United Liberty

The End of Taxachusetts?

August 12th, 2008 Posted in General, Video | 1 Comment »

by Shana Kluck

Thanks to the hard work of The Committee for Small Government, the people of Massachusetts have the opportunity to change the rate of their state income tax via a ballot initiative. And what will the new tax rate be?

A nice flat zero.

The same initiative will also end the state’s capital gains tax. A similar measure was first introduced in 2002, and despite early polling that put the measure’s support at 34% or less, it ended up receiving 45.5% of the vote.

This time around, polls are showing a dead heat, with the initiative trailing 46 percent to 45 percent — within the margin of error.

“I don’t think there’s anyone who doubts the possibility we’re going to win this time,” says Carla Howell, chairman of the Committee for Small Government.

“People are angry, the economy is shaky, and people are feeling financially insecure,” Howell says when asked how the Massachusetts political climate has changed since 2002.

She emphasizes the repeal would give the average Massachusetts worker a $3,600 annual tax cut while rolling the state budget back to its 1995 level.

If the measure passes, hopefully it will inspire others to demand similar changes in their own state.

Is He a Republican or Democrat?

August 12th, 2008 Posted in General | 3 Comments »

By Shana Kluck

As I read through the “Issues” of US Senate Candidate Bob Conley, I became confused. I was under the impression that he was a Democrat, running against incumbent Republican, Lindsey Graham. But as I read his stances on several issues, it occurred to me that he was far more “Republican” than Senator Graham.

Read for yourself-

Lower Your Gas Prices: Bob Conley sees solutions to reduce your gas prices through the use of alternative energy and conservation. To end our dependence on foreign oil, we need to change our energy policy. Bob will fight for this change by: encouraging more energy production at home, promoting the development of alternative energy sources, wider use of proven alternative energy solutions, and encouraging the use of energy-saving technologies. We’ll regain energy independence and create good jobs in the process!

Iraq: Bob Conley believes it is time to end the occupation, and support our troops by bringing them home!

Jobs & Immigration: Bob supports secure borders and wants South Carolinians to have first choice of jobs in South Carolina.

Jobs & Trade: Bob Conley says no to trade agreements that send our good, well-paying jobs to foreign lands. The U.S. needs to withdraw from trade agreements that have cost us 3.5 million of our good manufacturing jobs since 2001!

Bob will promote and restore America First trade policies. We need to follow the Constitution – Congress is to regulate trade with foreign nations. We must end most favored nation status for Communist China. Bob is our fighter to change trade policies, correct our massive trade imbalance, and keep our good jobs here at home.

Economy: We must implement fiscal policies to end deficit spending. Bob Conley believes we must change our monetary policy, restore sound, honest money, and halt the fall of the dollar. We must stop predatory lending practices, end the Wall Street bailouts, and put a lid on massive expenditures abroad.

Military: Overseas deployments of occupation are breaking our military. Deployments in recent years have left 80% of our National Guard units without the necessary equipment for training – and the missions they should be prepared to serve here at home. Our National Guard needs to be rebuilt.

Veterans: Bob Conley believes veterans need to be given adequate care, not shuffled around in a Veterans’ Administration that should be overhauled. Bob will work to pass a new GI Bill for our veterans who have fought in the twenty-first century.

Constitution and the Bill of Rights: Bob Conley will fight to repeal the Big Brother legislation passed by rubber-stamp Republican Congresses. We cannot afford to give up essential liberties under the false pretense of security. Measures that infringe on our individual liberties protected by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights must be repealed! We must restore the Constitution and respect the principles on which our Republic was founded.

Bob Conley is the candidate, and this campaign is our campaign. Our campaign is about the future of our country. Our campaign is about the future of our State. Our campaign is about the future of our families.

Our message is one of change and hope: to strengthen our families.

Our campaign is about the future of freedom. Our campaign is to build a future of peace and prosperity that will lift up the middle class.

I’ve never voted Democrat in my life, but if I lived in South Carolina, I would certainly think to make an exception.

Learn more about Bob Conley.

John the Maverick?

