Former web blogger Artus Register has a new website focusing on pro-freedom action this time, rather than words. The libertarian activist says that his new organization is unique, and not just another place for freedom lovers to sit around complaining.

“The point of this is action-something the freedom movement has been sorely lacking,” Register says.

While admitting that many new sites and organizations allegedly committed to freedom have popped up in the wake of the Ron Paul Revolution, Register says the new organization, Liberty’s Torch is quite different from the rest.

One huge difference is the top to bottom management, which is a sort of 3 level hierarchy containing libertarian worker ants, state and local coordinators, and project leaders. The first goal, we hear often, is to “change the conversation.”

The Projects, having their own page on the site, include stopping the auto bailout, voiding state power through jury nullification, and bringing a swift end to the Iraq war. These ambitious goals are made, Register says, much more realistic by another huge difference the organization enjoys-conjunctive effort.

“The state isn’t the only enemy of liberty. Our own bigotry hurts us as much as anything.

“Gun rights supporters think pot smokers are the devil’s henchmen, and gays are Satan himself. Inversely, many civil libertarians think all gun guys are survivalist Klansmen in secret militias who want to Lavay government buildings. People whose rights are being destroyed by a leviathan government need to stand together and fight back.”

Through this conjunctive effort, the group plans to reach out to other who share their position, be it on guns, drugs, taxation or any other government usurpation.

“It is much easier for a thousand people to bring down a beast, than for one or two who can only hope to annoy it.”

The organization is currently seeking writers, organizers, and regional directors who will organize and facilitate fund raising, letter writing, phone call campaigns, etc. Interested parties are encouraged to contact Liberty’s Torch at resisters@libertystorch.com.

Limited edition Obama Monkey toy is still available at SockPoliticians.com. Even with the economic downturn. the political sock monkey toys are still selling well. SockPoliticians.com sells The Obama Monkey Toy, which is a plush monkey toy wearing a tailored business suit with a lapel pin for Barack Obama. For McCain lovers you can purchase The McCain Monkey in a conservative business suit and an American Flag lapel pin.

The political campaign dolls have really created a stir which has landed SockPoliticians.com on all the major news networks and top blogging websites. For political campaign memorabilia enthusiasts buying both dolls is the ideal solution instead of trying to pick one over the other. Sock Politicians offers significant discounts if you purchase both political campaign monkey dolls at the same time.

The Obama Monkey doll and the McCain Monkey Doll stand 16 inches tall. The Sock Politician Monkey Dolls are made with high quality knit materials that you can trust. Every monkey doll is carefully crafted with the best quality political plush toys around. The Obama Monkey and the McCain Monkey are certified and meet all United States, European 1, 2 & 3 EN71, and CSPS Safety Standards so you can be sure all the products are safe and lovable for kids and adults alike.

The limited edition Obama Monkey and McCain Monkey plush dolls are still available, but the availability of these dolls is strictly limited so be sure to visit the website for full details before the dolls are completely sold out. The Obama Monkey doll and the McCain Monkey Doll are sold separately for $34.99 plus you receive free shipping and handling. You can save and purchase both monkey dolls for $64.99! Don’t wait; purchase your monkey doll while supplies last. You or your child will enjoy a loveable and cuddly sock monkey toy for years to come.

About Sock Politicians SockPoliticians.com prides themselves on selling quality polarizing plush products at an affordable price. SockPoliticians.com, brings the best quality, news-worthy novelty products.

For more information on the product, or to order online, visit http://www.SockPoliticians.com.

While it is perfectly acceptable and encouraged for people to harbor their own beliefs in regards to the proposition, there appears to be some confusion with the actual purpose of Prop 102. We encourage all Arizona residents to seek out the facts before developing an opinion and certainly before casting a vote in November.

