Anti-Commie Punk

UNREGISTERed

2010-08-01T23:17:00.001-04:00

UNREGISTERed

Verdad Libertad Paz

2010-08-01T23:14:00.001-04:00

Verdad Libertad Paz

A Message from David Gay

2008-03-31T11:20:00.000-04:00

My name is David Gay, and I’m running for United States Congress in the 25th District of New York State.

I believe the people Central New York will be served best by a Representative whose priority is to lower the taxes that burden our workers -

A representative who believes that justice, freedom, national defense, and equal treatment of all Americans under the law, are the values the Congress is meant to fight for and protect -

Not bribes from lobbyists.

Not power and control over your personal lives.

The people of Central New York will be served best by a Representative who works not for the government, but for the people.

This is the basic principle of the Constitution: a government for the people.

When it comes to spending your money and running your life, there is no one more qualified to do that than you.

I don’t want to spend your money or run your life; I want to represent your right to live as you choose.

I’m David Gay, and I will serve you, the people of Central New York, when I represent you in the U.S. Congress.

David A. Gay, Sr. for U.S. Congress

2008-03-28T10:28:00.002-04:00

As there were no other Republicans officially declaring a run for Congress in our district - and, technically, there still aren't - my brother has taken it upon himself to represent a truly limited-government position in this race. Yesterday he announced his candidacy using the following statement:

I am writing this letter to inform the citizens of Central New York of my intention to challenge Dan Maffei for the 25th district of New York State in the U.S. House of Representatives.
I am particularly amazed that no one else in this district has stepped forward to contend for the seat on behalf of our beloved Republican Party.
Our Republican leaders should recognize the responsibility to continue serving our district's best interests on a national level. As a true Conservative Republican voter, I will answer this call to action. I will defeat my opponent using no other guide for my campaign than the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. In Congress I will work relentlessly in defense of our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
I believe we should eliminate the income tax, stop taxing Social Security pensions, respect private property, secure our national borders, stop government spending with credit we can never afford to repay, and bring our troops home from all over the world immediately.
In Washington, I will fight to keep the government out of our wallets, our bedrooms, our telephone calls, and our daily lives.
I ask you all to support my campaign for U.S. Congress. Please help us in our efforts; together we will restore true Constitutional freedom and liberty in this great nation.

This article from this morning's local paper, the Post-Standard, introduces David as "a 26-year-old punk rocker" (the Post-Standard has featured him in that role before). Somewhat in response, David released the following statement today:

My name is David Gay, and I'm running for U.S. Congress in the 25th District of New York State.
I recently announced my candidacy to the media, and, as can be expected by a previously unknown candidate, received mixed reviews. Since I was given the honorable title of "Punk Rocker" for Congress, I'd like to take this opportunity to further explain how my platform goes far beyond my favorite kind of music.

I believe in eliminating the income tax. While many people have completely lost faith in our elected leaders to accomplish this, I will support any legislation that lowers taxes and brings us closer to the ultimate goal of an income tax free society. And while I'm on the subject of taxes, let me add that no one should ever have to pay taxes on their Social Security Pension; it's already taxed from us to begin with! Profitable free enterprise and industry cannot survive if the elderly and middle class are ground out of existence between the millstones of excessive taxation and extreme inflation.

I was born right around the time our great President Ronald Reagan was sworn in. I grew up proud of Reagan's example of conservatism in economic and foreign policy. President Reagan worked hard to rein in runaway government spending, limit the size and scope of federal government, and build a strong national defense.

Unfortunately, we see history repeating itself, as a new generation of American politicians is charged with the renewed responsibility to preserve a limited constitutional government, with almost no Reagans or Goldwaters left to answer the call. Making matters worse, our leaders double, triple, and quadruple the powers of the federal government, the executive branch, and the military-industrial complex, and allow our national debt to grow by means of all sorts of wasteful government spending, with little or no resistance from either side of the aisle, and no plans or even intentions of ever paying back what we owe.

Some very tragic examples come to mind when I consider how far off track we've gotten in recent years. More than 4,000 soldiers have been killed in Iraq and we seem to be making no effort to bring them home any time soon.

