Ron Paul is still in the race!

Most of the media would have one believe the June 5th Presidential primary is a mere formality. With Newt Gingrichand Rick Santorum dropping out of the race the establishment has anointed Mitt Romney as the Republican nominee and have now turned their attention to the general election. Ron Paul supporters are used to being ignored by the mainstream media but this latest slots has them seeing red. Over the last week or so Dr. Paul has amassed several delegate victories including Iowa, Louisiana, Minnesota, and Alaska. 


Full Story

Breaking: Newt Gingrich suspends campaign

Fox news is reporting that sources close to the Gingrich Campaign say the ol' chicken hawk is calling it quits. That leaves Flip Romney and Dr. Paul. Of course the MSM have already called the race for flip, but we know better! Stay tuned it's about to get interesting...

Finally, the great one(Ron Paul) is returning to Los Angeles

Congressman Ron Paul brings his Presidential campaign to Los Angeles on Wednesday marking the second stop of a three day golden state tour. The longshot Presidential candidate is a libertarian icon with a massive following amongst college age voters.

Dr. Paul will be speaking at UCLA on Wednesday April 4th in front of what is expected to be a large and wildly enthusiastic group of supporters. Even though Dr. Paul is 76 years old his message of peace, liberty, and sound currency is extremely popular amongst the youngest voters.

Continue reading on Examiner.com Ron Paul to visit Los Angeles on Wednesday April 4, 2012 - Los Angeles City Buzz | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/city-buzz-in-los-angeles/ron-paul-to-visit-los-angeles-on-wednesday-april-4-2012#ixzz1qvastbl5

Obama-care, birth-control, and oral sex by Mike Shaner

Some folks say healthcare is a “right.” Others say free birth control is a right. Neither of these things can be true because rights are natural to us. If no one wanted to be a health-care provider anymore, would we be allowed to enslave people and force them to become doctors? How then can it be a right? We have no right to another individual’s labor. It is absurd and without proper thought to argue otherwise. 

The idea of what constitutes a right requires examination. Just because something may be better for society (not that government mandated healthcare would) doesn’t mean we have a right to it. I can say with a degree of certainty that a full sex life would make me a healthier happier person, but we can’t go around mandating free blow-jobs…can we?

Today the Supreme Court is hearing arguments on the constitutionality of Obama-care, specifically the individual mandate that requires all persons, as a result of living, to buy health insurance. So, those who argue that health-care is a right believe that right must be forced upon people? In what world would that line of thought indicate any degree of logic?

I suspect the Supreme court will uphold the constitutionality of the law—simply because the Supreme court is an agent of the Federal Government and they rarely rule against themselves, but 9 unelected black-robes saying something is so, doesn’t make it so. Unfortunately too many people believe their rights are granted by some law or piece of paper—nothing could be further from the truth.

The Constitution doesn’t grant rights. No law can be passed giving you the right to do something. A right is something you are born with—it is natural. You have the right to pursue happiness, not because some document says so, but because you were born with that ability. Conversely, if a law were passed making it illegal to smile, your right to smile would not be taken away—only the governments protection of that right.

This may seem trivial, some of you are probably saying “I know what a right is,” but far too many do not, and that is why the government is arguing that citizens have the right to be forced to purchase a service.

Prostitution is illegal in most of the United States, but I still have the right to pay a willing adult to perform sexual acts on me, no law can change that—but just like healthcare, I do not have a right to a good blow job—yet…





If you like what we're doing please share with your friends and ask them to share. We could always use donations to help grow the site. If you are a business owner please consider advertising with us. If you have something to sell, give away, or a service to offer, place an ad! Every dollar goes to spread the message of liberty!

Not everyone blinded by race and collectivism in Trayvon Martin case

While the story has set the stage for a nationwide outpouring of racial banter, not all marchers are as anxious to bring race into the equation:

“This is a terrible tragedy but race mongering is not the answer. A boy was shot by a man, that’s it. The headlines shouldn’t be about race, when you make it about that it just causes division and racial unrest amongst citizens. We are individuals; skin tone or place of origin should have as much to do with this as eye color. I am marching in honor of a slain child,” said Keith Skinner.