The sole purpose of Prop 102 is to clearly define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The proposition is not intended to deny benefits to persons or group. Over the past few months this has stirred up much confusion among many people, but it should be pointed out that by defining “marriage” as the union of one man and one woman, it does not inhibit any persons from living the way they choose. Furthermore, the purpose of Prop 102 is not to limit any individual’s benefits or rights, in fact the proposition has nothing to do with rights in any way.

Prop 102 only aims at passing an absolute definition of the word “marriage,” any other purpose or intention assigned to the proposition is done at the error of the assigner. Prop 102 is only 20 words long and strictly regards the definition of marriage? nothing more.

Prop 102 reads: “Only the union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.” Prop 102 exists for the sole purpose of maintaining traditional marriage in the state of Arizona and in no way was designed to limit or restrict the rights and benefits of any person.

Another misunderstanding surrounding Prop 102 is the belief or concern that it is the same as Prop 107 which did not pass in 2006. While Prop 102 and Prop 107 are similar to each other, there are some very notable differences. Prop 107 includes the following; “No legal status for unmarried persons shall be created or recognized by this state or its political subdivisions that is similar to that of marriage.” The opposition of the proposition viewed this to be an attack on the domestic partner benefits of unwed individuals. Prop 102 contains no such confusion. It only seeks to define marriage as the union of one man to one woman and has no connection to domestic partner benefits.

Supporters of Prop 102 are often thought of as being solely conservative individuals are members of religious groups, but the fact is the proponents of Prop 102 are individuals from all walks of life with a variety of affiliations. Supporters of the proposition are from all cultures, religions and political sides.

It’s tempting to pigeon hole Prop 102. But the fact is this proposition is not an issue of conservative vs. liberal or one party vs. another, it’s about maintaining the traditional definition of marriage; The union of one man and one woman. Prop 102; simple and clear.

1. You can find non biased information from The League of Women Voters, www.lwv.org, They provide nonpartisan voter education materials and information resources. Consider visiting the national site and the state or local league websites for additional information. They post Primary information (as in straight from the source), which you can also use as a reference for present candidate statements and positions.

2. The United States Senate site, posts the voting record as well as other information regarding the senators. http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/a_three_sections_with_teasers/votes.htm

3. FOCUS on ISSUES: Look at proposals for addressing issues. Stands on current problems and how to resolve them. Differentiate words, rhetoric and personality from actual plans and actions for addressing and resolving issues and problems. Realistic plans for the future. Past voting record. Understanding the history and the present situation, then moving forward with a specific strategic plan.

4. Watch the Debates: Consider recording the debates so you can replay them and compare responses made during the different debates. Viewing a debate 2 or more times usually provides added insight. Observe the candidate’s body language, subtle gestures and speech intonation to get added information about the candidate’s response and feelings. Additionally observe a candidate’s facial and body response to the opponent’s answers. Do not just rely on news commentators interpretations and opinions.

5. Listen to different news channels, radio stations and commentators. Frequently a newspaper, channel, radio station or news commentator favors a particular party and/or candidate. Keep this in mind when considering and evaluating information.

6. Include more objective information from sources such as the US Senate site, The League of Women Voters, public service stations, C-Span, census data, voting records, and first hand information.

7. Which statistics are correct? Sometimes each candidate offers different statistics on the same issue, sometimes both candidates are correct, however in other cases this may not be true. Some questions for interpreting the candidates statistics: How can the candidates give different statistics on the same issue? When was the data collected, what years or intervals were used? Who collected the data (was it a group or corporation with a vested interest)? Was the Sample large of enough for accurate results?

8. Do You Have a Biases: If you already have a favorite that is ok but, Just realize it will affect how you evaluate the information about your candidate as well as other candidate(s). Try to keep an open mind, consider all information and use objectivity.

I read an article the other day talking about the usual tax statistics: top 1% of society pays 37% of taxes, top 10% pay 71%, and bottom 40% pay nothing. With the “earned” income credit many on the bottom actually are paid by the federal government for gracing this nation with the benefits of their citizenship.

