- one of whom was an NRA board member for over ten years. And our legislative counsel was a paid consultant for the NRA.

So we certainly have no animus against the NRA staff, much less our wonderful friends who are NRA members.

In fact, over the last thirty years, GOA and its staff have worked with NRA to facilitate most of our pro-gun victories -- from McClure-Volkmer to the death of post-Columbine gun control to a gun liability bill free of anti-gun "killer amendments."

But those who staff the NRA, without consulting the membership, have now made a series of strange and dangerous alliances with the likes of Chuck Schumer, Carolyn McCarthy, and Pat Leahy. And we believe that, if allowed to continue, this will produce anti-gun policies which the NRA staff will bitterly regret.

Christ said, in the Sermon on the Mount, that "by their fruits, ye shall know them." And, frankly, these fruits are not likely to produce much pro-gun legislation.

Substantively, the Leahy/McCarthy/Schumer bill, which NRA's staff has vigorously supported without consulting with its membership, would rubber-stamp the illegal and non-statutory BATFE regulations which have already been used to strip gun rights from 110,000 veterans. It would also allow an anti-gun administration to turn over Americans' most private medical records to the federal instant check system without a court order.

But perhaps even worse, the bill was hatched in secret, without hearings or testimony, and passed out of the House without even a roll call. And now, the sponsors are trying to do the same thing in the Senate -- in an effort to ram the bill through without votes or floor debate, led by anti-gun Senator Chuck Schumer. If it is good legislation, as its proponents claim, why such fears of a roll call vote or debate in committee?

Indeed, in the face of horrific dissent from the NRA's own membership, its staff has tragically ignored arguments and dug in its heels -- in an almost "because-we-say-so" attitude.
Understand this:

* Passage of McCarthy/Leahy/Schumer will not quell the calls for gun control. To the contrary, it will embolden our enemies to push for the abolition of even more of our Second Amendment rights. Already, the Brady Campaign has indicated its intent to follow up this "victory" with a push for an effective ban on gun shows.

* Passage of McCarthy/Leahy/Schumer will not be viewed as an "NRA victory." To the contrary, once the liberal media has used the NRA staff for its purposes, it will throw them away like a used Kleenex. Already, an over-confident press is crowing that this is the "first major gun control measure in over a decade."

* Taking the BATFE's horrifically expansive unlawful regulations dealing with veterans' loss of gun rights and making them unchangeable congressionally-endorsed statutory law is NOT "maintaining the status quo."

* We are told that the McCarthy/Leahy/Schumer bill should be passed because it contains special provisions to allow persons prohibited from owning guns to get their rights restored. But there is already such a provision in the law; it is 18 U.S.C. 925(c). And the reason why no one has been able to get their rights restored under CURRENT LAW is that funds for the system have been blocked by Chuck Schumer. It is no favor to gun owners for Chuck Schumer -- the man who has blocked funding for McClure-Volkmer's "relief from disability" provisions for 15 years -- to now offer to give us back a tepid version of the provisions of current law which he has tried so hard to destroy.

Finally, there is the cost, which ranges from $1 billion in the cheapest draft to $5 billion -- to one bill which places no limits whatsoever on spending. Thus, we would be drastically increasing funding for gun control -- at a time when BATFE, which has done so much damage to the Second Amendment, should be punished, rather than rewarded.

We would now respectfully ask the NRA staff to step back from a battle with its membership -- and to join with us in opposing McCarthy/Leahy/Schumer gun control, rather than supporting it.

And, to our friends and NRA members, we would ask that you take this letter and pass it onto your friends and colleagues.


Senator H.L. "Bill" Richardson (ret.)
Founder and Chairman

Larry Pratt
Executive Director

Michael E. Hammond
Legislative Counsel

Sphere: Related Content

Friday, October 5, 2007

Open letter to the Associated Press

Honest mistake or Media Bias?

The Associated Press published an Election Summary Flash Chart. Ron Paul and Fred Thompson have been omitted (I didn't realize Fred was omitted when I wrote this), so I wrote them this letter:

Dear Sirs,

According to the second paragraph at http://www.ap.org/pages/about/about.html:

“AP's mission is to be the essential global news network, providing distinctive news services of the highest quality, reliability and objectivity with reports that are accurate, balanced and informed.”

So given that, I ask AP “Why is Ron Paul not listed in your Election Summary Flash Chart?”

I contend the factors below strongly indicate that Ron Paul is a candidate to be reckoned with, despite any mainstream bias toward marginalizing him.

· The Ron Paul campaign raised over $5 million in the 3rd quarter of 2007.

