GOP Primary

I haven't written a lot about the primaries, mainly because I just haven't had time and I have been able to vent with a co-worker (hey Chris!). But it's time I wrote something on the subject. If you've read my blog before, you probably can guess which candidate I support; Ron Paul. I don't agree with all of his policies, but he's the first major party candidate in many years who has even come close to representing my beliefs. Unfortunately, it seems that a majority of Americans don't hold similar beliefs. I could go on a rant here and get completely sidetracked, but I'm not going to. Suffice it to say that it saddens me that so many voters seem to vote the opposite of what they say they believe.

I watched the McCain-Romney, oops I mean Republican, debate on CNN last night. Apparently, they invited Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee to give McCain and Romney occasional breaks so their voices didn't get too tired. I haven't seen the total minutes each candidate got yet, but McCain and Romney had to have had at least double the time Paul and Huckabee had. When people bitched about Ron Paul not getting many questions in the early debates, the media cried that there were so many candidates on the stage, it was hard to give each one ample time. Well, now we're down to 4 and some are still getting the shaft. I'm sick of the media picking the "front runners" and shoving them down the public's throat.

Fox News showed their bias in New Hampshire when they left Ron Paul out in favor of Thompson and Ghouliani. At that time, Paul had gotten more votes than Ghouliani in Iowa and more delegates than Thompson. Fox kept repeating the "Ghouliani didn't campaign in Iowa, he's focusing on Florida." line of crap like it was the gospel truth. A little investigating shows that Rudy made 35 campaign appearances in Iowa, Ron Paul made 27. How many appearances constitute "campaigning?"

One exchange in the debate last night that I thought was great was Ron Paul's response to the question about whether he agreed w/ McCain's idea that we need to leave troops in Iraq for as long as 100 years. This was immediately following a 5 minute exchange between McCain and Romney about what Romney said about timetables. The exchange can be boiled down to
McCain: "You said blah"
Romney: "No I didn't"
McCain: "Yes you did"
Romney: "No I didn't"
Repeat for 5 minutes

Dr. Paul's response was spot on…

PAUL: I don't even think they should have gone, so keeping them for 100 years, where's the money going to come from?
(APPLAUSE)
You know, the country is in bankruptcy. And when I listen to this argument, I mean, I find it rather silly, because they're arguing technicalities of a policy they both agree with.
They agreed with going in; they agreed for staying, agreed for staying how many years? And these are technicalities. We should be debating foreign policy, whether we should have interventionism or non-interventionism, whether we should be defending this country or whether we should be the policemen of the world, whether we should be running our empire or not...
...The dollar is crashing, and you're talking about these technicalities about who said what when?
...So when I talk about these long-term stays, I think, "How many men are you willing to let die for this, for something that has nothing to do with our national security?"
There were no al Qaeda there. It had nothing do with 9/11. And there was no threat to our national security. They never committed aggression. It's unconstitutional. It's an undeclared war.
And we have these silly arguments going on about who said what when. I think it's time to debate foreign policy and why we don't follow the Constitution and only go to war with a declaration of war.
(APPLAUSE)

(I edited it down a little for brevity, you can find entire source at CNN transcript)

It was silly that these two spent so much time arguing over semantics. And the moderators just let it happen. These so called journalists are not doing their job. Out of all the candidates, Republican and Democrat, Ron Paul is the only one that I've heard that has actually said how he is going to cut spending. Several times last night McCain talked about cutting taxes, none of the "journalists" ever asked what spending he planned on cutting in order to do so. We're already running a huge deficit, we can't cut taxes and not spending.

I don't care for Huckabee, but he scored a few bonus points from me last night because he mentioned a couple of times how lopsided the questions were. But he lost those points with his comment about federalism. Maybe he just mixed up his words, but it didn't sound that way. He seems to be a little confused about Thomas Jefferson and federalism. He was responding to a question about CA having stricter environmental standards and said…

"It's the genius of our founding fathers when they had the idea of federalism. Thomas Jefferson was right, and Alexander Hamilton was wrong. That debate we thought was settled."

Yes, Thomas Jefferson was right and Hamilton was wrong, but Hamilton was the federalist not TJ. The Federalists advocated a stronger central government, the exact opposite of what Huckabee seems to be supporting.

I've been watching CNN for most of the election coverage because they seemed to be at least a little balanced. I can't stand Fox "Ghouliani Is a Frontrunner and Ron Paul Doesn't Exist" News, so I guess I'm going to have to hold my nose and give MSNBC a shot.

A great article

"You don’t have to be a Nazi. You can just be, well, a sheep.

In his journal, Sebastian Haffner decries what he calls the “sheepish submissiveness” with which the German people reacted to a 9/11-like event, the burning of the German Parliament (Reichstag) on Feb. 27, 1933.

Haffner finds it quite telling that none of his acquaintances “saw anything out of the ordinary in the fact that, from then on, one’s telephone would be tapped, one’s letters opened, and one’s desk might be broken into.”

But it is for the cowardly politicians that Haffner reserves his most vehement condemnation. Do you see any contemporary parallels here?"