For a free democracy to exist into perpetuity it must endow its citizenry with a sense of responsibility for the stewardship of State. The only way to do so is to levy taxes upon everyone who has any say in government. Everyone who can vote must be required to pay taxes, no matter how little the amount. Allowing a large, and growing, segment of the population to evade paying anything into the system, yet to keep their power to vote and influence policy is a recipe for disaster.

An unconstrained Democracy that fails to safeguard property rights will always tend to force a minority to pay the bills for the majority. Right now we have 60% of the population forcing 40% to pay the bills…why not make 1% pay for the other 99%?

Civilizations seem to have a fairly well-defined lifecycle. From initial growth there follows a period of properity up until citizens realize they can vote themselves gifts from the public treasury. British historian, Alexander Tyler, says “the majority will always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits…with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy.”

When something is free there is little incentive to limit consumption or portion resources for long-term health. Free Big Macs at McDonald’s would likely lead to obesity and a heartattack within a decade. The same goes for paying taxes, which are how we pay for the benefits living in a governed society affords. When we are not responsible for paying the bills that government generates we do not care so much for how much money is spent.

We all derive benefit from living in a well-governed society. There is relative peace throughout the land, a refined legal system safeguards property and our lives, and an abundance of prosperity enables the majority of citizens to live better than medieval Lords. Of course the wealthier you are the more benefit you derive, so rich should pay the bulk of the bills. However, the middle class and even the poorest of us benefit. We must all pay our proportionate share or our civilization will lapse into dependent, complacent serfdom. I sincerely hope that America can get its act together and adjust its system of taxation to equitably distribute the burden.

Michelle was born on 17 January, 1964 in Chicago Illinois. Her mother Marian was a former secretary, and her father Fraser Robinson, worked at a city water plant. Michelle Obama was raised in a conventional home, along with her brother Craig, who is 16 months older. Craig is also a success story, with a history in mens basketball - he is currently Oregon State Beavers mens basketball coach. Michelles father had high morals and levels of expectations, which she has carried with her to date.

While better known as the wife of Republican Candidate Senator Barack Obama, Michelle is her own success story. She appeared on a list of “25 of the World’s Most Inspiring Women” published by Essence magazine, which she followed up in 2007 with Vanity Fair magazine nominating her as one of the “World’s Ten Best Dressed People.”

She also keeps high profile company, having made two campaign appearances with Oprah Winfrey (at the time this article was written). Also in 2007, she entered “The Harvard 100″ ranking 58th on a list of the prior year’s most influential Harvard alumni. Her husband, Barack Obama, was ranked fourth.

Following Whitney Young Magnet High School in Chicago, Michelle went to Princeton University, graduating with a B.A. in Sociology and a minor in African American studies. She then continued at Harvard Law School, earning her law degree in 1988. Following law school, Michelle Obama worked as an Associate in the field of marketing and intellectual property at the Chicago law firm, Sidley and Austin. It was at Sidley and Austin that she met Barack Obama.

In 1991 Michelle left the corporate law world to pursue a new career working in the public service. She started as an Assistant to the Mayor of Chicago, and then becoming the Assistant Commissioner of Planning and Development for the City of Chicago. Michelle followed this in 1996 with a spell as the Associate Dean of Student Services for the University of Chicago, where she developed the University’s first Community Service Program.

2002 saw Michelle working for the University of Chicago Hospitals, first as Executive Director for Community Affairs, then as Vice President for Community and External Affairs. She currently works this position part-time, to enable her to have more family time.

She became “Michelle Obama” in 1992 after marrying Barack; they now have two daughters, Malia Obama (born 1999) and Natasha Obama (born 2001). In 1993, she became Executive Director for the Chicago office of Public Allies, a non-profit organization helping young adults develop skills for careers in the public sector.

