IndyTruth Blog

How to Protect Your Body from Radiation

Douglass — Mon, 16 May 2011 01:09:51 GMT

As we have been periodically reminded since mid-March, plutonium, strontium 90, and radioactive iodine (131-I) have been spreading from the melting Fukushima nuclear reactors and reaching cities throughout the US. Radioactive elements can harm life forms by causing cells and their DNA to mutate. Many have been directly linked to various forms of cancer. The Fukushima disaster has the potential to harm people throughout the world through exposure to radiation. The good news is that there are simple nutritional steps you can take to protect yourself.

Doctors James and Phyllis Balch write in Prescription for Nutritional Healing,

Radioactive elements are structurally similar to their nonradioactive counterparts, differing only in the number of neutrons the atoms contain. This is why nutrition is important in preventing or blocking damage from exposure to radioactive elements. If you do not obtain sufficient amounts of calcium, potassium, and other minerals in your diet, your body may absorb radioactive elements that are similar in structure to these nutrients. For example, if you do not obtain enough calcium, your body will absorb radioactive strontium 90 or other elements that are similar in structure to calcium, if they are available. Similarly, if you obtain sufficient potassium from your diet, your body will be less likely to retain any radioactive cesium 137 it encounters, as this element is similar to potassium. If the cells are able to obtain all nutrients they need from your diet, they will be less likely to avsorb radioactive substitutes, which are then more likely to be discarded from the body.

Some of the Balchs' top recommendations include daily intake of calcium and magnesium (2-1 ratio in mg's between these), kelp (great source of minerals including iodine), coenzyme Q10, vitamin C, apple pectin, and various antioxidants. Calcium/magnesium and iodine supplementation avoid uptake of similar radioactive elements, as does consuming your daily value of potassium. Apple pectin bonds with strontium 90 and removes it from the body.

I am keeping up with my calcium, magnesium, kelp, co-Q10, and usual attention to antioxidants, as these are easy steps for me to protect myself from the effects of radiation that I may be exposed to due to the Fukushima disaster. Being attentive to your intake of calcium/magnesium, iodine, potassium, and antioxidants is a small step you can take to protect yourself from what we hope are only small levels of radioactive exposure. Let's also hope that Japan and the other affected governments give us more information in the near future about how much radiation we are actually talking about. The figures we are aware of are still primarily limited to isolated independent studies.

The Declaration of Independence Provides the Answer to Illegal Immigration

Douglass — Tue, 11 May 2010 01:41:43 GMT

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." Again, that's all men are created equal. The idea that someone is less equal because he was born in another country is Orwellian.1 Protectionist immigration laws contradict our founding principles.

Donald W. Livingston concludes in his paper "The Secession Tradition in America" that "The Declaration... is a document justifying the territorial dismemberment of a modern state in the name of the moral right of a people to self-government."2 In other words, borders do not change the right of man to self-govern.

In many ways, "illegal" immigrants exemplify the idea self-government declared by our founders. Many of them live their lives with minimal interaction with the state, working under the table below minimum wage, avoiding income tax, social security, and other government robberies, and not allowing the government to oversee every transaction they make on a daily basis. Considering most of the government intrusions they avoid are unconstitutional and, by definition, slavery, I envy those who have managed to avoid them.

What is the solution to the illegal immigration "problem?" The problem is not the people avoiding our laws. The laws are the problem. Governments at all levels in the U.S. restrict the ability of people, whether American citizens, legal immigrants, or illegal immigrants, to work for a living and keep the fruits of their labors. Illegal aliens are disregarding the law in order to exercise their rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (a.k.a. property)." The Declaration states "That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." I suggest we exercise our right to abolish this government which fails to protect or even respect our rights. Ironically, the solution to dealing with illegal aliens is to live like illegal aliens. Let's self-govern!

Notes

1. Read George Orwell's Animal Farm, where "some animals are more equal than others."
2. Read Livingston's paper in Secession, State, and Liberty, edited by David Gordon, online.

Obama Deception and Dystopia

Douglass — Fri, 29 May 2009 03:17:25 GMT

Many of the things I have seen from the start of the Obama presidency have seemed ripped right from the pages of my favorite novel, George Orwell's 1984. Propaganda stunts, the permission of torture and extended detention without charges, government control of the economy, and talk of national health care. It is total fascism, and the media and much of the general public are in full support.

