After fighting long and hard to have a second Republican Primary Challenger in the Texas Republican Primary, supporters were able to secure a spot for her in the debates.  And by her astoundingly wonderful performance in the first debate, and the subsequent dramatic increase of support thereafter, she has gained access to the next televised debate.  She is doing so well, that the Republican Old Guard has trotted out Sarah Palin to buoy support for the Progressive Republican Incumbent, Rick Perry.  Palin to Support Perry

So now we have a great test here for the self described unknowledgeable Republican lesser of two evil supporters.  There are 3 Republican candidates in the Republican Primary.  I repeat 3.  Now you have a better choice, as you claimed you did not have with the Brown/Coakley.  Make your next move wisely.  Palin already made hers.

Here is a series of interesting polls released from inside of Texas.  Below are videos of Debra Medina’s respones.

Tags: Debra Medina, GOP, Governor, Palin, Perry, Republican, Texas

The rally cry of hate against those of us who would not become socialists to fight socialism held no water at the end of the day.  Those inches we needed didn’t even last a day.  It might be a good time to re-evaluate policy and stop supporting socialists while pretending to ourselves that they are not.  The empty defense of “this is the best we have” is a boldfaced lie by those who would sacrifice freedom for a little temporary security.

The government was petitioned for a redress of grievances.  Even the founders knew when it was time to stop asking for freedom and to start defending it.  Either you stand for liberty or you stand for tyranny.  Think long and hard about what that Gadsden Flag really means.

Tags: Liberty, Senate Election, Slavery, Socialism, Tyranny

Recently I received the popular criticism, that by not endorsing my opponents opponent, I am by default endorsing my opponent. I was charged with several charges that have some merit to them, yet are politically and philosophically self-serving, indirect attacks on my character, philosophy, and morality. Such attempts aim at marketing an image of irrationality, confusion, and inconsistency of my goals.

The conversation began with economics, my preferred specialty. The conversation involved whether pure capitalism is possible. Consistently and unequivocally, the other side argued that it was not. The uses of the words “pure” and “perfection” aim at giving extra meaning to something that does not need it. They are emotional attachments to an idea that someone wants to believe, but at heart does not.

The use of the adjective, however, does give rise to an important question. Do we have capitalism now? The obvious answer is no. Contrary to popular belief, this didn’t happen all of a sudden in November of 2008 when Obama was elected president. Such an idea is ludicrous on it’s face and is a political phrase meant for a two year old. Have Obama’s policies harmed the economy? Absolutely! They have and will, however, anti-capitalistic policies are the major driving force here both directly and indirectly from both left and right.

If you cannot properly define capitalism, then you will never have it. Capitalism can be properly defined as, the voluntary associations of free individuals in the marketplace absent government interference, coercion, or manipulation. If my goal is to support capitalism in the true meaning of the idea, would it not be against my own best interest to support any individual who directly or indirectly is against capitalism? If my goal is a non-paternalistic government that does not attempt to separate failure and success, the necessary characteristics for the progress of mankind, would it be in my own best interest to support any individual who is for a paternalistic state? If my goal is a government that respects the rights of the individual rather than the wishes of a majority, would it be in my best interest to support individuals who do not agree?

Eventually, the conversation devolved from specific arguments to that of a game of inches, football. It was argued that socialism was one end of the field and freedom was the other. My opponent argued that by not enthusiastically supporting Brown for Senate that I was giving socialism inches against freedom. Is it not Brown himself and his enthusiastic supporters who are giving inches if not feet to socialism?

You do not defeat evil by supporting it. If selling your principles for a little temporary satisfaction means you are principled, then the world has truly turned upside down. You can either stand for liberty or you can stand for your version of it, which is by default, tyranny. It is very clear in their intent and philosophy that they are not who they say they are. My opponent agreed that Brown was not the most desirable, however, that he was the only one opposing the direct socialist running for office. Let’s give him the benefit of the doubt. When there was a candidate running in the same party primary not more than 2 years ago, he was viciously attacked by the same kind of individuals. There are candidates today who have not given up their responsibility to fight for principles that are right, and they too are met with such viscous hostility. I know because I am one of them.

This answers the question very bluntly. If they have the opportunity to support a man who is better than the only two choices they claim to be given, they would not do it. They could have very well selected a better individual for the nomination. And if given the opportunity again, they would persist in their consistent attack on what they claim to be fighting for. Why do I say so? Because I have lived it.

