The 5th of November holds no actual significance in American history, but we can learn from it. While the Gunpowder Plot was actually about reinstating Catholicism as the reigning religion in England over Protestantism, it does serve as a message to fight back and reclaim what once was America, the intended scope and size of government. An idea cannot be buried. It cannot be broken or destroyed. However, it can be silenced, and so can the people whom the idea lives within. It is up to the people to not be silenced. It is up to us to turn back the clocks and set this country straight.

I don't support any action being taken on November 5. It is not a day significant to us, and we shouldn't try to claim it as our own. Instead, I suggest that action be taken on January 20, 2009. The date chosen should be an obvious one for Americans. It is the day of the inauguration of the new president. Be it Obama or McCain, I suggest that our protest be in action. The action, in itself, is non-violent and legal, but the intentions will show that we are willing to take our desires beyond peaceful measures. I promote that we (legal adults) purchase guns and/or ammunition on January 20. If enough people partake in the event, it would certainly cause a stir, and perhaps make our government take notice and see that we, as Americans, are no longer going to stand for it ignoring the rule of law that was established in the Constitution.

I never believed in the bailout to begin with. Not only is a complete waste of money, but I've always felt that it would hurt the economy more than it would do any good. I trusted that the bailout would bring some temporary relief to the strife that we've been experiencing, so this is a shock to see this. However, this just goes to show that the People were right. The overwhelming disapproval of the people towards the bailout has proven to be out of more than just an irrational fear. Obviously, their fears were validated. Perhaps Dianne Feinstein can eat her words and understand that it's not the constituents that are ignorant. It's the politicians.

I, honestly, wish I was wrong on this. I don't like seeing our economy continuing to take a shit. I wish that the bailout would have been a good fix, and not just a band-aid. Unfortunately, the bailout hasn't even acted as a band-aid, either. It's just been nothing more than salt in the wound of our economy. I trust that our economy will get better, but it is going to need the government to listen to the People and back off and let the economy fix itself. Only then will the economy pick itself back up. Until then, I believe we'll see a continual dive in our stock market.

I'm not really sure there is much more to say on this. I've pretty much covered why I do not like the idea of dumping money into the economy. It won't do anything but prolong the suffering and end up making matters worse. Our politicians don't seem to understand history and how we're so very willing to repeat some of the biggest mistakes we've made in the past century.

The only solace I get in this whole matter is that my representative, Tim Walberg (R-MI), voted against the bailout both times. Carl Levin voted for the bailout on Wednesday, so I'm hoping that hurts his chance to win in November, since he's up for re-election. Other than that, this has been a complete disaster.

Instead, they decided to side with Wall Street and bail their asses out with $700 billion that the American people cannot afford. As many politicans tried to justify their votes, they continually said that this isn't the legislature that they like, but it is needed. After all, we *can't* just sit back and do nothing. Of course, we can't just sit and do nothing, reglardless if doing nothing is the right course of action. Oh no, our overbearing and ever-expanding government has to do something. It's the American way of over-complicating the economy so it continues its spiral downward all-the-while blaming Capitalism for failing of our economy and completely ignoring the fact that it's only failing because of continuing meddling in the economy through regulations and incentives given to money hungry corporations and their executives.

Of course, this is all assuming that our politicians are actually wanting to help the people out. This can't possibly be the case otherwise a majority of our Senators would have listened to the outcries of the people and voted against this legislature. They didn't because they are corporate whores, as the title of this article suggests. To think otherwise is naïve. The Senators were just trying to keep the lobbyists in Washington happy. Without these corporations padding their pockets, they would actually have to think about what they're doing. They would actually have to have morals and common sense. This seems to go against the very nature of politics.

The irony of big name Democrats voting for this legislature when it's backed by Bush and Paulson is hilarious. You would think they would be working feverishly to defeat this measure as it's backed by a president that has led us down the wrong path for the last 8 years. Some of the most outspoken critics of the Bush economic policy includes president wannabe Barack Obama. Some of his presidential campaign ads slam McCain for being "more of the same" in economic policy, yet here we have Obama supporting this bill. Then we have former president wannabes Hilary Clinton, John Kerry, and John Edwards voting for it, as well. Of course, I don't think I have to tell you that McSame voted for this legislation, too.

