Go To The G Blog

Come join me over at The G Blog for the best libertarian blog, and most independent political blog on the net

The Hawg Pen is Now Liberty Talk Live

Update your bookmarks, and shine the light on liberty. The Show Formerly Known As The Hawg Pen is now Liberty Talk Live, a libertarian talk show.

We'll leave this blog up as our archives, but all future posts will be on our new website!

Thanks

John Bootie For President: On The Next Hawg Pen

Independent Republican candidate for President, John Bootie will join the Hawg Pen Wednesday night for a discussion about him, his candidacy and his general political views.

Check out The G Blog's, previous e-interview with the candidate, and be ready to call with any questions you may have.

Buy Black Crowes Music

Ron Paul Army - Publisher Brad Fuller On The Next Hawgpen

Brad Fuller, friend of The Hawg Pen will call into the next show to discuss the latest news about Ron Paul and his campaign to save The Constitution.

- Why Ron Paul?
- Can He Win?
-If Not, Then What?

Brad and the crew will talk about these questions and more on the next Hawg Pen.

Online Talk Radio - Southern Style

Buy Matchbox Twenty Mp3

Gooch On The Iraq Report

Head-Fake: How Who Wrote The Iraw Report Matters Less Than What They Said

Democrats have accused General David Petraeus of following orders from President Bush while giving his report to Congress this week.

Republicans have accused these Democrats of being un-American for making this accusation.

Rudy Giuliani thinks Senator Clinton should condemn Move On for their characterization of General Petraeus as General Betray-us, while he takes the same discount he seemed so outraged that Move On got for running the ad.

If we assume that General Petraeus is taking marching orders from President Bush, then we have to at worst accuse him of doing his job. He does take marching orders from the President. The Constitution demands it.

Sure, the numbers in Iraq look better. Of course, a lot of it is because the military has re-classified what it calls war dead. A shot through the front of the head is considered a crime, not an act of war, and is not counted. Only a shot through the back of the head is now considered worthy of being considered an act of war.

And yes, we appear to have stopped counting Sunni on Sunni or Shia on Shia murders as acts of war too.

So what if it appears the violence in Anbar Province relented once we gave power back to the people who controlled the province before the invasion. Sure, they (the Sunni warlords, aka batheists) have what they had before the war (control of their region) and more (tax-payer's money), but we'll call it a victory and no-one will notice (seems to be working).

What's really important is who wrote it. Never mind that it uses fuzzy math that would make Al Gore's head spin. Never mind that we've spent 4 years in Iraq, and are now giving power and money to the people we invaded to remove their power in the first place.

While we argue over who held the shovel, our military is up to its eyeballs in it. The reduction in troops that President Bush touted as a sign of victory was necessary anyway, due to the over-extension of our military in the region over a long period of time.

President Bush was talking to about 10 people (liberal Republicans in the senate and house that keep war-supporters veto power in tact), and it looks like they heard it.

The press once again fell for it, and these few hold-overs got the cover they needed to keep the troops in Iraq until President Bush's replacement takes the oath.

Who ever wrote the report that General Petraeus gave to Congress on Thursday should get promoted. They pulled off the biggest head-fake since 2003, and left the Democrats once again impotent to stop the war.

All the while, our brave men and women serving in Iraq are, once again, left on the fence between several factions fighting to gain control of their country. Lest we forget, they won the war in a month in 2003. They've been waiting like brave warriors since then waiting to come home.

Buy Shawn Mullins Music

Tom - On Life

Okay, so I’ll leave the politics to the other guys. I have more pressing matters to bring to your attention.


I’m at a position in life where I can fly first class. No, not because I have an airline credit card with mileage rewards and use it to pay for an order of McNuggets at McDonalds like so many of you losers do (and then pay 24% interest on it when you don’t pay it off at the end of the month). I can afford to fly first class. So there. As annoying as