It has been said that my kind was driven out. I contest that it is not my kind that was driven out, but you’re kind that left all together.

Tags: Capitalism, Economics, Ideology, Philosophy, Politics, Principles, Socialism

Judge Napolitano had a great show on the Fox News Channel the other day about the Constitution and the real meaning of freedom. You should definitely check this out.

Part 1:

WASHINGTON — Senator Christopher J. Dodd, the embattled Connecticut Democrat who was facing an increasingly tough bid for a sixth term in the United States Senate, has decided not to seek re-election this year, Democrats familiar with his plans said Wednesday.

Mr. Dodd, 65, a pivotal figure in the major debates now confronting Congress, is to announce his decision at a news conference Wednesday afternoon in Connecticut.

The decision came hours after another Democratic senator, Byron L. Dorgan of North Dakota, also announced that he would not seek re-election this November. The developments underscored the fragility of the Democrats’ 60-vote Senate majority, which is just enough to block Republican filibusters. Democratic incumbents also face serious challenges in Arkansas, Colorado, Nevada and Pennsylvania among other states.

In this case, Mr. Dodd was already considered one of the most vulnerable Democrats facing re-election this November, and party officials had been privately hoping he would step aside. His move opens the way for the state’s highly popular attorney general, Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat, to run. Democrats and Republicans said he would be a much stronger candidate in what is a Democratic state.

Mr. Dodd’s decision was reported by The Washington Post on its Web site late Tuesday night, and later confirmed by his associates. As of early Wednesday morning, Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, had not heard from Mr. Dodd about his decision, according to aides to Mr. Reid.

Mr. Dodd has been a fixture in the Senate since his election in 1980 and had been at the center of the contentious recent debates on overhauling the health care system and financial regulation. In November he proposed an overhaul that included consolidating bank regulators, creating a consumer financial protection agency and imposing new restraints on exotic financial instruments and credit rating agencies.

But his standing in Connecticut had been on the decline starting when he made an unsuccessful run for the presidency in 2008 — moving his family to Iowa — and when questions arose about a disputed loan he took from Countrywide Financial, the fallen subprime company.

On the Republican side, Mr. Dodd faced the prospect of running against Linda McMahon, a political novice who was prepared to use her vast personal fortune to beat the incumbent senator. Also challenging the senator was former Representative Rob Simmons, a Republican.

Mr. Dodd’s troubles escalated in 2008 when he was one of two Democratic senators — the other was Kent Conrad of North Dakota — who had been accused of receiving improper discounts from Countrywide Financial. In August, the Senate Select Committee on Ethics ruled that it had found “no credible evidence” that the senators had violated gift rules in accepting the loans.

But the committee criticized Mr. Dodd and Mr. Conrad for not avoiding the appearance of impropriety.

Both Mr. Dodd and Mr. Conrad had been members of the “Friends of Angelo” V.I.P. program at the bank, named after Angelo R. Mozilo, the chief executive of Countrywide.

Polling in Connecticut suggested that Mr. Dodd had been hurt both by his association with Countrywide and by criticism for his role in legislation that appeared to clear the way for bonuses to be paid to executives of American International Group, the insurance firm that received a government bailout.

Republicans had viewed the issues as powerful weapons to use against him, particularly considering the depth of anger toward A.I.G. and Countrywide.

Even as his political prospects seemed to plummet, Mr. Dodd was so busy over the last few months that some colleagues have joked about whether 2009-10 should be called the “Dodd Congress.”

As chairman of the Senate banking committee, he had a central role in both the huge government rescue of the financial system and the economic stimulus package that was adopted at the start of last year.

Then, with his close friend, Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, battling terminal brain cancer, Mr. Dodd stepped in as acting chairman of the Senate health committee, which became the first Congressional panel to approve a version of far-reaching health care legislation last year.

Amid all of this, Mr. Dodd found out early last summer that he was suffering from prostate cancer and spent the August recess undergoing surgery and recuperating.

He is said to be in good health now. But even as he has been at the center of the action on Capitol Hill, the looming re-election battle in Connecticut has seemed to weigh heavily on him. And his decision to retire did not surprise his Senate colleagues.

This article appeared on www.nytimes.com and is not my own work.