· CNN’s Jack Cafferty’s October 4th question of the day was: “Should more people be listening to what Ron Paul has to say?”

· According to Alexa, the internet traffic ratings company, Ron Paul's campaign website is the most popular 2008 Presidential Candidate website.

See it live here: http://tinyurl.com/32nf5h

As of Oct. 4th (#1 being the best ranking):

Ronpaul2008.com has a traffic rank of: 19,019

Barackobama.com has a traffic rank of: 22,126

Hillaryclinton.com has a traffic rank of: 34,068

Imwithfred.com has a traffic rank of: 115,686

Joinrudy2008.com has a traffic rank of: 126,455

· Ron Paul Meetup groups have:
45,090 Members
6,016 Interested
961 Groups
772 Cities
21 Countries
7,897 Events so far!
compared to

Barack Obama
4,208 Members in 63 Meetup Groups, 1,732 waiting for a Meetup Group
Dennis Kucinich
1,640 Members in 54 Meetup Groups, 2,525 waiting for a Meetup
Hillary Rodham Clinton
938 Members in 29 Meetup Groups, 1,190 waiting for a Meetup
John Edwards / One America
1,864 Members in 49 Meetup Groups, 2,263 waiting for a Meetup Group
John Kerry
8,275 Members in 38 Meetup Groups, 14,422 waiting for a Meetup
Mitt Romney for President 2008
4 Members in 2 Meetup Groups, 8 waiting for a Meetup
Ron Paul 2008
45,090 Members in 961 Meetup Groups, 6,016 waiting for a Meetup Group
Rudy Giuliani
3 Members in 1 Meetup Groups, 0 waiting for a Meetup Group
Tom Tancredo
5 Members in 3 Meetup Groups, 35 waiting for a Meetup Group

Source: http://www.meetup.com/topics/polact/cand/pres/
Note : For brevity’s sake, only the listings for candidates included in the Election Summary Flash Chart are shown above/

· Ron Paul 2008 has 67170 friends on MySpace
Source: http://www.myspace.com/ronpaul2008

The Associated Press Statement of News Values and Principles at http://www.ap.org/newsvalues/index.html states “…That means we abhor inaccuracies, carelessness, bias or distortions. It means we will not knowingly introduce false information into material intended for publication or broadcast…”

I challenge AP to live up to its stated principles by including Ron Paul in the Election Summary Flash Chart, as not doing so could be construed as an attempt to distort the election process.

I’d like to believe you are not deliberately ignoring Ron Paul, but be advised: ignoring him won't make him, or his numerous and passionate supporters, go away.

Strangers stop me to ask me about Ron Paul because of the bumper sticker on my car. “Non-political” friends who tell me that have not voted in years tell me they will not only vote for Ron Paul, but they will wholeheartedly and actively support him. Look around today, and you will probably notice most of the signs and bumpers stickers out there for the 2008 presidential race promote Ron Paul.

Perhaps AP judges that Dr Paul is not a serious contender, but I assert that is NOT for AP to decide.
At this same point in Ronald Reagan’s campaign he was also being dismissed. (Quote facts and figures and a source on this).

And, further, I maintain that continuing to leave him off your list would create ill will and affect your credibility, whereas correcting this oversight (or mistake) will uphold and reinforce what you state you stand for.

In addition to sending this to you, I am posting this to my blog: http://freedomjoyadventure.blogspot.com/

I shall look forward to a prompt response in line with your mission.


Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, October 4, 2007

Rules for a Gunfight

Why am I posting rules for a gunfight?

I'm certainly not looking for one. I prefer to mind my own damn business and live my own life in peace. I am responsible for defending myself. The courts have consistently ruled that the police have no responsibility to protect us. "Therefore, whoever wishes for peace, let him prepare for war." - Vegetius in De Re Militari. I am a proponent of the right to keep and bear arms. I believe in Peace Through Superior Firepower.

Having said that, the two basic rules for gunfighting that I adhere to are as follows:

1. Have a gun (obvious, isn't it?) If you don't already have a gun, but ever thought about getting one, I suggest you start working on that now.

2. Have the biggest, most powerful gun that you can safely, comfortably and accurately handle. If you've never handled a gun, please get proper training. Do everyone a favor by not becoming a firearms accident statistic. There are a variety of firearms safety rules, the ones the NRA teaches are simple and effective:

The fundamental NRA rules for safe gun handling are:

1. ALWAYS keep the gun pointed in a safe direction.This is the primary rule of gun safety. A safe direction means that the gun is pointed so that even if it were to go off it would not cause injury or damage. The key to this rule is to control where the muzzle or front end of the barrel is pointed at all times. Common sense dictates the safest direction, depending on different circumstances

2. ALWAYS keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot.When holding a gun, rest your finger on the trigger guard or along the side of the gun. Until you are actually ready to fire, do not touch the trigger.