waiting in a drive thru at McDonalds while you pay for a Happy Meal with a credit card can be, there is at least one other thing that is worse. Me traveling on an eight-hour flight in first class and having you bring your children into the first class section. I know you’re asking ‘if you ride first class, why are you at the McDonalds drive through?’ Simple, I always buy lunch for the landscapers. Getting back to the point at hand, kids don’t belong in first class. As a matter of fact, they don’t belong in the airplane. They should ride in the cargo hold in a little crate. Hey, it’s good enough for my dogs. And I have expensive dogs. After being run into during the pre-boarding process by the largest and most expensive stroller that Costco sells, there’s nothing like relaxing in the first class accommodations only to have your peaceful fight disturbed by a crying child. I will cut the rude, inconsiderate parents some slack for not being able to push the stroller any better that they can drive their over sized SUV, but they should make a ‘right’ when getting on the plane and not a ‘left’. Yep, if ya just gotta fly with the little bastard, head to the coach section. I mean the screams of some of those brats can penetrate even the upgraded headphones provided to us first class travelers. And no need to let the cute little walking, blabbering, drooling annoyance wander through first class looking to meet new friends. I’ve seen 13 month olds before. Yours isn’t unique. He’s as obnoxious as the rest of the little irritants and chances are he smells just as bad. I can’t enjoy a nice glass of Chablis as the odor of a wet diaper and baby power wafts through the cabin. So do us all a favor. Stay home. Maybe think about a driving vacation. As a last resort, go bother the people in coach. Or, if you must venture into first class, please stow and secure your child either under your seat or in the overhead storage bin. He can be used as a flotation device if we land in the ocean.


Another group who can stay home are the sick. Not the disabled. I’m cool with the wheel chairs getting on the plane first. At lot of those people are as productive as the next person and deserve a break. What I’m talking about are the truly sick. You know, the folks with the oxygen bottles and those who have to be pushed on the plane and then dumped in their seat by a relative. A relative who’s probably going to be back down the jet way before their sick kinfolk’s ‘Depends’ hits the coach class seat cushion. As if to say, ‘Adios, they’re your problem now.’ Just why do these people have to get on a plane? They’re obviously too far-gone to be going anywhere for medical treatment. Put them in the cargo area with the kids and ship them as air cargo. After all, that’s how they’ll probably be making their next and last trip in the not too distant future. Or, if they just have to say their farewells, have their able bodied relatives come and visit them. And, in the biggest injustice, like the little kids they actually get to board BEFORE the first class passengers. In addition, and also like the little kids, the sick take up a disproportionate amount of the flight attendant’s time. The flight attendant could be doing something productive (like pouring me another drink) rather than tending to the ‘needs’ of the sick and the children.



So, kids, let’s make a deal, You stay out of First Class and I’ll stay out of Chuck E Cheese. As for you sick folks, it’s a lot more convenient for me if you die on the ground than at 38,000 feet.

Internet Music Radio: Houndog Radio Station Owner Frank Coon

The Hawg Pen will be visiting with Frank Coon on Saturday, who runs Houndog radio, an internet radio station based out of North Georgia.

Frank will discuss the unfair practices set forth by sound exchange, in an attempt to run family-owned internet radio stations out of business.

Make sure to listen, and call us with any comments you have.

Cindy Sheehan: Iraq, And The Conservative Bias

from The Gooch

My compadre, on The Hawg Pen, Reg-E recently blogged about Cindy Sheehan, and her run for Speaker Nancy Pelosi's seat in Congress.

He explained that her only issue is the war, and that that isn't reason enough to vote for her.

Cindy Sheehan is one of the founders of Gold Star Families for Peace (along with her husband), and like Reg-E, I think she has every right to protest the war.

I do disagree, however, with Reg's assertion that she has nothing to offer.

She will stand up to end the war. She is running against the speaker of the house, who came to this position because of the American people's disdain with the civilian leadership on the war.

Reg-E is quick to point out that the congress has lower approval ratings than President Bush. This is because of the war. Let's not forget what area Speaker Pelosi represents. I'm sure they aren't happy with her handling of the war issue, since she's come into power.

What has congress really offered as far as meaningful legislation regarding immigration, social security, or education? Not a damn thing.

But the Republican Party would rather us talk about how she's a nut. She's been right about the war from day one, as far as it being a mistake.

Cindy Sheehan may be a nut. I've never met her. But I applaud her determination to get her message out.

I have been disappointed with the Pelosi administration and I hope Cindy Sheehan wins. I'm for sending a message to the "Peace Party" that its time for some freaking peace.

That way, the Republicans could make her higher on the list of people to talk about to distract us from what's going on (never mind that most of America agrees with her on the war issue). She won't be up there with Hilary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Al Gore or Michael Moore. But she'll get just enough attention from fox news so that they don't have to report the news.

The Republican Party picked Cindy Sheehan to be the poster child for the anti-war movement. Now its once again time to deal with the consequences.

Cindy Sheehan: Its All About The Iraq War

Reg-E on Cindy Sheehan & Other Topics

Last week I was called to task because I referred to Ms. Cindy Sheehan as a nut. It appears that I was overlooking her "issues" and I want to clarify my position. I started by looking Ms. Sheehan up on Wikipedia and it appears that she list her occupation as an Activist and her main issue is the war in Iraq.