Continue reading on Examiner.com Million hoodie march today for Trayvon Martin in downtown Los Angeles - Los Angeles City Guide | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/city-guide-in-los-angeles/million-hoodie-march-today-for-trayvon-martin-downtown-los-angeles#ixzz1qFfdUCKU

Los Angeles wants to end free speech

The Los Angeles City Council passed a resolution on Tuesday calling for radio shows to put an end to "racist" and sexist language. The resolution passed by a 13-2 vote

John Kobylt and Ken Chiampou, hosts of The John and Ken show created a stir by referring to deceased singer Whitney Houston as a “crack-ho.” The comment was an obscene departure from class; however, it is controversial speech like this that many believe most needs protection. The L.A. city council disagree and have passed a symbolic bill condemning “racist” and “sexist” speech on Los Angeles airwaves.

Continue reading on Examiner.com Los Angeles city council passes “Whitney Houston” bill to eliminate free speech - Los Angeles City Guide | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/city-guide-in-los-angeles/los-angeles-city-council-passes-whitney-houston-bill-to-eliminate-free-speech#ixzz1psoowspG

Everyone should become an illegal alien

“Conservatives have it all wrong on immigration,” said a Hollywood landscaper who asked to remain anonymous for obvious reasons. “They should be advocating for everyone to quit paying taxes and refuse to get drivers licenses. These taxes fund immoral wars and hurt the economy. I hire so-called illegals, not because it saves me a few dollars an hour in pay roll, but because of the thousands extra I would have to pay in payroll tax, unemployment tax, workers comp, and everything else. I would prefer to hire English speakers, communication would be easier and the customers would be more comfortable, but the government makes that impossible, especially here in Los Angeles County where we are taxed on top of tax.”

Continue reading on Examiner.com We should all become illegal immigrants - Los Angeles City Guide | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/city-guide-in-los-angeles/we-should-all-become-illegal-immigrants#ixzz1pc5rG9Nr

Antonio Villaraigosa and Rick Santorum want to protect you from yourself

The $6 billion porn industry is under assault from all sides. Recently, in an attempt to "protect" adult actors Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa signed a mandate that all adult film productions shot within city limits be required to use condoms. Many say this will simply push the industry out of the job starved city into the welcoming arms of Las Vegas, but if Presidential candidate Rick Santorum has his way the porn industry will simply go overseas and/or underground. Santorum wants to ban pornography altogether, calling it "destructive to society." Here is an example of two very different politicians with very different agendas projecting their common belief that government must protect individuals from themselves. For Blake Burgess, a Los Angeles based tax-analyst it exemplifies the myth of our two party system:

Continue reading on Examiner.com Protect us from ourselves: Antonio Villaraigosa and Rick Santorum agree - Los Angeles City Guide | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/city-guide-in-los-angeles/protect-us-from-ourselves-antonio-villaraigosa-and-rick-santorum-agree?CID=examiner_alerts_article#ixzz1pIsPudnR

Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party by Mike Shaner

Mike Shaner

February 20, 2012

Over the last half century America has experienced several half-assed freedom movements. It started in the 50's with the beat movement lead by Kerouac and Ginsberg. This evolved into the Hippie movement, which had a degree of success with its strong anti-war message. The problem is the flower children weren't actually protesting against the government, only for a change of government policy. They were like spoiled children who demanded absolute freedom and total security at the same time. The two ideas are incompatible.  Fast forward to today and we see history repeating itself.

The Tea party movement and the Occupy movement were both conceived with pure intention. They have more in common than either side would like to admit. Oh, one group is made up of older people and the other of young, but they both share(d) a common theme of liberty. However, through naivety or evolution, both groups also share the same quicksand faults. In a way, both seem to be saying: "we like to be fucked, we just want to be fucked a certain way." They both claim to want liberty, but it's a grotesque twisted definition of liberty.

