Showing posts with label libertarian. Show all posts
Showing posts with label libertarian. Show all posts

Monday, January 07, 2008

The Secret Of Ron Paul's Success

Here is the secret of Ron Paul's success in organizing his campaign. He hasn't. He has left it up to his supporters to do it for him. It is a truly libertarian campaign.

Pop quiz: Who is the first presidential candidate ever to be interviewed by a college student in his dorm room, with the video posted on YouTube?

The answer is Republican longshot Ron Paul, who is waging one of the most dynamic but least-managed e-campaigns in the 2008 race.

The Texas Congressman's e-fundraising efforts are as unconventional as his use of media. Unlike other presidential wannabes, who rely on e-mail blasts to would-be supporters, Paul has been building his war chest by allowing his backers to drive much of the campaign themselves.

The Paul campaign has taken a bottom-up, community-oriented approach to online fundraising "so that as donations come in, the information about who's donating [and how much has been raised] is made available to everybody" on the campaign's home page, says Andrew Rasiej, co-founder of TechPresident.com, a New York-based group blog that covers how the 2008 presidential candidates are using the Web and how content generated by voters is affecting the campaign.

But Paul's campaign has taken a highly decentralized, bottom-up approach that's aimed at building a community of support while saving the organization money on IT overhead.

"Our strategy is shaped by the need to be frugal with money," says Justine Lam, Rep. Paul's e-campaign director in Arlington, Va. When Lam first began crafting Paul's e-strategy in March 2007, the campaign had a total of just $500,000 to work with. "We knew we couldn't run the same kind of campaign that [Mitt] Romney or [John] McCain could with the money they had," says Lam, a newbie to the political battlefields and the second person to join Paul's campaign staff. So thrift was the watchword when it came to campaigning online. For example, instead of hosting Ron Paul videos on his campaign Web site and chewing up valuable network bandwidth, Lam has uploaded his speeches and other video content onto YouTube.


Presidential campaign regulations have also played a significant role in shaping the Ron Paul online fundraising juggernaut. The Federal Election Commission has strict regulations prohibiting campaign organizers from giving instructions to supporters on what they should do to help the campaign. As a result, Lam and other members of the campaign team settled on a strategy of suggesting to devotees that they effectively develop their own independent campaign strategies in support of Paul.

The strategy "ricocheted through the Web and has allowed people to take ownership of the campaign instead of the campaign telling them what to do," says Lam, who previously managed webcast lectures for the Institute for Humane Studies at George Mason University in Arlington, Va.

The community-driven online fundraising strategy has worked brilliantly and has distanced the Paul e-campaign from the rest, say Rasiej and other pundits. "Ron Paul is probably the best example" of a presidential candidate who's made the most effective use of grass-roots e-mail and blogging, says Karen Jagoda, president of the E-Voter Institute in La Jolla, Calif.

The strategy appears to be working, at least from the standpoint of online attention. According to Hitwise Pty., an online measurement service based in New York, Paul attracted nearly 38% of Web traffic among all main candidates in the third week of December, trailed by former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, with over 16%. Obama came in third with just under 11%.

Although candidates such as Clinton have raised far more than Paul overall (Clinton's most recent FEC filing, on Nov. 21, shows that she has netted more than $45 million), Paul's community fundraising approach generated more than $19.5 million for the fourth quarter of 2007, easily outpacing all of the other candidates in terms of online fundraising, says Rasiej.


The watershed moment for Paul's online fundraising efforts was the "Ron Paul Money Bomb" of Nov. 5, when the campaign set a one-day record for contributions. "We've never seen anything like it," says Lam. "We raised $4.2 million that day under a completely supporter-driven 'money bomb.' No one has ever done that."

"We've never seen anything like it," says Lam. "We raised $4.2 million that day under a completely supporter-driven money bomb. No one has ever done that," she says.

Then on Dec 16, Paul upped the ante, raising an astounding $6 million.

The most that former Vermont governor Howard Dean amassed in a single day of online contributions during his 2004 presidential run was $500,000, Lam says.

Dean's campaign was also very much community-fed and Internet-driven. But back then, Dean's campaign organizers held frequent Meetup.com telephone conferences with supporters, which included weekly to-do lists for backers, says Lam.

Not Paul's people. "We might have a webconference once in a while to tell supporters what we're doing in the campaign [headquarters], but we don't tell them what to do," says Lam.

One of the truisms in Internet politics is that it's easier for "edge" candidates like Paul to catch fire online with would-be voters than it is for more mainstream politicians such as former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, says John Palfrey, executive director of the The Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School. That's because campaigns with smaller budgets and smaller support bases "are more willing to take the risk of using the Internet in experimental ways," says Palfrey.

"Ron Paul is running a very online-focused campaign," says Palfrey, "and he's becoming [more] relevant as a result."


Tags;
, ,, , , , ,
, ,

Unfair and Unbalanced

So Fox had their debate last night without Ron Paul.

I saw the very beginning of the forum, in which Brit Hume said that ‘one of these five men will be the next President of the United States’ — a statement which I found presumptuous.



They claimed its because they only invited candidates with double digit standings in the National Polls. Well Ron Paul is ahead of Fred Thompson in New Hampshire. And it was a New Hampshire debate. But well....fair and balanced as Fox is they did not want him there. Any excuse would do not to feature the only Republican candidate opposed to the War in Iraq. And the result was a very boooooring political forum that fell flat.

Paul has been one of this campaign's biggest surprises. Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, and Mike Huckabee have seen their popularity fluctuate, but Paul has continued to climb in polls (he's at 10 percent in the latest CNN/WMUR New Hampshire poll, well ahead of Thompson)."It's annoying not able to participate in the debate," said Paul, adding that Fox News reporters and commentators "are war mongerers who don't want to hear other opinions."

The decision by Fox to limit participation in the forum infuriated Paul supporters and even drew the ire of the New Hampshire Republican Party, which withdrew its sponsorship of the event.

Fox had invited Republican candidates Rudolph Giuliani, John McCain, Romney, Huckabee and Fred Thompson to the forum, but excluded Paul as well as California congressman Duncan Hunter.

Paul protested, arguing that he raised $20 million in the last quarter of 2007, almost the same amount as Hillary Clinton. Furthermore, a Research 2000 poll published in the Concord Monitor released Sunday showed Paul garnering 7 percent of the vote, besting Thompson and only 1 point behind Giuliani in the state.


On Saturday the New Hampshire Republican party expressed its disappointment with the decision to exclude Mr. Paul and Representative Duncan Hunter of California by severing its partnership with Fox.