Creeping Fascism: History's Lessons

Read The Bills Act

You may notice a new banner on the right side of the page (until I change my layout again). This banner leads you to a site called DownsizeDC that I have mentioned a couple of times in my posts. DownsizeDC's overall goal is to reduce the size of the federal government (bet you couldn't guess that by the name), and the main push right now to accomplish that is their "Read the Bills Act." Congress passes hundreds of laws every year, most of them are hundreds and hundreds of pages long. There is no way that each representative and senator voting on the bill has read the entire bill. Plus there are usually last minute changes to bills, often done in secret, before a vote is held and the practice of adding an unpopular proposal to a bill that no one wants to vote against (this is how the internet gambling law got passed, it was piggybacked on a bill dealing w/ port security (shipping ports, not network ports :) ). The "Read the Bills Act" requires that...

• Each bill, and every amendment, must be read in its entirety before a quorum in both the House and Senate.


• Every member of the House and Senate must sign a sworn affidavit, under penalty of perjury, that he or she has attentively either personally read, or heard read, the complete bill to be voted on.


• Every old law coming up for renewal under the sunset provisions must also be read according to the same rules that apply to new bills.


• Every bill to be voted on must be published on the Internet at least 7 days before a vote, and Congress must give public notice of the date when a vote will be held on that bill.


• Passage of a bill that does not abide by these provisions will render the measure null and void, and establish grounds for the law to be challenged in court.
  Congress cannot waive these requirements.

quoted from DownsizeDC

We have allowed our representatives to vote on and pass laws that they don't understand for too long. I urge you to write your representatives and ask them to support and/or sponsor this bill. DownsizeDC has a very nice system where you can register and they will automatically send your message to your representatives based on your address. They have a standard message they send and you can add your own personal message as well.

More information about Read the Bills Act

Information about another important effort the "One Subject at a Time" bill (to prevent them from tacking on unpopular proposals onto bills no one wants to vote against)

If you can and want to, please contribute to DownsizeDC. When a big corporation or industry wants to get a law passed, they throw millions of dollars at Congress through lobbyists.

And while you have your debit/credit card out, swing by Ron Paul's site and donate.

Thomas Jefferson was a terrorist

Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 passes House 404-6.

If this passes the Senate, "adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change." will be illegal. What is an extremist belief system? Well, that's not defined in the bill, it's up to the government and the commission that will be formed. Maybe they can call the commission the House Un-American Activities Commission, oh wait, that's already been used.

This is absolutely an outrage that something like this can pass with such an overwhelming majority and NO ONE IS PAYING ATTENTION! It is time for all Americans to wake up and smell the tyranny. First, it was the Patriot Act which gave the government unprecedented powers to monitor communications and gather data on everyone. Then the Military Commissions Act which suspended habeas corpus and allows the Executive branch to imprison anyone it wants. Now, to complete the tyrannical triple-play, this bill gives the government the power to define its enemies based on their beliefs.

If you read the text of the bill, it defines Violent Radicalization, Homegrown Terrorism and Ideologically Based Violence. Hell, it even defines Commission. But notice it never defines what an extremist belief system is. That's because not defining it makes it easier to apply it with a very broad brush. I've seen media and politicians calling Ron Paul and his supporters (of which I am one, for now) extremists. So stating that the Constitution should be consulted and followed when considering laws is extremist? You know, that annoying document that politicians swear to uphold and defend when they are going into office and then spend the next 2-4 years attempting to shred it?

Not defining the term also is an affront to the rule of law, one of the founding principles of our country. In a nutshell, no one is above the law and government authority is only legitimate when exercised under written, publicly available laws and follows due process. One of the major issues at the forefront of the American Revolution was the British constitution. The British constitution was not a written document, it referred to a vast collection of laws and judicial decisions. And there was no defined authority to decide constitutional questions (i.e. our Supreme Court). By enacting vague legislation like this bill, the government is moving away from the rule of law.

To add insult to injury, there's a section of the bill about "protecting civil rights and civil liberties..." They pass a bill that makes certain thoughts a crime and expect to protect civil rights? Can you say "lip service"?

Let's hear what Thomas Jefferson, one of the founding fathers terrorists has to say...

"[If] the King can model the constitution at will... his government is a pure despotism. The question then arising is, whether a pure despotism in a single head, or one which is divided among a king, nobles, priesthood, and numerous magistracy, is the least bad. I should be puzzled to decide."

"We surely cannot deny to any nation that right whereon our own government is founded, that every one may govern itself according to whatever form it pleases and change these forms at its own will... The will of the nation is the only thing essential to be regarded."

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established, should not be changed for light and transient causes; and, accordingly, all experience [has] shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce [the people] under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."

"The oppressed should rebel, and they will continue to rebel and raise disturbance until their civil rights are fully restored to them and all partial distinctions, exclusions and incapacitations are removed."

"As revolutionary instruments (when nothing but revolution will cure the evils of the State) [secret societies] are necessary and indispensable, and the right to use them is inalienable by the people."

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."

