Tsani Jones - Mental Intervention

I voted. I did my duty as a citizen today,
but I had to eat crow on one level... I was
basically forced to vote against the recall I
had helped to build momentum.

I signed on to the recall petition when it
first came out, back in January, but now find
myself forced to choose between Davis,
Bustamante, and Arnold. When I thought we
couldn't find a worse Governor, they came out
of the woodwork.

I selected Tom McClintock on the second part
of the ballot. He was the only one with any
sense that has a chance.

I voted against the bond issue. Money
management is our problem in the first place,
and with the current powers wanting to leech
more cash, I find it easy to shoot down
anything involving money.

Lastly, I voted for Prop 54. The opponents
wanted the public to believe that this
proposition had something to do with health
care. The voter information pamphlet plainly
says that health care industries are exempt
from this proposition.

This is short. This is how I voted. The real
war will be in 2006.

The ship of the California Libertarian
Party is running aground. In Los Angeles
County alone, the CALP has lost over
1000 voting Libertarians, and many
others throughout the state.

But it's not because of the ideals. Not
even the fact that they are a third
party. What we have here is a failure to
communicate and act with integrity.

During the 2002 Governor's Race, the
leadership removed support from their
prime candidate, Gary Copeland, and
added as a write in Art Oliver, a man
who couldn't even garnish 1% of the vote
during the LP primaries.

This lack of support sounded a death
knell to those who would even consider
running seriously as Libertarians.

Then Libertarians began the recall
effort of Governor Gray Davis. This was
a success, primarily due to the efforts
of Republicans who joined into the fray.

The recall has now went awry as well.
The candidates registered as Libertarian
were Ken Hamidi, who runs as a
Libertarian, but ferociously denies any
real involvement with the LP, Ned
Roscoe, a cigerette chain owner who has
already lost the potential Democrat
vote, and runs on one real platform-
removal of cigarette taxes, the last
thing California even gives a hoot about
at the moment. We must also mention that
Ned isn't a Libertarian either. He is a
Smoker's Party candidate, a political
party that isn't recognized in
California.

But we had a real Libertarian, Jack
Hickey running. He is already an elected
Libertarian. He holds to Libertarian
principles, and not those of another
party.

But the CALP didn't back him. They
didn't offer support. They endorsed Ned
Roscoe. At this point, we have to ask
how serious, desperate, or blind the
CALP leadership must be to endorse a
candidate that isn't really theirs, will
not capture a swing vote with a ten mile
mosquito net, and refuses to run a real
campaign.

Libertarians in California average only
3.9% of the vote in any given race.
Generally, this is due to a race ran to
great exclusion, as well as the fact
that the CALP has no real political
strategy other than "Gee, we hope so."

They might engage over a tax. They might
make a peep over a recall. But when it
comes to real politics, they appear to
think they are at a country club other
than in a fight to expand liberty and
restore freedom.

One would think that a group with so
much to do, and such a need for support
would answer the phone, or perhaps
return an email. But they don't. It
would be assumed that they would update
their website for issues other than to
record the newest social function. Good
luck.

But no. That is about the extent of it.

Nolayan Herdegan is a different matter.
His attempts to restore leadership in
the LPLAC (Libertarian Party of Los
Angeles County) are instituted in belief
and courage. The rewards just might be
in his near future.

He expresses a desire to "clean house",
and provide the forward thinking
leadership that we need in the CALP as
well. His thinking is not revolved
around the social club mentality, but
around the idea of a group of citizens,
pooling talent to get our message to the
public, where it can be enacted in the
polling booth.

Maybe after the LPLAC gets Los Angeles
County back on track, the Libertarians
throughout the state will insist on a
strategic plan, leaders that have a real
vision, and growth to enact it.

But for right now, it's not in the
budget.

Gary Nolan's campaign intends to focus on major,
substantive issues where the Democrats and
Republicans are moving in the wrong direction, and
a substantial portion of the public wants to move
in our direction. Specifically. . .

(1) The Economy, Government Spending, Taxation and
Social Security:

What's the most that any American should be
required to pay in local, state, and federal taxes
combined? According to polls, a majority of
Americans say 20% or less. Yet government
currently confiscates nearly 50% of the average
American's income.

Federal spending is ballooning out-of-control and
deficits are exploding. Democrats would raise our
taxes to pay for more spending -- Republicans
would raise our children and grandchildren's taxes
instead. Neither is acceptable in a free society.