Andrew Hughes has written a fantastic description of Obama's performance so far, entitled "America's Nightmare: The Obama Dystopia: Manipulation, propaganda, imagery & PR wizardry." Here is an excerpt:

The President that extended the hand of peace to the Muslim world has murdered hundreds of Pakistani men, women and children. The President who promised accountability in Government has filled his staff with lobbyists, banksters and warmongers. His Attorney General refuses to prosecute some of the worst war crimes committed in modern history and continues to give legal cover to criminals who tortured with impunity.

The country has been further bankrupted by the continuing theft of taxpayer money as the Wall St. campaign donors receive their quid pro quo. Obama has stood by idly as Bernancke states that the private Federal Reserve is not answerable to either Congress of the American public. The U.S. taxpayer is now on the hook for $14.3 Trillion and rising. Foreclosures and unemployment are rising with no meaningful efforts by the administration to alleviate the symptoms, never mind the cause. The new image of America is one of tent cities, lengthening soup kitchen lines, sherrifs evicting countless thousands of young and old from their homes, once prosperous towns descending in to an eerie stillness and an increasingly disillusioned populace.

The "War on terrorism" has mutated in to a control grid for an increasingly aware population. The foundation for this had already been put in place by Bush with the Patriot Act, Patriot Act 2, Military commissions act and numerous executive orders that strangled what was left of Posse Comitatus and the Constitution. (more here)

I have been reporting on the dangerous and unconstitutional policies of Barack Obama since early in his campaign for the Democratic nomination. I was intrigued when I first heard of this legendary young face in the Senate who was supposedly anti-war and pro-civil liberties. When I read his speech to the Council on Foreign Relations in August 2007, I knew exactly where he stood. He promoted American Imperialism and full support of the Israeli government in Middle East policy. He also used rhetoric suggestive of the CFR's documented efforts to build a North American Union, merging the U.S., Mexico, and Canada through a ridiculous infrastructure project and secretive policy-making.

Just after the New Hampshire primary, historian and left-wing political analyst Webster G. Tarpley wrote a piece about elitist puppeteer Zbigniew Brzezinski's influence on Obama and his role in the campaign. He talked about how Brzezinski initiated coups in Eastern European countries with the same campaign strategy he was using to push Obama on the American people. Tarpley saw in Obama's rise the resemblence of a young Mussolini. His concerns appear to have been correct. The propaganda campaign was successful, and since taking office in January, Obama's policies have been purely fascist.

Tarpley is featured in a new documentary, The Obama Deception, which is currently the number one film on the internet. The film covers Obama's connections to elitists who meet in shadowy policy meetings with the worlds top corporate and political leaders, and of course those nasty bankers who have been robbing our country increasingly over the last century. It also discusses Obama's rise to power and what we can expect to see from the first year of his administration. Below you can view the film on Youtube, or I have made a higher quality download available through my site that you can save by clicking here.

Obama breaks election promises on human rights, Rachel Maddow reacts

Douglass — Thu, 28 May 2009 16:26:26 GMT

The liberals are already turning on Obama, even quicker than conservatives turned on Bush. However, they really should have done so before the election�for example, when he voted in July to give telecommunications companies retroactive immunity after they broke the law to help the NSA spy on Americans. It was irresponsible of liberals to forgive Barack Obama before the election for violating our civil liberties. Their party came into power at the expense of our liberty. The least they could have done is voted for a third party progressive. Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader are still socialists, but at least they respect basic human rights and government transparency. Obama speaks like he supports those things, but his actions before and after the election show his dishonesty and complete lack of respect for the American people.

Here is MSNBC liberal commentator Rachel Maddow reporting on Obama's policy on handling detainees:

Bank stress test results leaked

Douglass — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 00:27:02 GMT

The Federal Reserve has conducted stress tests on the United States� major banks. The results are ugly, and they don�t want you to know about it yet. They won�t even admit they have the results, but they do, and now so do we. Here is the best update available today on the status of the banking system collapse that has been occurring for the last several months, and is on the verge of its final plummet.

On April 10th, Bloomberg reported,

The U.S. Federal Reserve has told Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Citigroup Inc. and other banks to keep mum on the results of �stress tests� that will gauge their ability to weather the recession, people familiar with the matter said.

The Fed wants to ensure that the report cards don�t leak during earnings conference calls scheduled for this month. Such a scenario might push stock prices lower for banks perceived as weak and interfere with the government�s plan to release the results in an orderly fashion later this month.