Once a sacred platform for Conservative Republicans, the protection of the innocent unborn against needless slaughter seems to have slowly gone the way of the buffalo. Even worse, we allow our government to subsidize abortion making little more than a quiet peep in protest.

We've allowed fear to hold us in its grip for most of this decade, giving up our individual liberties one at a time along the way. Not heeding the warnings of our founding fathers regarding what happens when you sacrifice liberty for security, we've unwittingly given up both, thinking that somehow, someday, we won't have to be afraid anymore.

Barry Goldwater taught us that preserving liberty and expanding freedom in our country are the only ways we can truly safeguard it from the forces of tyranny from without. Ronald Reagan toppled the Soviet Union without dropping a single bomb on Moscow. Reagan chose to build a strong national defense, rather than decimate the size of our armed forces in needless conflicts around the globe.

Not everything in this country is doom and gloom. The Constitution still exists and there is still time to restore it to its original magnificence. I call upon the growing number of conservative-minded people to advance our protest against aggressive foreign policy, high taxes, and large, overreaching federal government.

David A. Gay, Sr.

I'm Not Dead

2008-03-19T11:06:00.001-04:00

Time is kinda flying for me right now. It sure doesn't feel like it's been a month since my last blog post. But it has, so I'm just writing as an update to let you know I'm not dead.

So, what have I been up to? I've been reading a booklet of quotes called "The Free Market and Its Enemies." It's a little weird to say "I've been reading" it, though, since it's just a collection of sentence- to paragraph-length quotes. The most-quoted, per my recollection, are Adam Smith, Ludwig von Mises, George Washington, Walter Williams, Henry Hazlitt, Thomas Sowell, Thomas Jefferson, Ron Paul, Winston Churchill, Leonard Read, Ronald Reagan, Thomas Payne (...and more!) . But anyway, I think it's serving its purpose - whetting the appetite for full works by the aforementioned - as I've already moved on to reading "Mises and Austrian Economics" by Ron Paul.

Actually, I've just noticed that a lot of what's in that booklet is available under "great quotes" at http://www.investmentrarities.com/. Investment Rarities is a company whose advice I have been heeding with respect to investing in silver; they sent me the book free.

Of course, you're finding this all incredibly interesting or incredibly boring. So you can check that link out for yourself, but I'm moving on!

So last weekend, I attended the relatively annual men's retreat, hosted by several O.P. churches in upstate New York. There was a lecture on singleness that I found particularly edifying... But it did make me wonder, why are there always men's retreats and women's retreats? When are they gonna have one where the men get to meet women? :)

All right, I have stuff I've got to do now, so I'll close with a guaranteed crowd-pleaser: some pictures of Nuni!

Adios a Fifo el Embustero Loco

2008-02-19T09:48:00.000-05:00

FIDEL STEPS DOWN

Though he's simply turning power over to his brother Raul (also none too young), still, for the first time in 49 years, the Cuban head of state is officially NOT Fidel Castro. Now the question is who will fill Raul's previous seat as Vice President / heir to the throne. Will it be Carlos Lage? (probably.) Or Felipe Perez Roque (who's at least 100% as communist as Fidel himself)? Or somebody else? And can they hold power in Cuba with an iron fist after El Caballo himself is gone?? We'll just have to wait and see...

Derek Alexander Gay

2008-02-14T11:00:00.000-05:00

Born February 12. Congratulations to Mike and Ruth!

Piano

2008-02-07T10:55:00.000-05:00

When I was a child I used to play the piano at church for like 10 minutes every Sunday after service. Then when I was going to community college, I used to sit in the piano practice rooms and teach myself various songs. Wow, that was a long time ago already. Then at my 4-year college, I took 2 or 3 semesters of piano lessons.

But I never had a piano in my own home. Until now.

I found one on craigslist.org for the stupidly cheap price of $300. Naturally, I suspected it would be a piece of garbage, but I went and checked it out, and amazingly, it's in great shape! Every key works and it sounds pretty nice. It could use a tuning, but it's not desparate for one. So, I got some friends together and we were able to move it into my apartment.

I should've done this a long time ago! It seems I've had a bit of a decline in interest in my guitars... I don't know why; I just wasn't playing guitar as much lately. So that's probably why I turned my attention back to piano. But in any case, it's so great for me to actually be able to practice piano in the convenience of my own home! I know, there's probably some of you that have been able to take that for granted your whole lives, but let me tell you, I'm still thrilled about it!