It's time to limit the federal government to only
those powers and functions specifically delegated
to it in the Constitution. It's time to get rid of
the personal income tax and the IRS. It's time to
replace the bankrupt Social Security system with
individual retirement accounts and honest
accounting. It's time to downsize the federal
budget and upsize the family budget.

Letting Americans keep the money they earn is the
best cure for an ailing economy. Letting the
people of each state and community decide for
themselves how much government they want, and are
willing to pay for, is the best way to make that
government accountable to the people.

(2) Civil Liberties & the War on Terror:

The War on Terror has turned into a war on the
individual civil liberties of the American people.

Restricting civil liberties are the tactics of the
opponents of human liberty, human rights and the
individual's rights as expressed specifically in
our Constitution and Bill of Rights. These tactics
are undermining our national security instead of
enhancing it; they have no place in a free
society.

I propose an immediate restoration of our full
civil liberties as a key component of enhancing
our national security. Misguided laws like the
American Patriot Act should be repealed.

Drug Prohibition has created a gigantic black
market, empowering criminal gangs that terrorize
our cities and funding terrorist organizations
like Al Qaida. It's time to repeal federal drug
laws, enabling the people of each state and
community to choose alternatives to this failed
policy.

In a truly free society, neighbors watch out for
neighbors. They don't resort to profiling based on
stereotypes, they don't feel trapped and unable to
travel. They work together in a positive way to
keep their own communities safe. This is the
America we deserve.

(3) National Defense & Foreign Policy:

National defense is the primary Constitutional
function of the federal government. We must
maintain a strong defense against potential
aggressors and be prepared to respond to attacks
like those that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Equally important, we must refrain from
intervening in the quarrels of other nations and
from making enemies of oppressed people who would
otherwise look to America as a beacon of hope and
freedom.

We must stop providing aid and support to
authoritarian regimes and dictators around the
globe. We must remember that our own government
helped arm and train the military of Iraqi
dictator, Saddam Hussein -- the same military that
our troops later faced in brutal combat. We must
not allow something similar to happen again.

It's time to bring our troops home from the more
than 140 countries in which they are stationed. It
is especially ludicrous for America to be
subsidizing the defense of wealthy nations like
Germany and Japan, as well as providing 60% of the
world's foreign aid.

Friendship, non-intervention, and trade with all
nations is a time-honored prescription for an
America that is at peace with the world. It was
the policy recommended by America's Founding
Fathers -- one that I would restore as President.




GARY NOLAN FOR PRESIDENT
P.O. BOX 6308 • FALLS CHURCH, VA 22040
Phone: 703-237-3533 • Fax: 703-237-3344
http://www.garynolan.com

California politics have become a pugil stick
match between a Democrat in total denial, and
a Republican that apparently cannot find his
way out of a paper bag, or at the very least,
doesn't have the map.

And was it just me, or did anyone else notice
the 40 cent gas spike yesterday? I woke up,
the gas station across from me was selling
unleaded for $1.59 a gallon. At lunchtime,
the price was $1.74. Three hours later, I
watched the guy change the sign to $1.86, and
at dusk, gas was $1.98.

Gray Davis is doing what any self-pedestal
inducing Democrat would do and is going to
court to try and prolong his stay in office.
But you have to hate it for the guy. His own
Lt. Governor swears he won't run for Davis'
seat, and at the last minute sinks a knife
into his back. All on the auspices of "No on
recall, yes on Bustamante.'' On the street
they have a phrase for that... "B----,
please.''

I personally spent most of last week relaxing
from the writing grind and plotting my next
moves, future pieces, et cetera, as
Schwartzenegger still didn't come up with any
sort of recognizeable platform. Yet we are
supposed the make the oversized Hummer
driving actor a Governor? Jesse Ventura had a
plan, Arnold. He knew what he was doing
before he even ran. You are still telling us
what we already know.

So many things to spew about, and so little
time. California is now the political and
financial Ethiopia of the United States. No
matter the effort placed to correct the ills,
we remain within the political clutches of
the two major troublemakers, thus nothing
changes and the situation remains stagnant.

The MTV Generation of politics in this state
remains just a fat skeleton of plastic
intentions with a logic faux-pas center.

The United States is committed into two wars
she can't abandon, and must see through, no
matter how much we agree with them or not,
and completely void of a reason to engage
them in the first place.

The citizens are to be protected, yes,
however we eat ourselves economically from
the inside out. Until our chains are dropped
that are instilled by the mislabelled
"Patriot Act" and Mother America, we will
continue in this downward spiral.