The Tea Party movement of today has become little more than a mirror of the old guard Republican Party, even drifting so far into establishment territory as to align themselves with the Michele Bachmann's and Rick Santorums of the world. On some fronts even Mitt Romney is competing for the Tea Party vote. There is nothing anti-establishment about any of these monsters. They are a breed the tea party was hatched to slay. In a sense, the infant Tea Party, the one filled with Constitutions and “Don't Tread On Me” armor is gone.  Only bitter dwellings of long abandoned hope remain in what could have been a true liberty movement. The old were unwilling to admit that government is the disease. You cannot replace one cancer with another that is temporarily more convenient. The Tea Party of today is not so much about freedom and the Constitution as it is about imposing a so-called "conservative" brand of tyranny.

Most Tea Partiers now support the inept war on drugs; many cringe at the thought of changing our foreign policy to one of peace and friendship. Some are even ok with the patriot act, and a few would even tolerate Obama-care as long as the title is changed to Romney-care. They seem to be saying: "I don't use drugs nor should anyone else, so don't allow it. I have nothing to hide and anyone who does should be monitored, so continue the patriot act. I don't want to be forced to purchase a good or service but if I must it damn well better be a Republican doing the forcing. In essence, I want my liberty protected but not liberty in general."

The occupy movement is sadly the same. They are more like the old hippie movement in a way. They are rightfully angry and want change, demand change, but they are unsure or wrong about where change should begin. The problem with hippies and with occupy is that they want to move out of the house, but they still want the folks to pay their bills. They are right about getting out of the house, but the man who pays the bills is the man in charge, so the type of freedom they advocate for is nothing but an illusion. The tragedy here is that maybe both groups would rather have the illusion than the real thing. Occupy is right to protest the bailouts, income disparity, and corporatism. They are just wrong in their solution. They are attacking the corporations. Are big corporations evil? Probably. Can they be trusted? Certainly not, but attacking Wall Street for accepting government money is like attacking the stranger who had a one night stand with your attractive wife; it was wrong of him, but most men in his place would do the same thing. The person to blame is the one who had the responsibility, the one who made the vow. In the case of the cheating wife, she is to blame. Attacking the stranger will not prevent her from cheating again with someone else. Leave her. In the case of bailouts, it is the government. Most people will accept a ton of money when it is offered. To stop it from happening again, we must place our anger in the right direction, namely the federal government. Leave her. She is a whore who will always sell herself to the highest bidder. Government is a whore, no matter how much she promises to change or how hard you wish for it she will never have virtue. She will always be a whore and her agents will always be thieving pimps.

Occupiers, like their hippie forefathers and tea party opposites miss the basic premise of the problem. Changing the system will not work. Moving from one whore to the next will result in nothing but more heartache and possibly a flaming case of the clap. We cannot replace corporatism with socialism or communism because the government would still be in charge of distributing the funds. The pimps will still hold the key. The income disparity will grow larger, and the public chains will tighten. They are right to move out of the house, but they must pay their own way. End the corporatism and be free. Serving no master sometimes leads to struggle. Isn’t  is better to struggle in liberty than to be comfortable in servitude.

Tea Partiers must do the same. You cannot have economic freedom and social tyranny. Live your life the way you see fit and let others do the same. If they can control your neighbor’s behavior they can control your pocketbook. A perfect government cannot exist. A good government cannot exist. The only legitimate government is self-government. Tea Partiers and occupiers are both half right. It is a shame they will not come together and join with the liberty movement to make a whole.

Republicans are wrong about payroll tax cut extension

Mike Shaner
February 16, 2012

House Republicans are wrong to fight an extension. They should be fighting to eliminate the tax completely, but instead they argue that extending the cuts must be paid for. This is ludicrous. It isn't their money to begin with. That's like saying "I will stop robbing banks as soon as I can figure out a way to pay for it."  It just goes to further the point that most Republicans are just as big government as most Democrats. It speaks to a general philosophy that Republicans believe they own peoples money. They do not on our money, it is ours. They do not own our body, nor the fruits of the labor it produces. Until we realize this we will continue to be nothing more than free range serfs. 