August 11th, 2008 Posted in General | 22 Comments »

Today the Barr Campaign released a video of Bob talking about John McCain’s ‘Maverick’ credentials. I would agree with his assessment: if John McCain is a political maverick, who isn’t? Considering how many establishment candidates have been talking about ‘Changing Washington’ since the primaries, I guess we shouldn’t be too surprised.

Think twice about intervening in Georgia

August 11th, 2008 Posted in General | No Comments »

by Michael Powell

Over the weekend Russia launched an invasion of the former Soviet republic of Georgia.

The conflict has escalated out of a dispute over the South Ossetia region, in northern Georgia, which has sought independence from Georgia. Attacks from Georgia on South Ossetian seperatists led to Russian intervention.

In contrast with the pseudo-fascist state in Russia, Georgia has stood out as a growing democracy in the

region. As part of his pro-democracy agenda, President Bush has praised the country. When he visited Tbilisi, he was met with 150,000 people eager to see him. This is reflected in a very striking picture of a bombed out house with a poster of President Bush and the Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili hanging off the walls:

Believing that Bush, the United States and the West were at their side, some Georgians are understandably angry at what has happened. From the New York Times:

One soldier, his face a mask of exhaustion, cradled a Kalashnikov.

“We killed as many of them as we could,” he said. “But where are our friends?”

It was the question of the day. As Russian forces massed Sunday on two fronts, Georgians were heading south with whatever they could carry. When they met Western journalists, they all said the same thing: Where is the United States? When is NATO coming?

Calls are already being made for intervention. Descriptions of the Bush Administration in the Times seem to describe a group of leaders desperate to do something. An official in the Georgian Interior Ministry, Shota Utiashvili, is calling for both guns and butter (emphasis mine):

Mr. Utiashvili said that if they tried to occupy Georgia, “there will probably be guerrilla warfare all over the country.”

He said: “We need large supplies of humanitarian aid, because we have thousands of wounded. And weapons. We need weapons.”

The knee-jerk reaction of Westerners, and especially Americans, is to do something when this sort of thing happens. It’s hard to justify standing by and watching countries tear each other apart.

However, it is necessary to strongly urge anyone reading this to think of the unintended consequences that could come as a result of getting involved in another foreign skirmish. If we smuggle weapons to Georgians with the best of intentions, a violently inclined Ossetian separatist may see it differently and take out his frustration on American civilians. We may anger the Russians and escalate already deteriorating relations with Russia into another Cold War. It’s called blowback.

Take into account the words of Pyotr Bezhov, who told the Times the following:

Pyotr Bezhov, who fled the violence with his daughter Oksana on Sunday, stood by a dusty dirt road.

“The biggest problem here is you, your country,” he said. “You said that the Soviets were an evil empire, but it’s you that are the empire.

If what he said is true, getting involved in another foreign entanglement won’t make us any less of an empire.

Is it good that Bush is in Beijing?

August 11th, 2008 Posted in General | No Comments »

Did Bush make a good decision when he decided to attend the Beijing Olympics? That’s what Nick Gillespie argues over at Reason Magazine:

To have Bush out there, saying what he’s saying where he’s saying it—and pursuing a larger policy of engagement via trade and other forms of exchange—is absolutely the best way to pull China into something approaching Western-style democracy, complete with robust individual rights and the sort of economy that will ultimately force governments to loosen up. Milton Friedman famously said that as people get richer, they demand the ability to live however they want—that economic freedom, which increases prosperity, helps create the conditions for political freedom. It seems clear that the Chinese government, like all governments, doesn’t want to yield power if it can avoid doing so. It’s also clear that the more a country trades with the world—for goods, services, and even cultural identities—the less its government can control its people. Here’s hoping that the Beijing Olympics, regardless of the predictable and bizarre repressions going on right now to ensure a “stain-free” event, push that process along.

China likely shouldn’t have been granted the 2008 Olympics and the legitimacy that comes with it in the first place. However, it’s hard to see what good outside of symbolism would actually come from the President boycotting the games in the name of human rights and pluralism, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi implied he should have done. With Russian relations on the rocks already, from a diplomatic standpoint it would have been rather risky to not merely anger but alienate a country the United States has significant ties with and debt to.