Tags: Chris Dodd, Connecticut, Peter Schiff, Senate

I recently received an email from a friend including a link to a recently set up blog created by those in the Brooklyn GOP establishment.  The Jig Is Up At Atlas The story actually started a long time ago. I decided to involve myself with the GOP back in 2008 as I turned 18 and could legally participate in voting. I tried involving myself with the party through the county party’s website, but never got a response. I filled out the online form to become a County Committeeman multiple times and still got nothing. Eventually, I researched the proper numbers and contacted the local party but still got nowhere.

Looking around, not seeing much political activity whatsoever in the Republican Party in Brooklyn, I decided to look for a venue to participate. Through a friend, I found the Brooklyn Young Republicans. This was my first step participating in the political process.

Shortly after joining, I learned what County Committee was and how to go about becoming a County Committeeman. In a presentation, in which some County Committeemen were present, it was obvious that there were no county committeeman in more than half of the Election Districts in all of Brooklyn. Republicans were not being fully represented to the Kings County Party. Having lived in Brooklyn all of my life, knowing that the State is predominantly Democrat, I figured this could be a great opportunity to make the local party more efficient, responsive, and effective at representing Republicans and winning races. Republicans need to be actively engaged in their Election Districts as the source of the party, real grassroots.

I decided that I would join the County Committee. Since I couldn’t get help from the local party, I would reach my goal on my own. The Brooklyn Young Republican Club guided me as to the process of being elected and the procedures necessary to get the petitions I needed to run for the position. I did all of the work myself. However, in the process of doing so, I discovered a rift between the Brooklyn YR’s and the Brooklyn GOP. Not thinking much of it, I continued to pursue my goal of becoming a County Committeeman. I contacted my District Leader, who gave me the okay to run for County Committee. After several emails back and forth regarding the process, she stopped responding to my emails.

The deadline was coming up for candidate registration. I had already submitted my work to the Board of Elections and was registered as a candidate and she had previously given me the okay to run. Puzzled by her silence, I called the Board of Elections asking how many candidates were registered to run in my district. I was informed that there were 4 candidates, when previously, the district had 0 for the last few years. This puzzled me as well. Why would she try to shut me out of the process without telling me that she wanted others to run as well? If I wanted to run, it obviously implied that I wanted to be on the Committee. I would have enjoyed a primary, but running a race without notification of a primary is a different ball game. With the knowledge of there being a primary, I could actually campaign.

After a certain period of time, I received a call from the Kings County Republican Party chairman threatening me that he would “bury me politically if I ran.” He agreed to meet with myself and my friend who were both seeking to participate in the Brooklyn GOP. We discussed several things and all turned out to be a silly misunderstanding. I was placed in a neighboring district, happy to participate. However, they misspelled my friends name when getting petition signatures for him, securing his political inactivity.

In our conversations, the rift between the Party Chairman and members of the Brooklyn Young Republicans became evident. I did not wish to engage in any political nonsense. I just stated that I wanted to participate and I was ready to seek any venue that would help me do that, but that I did not want to be forced to support candidates I did not agree with.

Then came the County Convention. This was my first county convention ever. It was certainly an interesting event. The convention was to re-elect the current Party Chairman. There were two choices. Understanding the consequences of the convention, I was pulled aside twice, once by my district leader, and again by the party chairman. People were handing out signs for the candidates. I refused both. Seeing that I was not enthusiastic about the current party chairman, my district leader asked me who I was going to vote for. I responded that I didn’t know either of the two gentlemen very well, and I asked about the voting process. She lied to me, giving me an envelope telling me that I had to write the name of the individual down and give it to someone in the back room. When I opened up the envelope, I saw a proxy voter card that would sign my vote away to my State Senator, who in turn supported the current chairman.

She walked me into the back room and standing right there was the current chairman, introducing me to a supporter of his. He assumed I was going to vote for the other gentleman and told me that if I did I could be squashed out of any political future I had been dreaming of. He stated clearly, “You’re either with us, or you’re with them”. When it came my time to vote, I voted against him in a vocal proxy vote count. I could not support such an individual claiming to hold an open door to those who want to participate so long as they agree with him on every issue. The party does not belong to any chairman, it belongs to the individuals.

Obviously, going against the chairman did not put me in the brightest light, but being in that spotlight does nothing to create a successful force to fight the Democratic Machine in New York. Disagreement is necessary if we are to have a healthy and successful party.

