IndyTruth Blog
Help Get Chuck Baldwin on the Ballot! 
Tuesday, June 3, 2008, 05:04 PM - Activism, Elections
Posted by Administrator
The Constitution Party has nominated Chuck Baldwin for President. Dr. Baldwin has been a supporter of the Ron Paul campaign, and hosts a radio show called Chuck Baldwin Live, through which he has interviewed many important conservative leaders like Ron Paul, Jerome Corsi, and Alan Keyes. Baldwin is a strong opponent of globalization, interventionist foreign policy, and the fiat money system that is destroying our economy.

It is important that Chuck Baldwin gets ballot access in as many states as possible. This will help him get his campaign off the ground. It will also draw in more votes and more awareness of the issues and the Constitution Party. It is important that all those who believe in the causes Dr. Baldwin is fighting for help him with ballot access.

Here in Indiana, Dr. Baldwin will need 33,000 signatures by June 30 to be featured on the ballot for President. Even if you plan to vote for Bob Barr or continue hoping for a Ron Paul rEVOLution at the RNC, giving the voters of Indiana this other choice is a worthy cause.

I have contacted Mark Pool of the Constitution Party of Indiana to get details on ballot access petitions. It is very similar to the petitions we did to get Ron Paul on the primary ballots...

1. Print the CAN-19 form at Print the 2 pages of the form on 2 sides of a paper.
2. You only have to fill out the county on top and the candidates: Chuck Baldwin for President, Darrell Castle for Vice President. Leave everything else on the top and the back blank. Copy as many of these as you think you might use, and then start collecting signatures.
3. Signatures must be from registered voters who are residents of the county written on top. If you want to do more than one county, print some CAN-19's for each county.
4. You can register new voters, so bring along some copies of the registration form and turn them in to your county election board before the June 30 petition deadline. The voter registration form is available at

If you are going to help out with ballot access petitions for Chuck Baldwin, please contact me at to let me know. That way I can help keep a count and let you know how to turn in your petition.

If you are not in Indiana, visit the Constitution Party's Ballot Access Report at for details about ballot access in all 50 states.
3 comments ( 27 views )   |  permalink   |  related link
Is Bob Barr a Neoconservative? 
Monday, June 2, 2008, 10:47 PM - Elections, Opinion
Posted by Administrator
As a young libertarian seeking to build the revolution started this year by Ron Paul, I had many hopes for the Libertarian Party (LP) convention and presidential nomination. I was confident that this was the year the LP would launch a presidential campaign that would dwarf any third party run in recent history, except perhaps that of the infamous Ross Perot. Instead, as I watched the live debates, nomination speeches and vote counts on C-SPAN, I was confused and then conflicted about the direction of the party.

Former Republican Congressman Bob Barr, who has perhaps attracted more mainstream media (MSM) attention to the LP than any individual in the party's history, won the presidential nomination, defeating a well-spoken purist libertarian in the sixth round of voting. Barr was going to be the most successful candidate in LP history, but not without controversy.

I was not at all surprised by the nomination of Bob Barr. I knew going into the convention that he was raising more money and getting more MSM attention than any of the other 7-15 candidates (was anyone able to get an actual count?). However, many of the Libertarians on the televised broadcast, including former presidential candidate and now former-Libertarian Christine Smith, were publicly outraged about the nomination and the Republican "take-over" of the party. The libertarian blogosphere would also erupt throughout the next few days.

Since the moment of the nomination, I have heard outraged libertarians cry that Bob Barr is not a "real libertarian," but a "libertarian-leaning conservative" or the favorite term, a "neoconservative." Still, most of the party (the majority that voted for him), Steve Kubby, and other Libertarian leaders I respect called for "party unity" and support for the Barr/Root ticket. They argued that Bob Barr and his Vice Presidential candidate Wayne Allyn Root would still be a medium for publicizing the libertarian message through a national campaign.

Let's analyze the first reaction that I mentioned. This is the argument that Barr and Root are not "true libertarians." They conspired in a "neoconservative take-over" of the party. The term neoconservative is used frequently by libertarians, liberals, and "real" conservatives, most often in reference to the Bush administration. I am even guilty of using it in my analysis last summer of Barack Obama's foreign policy. Since we use this word to describe all that we despise and oppose in politics, we must ask, do we actually know what it means?

When I first heard the word "neocon" used to describe Bob Barr, I thought, "he certainly appears to be a conservative and a Republican, but is he really a neocon?" Whenever I ask questions like this, I am quick to grab my dictionary. Such a contemporary word was not in the printed dictionary, so I visited Dictionary.Com, where I found neoconservative to be defined as "moderate political conservatism espoused or advocated by former liberals or socialists."

Is Bob Barr a "former liberal or socialist?" Let's hear what he has to say about socialism:

The government has no responsibility, should have no responsibility, and was never intended to have responsibility for managing or tinkering with the American economy. That was supposed to be left up to the marketplace. Capitalism. That is the nature of capitalism.

