24/07/08 "ICH" - - - Republicans are sending around the Internet a photo of a cute little boy whose T-shirt reads: “The mess in my pants is nothing compared to the mess Democrats will make of this country if they win Nov. 2nd.”

One can only wonder at the insouciance of this message. Are Republicans unaware of the amazing mess the Bush regime has made?

It is impossible to imagine a bigger mess. Republicans have us at war in two countries as a result of Republican lies and deceptions, and we might be in two more wars--Iran and Pakistan--by November. We have alienated the entire Muslim world and most of the rest.

The dollar has lost 60% of its value against the euro, and the once mighty dollar is losing its reserve currency role.

The Republicans’ policies have driven up the price of both oil and gold by 400%.

Inflation is in double digits. Employment is falling.

The Republican economy in the 21st century has been unable to create net new jobs for Americans except for low wage domestic services such as waitresses, bartenders, retail clerks and hospital orderlies.

Republican deregulation brought about fraud in mortgage lending and dangerous financial instruments which have collapsed the housing market, leaving a million or more homeowners facing foreclosure. The financial system is in disarray and might collapse from insolvency.

The trade and budget deficits have exploded. The US trade deficit is larger than the combined trade deficits of every deficit country in the world.

The US can no longer finance its wars or its own government and relies on foreign loans to function day to day. To pay for its consumption, the US sells its existing assets--companies, real estate, toll roads, whatever it can offer--to foreigners.

Republicans have run roughshod over the US Constitution, Congress, the courts and civil liberties. Republicans have made it perfectly clear that they believe that our civil liberties make us unsafe--precisely the opposite view of our Founding Fathers. Yet, Republicans regard themselves as the Patriotic Party.

The Republicans have violated the Nuremberg prohibitions against war crimes, and they have violated the Geneva Conventions against torture and abuse of prisoners. Republican disregard for human rights ranks with that of history’s great tyrants.

The Republicans have put in place the foundation for a police state.

I am confident that the Democrats, too, will make a mess. But can they beat this record?

We must get the Republicans totally out of power, or we will have no country left for the Democrats to mess up.

I say this as a person who has done as much for the Republican Party as anyone. I helped to devise and to get implemented an economic policy that cured stagflation and that brought Republicans back into political competition after Watergate. If I could have looked into a crystal ball and seen that under a free trade banner, Republicans would enable corporate executives to pay themselves millions of dollars in “performance pay” for deserting their American work forces and hiring foreigners in their place, thus destroying the aspirations and careers of millions of Americans, I never would have helped the Republicans. If a crystal ball had revealed that a neoconned Republican Party would launch wars of naked aggression against countries that posed no threat to the United States, I would have shouted my warnings even earlier.

The neoconned Republican Party is the greatest threat America has ever faced. Let me tell you why.

How many Republicans can you name who respect and honor the Constitution? There are Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and who? The ranks of Republican constitutional supporters quickly grow thin.

The reason is that Republicans view the Constitution as a coddling device for criminals and terrorists. Republicans think the Constitution can be set aside for evil-doers and kept in place for everyone else. But without the Constitution we only have the government’s word as to who is an evil-doer.

This would be the word of the same infallible government that told us that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction that were on the verge of being used against America, the same infallible government that told us that Guantanamo prison held “770 of the most dangerous persons alive” and then, after stealing 5 years of their lives, quietly released 500 of them as mistaken identities.

Republicans think the United States is the salt of the earth and that American hegemony over the rest of the world is not only justified by our great virtue but necessary to our safety. People this full of hubris are incapable of judgment. People incapable of judgment should never be given power.

Republicans have no sympathy for anyone but their own kind. How many Republicans do you know who care a hoot about the plight of the poor, the jobless, the medically uninsured? The government programs that Republicans are always adamant to cut are the ones that help people who need help.

I have yet to hear any of my Republican friends express any concern whatsoever for the 1.2 million Iraqis who have died, and the 4 million who have been displaced, as a result of Bush’s gratuitous invasion. Many tell me that the five- and six-year long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are due to wimpy Americans “who don’t have the balls it takes” to win. Killing and displacing a quarter of the Iraqi population is just a wimpy result of a population that lacks testosterone. Real Americans would have killed them all by now.

Macho patriotic Republicans are perfectly content for US foreign policy to be controlled by Israel. Republican evangelical “christian” churches teach their congregations that America’s purpose in the world is to serve Israel. And these are the flag-wavers.

Those of us who think America is the Constitution, and that loyalty means loyalty to the Constitution, not to office holders or to a political party or to a foreign country, are regarded by Republicans as “anti-American.”

Neoconservatives, such as Billy Kristol, insist that loyalty to the country means loyalty to the government. Thus, criticizing the government for launching wars of aggression and for violating constitutionally protected civil liberties is, according to neoconservatives, a disloyal act.

In the neoconservative view, there is no place for the voices of citizens: the government makes the decisions, and loyal citizens support the government’s decisions.

In the neocon political system there is no liberty, no democracy, no debate. Dissenters are traitors.

The neoconservative magazine, Commentary, wants the New York Times indicted for telling Americans that the Bush regime was caught violating US law, specifically the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, by spying on Americans without obtaining warrants as required by law. Note that neoconservatives think it is a criminal act for a newspaper to tell its readers that their government is spying on them illegally.

Judging by their behavior, a number of Democrats go along with the neocon view. Thus, the Democrats don’t offer a greatly different profile. They went along with the views that corporate profits and the war on terror take precedence over everything else. They have not used the congressional power that the electorate gave them in the 2006 elections.

However, Democrats, or at least some of them, do care about the Constitution. If it were not for Democratic appointees to the federal courts and the ACLU (essentially a Democratic organization), the Bush regime would have completely destroyed our civil liberties.

Some Democrats are “bleeding hearts,” who actually care about suffering people they don’t know, and who think that we have obligations to others. Have you ever heard of a bleeding heart Republican?

Traditionally, Democrats objected whenever policies resulted in a handful of rich people capturing all of the income gains from the economy. There might still be a few such Democrats left.

Looking at the Republican mess, I doubt that Democrats, try as they may, can equal it.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions. He can be reached at: paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com

For McCain the issue is the tepid to hostile support from the Republican base and the campaign by Bob Barr. This is a YouTube election and every gaffe, every sound bite is pounced upon by the media and bloggers. It is becoming increasing clear that many feel nominating McCain would be a mistake. Could it be however that neither the Democratic or Republican Parties really want to win the Oval Office this year? Are they both trying to throw the election so that four years from now a 'real' candidate will be offered as the savior? Is that why Obama and McCain are both acting so idiotic and running fairly even in national polls?