3. ALWAYS keep the gun unloaded until ready to use.Whenever you pick up a gun, immediately engage the safety device if possible, and, if the gun has a magazine, remove it before opening the action and looking into the chamber(s) which should be clear of ammunition. If you do not know how to open the action or inspect the chamber(s), leave the gun alone and get help from someone who does.

Someone out there compiled a much longer list of rules for gunfights, here it is (by the way, if this is yours, let me know and I'll happily give credit where it's due):

1. Bring a gun. Preferably, bring at least two guns. Bring all of your friends who have guns.
2. Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Ammo is cheap - life is expensive.
3. Only hits count. The only thing worse than a miss is a slow miss.
4. If your shooting stance is good, you're probably not moving fast enough or using cover correctly.
5. Move away from your attacker. Distance is your friend. (Lateral and diagonal movement are preferred.)
6. If you can choose what to bring to a gunfight, bring a long gun and a friend with a long gun.
7. In ten years nobody will remember the details of caliber, stance, or tactics. They will only remember who lived.
8. If you are not shooting, you should be communicating, reloading, and running.
9. Accuracy is relative: most combat shooting standards will be more dependent on "pucker factor" than the inherent accuracy of the gun. Use a gun that works EVERY TIME. "All skill is in vain when an Angel blows the powder from the flintlock of your musket."
10. Someday someone may kill you with your own gun, but they should have to beat you to death with it because it is empty.
11. Always cheat, always win. The only unfair fight is the one you lose.
12. Have a plan.
13. Have a back-up plan, because the first one won't work.
14. Use cover or concealment as much as possible.
15. Flank your adversary when possible. Protect yours.
16. Don't drop your guard.
17. Always tactical load and threat scan 360 degrees.
18. Watch their hands. Hands kill. (In God we trust. Everyone else, keep your hands where I can see them.)
19. Decide to be aggressive ENOUGH, quickly ENOUGH.
20. The faster you finish the fight, the less shot you will get.
21. Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you meet.
22. Be courteous to everyone, friendly to no one.
23. Your number one option for personal security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.
24. Do not attend a gun fight with a handgun, the caliber of which does not start with anything smaller than "4".
25. You can't miss fast enough to win.

Sphere: Related Content

Sean Hannity Lied

I know this is a little old, but people need to know about this:

Hannity Lies To Discredit Ron Paul After Debate

Claims "Paulites" flood voted to skew text poll, yet only one vote per phone number was allowed

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Thursday, September 6, 2007

Fox News and Sean Hannity tried to discredit Ron Paul last night after the latest debate by claiming the Texas Congressman's runaway success in the subsequent text messaging poll was due to "Paulites" flood voting, when in fact only one vote per phone number was allowed.

Ernest Raposa, a viewer in New Bedford, MA, decided to text in his support for Ron Paul and received a message back stating, "FOX News UVOTE: Thank you for voting! Watch Hannity & Colmes for the results."

"As the show progressed, it became obvious, as we have seen previously, that Ron Paul had the most support, hovering around 33 per cent," writes Raposa. "Around 11:25pm EST Hannity declared that though Ron Paul had DOUBLE the support of the tied for second place Giuliani and Huckabee it was clear that the "Paulites" were simply dialing in over and over again, devaluing his lead."

Aiming to test Hannity's theory, Raposa attempted to text in a second vote for Ron Paul from the same cellphone. He received a message back saying, "You have already voted on tonight's debate. Thank you for your participation."

Here's the rest of the article: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2007/060907_hannity_lies.htm

Sean Hannity, you are NOT a great American. You are a lying propagandist.

Sphere: Related Content

Ron Paul Campaign Raises Over $5,000,000

October 3, 2007

Paul Campaign Raises Over $5,000,000 In Third Quarter


ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA - The Ron Paul 2008 presidential campaign raised $5,080,000 during the third quarter of 2007. That is an impressive 114 percent increase from the second quarter.

Cash on hand for the Paul campaign is $5,300,000.

"Dr. Paul's message is freedom, peace and prosperity," said Paul campaign chairman Kent Snyder. "As these fundraising numbers show, more Americans each day are embracing Dr. Paul's message."

Ron Paul's 114 percent increase is in stark contrast to the decrease suffered by Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, and John McCain. Romney's fundraising was down 29 percent. Giuliani was down 40 percent. McCain was down 55 percent.

Sphere: Related Content