“We believe that it is inconsistent with the first in the nation primary tradition to be excluding candidates in a pre-primary setting,” said Fergus Cullen, chair of the state G.O.P. party. “All candidates regardless of how well known they are or how much money they’ve raised should be treated equally here.”

The New Hampshire G.O.P. has been in discussions with Fox to include all the candidates in the forum, but the network said that it was only inviting candidates who received double digit support in national polls.

On Saturday, Fox News Channel issued a brief statement from David Rhodes, its vice president of news: “We look forward to presenting a substantive forum which will serve as the first program of its kind this election season.”


The voice that Fox News wouldn’t broadcast Sunday night came through loud and clear to the more than 400 Ron Paul fans who jammed into the Crowne Plaza hotel’s ballroom here Sunday afternoon to hear his alternative vision for America.

The crowd, representing many of the outliers of the American political spectrum, waved placards and American flags as they repeatedly rose to their feet.

If nothing else, Paul’s backers, who include pro wrestler Glen Jacobs (aka “Kane”) and former Rep. Barry Goldwater Jr., are more overtly enthusiastic about their candidate than most political activists.

That energy could make Paul’s primary day performance here a compelling undercard for Tuesday’s marquee matchups of Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton and Republicans John McCain and Mitt Romney .

In a Concord Monitor poll this week, Paul was one point behind Rudy Giuliani , well within the margin of error, for fourth place, with Fred Thompson behind them. Finishing behind Paul could be a jarring blow for better-known candidates who hope to compete for the nomination nationally.

“It makes [Fox] look so foolish,” Paul said after his speech. “What do they have against democracy?”



Note that I have been predicting Paul would do well in NH for sometime now , and the polls show that.

If you want to use polls the latest Rasmussen Reports has him tied for third place in New Hampshire with Iowa winner Mike Huckabee at eleven percent (11%) making Fox look even more foolish. Fred Thompson is at four percent (4%) in the state in that poll, and Rudy is only at nine percent (9%).
Fox loves to promote unbridled capitalism as the solution to everything. Well here is what happens when the market responds to such obvious politcal bias and censorship. Ya hit them where it hurts, in the pocket book.

Are Ron Paul Supporters Really Hurting Fox News Parent Company Shares?

Following Fox News exclusion of US Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul in a Sunday debate, many of his supporters called for a boycott of sponsors and - perhaps worse - shorting Fox parent company News Corp's stock.

Maybe it's just a reflection of the market overall but News Corp's shares really dropped this past week as seen by the chart below.

Coincidence? Perhaps. Then again....

The exclusion of Dr. Paul has backfired as major newspapers in the state of New Hampshire have jumped all over the story....and it's not a story of how some lowly candidate has been told to stay home by Fox News because he doesn't stand a chance in hell of winning. The stories instead ask "How and Why?". How could Ron Paul not be invited when Rudy Giuliani performed much worse in Iowa than Paul, who managed to crack double digits with 10% of the vote? Why is Ron Paul not invited to a state debate where he is presently polling better than three other invitees in New Hampshire?

Fox News for us is a guilty pleasure. We watch it, we've appeared on Fox and we certainly do not encourage the shorting of a company's shares.....but the decision to leave Ron Paul out of this debate was a "bonehead" one to say the least made by individuals who we suspect do not have a full grip on reality.

The Republican GOP in New Hampshire has now backed out of sponsoring the debate, even though it will still go on as planned. The headlines on Monday, however, will be "Where was Ron Paul?" and his New Hampshire exposure is bound to be twofold as a result.


Paul has a real base in the Republican party and can build delegate status, with such an open race. As this liberal Washington state commentator correctly points out.

I stopped going out of my way to deliberately antagonize and belittle the Paul campaign a couple months ago. It was mainly because he ran and is running a real race. The guy raised $20 million in a quarter. Despite not spending a nickel he got 10 percent of the vote in Iowa - more than Giuliani - and with how flakey the voters are in the Granite State odds are good he'll do even better in New Hampshire.

Like it or not the guy is a real candidate. This isn't Dennis Kucinich or Tom Tancredo who couldn't get attention if they were holding the last ham sandwich in hungry town. Paul has name recognition. The way things are looking, he will probably be in the race longer than Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson. Although there's probably no scenario where Paul can win the nomination it is nowhere out of the realm of possibility that he will control a significant block of delegates which could be a factor should this race be decided at the convention.

The Paulites are playing by all the rules and doing everything you can ask in order to be a valuable part of the nomination process. Right now as you read this there are dewy-eyed Paul supporters signing up to be PCOs and precinct captains laying down the foundation of a good grassroots base. They're doing it across the country. They're doing it in King, Pierce and Snohomish counties.

Here in Washington, Democrats are choosing all of their delegates in the caucus while half the Republican delegates are coming from the primary; the open primary. It wouldn't be surprising if Paul came in second or even wins our state's GOP primary.

You see the signs along the road, you read the blog comments and you watch the YouTube videos. In terms of generating excitement the "Paultards" have been kicking the ass every candidate in both parties with the exception of Barack Obama

Paul appeals to pre Reagan Republicans, those who like Barry Goldwater feel the party was taken over by the Moral Majority.

Paul has gained a loyal following in New Hampshire by touting his strict constructionist view of the constitution and his support of individual liberties and small government with lower taxes.

Paul's campaign has helped highlight a growing group of disenfranchised Republicans who say they are being alienated by religious conservatives and others.

Supporter Louise Aitel, a high school teacher from Merrimack, said she was so turned off by the Republican Party's views that she voted for Al Gore in 2000, but will return to the GOP fold tomorrow to cast a ballot for Paul.

"I was so wretchedly tired of religion being part of the state," she said of her 2000 vote.

Paul said yesterday he is working to change the party and hopes his views will be considered.

"If it doesn't transform the Republican party, then it's going to get weaker and weaker," he said, adding that he is trying to "save" the party.





As result of the Fox move Jay Leno, desperate for content, has invited Paul to cross striking writers picket lines to be on his show. The day before the New Hampshire primary. Bingo just like Hucakbee was before Iowa. And we know the result that had.

Leno is competing to have maverick Republican candidates on his show to boost his ratings. He had Huckabee on for his inaugral show last week. With the strong libertarian base in LA and California, this will auger well for Paul and for Leno's ratings. That Paul crosses a picket line to do this does not do his cause justice, but the core of his liberaltarian base are union haters so they could care less.

As for Leno he desperately needs content as his latest endeavors show like when last week he had one of his male staff show off his beer belly in a slinky thong. Desperation reeks off the show which has not come to an agreement with its writers like its competitor Letterman did. Having Paul on is unfortunately a win-win. And a big loss to the Writers Guild.


