Announcing the long awaited debut of Lowbar T-Shirts. And introducing our first design: "Blowverbod"


T-shirts available at cafepress.com/lowbar

On the Republican side of the race for the White House, Ron Paul stands alone in his opposition to the Iraq War. On the Democrat's side all of the contenders oppose the war, they only differ on how best to leave. On the surface it would appear there is little difference between Ron Paul and the Democrats on this issue but there is a big difference in the reason why Ron Paul is opposed to the war.

Ron Paul is not inherently anti-war, in fact if an enemy were a real threat to America, President Paul would have no qualms throwing every weapon in our arsenal at the enemy, if Congress first enacts a declaration of war. Ron Paul is opposed to the Iraq War because a declaration of war was not enacted by Congress. He is further opposed to it because it is a war that is not a defensive war, we were not attacked by Iraq and Iraq posed no threat to us and neither did Afghanistan. In response to the attack on our soil on 9/11 Ron Paul introduced marque and reprisal legislation which would have offered a reward for Bin Laden whom bounty hunters would attempt to capture. Instead we invaded Afghanistan loudly and Bin Laden easily slipped over the border, or so we think. Both the U.S. and Iraq would be much better off if Ron Paul's marque legislation had gone through.

So Ron Paul believes that when confronting an enemy it should be done constitutionally so that the Executive Branch does not overstep its bounds and that Congress should only declare war against enemies that pose a real threat to the U.S. He is also appalled that members of our National Guard and Border Patrol are over there.

While the Democrats agree that this war is a failure I don't hear from them solutions for avoiding it in the future. Only Ron Paul provides the blueprint for staying out of foreign entanglements, nation-building, making the world "safe" for democracy and endless warfare. President Paul would immediately withdraw troops, not as a cut and run strategy but because this is an illegal war (Congress didn't declare war and it's not a defensive war) and not another penny should be spent and not another American life should be shed.

The other Republicans are salivating at becoming the uber powerful Chief Executive of the World. It's in their best, power-lusting interest to continue the "global war on terror" as that will ensure that they keep the rest of the world at bay and they can have their daily wargasm. President Paul would drastically cut back the power of the executive, give the war power back to Congress, as the Constitution stipulates, and as a result, the world would be a safer place.

I wanted to get the word out about Ron Paul so I came up with a stamp that I could put on scrap cardstock, cut out and then hand out to people and place around town. I'm making the image files available for you as well should you like to participate in getting the word out. What you'll be doing is downloading the image files, sending them to a place that will make your rubber stamp and then stamping and cutting.

So first, here are the files. There are two types, pdf and jpegs. I used the pdf for mine. Click on these links and save them to your drive: Stamp1 PDF, Stamp2 PDF, Stamp1 JPG, Stamp2 JPG.

Now find a place that makes rubber stamps. I went to RubberStamps.net and had great results. The price was $20 per stamp and $5 if you need a stamp pad.

After a few days you'll get your stamps and then you can start stamping away.


I try and find cardstock like cereal boxes, Post Office mailers and other packaging.



It's great if there isn't anything on the other side, then you can use the text stamp. If using two sides it's best to imprint the first stamp, cut it out and then line up the second stamp on the back.



Now go place them around town, hand them out to your friends, put them up on coffee shop bulletin boards, leave them at bus stops, bathrooms, whatever.

You can also use the same artwork for a t-shirt. Here's enlarged artwork that you can send to a t-shirt screenprinter: T-shirt Front, T-Shirt Back

Apparently you are missing out on the little detail that the [for the most part] behind-the-scenes party leadership determines who they run in the general election. The "primary" is a farce who's primary purpose is to generate media hype for various candidates, make the people who waste their lives as pundits, analysts, political media, etc have a purpose/feel important, and generally to make Americans feel like we are more participatory in the selection process than we actually are.

Even if 60% or 65% of the GOP was anti-war, the GOP would not nominate Ron Paul, because he doesn't walk the party line. Ron Paul is, as far as I can tell, far too dignified, opinionated, and principled to be an actual factor in a presidential election. He should stick to Congress where moderate havoc can be raised from the fringes. He is going to come out of this being made to look like a babbling old fool, which is unfortunate.