The Lesser of Two Evils is Evil

Mike Shaner
February 4, 2012

Recently I wrote that the only GOP candidate worth voting for is Ron Paul. I concluded that he is the only candidate capable of beating Obama in the general election. I went on to announce that liberty voters would no longer be held hostage by the GOP;  if they want our vote, they must earn it. This set off a firestorm LinkedIn debate. The basic argument from the opposition was familiar: we must defeat Obama at all cost. I asked why and no answer was given.

It reminded me of the '08 Obama voter, who simply wanted "change," What kind of change did not matter. "We just want change." Why is Romney better than Obama? "He just is." OK, I disagree. The debate concluded with one "anybody but Obama supporter," demanding I hold my nose and "vote for the lesser of two evils." I thought about that:

In 1980 we were told to hold our nose and pick the most electable candidate: George H.W. Bush. "He isn't great we were told, but he's better than Carter." In 1980 we bucked the system and elected Ronald Reagan. Reagan had many faults, he isn't my favorite President, but he is the best of my life time. It was good to not vote for evil.

In 1988, we were told again to vote for "the least evil candidate who can win." Again, it was George H.W. Bush. He gave us higher taxes, more war, a stagnant economy, a deeper entrenchment in the United Nations, and "the opportunity to forge, for ourselves and for future generations, a New World Order. A world where the rule of law, not the law of jungle governs the conduct of nations." The lesser of two evils sounds pretty damned evil to me.

Of course in '92 we "had" to nominate the incumbent. After all, he was surely the most electable and not as evil as that damned Bill Clinton. Lest anyone be confused about our big government, one party system, President Clinton is like a son to Herbert Walker Bush. Imagine Bush's delight after serving for four years himself, his adopted Arkansan son held the office for eight more years, and then his natural son, George W. Bush got his turn.

In 2000, we once again had to choose the 'most electable, least evil candidate.' We were rewarded for our efforts with: The Prescription Drug act, No Child Left Behind, the so called Patriot act, the bailouts, and of course, lots of debt and more war.

2008: Naturally we learned nothing and nominated the most progressive warmongering candidate possible. "He is electable and 'less evil' than the Democrats," we were told. Nominating John McCain got us Obama. It's probably better that Obama won that election; at least the GOP would try, in some small ways, to obstruct a democrat's agenda. Can you imagine if McCain, a co-author of NDAA, had won? Wow, that's a scary thought. Not only would we have the countless wars Obama gave us, we'd be in war everywhere. Hell, we'd probably attack Canada. I still recall McCain on the senate floor joyously singing "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran."

Now we are told,"Just one more time, rally the troops, hold your nose, nominate Romney, and then vote for him." Why? His record, if not identical, is eerily similar to Obama's. Why should we choose one over the other? I don't consider Romney 'less evil' than Obama. They are equally bad. Either way, voting for the lesser of two evils has continuously gave us war, debt, and more war. Voting for the lesser of two evils has proven to be pretty damn evil. Quit voting for evil. Vote for peace, prosperity, and liberty.

Mike Shaner attacks drunk driving laws

Mike Shaner
January 31, 2012

I recently spoke to a woman facing a 10 year prison sentence for multiple DUI arrests. She is a functioning alcoholic who drinks on the job everyday. She drinks steadily throughout her 8 hour shift. When the quitting bell rings she is not drunk, but she is well over the legal limit. We will call her Martha.

Martha is an easy target because she is a poor, white, single mother of five. Her "crime" is unpopular so there will be no civil liberties group rushing to her defense. She is white, so the police who wait for her to drive by and stop her without cause can never be accused of racism. She is poor, which means she can't afford a decent defense on her own. Her public defenders have told her there is no deal to be had. She can plead guilty and accept her ten year incarceration or she can go to trial, be found guilty, and accept her ten year incarceration. Ten years! There is no victim to be found. She didn't swerve into a passing car, she damaged no property, and she injured no one but herself, yet she will be caged for ten years.