Sincerely,

Bitter Hinterlands

(CNN) — Has Bobby Jindal ruled out being John McCain's running mate?

One day after it was revealed the presumptive Republican presidential candidate was slated to hold a closed-door meeting with the 37-year old governor, Jindal told Fox News there is no way he will fill the bottom half of the GOP presidential ticket.

"I'm not going to be the vice presidential nominee or vice president," Jindal said. "I'm going to help Senator McCain get elected, as governor of Louisiana."

I did catch Governor Bobby Jindal in a little white lie: "I'm going to help Senator McCain get elected." Bobby? You know better, otherwise you would be falling all over Senator McCain, begging to be on the ticket.

I am impressed with this young governor of Louisiana that has the political foresight to see that being on this ticket damages his political future. Being a Vice Presidential candidate on a losing ticket in a possible landslide defeat puts him in history with never heard of again people like Congressman William Miller of New York, who was Barry Goldwater's running mate in 1964 and who later appeared in American Express commercials where he asked the question, "Do you know me?" 1964 was Miller's last campaign, The Goldwater/Miller ticket got 52 electoral votes (Goldwater's home state and 5 southern states).

Governor Bobby Jindal is rumored to be in line to deliver the keynote speech at the Republican convention, something then-actor Ronald Reagan delivered in 1964 and thrust him onto the national scene and set the stage for his being elected Governor of California in 1966. And this led to Ronald Reagan's ascendency to the Presidency in 1980. And of course in recent history, Barack Obama delivered a pretty good keynote address in 2004 that also set the stage for his candidacy this year.

Good move Governor. And good luck with the speech. Reading on Walden Bookstore.

But fear not bias! For John McCain is also ineligible to be the President of the United States!

Neither of the two candidates have an excuse right now. We're about to violate the Constitution again by electing a non-natural-born-citizen to the highest office.

Bushophobia is a huge problem and is one reason that the country is so polarized. There are dozens of people to blame besides Bush. Sure, I attack Bush and Cheney a lot on this site in my writing because they are dead wrong in the policies they have chosen to undertake. They are descendants of the big government Hamiltonian political thought and are deceiving in accepting the label "conservative" and even "Republican". But they are not the only people to blame.

The real fatal flaw in Bushophobia is that the premise is wrong. If Bush is the biggest wrong in the world, then simply replacing him (be it Obama or anyone else) would be an instant benefit to mankind. In the Bushophobic mind, nothing can be worse than Bush. This is a kind of thinking that affects many Republicans, though, too. In their mind, Bush is no perfect conservative, but nothing can be as bad as Obama or Clinton. Both sides represent a side of partisanship that shouldn't exist. The reason everyone should wake up to this charade is because both parties are identical. The government grows no mater who is president. Even under Ronald Reagan, the "champion of conservatism", we saw a huge growth in government and an increase in deficit spending, beginning our trend toward massive debt that Bush has only compounded many times over. Republican presidents are never better than Democrat ones. Democrat presidents are not better than Republicans.

Both parties adhere to the growth of government and the advancement of their agendas. What makes me angry about Republican politicians is they are the most hypocritical--they preach conservatism while flat out lying about it. Most conservatives refuse to believe they are being lied to so blatantly and continue to vote in "conservative" politicians. I had to overcome this problem, too, and it isn't difficult when everything in your gut tells you the Democrats are worse. I've reached a point now where I see little to no difference in them and I actually get angry when other people can't see through the lies--but I was caught up in the same problem myself, so I have to let it pass and try not to be mad about anything.

So, back to the Bushophobia point. A big lesson Bushophobes should learn is that knee-jerking to Bush is only making a lot of conservatives more resolute in their belief that Bush is "better than the Democrats". The blatant immaturity I have seen from Bushophobes in the past 8 years is insane, and personally, your antics are responsible for Bush winning the 2004 election so easily and for the continued support for the Iraq war throughout the nation and in a lot of the media.

A psychological disorder where an individual finds the need to exhibit hatred for President Bush, so much so that they refuse to even think about supporting anything even remotely involved or linked to President Bush, especially if they have an (R) next to their name when they appear on TV. Everything bad that has occurred has been the personal responsibility of President Bush (right down to the numerous things that the president has no direct (or any) control over).

Symptoms of Bushophobia:
1. Complete close-mindedness
2. Venomous hatred for President Bush, and anyone who likes him for that matter
3. Public display of irrationality
4. Compulsive lying
5. You don't know (or want to believe) the Democrats control Congress
6. An urge to vote for the "other guys", just cause

How do I Know if I have Bushophobia?

With the wonders of the internet, there is now an easy test to tell if you have Bushophobia, that requires no medical visit to your local doctor. If you have this disease, you will sound a lot like the caller starting a little after 2:55 in this youtube video:

Treatment / Cure

There is currently no cure for Bushophobia. After vigorous lab tests though, it has been found that Obamamania increases the symptoms of Bushophobia, so it is best to stay away.

Sam’s Club [Judge Judy] Republicans sound a hell of a lot like plain old Democrats.   A “conservatism” where the government takes money from the successful to redistribute it to the working poor in hopes that they’ll somehow become more productive is not “conservatism” at all.

That the GOP was ever the country club party is an absurd myth.  One simply doesn’t win elective office appealing only to the top half of one percent.  But a populism that allows the many to vote themselves the wealth of the few was one of the principal fears of founders like John Adams.  Certainly, we don’t need both our major parties championing that notion.

Why is Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi suppressing Rep. Dennis Kucinich's articles of impeachment against President Bush?

Why is Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi suppressing contempt of Congress proceedings against Karl Rove?

Did Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi attend Ron Paul's March in Washington D.C. on July 12th, 2008?

Why does Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi support H. CON. RES. 362 that seeks to blockade Iran?

Sincerely,

Bitter

Hinterlands

The Democrats will still retain control of the House and Senate, perhaps increasing their majorities, but expect to see old Juan McAmnesty as the commander in chief next year.

And what does Mr. Bush have to say about this dismal record? “I think when people take a look back at this moment in our economic history, they’ll recognize tax cuts work.” Clueless to the end.