America seriously needs change, and this latest fiasco just further proves that neither McCain nor Obama have any idea what real change entails. Neither know anything about the economy, and neither are willing to attempt to change a thing. They're all "more of the same", and it's frustrating and saddening. Americans need to wake up, or we'll be out far more than just $700 billion to corporations.

I am incredibly happy that this bailout was voted down. The Capitalist market does not need to be tampered with. Everybody insists that Capitalism needs a little regulation for it to work and continually blames a lack of regulation for the continued struggle of our economy, but the fact is that the market has been regulated far too much, and that is the cause of this strife. After all, the federal government did essentially force these corporations to give out money to people they otherwise would not have because of the tremendous financial risk. Now the federal government wants the taxpayers to hurt even more to fix a mistake that they and the corporations made? I hope they do not expect to take it from my pockets.

I do agree with trickle-down economics. At least, I agree with the principle that corporations with money can hire more people and produce more goods to sell to more people with jobs. However, I certainly do not agree with focussing on that heiarchy as a way to stimulate the economy. Bailing out these corporations may help the economy in the short term, but it is clearly a long term disaster. The only way the economy is going to be fixed is to let the market renew itself. Out with the old and in with the new.

By forcing the people to pay an estimated $1.8 trillion dollars for all of the bailouts, including this $700 billion bailout plan, we are not going to do anything to stimulate the economy. We will be further bankrupting the government and the people. This will just cause more inflation, further weakening the dollar, and the people will be paying for it. It is the same reason why minimum wage is a disaster. Not only is it not the government's job to regulate the economy, the short-term gains from these regulations are no where near worth the inflation that we have to deal with.

Plus, those corporations should suffer for their own stupidity. I am not for helping the rich stay rich because we want to temporarily fix the economy. Let those at fault deal with the consequences of their actions. I do not think that bailing these corporations out will make the corporations learn anything to prevent this from happening again. They will just learn that the government will gladly hand over taxpayer and foreign money to them when they act stupid.

Oh, and my representative voted no, did yours? As for today's vote in the Senate, I fully trust that Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow will vote for the bailout. In a sick, twisted sense, I hope that they do vote yes for it. I'd love to see Levin lose his seat in the Senate this November, but that is a different rant…

The decision was made without any comment. As a result, I can't help but to feel that this is just definitive proof that nobody has any respect for the law. No matter what justifications you can come up with for the Texas Supreme Court's decision, all of them disregard the importance of the law. Otherwise, this decision would not have been made.

I don't want to take away McBama's ballot access. I think that people should be able to vote for whoever they wish. The issue is just that there are clear initiatives to give the two major parties special treatment while hitting third parties with the books. No person or group is above the law. I'm sure I've stressed this before, and I am stressing it again. Republics only work if the laws are followed.

My patience for this system of abuse is wearing very thin. I'm starting to not see where anything we do will make a difference. The stupidity of America is so bountiful that it looks to be impossible to overcome. I pray that it isn't, but only time will tell.

That attitude that many libertarians take is frustrating. Why does a candidate have to share one's exact views to be considered electable? It is illogical and childish. I think the problem is that libertarians hold their views in such high regard that they refuse to accept any other form of libertarianism to be valid. I don't think I have to explain why such a thought is so stupid. People are always going to differ in opinions, and no two people share the exact same set of principles and philosophies. We have the ability to be our own individuals, and libertarians just seem to be so full and sure of themselves that the idea of electing someone who disagrees with them is blasphemy.

I never try to believe I'm going to agree with everything about a politician's take on issues. I know that I don't fully agree with the Libertarian Party's platform. I am pro-life, and I proudly stand against the majority of libertarians on this issue. If I were to run for an office, my stance on that issue would be a major turn-off, and it would cost me many votes. Granted, abortion is a larger of an issue to disagree on, but I feel that my pro-life stance doesn't make me any less of a libertarian than the next guy who is pro-choice. I believe in the core belief that the government should be limited to just protecting the people, especially their individual liberties. That's what makes me a libertarian. Most libertarians don't seem to think of it like that.