China and the media

August 10th, 2008 Posted in News | 2 Comments »

Has anyone else found the coverage of the Olympics to be a joke. I was running errands on my lunch hour on Friday and listening to the radio, a local news/talk station. The newscast was talking about the opening of the games and how the Chinese showed off their organizational skills. This morning I was watching ESPN and they happened to cover the murder of a US citizen, and relative of a USA volleyball coach, in Beijing. The anchor referred to Beijing as one of the safest cities in the world and made a passing reference to the Chinese government’s ban on handguns.

Not once have I heard about the word communism in any of the media’s coverage of the Olympics and I’ve only seen a couple of stories about human rights protests taking place during the games.

The PRC continues to trample over the individual rights of its citizens and the world refuses to acknowledge the 65 million souls silenced by China’s communist regime.

I am not saying that the United States should have boycotted the games, nor am I saying that we shouldn’t trade or have relations with China. I am simply saying that the media is not giving the whole story about the PRC, both the past and the present. It is grossly irresponsible, but again, I suppose we shouldn’t expect anything less.

John Edwards’ personal life is his own

August 9th, 2008 Posted in General | 6 Comments »

By Michael Powell

For my first post I thought I would talk about the big media dustup right now, which is John Edwards’ admission to an affair with Rielle Hunter. I had heard rumors about this before the story finally blew up. Pajamas Media’s podcast, “PJM Political,” had a segment on July 30 that focussed on the lack of coverage of the affair. Almost two weeks later, the story has broke out and people are getting worried. Christopher Beam at Slate worried outloud that the scandal may have a Mark Foley effect on the election, and went on to point out that John McCain didn’t have a clean marital history.

It does seem immoral to continue an affair when your wife has cancer. Edwards has noted that this was the result of his own hubris brought on by his success, and he has probably been greatly humbled by the experience. However immoral his affair seems to outsiders, it doesn’t seem that relevant.

On one level, Edwards is no longer running for president. He is not currently holding public office. The whole episode is mostly one of political celebrity gossip.

On another level, this sort of thing should be relegated to the private lives of individuals like John and Elizabeth Edwards and stay there. We elect politicians to office to be our representatives, not our pastors.

John F. Kennedy’s affairs were legendary and he was also known to be taking “mood-modulating steroids.” Winston Churchill has been known for high levels of alchohol intake. If held by to the standards we are holding current officeholders, those two would have made public apologies and possibly had their careers tarnished for something largely irrelevant.

We should hold our politicians accountable for the policy decisions they make, and leave their personal transgressions to be judged by their loved ones.

Editors Note: United Liberty is very pleased to introduce our newest contributor, Michael Powell. He is a freelance writer based out of the San Francisco Bay Area who’s been published in the San Francisco Examiner, among other publications, and maintains a blog called “Deschamps.”

Possible timeline to pull out of Iraq: Immunity on the table

August 8th, 2008 Posted in General, News | 1 Comment »

Speaking on condition of anonymity, officials have revealed that ongoing talks will hopefully lead to a withdrawal of US troops by October 2010.

The proposed agreement calls for Americans to hand over parts of Baghdad’s Green Zone — where the U.S. Embassy is located — to the Iraqis by the end of 2008.

U.S. acceptance — even tentatively — of a specific timeline would represent a dramatic reversal of American policy in place since the war began in March 2003.

Both Iraqi and American officials agreed that the deal is not final and that a major unresolved issue is the U.S. demand for immunity for U.S. soldiers from prosecution under Iraqi law.

Throughout the conflict, President Bush steadfastly refused to accept any timetable for bringing U.S. troops home. Last month, however, Bush and al-Maliki agreed to set a “general time horizon” for ending the U.S. mission.

But differences over immunity could scuttle the whole deal, the Iraqis said. One of the officials described immunity as a “minefield” and said each side was sticking by its position.

One official said the Iraqis were willing to grant immunity for actions committed on American bases and during combat operations — but not a blanket exemption from Iraqi law.