Give it a chance, those trickle down tax cuts should make it to the voters by the year 2050 or so. One day I will be able to have a good laugh about this inept President, but it is effecting me and you so deeply in direct ways that it is difficult to find any humor in all this. Yes, blame Bush for the economy and don't allow John McCain to continue this economic mediocrity. McCain equals a third Bush term, but worse, much worse.

By huge margins, Americans think the economy is in lousy shape — and they blame President Bush. This fact, more than anything else, makes it hard to see how the Democrats can lose this election.

But is the public right to be so disgusted with Mr. Bush’s economic leadership? Not exactly. We really do have a lousy economy, a fact of which Mr. Bush seems spectacularly unaware. But that’s not the same thing as saying that the bad economy is Mr. Bush’s fault.

On the other hand, there’s a certain rough justice in the public’s attitude. Other politicians besides Mr. Bush share the blame for the mess we’re in — but most of them are Republicans.

The decision this November is clear: more of the same ineptitude or an injection of fresh energy. After all, twelve years of trickle down with the Reagan/Bush era between 1981-1993 and now eight years of Bush from 2001-2009. Isn't twenty years of this confidence game played on the Amercian voters by the Republicans enough. Reading on Walden Bookstore.

The Depression of the 30's was a result of the inflationary policies of the 1920s. The government reactions and the New Deal prolonged the depression--instead of it lasting 2 years, Hoover and FDR intruded into the economy and resulted in the Depression lasting nearly fifteen--we didn't actually have a true growing economy until World War II was over (war spending and low unemployment during WWII does not constititute a growing economy). Neither the New Deal nor WWII got us out of the depression, yet those are seen as the two main remedies by our politicians today.

Just add this to the list, with Charlie "A terror attack will help our political party" Black, Nuke Gingrich, and Bill Kristol. Can anyone tell me that they sit and watch these guys (Kristol especially), and they don't see right through them? Like how Kristol claimed the other day that he was "appalled" by the sexism in the Democratic primary (even though it's been disproven). Of course this was a wink at the Clinton people to hop on the neocon bandwagon. I'm sure Kristol cries himself to sleep every night, thinking about the horrible sexism of the Democrats.

The Bush-McCain foreign policy is so counter-productive that I would expect it to be the policy of a one term senator, not a two term president and twenty year Congressional vet. This administration handled North Korea well (to their credit), no war, and progress is being made. Compared to the invasion of two nations, and we haven't sealed the deal in either yet.

The only thing that makes me want to support Republicans big time this year is energy policy, and even that is no longer fulfilling. John McCain is talking about gas tax holidays, more drilling, etc, but no one is willing to talk about the elephant in the room: attacking Iran. Let's drill to bring down the price for Americans, then bomb Iran for $200 oil. This no longer makes sense to me (just like how I have no clue what McCain is going to do with immigration if elected). Supply/Demand is part of our problem, lack of refineries too, but the global trash talk isn't helping oil prices either. And let's be realistic, we won't have nuclear plants and more drilling fully operational by the time they green light the attack, so we'll still be importing a good amount of oil.

To those who want to bomb Iran as an "anti-terror" act, I can only ask:
Do you think invading a third Islamic country will not inspire a large number of people toward extremism?
Do you think we'll be any safer with resources spread out even further?
Why is McCain willing to go so far abroad for security interests, but is light on our own borders?
Do you think our message of "we're invading, we know what's best for you" will be accepted any better in Iran?
How do you reconcile a Republican energy policy with a pro-Iran attack policy?
Who is going to pay for this new venture?

Just as the fearmongering rang hallow in 2006, it will again in 2008, but after 2002 and 2004, it's all the Republicans know these days.

I'm all about stopping the explosion, and if some rights have to suffer, I'm fine with that.

-"Libertarian" Dennis Miller

At first blush, maybe this is a good idea, a plan to keep the credit market afloat. After all, credit is what keeps the economic engine that is modern America running now that our greatest industry is financial services. But look who is getting these dollars, and at the risk of inciting the wrath of the Associated Press, I quote Julie Hirshfeld Davis: "borrowers who otherwise would be considered too financially risky to qualify."

Full Disclosure: I hold a Real Estate license and am a dues-paying member of the National Association of Realtors. I should be doing a jig. But I'm also a human being with a BRAIN. (PS: that brain is telling me to get the hell out of real estate).

Throughout the young century, securing a mortgage has been easier than ever before in history. Obviously, some of the folks that took advantage of the easy credit terms were not trustworthy. Yes, some have had unforseen tragedy or financial disaster, be it a lost job or, worse, ill health. I have sympathy and would encourage their lenders to not act the part of the heartless banker and work with these unfortunates to re-finance. But I know what has been going on out there in America. I have sat at closing tables and watched as multiple loan papers were signed and property purchased entirely on credit.

Borrowers believed there was no risk, because if they could not meet their payments they could just sell and go back to renting. Lenders believed there was no risk because if the loan defaulted they could simply take possession and sell. But, big surprise, there is no free lunch. The bubble has burst and property purchased since 2005 has lost value and the creditors are being left holding the bag.

The big giveaway will only encourage more bad behavior from lender and borrowers, while sticking me and you, the taxpayers, with the bill. Screw 'em. Let the bottom fall out and the market adjust. That will allow more homeownership in the long run, as prices come down to earth, and a credit market built on the ability of borrowers to meet their obligations.

Republican voters in Utah ousted Rep. Chris Cannon in Tuesday’s GOP primary, expressing their dissatisfaction with the six-term congressman over his left-of-center positions on immigration by nominating a challenger who made crackdowns on illegal immigration a central part of his platform.

So it comes down to who is less worse than the other. Barack Obama's energy "policy" is so bad, I almost couldn't handle it. He won't even support, at the bare minimum, more nuclear power plants. On the other side is John McCain, who flip flopped on some offshore drilling opinions he had. I wonder what would happen if Obama flip flopped like that? If 2004 is any indication, the right would impale him. If one of their own do it, they are silent, no "flip flopper" "waffler" or John "Kerry" McCain.

John McCain, the only big (supposed) free market guy, claims he doesn't know much about the economy. Great. Some have even started to put into doubt how free market McCain will be, or how socialist Obama will be. Is he really more free market than we think? Who knows.

After following the primary and early general election seasons, from May 2007 to now, pondering issues of liberty, foreign policy, and economics, I have come to the conclusion that Barack Obama would be the better man for this country, out of those who have a chance of actually winning.

