In this short video you see what matters to Americans according to a poll taken a few years ago.

Does this accurately describe your reaction to John McCain? If it is, I quite agree.
In fact, I have no intention of supporting him whatsoever. I’ve been holding my nose for the Republican presidential candidates since I was old enough to vote, and I haven’t seen much of a return on my support. Up to now, they’ve been lackluster at best. This year, the Republicans managed to nominate the only human being that could make me look back on either of the Bushes or Bob Dole and say “I wish our nominee was one of them instead”.

Now, everyone is adamant that we vote for McCain. They say there’s a world of difference between him and Obama, and let’s say that’s true. What’s he done about it since 2000 or so? When was the last time you saw McCain oppose a Democrat or their agenda points in any way before he started running for President? In fact, what else has he done but join with Democrats, poke his fingers in conservative eyes to build his fake maverick credentials, and revel in the puff press at our expense?

Can you say for certain he’ll support or ignore any of those differences at any given time, knowing his obsession for media accolades? His love for their attentions is the only thing about him that’s predictable. How is he going to react when he’s President, and that very same media is around him all the time, waiting to hammer him for his departures from their orthodoxy, or glorify his breaks from his own party?

If you see him becoming even more of a donkey in elephant’s clothing because of this, I do too. Not only that, but his entire party will fall into line behind him, just like they did under Bush, and walk right off a cliff yet again. It kind of takes the edge off the argument that he’s an improvement over Obama, and demoralizing to boot.

So what am I going to do about this? I’m voting my principles with a third party instead this year. Personally, I like Bob Barr, but for those of you who aren’t of the Libertarian bent might want to look at Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party instead. Do they have a real chance of winning? Historically speaking, no. Does that make it a wasted vote? Look at the other choices, and make your own decision. You already know mine.

I find this preferable to sitting out the election, and here’s why you should think twice if you’re considering doing that yourself. Yes, I agree with you that swallowing the jagged horsepill of the McCain candidacy is asking too much, but his undeserved nomination isn’t the only issue here. There’s the Congress to consider, because it’s the source, or obstruction, of the real and long-term damage.

Why care about the Congress now? Surprisingly enough, the congressional Republicans have started taking desirable action, especially with regards to energy policy. While you may not give them much thought in a presidential election year, this time you really should. If you decide to stay home, you could be costing a decent representative or Senator their job a la Rick Santorum’s undeserved fate. I have one such deserving Senator on my local ballot this year, and I’m definitely voting for him regardless of McCain.

Therefore, even if your reaction to McCain is ‘yeah, right’ just like mine, don’t stay home in November. Look into a third party candidate so you have someone to support. A third party means you can vote your principles for President, send a message to the RINOs that they can’t take you for granted, and not sacrifice a worthwhile conservative representative or Senator to do it. By all means, let McCain take his own electoral thrashing, but leave those who don’t deserve one out of it.

Article written by Ryan Ambrose
About the Author
Want a truly warped perspective on the maverick John McCain? Visit YankMcCain.com at http://www.yankmccain.com If nothing else, you’ll never be bothered by the word ‘maverick’ ever again.

Here’s a message for Barack Obama and John McCain from an average Joe American.

Ron Paul explains the meaning of “change”

Translation… “more of the same.”

In the past few months, American workers, consumers, and businesses have experienced a sudden and dramatic rise in gasoline prices. In some parts of the country, gasoline costs as much as $4 per gallon. Some politicians claim that the way to reduce gas prices is by expanding the government’s power to regulate prices and control the supply of gasoline. For example, the House of Representatives has even passed legislation subjecting gas station owners to criminal penalties if they charge more than a federal bureaucrat deems appropriate. Proponents of these measures must have forgotten the 1970s, when government controls on the oil industry resulted in gas lines and shortages. It was only after President Reagan lifted federal price controls that the gas lines disappeared.

Instead of imposing further restraints on the market, Congress should consider reforming the federal policies that raise gas prices. For example, federal and state taxes can account for as much as a third of what consumers’ pay at the pump. The Federal Government’s boom-and-bust monetary policy also makes consumers vulnerable to inflation and to constant fluctuations in the prices of essential goods such as oil. It is no coincidence that oil prices first became an issue shortly after President Nixon unilaterally severed the dollar’s last link to gold.