Frankly, election season is rapidly
approaching. If we vote for either of the
bipartisans, we should be truly ashamed of
ourselves.

I'm having a hard time not choking.
Really. I mean it. I have been viewing
the websites and platforms of the
individuals that designate themselves fit
to run California until we can get a
real Governor, and the hopeful prospects
are not nearly as voluminous as I
previously thought.

First, there's the Governator. The big
guy, huge muscles, inability to speak
English very well or put forth a
cognizant thought. Schwarzenegger,
that's his name. I said before that
marrying a Kennedy and owning two
Hummers doesn't a Governor make, and I
was right. Say it, you know I'm right.
Again.

Larry Flynt isn't worth mentioning,
neither is Gallagher, Gary Coleman, or
the two porn queens running. Adrianna
Huffington is the epitome of Beverly
Hills, and not much else.

So I went to my usual Libertarian
candidates, and got a sickening
surprise. We have three candidates, Ken
Hamidi, who has a bug up his hind end
from getting canned at Intel, and makes
a point to push a liberal, yet
federalist agenda (he insists he's an
Independent, and I agree. He sure isn't
Libertarian).

Next up is Ned Roscoe, who I thought was
my candidate, until I discovered he's
not really a Libertarian, either. He's a
Smoker's Party candidate, running as a
Lib because California doesn't recognize
the Smoker's Party. Strike two. And the
bases are freaking loaded!

So we come to the third candidate, Jack
Hickey. I read somewhere else he was for
the death penalty and against abortion.
That put me at odds, and I had settled
for Tom McClintock, who is a Libertarian
hiding in Republican clothing. Time to
bunt.

But old Jack came through. I actually
got my hands on his platform, and I'll
be durned if he wasn't an actual dyed in
the wool Libertarian after all.

So boys and girls, don't believe
everything you read. Examine it
yourself. Jack Hickey gets my final nod
as Governor. You got to respect an
elected official that is willing to
eliminate taxes (not lower, eliminate)
and reduce the public burden, even when
it means cutting his own job.

It reminds me of a story about a guy
I once knew. His name was Walter
Hickel, and he was the Governor of a
little state you might have heard of
called Alaska.

Seems George H.W. Bush (the senior)
told Wally it would be in his best interests
to force motorcyclists to wear helmets.
If Hickel didn't comply, Washington would
yank his money for roads and infrastructure.

Wally's response was a not-so-polite version
of "Stuff yourself. We don't need your damned
money," and he sent the US Representative to
secede Alaska from the Union. It made the U.S.
Congress very hot under the collar, but there
isn't a helmet law to the best of my knowledge,
either!

Just a note. Alaska is the only state that doesn't
have a state income tax or sales tax and
pays its citizens once a year for living there.
That's not welfare, either. It's profit sharing,
and if the state doesn't show a profit,
no check.

Ignore the papers. Arnie doesn't have
the juice to help anyone as Governor,
and is too chicken or confused to
actually place his real platform up.

Cruz is a bad day at the dump. And he'll
still terrorize us as Lieutenant
Governor when this is done in October.

Jack Hickey is your best shot. He's
already proven himself, and has the plan
to save California.

As for Libertarian candidates, I guess
one out of three ain't bad.

Sir-

I heard your comments yesterday
regarding Bill Maher, a fellow
Libertarian. While I don't necessarily
agree with Mr. Maher's opinions on
several things, especially the recall of
Gray Davis (I was one of the first 1000
to sign on, before Darrell Issa), I
hardly feel you had the right to call us
all "wacky Libertarians". That blanket
condemnation of Libertarians is at brief
ignorant, and something I would have
initially thought to be beyond you.

But it wasn't, and I have lost a certain
sense of respect for you in that regard.
The reason is simple. Not because you
may personally disagree with Maher, or
even because you don't understand
Libertarians as a whole (this point is
obvious, you sound like a Libertarian
98% of the time), but because you spend
quite a bit of your time shooting down
generalizations from your callers, yet
issue the same logical fallacy.

The one you issued yesterday, without
any form of research or apology to my
knowledge, could be an inductive
fallacy, either hasty generalization:
you feel Maher's wrong, so we are all
wrong, or perhaps unrepresentative
sample: Maher is crazy, thus all
Libertarians are crazy. Another,
slothful induction: the conclusion of a
strong inductive argument is denied
despite the evidence to the contrary,
specifically that every anti-tax
initiative in California and many other
states are induced and led by
Libertarians, including the current
statute of a 2/3 legislative vote to
increase any tax (Richard Rider, 1991,
Rider vs. County of San Diego,
California Supreme Court) which also
presents a fallacy of exclusion. This
being that you ignored the previous
facts to make us "wacky".