It is well documented that Ms. Sheehan's son, Casey Sheehan, was killed while serving in Iraq. Ms. Sheehan is certainly justified in her opposition to the war and to exercise her rights to lawfully oppose the war given the loss of her son.

During the show last week this was the only issue that was identified but my research revealed the following "Issues." First it seems that Ms. Sheehan was voicing her opinion in opposition to George Bush's first election victory over Mr. Gobal Warming in 2000. It seems to me that Ms. Sheehan's hatred of President Bush started well before the Iraq war. The second issue I could find was that she had made appearances at a recent protest at Kent State. Number three was her crusade was her opposition to the recent decision by President Bush with regards to Scooter Libby. Finally, Ms. Sheehan is at odds with Nancy Pelosi because she has not filed articles of impeachment against President Bush.

It would appear that Ms. Sheehan has absolutely nothing to offer this country in the political arena with regards to the pressing issues such as immirgration; social security; and education. Ms. Sheehan would prefer to expend her political capital and time going after trivial issues because she does not like George Bush and this dislike goes back before the decision to invade Iraq.

Ms. Sheehan is a throwback to the 1960's anti-war, anti-America; and it's all about me generation. I ask again what does Ms. Sheehan have to offer this country---NOTHING. After evaluating my prior statement I have conclued that Ms. Sheehan is a nut and should be ignored.

Finally, I would to point that Ms. Plame's lawsuit was thrown out this week. I guess Ms. Plame could not prove that she was the great super spy she and her husband proclaimed her to be. I will reserve comment on the Plame Out of her lawsuit for another day.

The Hawg Pen will be visiting with T Lee Horne (L)who is campaigning for Governor of Louisiana, on our next show, which is this Saturday @ 10:00a.m. (Eastern Standard Time).

T Lee Horne is probably most famous for his organization of national Libertarian support for private relief after Katrina in 2005, and has been actively campaigning for the seat since 2003.

Sounds like he's taking it pretty seriously to me.

Of course we'll discuss Katrina, and how he'd handle the situation, and what he's preparing to do if he's elected Governor. I look forward to what he has say.

I'm sure that neither the Democrats or Republicans want to hear the 3rd side of this story, considering how well it worked.

So listen Saturday morning. You just may learn something

We are Changing to improve once again

This is now home of the Hawg Blawg, the official blog of The Hawg Pen on blogtalkradio.

Click Here to go to the new website, but check back here for the blawg!

Thanks

The Hawg Pen

Cheech and Chong could solve the immigration problem, but our government can't

To me, this whole immigration situation is simple. We can solve this with the implementation of less than 3 laws, and it would solve most other issues facing America's social plight as well.

1) Legalize drugs
2) open up "legal" immigration for all who want to come here.

I know, that doesn't make a lot of sense, on the surface. But look deeper. Lets talk about why illegal immigrants are here. They are either here for work, or to sell and/or distribute drugs. The argument against open borders always seems to be "but the drug dealers would have an easier time getting drugs into the country".

Well if drugs were legal, there would be no need in sneaking them across the border. If we legalized drugs, we'd take away Mexico's #1 export, and the Mexican Cartel, er uh Government would have to work for the people, instead of the drug lords for a change. Mexico is our last best chance at really solving the illegal immigration issue. They will ultimately solve this issue, not us.

If we'd legalize drugs we'd also solve many of the gang problems our nation faces. Sure there would still be gangs, but who pays attention to anyone who doesn't have money? Ask Ron Paul that question, and see what he says! It would transform low-income areas, and put people back to work. Maybe we wouldn't need so many illegal immigrants, if the illegal drug dealers had to get a job.

Oh yeah, and we'd give our family farms a figurative heroine buzz, because they'd gain several cash crops to support their business.

Then, if we'd open up the borders to people who wanted to get jobs, the only people sneaking across would be up to no good. We wouldn't have to guess whether they were just here to make a better life?

Of course, then we'd have to vote in an administration who was willing to enforce the laws, but that's another topic for another day

Sgt. Hulka on Palestine

We know Palestine wasn't blog of the week. But a friend of the Pen, Sgt Hulka has a stance, and we want to post his thoughts on the subject. Sgt Hulka keeps it short and sweet:

It's Biblical, all about a bowl of soup and a birth right! There will be no settlement until the final battle, and I know who wins that one! Nothing man can do will work this out. There will be wars and threats of wars.