However, the U.S. Treasury issued a statement this morning claiming they do not yet have the results of the Stress Tests.

Turner Radio Network, which released a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) memo calling military veterans a domestic security risk days before the mainstream media, released yesterday a leaked outline of the Treasury/Fed Stress Test results:

1) Of the top nineteen (19) banks in the nation, sixteen (16) are already technically insolvent.

2) Of the 16 banks that are already technically insolvent, not even one can withstand any disruption of cash flow at all or any further deterioration in non-paying loans.

3) If any two of the 16 insolvent banks go under, they will totally wipe out all remaining FDIC insurance funding.

4) Of the top 19 banks in the nation, the top five (5) largest banks are under capitalized so dangerously, there is serious doubt about their ability to continue as ongoing businesses.

5) Five large U.S. banks have credit exposure related to their derivatives trading that exceeds their capital, with four in particular - JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, HSBC Bank America and Citibank - taking especially large risks.

6) Bank of America`s total credit exposure to derivatives was 179 percent of its risk-based capital; Citibank`s was 278 percent; JPMorgan Chase`s, 382 percent; and HSBC America`s, 550 percent. It gets even worse: Goldman Sachs began reporting as a commercial bank, revealing an alarming total credit exposure of 1,056 percent, or more than ten times its capital!

7) Not only are there serious questions about whether or not JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs,Citibank, Wells Fargo, Sun Trust Bank, HSBC Bank USA, can continue in business, more than 1,800 regional and smaller institutions are at risk of failure despite government bailouts!

Turner Radio Network also comments:

The debt crisis is much greater than the government has reported. The FDIC`s �Problem List� of troubled banks includes 252 institutions with assets of $159 billion. 1,816 banks and thrifts are at risk of failure, with total assets of $4.67 trillion, compared to 1,568 institutions, with $2.32 trillion in total assets in prior quarter.

Put bluntly, the entire US Banking System is in complete and total collapse.

Further, the Wall Street Journal reported today that lending by the country�s largest banks has declined 23% since the federal government began releasing TARP �bailout� funds to them. Congress did nothing to help restore lending�as they said they would. They only prolonged the inevitable. If/when two of the major banks go under, the FDIC will not be able to handle the ensuing domino collapse of other banks. Will Congress and the President be able to get more money into FDIC before millions of people realize their money is gone, freak out, and give the government a reason to instate martial law?

Now is time to proclaim our 10th Amendment right

Douglass — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 04:37:57 GMT

In reference to federal raids on medical marijuana shops in California, White House spokesman Nick Shapiro said today, "The president believes that federal resources should not be used to circumvent state laws, and as he continues to appoint senior leadership to fill out the ranks of the federal government, he expects them to review their policies with that in mind."

If this truly is the new President's policy, it may be the key for Americans to restore their liberty during the Obama presidency. Our best strategy for restoring liberty may be to start with the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified December 15, 1791 as the finishing touch on the Bill of Rights: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Eight state legislatures are currently considering resolutions which assert a state's authority under the Tenth Amendment to handle issues not delegated to the U.S. government by the Constitution. These are Arizona, Hawaii, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, and Washington. Former gubernatorial candidate Andy Horning has proposed a resolution for Indiana, but it does not yet have a sponsor in the state assembly.

States will most likely have a reason to pass a resolution like this and to challenge the federal government if there is a specific issue it wishes to handle itself. In Oklahoma, the effort is motivated by a desire to pass strict immigration laws. States such as California and Michigan could do it to protect their allowance of medical marijuana.

States will most likely have a reason to pass a resolution like this and to challenge the federal government if there is a specific issue it wishes to handle itself. In Oklahoma, the effort is motivated by a desire to pass strict immigration laws. States such as California and Michigan could do it to protect their medical marijuana laws.

On the issue of marijuana regulation, the Supreme Court ruled in the 2004 case of Gonzales v. Raich that it fit within Congress' role of regulating interstate commerce. The six Justices who voted on the side of the federal government neglected the fact that growing a few plants in your home for personal use doesn't involve any interstate commercial activity.

The Justices who voted against the federal government made some very important statements of dissent.

Justice Clarence Thomas: "Our federalist system, properly understood, allows California and a growing number of other States to decide for themselves how to safeguard the health and welfare of their citizens."

More from Justice Thomas:

If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress' Article I powers -- as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause -- have no meaningful limits. Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, guns, or any number of other items, it may continue to "appropria[te] state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce...