I know many of you reading this are frothing; "what, are we supposed to wait until she kills someone?" The answer is yes. If simply having the potential to hurt someone is justification for arrest; all gun laws are justified, McDonald's employees should be arrested, and frankly, no one should be allowed out of their homes. Simply drinking a few (or thirty) beers and getting behind the wheel isn't really a crime because there is no victim.

I can already imagine the attacks some of you will lay on me. I will be called everything from a lunatic to an anarchist-as if "anarchist" were some kind of insult. I am not an anarchist (though I drift more in that direction everyday) because I believe there is a place for the rule of law; laws (should) exist to enforce private property rights and protect the liberty of the individual. In other words; if you break my arm or destroy my property you have committed a crime and should be held responsible, drunk or sober has no bearing on the situation.

There are several reasons drunk driving laws should be abolished: First, they don't work. People understand this when it comes to the war on drugs, but when it comes to drinking and driving we seem to lose all sense of logic and succumb to fear. If drunk driving laws really prevented people from drinking, how did Martha pile up five arrests? By the prevention logic she would have never committed the first "offense." Surely, she would have stopped after the second, third... People are going to drink and drive. It's an unfortunate fact of life, but if this in itself is to be considered a criminal act, solely based on preventing an outcome that may never happen, shouldn't drinking at all be made illegal? After all, if there is no access to alcohol, no one could drive after drinking. Oh yea, we tried that, it didn't work. Just as outlawing drugs hasn't worked. Instead what we have done is made criminals of people who have yet to commit a crime.

The most important reason to abolish drunk driving laws is that they are a moral crime against liberty. We are allowing individuals to be caged for something they may potentially do. This is absurd. If we start locking up people for something we think may happen in the future then no man, woman, or child is safe. Every time one becomes angry he may lose control and harm another. Should anger be a criminal offense punishable by jail? How about speeding? If a person is under considerable stress he may go postal, should stress be outlawed? This rant isn't an endorsement of drunk driving. Drinking and driving is irresponsible, immoral, and reprehensible. Being reprehensible and irresponsible is not a crime, hurting someone is. If there is no victim there is no crime, and until we realize that we are a long way from being able to call ourselves free people. I know that my opinion will be unpopular. I'm ok with that. Please feel free to leave your rebuttal in the comment section below.

Ventura, Ca. prohibits people from parking cars on their own lawn! (strong language)

Mike Shaner
January 27, 2012

Apparently the city of Ventura, Ca. prohibits people from parking cars on their own lawn! So, let me get this straight: a stranger wearing a badge is encouraged to trespass on private property and write you a ticket for parking your property on your property. What the hell is going on in this country? Who in his right mind considers this freedom? Is it my lawn or the cities? If it is my lawn who are they to tell me what to do with it? I am so sick of this type of bullshit and the citizens who allow it. It's time to make a stand! I recommend every property owner in the city protest in unison. Park your car in front of your house everyday for a month. When you get a ticket call and tell them to shove it up their fat Nazi ass, and then swear out a warrant on the ticket writing cop for trespassing. Change can come, but we must fight back! How far are we going to let them shove the proverbial nightstick up our anus hole before we scream enough! Ventura is a champion of agenda 21 and change will not come easy, but without action it will not come at all.

I love to write about Ron Paul and the Presidential election, but true change begins at home. If we are to become a nation of liberty we must do it one city at a time. If we were to take care of matters in our own town it would be of little consequence who sleeps at the white house. There are enough liberty minded folks in every city in America to make this happen. The problem is they are too busy laying on the couch playing video games or watching Jersey Shore. It's time to wake up every drunk in the trailer park, every whore in the city, every true man of the cloth in the church, every businessman tired of being over-taxed, and every mom who wants a future for her children and reclaim our neighborhoods from the thuggish politicians who have bullied us into acceptance. If they can tell you what to put on your property-it's their property. If it is their property-what happens if they no longer want you or your house on it?

