This is wonderful news and hopefully will fuel the fire so that Rand can end up with an easy victory in May. Keep on fighting!

The details are here.

Quote of the Day: “It is the competition of profit-seeking entrepreneurs that does not tolerate the preservation of false prices . . .” — Ludwig von Mises, “Human Action” 3rd edition, pages 337-338

* A majority oppose the bill — 53% to 42%
* That’s down 5 points from two weeks ago and 8 points from six weeks ago

The intensity numbers are even better — 44% strongly oppose the proposal while only 26% strongly favor it.

This intensity is being demonstrated in the rebellion members of Congress are facing at town hall meetings. While we dislike the rude tactics some citizens are using, we completely understand and agree with the anger.

One thing driving this is the spreading realization that the so-called “public option” is really a Trojan Horse that will lead to a “single payer” system . . .

* The “public option” is tax-subsidized government insurance that would charge lower premiums than private companies could afford to match — that’s the whole point of the tax subsidy
* This would eventually drive private health insurance out of business, leaving us with a “single payer” government system
* The so-called “single payer” would really be ALL taxpayers, because taxes would fund all health care
* In other words, public-option equals single-payer equals socialism

But here again, the news is encouraging . . .

Rassmusen reports that a whopping 57% oppose a single-payer system, while only 32% favor it.

And here’s the best news of all . . .

51% percent fear government health care more than they do the insurance companies.

We’ve long felt that public hatred of insurance companies is the main source of support for increased government involvement in health care. But now people seem to be realizing that the real reason to hate the insurance companies is because of . . .

The United States of Corporate Welfare

Big health care interests have used the coercive power of government to erect thickets of Corporate Welfare Regulation, to reward themselves, punish their competitors, and harm consumers.

Cato Institute scholar Michael Tanner provides startling examples of how these regulations have strangled competition between health insurance companies, allowing 30% of the market to be controlled by just 1 company in 299 out of 313 of the largest metro areas.

So the problem isn’t that insurance companies charge too much and pay out too little under free market conditions. Indeed, the profit margins of the health insurance industry rank only 86th among American industries!

Instead, the problem is that government regulations retard competition and consumer choice, leading to inefficient service and false prices.

We don’t need a 2,000-page bill that re-engineers our entire health care system. Instead, the first thing we need is a 1-page bill that restores competition between insurance companies by allowing you to sidestep the corporate welfare regulations erected by state-governments.

This is something the federal government can do using its Constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause.

A rebellion is underway, and we DC Downsizers need to give that rebellion a direction, not only by opposing the Trojan Horse health care bill, but also by promoting positive reforms that will restore consumer choice.

Please use DownsizeDC.org’s Educate the Powerful System (sm) to send your Congressional employees a letter on our campaign to “Make Health Insurance More Affordable.”

Tell Congress to give you a 1-page bill that allows you to buy health insurance regulated by the state of your choice.

If you want, you can use your personal comments to paste-in some of the poll results listed in this Dispatch.

To stay on pace to exceed the 50,802 messages Downsizers sent to Congress last month we must send 2,636 messages today.

Thank you for being a part of the growing Downsize DC Army. To see how fast YOUR ARMY is growing, please check out the Keeping Score Report below my signature.

Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

KEEPING SCORE REPORT

We’ve grown by 34 net new members since Wednesday. This brings us to 3,484 net new members for the year. The Downsize DC Army now stands at 27,833 — 83% of the way between 27,000 and 28,000!

YOU can make the army grow even faster by following our quick and easy instructions for personalized recruiting.

We can also grow faster by spreading the word through the media. Please help us do this by starting a monthly credit card pledge — it can be as low as $5 a month (which is just 17 cents per day). You can start your pledge using our secure online contribution form.

Please let us know if its okay to advertise your support here:

NEW MONTHLY PLEDGERS IN AUGUST: Gary J Leidy, David Bergland, Gary T Gorski, Don J Crites, 3 unlisted — 7 total. FROM JULY: Barbara Greenhouse, Henry Wood, Donald B. Fox, Mickey Adams, Mary E Sullivan, Raul A., Michael Jones, Alan Farrar, Emma Flores, Michael S Gerlica, John C Matthews, Cheston E Unnewehr, Val Grayson, Arlene Aquino, Susan Varey, Chris Sengenberger, John DiLiberto, 3 unlisted — 20 total.

Or, you could make a one-time donation. Please let us know on our secure contribution form if its okay to advertise your support here:

NEW ONE TIME DONORS IN AUGUST: James Marranca, Kay Samalin, David Hyatt, Douglas Steinschneider, Lily Riker, Nicholas C. Beason, Mr. Marlin, Edward J. Krieger, Lynnette Thompson, 6 unlisted — 15 total.FROM JULY: Robert Lonaberger, Lucy Cole, Donald E Forward, Steven J Lavelle, Karen Glasgow, Brian Keith, Susan Thomas, Chelsea Moller, Michael Herman, Bonnie Hofer, Anita Binns, Brian O’Neill, Richard E Camp, Travis Walston, Donald Grahn, Sonja Thompson, 16 unlisted — 32 total.

If a tax deduction is important you can get one by contributing to the educational outreach efforts of the Downsize DC Foundation. Contribute at the Foundation’s secure contribution form.

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h
is the official email list of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation

Some people seem to always vote for the candidate from their chosen party.  Others vote for whomever they believe to be the “lesser of two evils”.  I, personally, am a great advocate of voting on principle ― voting for the person who most aligns with your views, no matter their party or chance of winning.  Determining who that candidate is takes a good deal of research.  Detailed analysis of a candidate’s positions on a wide variety of issues is highly important.  But when you’re slogging through so much information, it can be hard to compare the different people running for office.  How much are these two guys alike?  Exactly how authoritarian is this person’s viewpoint?