During May 2007, three months after her husband declared his Presidential Candidacy, Michelle reduced her professional responsibilities by eighty percent. She has accepted the role of aspiring First Lady, and travels the country alongside Barack Obama, giving speeches and attending events. She makes sure she is not away from her daughters for too long. Michelle has been described as focused, tough, steely, and has a sharp sense of humor.

Past the point of no return, life for both Barack and Michelle Obama has now changed for ever. They will always be in the sights of blatant and shameful propagandists who, for example, paint good Christians as Muslims, and who show little regard for truth or family privacy. Secret Service protection is now a way of life, with Michelle having her own dedicated team, as they face the fears of extremist action.

Michelle likes to keep things calm, keeping Barack Obama focused, with his feet firmly planted on the ground; she displays a determined passion for his campaign. Michelle Obama compliments her husband well; she is naturally competitive, intelligent, does not take things for granted and has a direct, practical approach toward politics.

A great number of men, women and children in the Gaza Strip live in one of the most chaotic environments on Earth. The escalating violence between warring political factions such as the Palestinians and Israelis has caused many to doubt the prospect of a peaceful state. And many are wondering if the Gaza Strip will return to its former grandeur as the gem mediterranean.

The Gaza Strip is rife with political contradiction and corruption. In retrospect, the actions of the Palestinians to retain control of Gaza have been considered by many to be outrageous and condemnable. Once the Israelis surrendered control of Gaza City, the Palestinians were divided into two major parties for the reign of Gaza- Hamas and Fateh. Will the Gaza Strip ever know peace?

Both the Israelis and the Palestinians have always been known for their convictions and unrelenting character, which some believe is their downfall. And while Palestinians quibble over their small scraps of land, the Israelites will continue to enjoy their vacation from Hamas violence. However, the future of the Gaza Strip does not look promising.

Before WWII, the Gaza Strip was home to all manner of Jews and Gentiles, all of whom worshipped and lived together on the same soil in peace. Soon after the war ended, the British army took control of Palestine, to give it to the Jews. Thenceforth, it would be known as the Jewish Nation. Palestinians were expelled from their homes and land almost overnight. For many, their exodus took them to nearby countries, but large numbers stayed to combat the injustices of the Israelis. Entire generations of Palestinians have grown up in the Gaza Strip knowing nothing but hatred for the Israelis.

Let this be a history lesson to the Palestinians and the Israelis. The Gaza Strip whether under Israeli control or Palestinian control will never see peace as long as Israel surrounds and occupies the Palestinian land. The Gaza Strip and the remainder of the land surrounding it belongs to the Palestinians and the Palestinians alone. But what will you do with the millions of Israelis that settled on their land? Isn’t that the million dollar question? The truth is Israelis have been there for 50 or so years. Since they already have settled there you cannot remove them in any way shape or form. The Israelis and Palestinians will have to live under one nation controlled by the original owners where Jews, Muslims and Christians lived side by side prior to the occupation and the formation of the Israeli nation.

The level of terrorism activity is out of control. This region is affecting the geopolitical climate to such a degree that many feel neither side deserves to live there. Some have even said the only way there will ever be peace in Israel is if there are no occupants whatsoever. As childish as the solution may seem, perhaps it is the only one. True, the Jews have been persecuted for millennia, but does this justify taking land away from the rightful inhabitants of the Gaza Strip? When we look at every angle of these arguments, we can more clearly understand the nature of their plight. At that point, it becomes quite clear that the only way to end the terrorism and intolerance is to get these groups together for meaningful debates that will resolve their differences or evacuate every inhabitant until there is no generation that remembers the events of this era.

Campaign yard signs not only represent the voting public’s right to “have their say,” they clue them in that their civic duty is near. Looked at in this light, they are not to be taken lightly.

Get Your Candidate’s Message Out with Political Yard Signs

Political yard signs may be looked upon as the poor man’s political marketing tool compared to other forms of campaign marketing. But, they are an easily recognizable, grassroots marketing weapon. Local and national politicians use them to effectively get their message out. One might say that Election yard signs are the face of a campaign, for it is what many voters see on a regular basis.