I supported Republicans without waver right up to the 2006 election. But after watching their behavior, they have become so wrong, so inexcusable, that an Obama win would actually be good for them, and good for Americans. It would jump start the self-healing process of the Republican Party, while giving a clear rejection of the Bush neocon paradigm, that has engulfed us and has grown bloated because of 9/11.

A John McCain aide recently said that Obama had a "September 10th" mentality. My response to that: "Great!" I'll take seconds. We could use a little more of that. Actually, a lot more of that. There shouldn't BE a post-September 10th mentality. There should be a single mentality, an "American mentality" to deal with the problems we face. The neocon take over is not a pro-American mentality.

Rudy's (supporter of McCain) favorite phrase is "staying on offense in the War on Terror". Staying on offense in their definition, guarantees American economic collapse, guarantees less American safety, and guarantees a loss of American civil liberty and principle on levels never before seen in our history as a nation (Yes, even worse than the Civil War, Lance).

Obama makes speaking gaffes. I made fun of them once or twice myself, but the obsession is starting to remind me of the liberals making fun of how George Bush talks. In both cases it's a waste of time. John McCain makes gaffes too. Except they aren't speaking gaffes, he really means what he says (bomb bomb Iran, I don't know about the economy, hey we've been in other countries too long therefore we should stay in Iraq too long). McCain's gaffes just prove to me he isn't stable enough for the presidency.

There are questions of Obama's character. He was in a church with a radical pastor. Anyone who makes a big deal of this apparently isn't aware of what goes on in many protestant churches, especially black churches. There are questions of McCain's temper and behavior. Barack and Michelle are 100x more likable (even when that super-top-secret audio recording bomb of Michelle insulting white people comes out ....... if it exists) than McCain and his scary wife.

Then there's the important aspect of balance. Having the Dems own all branches of government? No, I'm talking about balance in the executive. After having this mediocre (I'm being polite) presidency, we need something different. Not the McCain-Lieberman-Graham crew. In many aspects, the Bush crew is better than them.

And to be honest, I'm a little tired of the Republican supporters. The guys who sit on their couch watching FOX News, pretending that they are tough in the War on Terror from their living rooms. Advocating more war and death without thinking of the consequences (aka dehuamnized approach). You also won't be seeing many of these living room warriors joining the military after advocating military strikes. They also won't be sending their entire pay checks to the government as they flush it all down the Middle East toilet.

Experience and partisanship. Doesn't look good for Obama at first glance. I'll take a newbie over a 20 year establishment vet, who crossed the aisle to move along some of the worst legislation in recent memory.

Republicans rode the 9/11 neocon national security train to sweeping victories in 2002 and 2004. Now they will die by it, since most of America realized .... it sucks. The last seven years we've had to endure war without declaration, "we need another 9/11", "make the world safe for Democracy", "Americans aren't necessarily protected by habeas corpus". They won't be held accountable in any way other than electoral. So this will be my way of giving that bunch the middle finger.

Justice Anthony Kennedy reminded the Republican Brownshirts that "the laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times."

WASHINGTON — Senator Barack Obama announced Thursday that he would not participate in the public financing system for presidential campaigns. He argued that the system had collapsed, and would put him at a disadvantage running against Senator John McCain, his likely Republican opponent.

With his decision, Mr. Obama became the first candidate of a major party to decline public financing — and the spending limits that go with it — since the system was created in 1976, after the Watergate scandals.

Mr. Obama made his announcement in a video message sent to supporters and posted on the Internet. While it was not a surprise — his aides have been hinting that he would take this step for two months — it represented a turnabout from his strong earlier suggestion that he would join the system. Mr. McCain has been a champion of public financing of campaign throughout his career.

And who is the winner: the taxpayer. And think about this. Obama not only saves the federal treasury all this money, but he helps himself get elected President of the United States. Now that is what i call a two-for-one. Reading on Walden Bookstore.

The difference between McCain and Obama is that, when there's mud thrown at both candidates' faces,  Obama is always going to come out looking better.  This isn't just about being young or old, white or black.  An aging war hero with an explosive temper can craft a fine image of himself too.  Think Arnold Schwarzenegger, except real: a gun-slinging fist-pounding maverick who gets things done.  The problem is that McCain isn't capitalizing on that image.  It's there, unavoidably at times, but he can't effectively latch it onto the prevailing zeitgeist: change.

Change is a boring word, once it's been repeated so much, but it's going to help Obama win.  When it all comes down to it, Obama sounds better when he talks about it and looks better delivering it. And precisely what sort of change does he propose to deliver?   Improved health care solutions, environmental responsibility, and diplomatic ties, to name a few, and these are things the public cares about.

In the days of Bush, this argument wouldn't hold up.  Bush, Rove, Cheney - you could unearth proof that they were guilty of the Kennedy assassination and they'd still find a way to shrug it off like a child's taunt.  They could take potential weakness and turn it into a rhetorical strength.  For instance, the war in Iraq wasn't portrayed as a brutal sputtering, conflict; it was dressed as a noble struggle that required determination and perseverance - we needed to "stay the course."

Unfortunately for McCain, he isn't working under those conditions anymore.  The GOP has lost alot of clout and the message of 'change' doesn't play well with Republican platforms.  Ongoing wars, economic difficulties, health care, and out of control spending are big problems are issues that the public wants to see dealt with, even if they don't always approve of the methods a Democrat may use.

Obama will have to work hard to define himself and his message if he wants to win.  He'll have to take back the territory that the Republicans won in the past few election cycles, too.  Yet it's John McCain who needs to tread carefully.  The days of swagger and shoot Republican politics are waning and he'll have to do more than just wave the same old six-shooters to win the election.  He's going to have to turn tough.  Arnie tough.  Flesh-wound defying tough.  Can you do it John?  If not, Obama has this one in the bag.

John McCain has long known what it's like for a teleprompter-challenged Republican senator to go up against a charismatic, made-for-TV Democrat. In 1996, McCain was Bob Dole's right-hand man. He served as one of the Kansas senator's closest traveling companions and top surrogates in the battle to unseat Bill Clinton. It was a race that began as Dole's to lose—Clinton was caught up in the Whitewater scandal. But lose he did. McCain watched as the Democrats successfully transformed the image of the former Senate majority leader, once known for his consensus-building and dry wit, into an old, humorless Washington insider who couldn't deliver real change.

You can find the rest of the article at Newsweek.  See also "John McCain: The Next Bob Dole?"