The attacks on The Jig Is Up At Atlas are certainly flattering. The establishment thinks that I am part of a secret group who are the authors of a blog called Atlas Shrugs In Brooklyn, that I am bent on taking down the chairman with the Brooklyn Young Republicans, and calls me a “blogger extroidanaire.” Another claim is that I have donated zero dollars neither to Republican candidates nor the Brooklyn Young Republican Club. They also exhibit disdain for my critical stance on many conservative issues, one of them being not licking party boots, and sticking up for traditional conservative values.

If they really believe any of their paranoid delusions, then the establishment has some serious problems. They should stop chasing ghosts and get to building the fighting machine we need to challenge the Democrats. Everyone is responsible and there are no exceptions for leadership.

They are also wrong on their research involving my election donations. I have donated to Republican candidates in several states. Check the FEC. Have I donated to anyone in Brooklyn? Short answer is no. I do not financially support individuals who I have fundamental disagreements with. I hope we can get some real conservatives to run here. Have I extended a willing helping hand to candidates? Absolutely. I have Gene Berardelli who ran for City Council and Alex Zablocki who ran for Public Advocate to show for. On numerous occasions I extended the offer for whatever help was needed. I also attended candidate fundraisers including Gene Berardelli and George Smith. Whether the candidates succeeded or not, is irrelevant.

Have I helped candidates? Yes. Have I helped the establishment? No.

One assertion that the establishment is correct about, however, is that I am not a nicey nice conservative. I will call out nonsense for what it is. I do not enjoy Democrat Lite Republicans like Lindsey Graham. I don’t now, and I never will. I don’t believe in voting party line and supporting someone just because they managed to get an (R) next to their name some way or another. I believe in ideas, philosophy, and principles. Please excuse me for not licking your boots and pointing out the obvious.

Tags: Alex Zablocki, Attack, Brooklyn GOP, County Committee, Fabian Gambino, Gene Berardelli, Politics, Republican Party

Steve Forbes Endorsed Rand Paul for U.S. Senate for Kentucky this week.  Establishment picked Trey Greyson must be really happy.

http://www.randpaul2010.com/2010/01/steve-forbes-endorses/

Tags: Congress, Kentucky, Rand Paul, Senate, Steve Forbes

I have disappeared for what now looks like more than a month.  After a rigorous work and a long vacation, I have returned to permanently maintain the site and update it with new content much more frequently.  2010 presents us with many new fresh opportunities in politics as well as other things.  2010 is a year of mid-term elections where we can finally get clean out some seats in Congress.  Two important elections to watch are those of Rand Paul who is running for U.S. Senate in Kentucky, in place of Senator Bunning who stepped down due to pressure from the Republican establishment, and Peter Schiff, an economist who predicted the crash 10 years ago.  Rand is challenging the establishment handpicked liberal republican Trey Grayson, while Schiff is challenging Senator Dodd of Connecticut.

There are also many other promising constitutional minded candidates running for office such as Adam Kokesh (NM), John Dennis (CA), and RJ Harris (OK).

I will also begin my own formal campaigning this year for re-election in Brooklyn.

Tags: 2010, Elections, New Year, Peter Schiff, Politics, Rand Paul

It’s a violation of the Constitution to use the panels without a declaration of war — and just calling it a ‘war’ on terror doesn’t count.

By Andrew P. Napolitano

In the uproar caused by Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr.’s announcement that the alleged planners of the 9/11 attacks are to be tried in U.S. District Court in New York City, and the suspects in the attack on the U.S. destroyer Cole will go on trial before military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the public discourse has lost sight of the fundamental principles that guide the government when it makes such decisions. Unfortunately, the government has lost sight of the principles as well.

When President George W. Bush spoke to Congress shortly after 9/11, he did not ask for a declaration of war. Instead, Republican leaders offered and Congress enacted an Authorization for the Use of Military Force. The authorization was open-ended as to its targets and its conclusion, and basically told the president and his successors that they could pursue whomever they wanted, wherever their pursuits took them, so long as they believed that the people they pursued had engaged in acts of terrorism against the United States. Thus was born the “war” on terror.

Tellingly, and perhaps because we did not know at the time precisely who had planned the 9/11 attacks, Congress did not declare war. But the use of the word “war” persisted nonetheless. Even after he learned what countries had sponsored terrorism against us and our allies with governmental assistance, Bush did not seek a declaration of war against them. Since 9/11, American agents have captured and seized nearly 800 people from all over the globe in connection with the attacks, and now five have been charged with planning them.