And that’s where fun stuff like graphs and quizzes come into play.  A great way of displaying how a certain political philosophy fits into the spectrum of thought is by means of the Nolan Chart.  This is a square (or diamond-shaped) diagram, with a coordinate system charting varying amounts of economic and personal freedom.  With the four corners mapped to the extremes of libertarian (absolute freedom), conservative (economic freedom, but government regulation of personal lives), statist or authoritarian (absolute government control), and liberal (personal freedom, economic regulation) viewpoints, any person or candidate’s beliefs can be pretty well reduced to a point on the graph.

An excellent way of figuring out where you (or the candidate you’re considering) fits on the spectrum, is by means of the World’s Smallest Political Quiz.  In it, you indicate whether you agree with ten statements about economic and personal freedom, and then are shown where your views fit on the Nolan Chart.  It’s quick, it’s simple, and it’s pretty accurate.

I got the idea, a few days ago, to try to figure out what answers the six major presidential candidates would give, if they took the quiz.  So, after a lot of research and discussion, I took the quiz for each one of them, and put all their scores together on a single graph, for easy comparison, as you can see in the image above.

The findings were kind of surprising.  I would have expected Chuck Baldwin to be closer to the conservative part of the chart, and I didn’t think Bob Barr would be quite so libertarian.  Nor did I realize how nearly identical McKinney and Nader were on everything!  But McCain and Obama both are, predictably, found in the statist quadrant.  Now this isn’t a completely comprehensive score (there are, after all, only ten questions), so there’s a little room for error.  And there’s no indication of their views on foreign policy, for example.  But you can check the data for each candidate, yourself, at the bottom of this post, where I’ve got an explanation on why I gave them the answer I did on each question.

I doubt anyone will be changing their mind on who to vote for, this late in the season (today, is, after all, election day), but this info should, at least, give you something to think about.  And if, in fact, you haven’t voted yet and are still undecided, taking the quiz and comparing your score to the candidates might be helpful.

I’ll leave you with this quote from John Quincy Adams:

Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone; and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.

And now, get out and hit the polls!

The Data:

Bob Barr

Personal Issues
Government should not censor speech, press, media or Internet. ― Agree
Bob agrees, even opposing laws to stop the concentration of media ownership.

Military service should be voluntary. There should be no draft. ― Maybe
The only quote from him on it I could find is from this 2004 article, in which he sort of supports it, halfheartedly. This was written after he endorsed Badnarik for the 2004 election, and presumably had his political conversion, so it seems likely he has the same views today.

There should be no laws regarding sex for consenting adults. ― Maybe
He’s a states’ rights man, so he’s against the federal government getting into it. Whether or not he’s against all such laws is hard to tell. He won’t take a stance on the legalization of prostitution, for example.

Repeal laws prohibiting adult possession and use of drugs. ― Agree
Barr used to be the biggest proponent of the Drug War; but not anymore.

There should be no National ID card. ― Agree
Agreement, for sure.

Economic Issues
End “corporate welfare.” No government handouts to business. ― Agree
He opposes corporate welfare, and opposes the bailout, too, though not quite as forcefully as others . . .

End government barriers to international free trade. ― Agree
Kind of hard to find much data on this one (a lot of Google search results talk about his votes against free trade, back when he was in Congress), but there is a statement at the bottom of the Foreign Intervention page on his website that indicates he’s for freedom in this area.

Let people control their own retirement; privatize Social Security. ― Agree
This is one issue he’s not changed his views on in the past few years. Bob is in favor of privatization, and has been for quite some time.

Replace government welfare with private charity. ― Agree
That is his exact plan, in a nutshell.

Cut taxes and government spending by 50% or more. ― Agree
Cutting spending is job #1, to him. And then, at the same time, tax reform (he says anything, nearly, is superior to the current income tax). So I think this is an “Agree”!

Chuck Baldwin

Personal Issues
Government should not censor speech, press, media or Internet. ― Maybe
This is the only article by him that I could find on the legislation of morality. In it, he says that that sort of thing is not Uncle Sam’s job, but it’s all right for states or cities to ban porn, etc. But then he’s in favor of repealing campaign contribution limits, to add a little freedom to his First Amendment views.

Military service should be voluntary. There should be no draft. ― Agree
Believes the draft to be a violation of the 5th amendment.

There should be no laws regarding sex for consenting adults. ― Disagree
Again, the only evidence I can find is the article linked above, in which he says that, while the federal government shouldn’t get into that sort of thing, it’s alright for the states to legislate it.

Repeal laws prohibiting adult possession and use of drugs. ― Agree
He’s for a rethinking of the Drug War, and his results on VoteSmart’s test indicate he’s in favor of legalizing the possession of at least small amounts of marijuana, as well as less harsh sentences for non-violent criminals. So I guess that would be an “Agree”, though not a very forceful one.

There should be no National ID card. ― Agree
A quote: “We will not advance, we will not tolerate, we will not accept any form of a National ID Identification card!”

Economic Issues
End “corporate welfare.” No government handouts to business. ― Agree
He agrees, and opposes the bailout as well.

End government barriers to international free trade. ― Disagree
He’s said “We have to get back to Washington, to Jefferson, to the founding fathers; free trade with all, entangling alliances with none.” But he’s in favor of a 10% tariff on all imports, and the Constitution Party’s platform opposes truly free trade, too.

Let people control their own retirement; privatize Social Security. ― Agree
In favor.

Replace government welfare with private charity. ― Maybe
He says that welfare programs need to be examined for their benefit to Americans, and then decide on whether to cut them or keep them.

Cut taxes and government spending by 50% or more. ― Agree
Quite definitely. He wants to abolish the income tax, and then cut enough spending so that we’re making more than we’re using, including disbanding several federal Departments.