So last night I taught myself "Victor's Piano Solo" by listening to that part of Corpse Bride over and over while I practiced. It's amazing to me how quickly I'm making all this progress now that I can actually play whenever I want!

National Right to Life Gets a Second Chance

2008-01-25T11:05:00.000-05:00

Now that NRL's first endorsement Fred Thompson has failed to pan out, it's time for the anti-abortion crowd to give some serious consideration to what it is they look for in a Presidential Candidate.

Earlier this week, Norma McCorvey (aka "Jane Roe," the one-time abortion advocate turned spokeswoman for the pro-life movement) endorsed Dr. Ron Paul, saying, "after taking all of the presidential candidates into consideration, it is obvious that Ron Paul is the only one that doesn’t just talk the talk." The OB/GYN who has delivered over 4,000 babies was the only candidate to speak at this year's March for Life in Washington D.C. He said, among other things, "the debate over when life begins shouldn't be a debate. Let me assure you, all life begins at conception!" Some folks find a candidate acceptable when he at least appears to have a "clean record" on this issue; Dr. Paul, on the other hand, has a stellar record. He's naturally the resident expert on reproductive health, he's a genuine leader when it comes to introduction and sponsorship of pro-life legislation in Congress, and, as is the case with the rest of his political views, he's never changed his story and never fails to represent his consistently pro-life position.

So he's obviously the natural choice for NRL's renewed endorsement, right? I would certainly like to hope so! And if I had any influence whatsoever, I'd certainly like to make that case to them. But I'm afraid it may not be a foregone conclusion. Consider this quote from Ms. Gloria Vear, member of the Hillsdale, MI local Right to Life group: “He’s an outstanding man... If he were not such an isolationist, I’d support him. A lot of pro–life people here feel the same way.”

Even without going into the fact that there's literally a world of difference between non-interventionism and isolationism, the simple question arises: what does "isolationism" have to do with abortion?? I of course grant the right of individual voters to prioritize for themselves, for instance, whether foreign policy or abortion is the more important consideration in picking a candidate for President. But doesn't it seem that the endorsement of the National Right to Life should be based pretty much exclusively on a candidate's position on abortion?? Don't people look to them as a barometer of a candidate's record of performance on that one specific issue? And isn't it disingenuous to withhold an endorsement, from an otherwise perfectly-qualified candidate, based on issues completely unrelated to their particular mission?

Lest I come across as making a mountain out of a molehill, let me say that I understand this is only one person speaking on behalf of one group in a town in Michigan. To my knowledge, the National Right to Life organization has made no such statements. This is simply my commentary in response to this kind of statement, in case this rationale causes the clearly worthy Dr. Paul to be ultimately rejected nationally for the NRL endorsement. I sure hope that doesn't happen. In fact, let me be optimistic here - I'm hoping they take this new opportunity to endorse the most pro-life candidate we've seen in years, Dr. Ron Paul!

Dr. Paul and his Record Haul

2007-12-19T13:11:00.000-05:00

It’s been quite a week for Ron Paul and his campaign. I’ve read hints online that this is the week he gets rocketed from obscurity into legitimacy, and you know, I think they’re probably right – except that the previous obscurity was always debatable anyway.

PBS’s program NOW aired “The Ron Paul Phenomenon” a 20-minute exploration of Dr. Paul’s grassroots campaign, trying to analyze the groundswell of support he’s received and determine how that will translate into real political influence. There was an unnecessary amount of incredulity in the mix, but for the most part, it was a fair presentation of this thing we Paulites affectionately call the r3VOLution.

(For anyone this logo could possibly have escaped at this point, that’s supposed to be a backwards rendering of the word “love” within “revolution.”)

Then we have December 16, the brilliant commemoration of the Boston Tea Party. Back on November 5, we procured a few “raised eyebrows” by donating a total of 4.3 million dollars – in small, private contributions – to the Ron Paul campaign. It was the most any Republican had raised in a single day. Did I already talk about this? Yeah, I think I did. Anyway, that all got blown out of the water this week, because we shattered the old record by raising 6 million and change in 24 hours! This puts Dr. Paul at number one, unqualified, in single-day fundraising. The previous record was held by John Kerry …the day after he won the Democratic nomination!! So is this lightning striking twice? Or have Ron Paul’s supporters proven themselves to be a large base of people, consistently dependable to do everything they can to promote this candidate? I’d have to argue it’s pretty clearly the latter. (Yes, I included that just for you! Haha!)