So if we are wacky, then I imagine I was
right when I said in my column that
liberals and conservatives are in fact
two shades of the same party line. That
is historical fact. Thomas Jefferson
created the Democratic Republican Party
to combat the Federalists, who supported
a central government that presided over
the states. Jefferson felt the states
should be the top of the food chain,
with the Federal government simply
uniting them.

President Jackson split from this party,
upheld Federalist principles, and formed
the Democratic Party. The remainder
became the Whigs, to later become the
Republican Party, which by the 1940's
and now in current times, is Federalist
as well. So that leaves two parties with
the same philosophy, neither
Jeffersonian.

So who upholds the Jeffersonian values?
You have caught yourself in another
fallacy, a fallacy of distraction called
false dilemma. Two choices have been
given, when there are in fact, three.
Those "wacky" Libertarians are the
Jeffersonians. Proof is simple, check
our Platform against Jefferson's
writings, including the Declaration of
Indepenence, The Bill of Rights, and the
Constitution of the United States.

Yes, I'm offended that you called me
"wacky" due to a fallacy termed "from
ignorance", but I'll get over that. No
big deal. I'm a columnist, so it's
hardly the first time. But if you do
make a statement referencing over a
million people who may or may not agree
with Bill Maher, please take the time to
know what the hell you are talking
about.

Mr. Maher got tagged. Fair enough. But
you seriously owe the rest of us that
truly uphold the Libertarian Party
Platform (a generally Conservative one I
might add, which is why our numbers
continue to grow) an apology for your
thoughtless generalizations. You seem to
be a man of honest principles, and
without the ego trip to allow you to
admit one incorrect statement.

I thought only Liberals made blanket
statements without proof. Kindly prove
me right.

Respectfully Yours,

Tsani Jones

Columnist, Patriot News

How would you feel to bear the burden of
your local hospital if they decided to
mismangage their money and take it from
your taxes?

This is exactly what is happening in
Monterey County, California. A
healthcare center in Salinas has found
financial difficulty to the point that a
group has propositioned a half percent
tax increase with the proceeds to go to
a single hospital.

I know, we get all warm and fuzzy when
we talk about hospitals and how they do
so much good for the community, tending
to us when we are sick, at a cost of
maybe $300 a night, and $1000 a surgical
procedure. Depending on the hospital, it
could cost around $75,000 just to bring
your baby onto the green earth.

But this hospital is in financial
trouble, and the question is: How did
they get to that place? And why should
the county taxpayer have to bail them
out, when it is the county taxpayer
already paying the service fees?

But the pro tax group has already
managed to raise $112,000 to spend on
this campaign. That money does not go to
the hospital. It does not go to care for
any ill citizens. It is simply to print
banners, advertisements, and other such
promotional items for this tax increase
initiative. They want a total of
$400,000 for this campaign, and
currently the major contributors are
directly related to the Natividad
Medical Center itself.

But hey, whatever it takes to get a
quick $25 million dollars a year, right?

This tax measure, Measure Q, has a lot
of hullabaloo attached, how its good for
the community, how everyone benefits
from it, the "C'mon, swallow it, it's
good for you" rhetoric we always see
when being asked to fork over more tax
capital because some executive at $100+
K a year can't manage an organization.

Yet we see this executive's name nowhere
in the articles regarding this tax. Of
course, David Smalls is no longer the
CEO! He has been replaced.

Now, to open the cookie a little more,
this is a hospital directly extended,
according to their website, from the
University of California at San
Francisco School of Medicine.

The Annual Report they have released is
for 2001-2002. That was two fiscal years
ago. Even at that time, the taxpayer was
funding 73% of the hospital's income.

Let's look at these numbers again.

They claim that direct patient and other
revenue was funded for $118.9 million
dollars, yet according to their
following graph, this is 3% of the total
income. They list total patient income
at $287 million. The insurance factor is
supposedly $191 million (24% of the
total). Already, the math isn't working.

They claim the total revenue as %118
million. That is $73 million less than
they received in insurance income, and
$169 million less than they claim from
patients in total. So which is it?

Who let the monkey behind the
calculator?