Ralph Nader

Personal Issues
Government should not censor speech, press, media or Internet. ― Agree
Well, it’s pretty hard to find out the answer to this one. A google search on “Ralph Nader” and “censorship” mostly comes up with articles about how he considers people’s requests for him not to campaign to be censorship. But according to this site, he no longer supports hate crime legislation, and he’s in favor of dissenting websites, so it’s an “Agree”.

Military service should be voluntary. There should be no draft. ― Agree
Very much against the draft, I believe. Though he’s warned that there’s one coming . . .

There should be no laws regarding sex for consenting adults. ― Agree
And is in favor of gay marriage, as well.

Repeal laws prohibiting adult possession and use of drugs. ― Agree
Definitely in agreement.

There should be no National ID card. ― Agree
As he says here (wish I’d found this site earlier, it’s got everyone’s views on National ID ― everyone who answered, that is . . .).

Economic Issues
End “corporate welfare.” No government handouts to business. ― Agree
Yes, in fact, he coined the term.  He’s written an article called Stop Corporate Welfare (his definition of corporate welfare includes rent-free radio shows, too). That’s pretty decisive. And he’s very much against the bailout!

End government barriers to international free trade. ― Disagree
Well, he’s against the sort of “free” trade we’ve got now (which, I’m afraid, is the sort McCain and Obama like). And he doesn’t think real free trade is possible, and so is against it.

Let people control their own retirement; privatize Social Security. ― Disagree
He’s against privatization.

Replace government welfare with private charity. ― Disagree
A quote: “You burn yourselves out doing charitable work. But if you get into politics and go to the cause of these problems, you will have a just society where you don’t need so much charitable work.” That would be against.

Cut taxes and government spending by 50% or more. ― Disagree
He’s for tax reform, but not that kind of tax reform.

Cynthia McKinney

Personal Issues
Government should not censor speech, press, media or Internet. ― Agree
She opposed the Communications Decency Act and flag desecration laws, when in Congress.

Military service should be voluntary. There should be no draft. ― Agree
She cosponsored H.Con.Res.368, which pretty much tried to abolish the draft.

There should be no laws regarding sex for consenting adults. ― Agree
She very strongly supports gay marriage, so I don’t think she’s for depriving anyone of freedom in this area.

Repeal laws prohibiting adult possession and use of drugs. ― Agree
She wants to end the drug war, and legalize medical marijuana.

There should be no National ID card. ― Agree
“I am against Real IDs!”

Economic Issues
End “corporate welfare.” No government handouts to business. ― Agree
She thinks the bailout is a bad idea (and has an alternative plan), and wants to eliminate corporate subsidies.

End government barriers to international free trade. ― Disagree
She’s for fair trade, not free.

Let people control their own retirement; privatize Social Security. ― Disagree
Opposes privatization.

Replace government welfare with private charity. ― Disagree
Considering how she wants to reduce the concentration of wealth, I think she doesn’t want to do away with welfare.

Cut taxes and government spending by 50% or more. ― Disagree
The only tax cut she voted in favor of was doing away with the marriage penalty. She’s thinks we need to cut military spending, but that’s about it.

John McCain

Personal Issues
Government should not censor speech, press, media or Internet. ― Disagree
On his old campaign site from 2000, he says he supports internet censorship. Though whether that’s federal censorship or he just thinks parents need to do the right thing, is hard to tell. But then there’s his War on Blogs, too. So I think a “Disagree” is warranted.

Military service should be voluntary. There should be no draft. ― Disagree
He’s open to the concept, which shows he doesn’t oppose the draft ideologically.

There should be no laws regarding sex for consenting adults. ― Agree
He’s in favor of civil unions for gays (and doesn’t think homosexuality is a sin: why are conservative Christians voting for him?). And while I wasn’t able to find any views of his on prostitution, there’s rumors that back in Vietnam . . .

Repeal laws prohibiting adult possession and use of drugs. ― Disagree
He’s for the continuation of the drug war.

There should be no National ID card. ― Disagree
He’s in favor of REAL ID (and, interestingly, Palin’s against it).

Economic Issues
End “corporate welfare.” No government handouts to business. ― Disagree
He supports the bailout, voted for it, and even suspended his campaign to promote it.

End government barriers to international free trade. ― Agree
He says he’s a free trader.

Let people control their own retirement; privatize Social Security. ― Disagree
He used to be for it, is now against it?

Replace government welfare with private charity. ― Disagree
Nope.

Cut taxes and government spending by 50% or more. ― Maybe
He’s for cutting taxes and government size, but not that much. He’ll only cut taxes 4.4% for the richest folks, and they’re the ones he’s cutting the most on. However, he talks a lot about cutting spending on pork, and wants to balance the budget (which’ll take a lot of cutting), so we’ll give him a maybe.

Barack Obama

Personal Issues
Government should not censor speech, press, media or Internet. ― Maybe
Obama has said that it’s the parents’ job to make sure their children don’t see objectionable things on TV, the internet, etc.; not the government’s. But he’s tried a little too hard to squelch smears against him, so I give him a “Maybe.”

Military service should be voluntary. There should be no draft. ― Disagree
While he doesn’t want to start drafting folks, he thinks women should also have to sign up for the selective service, which is anything but repealing it. And he’s advocated mandatory community service, too.

There should be no laws regarding sex for consenting adults. ― Agree
He says homosexuality is not immoral, so I doubt he’d try to have laws passed against it. I can’t find any evidence of him supporting laws restricting such freedom for other types of people, so I’m giving him an “Agree.”

Repeal laws prohibiting adult possession and use of drugs. ― Disagree
Obama’s for decreasing sentences for some drugs, and giving offenders the choice of being sentenced to rehab instead of to jail, but there’s no repealing here.