Writers Guild of America members continue to picket outside “The Tonight Show” studios Wednesday as fans wait in line to get into Jay Leno’s show.


SEE:


Fox Vs. Paul


Tags;
, , Barry Goldwater , , , , , , , ,
, ,

Saturday, January 05, 2008

Fox Vs. Paul

More evidence that the neo-con establishment hates Ron Paul. In this case Fox News is not inviting Paul to their Republican debate Sunday night. Dumb move. But what do you expect from the channel that hates Paul the most.So much for fair or balanced.

Online protests seek to include Ron Paul in NH debate
An online protest is growing over presidential candidate Ron Paul's exclusion from a Fox News debate here on Sunday, even though other Republicans receiving fewer votes in Iowa or scoring lower in the polls were invited.

Paul received a fifth-place 10 percent of the GOP vote in Iowa's caucus Thursday, ahead of Rudy Giuliani, who received 3.5 percent. He's also ahead of Fred Thompson in New Hampshire polls, polling 7 percent to Thompson's 2 percent.

But both Giuliani and Thompson still appear to be invited to Sunday evening's debate sponsored by Fox News and the New Hampshire Republican Party. Paul isn't.

That's irked many Paul supporters, who responded by flooding a Fox News Web page on the debate with over 580 comments and creating a "Protest Fox" Web site. It says: "We need to send a message to Fox's Rupert Murdoch & his fellow Neocon buddies that he is not Musharraf and the US is not Pakistan, yet! Fox News cannot just stifle public opinion. debate and impact a primary election by excluding Ron Paul just because they don't like his message of freedom and liberty."

They're also planning protests outside Fox News affiliates. Another likely protest site is Saint Anselm College in Manchester, N.H., which has given Fox News space for a broadcast studio. That's where Sunday's debate will take place.

So why the exclusion? It's hard to say, and Fox News hasn't exactly been forthcoming on this point.

For his part, Paul said he thinks it's because he--alone among Republican candidates--opposes the war in Iraq. After being excluded, Paul explained that he views Fox News as a "propagandist" for the war with editorial views that are hardly in keeping with traditional conservative limited-government principles, according to a story by the Boston Globe.

Adding to the intrigue is that the New Hampshire Republican Party, which is co-sponsoring the debate and presumably has some say in who's invited, published a statement this week saying the media should not be in the "business of excluding serious candidates and talks were continuing with Fox."

And adding to the insult, at least for Paul supporters, is that ABC News is sponsoring a debate at the same place--Saint Anselm College--the evening before. Unlike the Fox News debate on Sunday, however, Ron Paul will be invited to participate.

Of course Fox neo-con commentators just hate Ron Paul.

SEAN HANNITY UPSET ABOUT RON PAUL WINNING DEBATE POLL


While Fox is the voice of America's War,

Ron Paul and Bill O'Reilly Duke It Out (09/10/07)



Fox Chatheads Aghast at Ron Paul's Appeal




Ron Paul is the voice of America's Troops. The folks fighting the neo-cons war for them. Paul can say he supports the troops while calling for their withdrawal from Bush's war.

New Spot: "Troops Support Ron Paul"

Republican Ron Paul is out with a new TV ad, set to run in New Hampshire through Tuesday's primary, stressing his military credentials.

Patriotic music booms. Soldiers salute. The announcer begins: "A proud military veteran who served our nation. Ron Paul salutes and supports our troops who protect and defend our freedom." A flag waves. The announcer continues, "But who do the troops support? Ron Paul. The record shows they're standing up for him." The ad concludes: "Ron Paul is their choice for commander-in-chief."

His campaign spokesman Jesse Benton said Paul "has long been a praised as staunch advocate for veterans' issues." Still, he "wants to bring the troops home from Iraq" because he would rather America "never again sends out brave soldiers to war unless doing so is necessary for our defense," according to Benton. Whether his anti-war message will appeal to New Hampshire veterans is hard to say.



While being dissed by the Republican establishment and its neo-con media flacks the real libertarian base of the pre-Reagan Republicans comes out in favour of Paul.

Congressman Ron Paul
will be joined in the last days of the New
Hampshire campaign by former Congressman and conservative stalwart
Barry Goldwater, Jr.

"We are truly honored to have this legendary conservative family
here to support Dr. Paul and bring his message to New Hampshire
voters," said Jared Chicoine, NH State Coordinator. "A Goldwater
endorsement sends an unmistakable message about what Ron Paul really
means to the Republican Party."

Son of the late conservative senator from Arizona, Mr. Goldwater
himself served six terms in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Carrying on his father's legacy of fighting for small government and
individual liberty, the former Congressman endorsed Ron Paul for
President in November of 2007.



New Hampshire is going to be another win for Paul but will the media finally take notice? Only if he succeeds in coming in fourth again and burying both Thomspon and Guilliani once and for all. And his chances are very good in this most libertarian of all states.

Rasmussen: Ron Paul Soars to 14% in NH


And while most polls indicate a slug fest between former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and Arizona's U.S. Senator John McCain on the Republican side of the fight, another Republican has been waiting behind the curtain for some time now: Texas Congressman Ron Paul.

Paul has endeared himself to legions of supporters with his grandfatherly conviction and steady, libertarian-style message against the Iraq War, for downsizing goverment with lower taxes, and against the erosion of Constitutional rights. Paul's voters are enthusiastic and oftentimes angry. But they have purpose to their anger, fueled as it is by the outrage of seeing America drift ever closer to a socialist "Nanny State."


Tuesday. If Paul can come into the first tier of candidates, say at least fourth or third, his campaign picks up new legitimacy as he will be introduced to America by the mainstream press.

What many traditional Republicans miss is that Ron Paul, like him or not, truly helps show America that the Republican Party is not all lockstep behind the Bush/Cheney Administration when it comes to foreign invasions and domestic surveillance. Since Bush's approval ratings have been in the deep cellar for two years now, having Ron Paul handy to make articulate arguments on liberty and a more prudent foreign policy shows a Republican Party that acknowledges its mistakes.


And even the liberals like him which just further pisses off Fox.

Ron Paul is Bill Maher's New Hero



And he even has support of an anarchist or two....



SEE:

Winds of Change

Huckabee: Paul is Dead

Republican Presidential Paul-itics

Ron Paul and Barry Goldwater

Ron Paul


Tags;
, , Barry Goldwater , , , , , , , ,
, ,

Friday, January 04, 2008

Winds of Change

The Iowa Caucuses last night showed that the 2008 U.S. Presidential campaign will break the mold of establishment politics. It is after all the fortieth anniversary of the winds of change that blew the establishment apart in 1968. And this Presidential campaign has all the makings of the grass roots rebellion that saw demonstrators take to the streets and activists support Bobby Kennedy in a Power to the People campaign.