"For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security. "

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. "

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. "

"I am mortified to be told that, in the United States of America, the sale of a book can become a subject of inquiry, and of criminal inquiry too. "

Two Close Ones and other stuff

This time last year, the baseball team was 1-3. This year, we are 4-0! The last two games have been close ones. Saturday, we kept the game close until the 3rd inning when we gave up a lot of runs because of walks and steals. Zack did hit another double, this time on a fly ball to left. He is hitting so much better this year. Bottom of the 3rd, we were out of time so it was our last at bat, we were down 14-8. Our #7 hitter led off the inning with a hard line drive right up the middle, his first hit of the year. A couple of walks and steals later, we're only a couple of runs down and it's looking like we might actually have a chance. A hit by our #4 hitter scored a couple to tie it and he ended up on 3rd. I told him he was the winning run and to get to home plate however he could. A couple of pitches later was the 4th ball on the batter and the catcher threw the ball back to the pitcher, who turned around and started shuffling back to the mound not looking. The player on 3rd just casually started walking toward home and when he got halfway, took off. If the pitcher had thrown it, he might have got him out, but he tried to run to the plate instead. Ballgame.

Last night, was another close one. After 2 innings, it was tied 6-6. We scored 1 in the top of the 3rd, with the same steal by the same player as Saturday. We put in a new pitcher and just shut the other team down in the bottom of the 3rd. We still had time, so I was hoping we'd get some more runs as padding in the top of the 4th, but they had their ace pitcher in as well and no one was hitting. They get up for their last at bat at the top of their lineup and we start off with a strikeout. Next two batters walk. Now they have 2 of their fastest kids on base and their #4 hitter up with 1 out. It's not looking good for us at this point. A hit to the outfield is almost guaranteed to score the two baserunners. First pitch is a strike. 2nd pitch, the boy smacks a hard line drive to the right side of the field. I didn't even have time to think "It's over" before it was over, but not in the way I thought. Because Zack was playing 2nd base and the ball left the bat and about a half second later was grabbed out of the air by Zack's glove. The runner on first was headed to 2nd and before he knew what was going on, Zack tagged him. Unassisted double play and ballgame. He got the game ball for that.

I never posted anything about my trip to Cleveland to see Dream Theater. Alec and I drove up on a Saturday (August 11th), caught the show, crashed in a nice hotel and drove back the next day. It was an 8 hour drive, but it was worth it. It was a great show and the people in Cleveland were very nice. I had always had a bad impression of people from Ohio, but everyone was cool. I was wearing my Rush Snakes & Arrows shirt and Rush was coming to Cleveland on the 30th, so I had several people (even a cop) ask me if I had already seen them and how it was. It was great getting to spend that drive time with Alec too. From talking with other fathers of teenagers, I consider myself extremely lucky that I can spend 16 hours in a car with my son and we actually have conversations and don't argue.

I've also started school again. I'm doing the RODP (the online degree program), majoring in Organizational Leadership. I'm taking 2 classes this semester, hoping to increase after I get back in school mode. I have US History and Music Appreciation. I'm hoping to finish my bachelor's degree before Alec goes to college.

New Season of Baseball

Well, I am coaching Zack's fall ball team again this year. We've got a more solid team this year. They did a blind draft this year, so it was pretty much luck of the draw. I ended up getting 2 kids that were on the team last year. We started the season on Saturday with a 7-5 win. Zack hit a double that would have been a triple if he had been watching me signal him to round 2nd and keep coming to 3rd. It worked out cause he ended up stealing 3rd and home anyway.

Last night, we had a great night of baserunning. We won 10-7 on 3 hits and only 1 RBI. That means we had a lot of steals. 23 if I counted them right (which I probably didn't). Of course, a lot of those were on wild pitches or errors, which would mean they don't really count as steals, but these guys are 9 & 10 (some are only 8), so I keep simplified stats.

And before I get any angry emails from the soccer infested, competition in kids sports is bad, the only score should be how much fun did we have? crowd, let me say a few things. 1) The stats I keep are available to the parents/kids however, unless the parent shares the URL with them, they don't know how to get to them. 2) I do not talk about the stats in practice/games, or even tell them I keep them. 3) the only reason I keep the stats is because I have a terrible memory and often my first impression sticks. I only use the stats to make the lineup. At this level, every player hits, so I'm not using them to choose who doesn't get to play. And truthfully, I don't really look at batting avg. I look more at on base % (OBP). I put the kids that get on base the most at the top of the lineup. 4) The kids have fun whether they win or lose and that is the most important thing. But teaching them not to compete at all will not help them later in life.

And it begins...

Aging Road May Lead to Tax Hike

Tragedy is to politicians what a bell was to Pavlov's dogs. It enables them to pluck the heartstrings of the general public while pulling money out of their pocket with the other hand. Every time there is a disaster, they line up in front of the cameras and talk about how we need to increase funding for .

The only thing that makes a politician salivate more than a disaster is war. That enables them to control you, not just your money.

Congress Backs Foreign Wiretaps

The 4th Amendment already looked like it had gone 9 rounds against Muhammad Ali, and it just took even more of a beating. It's on its last legs for sure. The gov't keeps infringing our rights in the name of security, and we just keep taking it. Do you feel safer now?