There should be no National ID card. ― Maybe
This one’s a toughie. There’s nothing about it on Obama’s website, and Google searches on “Obama” and “Real ID”/”National ID” almost unanimously return repostings of this. Obama did vote for the bill which contained the REAL ID, but so did everyone else in the Senate, since it was attached to all kinds of other stuff, so it’s hard to tell. He’s criticized the REAL ID, but on a practical, not ideological basis.

Economic Issues
End “corporate welfare.” No government handouts to business. ― Disagree
Voted for the bailout. Has some reservations, but he did. End of story.

End government barriers to international free trade. ― Maybe
He opposes our current free trade agreements, but isn’t opposed to free trade entirely . . . I think. Sometimes it’s hard to tell.

Let people control their own retirement; privatize Social Security. ― Disagree
“Obama and Biden are strongly opposed to privatizing Social Security.” Can’t get any more forceful than that.

Replace government welfare with private charity. ― Disagree
He wants to give a $500 Tax credit to persons making under $75,000 a year. And hasn’t said anything about decreasing welfare.

Cut taxes and government spending by 50% or more. ― Disagree
Not at all likely. His plan only decreases taxes by 0.3% average. And it’s likely spending will go up, too.

by Jake, the Champion of the Constitution
Originally published November 3, 2008 at http://www.nolanchart.com/article5381.html

The vote for President and Vice President is quite different from any other vote you will cast on Tuesday.  When you view your ballot, it has written on it your choices (say you pick John McCain and Sarah Palin) but unlike other votes, this vote does not actually go to Senator McCain nor Governor Palin.  Your vote is actually in favor of a pool of specially selected representatives from the Republican Party, equal to your state’s number of electoral votes.  These Electors pledge to support their party’s candidates, are NOT constitutionally bound to vote for either McCain or Palin.  Electors are chosen by the States and the Electors elect the President and Vice-President.   So, in effect, you are voting for a group of Jane or Joe Schmoe’s.  [Except in Maine and Nebraska, where things get a little more complicated.]

In addition to the interesting tie-breaking rules, the Twelfth Amendment of the United States Constitution reads:

The Electors shall… name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. [FYI the current "President of the Senate" is Dick Cheney.]

So November 4, 2008 is the date that the states select the Electors, and on December 15, the Electoral College will select the next President and Vice President.  Currently all states have a popular vote, but this is not mandated by the Constitution; the process is up to each state.  Now for a few ideas for 2012, some may be in violation of same other law, but most likely this so-called “law” is in violation of the Constitution.

________________________________________________________________

Break the President and VP into Two Votes on State Ballots

The Twelfth Amendment was a result of the Founding Fathers’ not having anticipated political parties slapping both their President and Vice President together on the same ballot, which caused quite a debacle during the 1800 Jefferson/Burr election.  In the first couple elections, the Vice President was simply the Presidential candidate who received the second highest total of electoral votes.  So instead of having McCain/Palin or Obama/Biden take office together, either McCain or Obama would win President, and the runner-up would be VP.

Based on the feedback of many online articles and friends’ opinions, it appears that many of the Obama supporters fear McCain as President, and the McCain supporters are scared to death of an Obama Presidency.  Wouldn’t a much better compromise be to simply break the ballot in two, and have two ballots instead of a bundled one?

Those that wish to only support Republicans or Democrats could still do so, but there would be more freedom of choice.  Say, for instance, tomorrow where some Republicans decide they absolutely cannot support John McCain, so they instead vote Obama.  Wouldn’t a better result for the Republican Party have been to let this voter choose Obama for President and Palin for Vice President?  I believe the end effect would be the following:

• Result in overall higher caliber candidates who are more fully vetted by the press and We the People.  For instance, it would be in all partys’ best interests to name their VP candidates earlier, perhaps even have a VP primary, or decide to offer the presidential primary runner-up the slot.  Perhaps this would remove the Dan Quayle/Sarah Palin VP shock tactic or Barack’s suspenseful “Who’s gonna be my VP?” tactic from use, which really serves no practical purpose towards selecting the best candidates for our nation’s highest offices.
• Result in more choice for each voter, and this encourages more serious research.  The high degree of attention paid to Sarah Palin (of which a far amount was NOT what I would call “serious research”) is an exception to the rule.
• Revolutionize third party presidential politics.  Instead of setting their sights on what is (sorry, but let’s be real here!) an unattainable goal, they would have the option of perhaps deciding to push their best candidate forward to take second prize, the Vice President.  One could argue that candidates like the ex-Republican Bob Barr or Perot-types like Ralph Nader would fare better this way, and possibly even have a chance of victory.

________________________________________________________________

Repeal the Twelfth Amendment

Or, in a similar fashion, the states could repeal the Twelfth Amendment.  In our bi-polar party system, this would mean each party runs one person for President, and the loser would become VP.  So instead of Bush/Cheney, in 2000 we would have elected Bush/Gore, in 2004 we would have elected Bush/Kerry.  How different the last 8 years might have been!  It seems to me that overall these outcomes would be acceptable to far more of the population, as well as to serve as a check and balance on the winning party.

________________________________________________________________

Now, the Republicans and Democrats may simply collude to maintain the status quo, and minimize the chances of any high-caliber third party candidate from succeeding at either President or VP roles, but I fail to see why the third parties could not press the issue at the state levels and constitutionally press for the right to separate their Elector pool, or at the very least take the rebellious step of listing only a candidate for Vice President.

________________________________________________________________

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

As always, unlike the NFL, the author grants full permission to allow any accounts of, rebroadcasts, retransmissions, repostings in part or full of this article to your blog or anywhere else in order to promote the Restoration of our Republic.

Veritas numquam perit. Veritas odit moras. Veritas vincit. Truth never perishes. Truth hates delay. Truth conquers.