Barack Obama has the Kennedy charisma and has captured the new Power to the People campaign. This showed in Iowa, with a massive increase in registered Democratic voters and their showing up at the caucuses, many for the first time. The Democratic Establishment is shaken to its core, for they back Hillary and she came in third. Even her feminist base could not be counted on, for the vast majority of those new voters were older women who supported Obama.

John Edwards whom I predicted would take Iowa, came in second, far ahead of Clinton. His populist message of bashing Wall Street, corporations and the party establishment echoed grass roots sentiments not only in the Democratic Party but in the Republican grass roots. That is why Huckabee won so overwhelmingly. Which I did predict several months ago.

Huckabee gives Kudlow and Co. on CNBC heartburn, they decry his anti-Wall Street message, ironically so does the Conservative establishment Rush Limbaugh was on Fox denouncing Huckabee, as did members of the Christian Coalition leadership. The reason is they are out of touch with their base. The days of the Moral Majority are gone, the vocal power brokers are either discredited like Ralph Reed who was caught up in scandal, or dead like Moral Majority boss Jerry Falwell.

What both Edwards and Huckabee appeal too is blue collar America, main-street. What the establishment appeals to is Wall Street. Sure the investors and bankers and movers and shakers in the marketplace are making money, but to the average American they are facing rising inflation, loss of their homes, increasing debt, lost jobs, frozen wages, lack of medicare, Huckabee and Edwards appealed to these real issues.

Obama does to, in a very personal way, and his message last night was a variation on the old Rastafarian slogan One Love, his statement was about running to unify One People, One America, this goes beyond the two America's Edwards denounces, in providing a more hopeful message. And Huckabee also uses that same language, talking about an inclusive Presidency, one that will not be bi-partisan perse, but anti-partisan. His is a message of hope as well.

The pundits and hacks are scratching their heads this morning, and the powers that be are cringing in their corners wondering how they can rally support behind the establishment candidates; Clinton and Romney. They are out of touch with their base. They are aloof from blue collar/white collar workers in America. This is a working class revolt in both parties.

Sure Republicans are concerned about abortion and gay marriage, but they are also concerned, as Huckabee tells the party bosses, loss of jobs due to globalization, rising interest rates, lack of health care, eduction. Just like their Democratic counterparts do. One listens to Johnny Cash the other listens to Steve Earle, what happened in Ohio last election, where the working class vote, the union vote was mobilized around values issues, abortion and gay marriage, has given way to mobilization around economic bread and butter issues. Fair Trade instead of Free Trade. This is what scares the bejesuzz out of the establishment. It is Pat Buchanan's message eight years later, but delivered by both Democrat and Republican contenders without the jingoistic nativism and isolationist rhetoric.

The pundits were claiming last night that McCain would rise from the dead but in Iowa he ended up tied with a movie star for third place. Sure McCain is a challenger in New Hampshire, but in this he is the establishments fall back candidate. By far the real challenger is Ron Paul. Yes Ron Paul.

His is the under reported story from last night. Until the caucuses his campaign appeared to be internet driven. For instance in a Myspace poll he won overwhelmingly. His messaging and fund raising has all be done on the net. And he showed, as Howard Dean did last round, that the internet is an authentic alternative to corporate fund raising. Paul did what no other Presidential candidate ever did, raise record funds off the internet in one day. Not just once but three times. This is not a mere footnote folks, this is an authentic challenge to the traditional fund raising that has relied on lobbyists and tit for tat promises that Edwards has complained about and McCain tried to change through legislation.

Ron Paul has not been given the credit he is due by the pundit and media establishment. But by coming in fourth with 10% in Iowa he has translated his internet base to a real political force. Now watch him gain even more support as a viable alternative in New Hampshire. Paul appeals directly to the libertarian base that is the New Hampshire voter. Despite the state going Democrat, there is a strong independent base that Paul can and will appeal to. Expect him to come in third there. His libertarian message is appealing to the left and the right, just as a New Left Alliance arose between anarchists of the left and Republican libertarians
forty years ago

Winds of change. Expect the unexpected. And look forward to an amazing set of Presidential conventions where the grass-roots will be out in force as delegates, and they will be challenging the party establishments. Democracy never had it so good in the good old U.S.A.

This is after all the Year of the Rat.


SEE:

Huckabee: Paul is Dead.

Lieberman Endorses McCain

Huckabee A Red Tory

Republican Presidential Paul-itics

Gravel and Paul on PBS

Republican Presidential Paul-itics

Ron Paul

Ron Paul and Barry Goldwater

Liberal Republicans


Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
,, ,

, , , , , , , , , , , ,
, ,, , , , , , , , , ,




Wednesday, December 19, 2007

Huckabee: Paul is Dead.

Republican candidate Mike Huckabee seems to have slammed Ron Paul yesterday when he defended his Christian Christmas TV Ad.

"I will confess this: If you play the spot backwards it says, 'Paul is dead. Paul is dead,'"


Was that a subliminal smear against Ron Paul? Since the National Journal Poll found Ron Paul was dead last in national polling for Republican candidates.

"Merry Christmas," Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee said simply Tuesday in Houston in response to criticism that his latest campaign commercial mixes too much religion with politics.

Huckabee, here to raise campaign money, said the nation is in serious trouble if it is politically incorrect for him to use his TV spot to remind voters about the religious meaning of this holiday season.

Departing from the standard pitches for the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary two weeks from now, the former Arkansas governor and Southern Baptist minister appears on television screens in some states with the shape of a cross behind him and Silent Night playing in the background.

"Are you about worn out by all the television commercials you've been seeing, mostly about politics? Well, I don't blame you," he says in the commercial. "At this time of year, sometimes it's nice to pull aside from all of that and just remember that what really matters is the celebration of the birth of Christ and being with our family and friends."

Subliminal message?

Some political observers see the ad as appealing directly to evangelical voters and tapping into the religious differences between Huckabee and one of his chief rivals for the GOP presidential nomination, Mitt Romney, a Mormon. Others such as candidate Ron Paul, the Republican congressman from Lake Jackson, said the ad goes overboard.

"It reminds me of what Sinclair Lewis once said. He says, 'when fascism comes to this country, it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross,' " Paul, a Protestant, told Fox News. "Now I don't know whether that's a fair assessment or not, but you wonder about using a cross, like he is the only Christian or implying that subtly. So, I don't think I would ever use anything like that."

Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights President Bill Donohue said images of a cross in the commercial are an attempt to send a subliminal message.

"What he's trying to say to the evangelicals in western Iowa (is): 'I'm the real thing,' " Donohue said on the same news network. "You know what? Sell yourself on your issues, not on what your religion is."

Play it backward

Huckabee said Tuesday that he mentioned Jesus Christ in his unscripted commercial because, considering the meaning of the holiday, "I don't know what else to say about Christmas."

Some people are drawing such wild inferences from the commercial, Huckabee joked, that they might believe the ad says "Paul is dead" when played backward. It was a reference to the myth that the hidden news of Beatle Paul McCartney's "death" was revealed in the backward playing of one of the band's songs.

Really I heard Huckabee's quote and he said Paul is Dead, three times with no reference to McCartney. Now he is claiming he was referring to Paul McCartney but was he really?

After all Huckabee has no money and Ron Paul again broke a record for one day fund raising this week; when he raised over $6 million on internet donations. The previous record had been $4 million, raised by Paul a couple of months ago. And Paul was the first Republican candidate to criticize Huckabee's ad. And both are contenders in New Hampshire as I have pointed out.

Both these guys were once the so called second tier candidates in the Republican race. Huckabee now has the support of the evangelical conservative base in the party and Paul has become the most successful fund raiser, beating out all the front runners.

Huckabee is hated by the Republican establishment, who have abandoned their Moral Majority evangelical base that is the Reagan Republicans that Huckabee is shamelessly appealing to. He has little money or organizational staff with which to beat his opponents so he is doing the next best thing, talking to the folks, the base of the party who are alienated by the the current crop of 'liberals' running as Republicans; in this case the two front runners Mitt and Rudy.

This ad will come back to haunt him of course because he forgot that Hanukkah is also being celebrated this time of the year, and that Jesus was a Jew not a Republican.

In both races, Democrats and Republicans, this is not politics as usual, it is about the politics of change. Making this one of the most interesting U.S. Presidential elections in decades.




SEE:

Lieberman Endorses McCain

Huckabee A Red Tory

Republican Presidential Paul-itics



Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , ,
, , ,

Saturday, November 17, 2007

Kucinich and Paul The Perfect Pair


Nice to note that someone agrees with me. That Ron Paul is not the only Libertarian running for U.S. President. This is from Dan Alba, libertarian supporter of Ron Paul. And while he is critical of Kucinich he manages to point out what Paul and Kucinich hold in common.

If Ron Paul is not the most worthy presidential candidate in light of his four-decade track record of preserving individual liberty, states' rights, and national sovereignty; standing up to the Federal Reserve, the IRS, and special interests; and through it all, strictly limiting the bounds of his own power and that of the federal government by obeying the Constitution at every turn — if he is not the candidate who will address the ills by eradicating the cause instead of simply treating the symptom — then one doesn't exist.

Yet there are others, like Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich, who, like Ron Paul, are against nation-building, the Iraq war and its escalation, and who are for restoring civil liberties by eighty-sixing the Military Commissions Act, Patriot Act, and the like. They even cite the Constitution on occasion — by far, more often than do any of the other candidates on either side, minus Paul. But therein lies a basic and vital difference between someone like Ron Paul and the Congressman himself: Ron Paul doesn't just reference the supreme law of the land when relevant to a particular position he holds; he zeroes-out his every legislative action at the Constitution.

Dennis Kucinich is an honorable Congressman for his principled bravery in the face of mercantilistic mafiosi and war-profiteers, and his humanitarian compassion is perhaps second-to-none amongst all presidential candidates. He and Paul were the only Members of Congress who defied AIPAC and other war propagandists by voting against the fraudulent Rothman-Kirk Resolution which called on the UN to charge Iranian President Ahmadinejad with incitement to genocide based on words he didn't even say.

He's a refreshing rarity in a Congress full of pandering partisans, hyper-statists, and outright traitors. I am proud to utter the words "Congressman Kucinich."


And it is not just libertarians who are noting the importance of Paul and Kucinich and their anti-war stances. The liberal left in the U.S. is also embracing Paul as the libertarian right embraces Kucinich.

As
Mike Mejia writes in Ron Paul; The Pragmatic Choice.

Of the multitude of mainstream 2008 Presidential candidates, there are only three who are truly antiwar. Two of them are running as Democrats, one as a Republican. The two Democrats have little money in the bank, are polling in the low single digits and are clearly headed nowhere fast. The antiwar Republican was in much the same boat as Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel the first few weeks of his Presidential bid.


But now his campaign has started to gain momentum: he has broken through the media wall of silence with recent fundraising success and his poll numbers are moving up in the early states of New Hampshire and Iowa. That candidate’s name is Congressman Ron Paul of Texas.This poses a dilemma for any liberal who opposes the Iraq war and the overall war-mongering and empire building of the United States government.

As I wrote in a previous article
, a typical liberal will be opposed to Ron Paul on most issues, though Paul is very ‘liberal’ on the questions of war and peace, civil liberties and drug laws. Yet Paul is the only candidate besides Kucinich and Gravel that can be trusted to keep his word and bring the troops back home immediately. And Kucinich and Gravel are simply not making any headway in their respective campaigns.


How can liberals balance their desire for the social programs proposed by Hillary and gang against the near certainty that candidates such as Clinton and Obama will continue Bush’s Middle East war policies, albeit on a scaled-down level? Which should be more important, ending the military conflict and bringing the troops home or expanding the welfare state? The choice seems difficult one, until one digs a little deeper.


The first point I would to make is that even if antiwar liberal’s plans on voting Democratic in the General Election, it does not hurt the Democrats chances in November, 2008 to switch over and vote for Ron Paul in the Republican Primary. The defection of large numbers of Democrats to vote for Paul would send a very clear and unambiguous message to the eventual Democratic nominee: take an antiwar stance or risk losing liberal votes to a Third Party candidate.


The more important point I would like to make, though, is that even if Ron Paul were to ascend to the Presidency, it would not at all be a bad thing for liberal social policy. Paul is opposed to the income tax and wants to eliminate host of federal agencies, ranging from the IRS to Homeland Security. He is ardently pro-gun ownership, anti-choice and would definitely veto any bill that would expand health care benefits. Yet, none of these domestic positions he holds would likely have a practical impact on the actual functioning of government were he to take office in 2009. As President, he would hold no authority to unilaterally eliminate federal agencies or cut taxes or benefits. Any changes would have to take place with the approval of Congress.


