Attention all Stoners, Straight Edgers and Lovers of Liberty

Representative Barney Frank (and Representative Ron Paul) has introduced a bill decriminalizing marijuana on the Federal level. Now it’s time to pressure your district’s Representative into voting for Mr. Frank’s and Mr. Paul’s legislation. This isn’t some frivolous issue. On a purely economic level each marijuana arrest pulls $10,400 out of our collective wallets. Not to mention the government must be taught we won’t tolerate its overreach into our personal lives.

Here’s the letter I sent to my Representative:

Dear Congressman Steve Kagen,

As a constituent and concerned citizen I am writing to you in regards to H.R. 5843, the "Act to Remove Federal Penalties for Personal Use of Marijuana" and H.R. 5842, the "Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act", currently in the House of Representatives. These pieces of legislation would respectively "eliminate most Federal penalties for possession of marijuana for personal use, and for other purposes" and "provide for the medical use of marijuana in accordance with the laws of the various States."

Both bills would end the failed drug prohibition which has robbed the taxpayers of $40 billions per year while national drug usage increases. Half of the United States prison population is nonviolent drug offenders. This is intolerable as there are no documented cases of a cannabis-induced fatality on record. The lethal dose of marijuana is unknown, making it more benign than either tobacco or alcohol. This is significant because the recorded history of cannabis use spans 5,000 years and is consumed by twenty to fifty million people daily without professional supervision.

The benefits of medicinal marijuana have been immobilized due to the "War on Drugs". The following diseases have been proven to be alleviated with marijuana and deemed legitimate by at least one court, legislature and/or government agency: Multiple Sclerosis, A.I.D.S., Epilepsy, Glaucoma, and Chronic Pain. According to a Pew poll 74% of Americans view the drug war as unsuccessful, and a June 2005 Mason-Dixon Poll discovered 65% thought it acceptable to use marijuana for medical purposes.

I urge you to keep these facts in mind and vote for both H.R. 5843 and H.R. 5842. It is time to put an end to the nation’s reactionary position against marijuana use. Thank you for your time.

It won’t take long, and you’re helping fight for personal liberty against an irrational, racist and costly drug policy. Find your representative and write them!

Barack Obama Has Me Fired Up & Ready To Go! Or Feed Your Head by Davis Fleetwood

Thanks: Lo

Nader, Ron Paul and the Election

For some reason Ron Paul supporters are angry about Nader's entrance into the race. Take this comment I found on the subject:

Thats it, Nader is a Shill. He promoted and endorsed Edwards, and now wants to take the limelight from Ron Pauls potential "Independant" position

Something wrong with this man, I think he is there just to swing votes

I have to say I don't believe Nader's a "shill" in the slightest. Anything, or anyone, who challenges the current two-party system should be praised for at least injecting another voice into the conversation. Ron Paul, for all his faults (which there are a laundry list to be sure) deserves to be in the Presidential race. I find his economic philosophy of "free markets" akin to mumbo jumbo, a worldview that would collapse under its own destructive avarice over time. For more on the dangers of Paul's Austrian school of economics see the Adam Curtis documentary "The Trap". Ralph Nader has spent a lifetime limiting the cruel effects of unrestrained capitalism. For this great work he should be revered, not maligned. To think many who support Ron Paul for President don't want the competition. How ironic.

---

Ralph Nader enters US election race
Thu, 31 Jan 2008 12:06:16

US political activist Ralph Nader sets aside memories of previous losses and bows into the presidential race as independent candidate.

Nader, who has come under fire from Democrats for costing them the 2000 election, said he was planning a new bid for the 2008 elections.

Frustrated by the leading democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, Nader told AFP that he has decided to "jump into the fray."

The 73-year-old hopeful said he is appearing in order to tackle the injustice and deprivation that the candidates are ignoring.

Democrats once pinned the blame on Nader for losing the 2000 election, but Al Gore was edged out in Florida by George W. Bush in a vote count. Nader rejects the "spoiler" title.

What if Ron Paul won the '08 election?

Paul supporters are euphoric over their libertarian leader's record-setting fund raising success. It only took the Texas Congressman a day to take in $4.2 million. To tell the truth, when I first heard him talk about the Iraq War I was swept up with the sparkling allure of Ron Paul-mania. And the novelty of an anti-war Republican grabbed me by the lapel.