If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison's assurance to the people of New York that the "powers delegated" to the Federal Government are "few and defined", while those of the States are "numerous and indefinite.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor: "Federalism promotes innovation by allowing for the possibility that "a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country"

There is still a case to be made that the federal government has no business raiding medical marijuana users in states that allow it. And it appears that President Obama wants to respect the states' decision on that issue. There are many other federal regulations against which we could make this same argument, and we should pressure our state governments to exercise their constitutional authority to handle those issues or allow their citizens to handle them independently. If there is ever a time in our lifetimes to proclaim our Tenth Amendment right, that time is now!

Wasteful pork in the Obama �stimulus� bill

Douglass — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 22:19:45 GMT

The idea of an economic stimulus bill is to improve the state of the economy. One has to wonder what these provisions in Obama�s $900 billion stimulus package would do to help the economy:

$2 billion earmark to re-start FutureGen, a near-zero emissions coal power plant in Illinois that the Department of Energy defunded last year because it said the project was inefficient.
A $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film.
$650 million for the digital television converter box coupon program.
$88 million for the Coast Guard to design a new polar icebreaker (arctic ship).
$448 million for constructing the Department of Homeland Security headquarters.
$248 million for furniture at the new Homeland Security headquarters
$400 million for the Centers for Disease Control to screen and prevent STD's.
$1.4 billion for rural waste disposal programs.
$125 million for the Washington sewer system.
$150 million for Smithsonian museum facilities.
$1 billion for the 2010 Census, which has a projected cost overrun of $3 billion.
$75 million for "smoking cessation activities."
$25 million for tribal alcohol and substance abuse reduction.
$10 million to inspect canals in urban areas.
$500 million for state and local fire stations.
$650 million for wildland fire management on forest service lands.
$1.2 billion for "youth activities," including youth summer job programs.
$88 million for renovating the headquarters of the Public Health Service.
$412 million for CDC buildings and property.
$500 million for building and repairing National Institutes of Health facilities in Bethesda, Maryland.
$160 million for "paid volunteers" at the Corporation for National and Community Service.
$850 million for Amtrak.
$100 million for reducing the hazard of lead-based paint.
$75 million to construct a "security training" facility for State Department Security officers when they can be trained at existing facilities of other agencies.
$110 million to the Farm Service Agency to upgrade computer systems.

In the free market, a company can only spend money on something useful. It is not profitable for a company to waste money on producing a useless product that nobody will use. For the government there is no incentive. It could spend $850 million on trains that nobody rides, and there is no consequence. Since the government cannot create wealth out of thin air, it has to be redirected out of the free market and into the hands of the government through taxes or inflation of the money supply. Government spending draws resources from productive endeavors in the free market to wasteful government projects. This will only further weaken the economy. The key to fixing our economic crisis is to get money out of the wasteful hands of the government and back into the pockets of the American people, where their spending, saving, and investment will use it to stimulate the economy.

Should Libertarians Compromise on Property Taxes?

Douglass — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 06:42:50 GMT

A post by Liberty Pile at Bureaucrash posed the question of whether libertarians should make compromises. He starts with a quote from Murray Rothbard, "the day-to-day compromises of supposedly �practical� politics get pulled inexorably in the collectivist direction." The key for us to approach compromise is to not sacrifice any freedom in exchange for another. An action is not compromise if it grants a segment of liberty and does nothing to remove any segment of liberty.

The matter of compromise was a sort of the theme of our last Indianapolis Libertarian Meetup (or maybe it's always the theme for libertarians). We discussed whether libertarians should support Governor Mitch Daniels' property tax caps. Most people seemed to be in agreement that these caps would not guarantee lower taxes in any way, and that reducing spending is the only way to accomplish that. By supporting these caps we would give nothing up in exchange for the caps. However, the caps do not offer any actual tax relief, so we would gain nothing either. Shifting taxes around only sustains the system we are trying to fight. I would interpret this as a compromise because we would reinforce a system of unfair taxation.

An idea we discussed was making property taxes fair and consistent, by setting a permanent assessment at the sale of a property. This would prevent the assessor from coming in and saying that you owe $1,000 more this year (I know people who had this happen last year). It would also let the market determine the value of the property, rather than the assessor's opinion.