But here’s the thing: if a war-mongering liberal Democrat takes office, there still will be no expansion of welfare programs that liberals love. The ‘catch’ with voting for a candidate such as Clinton or Obama, is that their policies on war and defense budgets will likely crowd out any attempt to make a significant expansion of government programs to help the poor and middle class. A prime example is health care. I, personally, am much more in tune with Hillary’s view on health care than I am with Ron Paul’s. Yet, with the current budget deficits and the expansion of the U.S. military expenditures, where is Hillary or Obama or Edwards going to find the money to expand health care coverage? The answer is: they won’t. Health care in America will remain the same, whether under a liberal Democrat or conservative Republican. Any changes that might take place will be at the very far margins.


However, with a Paul Presidency, there might be some hope for some of those programs in the distant future. Because a President Paul could unilaterally start bringing American troops back home. Not only from Iraq, but also from Afghanistan and Kosovo and Korea. A Paul Presidency could finally result in the long sought after ‘peace dividend’. Let’s face it, from a liberal perspective; the expansion of the welfare state can only happen if America scales back its imperial ambitions. Though Ron Paul does not advocate any expansion of the welfare state, he would undoubtedly do much to downsize the American Empire.

And as I have said before given that neither has a chance to win their party's primary they would make a terrific Third Party ticket. Just the thing to mobilize popular opposition to the War and to politics as usual.





SEE:

CNN Debate Debacle


Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , ,

Saturday, October 13, 2007

Gravel and Paul on PBS

PBS News Hour has interesting in-depth interviews with 'libertarian' U.S. Presidential Candidates who don't stand a chance of winning but should.

Libertarian in the sense they would put power back in the hands of the people.
And I would call Gravel a libertarian Democrat.

PBS gave them time to explain their ideas and present arguments for minimal government intervention in peoples lives something the debate forums do not do.

October 12, 2007
Conversation
Paul Envisions Smaller Government, Less Global Intervention

Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas As part of an ongoing series of in-depth interviews with presidential candidates, Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, explains his vision of limited government, decreased U.S. intervention in conflicts abroad and details his stance as an anti-war Republican.

RELATED INFORMATION

Ron Paul Candidate Profile


October 1, 2007
CONVERSATION
Former Sen. Mike Gravel , D-Alaska
Gravel Champions Power of the People

In the NewsHour's latest in-depth interview with presidential candidates, former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel explained that as president, he would put an end to the corruption of U.S. leadership by placing the power of lawmakers into the hands of the people through a direct democracy.


RELATED INFORMATION

Mike Gravel Profile



, , , , , , ,

Sunday, September 02, 2007

Canada Goes To Pot


Canada is a nation of pot heads.
\Marijuana use in Canada is the highest in the industrialized world and more than four times the global rate, according to a report from the United Nations.

Forty per cent of Canadian cannabis is produced in British Columbia, 25% in Ontario and 25% in Quebec, the report noted.

 Health

- One in 10 Canadian women uses marijuana.


Experts and activists are not concerned about the high rate of Canadian marijuana use reported in 2007 UN World Drug report —even though young people are the largest users of the drug.

The report states that 16.8 per cent of Canadians between the ages of 16 and 64 used marijuana in 2004. Canada is ranked fifth in marijuana use and the country’s usage percentage is four times the world average of 3.8 per cent. To compare, the report found that 12.6 per cent of people in the United States and 6.1 per cent in Holland have used the drug.

Richard Mathias, a professor at the University of British Columbia’s faculty of medicine, said he is pleased with the results from the report and is not worried about the high numbers of young people using the drug.

“I think that marijuana is a safer drug than some other options and I know that youth is a difficult, highly stressful time and it is to be expected that youth will explore and that’s good,” he said. “I teach these kids. They’re not criminals.”

A study conducted in 2002 by Carleton University professor Peter Fried also concluded that only heavy pot smokers are negatively affected by marijuana use. Fried’s 70-person study found that only heavy marijuana users between the ages of 10 and 20 had a decline in their IQ scores. The rest saw an increase in their scores.

The study also found that those who smoked heavily and later quit returned to their former IQ level.

Eugene Oscapella, an Ottawa-based lawyer who specializes in drug policy issues, said the UN report shows that the legal status of marijuana in a given country seems to have little bearing on consumption rates.

The report found that only 6.1 per cent of people in the Netherlands, where marijuana use has effectively been decriminalized, reported trying pot.

This shows decriminalization has no bearing on rates of use, and Canada shouldn't be so afraid to follow the Dutch lead, Oscapella said.

"The criminal law does not prevent people from using marijuana, nor does legalization force people to use it," he said.

Jean Chretien's Liberals first introduced a bill to decriminalize small amounts of marijuana in 2003, but it was never brought to a final vote. Stephen Harper's Conservatives killed the bill when they came to office in January 2006.

Oscapella added that Canada should be focusing its resources on the root causes of drug abuse, rather than persecuting people for possession.

"It is a health and a social issue," he said. "The criminal law is not the appropriate mechanism for dealing with drugs in the vast majority of cases."


Marijuana and tobacco use among young adults in Canada

The authors characterized marijuana smoking among young adult Canadians, examined the co-morbidity of tobacco and marijuana use, and identified correlates associated with different marijuana use consumption patterns. Data were collected from 20,275 individuals as part of the 2004 Canadian Tobacco Use Monitoring Survey. Logistic regression models were conducted to examine characteristics associated with marijuana use behaviors among young adults (aged 15-24). Rates of marijuana use were highest among current smokers and lowest among never smokers. Marijuana use was more prevalent among males, young adults living in rural areas, and increased with age. Young adults who were still in school were more likely to have tried marijuana, although among those who had tried, young adults outside of school were more like to be heavy users. Males and those who first tried marijuana at an earlier age also reported more frequent marijuana use. These findings illustrate remarkably high rates of marijuana use and high co-morbidity of tobacco use among young adult Canadians. These findings suggest that future research should consider whether the increasing popularity of marijuana use among young adults represents a threat to the continuing decline in tobacco use among this population.

We have a large scale industry in producing illicit and licit marijuana. The latter for medicinal purposes. We have approved marijuana and its byproducts for medicinal uses.

Since the 1970's when the LeDain Commission recommended decriminalization to today when the right wing think tank the Fraser Institute recommends decriminalization for controlling grow ops and increased tax income.

Canadians favour decriminalization. However the Harpocrites ignored their old Fraser pals as they ignore 'polls' and once elected declared war on pot. Quietly without much fanfare, what had been Liberal policy waiting for a vote was squashed.


“We will not be reintroducing the Liberal government’s marijuana decriminalization legislation,” Harper announced at a Canadian Professional Police Association meeting. “I thought we might find a receptive audience here,” he added, according to a Reuters report.