We're going to re-attack the immigration bill for blog of the week again this week. If you have any thoughts, comment on the previous blogs, or email us your blog to post.

Christian on "Immigration"

We the People…

I can't remember a time in my life when those three words have had more meaning. Today, and over the last several days those three words reverberated through the hallowed halls of Washington like a ringing bell of atonement. Finally, the politicians that we hired to look after our affairs have heard our voice about the president's failed attempt at immigration reform.

Now that we have their attention, maybe they'll take notice when we speak out against the lack of enforcement at our borders. One case in particular which should bare an equal amount of outrage is the incomprehensible prosecution of border agents Ignacio Ramos, and Jose Compean. These two agents are serving extensive jail terms for protecting the sovereignty of the United States, and for doing their job. They used force in an attempt to arrest an illegal immigrant carrying a van load of marijuana across the border into our country. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe in the ridiculous drug laws in this country, but that's a debate for another day. The fact of the matter is they are paid to protect our borders, and that's what landed them in jail. The illegal immigrant they shot trying to flee back to Mexico was given full immunity in exchange for his testimony to the shooting. I don't know about the rest of you, but what playbook is the DA and homeland security looking at. The wrongful imprisonment of these two agents is wrong on so many different levels, that I cannot begin to wrap my head around it.

Now that we got the full attention of our elected leaders, it is time we voiced our outrage on this issue. There is no doubt that the president should use is power to pardon these agents, and frankly I can't understand what is taking so long. Believe me when I say this, I not one of those Bush haters. I support the president, and I voted for him both times, but his lack of involvement in this issue, and his misguided judgment on securing our borders is a mistake that may come back to bite us in the ass. We have to take a stand on securing our borders, or else we are inviting another 9/11.

We the people…

Show Tomorrow @ 10:00 AM EST

Don't Forget about our live show tomorrow. More details to come soon

Reg-E on Palestine

Last week I made the comment "who cares if they are killing each other." The terrorist organization, Hamas, has now high jacked the People of Palestine. A review of history would seem to indicate that the people of Palestine were given a raw deal when the Israeli state was created, but I still believe that situation can be resolved between the parties.

The new fly in the ointment is the introduction of Hamas. This is a terrorist group determined to destroy the State of Israel and the cost of this war will be the blood of the people of Palestine not the Iranians, not the Syrians, or the Islamic terrorist groups in the middle east. Maybe it is time that the people of Israel and Palestine sat down and looked at the real enemy from outside their borders. The one common trait these two groups of people share is survival and maybe it is time they rise up together and wipe out the threat to their land.

I would like to see this situation resolved but Hamas does not care about the people of Palestine and it's their actions that are the obstacle to any peace in this region. Maybe the United Nations should send combat troops into this area and solve the problem they created.

Tom on Palestine

I grew up in the largest Arab community in North America (Dearborn, MI). I had classmates drop out of school in the summer of '67 to go fight Israel. Being pro Israeli, my life was interesting at school.

Anyway, the Palestinian issue is so large and so complex that I can't get a handle on it. There are so many issues. With all of the money their Arab brothers have, one would think this could have been solved amicably many years ago.

The USA should do nothing except give Israel anything it needs to defend itself.

Gooch on Palestine

Is there a Palestine?

It was not created by the 1947 UN Partition Plan.

Israel, with the help of the UN did not invade Palestine and create a Jewish homeland. It was already there. Jewish people were living in what is now Israel for thousands of years and up to that point.

The U.N Partition Plan was an attempt to quell the violence between Arabs and Jews, but it did just the opposite.

British intervention had kept the fire of hate smoldering for decades before the UN mandate.

The point that I am making that constant interventionalism leads to hate, distrust and terrorism . "Palestinians" were not the original terrorists, they just saw how well it worked for the Irgun and Lehi, (Jewish equivalent of the Al Aqua's Martyrs brigade), and expanded its use to civilian targets.

This problem was created by British Colonials, perpetuated by the League of Nations and now the U.N.

I know that this is the Jewish holy land. I have utmost respect for that position.

Why couldn't the U.N. have mandated that a section of Germany be used to form a Jewish State? We won the war, and as far as we were concerned it was international territory (they divided it up and everything).

Can't go back now. We need to work with Abbas, and we should have worked more closely with him for some time now. He is the chance at peace Arafat never was. We worked for decades to get someone like Abbas into power, and when we did, we turned our back on him. Israel has too.

Give Palestine a state. Israel should draw it out, fence it up, and let them have it. We've got to stop giving them an excuse to be terrorists. Without excuses, the terrorists movement dies.