________________________________________________________________

Other Recent Articles by the Author

Police State Stomps on Iraq Veteran’s Face as McBama Sanctions Attack on Freedom of Speech: The Story of the Hempstead 15 (Part 1/3)
Published: October 25, 2008
What? Yet another event the media completely missed? After multiple attempts to engage McBama to answer their questions, the Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) led a peaceful march on the last McCain-Obama Presidential Debate and were met with 30 mounted police and a horde of others in riot gear. The mounted police stamped on an Iraq war veteran’s face and attacked the crowd. Ron Paul supporter and veteran Adam Kokesh was arrested as well.

Iraq Demands US Troops Leave by 2011
Published: November 2, 2008
The unending Global War of Terror occupation in Iraq hits a minor roadbump. What if the Iraqis have fully recovered from Shock and Awe and want their country back?

Barack Obama – America’s Half-Blood Prince
Published: November 1, 2008
A comment on Steve Sailer’s new book on Barack Obama

Semi-Spoof News Flash – American Forces Attack Syria, Eight Die

Can Barack Obama Be President? – THE SAGA CONTINUES! (10/29 Update)
Published: October 29, 2008
Senator Barack Obama wins a temporary delay in the court system but has yet to prove in a court of law that he is constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States

MY PROPHECY – The Federal Reserve Will End! A Money Matrix Addendum

FDIC Gives Alpha Bank the Axe!

NY Times Reports the Banks Say They Will Hoard their Bailout Cash-Loot

An Anti-Ron Paul Deflationary Economic Theory

Summary of Articles for Jake, the Champion of the Constitution (10/31/2008)

The other questions are semi-serious, including the gem, “Leaving George W. Bush out of consideration, what former U.S. president would you most like to have waterboarded?”

I was pleased to see that Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt received their share of votes for the waterboarding question. I was quite disappointed in the many people choosing to vote for Obama. Well, it seems most are voting more against McCain than for Obama. Bob Barr received a few votes and even McCain got a few.

Here is Drew Carey’s response:

1. Who are you voting for in November? Anybody but McCain/Palin. Seriously. I’m begging you.

2. Who did you vote for in 2004 and 2000? I voted for the Libertarian candidate both times just to be puckish.

3. Is this the most important election in your lifetime? No. I believe the answers to all the problems we face as a society won’t come from Washington, it will come from us. So the way we decide to live our lives and our decisions about what we buy or don’t buy are much more important than who we vote for.

4. What will you miss about the Bush administration?

5. Leaving George W. Bush out of consideration, what former U.S. president would you most like to have waterboarded? None of them. The sooner we stop coming up with lists of people to waterboard, the better.

One of my favorite responses comes from Charles Oliver:

1. Who are you voting for in November? I won’t be voting for president. If I did, it would be for Bob Barr because, as imperfect as his candidacy is, he’s the only one who is at least talking about a noninterventionist foreign policy, rethinking the war on drugs, and shrinking the size of the federal government.

2. Who did you vote for in 2004 and 2000? To the best of my memory, the last presidential candidate I voted for was Ron Paul in 1988. I’d like to say I have some grand philosophical reason for not voting, but the reality is that no candidate since then has excited me enough to get out and vote.

3. Is this the most important election in your lifetime? No, because, while John McCain and Barack Obama may differ on some particulars, they share the same fundamental view of government. Whichever one wins, there will be an expansion in the size and scope of the federal government, especially if, as is likely, the Democrats increase their majorities in Congress.

4. What will you miss about the Bush administration? I’ll miss most all of those posts on National Review’s The Corner that gushed over Bush (and Dick Cheney) like the diary entries of a school girl confessing her love for the Jonas Brothers.

5. Leaving George W. Bush out of consideration, what former U.S. president would you most like to have waterboarded? I guess I’d waterboard Woodrow Wilson because, among many other reasons, he led the United States into World War I and presided over the creation of the Federal Reserve. I’d say the world has been suffering from those decisions almost a century now.

Read the other numerous and mostly interesting responses here.

Reason magazine’s Dave Weigel posted these extremely interesting numbers on the “Hit and Run” blog today.

If this year’s presidential election were being held today, for whom do you think you would vote?

Barack Obama  44.4%

John McCain  40.2%

Ron Paul  4.2%

Ralph Nader  .7%

Bob Barr  1%

Undecided  9.5%

Of course, the undecideds are in third place, which means McCain could still come out on top if they pick McCain.  It is telling that Ron Paul requested he be removed from the ballot in Montana too late for it to be done and he’s now running in third place amongst named candidates in the state.

“You can only do that [phase out the IRS] if you change our ideas about what the role of government ought to be. If you think that government has to take care of us from cradle to grave and if you think our government should police the world and spend hundreds of billions of dollars on a foreign policy that we cannot manage you can’t get rid of the IRS”. (see the video starting at the 1:45 mark)

There it is. It’s quite fundamental. If you truly want limited government the government can’t act as if there are no limits. This is an actual recipe for change in contrast to all of the new programs that Barack Obama and John McCain keep promoting from the campaign trail. Unfortunately, it seems the majority of Americans have answered the “role of government” question with “gimme more please!”

Many McCain supporters may take issue with my assertion that he is a big government lover only a few shades less blue than a Democrat. Yesterday John McCain was interviewed on CNN by Wolf Blitzer and one of his answers illustrates my point better than I could ever do with accusations.

BLITZER: But is that too much federal government involvement in the free market system?

MCCAIN: Of course it is. But we are in an extraordinary crisis. The homeowners are the innocent bystanders in a drive-by shooting by Washington and Wall Street: greed, excess and corruption. So why shouldn’t we help?

The first role of government is to help people who are in crisis or need. That’s why we have government. But if we had not done what we did to set this whole house of cards up, we wouldn’t be faced with these situations we have today.