Is making property taxes fair and consistent a compromise? If our ultimate desire is to eliminate property taxes, then one could argue that it is. I have heard many anarchist-leaning libertarians argue that authorizing any level of government is a compromise of liberty and permission of enslavement. While I agree with an anarchist society as the ideal, I do not see it as a compromise to move government in the direction of liberty even though it is not the ideal final solution. Assessing property value exclusively at the sale would reduce the government's ability to come and take my property away. While not granting me total rights to the property as I feel is the moral and constitutional solution, this is a restoration of a segment of my property rights. It does nothing to remove any amount of liberty from me. This is not a compromise because I make no new sacrifice, but I do gain something from it.

As long as we are moving in the direction of liberty and reducing the size of government, we are on the right path. As soon as we exchange a piece of liberty for a piece of authority, we are compromising our principles; we are compromising our liberty.

International regulation of your house

Douglass — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 02:09:59 GMT

All eyes are on Washington D.C. this month as a new Congress convenes and a new President is inaugurated. Honestly, so far this year, I have paid little attention to the Capitol other than enjoying the latest Kucinich video on C-SPAN Junkie. Instead, I am much more intrigued with what is happening at the state level.

Today, I heard about an exciting bill that would provide for gold and silver transactions with the State of Indiana (but more on that in a future post), and that got me browsing through the General Assembly web site to see what else our state representatives and senators have in store for us. A bill that caught my eye was SB 284, regarding the International Energy Conservation Code. What is the International Energy Conservation Code and how could some international institution get to dictate what Indiana does with its energy?

The synopsis of the IECC bill explains that it

Requires the fire and building safety commission to adopt the most recent edition of the International Energy Conservation Code before July 1, 2010. Requires the commission to adopt any subsequent editions of the code not later than 18 months after the effective date of the subsequent edition.

I was already concerned when I read this, because I am not sure what energy conservation has to do with fire and building safety. Is someone trying to use regulations intended to save lives as a means to serve some allegedly environmentalist agenda?

It turns out that they aren't only trying to do it. The IECC has already been adopted in a large number of states. In fact, in the 1992 Energy Policy Act (EPAct) Congress mandated that all states must review and consider adopting the national model energy standard. It is interesting that Congress feels it can mandate that states regulate something. Nothing in the U.S. Constitution comes close to giving the federal government the authority to regulate anything, let alone to mandate states to adopt regulations. 38 states and D.C. don't seem to mind, and have adopted some form of IECC or or national model energy standards for residential building codes (40+1 have regulated commercial codes). Indiana has adopted statewide standards older than 1998, which I would assume to mean they submitted to Congress' EPAct, but haven't let the International Code Council increase the bullying over the last a decade. Now that it is 2009, state senator Sue Errington (D-26) has decided that 10+ years behind is just too much. It is time that Indiana submit to the new world order of housing regulation.

The IECC might sound pretty to the average tree hugging Al Gore pupil. The Responsible Energy Codes Alliance brags that it

Effectively conserve energy
Minimizes increases in construction costs
Allows the use of new materials, products or methods of construction
Eliminates preferential treatment for particular industries or types or classes of materials, products or methods of construction.

From the perspective of someone who understands the nature of human rights and the intent of the Founders of our nation, it translates to

Increases the cost of building a house
Requires extra expenses that may be unnecessary for certain building projects
Requires one to jump through even more hoops to build a house
Prohibits the right to fully own property and choose what to do with it

Regulations like this inevitably rob individuals of reasonable choices that have no negative effect on themselves nor other people. If I attach a garage to my house, is IECC going to make me insulate it? If I am building a summer cabin that doesn't even have a furnace or air conditioner, is the IECC going to make me put special windows on it? So what if I don't do it? Whether or not the requirement is necessary the government has mandated it and will punish me if I do not meet it.

It is not the government's place to make this choice. As long as I am aware of what building materials are more energy efficient or even which ones are safer (likely thanks to Google), I can make the right choice for myself. Even if I don't make the most energy efficient choice, that isn't going to hurt anybody. However, if the government makes the choice, unnecesary expenses will be forced upon people and their private property. If the government chooses, somebody does get hurt.

Through the state and federal governments, the ICC regulates everything from plumbing and electricity to zoning. What will they regulate next, our rose bushes? I hope that Indiana will not hand over our property rights to Congress and the ICC by passing SB 284. It doesn't set a good precedent to let some committee in D.C. tell us what kind of pipes we can flush our fecal waste through.