As an advocate of capitalism, the opposite of socialism, Bob Barr can not be defined with a dictionary as a neoconservative.

Let's try another definition.

I don't like to cite Wikipedia, but I often use it as a starting point in exploring an issue like this. I found a cited definition there from I book that wasn't available at my library. For what it's worth, I will share the quotation and citation from Wikipedia, as I found it on June 2, 2008:

Neoconservatism emphasizes foreign policy as the paramount responsibility of government, maintaining that America's role as the world's sole superpower is indispensable to establishing and maintaining global order. (McGowan, J. (2007). "Neoconservatism", American Liberalism: An Interpretation for Our Time. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, pp.124-133.)

Does Bob Barr support an American empire? He says,

Our National Defense policy must renew a commitment to non-intervention. We are not the world's police force and our long, yet recently tarnished, tradition of respecting the sovereignty of other nations is necessary, not from only a moral standpoint, but to regain the respect of the world as a principled and peaceful nation.

With a clearly stated non-interventionist foreign policy, Bob Barr is not a neoconservative by this definition either.

Finally, I will go to the man most libertarians trust and support, the man we look to for leadership in Congress, and the face of the greatest libertarian revolution since 1776, Ron Paul.

A famous speech presented by Congressman Paul to the House of Representatives in 2003 is titled "Neo-CONNED!" Paul provided in the speech "a brief summary of the general understanding of what neocons believe:"

1. They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual.
2. They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so.
3. They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends.
4. They accept the notion that the ends justify the means—that hardball politics is a moral necessity.
5. They express no opposition to the welfare state.
6. They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it.
7. They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.
8. They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit.
9. They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite and withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it.
10. They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill advised.
11. They hold Leo Strauss in high esteem.
12. They believe imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate.
13. Using American might to force American ideals on others is acceptable. Force should not be limited to the defense of our country.
14. 9-11 resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many.
15. They dislike and despise libertarians (therefore, the same applies to all strict constitutionalists.)
16. They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary.
17. They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the Likud Party.

Dr. Paul has done significantly more research than almost any of us about these issues. He has also been a respected member of Congress for twenty years, watching the movement of neoconservativism grow in the party around him. There is perhaps no one more capable of defining for libertarians the definition of neoconservativism than Ron Paul. If you have read Dr. Paul's definition and still believe that there is any chance Bob Barr is a "neocon," then you have a lot more to learn about Bob Barr.

As I said in the beginning of this post, I felt confused and conflicted in the days following the Libertarian National Convention. I still do feel this way, as I am still undecided about who I will vote for this November. However, there are two things I can say for sure about the mess that is the 2008 presidential campaign season:

1. Bob Barr is not a neoconservative.
2. Bob Barr will run the most successful presidential campaign in the history of the Libertarian Party.

If we abandon the Libertarian Party right now, who will be there to welcome and educate the hundreds of thousands if not millions of new LP voters and possible LP members that the Bob Barr presidential campaign will draw over the next six months? This campaign is the biggest opportunity in the history of the Libertarian Party. I am going to stick around to see it and be a part of it!
1 comment ( 14 views )   |  permalink   |  related link
New Direction of Alternative Media 
Tuesday, May 6, 2008, 08:13 PM - Media
Posted by Administrator
Through the Ron Paul movement, we have truly seen the power and potential of the alternative media online. Hundreds of web sites were started to support Ron Paul's campaign, and many new resources have been created to wake people up and help them defend liberty. I believe that this was a turning point for the alternative media.

One of the new innovations it created was more multimedia and more interactive activity in the media. We saw this in the Ron Paul Radio channels on, where "Paulers" were broadcasting live from major Republican primary events and on daily radio shows, while viewers and listeners from around the globe were chatting with each other as they received the latest news on the campaign.

Utilizing Internet Relay Chat (IRC) and other technologies, I am currently working on two projects to continue the trend of interactive alternative media online.

The first project I am heading up is part of this web site, For the past year, I have been blogging, sharing my research, and promoting actions online to you through this site for almost a year. Just this past weekend, I broadcasted the first edition of my live radio show. It airs every Saturday morning from 10AM-Noon EST (just before GCN's afternoon block of What Really Happened and World Crisis Radio, two shows I also recommend). The show is broadcast over the RPI Radio Network, formerly Ron Paul Radio. At, you can listen to the show online and chat with me and sometimes my show guests in the RPI Radio chatroom. Since the Indiana Primary is today, my guest on Saturday was Cat Ping, Republican candidate for U.S. Congress for Indiana's District 7.

Another project I have been contributing to is an IRC channel on EFNET called #deprogram. In this room, dozens of people are on at any given time, chatting 24/7 about issues. We help to wake up newcomers who enter the room, while we empower each other to get more active in our local communities and online. We will also be adding a radio show and a web site to this program soon. To join us in the room, go to Type a nickname on the left and enter #deprogram for the channel. Until the web site and radio show are up, you can find out more about this project on MySpace.