We need to stop our interventionalist foreign policy, and limit the UN to food drops, and a place for countries to negotiate with each other, not a supreme body.

Reg-E has a point when he says we should let them kill each other. I just think we need to stop giving them excuses to blame us for the problem that Great Britain and the UN created.

To start with...no...I didn't read the book. So if Boortz is listening, I don't wanna hear about it.
On paper and listening to people on the radio, this seems like a great idea. You can read blogs about it and it is even linked to our web page, but there are some fundamental issues I have found through my limited research. I am sure that if anyone reads this, they will send me hate mail and death threats because I don't agree with Boortz, but oh well. Here are the reasons I have found that make me think it won't work. (This is long...bare with me)

#1 - The only way prices will drop on products is if companies lower the wages of their workers. It is like this. If a guy makes $100,000 a year, the company has to pay taxes on that individual. He is only taking home say $80,000 (to use round numbers). Now the company doesn't have to pay those taxes to the govt, but he is still paying the $100,000 straight to the employee. The company saves no money unless wages are reduced.

#2- Not anywhere in the meat and potatoes of H.R. 25 does it mention how to appeal the 16th Amendment. What it does is repeal Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 with regards to Income Tax and Self-Employment Tax and Subtitle C that relates to Payroll Tax and withholding of Income Taxes. Then...to wrap things up...it says to repeal the 16th. That takes a Constitutional Amendment which has to be passed by Congress and then approved by 3/4 of the States. What incentive does the Govt. have to repeal this after the National Sales Tax is in place? What is to stop them from just adding the Income Tax back after the National Sales Tax? Guess what...it won't abolish the IRS either. They just change their name...that is all. It still calls for a Federal Agency to monitor this.

#3- This is a progressive tax. Says so in H.R. 25. That means that while it starts at 23%, the government can raise that at any time for any reason. And it would be easy to do. This tax will also be placed on top of current taxes. There is no mention anywhere in H.R. 25 of the current Gas Tax. This 23% would be on top of the current taxes we already pay.

#4- This turns every small business man or even kid mowing grass in his/her neighborhood into a tax collector. Yes...that is going to work...

#5- The one everyone hears...black market. It will increase the black market. Would you want to pay a 23% (or more) tax on an item that you can buy on the black market for free? I don't think so.

I did more research and actually came up with more reasons as well, but I am using a lot of space here. I am sure many people, especially in the Atlanta Area, will disagree with me. That is fine. That is why we have freedom of speech.

Tom On The Fair Tax

The ‘Fair Tax’ is an interesting concept that would appear, at least on the surface, to eliminate some layers of government bureaucracy. It would also seem to get government out of the business of rewarding certain lifestyle choices with tax breaks or credits. Why, for instance, should I be able to have a larger pile of money simply because I elect to live in a house with a mortgage rather than an apartment (or, for you recently registered Democratic voters, under a freeway over pass in a refrigerator box). Earned income credits?

I guess if a person really earned income, he wouldn’t need a tax credit from the government. Credits for this and credits for that. Just a way for the politicians to use the police power of the state to confiscate money from one group and give it to another group.

The real issue here isn’t how the tax is collected, its why and how much is collected. Flat tax. Payroll tax. Income tax. They are all ways the government uses its police power to redistribute income. So, your proposal for a ‘Fair Tax” (close to being an oxymoron, boys) is just giving me a choice of how I want to be mugged by the government.

Sort of like walking down the street and being able to select your mugger’s weapon of choice. Gun or knife?

The bottom line (wow, is that phrase overworked) is not how they collect taxes, but why they collect taxes. Our government is using the police power of the state to redistribute income. This allows for politicians to buy political power with someone else’s money. ‘Police power’ is not an exaggeration.

If, for instance, I think subsidizing Amtrak is not a legitimate function of government, I can’t simply withhold that portion of my tax bill. Even if it were $3.00 out of $80,000, the government would try to collect it. The amount due would soon rise due to interest and penalties. Eventually, after all collection attempts failed, the government would send people with guns to my house to collect the money. Some would call it a home ‘foreclosure’. It might take years, and the method (judgments, liens, foreclosure by the state) would ultimately result in the police power of the state being used to take money from me.

And, let’s us not forget :

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury."

(While we don’t have a pure democracy, its close enough so that the above quotation is applicable. )

The tax system, ‘Fair’ or otherwise, is the way of collecting on that vote.

Fair Tax? Hardly. Less painful way of getting mugged? Yes, I’ll give you that.