King Pinhead Bill O'Reilly wonders why conservatives don't like big government statist Newt Gingrich:

Mike Shaner
January 25, 2012

On last nights episode of The Factor, Bill O'Reilly labored painfully over the fact that conservatives are unimpressed with Newt Gingrich. O'Reilly was just baffled, at one point demanding that while the former speaker of the house is not a  "zombie," he is a conservative. As if Bill O'Reilly has any reason to pretend he is qualified to define conservatism. I answer some of O'Reilly's rant below. The pinhead's comments are in bold with my response below:



Some conservatives see Newt as an avenger:

Simply talking loud does not make one an avenger; what is he avenging? His hero Teddy Roosevelt and the new deal progressives he claims to love? If there is an avenger in this race it is Ron Paul. Newt is nothing more than a big government blowhard

O'Reily says Newt is not a Zombie but is a conservative:

By what definition? Gingrich cosponsored 418 bills with Nancy Pelosi, he supported global warming legislation, expanded the Federal government into education, supported an individual mandate that would require Americans to purchase a good or service, supported Rockefeller over Goldwater, completely denounced Ronald Reagan, and just recently toured the country with Race Monger Al Sharpton. I would like Mr. O'reilly to explain what exactly is conservative about this record? He is a Zombie! A blood-thirsty, war-mongering, chicken-hawk, statist zombie!

Ten years ago I would have laughed scornfully at anyone who said Newt wasn't a conservative:

Mr. O'Reilly is filled with scorn for anyone who is truly a conservative. If someone doesn't want to bomb every nation on earth (other than Israel) O'Reilly labels them as a dangerous lunatic. On more than one occasion he has mocked Ron Paul for his non-interventionist foreign policy. How does this make sense? Newt Gingrich wants to colonize the moon and make it the 51st state! What the hell is conservative about that? How is it the man who advocates peace, liberty, and the constitution is grouped with the tin-foil hat crowd, and the man who wants to colonize the moon is considered a serious conservative candidate for President? Mr. O'Reilly, you truly are a pinhead!

Video: Los Angeles County police shoot man 5 times after he is on the ground in Monterey, Ca.

Mike Shaner
January 27, 2012

Two Los Angeles County cops shot and killed a man carrying a crow-bar in Monterey, Ca. That wouldn't be a huge deal, even cops have a right to defend themselves, but according to this article the blood thirsty cops shot him 10 times. Five after he was already on the ground. Imagine if you or I had done that? I know a lot of my conservative readers will defend these dirty scumbags no matter what, but I ask you: does wearing a badge make you above the law? 

Oliver Stone: I'd vote for Ron Paul over Obama

Mike Shaner

January 23, 2012

Oliver Stone told Rock Cellar Magazine that he would vote for Ron Paul over President Obama. This is notable because of Stone's status as a big time Hollywood director with massive influence and a cult following, and also because he supported Obama in 2008.  I wish the interviewer would have asked Stone if there were any plans to make a "Ron Paul" movie. Theaters would be sold out weeks in advance!  See the direct quote below:

"There’s no way that we can continue this spending spree.  In fact, I think in many ways the most interesting candidate – I’d even vote for him if he was running against Obama – is Ron Paul.  Because he’s the only one of anybody who’s saying anything intelligent about the future of the world.

Ron Paul "He’s the only one of anybody who’s saying anything intelligent about the future of the world." --Oliver Stone

How do we go on being who we are? We have an identity crisis here.  But as long as we keep running this fantasy through our minds that we can dominate history, it’s not a wild card, it’s a given!" -Oliver Stone

California could lose Haas Automation

Mike Shaner

January 23, 2011

Haas Automation had planned to expand their facilities in Oxnard Ca. but due to high taxes and over-regulation plans for the $20 million, 160,000-square-foot facility have been put on hold.

Haas' general manager Robert Murray said the company has been aggressively recruited by officials from Texas, North Carolina, and Nevada. The decision is a painful one for Haas officials who were born and raised in California. They want to remain here but the burdensome state government is making that difficult. It goes to illustrate the harm government can cause. This is the largest manufacturer of computer controlled machine tools in the entire country. They have been in California since their inception. California should be a magnet for this type of company. Everyone screams the country needs manufacturing jobs yet we make it hard for them to exist in California!