I could have attributed this quote to Obama and no one would even flinch. Is this a conservative speaking? No it is not. It is John McCain, the chameleon. It’s almost like he notices the support Obama is now getting so he’s trying to mimic the Democratic talking points.

Imagine if Ron Paul were the GOP nominee continuing his mantra of limited government, sound money, and non-intervention. No doubt the Obama campaign would have many campaign attack targets. So many they wouldn’t know which to try first. However I suspect Ron Paul’s integrity and genuineness would have him doing no worse than McCain is doing in the polls today. In fact, with the economic crisis Ron Paul may be the front runner. Obama has trumped McCain on the economy which many credit for his front running status.

If the past month has been any indication there are not many in Washington who can trump Ron Paul on the economy. Any attack on the economics of Ron Paul is easily countered with a glance at his voting record and statements for over 30 years.

It would be a very different race if our dream of a Ron Paul candidacy were realized. Perhaps the polling would be worse or perhaps better, but one thing is for sure, it would be more interesting than this current travesty.

by Jake, the Champion of the Constitution

Originally published October 3, 2008 at http://www.nolanchart.com/article5096.html

<< For those unaware, please read George Dance’s critical article “Third-party debate in early October” on the upcoming Third Party Debate in early October. Date is not yet announced. >>

Fellow columnist Jonathan Cymberknopf reported in his late September article “Ralph Nader and Bob Barr banned from the media” that the media has stopped covering the Third Party tickets who have a mathematical chance to win, and this does indeed seem to be the case. These candidates in alphabetical order are:

• Chuck Baldwin/Darrell Castle (Constitution Party listed on the ballot in 32 states)
• Bob Barr/Wayne Root (Libertarian Party, 45 states)
• Cynthia McKinney/Rosa Clemente (Green Party, 32 states)
• and Ralph Nader/Matt Gonzalez (independents, 45 states).

He is mostly correct; the mainstream media is completely ignoring these candidates.  However, viral media has the potential to take the third party’s message to millions, spreading far TRUER democracy, and revealing the current election of McBama as the staged sham that it truly is.  The cool facet about it is that if it starts, its spreads like wildfire because everyone shares with everyone else.  On the flip side, there is only one month left, but with the financial world reeling, McBama-supported idiotic bailouts and bank failures galore, there is a real chance this could have a lasting effect on American politics for a long time to come, if it is done correctly.  Here is the idea.

Let me introduce Lisa Donovan, viral media YouTube producer and best known by her online moniker LisaNova based in Los Angeles. Ms. Donovan runs her own company, Zappin Productions.  Currently roughly 135,000 viewers subscribe to her channel which is 24^th highest all-time in YouTube history.  Two of her recent clips, “Is McCain Palin’s B****?” and “Sarah Palin Exclusive Interview with Charles Gibson on ABC!!” have “gone viral” with over 2 million and almost 1 million hits each, respectively.

Sarah Palin’s live interviews with the press to date are widely acclaimed as a disaster for this initially-obscure-Dan-Quayle-type VP candidate. I agree as you can read here “Answering Matt Damon’s Question on Sarah Palin (PART 2/2)“, but please decide for yourself. Although LisaNova is obviously all about maximizing the comic effect, I think Nader interviews are worthwhile.  (photo source)

________________________________________________________ 

Sarah Palin Interview Links

Full ABC Charles Gibson video, each part ~5 minutes (Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4)

Full CBS Katie Couric interview, 10 minutes (link)

FOX Sean Hannity interview, each part ~6 min (Part 1 Part 2 Part 3)

CNN’s Jack Cafferty does comment honestly on the Couric interview and CNN’s call to the McCain to ask whether Palin would be removed from the ticket (Part 1 with 1.7 million hits and Part 2)

________________________________________________________

Mock Palin/LisaNova and Mock Charles Gibson on the Bush Doctrine, 4 minutes

________________________________________________________

Ralph Nader (it’s actually him) vs. Mock Palin/LisaNova Interviews

Nader vs. Palin/LisaNova on the Paulson Plan Bailout (4 minutes, Nader charges McBama is “essentially puppets of their own making taking orders from their corporate paymasters” and is “A Clone of George W. Bush” Wow!)

Nader vs. Palin/LisaNova on the Constitution (1 minute, “Ya know what dat is? What iz zat?” my favorite!)

________________________________________________________

As you may have noticed, LisaNova has copied Palin’s mannerisms and dress, but she is more or less regurgitating the hailstorm of nonsense that Palin fed to CBS, ABC, FOX.

Everyone, to have real Third Party Debates all we need to do is take the actual recorded McCain-Palin and Obama-bin-Biden [see below articles] and have LisaNova’s team stand-in for the Establishment. To be humorous, they probably do not actually need to change the script.  A moderator could then ask the real Third Party candidates for their answer to the same questions and WAA-LAH!  Instant third party debate!  Post everywhere on the Internet and problem solved!

I also think it would also be best to get Ron Paul involved to bring more attention to the effort, not only is he getting decent press exposure recently due to the bailout and made the Third Party Speech last month, but Dr. Paul is also famous for doing the first-ever known presidential candidate interview from a college kid’s dorm for YouTube last year and famously “went viral” during his campaign.

Is what I proposed fair?  No, it is an utter mockery of the Establishment.  But that’s what they deserve, and that’s what happens when you mess with We the People.

In Liberty,

Jake, the Champion of the Constitution

www.CampaignForLiberty.com

PS – In case you missed it, Ron Paul in his September 10 teleconference called for all Americans and members of the Revolution to support Third Party candidates. You can watch and read the transcript from this article “A Speech Barack Obama Could Give to Win the Presidency, Ron Paul, and Carroll Quigley’s “Tragedy and Hope”.

