Posted by Greg L on 02/03/10

Every once in a while someone comes up with an idea and you wonder why no one has thought of that before.  Thats how I about the Alliance for Bonded Term Limits. Their objective :"... provide a vehicle for sincere candidates to demonstrate their commitment to limited tenure in office by voluntarily bonding their term limit promise with personal assets in advance of the election. These bonded assets of substantial worth will be forfeited to charity only if their promise is broken."

It's enjoyable that somone is asking candidates to put their money where their mouths are. Politicians have proven to be have no problem being generous with other peoples money, why should they have a problem putting some of their own savings aside for charity? They are also skilled at sounding honest and sincere about principles they could care less about. When they break their word that's politics as usual, nothing happens, no one holds them accountable. With this system there is a penalty when they break their agreement to term limits.

The one flaw, why stop at term limits?  Let them put their money where their mouths are if they're truly serious about balenced budgets, not voting for pork and earmarks, or whatever promises they are going to make.  If politicians want their words to have meaning why not force them have back up them up with something of value?

 
Posted by Greg L on 12/21/09

I have been getting a few e-mails asking for my opinions on various candidates. Often in the e-mail is a mention of how they are for tax cuts.

I pay no attention to the claims of tax cuts. Every politician promises to cut taxes. What do they cut? In the world of politics saying you cut taxes is easy to do. Obama has made tax cuts!!! All these tax credits you see thrown around for buying a house, caulking the house... In the warped mind of Washington these are tax cuts. We can have tax cuts even when taxes are going up.

What we need is spending cuts. Every penny government spends is a tax. It all comes from us. It doesn't matter if it's from income tax, sales, property tax, fees, or inflation it's all taken from us, the private sector. Any claims of cutting the one form of taxes but not having spending cuts to go with it is disingenuous.

The most fiscally responsible thing to do right now would be to cut spending, increase taxes and pay down the national debt. What do you do when you as an individual is in debt? You have 3 choices, spend less(eat out less, disconnect cable), earn more (get a second job, work overtime), or do both. It's no different for the federal government. Individuals can not spend their way out of debt, nor can the federal government.

We need to call out every person running for office who says they want to cut taxes. Most are ignorant, they don't understand how taxes and spending go hand in hand. We need to educate them and at the same time find out as much as we can about their plans beyond taking populist political positions. The populists have a history of caving when it comes to cutting government programs.

It's why I try not to vote for career politicians. I want to see a person go in who isn't worried about their popularity when it comes time to make cuts to schools, libraries, police forces, fire departments, road improvement projects, national defense... Much of the pork and waste is hidden in populist programs. Those who try to stop the waste are going to be vilified by those who feed off the public trough.

Are taxes too high? Yes. Is government spending too much? Yes. Is our government efficient? No. Is there waste to be trimmed? Yes. Are the American people willing to do what it will take to cut waste? to cut spending? to cut taxes? They may vote for what appears to be the right people but will those elected officials have the courage to do what take on the fight that will come with doing the right thing? Not if they are worried about their popularity and being reelected?

 
Posted by Greg L on 12/05/09

Over the years we have witnessed many successful politicians who shown allegiance or support for an issue or group they could care less about. Some political analysts and blogers admire their skills in "winning over" certain groups; their ability to craft a message so it appeals to the right demographics.

Once in office these politicians continue the game while doing nothing to advance the causes they claimed to be advocates for while campaigning.

We have seen swings in congressional representation over issues like the: national debt, the war in Iraq, term limits and the "Contract with America". And we end up with the same results - more spending, higher debts, nonstop nation-building, meddling in other nations affairs, and unconstitutional police actions/wars.

Now thanks to Ron Paul, Tea Parties, health care protests, end the fed rallies, open carry events,... politicians see our movement as a source of votes.

While the liberty movement has been around from the very founding of this nation, the current renaissance is young. We are seeing many people running as Ron Paul Republicans - or at least stealing parts of his platform. Few from the current crop of candidates have much of a track record. We are stuck having to take their word that they are sincere in their words and motives.

I am glad that we are a demographic to be won over. I am glad that we have the ability to shape the upcoming elections. I don't like being a trendy. I don't like those who think that if they dress the right way, read the right books, learn the right slang and dance moves, that they can be accepted as one of us. There are some wolves in sheep's clothing. Culled them from the herd will not be an easy task.