The Harpocrites would rather pander to their regressive base with a phony war on drugs, blaming as they do the rise in crime and pot smoking on the Liberals, pathetic.

In view of the former Liberal government's determination to medicalize and legalize marijuana, it is not surprising that, according to a study of young people in Canada released in 2004, our youth now hold the distinction of topping all nations (Switzerland was second) in frequent marijuana use. The lead researcher for this study, Dr. William Boyce of Queen's University, stated that the increased use of marijuana in Canada was tied to the three As - affordability, availability and acceptability. He stated, "in Canada, I think all three of those things come together so that it's actually used quite a bit by kids here. It's not so expensive, it's definitely available and with the legislation introduced in the last Parliament - and perhaps again in this one - that decriminalizes marijuana use, it certainly provides a signal to kids that this is not a highly illegal activity."

Thank heaven, the Conservative government is now providing a different message to our youth on marijuana use.

Please write to Prime Minister Harper and Minister of Justice Toews to thank them for the planned enforcement of the present marijuana laws rather than legalizing its use. Their actions will make a significant difference to our nation's youth. Please also request that marijuana use for so-called medical reasons be stopped if and until such time that it can be scientifically determined that its use has in fact, medical benefits.

The Harpocrites have adopted the oh so successful American War On Drugs Policy. And they have included marijuana as a key element of their new anti-drug campaign. Look forward to more regressive stupidity in the fall sitting of the house as the Minister of Health declares a drug panic.

Clement to MDs: Get tougher on illicit drugs

Federal Health Minister Tony Clement delivered a tough, anti-drug message to doctors yesterday, saying young people need straight talk about the dangers of illicit drugs, including marijuana.

"The messages young people have received during the past several years have been confusing and conflicting to say the least," Clement told the annual meeting of the Canadian Medical Association in Vancouver.

"We are very concerned about the damage and pain that drugs cause families and we intend to reverse the trend toward vague, ambiguous messaging that has characterized Canadian attitudes in the recent past," he said.

Ottawa plans a campaign emphasizing the dangers of all illicit drugs in any quantity, Clement said. "We will discourage young people from thinking there are safe amounts or safe drugs."

Meanwhile the Police and Senate disagree with the Harpocrites new War On Drugs.

Victoria's No. 2 cop testified in B.C. Supreme Court yesterday that neither the Vancouver Island Compassion Society nor its distribution of medical marijuana has ever been the subject of a criminal investigation.

Deputy Chief Bill Naughton said the society's Cormorant Street office of the Vancouver Island Compassion Society has not generated any complaints, adding marijuana ranks behind drugs like cocaine, methamphetamine and heroin in terms of Victoria police priorities.

"The enforcement of federal laws against marijuana takes a back seat," said Naughton, who was subpoenaed by the defence in the trial of Michael Swallow, 41, and Mat Beren, 33.

Also testifying yesterday in Victoria was Senator Pierre Claude Nolin, who chaired the Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs, which called in 2002 for the legalization of marijuana in Canada.

Nolin told the court the regulations, as they currently exist, are an obstacle to Canadians who want access to medical marijuana.

He said the rules ask doctors to be "gatekeepers" for access to legal marijuana. It's a role doctors don't want, and so Canadians are being denied access to a medical product.

"[The] medical profession is reluctant, generally reluctant," he said. "They don't want to be the gatekeepers, they don't want that responsibility."

Heck even the da Judge disagrees with the Government.

Rolling a joint might require the removal of stems and seeds, but the legal limbo in which pot smokers in Canada find themselves is far from clear-cut.
On July 13, an Ontario Court judge in Toronto acquitted Clifford Long, who was charged with possession of 3.5 grams of marijuana.
The court held that Canada's marijuana possession laws are unconstitutional. Justice Howard Borenstein cited a seven-year-old Ontario Court of Appeal case, which also described the possession law as unconstitutional, due to its ambiguity on medical marijuana.
Long argued in court that since the government of Canada allowed for medicinal use, but did not change the law on marijuana to accommodate this policy change, then all possession laws should cease to exist.

While the Harpocrites declare a War On Drugs, including marijuana, at the same time they approve big pharma profiting off Medical Marijuana.

GW Pharmaceuticals plc (AIM: GWP) and Bayer Inc., a subsidiary of Bayer AG, announce that Health Canada has approved Sativex®, a cannabis derived pharmaceutical treatment, as adjunctive analgesic treatment in adult patients with advanced cancer who experience moderate to severe pain during the highest tolerated dose of strong opioid therapy for persistent background pain.


While local marijuana growers are limited in providing medical marijuana to one or two Canadians. Clearly the Harpocrites missed the point of the Fraser Institute Report. Local grow ops legally functioning can produce medical as well as recreational marijuana that then could be taxed. Quality and consumer protection, would be assured.

A Vancouver Island grower of organic marijuana is being inundated with pleas for pot from disease sufferers, but Health Canada says he can supply only one person, a provincial court trial has been told.

Eric Nash said he wrote to Canadian Health Minister Tony Clement with a list of 121 people, all approved by Health Canada to use marijuana as medicine and asking him to grow it for them. One of them was a former RCMP officer diagnosed with multiple sclerosis.

But Nash said regulations forbid him from growing for more than one person at a time. So his company, Island Harvest, can supply only two people, one each for him and his partner, although it could easily supply more.


And Tony's announcement of a new PR campaign in the War On Drugs looks suspicious in light of the governments failure to extend the license for the Vancouver Safe Injection Site.

The Canadian government is ramping up a massive anti-drug campaign, the first in 20 years, amid calls to keep open a Vancouver clinic that monitors heroin addicts as they inject themselves with the drug.

"Canada has not run a serious or significant anti-drug campaign for almost 20 years. The messages young people have received during the past several years have been confusing and conflicting to say the least," federal Health Minister Tony Clement said yesterday in a speech to the Canadian Medical Association in Vancouver.

Meanwhile, the Health Minister was vague about whether the Insite injection clinic in Vancouver would stay open. "There has been more research done, and some of it has been questioning of the research that has already taken place and questioning of the methodology of those associated with Insite," he said.

Isra Levy, president of the National Specialty Society for Community Medicine called for Insite to remain open in an interview with The Globe and Mail, stating that "illicit drug use is indeed a scourge, it's the cause of untold misery for those ill with addiction and their loved ones."

Is Harpers War in Afghanistan an excuse to expand his War On Drugs.....not only against opium but against the powerful Cannabis Indica and Afghani Hash....remember Afghani hash? It ain't been around in North America since the late Sixties and early Seventies when Hippies made their holy pilgrimage to Marrakesh and on to Afghanistan and back. It remains however a staple in Europe.