The presidential candidate and his wife Cindy reported piling up debt on a charge card between $10,000 and $15,000. His wife’s solo charge card has between $100,000 and $250,000 in debt to American Express.

Of course McCain is in no trouble, his wife is loaded. It's just funny to point out with all his talk of "stopping earmarks". This makes me want to rant on earmarks, which are virtually useless to try to cut. Our congressmen may waste money on them, but it's only about $30 billion dollars in the Federal budget that totals $3 trillion dollars!

Earmarks are the very, very last thing I would cut if I were President.

Up till now, the Republicans have made few campaign promises, partly because up till a few weeks ago, the media coverage might have convinced you that the Republicans had no hope of getting elected. Now, however, they have something more than a hope. And Barack Obama's shallow rhetoric won't do a thing to change what's coming in November. Every straw poll and independent survey indicates that John McCain and the Republican party haven't lost their base of support. Quite the contrary, come November, with a solid ticket and a firm foundation of experience and principals, every indication shows that the Republican party is going to take back the White House.

Now John McCain can afford to make some promises and now is the time to make them. With a solid background in foreign policy and experience working with the Defense Department, John McCain can promise to quell the rising crisis in Iran and Israel. With a plan to reduce government spending and increase the tax cuts, John McCain can promise to combat the economic crisis. With experience working with politicians on both sides of the aisle, John McCain can promise to unite American and find a solution to its border difficulties. No other candidate is as qualified nor as courageous when it comes challenging true difficulties. 

Of course, as the Democrats have done in the past, it would be easy to criticize John McCain's sincerity, his long political career, his firm moral grounding, and even his honorable service as part of our armed forces. That's why John McCain has numbers to backup his claims. First and foremost, over twenty years of experience working in the United States Senate and House of Representatives. During this time, McCain established himself as an independent, a man willing to fight for the American people even if it meant standing against some of the policies of his own party.

Second, a first-rate education from the United States Naval Academy and over seven years experience as a naval pilot during the Vietnam War. Thanks to his combat experience and his subsequent detention as a prisoner of war, John McCain knows just how high the stakes are in the War on Terror, especially for soldiers on the ground. That's why McCain has fought for our soldiers, voting for the Iraq War resolution and subsequent funding for the equipment that our troops need on the ground. McCain also took a leading role is apologizing for and condemning the deplorable conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, which he visited just last week.

Third, John McCain has real plans to alleviate America's economic crisis. His economic strategy includes a plan to save $100 billion a year to help reduce the federal budget deficit, while also providing an additional $300 billion in tax cuts to help normal Americans make ends meet. Have any of his opponents even considered increasing the tax cuts?

Fourth, McCain has worked on bi-partisan bills such as the Climate Stewardship Act, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, and the McCain Detainee Amendment, which helped protect prisoners at Guantanamo Bay from inhumane treatment and torture. Though Senator McCain has sometimes made unpopular moves as a result of independent stances, the moves are also an indication of his conviction and his character. Unpopular or not, when John McCain wants to get something done, he does what it takes to do it. And what America needs now is someone who gets things done.

Rhetoric, empty promises, personality - these aren't the things that will help America in the coming years. Whether a President is young or old, black or white, shouldn't matter. Looking to the future, we don't need compromise and capitulation; we need trust, passion, and policy when confronting our problems. Is this what the Democrats are going to give us? Evidence, voting records and rhetoric, says no - only John McCain is poised to provide the real promises America needs - promises he plans to deliver. So in November, if you're looking for real change, you should pick the only candidate America can trust: Republican Senator John McCain.

251: That was John Kerry's electoral vote total. Barack Obama stands a better chance of holding Kerry's 19 states and the District of Columbia, and finding 19 more votes, than John McCain does of holding all 31 of Bush's states. Obama might capture the 2004 red states New Mexico (5 electoral votes), Nevada (5) and Colorado (9) - George W. Bush won them by a combined 127,011 votes -- giving him 270.

Yes, the problem is largely supply and demand. Supply is tight, demand is high, but what people avoid talking about is the large amount of futures speculation going on. I have heard Republicans like Rush Limbaugh mention the speculation on his radio show, but he doesn't give it but about two seconds worth of air time, concentrating mostly on the "evil environmentalists" who want to restrict oil supply. If you listen to C-SPAN, you quickly learn that Democrats know about speculation, but they just call it "excessive speculation" and want to hurry and restrict it. Neither of these options are good, and we need to understand why speculation is making prices rise so high.

The answer is quite simple.

Speculators are trading at higher prices mostly because there is fear that there is going to be more Middle-East wars, whether it is between Israel and oil producing countries or the United States and Iran. Since markets are usually correct, I'm betting there will be a war of some sort this year or next with one of those two situations occuring.

If Israel and the Middle-Eastern countries were to arrive at a peace of sorts, gas prices would immediately fall. If the United States would withdraw its military from overseas, we would also see gas prices fall. A change in American foreign policy would lower the speculation that we would be going to war with Iran. By reducing the number of troops and bases in the 130 countries we currently occupy, we would also stop using so much fuel, helping demand go down a little (recall that the Pentagon is already the biggest guzzler of gas in the world).

So, in the end, there is the Republican method of ignoring the problem and the Democrat method of not fixing the problem. We must address why speculation is high, not restrict it. The Democrat method of "capping" it would just lead to market problems since people could not longer get their proper profit off of speculating, a valuable and very good business that helps oil flow properly from one place to another. A necessary middle-man of sorts.

Sure, environmentalists are a problem with increasing supply, and I am in full fledged support of allowing companies to buy land and drill if they wish. It just isn't feasible to have this actually accomplish anything right now, whereas a quick fix in the foreign policy department might being gas down a full $2 a gallon within three or four months.

NAMING THE WAR

First, let us get the correct definition of the war out of the way. No matter if you agree with the Union or the Confederacy, the war was by no means a "Civil War". The American Heritage Dictionary defines a "civil war" as:

A war between factions or regions of the same country.

It should be noted that post-secession, the Confederate States of America was not part of the same country as the United States of America. There was not a "Civil War"--two factions were not fighting for control of the same territory. Had the South been intent on controlling the North, and vice versa, it could then be called a civil war. So, whatever you think of the Civil War, it must be called by another (obviously biased) name--The War for Southern Independence (Southern), The Prevention of Southern Secession (Northern), the War Between the States (More neutral). Whatever your name for it, it must not be called a civil war--it is an incorrect term.