At any rate, we were quite confident that Paul would get his much-deserved attention following this record-breaking moneybomb. And indeed he has! To be perfectly frank, I think we were expecting this to develop after November 5, but it didn’t, and we did what we had to do… Ron Paul has since appeared in headlines, television news stories, and interviews all over the supposedly hostile “mainstream media.” Looks like money makes a difference after all. I’ve been quite happy to see Tucker Carlson having an excuse to talk about Paul; despite being on our side, prior to this fundraising blitz he wouldn’t have been able to justify dedicating much of MSNBC’s time to the “second-tier candidate.”

Yesterday morning, Ron Paul appeared on “Fox & Friends,” and last night Glenn Beck hosted him for a full hour. He interviewed him on a variety of topics, from the economy and federally-funded programs, to (of course) foreign policy, the war, and terrorism. Except for a bit of inappropriate grilling – by which I mean: “do you believe 9/11 was a government conspiracy? Some of your supporters do!” – I found Beck to be surprisingly open to Dr. Paul’s message, and at the very least gave him plenty of time to express his views completely and in context. I mentioned earlier today that this is pretty much the best we can hope for from Glenn Beck (no endorsement on the horizon!) given his antithetical views regarding the “war on terror.” Quoting an email I sent to my father on the subject: "I think the net result of that interview was that no serious viewer could go away believing that Ron Paul is some kind of Liberal. He clearly came out as a Conservative who has foreign-policy differences with other Conservatives."

Now, Beck’s program airs three times nightly on CNN. That amounts to three hours of unadulterated Ron Paul coverage on one of the biggest news networks in existence. Some of us can recognize a viable candidate before the talking heads declare him to be such, but then, others of us can’t, and we need their votes too! So I feel that this is just the kind of exposure we need to help knock out the “unwinnability” objection that has been such a thorn in our proverbial side.

There have also been some exciting things going on in our local branch of the campaign, based in our Central New York Meetup.com group. We’ve been having weekly demonstrations downtown – nothing says dedication like waving signs in the bar district when it’s 5 degrees outside! – and there have been more of us there each week. The results have been pretty encouraging, especially here in Hillary country. Also, in an effort to unite the various campaigning efforts across New York State, we’re witnessing the birth of our own website, nysrevolution.com. This “Great New York State Revolution” could be called my brother Dave’s brainchild, but of course it only comes about as the result of lots of eager collaboration from our fellow “revolutionaries.”

If the whole “r3VOLution” thing has you puzzled, incidentally, I think I explained the background of it fairly nicely in an earlier Paul-related post.

I don’t like the idea of leaving off without tying this all together, so… what can I say? Basically, this has been something of a “status report” for the Ron Paul campaign from my perspective. Exciting things are happening for us, and like I’ve said before, this movement is very real. If you haven’t checked Ron Paul out for yourself yet, please do us all a favor and do so. We want you on board!!

Ron Paul on HR 1955

2007-12-07T14:42:00.000-05:00

The following is Dr. Ron Paul's statement to Congress regarding this dangerous and unconstitutional resolution:

Remarks on Violent Radicalization & Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, HR 1955
5 December 2007
Rep. Ron Paul, M.D.

