Principals Matter

MY CHOICE FOR PRESIDENT FOR THE 2008 FLORIDA PRIMARY
IS
DR. RON PAUL

The Primary's and Caucus's are the time to vote with your core values.
It is not the time to compromise.
Your values must be put forth to the National Party.
Your voice must be heard loud and clear.
You will have plenty of time later to, pray, "hold your nose" and cast a vote for the consensus choice later.
VOTE NOW WITH YOUR HEART.

UNDECIDED IN FLORIDA '08

I’m in a quandary here about who to vote for on Tuesday. I am/was a Fred Thompson supporter and I am now in a larch. On my personal scale using a range of 0 to 100 Thompson scored a 96.36%, the next closest is Dr. Ron Paul scoring a 89.1%, then Mike Huckabee scoring a 78.2%.
Logic dictates that I vote for Paul but my gut feeling is that he don't have a snowballs chance in hell. But he's got money enough to stick it out for a while and that might be a real good thing for the Libertarian message.

Huckabee, on the other hand, has a fair to middlin' chance to get the nomination, but they are cash poor and thats a bad thing in 21st Century politics.

So I'm Looking for Ideas.......

NOTA

Term Limits NO

None of the Above YES

I have issues with Term Limits, especially in light of the fact that to get to one of the seats of power , you have to have seniority. This is one of the main criteria for all the important chairs and committees. But implementing Term Limits guarantees you less representation for your state in Washington D.C..

Believe me I understand wanting to get these entrenched “folks” out of D.C. and in many areas the opposition party cant put up a competitive opposition candidate. Other times the candidate owns the local party machine and quashes any replacement choices. Term limits fixes these problems and “throws the bum's out” but it also kills the good guy's too.

It a “baby with the bathwater” analog. and the way to repair the problem is called “None of the Above”. On every ballot for every elected position you add a box for “None of the Above”.

From the NOTA web site ( www.nota.org ) NONE OF THE ABOVE

• All legitimate consent requires the ability to withhold consent; "None of the Above" gives the voter the ballot option to withhold consent from an election to office, just as voters can cast a "No" vote on a ballot question.

• Would end the "must hire" elections where voters are often forced to vote for the least unacceptable candidate, the all too familiar "lesser evil."

• A candidate must obtain voter consent to be elected, even if running unopposed.

• Voters would decide the fate of the political parties' choices, instead of the parties deciding the voters' choices.

• It should reduce negative campaigning by encouraging candidates to campaign for their own candidacy rather than against their opponent's candidacy.

• Many voters and non voters, who now register their disapproval of all candidates for an office by not voting, could cast a meaningful vote.

• Provides an effective alternative to the increasing voter practice of writing-in frivolous names, the so-called “Mickey Mouse” option.

• The meaning of elections should become more clear, since voters would no longer be tempted to vote for a presumed losing candidate, with whom they really do not agree, as a protest vote.

• Establishes flexible, voter controlled term limits of one term for every office, as the framers of the U.S. Constitution intended.

• Campaign contributors who give to all candidates to insure "access" would no longer be sure they backed the winner; in general, buying elections should become a more uncertain enterprise.

• Improves checks and balances between voters and political parties, especially needed in jurisdictions with one dominant political party or nearly identical alternatives.

• Political parties would nominate candidates knowing those candidates must be a better choice for voters than "None of the Above."

• Follow-up by-elections are far less costly than electing unacceptable candidates to office.

• Office holders, knowing they face "None of the Above" in the next election, would be encouraged to insure their re-election by focusing more on doing a good job in office and less on attempting to prevent the emergence of an effective opposition candidate.

• When pre-election polls include "None of the Above", the feedback from voters should help guide candidates and parties.

• Even when "None of the Above" does not win or is a non-binding NOTA, the reported NOTA vote would help identify those offices for which voters might be more receptive to new candidates in a future election as well as limits the winner's mandate.