I have come to realize that Ron Paul has a very good chance of getting the GOP nomination. This notion took seed in my brain during the last GOP debate. A question went to Ron Paul and he was asked how he felt about Fred Thompson entering the race. Most of the GOP presidential pack is probably fearful of his entry but Ron Paul said:

"I welcome him to the race because, very specifically, he will help dilute the vote for my benefit because he will be pro-war and I'm the anti-war candidate representing the Republican traditional position." (see full debate transcript here).

OK so Ron Paul is the anti-war candidate in the GOP field and let's see who else in the race for the GOP nomination is against the Iraq War? NOBODY. They're all very pro-war. So Ron Paul is taking a stark minority position on a very emotional and motivating issue (maybe THE issue) for Americans.

In an Wall Street Journal Op-Ed article about the debate, former speechwriter for GHW Bush and Ronald Reagan, Peggy "Thousand Points of Light" Noonan wrote:

"After Mr. Paul spoke, it seemed half the room booed, but the other applauded. When a thousand Republicans are in a room and one man of the eight on the stage takes a sharply minority viewpoint on a dramatic issue and half the room seems to cheer him, something's going on."

"Ron Paul's support isn't based on his persona, history or perceived power. What support he has comes because of his views. As he spoke, you could hear other candidates laughing in the background. They should stop giggling, and engage in a serious way."

Of course they won't stop giggling, they can't. They don't have anything of substance to say and that's fine with me because while the other eight GOP contenders think it would be political suicide to oppose Bush and his illegal war there's a large contingent of GOP voters who oppose the war.

According to a CNN poll conducted this summer, 38% of Republicans oppose the war, that's a big number and in a crowded field of nine presidential hopefuls if one of them can get 38% (assuming those voters vote their conscience) and there is no clear winner among the rest of them, the guy in the minority position (with the 38%) wins.

If you ever saw the movie "A Beautiful Mind" you know how this works. There's a scene where John Nash, played by Russel Crowe, has an epiphany about the best strategy for picking up girls. He opines that it's better for the group of males to approach all of the fair-looking females rather than just the good-looking one because by approaching just the one, all of the girls will be offended and want to leave, including the good-looking one. If they hit on all of the fair-looking girls and leave the good-looking one alone then only the good-looking girl is offended but all the guys will probably get lucky.

This is how the movie explains the Nash Equilibrium which is: if each player (in a 2 or more person game) has chosen a strategy and no player can benefit by changing his or her strategy while the other players keep theirs unchanged, then the current set of strategy choices and the corresponding payoffs constitute a Nash equilibrium.
For further information on the Nash Equilibrium please consult the All Knowing Wikipedia.

All of the eight pro-war GOP contenders think they are in a Nash Equilibrium. They believe that their current strategy of not opposing the Bush Administration is the best strategy for winning the nomination but with 38% of the GOP voters opposed to the war and just one candidate willing to take that view, the eight's supposed Nash Equilibrium vaporizes; the one has the advantage over the many.

Ron Paul has taken the opposite point of view and is unabashedly promoting his ideas and he is getting support, strong support and thus destroying the Nash Equilibrium which never was.

How strong is that support? It's too early to tell but while he barely shows up as a blip on traditional polls, he shows up strong, most of the time in first place, among state straw polls (See the Washington Post's article on Ron Paul's "surprising" win of the Maryland Straw Poll), online polls (he won the Fox news call-in poll for the debate), and Google Trends. Many have concluded that the traditional polls are not accurate when calculating Ron Paul's support because they are conducted by contacting home telephone numbers and they are garnered from lists of names of registered Republicans from the last election cycle. Most of Ron Paul support comes from younger voters and independents, who don't have home telephones and were not registered Republican last election.

Which brings me to the second punch of the 1-2 combo: according to that same CNN poll, "Fifty-four percent of Americans do not believe U.S. action in Iraq is morally justified." And while there are candidates in the Democratic field that are anti-war, many voters will cross-over and vote for Paul adding to his majority numbers. There are many states in the primary season which are cross-over states (AL, AR, GA, HI, ID, IN, IA, LA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, ND, SC, TN, TX, VT, VA, WA, and WI) meaning that even if you are a Democrat or independent you can cross over and vote in the Republican Primary. New Hampshire is not one such state however indpendents can vote for candidates in either party. New Hampshire is arguably the most important state from a strategy perspective (because it's first and it's small thus easier for a low budget candidate to make an impact). So those wishing to cross over will need to hold thier nose and register Republican (the deadline is 90 days prior to the primary).