Even if we were conservative and assume
that the $118 million is from patient
and insurance revenue,we have to resolve
the current 73 percent income shown
arriving from Federal, State, and County
taxpayer funded issuances, a total of
$319 million dollars a year in tax
funds. They want another $25 million
from county residents.

The current County tax burden for this
hospital is $65 dollars for every man,
woman, and child. Following Measure Q,
that number would jump to $130 per
person per year.

For a family of four, taxes at the
register would cost $520, enough to feed
that same family for a month.

Something is severely amiss in the
Natividad numbers, the management, and
the idea that this measure could benefit
anyone except the staff of this
hospital, who consume 45% of the revenue
I just presented.

Haven't the residents of Monterey County
had enough?

Monetary waste. Bloated government. Excessive
power. A warped judicial system. These are the
things that we witness at current in our
government, the powers that be.

Things were not always this way. The vision laid
out by the Founding Fathers was much more limited,
so skeletal in their composition that we would not
recognize them today.

Both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party
contribute to the power warp each and every year,
as new justices are appointed, new laws made, new
Executive Orders set into motion.

The way things were, and the way that things are
now are as very different as night and day. In the
Jeffersonian era, the Executive branch of our
Federal government acted primarily as a
representative to foreign powers, almost as a
universal ambassador. War could not be declared as
an Executive Order, it was a thing left to the
Congress.

The Supreme Judiciary dealt with matters related
to the functioning of the Union, and not much
else. Things like interstate quarrels, and US vs.
foreign matters.

Congress could not dictate to all 50 states. The
Federal government was beneath State power. In the
days of the Founding Fathers, a judgement like Roe
vs. Wade or the recent overturn of a State of
Texas statute would not, could not legally happen.

So how did we get so far gone?

The answer first lies in examining where we are at
the present. At current most citizens see and are
taught that the Federal government is supreme,
that all judgements and laws dictated by the
Congress cannot be undermined by the states, which
are inferior. In law enforcement matters, Federal
jurisdiction always seems to trump the state or
local government. This is a farce.

Thomas Jefferson would grab a handrail and wretch
up his lunch at today's implementation of the
governmental system. Yet we created this monster
in his name.

In their period, there was no Cabinet, no
Secretary of Frog Toenails, no Secretary of Common
Sense Prevention. The Patriot Act, which is hardly
patriotic in any form or fashion, would have
resulted in gunfire and dead bodies.

Part of the problem results from a political party
known as the Federalists. Most students are taught
that Jefferson himself was a Federalist, but this
is an outright, blatant lie. Jefferson founded the
Democratic Republican Party to combat the
Federalists, who wanted the Federal government to
retain supreme control over the State, and
individual State powers.

By the 1840's, the Democratic Republican Party has
divided into Democrats and Whigs, the Democratic
Party becoming the Federalists, and the Whigs
becoming what is now known as the Republican
Party.

The Republican Party is called the Grand Old
Party, but that is a half truth as well. The
Democrats are technically older by about 30 years.
However, this is irrelevant, since by 1950, the
Republicans were Federalists, too.

So what happened to the Jeffersonian ideology? It
went into the freezer, so to speak, until the
1970s, when two gentlemen sat in a kitchen with
several other men and formed a new political
party, one that places the governments, from
Federal down to neighborhood council on a
political Atkins diet.

They are called the Libertarian Party. The
Libertarians are not all about pot smoking,
although the Federalists will naturally want you
to believe this. In fact, a majority of them
wouldn't even touch the stuff. There is a party
out there somewhere for the potheads.

Libertarians are about reducing the governments
back down to the skeletal levels they were meant
to be at. The skeletal philosophy of Thomas
Jefferson was engineered to bring prosperity and
general well being, and at the times that it
remained. These were the gentlemen that threw a
load of tea into Boston Harbor over a 2% tax. They
felt they were unjustly burdened, and fought a war
over it.

Americans currently pay the Federalists a round
figure of 50% tax on income. This is not including
sales taxes figured into purchased goods. But we
do nothing. We vote more Federalists in office, to
fiscally rape us again.

So, in retrospect, no matter what these two
parties and their candidates may say, they are
essentially the same. Yes, your fears are
confirmed. However, the good news is that for 30
years there has been a party in your corner. One
that can relieve the stress you feel every year in
April, and every quarter if you own a business.

That shot of political penicillin is the
Libertarian Party.

Thomas Jefferson can now breathe a little easier.