• Provides a permanent option for voters to withhold consent that is independent of expensive and infrequent candidate based "reform" movements.

• Should make public service more attractive by improving the quality of those elected to office.

• Opportunities for election fraud should be reduced because fewer blank votes for an office would be cast.

• Applies to all candidates and parties equally.

• It is a relatively simple, fair, sensible, accomplishable and permanent improvement to our current system, hopefully making for a more democratic and ultimately stronger America.

This is something that everyone regardless of political their slant can get on board with. The only the political hacks ( most everyone at the DNC and RNC headquarters ) are going dig in their heels. Read up on NOTA that link again is www.nota.org .

Stoneknives

Thanks the Kick in the Ass..G.W.

FROM NEAL BOORTZ 15 JAN 2008

2ND AMENDMENT UPDATE

"The Bush administration’s chief lawyer before the Supreme Court filed a brief in the battle over the legality of the DC ban of handguns in homes. “Since ‘unrestricted’ private ownership of guns clearly threatens public safety, the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted to allow a variety of gun restrictions,” according to the Bush administration. Paul Clement suggested that gun rights are limited and subject to “reasonable regulation.” According to Clement, all federal limits on guns should be upheld.

What a shame. Thank you, George Bush, for yet another sterling defense of our Constitution. If this is any indication of how the Supreme Court may rule, we can at least hope that the DC handgun laws are said to have gone too far."

I voted for you twice Mr. Bush. The first time because, being from Tennessee, I knew what Al Gore would do. The second time because Kerry is at least an order of magnitude bigger dumb ass.

Thanks for not keeping your word, again .

Stoneknives

Property Rights and Deadly Force

Property Rights and Deadly Force

In most states a property owner is limited as to the circumstances under which he can use deadly force to protect his property. It's my contention that these laws are unjust toward the law o biding citizen.

Example : You own a truck a year old, nothing fancy, full size half ton club cab, so you can drop off the kids at school. It's big bucks for you 25k plus taxes of $1750. Now some lowlife jumps in and takes it while you are unloading grocery's in front of the house and it's gone. Sure you've got full coverage insurance from State Geko Mutual of Nebraska, but your babied truck with 9000 miles and a perfect bed is to them worth 18k. After wasting many hours providing documentation and speaking with a dozen minions of the insurance company you are basically told to F-off and go to arbitration (another month of TIME) or sue (the lawyer wants $3500 just to start and his free advice is “Insurance Co. Suck, and it will never pay to sue them”). So you take the money....

You are now officially out $ 8750.00 cash, plus the TIME and wages lost because of the Insurance. Rental Car, Police reports (437 ½ hours at your $20 per hour wage + TIME) We still haven't added up the TIME for you to go out and get a new vehicle to replace the stolen one. Thats 54.6+ working days of your life that you have had stolen from you. 11+ weeks of your sweat and toil because property laws. You had a rifle on hand, but you'r a good citizen and familiar with the law according to your State, and because the Thief wasn't threatening you directly you had to let him drive off.

But he did, his act directly threating you and your family's financial security. If the SOB locked you up in a warehouse for 54.6 day he would have done the same thing to your family's finances as sure as theft he perpetrated..

You had your TIME kidnapped from you.

You had your TIME stolen from you.

TIME that you will never have again.

What does the State do to criminals? It takes their TIME. Because TIME is the SECOND most valuable thing to a human on this planet and your LIFE is the FIRST (because it represents all of your TIME).

What makes Gold valuable ? The amount of TIME it takes to find it, move it and refine it.

PROPERTY to any citizen represents directly the TIME it took to earn it.

A property owner should be allowed to use whatever force is necessary, including deadly force, to protect his property regardless of whether or not the person stealing his property presents a threat to his personal health or safety.

My short TIME on Earth, a gift given by God, is extremely valuable to me.

What is your TIME worth ?

STONEKNIVES

PS: No government disability benefits if you just wound the SOB.