But if people knew what Paul meant by small government most would bounce him out on his ear quicker than you can say Ronald Reagan. Imagine if the devil started serving snow cones and Ron Paul won the Presidential election. What would America look like after the first 100 days? What would happen if he, just like the current Republican President, got everything he wanted?

First, Mr. Paul would pull the troops out of Iraq, dissolve the Federal Reserve and close down the IRS. So far, so good. This is what people want -- less war and less taxes. President Paul becomes the most popular Commander-in-Chief in a generation and the people rejoice.

What happens next? Well, if Ron stays true to his principles, which history has shown he does, the department of education will vanish. Let the free market decide. Now, those too poor to send their kids to school won't have a publicly-funded means of educating their children. That way the richer you are the more education you'll receive. Sounds fair, right? Next, those very same working class laborers can expect to whip out their Visas in the emergency room because that island of socialism needs to go. He'll probably achieve something President Bush never could, the privatization of social security. Public health care of any type will be abolished. Those who can't work like the elderly and the crippled won't be able to build up their "nest eggs" and consequently will be denied proper care.

When government shrinks something needs to take its place. Instead of empowering people, Ron Paul extols the marvels of the free market. Once corporations fill that power vacuum unions will be busted, and because there will be no public space workers can't organize and demonstrate on the sidewalks in front of their workplaces as the companies will own those sidewalks. Businesses will be allowed to reinstate Dickensian working conditions. The 8 hour day and overtime will be a fuzzy memory. In a truly free market economy the threat of unemployment can and will be used to coerce workers into humiliating contracts. Dollars will be a person's way of "voting" therefore those with more cash have more freedom. Welcome to Ron Paul's America.

Be careful because I believe Ron Paul's message is dangerous. There are other anti-war candidates (Kucinich, Gravel) who have a better domestic plan for the country. Let's reject Mr. Paul's libertarian revolution and start moving America further from a Corporatacracy, not closer to one.

I Like Mike

The reason Kucinich doesn't have the cult following of a Ron Paul isn't because he's inconsistent or a babbler, but due to his lack of "media moments". Those explosive applause-worthy exchanges like the now classic Ron/Rudy horn lock. Mike Gravel is capable of these types of "moments". Take, for example, Gravel's performance at the Democratic Presidential debates when he stated bluntly that nobody who voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq is Presidential material (Hillary, Edwards he's looking at you). The 77-year-old, former Alaskan Senator comes across as a lovable old codger, grizzled with a sense of justice yet sweetly approachable. A few days ago I called for the Republicans to nominate Ron Paul, well, today I'm imploring the Democrats to greet Gravel with their nomination. Otherwise, the two should eschew the corporate system and run on the same ticket.

Paul/Gravel in '08!

Visit Gravel's website

and

contribute to his campaign

Sen. Mike Gravel at SC Debates 04/26/07



Senator Mike Gravel Visits My Dorm Room



Mike Gravel Meets Ron Paul Supporters, Requests a One-On-One Debate

Ron Paul could save the GOP

In the interest of full disclosure I'd first like to state that I am a socialist (not State socialist mind you, but that's a different blog post entirely). Although I agree with Ron Paul on a few issues, namely his stance on American militarism, we part ways on social issues. His opposition to Roe v. Wade, his naive faith in Capitalism, his resistance to Universal Health Care and his inflexible adoration of Ronald Reagan has turned my stomach on more than one occasion.

But if I were Republican I'd hoist Ron Paul on my shoulders and herald him as the chosen one. That's because Ron Paul has accomplished something that few politicians, let alone REPUBLICANS, have managed - appealing to the young. At this critical point Bush has uncontroversially decimated the G.O.P. No amount of burnt offerings to Yahweh or Krishna or the Wizard of Oz will resurrect the party from the premature death this administration has wrought.

At the turn of the century, liberals, the past-their-prime Dems, lumbered along the political landscape like a bevy of Clintonoid zombies. That's when a folksy Marlboro Man stole a couple of elections resulting in a ghoulish national nightmare. We're living through the unremarkable denouement of that frightening tale: the death of our privacy, $9 trillion dollar deficit (I don't even know how many zeros that is) and self-authorized torture. Suddenly, the Democrats almost look attractive by comparison. Well, almost.

Enter Ron Paul with a glorious on-stage fencing match with Rudy Guillani about 9/11 and blowback, which most likely caused a collective gasp from the FOX News home audience. It was real truth followed by real anger countered with more real truth. Perhaps the first and only time FOX aired anything resembling "reality" T.V.