Let it be known that the reason it was called the "Civil War" was because it suits the story of the winner. The North's historians and reporters saw the South as "rebels" and "traitors", not as men forming their own, independent country. This use of words puts the Confederacy in a bad light--if it is framed almost any other way, the South almost looks justified.

THE RIGHT OF SECESSION

The second item on the agenda is to establish the rights of secession for not only the Southern states, but the Northern ones as well. It is well documented that the Northern states once contemplated secession because they disagreed so strongly with the War of 1812. Most of the Northern states refused to send militia units to help in this war. The State of Connecticut declared in a resolution that,

But it must not be forgotten, that the State of Connecticut is a FREE SOVEREIGN and INDEPENDENT State; that the United States are a confederacy of States; that we are a confederated and not a consolidated Republic. The Governor of this State is under a high and solemn obligation, "to maintain the lawful rights and privileges thereof, as a sovereign, free and independent State," as he is "to support the Constitution of the United States," and the obligation to support the latter imposes an additional obligation to support the former. The building cannot stand, if the pillars upon which it rests, are impaired or destroyed.

The Northern states were well aware of their ability to secede and to refuse to respond to the federal government. It was, after all, a federation, not a national government. The Union was a voluntary association of free and independent states. Thomas Jefferson said in his first inaugural address (1801),

"If there be any among us who wish to dissolve the Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed, as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."

Thomas Jefferson was the standardbearer of Western liberalism, the United States, and within our own country, the right of the sovereign states. As Thomas J. DiLorenzo said,

Jefferson and James Madison were the authors of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 which held that "where powers were assumed by the national government which had not been granted by the states, nullification is the rightful remedy," and that every state has a right to "nullify of its own authority all assumptions of power by others. . ." Nullification of unconstitutional federal actions was a means of effectively seceding.

Abraham Lincoln himself didn't seem to have much of a problem with secession itself. If we recall, he was perfectly content with the secession of West Virginia from the State of Virginia. I also support any state's right to secede. The powers of government are derived from the consent of the governed, not from any other source. If a group of people believes that their government is unjust, "it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security", to quote Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence.

The story of secession being legal, right, and a legitimate means to an end has its roots all throughout American history. DiLorenzo notes that,

What Ulysses S. Grant, Robert E. Lee, and others were taught about secession at West Point was that to deny a state the right of secession "would be inconsistent with the principle on which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed."

Secession is an American idea. We were born out of secession. The Confederacy was simply following the ideas of the Founders by seceding from the United States.

You might be wondering where the discussion on slavery is at this point since I have not mentioned it at all. It will be mentioned further down.

ECONOMICS, TARIFFS, AND FREE TRADE

We come to the real reason Lincoln wanted to invade the Union: to stop the South from becoming a free trade country.

Looking into Lincoln's past, it is well documented that he was a firm believer in the "American System" that Henry Clay devised and found its roots in Alexander Hamilton's political and economic beliefs. Lincoln only won the Republican nomination, and the presidency, because of the support he gained by former Whigs who wanted to make a high-tariff-supporting man the president.

The U.S. House of Representatives had passed the Morrill tariff in the 1859-1860 session, and the Senate passed it on March 2, 1861, two days before Lincoln’s inauguration. President James Buchanan, a Pennsylvanian who owed much of his own political success to Pennsylvania protectionists, signed it into law. The bill immediately raised the average tariff rate from about 15 percent (according to Frank Taussig in Tariff History of the United States) to 37.5 percent, but with a greatly expanded list of covered items. The tax burden would about triple. Soon thereafter, a second tariff increase would increase the average rate to 47.06 percent...

The tariff was a huge part of the "American System". The South wanted no part of this high tariff plan because they received the lion's share of the tax burden. Murray Rothbard wrote that,

One of the central grievances of the South . . . was the tariff that Northerners imposed on Southerners whose major income came from exporting cotton abroad. The tariff at one and the same time drove up prices of manufactured goods, forced Southerners and other Americans to pay more for such goods, and threatened to cut down Southern exports (in "Two Just Wars: 1776 and 1861" in John Denson, ed., The Costs of War).

There are books and articles by the dozen out on the Internet on why Lincoln believed that tariffs were good economic policy, especially when the North received tax funds and grants while the South payed for them. Nearly 80 percent of the taxes that came in through tariffs were payed by Southerners, not by the North, due to the way the economic system was set up. When the South decided to secede, it was determined to have the lowest tariffs in the entire world. A free trade zone, so to speak. It was in the interests of Northern businessmen (who helped Lincoln gain power) to push for war. With a free trade competitor in the South, the Northern markets would have had to be competitive, no longer having their de facto government monopolies and cartels.

To sum up this point, Lincoln went to war with the South not to free slaves, but to serve the interests of mercantilism--big businesses that were against free trade because it would have forced them into competition. With free trade in the South, there would have been an industrial revolution. After Reconstruction, it took almost a hundred years before the South's economy was restored to the point that it was in 1860, and only then was industrialization possible.

The economic factors at work in the war were great--the biggest reason, obviously--but there is enough information to last for an entire book on the subject. I recommend this article for a start.

SLAVERY

The most politically correct topic in American history to this day is slavery. Abraham Lincoln is the one that made such a long lasting topic of the issue, though, when he decided to involve slavery in the war effort. History has shown through letters, speeches, and actions that President Lincoln was a racist who did not want to free the slaves, mainly because he did not want Western and Northern lands to have black people in them. Slavery was to be contained to the South so that blacks would only live there and nowhere else. Lincoln said on two different occasions,

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union."

The War Between The States was never about slavery until Lincoln decided to make it a factor two years into the war. A little discussed point: had the South stayed in the Union or had it rejoined within the first two years, slavery would not have been abolished. As a matter of fact, the Republican Congress and President Lincoln pushed a new amendment through (that was never ratified by the Northern states) that would have prevented the Federal government from ever involving itself in the issue of slavery. It read:

No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.

The war, for the first two years, was never about slavery. As the people of the North began to slack off in supporting what seemed like a pointless, endless war, Lincoln had to find some way to invigorate them into fighting. That way was slavery. The "great emancipator" was a known racist and white supremacist who only used freeing the slaves as a political tool to keep his war going for Northern white businessmen. Lincoln went so far to even blame black people for the war (though it was entirely about tariffs and economic motivations), declaring that "But for your race among us there could not be a war, although many men on either side do not care for you one way or another."