There needs be cation taken before supporting someone. We need to take time examine all the candidates. We need to have multiple interactions with those who we favor. We need to verify with our friends and neighbors that they don't change their wording from day to day to appease the current crowd. We need to check what can of their background. Libertarianism is a lifestyle, you don't just pull it out of the closet on election day. Do they personally give to charity or wait for government to take care of those in need? Do they save for a rainy day or are they personally in debt? At the office do they allow coworkers the freedom to make mistakes on their own or are they micromanaging every task with a "my way or the highway" mentality?

There are candidates who feel they need our support to win. We want to help candidates get elected. It seems like a perfect match, but it isn't if the candidate and our values don't match. We need to be sure that we are supporting candidates who will once elected be advocates for truth, justice, and the American way.

Posted 12/06/09 navnek Mauston, WI

I agree with Greg. I was VERY disgusted when FOX news first reported on Tea Party events, and the big hypocrite Newt was a commentator. He is known to covet the office of president, and he is also known by me as a sellout, big government type. If we are talking about incumbent politicians here, it should be easy to see if they are the real deal by their voting records. If not, then we should be especially careful. As I said at the Tea Party events I spoke to, "2010 is a pivoltal year, but to replace Democrat crooks with Republican ones is not progress. We have to be sure that we elect philosophically consistent, freedom minded individuals. Our continued existence as a free and prosperous nation may depend upon it."

Posted 12/14/09 Guardian3 Fairfield, ME

I agree entirely, many conservatives are more than happy to pay lip service to the cause of liberty to try and gain support. We need to make it very clear to them that unlike many of their other political focus groups we will not be appeased by empty rhetoric and token gestures. Libertarianism is a way of life.

 
Posted by Greg L on 11/21/09

I accept the role that elections and politics plays in our lives. I participate because I understand the importance of doing so. Like most the populace I do not find politics to be the most exciting or engaging of topics.

Last year, I couldn't wait for the elections to be over so that we could move on to a different topic. I really didn't care who won between McCain and Obama. I couldn't support either party. I thought that after the smoke cleared Washington would go back to it's usual business of doing nothing. I was wrong.

We have witnessed massive bail outs of the banking industry, the government takeover of a private corporation, a massive tax plan designed to force factorys out the US, attempts for a government expansion and takeover of the health care sector, and a fiscal policy which is making the currency we hold worthless.

The good news is that the extremism and determination of this Congress and Presidency has started to wake up the apathetic. We are seeing them at Tea Parties, town hall meetings, and other political events. We the citizens are fed up with politics. The citizens are want real change. Change which will reduce the size and invasiveness of government. Change which will increase our individual liberties. Change which will allow us to prosper as individuals, not dependants of the state.

Other years I have viewed elections as some sort of a play or pageant, a means by which an establishment of entrenched incumbents try to justify their power through a mock display meant to show me and my friends are the only people who don't idolize them.

When I look back at last years elections, I'm angry. Not at the outcome, not at who won, I am angry that I didn't have a choice. It wasn't just the Presidency, there was no pro-liberty choice for any office. None of the major candidates were for returning government to it's constitutional limits.

Next year looks different. There are plenty of people with ties to Ron Paul and the Campaign for Liberty who have announced their candidacy, and many more who are considering a run for office.

Usually I hear people talking about elections a year out and I wonder what the rush is? Why can't the election season be just 90 day's? Who besides career politicians and the lobbyists who buy them cares a year out?

This year is different. We have an unrestrained radical group controlling all the branches of government. We have elected leaders who refuse to listen to the people, instead they continue pushing socialist programs we don't want. The necessity of removing as many of them as possible is more obvious than ever.

Next years election is important for many reasons. We have to take our nation back from an anti-capitalist, statist regime which, with the help of the past administration, has put our nation on the road to complete economic ruin. With Governor Doyle stepping down we have a very good chance to allow the economic conservatives to take control of the Wisconsin government. There is also the census and gerrymandering of districts at stake.

This time we also have candidates who I feel are on the side of the people, not government. I could dwell on the past and ask where they were in the past, but that would not accomplish anything. I am excited about having candidates who have the same interests I do. I am excited about having candidates I would feel proud to be associated with. I am excited that I have a choice in this upcoming election. I am excited that I have a voice in this upcoming election.