I don't support the idea of giving up your beliefs, so you can fit in with a candidate's platform. I think selling your beliefs like that makes you a dirty whore. You should never have to give up your values in order to vote for a candidate. You should always be looking for the candidate that fits with you. If they don't fit, then move on. However, just because they don't fit perfectly doesn't mean that you're selling your beliefs. If the issues that candidates disagree with you on are trivial, then I don't see why they should be tossed aside. Again, everybody is different. Every libertarian has beliefs that disagree with another's. If the issues that you disagree with are severe, then it's time to move on, but only then. Tangible issues should not be the deciding factors on who you vote for.

I think the point of libertarians caring too much about themselves is shown by Russ Verney's reaction to Ron Paul's endorsing Chuck Baldwin. When Dave Weigel from Reason Magazine talked to Russ Verney, this is how Mr. Verney responded to the question of "Do you regret skipping Paul’s press conference and holding your own?":

No, it wasn’t a mistake. We stand by our position. This is all about liberty, and liberty-minded voters need to know that concentrating their support in the Libertarian Party.

While Verney makes it clear that he knows the Campaign for Liberty and everything is centered around regaining our lost liberties, he seems adamant about making that come about through the Libertarian Party. It just furthers my assertion that they are trying to turn the LP into the nation's third major party rather than bringing about liberty and the freedom to choose. This "me me me" attitude defeats any progress being made for the libertarian agenda.

All of this fighting between libertarians and third parties is just pushing me over the edge. I really wish I wasn't a libertarian. Now, I love the ideology. I am glad that I support individual liberty at all cost. I just hate having to deal with all of the drama and narcissism that libertarianism has with it. If libertarians could work together towards common, core goals like Ron Paul is attempting, there is no doubt that big waves would be created in the elections. Instead, we fight amongst ourselves, and we get nowhere because of it. Until that stops, I'm convinced we'll just be considered insane and ignored.

It's just sad that when we need the unity, libertarians are so caught up in themselves that they condemn serious, sincere candidates because they're not perfectly aligned. Libertarians are living in just as much of a fantasy world as the other two major party voters are.

After Barr's campaign pushing Ron Paul to endorse Barr for President, Ron Paul was pushed to support Chuck Baldwin after wishing to remain neutral. Ron Paul had expressed desire to not have to choose between the Libertarian and Constitution parties. I believe that the change of heart came mostly from the fact that Barr cancelled on Ron Paul's liberty press conference on the 10th.

You can tell that Ron Paul is still stinging from the last minute withdrawl of Barr at the conference. Ron Paul did not mention Barr's name once in the blog post. He repeatedly used "the Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate" or "the Libertarian Party Candidate" in place of Bob Barr's name while he would name other third parties' candidates by name, like Cynthia McKinney (Green) and Ralph Nader (Independent).

Ron Paul also references Barr's repeated attempts to get him to endorse a single candidate for this election as he wanted to remain neutral out of respect for the Libertarian and Constitution Party members.

I’ve thought about the unsolicited advice from the Libertarian Party candidate, and he has convinced me to reject my neutral stance in the November election.  I’m supporting Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate.

Again, this is just further proof that Russ Verney and Shane Cory have been taking Barr's campaign down. They wanted their campaign to be the ONLY campaign that Ron Paul endorsed. They completely missed the point of the rEVOLution, and now Barr's campaign is suffering as a result of their incredible arrogance. The Libertarian Party was not created to split the country into three instead of two. It was to bring back liberty to America, just like Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty is trying to achieve. They could have rode the wave by having Barr supporting the Campaign for Liberty. Instead, they expected the Campaign for Liberty to support Bob Barr.

It may be late in the season, but I believe that since there is no chance of a Barr presidency in 2008, Bob Barr should fire Shane Cory and Russ Verney for being terrible campaign managers and apologize by taking full responsibility for the actions that he took thanks to those two nitwits. At the very least, it would regain some credibilty that he lost thanks to the recent actions of his campaign.