Madame Speaker, I regret that I was unavoidably out of town on October 23, 2007, when a vote was taken on HR 1955, the Violent Radicalization & Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act. Had I been able to vote, I would have voted against this misguided and dangerous piece of legislation. This legislation focuses the weight of the US government inward toward its own citizens under the guise of protecting us against “violent radicalization.”
I would like to note that this legislation was brought to the floor for a vote under suspension of regular order. These so-called “suspension” bills are meant to be non-controversial, thereby negating the need for the more complete and open debate allowed under regular order. It is difficult for me to believe that none of my colleagues in Congress view HR 1955, with its troubling civil liberties implications, as “non-controversial.”
There are many causes for concern in HR 1955. The legislation specifically singles out the Internet for “facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process” in the United States. Such language may well be the first step toward US government regulation of what we are allowed to access on the Internet. Are we, for our own good, to be subjected to the kind of governmental control of the Internet that we see in unfree societies? This bill certainly sets us on that course.
This seems to be an unwise and dangerous solution in search of a real problem. Previous acts of ideologically-motivated violence, though rare, have been resolved successfully using law enforcement techniques, existing laws against violence, and our court system. Even if there were a surge of “violent radicalization” -- a claim for which there is no evidence -- there is no reason to believe that our criminal justice system is so flawed and weak as to be incapable of trying and punishing those who perpetrate violent acts.
This legislation will set up a new government bureaucracy to monitor and further study the as-yet undemonstrated pressing problem of homegrown terrorism and radicalization. It will no doubt prove to be another bureaucracy that artificially inflates problems so as to guarantee its future existence and funding. But it may do so at great further expense to our civil liberties. What disturbs me most about this legislation is that it leaves the door wide open for the broadest definition of what constitutes “radicalization.” Could otherwise non-violent anti-tax, antiwar, or anti-abortion groups fall under the watchful eye of this new government commission? Assurances otherwise in this legislation are unconvincing.
In addition, this legislation will create a Department of Homeland Security-established university-based body to further study radicalization and to “contribute to the establishment of training, written materials, information, analytical assistance and professional resources to aid in combating violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism.” I wonder whether this is really a legitimate role for institutes of higher learning in a free society.
Legislation such as this demands heavy-handed governmental action against American citizens where no crime has been committed. It is yet another attack on our Constitutionally-protected civil liberties. It is my sincere hope that we will reject such approaches to security, which will fail at their stated goal at a great cost to our way of life.

Peter Got A New Car!

2007-11-29T16:32:00.000-05:00

Here's a description of the specs:
http://www.maximum-cars.com/Cars/Car.php?carnumber=554

I like to name my cars... I have an idea for a name, but I'm not really settled on one yet. Anyway, pretty nice, right??

This is real. How real? Very real!

2007-11-13T14:44:00.000-05:00

Ron Paul is the guy, and that’s all there is to it. I am beginning to view this upcoming election as a referendum on the U.S. Constitution. If the American people have truly rejected the founding law of the land and all that it stands for, then Ron Paul can’t possibly win. Otherwise, though, he has a MUCH better chance than he’s been given credit for, to say the least.

Every so often there is a “revolution” in this country. Our system was founded in such a way that vast paradigmatic shifts could be accomplished without bloodshed. Sometimes a generation takes that opportunity to increase the scope and power of government; other times, they return to a more Constitutional system.

I believe that my generation is prepared to head in the latter direction. I believe we all know the problems with the way our government has been running. For our entire lifetime, our military has been engaged overseas, threatening and killing people who have never attacked this country. Who declares war in this country? Constitutionally, it’s supposed to be the people! That’s right; novel as it may sound, the people are supposed to determine when, where, and how we go to war, through their locally-elected Representatives in the Congress. So for all the military actions and full-fledged wars our generation has observed, Congress must have declared war several times by now, right? No, the President alone has assumed the power to send the military wherever he chooses, and congressional approval is treated as an unnecessary luxury! Bill Clinton did it; the Left supported him and the Right complained. George Bush does it; the Right supported him and the Left complained! So will the next President be Republican or Democrat? Does it matter, if we’re virtually assured that they will exercise this kind of unconstitutional control over the military? When one individual – popularly elected or otherwise – possesses the power to direct the military action of an entire nation in this way, that person is traditionally known as a dictator. I believe we maintain the spirit of overthrowing dictators.

For our entire lifetime, we have watched our taxes continually increase. I believe we don’t buy into the concept that the fruit of our labors is inherently the property of our government, and that we have no right to question how it is spent once it’s confiscated from us.

We’ve watched our dollar lose its value. We’re told this is a normal cycle, but in the back of our minds, we wonder how this could be a healthy economy when a dollar today can’t buy what a dime could buy fifty years ago.