Basic economics says that when government restricts the supply of a good, the price will increase. Yet Congress continues to reject simple measures that could increase the supply of oil. For example, Congress refuses to allow reasonable, environmentally sensitive, offshore drilling. Congress also refuses to remove the numerous regulatory hurdles that add to the prohibitively expensive task of constructing new refineries. Building a new refinery requires billions of dollars in capital investment. It can take several years just to obtain the necessary federal permits. Even after the permits are obtained, construction of a refinery may still be delayed or even halted by frivolous lawsuits. It is no wonder that there has not been a new refinery constructed in the United States since 1976.

Last year, in order to provide the American people with relief from high oil prices, I introduced the Affordable Gas Price Act (H.R. 2415). This legislation protects the American people from gas price spikes by suspending the federal gas tax whenever the national average gas price exceeds $3.00 per gallon. The Affordable Gas Price Act also expands the supply of gasoline by repealing the federal moratorium on offshore drilling, including in the ANWR reserve in Alaska . HR 2415 also provides tax incentives and protection from nuisance lawsuits for those seeking to build new refineries. Finally, HR 2415 authorizes a federal study on the link between our nation’s monetary policy and the price of oil.

The free market can meet the American people’s demand for a reliable supply of gasoline as long as government does not distort the market through excessive taxation and regulation. Therefore, Congress should lower gas prices by pursuing an agenda of low taxes, regulatory relief, and sound money by passing legislation such as my Affordable Gas Act.

Written by Dr. Ron Paul

Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) spent 4 hours reading into the Congressional Record 35 articles of impeachment against George W. Bush. Interestingly, those articles include not just complaints about signing statements and the war in Iraq, but also charges that the President “Spied on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the Law and the Fourth Amendment,’ ‘Directed Telecommunications Companies to Create an Illegal and Unconstitutional Database of the Private Telephone Numbers and Emails of American Citizens,’ and ‘Tampered with Free and Fair Elections.’

Read the complete Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush

We’ve all heard the words democracy and freedom used countless times, especially in the context of our invasion of Iraq. They are used interchangeably in modern political discourse, yet their true meanings are very different.

George Orwell wrote about “meaningless words” that are endlessly repeated in the political arena. Words like “freedom,” “democracy,” and “justice,” Orwell explained, have been abused so long that their original meanings have been eviscerated. In Orwell’s view, political words were “Often used in a consciously dishonest way.” Without precise meanings behind words, politicians and elites can obscure reality and condition people to reflexively associate certain words with positive or negative perceptions. In other words, unpleasant facts can be hidden behind purposely meaningless language. As a result, Americans have been conditioned to accept the word “democracy” as a synonym for freedom, and thus to believe that democracy is unquestionably good.

Continue reading What does Freedom Really Mean?

SPRINGFIELD, Va., May 22 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — English First warned fans of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Dr. James Dobson and other syndicated talk shows that a proposed FCC regulation would drive their favorite programs off the air.

On January 24, 2008, the FCC published a “Notice of Proposed Rulemaking” in the Federal Register which, if ultimately adopted, would impose a back-door version of the discredited “Fairness Doctrine” upon America’s airwaves.

The FCC’s proposed regulations claim that radio station “programming — particularly network programming - often is not sufficiently culturally diverse” and that the FCC seeks “to ensure that broadcasters serve their communities, especially traditionally underserved audiences,” such as non-English speakers, whether or not these people actually exist.

The FCC’s proposed regulations also suggest a new requirement that all “licensees should convene and consult with permanent advisory boards.”

These advisory boards “should include representatives of all segments of the community,” a requirement which would empower self-appointed “community leaders,” such as representatives of the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) or the Center for American Islamic Relations (CAIR), to discourage commercial radio stations from airing discussions of controversial matters such as the costs of illegal immigration or the meaning of jihad.

English First has established a web site, http://www.keeprushontheair.com, containing the relevant FCC documents and a citizen’s petition to the FCC. The deadline for FCC reply comments is June 11, 2008.