The REAL ID Rebellion
Sign the Petition!

Search Now:
Amazon Logo

Join the Insurrection!
The McCain-Feingold Insurrection
A Proud Friend of Israel

Track referers to your site with free referrer feed.

Thursday, April 28, 2005

Jesse Ventura for President in 2008 [?]

Rather interesting observation here.

How the Democrats Can Win in 2008

If the Democrats want to win the 2008, they should enlist former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura as their candidate.
Jesse Ventura is a liberal. A real liberal. He is not a Bill Clinton pretend, liberal hick turned slick politician, nor a John Kerry stuffy, east coast, old money, snob liberal. Jesse Ventura is an actual social liberal.

Yes he has some conservative qualities. He is generally fiscally conservative. Jesse Ventura could easily win the hearts and minds of a lot of the "Red" voters out there simply because he was in the Navy, he was a wrestler, a sports announcer, he's a hunter (unlike John Kerry who gladly sacrifices innocent geese so he can get a camo photo op), he's wealthy (meaning he is not going to spend a lot of time guilt-tripping anyone over their money), he not only campaigned on a tax refund, but delivered. So the libertarian conservatives should love this guy. It's only the social conservatives who might have trouble with him.

To Jesse's credit here is that he has actively promoted actual liberal social policies. He is solidly pro-choice, no friend of religion (even vetoed a Pledge law), has stated approval for legalizing prostitution, approves of medical marijuana (and I would guess he would gladly entertain the idea of decriminalizing beyond that), supports public transportation (Jesse is one of the main reasons we have a light rail train in Minneapolis today), and actively supports gay rights (even standing by one of his gay cabinet members who had something of a scandal). His administration was even amenable to public school funding, just not the teachers' union. He has stated opposition to trade sanctions with Cuba.

In short, the man is an incredible breath of fresh air. I would vote for him without a moment's hesitation. Whether I agreed with him or not, I felt knew where he stood on issues and felt that he would stick to his principles. He was a leader, not a poll follower. He was a man, not a politician.

Read the full article:

Tuesday, April 26, 2005

Thoughts and Musings

I've had a busy month, but some quick thoughts here....

There's been a lot of coverage recently of Pharmacists refusing to fill certain prescriptions. There are many poeple who are trying to regulate that, to force them to fill prescriptions that compromise their moral values. This is wrong, plain and simple. A pharmacist is neither an automaton or a slave. However, there have also been cases where these pharmacists hold these prescription, refuse to either return them to the patient so that they can fill the prescription elsewhere or refuse to transfer the prescription to another pharmacy. This is an untenantable position, and should result in loss of licensure. It is proper for people to have their moral values and consciences; it is a gross violation of the principles of our nation and of human rights to force those views on others (and refusing to return or transfer a legal prescription is a form of force).

The election of Ratzinger to become Pope Benedict XVI will continue the decline of the Catholic Church in American. The Hierarchy of the Catholic Church are no friends of Freedom. While there are many individuals of Catholic Faith who are friends of Liberty, the Catholic Church's proclamations (and lobbying) go beyond telling its own membership what is proper within the Church (as a voluntary association this is well within its bounds, one can follow its dictates or dissasociate onself from the Church) to forcing it's worldview on others (see above comment on Pharmacists). Any time someone tries to legislate thier views of what is moral or proper, when it is on areas where the actions of one (or more) individuals do not initiate force or otherwise violate the rights of others, they are initiating force (Government is force) on others, and have no moral standing.

The neo-libertarian movement (those "libertarians" who believe in the pre-emptive use of Force ala the Bush Doctrine) is attempting to usurp the use of the much older term "New Libertarian." There's also a Yahoo Group that is for discussion of New Libertarian ideas. (Thanks to Tom Knapp for this information.)

Oh, and check out the Democratic Freedom Caucus. They're left-libertarians working within the context of the Democratic Party, which these days is much more freedom-oriented than the Republican Party (with the exception of Rep. Ron Paul).