New Hampshire is a state known for its "Live Free or Die" motto and ethos and if ever there was a candidate who ate, drank and slept that motto, it's Ron Paul. Ron Paul can take New Hampshire and the media will be forced to report it. Then instead of Joe Sixpack asking "who?" he'll start asking "what?" as in "what does this guy stand for?" and when they start asking that, the majority (in a crowded field of pro-war candidates) will vote for him in the slew of early primaries that we'll have this time around. The early primaries of states like California and Florida play an important role in Ron Paul's success because the field of pro-war candidates won't be diluted going into those primaries. In other words, the field isn't going to change before we know who the winner of it all is.

Lastly Ron Paul will win because his supporters are completely fired up. No other candidate from either party has supporters who are as enthusiastic as Ron Paul's supporters are. We know that this is "IT". Either we take back our country now and restore the Constitution or the war will expand to Iran and our civil liberties will continue to erode. This enthusiasm will catch on to those of like-mind and those people will motivate their families and friends to donate money, time and ultimately to vote.

Like the Iraq Invasion Dr. Paul's victory is not a slam-dunk. It will take hard work and money. New Hampshire looms large. If he wins that state (and I think he will if we try really, really hard) then the nation will know that he's the anti-war, pro freedom Republican and that he DOES stand a chance of winning. The rest of the race won't be easy but without New Hampshire it will be that much more difficult. If you agree with Ron Paul that this is an unjust, illegal war please donate your time, efforts and money to this very just cause of retaking our government and country.

Last night during Fox's GOP Presidential debate the subject of Iraq came up. There was a spirited debate between Huckabee and Ron Paul which I encourage everyone to watch. A short time later Mitt Romney explained his views on the war, that Iraq was merely the battlefield in a larger, global war against "Jihad".

"This is a global conflict going on, radical violent jihad.
And this battlefield of Iraq is a place where we have to be successful because the consequences of what will happen on this global battlefield are enormous.
And as we are able to do that [the surge], we're going to see ourselves able to continue in our efforts to overwhelm jihad."

Mitt got his terms mixed up. Jihad means "holy war" so a war against a war doesn't make much sense but we know what he means. He's using it as a code word for sovereign muslims who live on oil rich soil and who dislike Israel. I found Mitt's declaration to be Threat Level "Oh My Fucking God" alarming. You mean to tell me that this war isn't about 9-11 or WMDs or liberating Iraq from Saddam or even oil? It's about christians crusading against muslims? I always suspected that the Born Agains, christian militants and Mormons had in the back of their minds that war in the Middle East was the precursor to bringing Christ back from the netherworld but I didn't think they actually took that shit seriously, seriously enough to put American lives on the line, spend us into trillions of dollars in debt and destroy the Constitution in the process. When did this become a "global war" Mitt? Was it when Joseph Smith appeared to you and told you to nuke Iran? Frankly I want to vomit, vomit all over the podium where Mitt Romney declared his, and the other religio-nuts true intentions for continuing this illegal war.

Fred Thompson enters the race today and he'll do it by running a 30 second tv spot at the GOP debate that he is dodging. In the spot he says the words that many candidates say either right before or right after the main content of their ad: "My name is [x] and I approve this message." Now I can kind of see why this phrase became popular to say. It is possible for someone to unofficially make an ad either pro or con to a candidate and the tv audience might get confused and think that the ad was sanctioned by a campaign. I'm sure it's happened many times. Be that as it may, I can't help but cringe every time I hear those words, especially if it's plain as the nose on your face obvious, as the Fred Thompson ad is. It's just him talking. Who else but he would make this ad? Does his campaign fear that Fred's likeness has been computer animated to say and do things he does not approve of? I think candidates feel like it's sort of authoritarian and thus empowering to "approve" something and therefore they like the sound of that phrase. Should all emperor wannabees go around stating their approval of the obvious? My name is Fred Thompson and I approve this afternoon nap. My name is John McCain and I approve this Thorazine tablet. My name is Rear Admiral Heinous and I approve tequila shots off the nipples of well paid mexican prostitutas.