I could go on and on about how Lincoln was a racist, but I do not believe that will change many people's opinions about the man. After all, didn't Lincoln do a huge service for the black people of America by freeing them? Maybe the war was not right, maybe Lincoln was a bit of a tyrant who suspended habeus corpus and the First Amendment more than any other president, as well as countless other crimes, but in the end we have to admit that it was justified because blacks were able to gain their freedom. Many people defend this idea, but I do not, and I will explain why.

WOULD SLAVERY HAVE CONTINUED TO EXIST?

There are several points to be made for why the war cannot be justified regardless of black people getting their freedom. Sure, it is a good thing that they are now free and treated like people instead of non-equals, but classic liberalism was on its way to eliminating slavery. Industrialized nations cannot have a slavery system because free labor is not only cheaper, but more efficient in the long run. There were many arguments in the abolitionist movement about slaves, some saying that the slaves needed to be free because they have a right to be, but those in the South (and in the North) would argue that giving the slaves their freedom would cause problems because they "were not ready for it". Ludwig von Mises showed there was only one way to combat this, saying that

For against this objection in favor of slavery there is only one argument that can and did refute all others-namely, that free labor is incomparably more productive than slave labor. The slave has no interest in exerting himself fully. He works only as much and as zealously as is necessary to escape the punishment attaching to failure to perform the minimum. The free worker, on the other hand, knows that the more his labor accomplishes, the more he will be paid. He exerts himself to the full in order to raise his income.

An excuse given by the Cult of Lincoln is that slavery would have existed for another ten, twenty, probably fifty years. Some even say if the Confederacy had stayed in existence there would still be slavery. I disagree, As a free trade zone, the South would quickly have become the most industrialized nation in the world. Slavery could not exist in such a system--it was already starting to be an expensive enterprise even in 1860 with the Irish immigrants making hired labor cheaper.

Every society in the Western world has eliminated slavery through compensation and law--not through a war that caused over 600,000 dead American men, the raping of countless thousands of women, and the destruction of a once prosperous economy that kept whites and blacks alike in a dirt poor condition for almost a century. I argue that slavery could have been ended peacefully whether it was in the Union or in the Confederacy and that modern capitalism would have replaced it within probably ten years at the maximum. No 600,000 men dead, no death, no economic plundering, and no horrible race relations that we still see the effects of to this day.

BUT THE WAR FREED THE SLAVES. THE ENDS JUSTIFIED THE MEANS, CORRECT?

Again I disagree that the ends justified the means in this situation. What must be understood is that the North, in fighting the South's right of secession, was in fact an act of enslavement to the whites and blacks of the South. Let us take a few examples that Walter Block has pointed out:

1. One argument is that if the South was unjustified in seceding from the North (since the South was a slave-holding society), then the same holds for the 13 colonies that broke away from England in 1776, since slavery was legal in virtually every state at that time. If the Confederate states are not allowed to secede because they would have “kidnapped victims” (slaves), then the same can be said for the United States leaving the authority of the British empire. Few people will try to say the American Revolution was unjust, but if they make the argument that the South had to be invaded because they had slaves, then the American Revolution was also unjust. It is only consistent to hold this position. If the North were morally justified to keep the South in the Union because of slavery, then the same applies to the United Kingdom vs. the United States. One must admit the American Revolution was also unjust.

2. Another point is that if the South was unjustified in leaving the North, then it would have been wrong for the North to leave the South, too. If the Confederate states had slaves in 1861, then so did the Union. New Englanders had long wanted to secede from the Union on abolitionist reasons—they wanted no part of sharing a country with slave holders. However, many Northerners also owned slaves—the South couldn’t possibly let the North leave against its will, if you hold to the theory that Lincoln’s war was, in the end and for all its wrongs, justified.

3. The third point is that the North (which held slaves in 1863 and 1864) comes along, attempting to stop slavery in the South with “unclean hands”. That is, the North was not on a higher moral position to free slaves when they themselves had not freed theirs. However, since Lincoln coerced one section of the country that wanted to be free from the yoke of the other against its will violates the law of free association. Those in the South wished to go their own way, but Lincoln prevented them from doing so. In essence, the entire Civil War showed a Northern hypocrisy: the enslavement of one group of people to free another group. However, the objection made here will not be whether the North acted logically and consistently, but rather that they were just in the end by freeing the slaves.

Now it's time to bring this to a conclusion. Walter Block describes the "Lincoln was justified" position (one taken by Tibor Machan in his essay). Block writes,

But this brings us to a more basic question: would a hypothetical North, completely innocent of any slave holding itself, be justified on libertarian grounds, in opposing by force the attempted secession of the South, on the grounds that the latter is a slave owning society? (We are now also asking the question, assume, arguendo, that the U.K. did not own slaves in 1776; would they have been warranted in taking on the role they actually did in the Revolutionary War?) Machan argues in the affirmative, I in the negative.

At first blush, my opponent in this debate has a strong case. Suppose the following: a thief breaks into a grocery store, robs it, and then, when he is surrounded by the police, grabs a hostage. Whereupon he makes the following statement: "I hereby secede from your society; since you are all libertarians, you must allow this. Therefore, I am walking out of this store, with my hostage in tow, and none of you have the right to stop me, or to save my victim, based upon your own principles." If this indeed is the position of the South, then the North was completely justified in not only fighting its attempted secession, but in actually winning the war. For, surely, the police need do no such thing as obey the robber-kidnapper in his curious demand.

This is the logical position that "ends justify the means" proponents must take. There is, however, a rebuttal to this. Block continues,

But a moment’s reflection will show a disanalogy between our hypothetical robber, and the South. For the libertarian police could reply, "Sure, we’ll allow you to secede; you are now a sovereign country. However, we hereby declare war on you, first, to fulfill our contractual obligation with your hostage, to free him from your unjustified kidnapping, and, second, to punish you for your past robbery as well as this bout of unjustified imprisonment of this victim."

To refuse to allow secession is a violation of the law of free association. As Block put it, some people are “Machan is so concerned with ante bellum slavery, he allows this to blind him to the fact that this "curious institution" is merely an aspect of the denigration of the law of free association.” The South was guilty of enslaving black people. This is immoral and wrong. But Northerners added another sin to the list of wrongs by refusing to let the Southerners secede, in essence, putting the South into slavery.

To repeat: slavery is but the most egregious form of denigration of the rights of free association. But there are other, lesser versions, such as refusal to recognize the natural right of secession.