I plan to use my voice to do what I can to get a pro-liberty team in Washington. I plan to use my voice to get a pro-liberty team in Madison as well. We have great national candidates in Peter Schiff, Rand Paul, and others. We have great state candidates in Ed Thompson, Rick Richard, and others. Most importantly we have candidates who will make great representatives for we the people.

Posted 11/25/09 navnek Mauston, WI

I agree Greg. I see many pretenders lining up, but also good "freedom fighters." And add mine to the voices of those doing what they can to get that pro-Liberty team. www.revolutionbroadcasting.com "The Voice of Liberty," 8PM Central, M-F live chat and archives referenced on home page, call in # 505-715-6522

Posted 12/05/09 greatscott Greenville, WI

I have another point of view. I believe the reason Congress is acting so out of control is becuase the establishment of Congress know's something we do not. That is we will not have election in 2010. How else can you explain the behavior of Reid and Pelosi? Reid is in serious trouble in Nevada for his re-election. The fact that government spending is out of control and uless we stop it, it will destroy the American Dollar. I believe we will see the economy take a second tumble and and the collaspe of the dollar. Then the Government will declare martial law to keep people in their cages. Does anybody care to submit a reason why this theory is flawed?

Posted 12/12/09 clint4liberty Louiisville, KY

Subject: KY GrassRoots Radio Interview with David Adams 6:40 to 7:10 PM. Here is the eposide link for the radio show page: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/ky-grassroots-radio/2009/12/14/kgr-2009-year-in-rev iew-current-events Eposide Description: Tonight, KGR will interview David Adams, campaign manager of Dr. Rand Paul for US Senate 2010. Also, on the show we will talk about 2009 year in review, health care, cap and trade, the new financial regulations bill, and other important topics. Here on Kentucky Grassroots Radio we will always give you solutions to the latest local, state and national problems. Here is the information for the show: Kentuckiana Grassroots Radio web site: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/KY-GrassRoots-Radio Show Phone: 1-347-637-3086 Show E-mail: kymattsingleton@yahoo.com Show time: 6:30 to 8:00 PM Eastern Time

Posted 01/20/10 Lucius Junius Brutus Berlin, WI

Maybe tonight's win in Massachusetts by Scott Brown is just the tip of the ice berg.

 
Posted by Greg L on 10/27/09
Last updated 10/27/09

  Medical Marijuana. On October 19th the Federal Justice Department finally declared an end to the policy of going after doctors who prescribe medicinal marijuana in states where it is legal. Let's take advantage of this rare case of state rights not being trumped by an overzealous federal government. Marijuana has many possible medicinal uses including the treatment of: Alzheimer's, anorexia, arthritis, cachexia, cancer, Crohn's disease, epilepsy, glaucoma, HIV/AIDS, migraine's, ...

What good has come from not allowing the use of marijuana? Let's get one thing straight - Medicinal Marijuana is not toking up!! This involves taking a pill or capsule with extract the same as other vitamins or supplement.

This is a chance for Wisconsin to take a step in it's advancement of health care and make a statement for state sovereignty with one action.

  Education Vouchers.  The voucher system should be expanded statewide. Where used the demand far exceeds the number of vouchers provided. Why are the futures of our children left to a lottery? Why is the program not opened to anyone who wants in? How can anyone claim that they are for better schools if they oppose vouchers?

Let's call a spade a spade. Anyone who supports WEAC or votes for WEAC endorsed candidates is for dumbing down our populace. Let's stop opposing vouchers just because a union believes every child deserves an overpaid teacher even in areas where they fail to graduate 50% of the students. Let's stop accepting a virtual monopoly that underachievers. Let's take a stand for giving our children every possible opportunity to overcome ignorance. Let's support the schools who do succeed in graduating educated students.

  Distilling Your Own Spirits.  It is legal to make personal use wine and beer at home, but not spirits.  Why not?  It's a legal product, it can be made safely.  This is not just Nanny state regulation. This is not just corporate welfare forcing us to buy from big alcohol. This is a slap in the face of self sufficiency and rugged individualism.