California has been bleeding jobs at an astounding pace throughout the economic downturn. Instead of evaluating their harmful policies and making the necessary corrections, they seem intent on turning our beautiful state into a replica of an over-regulated third world country. 

I am convinced that the only way this will change is when the people wake up and realize that all of the jobs have left, taking with them the money some believe they are so entitled to. Let people keep their money and run their business. Let the markets regulate the businesses and everyone wins. Empires crumble and tyrants fall, but liberty prospers. Let’s return California to the golden age of liberty.

Nominate Ron Paul or reelect Obama

Mike Shaner
January 21, 2012

If the GOP is serious about defeating Obama in the 2012 Presidential race they better swallow the establishment pride and nominate Ron Paul.  Those of us in the liberty movement have been told for years that we must hold our nose and vote for "the lesser of two evils." The ball is now in our court. Libertarians hold the key to the 2012 election.

We have eclipsed the magical 10% number that either party must have to win an election, and we will not compromise. We will not replace one big government statist wearing a blue uniform for another wearing a red uniform. If Ron Paul is not the nominee we will write him in or vote for a Libertarian party candidate. We will not vote for Mitt Romney. We will not vote for Newt. I would rather take a beating than vote for Santorum. He is evil Abe incarnate.

Without the Ron Paul supporters the GOP has absolutely no path to victory. The Republican establishment has been screaming for years "we must nominate the most electable candidate." Let's see if they put their money where there mouth is. This year it is Ron Paul or not at all. The choice is yours: Waste your vote on a big government establishment GOP clone of Obama or vote for liberty. Have the courage of your convictions and vote for the Constitution you claim to care about or continue to ignore it. Champion the limited government principle's in the GOP platform or continue on your corporatist path of destruction. Endorse socialized medicine, socialized education, endless war, the patriot act, assassination and indefinite detention of American citizens or allow peaceful liberty to restore our Republic. You can nominate Ron Paul or waste your vote on another candidate and re-elect President Obama.

Burbank Woman offers "Sexual Favors" for Chicken McNuggets

Mike Shaner
January 17, 2012

Khadijah Baseer, a 31 year old homeless woman was arrested at a Burbank McDonalds for allegedly offering sexual favors in exchange for chicken Mcnuggets. If convicted she could face up to 6 months in the county jail and a $1000 fine. Burbank police Lieutenant John Dilibert told The LA Weekly that Baseer would probably not recieve the maximum punishment due to overcrowded jails and  limited resources.

Is it any wonder that the jails are overcrowded? I ask where the victim is in this alleged crime? A homeless woman was hungry and offered the only service she had available to her. She didn't steal the nuggets. She didn't rob someone's money to buy the food. She simply offered to work for it. No matter how distasteful one may find her actions no true crime was committed. Now she will be inundated with fines that will place a heavier burden on her already desperate financial situation. What do the Burbank police think about all of this? Apparently they find it hilarious! Dilbert joked with The LA Weekly that maybe Ms. Baseer only "wanted to see someone's quarter-pounder."

They are also surprised over the "insane" amount of attention this case has brought them. I say pour on the attention. Call them up and demand that they quit incarcerating people who haven't hurt anyone. It is easy to laugh away this whole incident because some anonymous woman tried to whore herself out for food-but ask yourself how hungry she must have been to resort to this. She wasn't after crack or whiskey-just a bite to eat. Also, ask yourself who is the victim here? If there is no victim there can be no crime. It's time we end the police state and demand they cease harassing people who have harmed no one. If we get to that point perhaps we'll have room in our jails to house actual criminals and the resources to prosecute them.