I will send Ms. Donovan and cc Mr. Lyman from Third Party Ticket and some folks at Campaign for Liberty this article to see what they think.  Ms. Donovan appears to be apolitical, although she has Kucinich and Paul videos pasted in her favorites, but she should be able to turn a profit. For instance, if the Third Party Debate needs a commercial break, I think some viral media would work wonderfully, especially if McBama haughtily distains to attend the debate, as George Dance predicts.  Who knows what will happen, but I think its worth a shot.

[Reach the Author Here!]

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

As always, unlike the NFL, the author grants full permission to allow any accounts of, rebroadcasts, retransmissions, repostings in part or full of this article to your blog or anywhere else in order to promote the Restoration of our Republic.

Veritas numquam perit. Veritas odit moras. Veritas vincit. Truth never perishes. Truth hates delay. Truth conquers.

________________________________________________________

Other Recent Articles by the Author

SENATE PASSES BAILOUT! And What to Do, NOW!
Published: October 2, 2008
Senate voted at 9:07PM Wednesday evening to pass the $700 billion Paulson Plan bailout. A House vote will either be forced immediately or, at the latest, on Friday. This article has all the critical info and steps outlined to get informed, and then write and call your US House Representative immediately!

HEY! CONGRESS! Al-Qaeda does NOT have an Air Force!
Published: September 30, 2008
The US House Committee on Foreign Affairs chaired a meeting published as “Defeating al-Qaeda’s Air Force: Pakistan’s F-16 Program in the Fight Against Terrorism.” The Champion of the Constitution reports on what this meeting covered, what it really demonstrated, and how it connects with the dream of Ron Paul, Dwight Eisenhower, myself and who knows? perhaps even you.

Nolan Chart Facebook Group Page Created
________________________________________________________

The “Happy Coronation, John McCain!” Series

1. Tortured Twins: John McCain and the Trial of Khaled Sheikh Mohammedv
2. RETRACTION – John McCain Crashed Five Warplanes, Not Three
3. John McCain and Barack Obama – Can They Even BE President?
4. Israeli Attack on the USS Liberty Leaves 34 Americans Dead, 173 Wounded. John McCain, Jr. Led the Cover-Up
5. My Father’s Vietnam is My Iraq – Disturbing Parallels
6. US Military Draft Creeps Closer – Ron Paul and I Defy Senators “Barackcuda” Obama and “Just-Bomb-It” McCain
7. Answering Matt Damon’s Question and Bob Barr Should Ask Sarah Palin to be his VP (PART 1/2)
8. Answering Matt Damon’s Question on Sarah Palin (PART 2/2)

________________________________________________________

The “Deep Fry The Barackcuda” Series

1. A Speech Barack Obama Could Give to Win the Presidency, Ron Paul, and Carroll Quigley’s “Tragedy and Hope”
2. John McCain and Barack Obama – Can They Even BE President?
3. Utter Chaos in Afghanistan and Pakistan as Barack Obama Sanctions Preemptive War
4. US Military Draft Creeps Closer – Ron Paul and I Defy Senators “Barackcuda” Obama and “Just-Bomb-It” McCain

How well do you know the U.S. Constitution? Are you ready to test your knowledge? Thanks to Chip Wood’s Straight Talk, here are 25 questions to test your Constitutional savvy. Care to give it a try? (Attempt to answer each question before reading the answer).