Given how election yard signs are, their design should not be left to chance. It is an extremely important part of turning a “Nay,” into a “Yay” vote, and vice versa. Design is imperative in election yard signs because they convey a message about who the candidate is and what they stand for. And bear in mind, Americans are infused with thousands of marketing messages on any typical day. To be noticed, your message has to, at a minimum, stand out. How can you do this?

2 Effective Design Tips for Campaign yard signs that “Get the Vote!”

Make it Readable: The first tip in designing an effective, vote-getting political yard sign is to make it readable. Many overlook this simple fact by trying to crowd too much on one sign. Go for one impactful message to be effective.

Decide on Its Purpose: Campaign yard signs generally serve one of three purposes: to garner votes for a particular candidate, to encourage voters not to vote for a candidate or to heighten the awareness of a candidate. Decide which purpose you want before you set out to design your Campaign yard signs.

Global warming and climate change are already upon us. Global warming is a large issue with intensely intimate consequences at the personal and community level. What we need to recognize is that choices at the local and community level CAN make differences.

Most of the choices we make about how we choose to live are economic and political choices. These are choices about forms of consumption (humans have always been consumers). They are political choices in terms of energy production and transportation choice.

Global Warming is only the most recent case of man inducted troubles for the earth. Rachel Carson’s campaign against DDT caused malaria to re-emerge in Africa, killing hundreds of thousands of human beings.

Greenhouse gases play an important role but are only a contributing factor. It should not come as a surprise that our entire solar system has been warming for the last quarter century, or that the most accurate weather forecasts come from algorithms that concentrate on solar fluctuations and cosmic rays. Greenhouse gases are an air pollution problem, and all air pollution problems of the past have cost significantly less to fix than projected, while declining faster than expected.

This gives cause to hope that greenhouse gases can soon be controlled reasonably cheaply and without wrenching sacrifices to the global economy. However, getting all developed nations to take part in reducing emissions will not be easy. Recent evidence suggests that changes like the melting of glaciers and of polar icecaps are occurring much faster than expected. A positive feedback loop caused by man man and naturally occurring cyclical trends may have already been established and climate change will progress on an accelerated course no matter what we now do to try and reverse it.

Greenhouses use a Co2 “poison” level of 1000pmm. This level is great for plant growth and has not hurt anyone yet, even those who spend a long period of time in such an environment. But the problem is not in inhaling the gas. It is that the gases cause temperature increases. Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising and at a rate that is alarming.

Climate prediction relies on other, longer term factors. For instance, we might not know if it will be below freezing on a specific December day in New England, but we know from our understanding of the region’s climate that the temperatures during the month will generally be low. Climate change due to human influence, a phenomenon that many commentators seem unwilling or unable to accept, is the result of unsustainable activities. It is a worldwide problem and that is a big part of the challenge. Effective controlling measures will take a level of cooperation between nations that has never before taken place.

Since the late-19th century, the industrialized world has been using fossil fuels, both coal and petroleum, to produce our comfortable, energy-intensive lifestyle. Over the next 20 to 50 years climate change, whether caused by natural or human factors, or a combination of both, will likely have a serious impact on huge numbers of the earth’s population.

Damage to coral reefs caused by global warming is already well underway. Scientists emphasize that most of the damage to coral is inflicted by global warming through coral bleaching, the result of higher water temperatures heating the coral. The warming waters stress the coral, which then expels the microscopic plants or algae that give the coral color and nourishes it. The coral reef then dies. Scientists have shown that cave formations could help settle the contentious debate on whether hurricanes are strengthening in intensity due to global warming.

Measuring oxygen isotope variation in stalagmites in Actun Tunichil Muknal cave in central Belize, a team of researchers have identified evidence of rainfall from 11 tropical cyclones over a 23 year period (1978-2001). Scientists believe CO2 levels will rise another 30% during the next 50 years and will lead to ever more ferocious hurricanes.