Barrack Obama Vs Mitt Romney Vs Ron Paul: Only One Choice

Mike Shaner
January 14,2011


In the spring of 2010 President Obama signed the affordable care act into law. For the first time the Federal Government would actually force Americans to buy a service. U.S. citizens were so outraged that spontaneous protest erupted around the country. People like Glenn Beck were able to achieve their apocryphal 15 minutes by pandering to an enraged mass about the importance of Constitutional obedience. There was a semblance of hope. The country seemed young again. Revolution was in the air. People who had never been politically active before were organizing protest rallies.  I even wrote at the time that we should thank the 111th congress for providing the motivation to reclaim our republic. Those on the left blamed the new found devotion to our founding philosophy as blatant racism manifested in destroying the crowning achievement of our nations first black President. At the time I felt this was a copout argument. Obviously, people were enraged at the gall of a Federal Government that would piss on the constitution and tell it’s citizens what they must purchase. I wonder now if there wasn’t some naivety in my dismissal of their claims.

Here we are two years later and the same people who were carrying pocket Constitutions to tea party rallies have actually made Mitt Romney the front runner to be the Republican nominee for President. That’s right Mitt Romney! The same guy who invented Obama-care. So these noble champions of liberty whose only purpose was to fight government overreach were so disgusted with Obama-care that they push the guy who invented it to replace the President? On what basis? The familiar cry is that Romney stands the best chance of defeating Obama. We  are told that we must unite behind an imperfect candidate or suffer four more years of the Obama regime. Obviously this argument is unfounded, as i’ve noted before Ron Paul is probably the only candidate who actually could defeat President Obama, but let’s say Romney does have the best chance to win; so what? On almost every issue Romney and Obama take the same issues. 

Mitt Romney is a man who proudly claimed not to be a Reagan Republican (bc Reagan was too conservative). He is someone noted as being left of Ted Kennedy. He supported TARP and the bailouts. He believes in the so called Patriot act and aggressive militarism. Most important he believes that some government has the right to tell an individual he must purchase a good or service. I have yet to find one major difference between him and Obama other than skin color and party label. 

Looking back now I’m inclined to believe that collectivist mentality did play a role in the uprising against obama-care and the new found acceptance of Mitt Romney. I don’t believe it is as steeped in racism as it is party loyalty but the collectivist mindset is there all the same. It’s as if some people are ok with the tyranny as long as it is a Republican who prescribes it. Tyranny is tyranny. It’s destruction is the same no matter who is delivering it. What most boggles the mind is that we do have a choice in this election. 

Ron Paul is everything the Tea Party crowd seemed to be clammering for. He is a champion of the Constitution. He has never voted for a tax increase or to raise the debt ceiling. He is the only candidate who understands that the Federal government doesn’t exist to run the economy or provide welfare. He is the only candidate who uses the constitution as his guide for casting a policy vote. The arguments against him are hypocritical when coming from those who claim to care about the Constitution:

“Ron Paul wants to end the Federal war on drugs.”

 Ok...and? That’s because the Constitution doesn’t give the federal government the authority to regulate such a thing. It is a state issue and that’s Ron Paul’s position. If you are a constitutionalist that HAS to be your position as well.

“Ok well Ron Paul is an isolationist and wants to end the wars.” 

In the first place, he is not an isolationist he is a non-interventionist. An isolationist uses protectionist measures to isolate themselves from the rest of the world. Ron Paul wants free trade and prosperity with all nations. It’s the opposite of isolationism. As for war, yes he believes we should be very cautious before jumping into a war. Anyone who disagrees with him should read Washington’s farewell address. He also know it is the job of Congress (not the President) to declare war. If we must go to war, it should be declared by Congress, we should go in, win it, and come home. If you think the Federal Government should be chained by the Constitution you must agree with him. 

“Well, he’s so old and he doesn’t speak very Presidential. Romney is young, good looking, and well spoken. He just seems like a President.” 

That’s just one more thing he and Obama have in common. If you want someone who is well spoken why not just vote for Obama? If the criteria is based on Constitutionalism and liberty Ron Paul is the only choice. In summation I will say that I don’t think racism sparked the Tea Party movement but I do believe it is collectivism and fear that will destroy it. If the choice is between Obama and Romney...what choice is there at all? How would your life be different today if we had a President Romney instead of Obama?