Andy Horning's Contract with Indiana

Douglass — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 03:45:55 GMT

I would like to take this opportunity to tell you about my favorite candidate out of all the political races happening around the nation for this November's election. It is Andy Horning, the Libertarian candidate for Governor of Indiana, with his running mate Lisa Kelly for Lieutenant Governor. I had the pleasure of meeting Andy at an LP picnic and Lisa at a meetup event for the Ron Paul campaign. While they are not career politicians, these two candidates have a genuine enthusiasm for political change and the knowledge about issues and policy to back it up (Andy's points in the governor debates were history lessons as much as policy arguments!). Andy and Lisa are also running on a platform that I cannot imagine any Hoosier disagreeing with. They intend to follow the constitutions of the United States and the State of Indiana, the supreme rule of law of our land, and to serve the people of Indiana, not corporations or special interests.

Andy writes on his web site,

I will not abuse or refuse your rights�I will be the first real, constitutional, legal Governor Indiana has had in a hundred years. I will protect your rights, because that's the job, and that's the law.

That's no business. That's called Liberty, and I want it back.

He also writes,

The constitutional job of Governor is to enforce (or Execute) the Indiana Constitution, as well as to enforce federalism under the Constitution of the United States. The Governor swears an oath of office to do this. Should I become Governor, I'd be the first in a very long time to actually keep that oath, and make Indiana The Place To Be for the American Dream�just as the Indiana Constitution demands."

Our current governor, Mitch Daniels, has satisfied many Hoosiers by balancing the budget and attracting some new jobs to the state. However, he has also frustrated many of us and challenged the rule of law by changing our time zones to contradict our geographic location, selling our publicly constructed toll road to a corporation based overseas, attempting to build new toll roads with public-private partnerships by using immanent domain, and most recently supporting a plan to eliminate 90% of elected offices in the state, while placing powers traditionally under the authority of local communities into the hands of the state. (Would you like Child Protective Services to be a local support group or strangers who kidnap your kids and take them to the capitol?) As a teacher, I am also disappointed in Daniels' weak education policy, which stresses an all-day kindergarten program to increase graduation rates, rather than fair education funding which would support the schools most in need (communities in poverty which coincidentally get less state funding) and providing better education at the middle and secondary levels, where chances of graduation change dramatically.

I followed the Democratic primary race for governor in hopes of seeing a strong opposition to Daniels. The Democrats nominated Jill Long Thompson, a very smart woman but not a very promising candidate for governor. In her campaign and in the gubernatorial debates, Thompson has focused a negative campaign against Daniels without offering specific details about what she will do as governor. She has not demonstrated any plan to at least ease property taxes or balance the budget.

When I met Mr. Horning this summer, I finally became very excited about this year's race for governor. Andy has an understanding of political issues which tops that of any other activist I know personally. He studies the issues not as a politician or a lawyer, but as a hard-working American (more than a decade in product development and clinical engineering before residing on a small farm where he home schools three of his five children).

When I read Andy's platform, I realized that he would make a fine candidate for the Boston Tea Party, a young and non-exclusive independent political party which claims the world's smallest political platform" "The Boston Tea Party supports reducing the size, scope and power of government at all levels and on all issues, and opposes increasing the size, scope and power of government at any level, for any purpose." With the party quickly growing this election season, I was asked to and accepted the offer to start and run our state affiliate, the Boston Tea Party of Indiana. We focus on solutions that come from the people and the free market, rather than the government. It's time the government stop working like a corporation with a monopoly backed by police and military forces and the world's largest arsenal of firearms, or as Andy Horning would call it, "a dangerous threat; proven by history to be the agent of oppression, slavery, genocide and war."

This Wednesday, Andy Horning, the best candidate in the race for Governor of Indiana, is having a "Contract with Indiana Moneybomb" as a final big fundraiser to air radio ads across the state. The Horning-Kelly challenge to you is, give $10 for each principle you agree with:

1. We promise to end corporate handouts.
2. We promise to obey the constitution, which was written to protect you.
3. We promise to reduce government spending.
4. We promise to cut property taxes by 50%, and replace that property tax with nothing.
5. We promise the freedom to choose your own lifestyle.

Watch the video including clips from Andy's debate appearances at www.horningforgovernor.com

The only other political campaign I have been this excited about is Congressman Ron Paul's campaign for President. Please look into Andy Horning and send him $10 for each principle you agree with. The people of this state deserve more than the least bad of the two Republicrat candidates to be Governor of Indiana. They deserve the BEST candidate for the job. That candidate is Andy Horning.