Scientists are increasingly worried about emissions from developing countries like China and India, both of which have populations exceeding one billion people. China is expected to pass the United States this year or next to become the world’s largest emitter of global warming gases. Scientists have concluded that human activities are contributing to global warming by adding large amounts of heat-trapping gases to the atmosphere. Our fossil fuel use is the main source of these gases and it is doubtful that we will be able to seriously slow down emissions.

Scientists made their discovery by comparing the SeaWiFS record of the rise and fall of global ocean plant life to different measures of recent global climate change. The climate records included several factors that directly affect ocean conditions, such as changes in sea surface temperature and surface winds.

Climate change due to human influence, a phenomenon that many talking heads seem unwilling or unable to accept, is the result of unsustainable activities. Since the late-19th century, the industrialized world has been using fossil fuels, both coal and petroleum, to produce our comfortable, energy intensive lifestyle. As much as we need to it is difficult to break away from the use of fossil fuels as so many of the earth’s population depend upon them for energy and economic development.

There are plenty of troubling signs that disaster is on the way. For example, huge ice sheets break away from the Perito Moreno Glacier in Patagonia, Argentina, where the melting rate of ice fields has doubled in recent years. Glaciers around the world are fast retreating, a sign, scientists say, of global warming. Ice core records show that whenever CO2 has increased in the earth’s past, so has temperature. The recent increase in atmospheric CO2 is 200 times as great as any previous change seen in the ice cores. This does not bode well for the future.

All the signs point to dramatic changes to occur with the earth’s weather over the next few years. In fact, judging from recent drought, hurricane and tornado activity the leading edge of this activity may already be upon us. The speed at which climate change is now occurring is surprising the scientists. It may be that it is already too late to escape disaster and that much of the 21st century will be one of spreading misery.

In my business forecast for 2008, I initially predicted that there will be no huge political mudslinging that will have an impact in the economy. I was wrong.

Now we are living back in hell again as calls for the President to step down is back on full swing. This time is because of charges of alleged corruption as a result of the ZTE-NBN broadband deal.

The ZTE-NBN broadband deal controversy brought a new name to Philippine politics, the name “Jun Lozada” became so popular.

I would say that webmasters and bloggers are already optimizing the high-trend, low-dense keyword “Jun Lozada.”

But this article is not about optimizing the “Jun Lozada” keyword. Rather this post seeks to present the two sides of the story and seeks to answer whether Jun Lozada is a Hero or a hypocrite.

Jun Lozada’s own words and actions tells his tale on why he testified against the administration. The following are his reasons:

1.) Jun Lozada could not bear the burden anymore. He became guilty of being a party to the anomalous act that he helped facilitate. He repented of his sins and decided to testify. 2.) Somehow his deep love for his country reminded him of his responsibility to become patriotic.

On the other hand the administration and other people paint Jun Lozada as somebody who is a hypocrite because of the following reasons and circumstances:

1.) Jun Lozada’s testimony show that he was part in committing the alleged crime before he blew the whistle. 2.)Jun Lozada never had the intention to testify in the Senate. The fact that he went to Hongkong to evade Senate inquiry proves this. But since he was preassured by the Senate, he decided to say what he knew. In short his agoing gainst the administration is not because patriotism or guilt but because he was pressured to give his testimony.

So is Jun Lozada a hero or a hypocrite?

Scientist have a way of choosting as to which theory or hypothesis is correct when they are confronted with two strong opposing theories or hypothesis. We know this to be the principle of “Occam’s razor.” According to Wikipedia this principle simply states “the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory.” To make it more simple, what is saying is that “All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best.”

Applying Occam’s Razor to this situation, all things being equal, did Lozada testify because he moved by guilt and his love for his country or did he do so because of pressure? Don’t forget, the simplest explanation is the best. Jun Lozada - Hero or hypocrite? You are the only one that can answer it for yourself.