Hashish is produced practically everywhere in and around Afghanistan. The best kinds of Hash originate from the Northern provinces between Hindu Kush and the Russian border (Balkh, Mazar-i-Sharif). As tourist in Afghanistan it will be very difficult to be allowed to see Cannabis-Fields or Hash Production. The plants which are used for Hash production are very small and bushy Indicas. In Afghanistan Hashish is pressed by hand under addition of a small quantity of tea or water. The Hashish is worked on until it becomes highly elastic and has a strong aromatic smell. In Afghanistan the product is stored in the form of Hash-Balls (because a round ball has the less contact with air), however, before being shipped, the Hash is pressed in 100g slabs. Good qualities of Afghani are signed with the stem of the producing family. Sometimes Hash of this kind is sold as Royal Afghani. Color: Black on the outside, dark greenish or brown inside. Can sometimes look kind of grayish on the outside when left in contact with the air. Smell: Spicy to very spicy. Taste: Very spicy, somewhat harsh on the throat. Afghani can induce lots of coughing in inexperienced users.

Afghani
aka Afghanistan
Marijuana



Afghani Marijuana Strains - The origins of this seed strain come from Afghanistan and travel to Holland. Afghani has big round fat leaves and the same beautiful big fat buds. It usually has a rich smooth hash like heavy smoke taste. The Afghani marijuana plant tends to be very bushy and will yield large amounts of very sticky buds. Well known for excellent growth because it originated in mountainous conditions and over thousands of years a very stocky, sturdy and disease resistant plant was produced.


Well Cannabis in Afghanistan is back in a big way. As Canadian forces found last fall. Hey guys don't put that to the torch or ya' all will fall down.

Maj. Patrick Robichaud, commander of the operating base, this week characterized the security situation around Ma'sum Ghar as "fragile." He said Taliban insurgents appear to have taken advantage of a change in command among the Canadians and the Afghan National Army to slip back into the region. The insurgents are looking to strong-arm local farmers for a piece of the action in the impending marijuana harvest, said Maj. Robichaud.

Canadian troops fighting Taliban militants in Afghanistan have stumbled across an unexpected and potent enemy — almost impenetrable forests of 10-foot-tall marijuana plants.

Gen. Rick Hillier, chief of the Canadian defense staff, said Thursday that Taliban fighters were using the forests as cover. In response, the crew of at least one armored car had camouflaged their vehicle with marijuana.

"The challenge is that marijuana plants absorb energy, heat very readily. It's very difficult to penetrate with thermal devices ... and as a result you really have to be careful that the Taliban don't dodge in and out of those marijuana forests," he said in a speech in Ottawa.


IMAGE: Soldier and marijuana forest


The United Nations has conducted surveys of poppy crops, but has not done so for marijuana plants. The focus on poppies possibly reflects the view of international donors that highly addictive heroin is the more urgent problem.

Marijuana plants are widely grown in at least three of the 16 districts in Balkh province, which is home to Mazar-e-Sharif. Local authorities have sent letters to villages urging farmers to stop growing the illegal crop, but they have yet to decide how and when they will crack down.

"The farmers have planted this stuff like smugglers," said Saheed Azizullah Hashmi, head of the province's agriculture department. "We don't know how much there is out there."

He said many people associated with the hashish trade were linked to the Taliban and Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network. But marijuana plants thrived well before they held sway over much of Afghanistan, and local commanders with large land holdings reportedly benefit from its cultivation.

Rouzudin and his fellow farmers made no effort to hide their plants, which loom over nearby cotton bushes. The two crops are interspersed along the road leading to Shibergan, the headquarters of Gen. Abdul Rashid Dostum, an ethnic Uzbek commander and powerful political figure in the north.

Farmer Majid Gul said he can get 5 million Afghanis, or about $100, for 2.2 pounds of hashish, 200 times more than he could earn for the same amount of cotton.

"When we're ready to sell, people in big cars will come from the bazaar in town," he said. "We don't know who they are, we just want the money."

. For the decade before the Soviet army invaded in 1979, the teahouses of Afghanistan were the toking tourist's hangout of choice. And even during 23 years of war, when the Afghans fought the Soviets and then one another, the hash trade thrived. "Afghan black" remained a staple sale for cannabis dealers across the world. Mazar-i-Sharif gave its name to a particularly potent variety. And last year, in the final weeks of the Taliban, Amsterdam's coffee-shop owners even boasted they were doing their bit for the war on terror by buying blocks stamped with a golden Northern Alliance stencil reading "Freedom for Afghanistan."

Now, as Afghanistan emerges from war, dope farming has never been so good�and the drought never so bad. The Taliban banned hash production, but in the postwar chaos of lawless fiefdoms that dot the land, growers and traders across the country are finding themselves free once again to cultivate and export hashish without fear, and often with warlord protection. Moreover, the international perception that cannabis is a relatively benign drug�prompting some authorities across Europe and Australia to decriminalize its use�has persuaded drug-policing agencies to largely ignore it. So, while opium cultivation is monitored to the acre, neither Interpol, the U.N. Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention nor the U.S.'s Drug Enforcement Agency can offer even rough estimates for how much hashish Afghanistan produces or what the trade is worth. But around Mazar it's almost impossible to find a field where hemp is not being grown, either openly or poorly hidden behind watermelons or knee-high cotton plants. "Everybody's farming chaars now," says former Taliban fighter Faizullah, 27, watering a verdant six-hectare oasis of hemp surrounded by desert. Cannabis used to be outlawed by the Taliban. "But now," says Faizullah, "it's a free-for-all."

Harpers War On Drugs is doomed to fail, as has the American campaign. But this proves once again that he and his pals have abandoned any pretense to libertarianism, while embracing the traditional right wing screed of Law and Order Republicanism. Heck Canadians even support the medical use of opiates despite this governments opposition.

While in the U.S. Republican Presidential Candidate and Libertarian Ron Paul embraces his inner Canadian and calls for decriminalization, and an end to Americas war on drugs.
Why Is This Canadian Pot Dealer Campaigning for Ron Paul?


Also, a little known fact is that if Ron Paul got his way, there would be no federal war on drugs. He has called the war on drugs “as stupid as the war in Iraq”. He is uncompromisingly against federal laws banning medical marijuana, and completely opposed to the federal government coming in, when a state has legalized medical marijuana, and using force to nullify this legalization (such as has happened in California, where medical marijuana is legal, but the federal government uses force to effectively keep it criminalized. This would NOT happen under a Paul administration.)



Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , ,,,,,,, ,