This launched an internet firestorm for Paul, giving every major television network ample opportunity to ignore him. He chugged along, winning over progressives and conservatives alike with his knowledge of "hidden" American history and a sound bite-ready delivery. Even those stealing wholesale from Republican talking points couldn't enunciate their position better. Bill Maher invited the Congressman on his show twice going so far as to call Ron Paul his "hero". The New York Times wrote a glowing retrospective of Paul's political career and he even appeared on the G4 tech show, Attack of the Show, to speak about Net Neutrality.

Why, I believe, Ron Paul has risen above the level of just another politician into a rallying cry is his unique third way. While Democrats want to take taxes and spend them on social programs like education and health care and Republicans want to pump more funds into an ever expanding military and police state Paul diverges from the two positions completely and calls for less spending, less government and less infringement upon personal liberty, a stance some might call conservative. If given a chance to submit his views into the marketplace of ideas the Republicans just might find themselves with a large number of converts.

Let's get this party started

One of the strangest quirks of political theater is when two traditional enemies overlap. The unlikliest of bedfellows can be made when one ideology finds common footing with its adversary. For instance, I've noticed an echo of "Paul/Kucinich" ricocheting through the congested tubes of the internets, but these two men couldn't be more different. Ron "Dr. No" Paul, a libertarian almost to the point of religious devotion, and Dennis "Sea Biscuit" Kucinich, a Euro-style socialist, appear to have nothing in common except the mutual hatred of their respective parties.

What unites them in our minds?

There's something that scares members of their parties, causing these men to be openly mocked by the bought-and-paid-for tier of the campaign. It is exactly this division which concerns me, and millions of other voters who feel voiceless in an ocean of disinformation. Let's try and discover what characteristics make "Paul/Kucinich" a perfect political marriage then call for their secession and the creation of a third, viable party, one a socialist and libertarian can inhabit without contradiction. How would such a party behave? Is there a way to construct a "big tent" of this size and thrive?

Although integrity and honesty are two obvious points of contact, there's something deeper underscoring their candidacies. Ron Paul has been principled in beating back the oppressive forces of big government and Dennis Kucinich has made it his mission to slay the dragons of corporate domination. But to what end? The answer is, simply put, equality. Not equality for the wealthy but for the other 99% of the population, you know, the majority! Funny thing about democracies, typically leaders are compelled to listen to majorities, but I guess we're more sophisticated than that. It would be the primary goal of this new party to promote equality, the yardstick by which all legislation will be measured.

The biggest way this new party would differ from the two others would be in the wallet. If you want to "summer" in Fiji on BP's dollar this party is not for you. All funds will come from public donations (not lobbyists) who care about the party. This way the only group holding sway would be the public. For the duration of this country's existence our leaders have been selected from a rather shallow pool of candidates namely the cultured class. As much fun as these adventures in meritocracy have been one of the aims of our new party would be to demolish this restriction, opening up the political arena to anybody of merit. Man or woman. Jew or gentile. Black or white. Gay or straight. Town hall meetings would be held all across the nation, even during non-election years, and would be open to everybody who cares to join and inject their perspective. Everyone has equal chance of getting the party's nomination, regardless of economic status, and after demonstrating their exceptionalness would receive full monetary support.

Because of the party's inclusiveness plenty of internal debates could be expected. This would strengthen, not weaken, its potency. As compared to the artificial, often arbitrary, boundaries drawn between the established parties, our platform wouldn't need to conform to any one ideology - just what's best for the equality of Americans. This is how a Ron Paul and a Dennis Kucinich would move in concert.

Underrepresented Americans would no longer be pressured into choosing between a false dichotomy. With each issue we could form our own conclusions and make them known to our representatives who would be empathetic to our concerns as our elected officials would surface from our ranks. The media would be expected to give our new party equal opportunity to tell its story and ample chance to elucidate the dishonesty of the two corporate blocs. It is time to enact a tricameral party structure composed of Republicans, Democrats and Equalitarians, and to finally realize the promise of equality made by our founding fathers two hundred thirty-one years ago.

If you're mad as hell and refuse to take it anymore turn your back on the Republicans and Democrats and proclaim yourself an Equalitarian.