  Smoking.  This is a prime case of the government treating adults as children.  If one person owns a business, another person wants to patronize that business, and the owner allows the patron to smoke, what is the problem?  Non-smokers can get off of their tender oversensitve ass and choose a different place in which to dine, drink and be entertained?  I know I can make that grown-up decision.  Can you? 

The owner of a private establishment to decide whether they will or won't allow smoking on their premise. The customer, can voice their opinion with their wallet. If the support is their they can go smoking, non-smoking, or have separate smoking and non-smoking sections.

  Serve Alcohol Responsibly at a Restaurant.  Vito J. Congine, Jr. made news when he started flying his American flag upside down outside his property in Crivitz. Vito plans to open an Italian restaurant. In addition to pasta menu plans include beer and wine. Despite thinking he had everything in order his petition for a liquor license was initially denied.
The number of liquor licenses a municipality can hand out are limited. It is based on population. It no way factors in market demand, how responsible those who have or want one are, or how responsible the citizens of that municipality are.

These limits make the issuing and review of liquor licenses very political. This is wrong.
If a tavern violates noise ordinances, waters down their drinks, allows patrons to drive drunk, engage in fights, or other illegal actions then fine them. If they refuse to conform and have repeat offenses shut them down. But, don't declare them guilty before they even open for business.

  Open a Neighborhood Bar.   On TV in the 90's Cheer's was portrayed as a typical neighborhood bar in Boston where "everybody knew your name". That romanticized notion of a local watering hole is going extinct. Bars are being forced into entertainment districts.
Not only is the price of a night out driven up by artificially limiting the number of liquor licenses issued, but is driven up further when establishments are forced into high rent areas. No longer having a bar on just down the street one can walk to we a greater number of people having to drive to the bar and then choosing to drive home. One can not say they are opposed to drunk driving when they remove drinking establishments from residential neighborhoods.

At the old local tavern the patrons were from the neighborhood. The bartenders knew who the drunks, bullies, and hustlers were. They also needed to know how to control them or they risked seeing people go somewhere else.

The best way to promote responsible drinking is to have it take place where everybody knows your name and will hold you responsible for your actions.

  Buzzed Driving.  A current advertising campaign says buzzed driving is drunk driving. That may the case according to current drunk driving laws but there is a difference.

Different people have different tolerances. Most people are not drunk and can and do drive safely with a BAC of .08%. Many people who believe they have been drinking responsibly are actually above the legal limit. By having a BAC which is too low we are turning otherwise responsible individuals into criminals. When it is too easy to break a law it becomes trivial. When breaking the law is common place the negative social connotation goes away. There is little outrage when our elected leaders like Peg Lautenschlager,  and Jeff Wood get pulled over, in Jeff Wood's case again and again.

Wisconsin legislature is debating toughening drunk driving laws. I am all for this if they are applied to people who are actually drunk. This used to be defined as a BAC of .10%. Before that it was .12%. I would say that we move back to .12%, a point where most people can responsibly have a few drinks without having to worry about getting put in jail, a point where law enforcement efforts can be focused on people who are more likely to actually be impaired and dangerous.

  Give Legal Advice. We all give legal advise, it's hard not to. But, legally only a member of the state bar association may do so. The bar association is not alone in limiting competition.

The Wisconsin Dietetic Association has put forward the Wisconsin Dietitians Licensing Bill (SB115). This would limit the issuing of diet and nutrition advice to those who have been trained and certified as registered dietitian's by the American Dietetic Association.

  Running a Small Business Without Government Approval.  This is a catch-all to keep this list from going on too long.

Bureaucrats will tell you business licenses serve to protect the public, by making sure the a practitioner has the skills and competence necessary to do their job. This is only a small percentage. Most business licensing serves two purposes.  To collect taxes and to push one business person around to the benefit of another business person the politician likes better.

How much government regulation do we need for Tom's Snow Removal, Dick's Plumbing , or Harry's Barber Shop?  It's not like any of these people are performing open heart surgery. It snow's Tom plows my drive I pay him, my toilet backs up Dick snakes it out I pay him, my hair gets a little long Harry gives me a haircut where my sideburns are different lengths, by bangs a crooked, and the back half of my head is shaved bare so I wear hat, wait till it grows back, and find a different barber.