Virtually all of those seized who survived interrogation have been held at Guantanamo Bay. Bush initially ordered that no law or treaty applied to these detainees and that no judge could hear their cases, and thus he could detain whoever he decided was too risky to release and whoever he was satisfied had participated in terrorist attacks against the U.S. He made these extra-constitutional claims based, he said, on the inherent powers of the commander in chief in wartime. But in the Supreme Court, he lost all five substantive challenges to his authority brought by detainees. As a result, some detainees had to be freed, and he and Congress eventually settled for trying some before military tribunals under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and subsequent legislation.

The casual use of the word “war” has lead to a mentality among the public and even in the government that the rules of war could apply to those held at Guantanamo. But the rules of war apply only to those involved in a lawfully declared war, and not to something that the government merely calls a war. Only Congress can declare war — and thus trigger the panoply of the government’s military powers that come with that declaration. Among those powers is the ability to use military tribunals to try those who have caused us harm by violating the rules of war.

The last time the government used a military tribunal in this country to try foreigners who violated the rules of war involved Nazi saboteurs during World War II. They came ashore in Amagansett, N.Y., and Ponte Vedra Beach, Fla., and donned civilian clothes, with plans to blow up strategic U.S. targets. They were tried before a military tribunal, and President Franklin D. Roosevelt based his order to do so on the existence of a formal congressional declaration of war against Germany.

In Ex Parte Quirin, the Supreme Court case that eventually upheld the military trial of these Germans — after they had been tried and after six of the eight defendants had been executed — the court declared that a formal declaration of war is the legal prerequisite to the government’s use of the tools of war. The federal government adhered to this principle of law from World War II until Bush’s understanding of the Constitution animated government policy.

The recent decision to try some of the Guantanamo detainees in federal District Court and some in military courts in Cuba is without a legal or constitutional bright line. All those still detained since 9/11 should be tried in federal courts because without a declaration of war, the Constitution demands no less.

That the target of the Cole attackers was military property manned by the Navy offers no constitutional reason for a military trial. In the 1960s, when Army draft offices and college ROTC facilities were attacked and bombed, those charged were quite properly tried in federal courts. And when Timothy McVeigh blew up a federal courthouse in Oklahoma City; and Omar Abdel Rahman attempted in 1993 to blow up the World Trade Center, which housed many federal offices; and when Zacarias Moussaoui was accused in the 9/11 attacks,all were tried in federal courts. The “American Taliban,” John Walker Lindh, and the notorious would-be shoe bomber, Richard Reid, were tried in federal courts. Even the “Ft. Dix Six,” five of whom were convicted in a plot to invade a U.S. Army post in New Jersey, were tried in federal court. And the sun still rose on the mornings after their convictions.

The framers of the Constitution feared letting the president alone decide with whom we are at war, and thus permitting him to trigger for his own purposes the military tools reserved for wartime. They also feared allowing the government to take life, liberty or property from any person without the intercession of a civilian jury to check the government’s appetite and to compel transparency and fairness by forcing the government to prove its case to 12 ordinary citizens. Thus, the 5th Amendment to the Constitution, which requires due process, includes the essential component of a jury trial. And the 6th Amendment requires that when the government pursues any person in court, it must do so in the venue where the person is alleged to have caused harm.

Numerous Supreme Court cases have ruled that any person in conflict with the government can invoke due process — be that person a citizen or an immigrant, someone born here, legally here, illegally here or whose suspect behavior did not even occur here.

Think about it: If the president could declare war on any person or entity or group simply by calling his pursuit of them a “war,” there would be no limit to the government’s ability to use the tools of war to achieve its ends. We have a “war” on drugs; can drug dealers be tried before military tribunals? We have a “war” on the Mafia; can mobsters be sent to Gitmo and tried there? The Obama administration has arguably declared “war” on Fox News. Are Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly and I and my other colleagues in danger of losing our constitutional rights to a government hostile to our opinions?

I trust not. And my trust is based on the oath that everyone who works in the government takes to uphold the Constitution. But I am not naive. Only unflinching public fidelity to the Constitution will preserve the freedoms of us all.

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at the Fox News Channel. His next book is “Lies the Government Told You: Myth, Power, and Deception in American History.”

Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times

(This article was taken from the Los Angeles Times)