I hate to quote Water Block's essay so much, but for the discussion he makes the point so eloquently that I see no other way to put it:

The analogy between the South and the kidnapper-robber would hold true if and only if every single white resident of this territory was guilty of slave holding, and every single non-white resident was a slave. Then and only then would the North be justified, not in refusing the South secession, but in invading them, to get them to free their slaves. But the North would still not be warranted to "save the Union," against the express wishes of the Southerners (after they were duly punished).

Another difficulty with the Machan position is that slavery is not the only crime. If the North is entitled to violate the secession rights of the South because the latter committed the crime of slavery, then, too, they are justified in taking this coercive position against them for many other things as well. For example, suppose a Southerner stole (or was accused of stealing) a Northerner’s cow. Then, based on this perspective, the North would again be warranted to stop by force the departure of the South. Such a theory might well be entitled, "Secession in theory, captivity in practice."

To this day we see the effects of the Lincoln's War. Race relations have been damaged for over a hundred years (the media still talks about it with candidates like Barack Obama and issues like Don Imus). The Federal government no longer was a federated Republic, but became a national government that is supreme over the States. The law of voluntary association was killed, and Jeffersonian principles were demolished, all in the name of "saving the Union". Lincoln did not care about the slaves--if the Union could have been "saved" and the slaves still in bondage, this was 100 percent a-okay with Lincoln. If the Union and the North had truly cared about slaves, the proper response would have been to tell the South "free your slaves and you may depart in peace". But there was no such statement made.

The War Between The States was the destruction of the principles of the American Revolution and the right to self-government. Lincoln's war may have "freed the slaves" in the end, but at the expense of essentially enslaving the South (white and black) for decades. To some extent, many black people in inner cities are still "slaves" to the Federal government.

Lord Acton, the great historian of liberty, is often remembered for his quote that "Absolute power corrupts absolutely". He also wrote a letter to General Robert E. Lee after the Civil War, saying that,

I saw in State Rights the only availing check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy. The institutions of your Republic have not exercised on the old world the salutary and liberating influence which ought to have belonged to them, by reason of those defects and abuses of principle which the Confederate Constitution was expressly and wisely calculated to remedy. I believed that the example of that great Reform would have blessed all the races of mankind by establishing true freedom purged of the native dangers and disorders of Republics. Therefore I deemed that you were fighting the battles of our liberty, our progress, and our civilization; and I mourn for the stake which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo.

Lincoln and his war destroyed the America that Adams, Jefferson, and Washington created. It became the America of Lincoln, FDR, and George W. Bush, where government power may run unchecked and mankind is subject to the will of the overlords who rule us. Without the Civil War, slavery would have been ended peacefully. The United States would never have gotten involved in World War I, there would not have been a World War II, and the entire world would be better for it.

Lysander Spooner, one of the greatest abolitionists of the pre-war period, was a Northern man who wanted to try to free the slaves by every method possible. He wrote articles on the unconstitutionality of the war, the evils of slavery, and encouraged slaves to gain weapons and win their freedom by force. He also believed that the war ended in the essential murder of 600,000 Americans, both North and South, for no reason. Tom DiLorenzo writes,

Spooner believed Abraham Lincoln was speaking the truth when he said that whatever he did with regard to slavery was not because of any sympathy for the slaves, but to secure his goal of crushing the secessionists. And, Spooner would add, to then use the apparatus of the U.S. state to politically dominate and financially plunder the South. They did not abolish slavery "as an act of justice to the black man himself, but only as ‘a war measure,’ and because they wanted his assistance . . . in carrying on the war they had undertaken for maintaining and intensifying that political, commercial, and industrial slavery . . ."(p. 119).

If the Northern regime really wanted only to abolish slavery, Spooner argued, then they could have followed the road to emancipation taken by all other nations on earth in the nineteenth century and ended it peacefully through compensated emancipation and by declaring slavery to be unconstitutional. The war was unnecessary to end slavery, said Spooner.

In the end, the United States Federal Government became a national one. States essentially ceased to exist as anything more than agents of the Federal Government. Almost half a million men were killed ruthlessly, their property destroyed, women and children raped and murdered by the Union army all at the will of a few businessmen and Lincoln's own agenda.

The slaves were freed, sure, but at what price? Many black people who were harmed by the KKK and other racists might never have been had slavery been ended peacefully. Lynchings might not have become a term we still think of today when remembering the post-war Southern society. There might never have been State-enforced segregation (thanks to the Union Supreme Court), no Selma march, and no Civil Rights Act of 1964, because black people would have been treated as equals and as real people. Instead, Southerners who were racist often took out their bitterness against the North on the black people of the South. The motivation for their crimes are traced back to the Northern War of Aggression.

The Lincolnian Civil War cannot be justified in any possible way. Slavery was being eliminated by free competition of labor. The Federal Government enforced slavery for almost a hundred years before it suddenly decided to "free the slaves", and had the South stayed in the Union, slavery might have went on for another 40 or 50 before anything was done about it. The South committed the crime of slavery, but the North committed a bigger sin by enslaving an entire nation, black and white, and destroying the Lockean tradition of secession.

Secession is indeed part and parcel of American heritage and our historical experience. Secession does not have to result in war. The ultimate decision as to whether war will result from an act of secession rest with those that wish to retain union and force others to remain in their club. This very notion of forcing others to do things against their will seems the most undemocratic idea of all.

-The Secessionist, No. 3

I'm not being faceitous, I am being serious. There is no good objection to this by a Republican (or Democrat) that supported the administration's wiretapping and domestic surveillance, their push for the Real ID/National ID Card, or nationalizing the TSA.

Well, the strategy is the themes of reform, prosperity and peace, and I have the experience, background and a record and the kind of judgment to lead the country through extremely difficult times. There are threats to our economy that are incredibly serious—witness the unemployment numbers that just came out—and to our nation's security. I'm convinced that, using the kind of communications that won me the nomination of my party against significant odds, I will be able to gain the presidency as well. But I think it's got to do with substance, and it's got to do with a concrete plan of action for the future of the country.

Reform, prosperity, peace?   I'm an Obama supporter - I think that's obvious - but I don't like to sit around masticate on the same tired quotes over and over again.  Yet I just can't figure out where McCain is going with his campaign.  The Newsweek article has one of the most positive headlines I've seen for McCain in weeks: "How to Beat a Rockstar: Substance," but his substance is "reform, prosperity, peace" ?  I think it's time for John Kerry to give McCain a pat on the back and have 'the talk' with our friend John.