As citizens and activists, we must make ourselves a part of the media in order to ensure that the truth comes out about issues like 9/11, Real ID, and the North American Union. Through the alternative media online, we can involve more people in creating and reporting news, and have a real forum for ideas that is not suppressed by the biases of corporate media. Please join us in these two revolutionary programs.
add comment ( 8 views )   |  permalink   |  related link
Fight the Real ID power grab 
Friday, April 18, 2008, 11:55 PM - Activism, Policy
Posted by Administrator
The Real ID Act of 2005 was sneaked into law through the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief. It establishes new national standards for state-issued driver licenses and non-driver identification cards. It is unconstitutional and an unprecedented violation of state's rights.

States such as Maine, Montana and Vermont have challenged Real ID, insisting on maintaining their own state standards for drivers licenses and ID cards. They have since been bullied by the Department of Homeland Security, which threatened to not allow citizens of those states to travel without the national ID.

Real ID has been largely ignored by public officials. Only two legislators, W. Curtis Thomas (D) and Jim Marshall (R) attended a Pennsylvania legislative committee’s hearing on March 13. No media attended. However, a large group of passionate citizens came to the event to protest Real ID.

One of the few officials at the federal level to bring up this issue has been Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), who said, "Maybe people want to have a national ID card in their state. In my state, they don't."

"Bullying the states is not the answer, nor is threatening their citizens' rights to travel,” Leahy said. "From Maine to Montana, states have said no."

Seventeen states have passed bills or resolutions rejecting Real ID. Make sure that your state says NO! Here is what you can do:

Read the American Free Press article, "Congress Must Act Decisively To Stop Police State 'REAL ID'".

Rep. Jim Guest in the Missouri State House of Representatives is leading the fight of many states to oppose Real ID. Visit his web site JimGuest.Com and download his brochure. Contact him if you have questions or would like him to send you hard copies of the brochure. He is very helpful!

Use these resources to inform your state representative, state senators, U.S. representative and U.S. Senators about Real ID.

Help protect our personal rights and state rights from another federal power grab. We can not sit back while the federal government is putting us into a massive (and quite vulnerable) control grid. Take leadership on the Real ID issue and educate your legislators and fellow citizens on it's importance.
add comment ( 11 views )   |  permalink   |  related link
Advisors to presidential front-runners held secret meeting 
Friday, February 8, 2008, 12:10 AM - Globalism, News
Posted by Administrator
In April of 2007, James P. Tucker Jr. reported in American Free Press that the Trilateral Commission held a secret meeting in Brussels.

The primary details leaked from this meeting regarded pressure on the United States to "adopt a carbon monoxide control policy," developing and increasing carbon taxes on products such as gasoline. They also discussed the development of the European Union and North American Union.

In addition to Trilateral chairman Peter Sutherland and former CIA head John Deutch, the list of attendees to this meeting is striking. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) attended in violation of the Logan Act of 1799, which states,

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

Even more interesting are the following three names: Madeleine Albright, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Richard Armitage. These three figures happen to be the foreign policy advisors to the three remaining "front-runners" in the 2008 presidential race.

According to the Washington Post, "Madeleine K. Albright, President [Bill] Clinton’s secretary of state and now chairperson of the National Democratic Institute," is Hillary Clinton's "foreign policy adviser."

"Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter’s national security adviser and now a Center for Strategic and International Studies counselor and trustee and frequent guest on PBS’s NewsHour with Jim Lehrer," is Barack Obama's "foreign policy adviser."

And "Richard Lee Armitage, President George W. Bush’s deputy secretary of state and an international business consultant and lobbyist," is John McCain's "informal foreign policy adviser."

It seems that Ron Paul (R-TX), Mike Huckabee (R-AR) and Mike Gravel (D-AL) are the only candidates who weren't represented at the secret meeting less than a year ago. It also happens that these three candidates get the least media attention of the six total.

Jim Tucker pointed out in his article revealing the secret meeting that The Washington Post "is always represented at TC and Bilderberg meetings." They even called for the very tax increase discussed there in an editorial the next day. My research concurs; Donald E. Graham, Chairman and CEO of The Washington Post Company attended Bilderberg in 2007.

The Washington Post is also the only major media publication that I have seen report on who is advising the presidential candidates. In that report, "The War Over the Wonks", the Post lists advisors to Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Jonathan Edwards, Rudolf Giuliani, Mitt Romney and John McCain. Paul, Huckabee and Gravel are left out.

Edwards, Giuliani and Romney -- the other establishment candidates significant enough to warrant the Post's attention -- have seceded the presidential race to their Trilateral Commission opponents. Paul, Huckabee and Gravel will continue to be ignored, while the Trilateral Commission determines which of their three puppets will be the "leader of the free world."

Submitted by Douglass.
1 comment ( 14 views )   |  permalink   |  related link

<< <Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Next> >>