I still support Bob Barr and the Campaign for Liberty. Though, I am highly disappointed in how Barr's campaign has been acting as of late, and I feel that I'm in danger of changing my vote to Baldwin, as well. We'll see what happens over the course of the next few weeks. Baldwin is on Michigan's ballot under the U.S. Taxpayer Party, so regardless of what happens, I will still be able to vote for my candidate.

As a result of Texas putting McBama on their ballot, Bob Barr has filed a lawsuit to keep them from being on the Texas ballot. While I don't expect Bob Barr to win because of bureaucracy, I do believe that Barr is right. Barr's campaign requested and received the filings of both the Democrat and Republican parties. The filings clearly show that neither party filed correctly before the August 26th deadline.

Here is the Texas statute stating the guidelines of filing for the ballot:

192.031. PARTY CANDIDATE’S ENTITLEMENT TO PLACE ON BALLOT. A political party is entitled to have the names of its nominees for president and vice-president of the United States placed on the ballot in a presidential general election if:

(1) the nominees possess the qualifications for those offices prescribed by federal law;

(2) before 5 p.m. of the 70th day before presidential election day, the party’s state chair signs and delivers to the secretary of state a written certification of:
(A) the names of the party’s nominees for president and vice-president; and
(B) the names and residence addresses of presidential elector candidates nominated by the party,
in a number equal to the number of presidential electors that federal law allocates to this
state; and

(3) the party is:
(A) required or authorized by Subchapter A of Chapter 172 to make its nominations by primary election; or
(B) entitled to have the names of its nominees placed on the general election ballot under Chapter 181.

The GOP didn't have Palin on their submission, and the DNC didn't file until August 27th. This is just further proof that third parties are intentionally held to high regulations while the two major parties can just lean on state legislatures to ignore established law. This practice really does spit in the face of the electoral process of America. It's no secret that bureaucracy in America is trying to make it so that nobody's voice counts unless it's used to support one of the two political puppets.

What really gets me is what the Democrat Party chairman, Boyd Richie said. In his obliviousness, he stated, "Quite frankly, I find it very ironic that those in the Libertarian Party, who have in the past been champions of ballot access, are now making attempts to limit that access here in Texas."

The jackass completely misses the point. It's not a matter of ballot access. It's about playing fairly in the political arena. No party should be given any special treatment over another party, especially when it comes to things like ballot access. The law is law, and every party should be held to these laws. The Libertarian Party accepts the consequence of not being on the West Virginia ballot because of a late filing, even though the Democrat and Republican parties didn't have to file for another month. No party is above the law, and that's the point.

Then we have the government spending money that it doesn't have to bail out corporations. There's not a whole lot to say on this issue. The fact is that it shouldn't ever happen. The government cannot be bailing out corporations or people, especially with money IT DOES NOT HAVE. We're going even further into debt because of corporations? I'm sorry, but that's not how it should work. What are we going to be spending on these bail-outs? Not $500 million, but $500 billion. Why our government seems to think that bankrupting itself (or the people) is a good idea is way fucking beyond me.

All of this is frustrating me, and as much as McCain and Obama are toting around "real change" for this upcomming election, it just is further proof that they have no fucking clue what real change means. They don't have any formulas for a better America. They're just working towards higher agendas fueled by corruption and money. America needs a real change. America needs a rEVOLution.

Why is this important, you may be asking? It's important because it shows that Bob Barr and the Libertarian message is popular, and it is capable of actually making a splash in this year's election. While this won't ultimately gain us the victory, it may just make people pay attention to our message of liberty a little more. 2008 has been a tremendous year for the libertarian movement and Ron Paul's Revolution, and just because RP is out of the race, the movement hasn't slowed. That's a great thing to witness.

I will still be impatiently waiting for my Barr items. I have a war to fight inside of my apartment building with all of the liberals, and perhaps with the rest of my city. Perhaps I'll have them by the end of the week or the beginning of next. I need to turn heads, and that is my determination to do.