Ron Paul vs. Congress: Don't regulate the Internet

Ron Paul on the Morton Downey Jr. Show in '88

What's striking isn't how consistent his positions still are, nor how Mort's foam-spitting audience gangs up on him, or even Ron's electric delivery (even though he does get a terrific zinger in against a portly drug war advocate). What's most striking is how Ron wins the day against them all.

Part 1


Part 2


Part 3

Ron Paul on the Colbert Report

Colbert gives Ron Paul the "Colbert Bump".

Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich in '08?

It seemed 2008 election talk began right after Dubya's "victory" in '04. Will it be Hillary or Obama? Guiliani or McCain? I say forget them all and focus on the underdogs. Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich has accomplished something radical in this time of perpetual media distortion, they've been able to communicate the truth. The truth about why we were attacked, the truth about our civil liberties and the truth about the nature of government. And, predictably, they've made enemies out of the right-wing and center-left Democrats. So, let's say these two, by some act of divine intervention, squared off in 2008...who would I choose? I sat in my thinker pose for a few hours and this is how it breaks down for me if the impossible should happen next year.

Impeachment:

And by impeachment I mean anybody in this administration who deserves it - King George, Cheney, the checkout clerk in the Whitehouse's gift shop. I just want to see some action, anything which breaks from Pelosi's "hands off" approach that's been so unsuccessful this far. With Kucinich it's clear. He has famously introduced articles of impeachment against Dick Cheney, H.R. 333. What about Ron? He doesn't agree with the bill, in fact, he doesn't think there's enough evidence for impeahment at this point. I disagree, we need to winnow down the mountain of evidence. On this one Ron Paul has it wrong.





Iraq War/"War on Terror":

This one's a toughy. Dennis Kucinich never voted to support Bush's actions during the lead up to the war or any funding bill thereafter. Pretty impressive. The same can be said of Ron Paul. Both voted against the PATRIOT Act and both have been outspoken critics of this illegal war from the beginning. I do believe this one's a tie. Bravo!

Dennis Kucinich - When Others Were Silent


Ron Paul on Now With Bill Moyers - October 4, 2002




Healthcare:

Kucinich supports universal healthcare, he wants a single-payer system that would ensure every American's medical costs would be covered. On the other hand, Paul, being a libertarian, would support tax credits which would reduce the cost of prescription drugs and hospital expenses. I realize this is supposed to grant relief from "big government" to the middle class but I know people from countries with national healthcare systems and they are proud of the type of care they receive. You show up to a hospital, they patch you up, you leave...that's how simple it could, and should, be here in the states. This round goes to Denny.



Taxes:

Ron Paul wants to eliminate the IRS, income tax and inflation tax lifting a significant burden on the middle class. I like it!

Ron Paul : Stop Dreaming


And what of Kucinich? He's got some pretty good ideas, not great. He believes we should bring tax rates back to that of the Clinton Administration:

"The Clinton period tax rates for the most affluent should be returned, while the tax cuts for those earning less than $405,000 a year should be maintained, for now, until we see how the economy fares."
--Dennis Kucinich, Source

That's a bit too safe for my liking. Who likes paying taxes? Ron Paul's got the right idea.




Old fashioned Feather-ruffling:

To my knowledge Dennis Kucinich never had the same kind of smack down with members of his own party like Ron Paul did with Rudy. Anyone who can stick to their guns like Ron even after the rabidly conservative audience attending that Republican Presidential Debate turned on him is bona fide Presidential material in my book.





It seems as though we've reached a stalemate, so I've got to look at the tie-breaker: Elizabeth Kucinich. I'd take four years of her over any of our last four first ladies.

And she's not just a pretty face, she's smart too. She got her bachelor's and master's degrees from the University of Kent and has done charity work with the British Red Cross and the House of Lords. Here's Liz in action:



Overall, either one of these men would make a superb President. Ron Paul is admirably principled and intolerant toward deceit and corruption, but for my money Kucinich, who possesses the same qualities, can contribute something extra to the Oval Office, therefore Kucinich pulls ahead of Ron Paul by a nose.

RON PAUL Battles Hannity in Post-Debate Interview

Ron Paul spanks Hannity. First Hitchens and now Paul, Sean's obviously a glutton for punishment.

Ron Paul: Thorn in the side of the beast

Anyone who can make Fox News lock-steppers squirm this much gets props from me. Best part: when Hannity flat out dismisses his station's OWN POLL.