1. Has the Constitution always guided our country? See answerNo. Originally the nation functioned under the Continental Congress and the Articles of Confederation. Eleven years after the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution was written, agreed to, and sent to the states for ratification. When ratified by nine states (as the document itself prescribed), the Constitution was declared to be the new governmental system. That occurred on September 13, 1788. The new government was ordered to be convened on March 4, 1789.
2. What are the three branches of government named in the Constitution? See answerLegislative, Executive and Judicial.
3. Does the Constitution allow the Supreme Court to make law? See answerNo. The very first sentence in the Constitution states: “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States….” Any Supreme Court decision is the law of the case that binds only the plaintiff and the defendant. The meaning of the word “all” has not been changed.
4. Does the Constitution empower the President to make law? See answerNo. Executive Orders issued by the President that bind the entire nation are illicit because, as noted above, “All legislative powers” are possessed by Congress. An Executive Order that binds only the employees of the federal government (such as granting a holiday) is proper because the President should be considered to be the holder of power much like that possessed by the CEO of a company. But the entire nation is not in the employ of the President. The President does have a role in lawmaking with his possession of a veto. He can veto a measure approved by Congress (which can be overturned by a two-thirds vote in each house of Congress), or simply allow it to become law by doing nothing within 10 days, “Sundays excepted.”
5. Does the Constitution give the federal government any power in the field of education? See answerNo. The Constitution contains no mention of any power “herein granted” in the field of education.
6. Where in the Constitution is there authorization to dispense foreign aid? See answerNo such authorization appears in the Constitution.
7. Does the Constitution mandate a minimum age for a Senator? See answerYes. To be a senator, one must be 30 years of age. He must also be nine years a citizen of the United States and an inhabitant of the state he will serve as a senator.
8. What are the Constitutional requirements for a person to be President? See answerA President must be a natural-born citizen (not an immigrant who became a citizen), must be 35 years of age, and must have lived in the United States at least 14 years.
9. Did the Constitution give the federal government power to create a bank? See answerNo. Congress was granted power to “coin money,” meaning it was to have power to create a mint where precious metal could be stamped into coinage of fixed size, weight and purity. There is no constitutional authority for the federal government to have created the Federal Reserve.
10. Can the provisions of a treaty supersede the Constitution? See answerAbsolutely not. Thomas Jefferson responded to those who consider treaty-making power to be “boundless” by stating, “If it is, then we have no Constitution.”
11. Does the Constitution allow a President to take the nation into war? See answerNo, it does not. The sole power to declare the nation at war is possessed by Congress. Congress last used this power at the beginning of World War II when war was declared on Japan after the attack on Pearl Harbor. (Germany declared war on the U.S. the next day.) A congressional vote to authorize the President to enforce UN Security Council resolutions should never be considered a substitute for a declaration of war.
12. Can you name any of the four crimes mentioned in the Constitution? See answerThe four crimes mentioned are: Treason, bribery, piracy and counterfeiting.
13. Should the Bill of Rights be considered part of the original Constitution? See answerMany do hold that view because if the promise to add a Bill of Rights had not been made during the ratification process, some states would not have ratified the Constitution.
14. According to the Constitution, how can a President and other national officers be removed from office? See answerThe President and other high officers of the federal government can be impeached by a majority in the House and tried by the Senate. Impeachment does not constitute removal; it should be considered the equivalent of an indictment that must be followed by a trial. Two-thirds of the senators “present” must approve removal at the subsequent trial to effect removal.
15. What authority does the Constitution give to the Vice President? See answerThe Vice President stands ready to take the office of President if a president shall die or become incapacitated (as defined in the 25th Amendment). He is also the President of the Senate and has the power to break a tie vote should one occur.
16. How many amendments have been added to the Constitution? See answerThere are 27. The first ten (the Bill of Rights) can be considered part of the original Constitution. Amendment 18 was repealed by Amendment 21. This means that, in 220 years, only 15 other amendments have been added. The process was deliberately made difficult to keep anything dangerous or silly from being added to the Constitution in the heat of passion.
17. How is an amendment added to the Constitution? See answerCongress can propose an amendment when two-thirds of both houses of Congress vote to do so. Any proposed amendment must then by ratified by the legislature or a convention in three-quarters of the states. Amendments can also be proposed by a federal constitutional convention called by two-thirds of the states. Any amendment arising from a constitutional convention must also be ratified by the legislature or a convention in three-quarters of the states.
18. Does the Constitution say anything about illegal immigration? See answerNot directly. But Article IV, Section 4 assigns to the federal government the duty “to protect each of them [the states] from invasion.” It does not specify that the invasion must be military. When 20 million enter our nation illegally, it is an invasion that should be repelled by the federal government.
19. What is the process mentioned in the Constitution for adding new states to the union? See answerBy a majority vote in each House of Congress, a new state can be added to the union. This was done twice in 1958 to welcome Alaska and Hawaii as the 49th and 50th states.
20. Is the term of a President limited by the Constitution? See answerYes. In 1951, Amendment 22 was added to the Constitution to limit any president to two terms. The only president who served longer than two terms was Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who held office during a fourth four-year term. He died in April 1945 shortly after beginning his 13th year in office.
21. Which part of the federal government holds “the power of the purse”? See answerThe House of Representatives. Article I, Section 7 states: “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives….” If a majority in the House (218 of its 435 members) refuses to originate a bill to raise revenue for any particular purpose, no funds can be raised for that purpose.
22. Does the Constitution provide a method for expelling a member of Congress? See answerTwo-thirds of each house has the authority to expel any of its members for cause even though the member has been elected by voters.
23. What does the Constitution say about financing an army and a navy? See answerCongress can raise an army but “no appropriation of money” to fund it shall be for longer than two years. And Congress can provide for a navy without that same restriction regarding funding. Why? The men who wrote the Constitution feared the possibility that a standing army housed within the nation might arise and seek to take power. But they did not fear that a navy would try to do so, because a navy and its weaponry did not reside within the nation, only at sea or at coastal seaports.
24. How many times is the word “democracy” mentioned in the Constitution? See answerThe word “democracy” does not appear in the Constitution. Our nation is a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. The Founders feared Democracy (unrestricted rule by majority) and favored a Republic (rule of law where the law limits the government). James Madison wrote: “…. Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”
25. Does the Bill of Rights grant the people free speech, freedom of the press, the right to possess a weapon, etc? See answerNo. The Declaration of Independence, which provides the philosophical base of our nation, states very clearly that our rights are granted to us by our “Creator.”
    The various rights noted in the Bill of Rights were not granted by government. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to prevent the federal government from suspending any of those God-given rights, including the right to possess a weapon. Those who claim “Second Amendment rights,” for instance, make a big mistake with such a statement. If the right is granted by the Second Amendment, meaning by government, it can be taken away by government. If the right is granted by God, only He can take it away.

A few months ago we at Liberty Maven created The Paul-O-Meter where we rate the Presidential candidates on how closely they are to Ron Paul on the issues. We then opened up the rating system to readers. Since then we have added all sitting Senators and Congressmen to the system. Also, an option to submit candidates was added so that candidates currently running for office can be added. Now there are some new features that we are ready to unveil.

The Paul-O-Meter has moved to its own domain: Paul-O-Meter.com. A great new search feature was added to make finding candidates in the system extremely easy. Also each candidate now has his/her own Paul-O-Meter page for easy linking from other sites. For example here is Bob Barr’s Paul-O-Meter page.

What started as a humble little idea of rating the Presidential candidates in relation to Ron Paul became a full fledged rating system for any and all representatives and candidates for offices across America.

We aren’t finished with it yet. We have more features planned such as allowing each rater to give a reasoning for how each criterion is rated. We hope to make the Paul-O-Meter into something like OnTheIssues.org. In fact even if you despise Ron Paul the candidate ratings will give you great insight into each of the candidates positions. This will certainly be the case once we add the description feature.

We are also going to pick up with our own ratings again soon. In the meantime, check out the Paul-O-Meter for yourself. If you’d like a detailed description of the rating methodology please see this article.

If you have any other suggestions drop us a line at: paul-o-meter@libertymaven.com