We’ve watched our civil liberties erode. Sometimes it’s in the name of security – and I’ll admit that some of us are willing to sell out our freedom for the sake of security, to our shame. Maybe we have nothing to hide, and surely we want to be safe. But will we accept these as justifications for our government to listen to our private telephone conversations? Can anyone seriously argue that the founders of this nation wouldn’t have been horrified at the very idea?? But usually our liberties fall away more gradually, because the government has decided we’re too unruly, too unwilling to comply with invasive laws passed for our own good. Seatbelt laws. Smoking laws. Fatty food laws!! And for every stupid law that’s passed to protect us from ourselves, there’s a new government bureaucracy, or a new addition to the police job description, complete with their built-in profit to the government: mandatory fines charged for every infraction. I believe there’s still enough 1776 in our blood that we won’t perpetually put up with this.

We are expected to believe that our government does not regulate speech, religion, association, and the press. Yet there are municipalities that own their local cable providers! And “free speech,” though it remains freer than in the most oppressive governments elsewhere in the world, is anything but unregulated! Say something “offensive” and see if you are legally liable for it. Try peacefully protesting the government’s policies in an unapproved location – and I don’t mean private property! – and see if the police don’t advise you to cease or be arrested. I believe we will refuse to continue being silenced.

Ask an American today for their definition of a politician. Do you expect their answer to be something about honest, selfless public servants? Statesmen who uncompromisingly promote their thoroughly-reasoned, time-honored philosophical principles? Of course not! Instead, the words that spring readily to mind are words like liar, corruption, panderer, power-hungry, and bribe.

The government is never justified in encroaching one inch on our God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. How many people today think the U.S. government has respected these limitations?

It’s gotten to the point where we’ve taken all these things for granted: trading a little liberty for security; a little more for healthcare; a little more for education; a little more to try vainly to keep drugs off the streets; and on and on and on... Maybe some are resigned to this state of affairs – maybe most are convinced that nothing can be done about it. But we don’t like it. I’m sure of that.

And I believe that we, given just one chance – just one vote – would express in no uncertain terms that we will not tolerate our hard-earned money being taken to support this corruption. But until now, we haven’t found that chance, or anyone to vote for whereby the government would get that message.

Enter Ron Paul.

Over the past thirty years, he’s been in Congress, consistently, courageously, passionately fighting for the rights of the people as guaranteed by the Constitution. I am not claiming that he is not corrupt. I am claiming much more than that: no one has ever accused him of corruption!! I’m sure people would’ve been slinging some mud at this guy by now – the problem they’re having is, there is none! Not only has he avoided all corruption in his profession in public office (he’s never even given lobbyists the time of day); he’s also a beloved doctor who’s delivered 4000 babies, and a husband and father who’s just celebrated his 50th anniversary of marriage to one woman!! Amazing! He votes on principle, often alone, and has not voted in contradiction to himself in three decades. Also he’s the farthest thing from a Commie that’s existed in American national politics in two generations or more. As the owner of this Anti-Commie blog, I happen to like that!

Everyone else is running for President because they want to be President. It’s a very prestigious and powerful position. But Ron Paul is running for President because he wants to reduce the invasive power of the office!! He wants to be President simply to ensure that we don’t have a power-hungry, dictatorial, anti-Constitutional President!

I could spend a long time talking about how his views are traditionally Republican – much more so than those of the others running for the Republican nomination – but my point is not a partisan point. My point is that the people are ready to have their republic back, and Ron Paul is the only candidate who is so much as promising it, and to boot he’s proven himself trustworthy to deliver it.

This is our chance.

And it’s real. Very real! Just a few months ago, not too many people had ever heard of Ron Paul or knew what he stood for. The system being what it is, though, they just had to get polls out early and often to find out who the next President would be, according to “likely voters.” I don’t know about you, but I don’t tend to vote for people I’ve never heard of. So, of course, his poll numbers came up on the low side. Very low, in fact. Immediately the idea was in place: Ron Paul is not popular enough to get elected.

But now people are getting to know him. And as I’ve been arguing, politically-interested Americans – even the cynical and “disenfranchised” – are predisposed to like him, and vote for him. His popularity is increasing exponentially. In fact, at this point if you tour the internet at all, you’re more likely to run across his name than that of any other candidate!

I think the appeal of Ron Paul is a lot greater than the “likely voter” demographic; to some extent it may even skip the “likely voters!” But I think this is a candidate who can get unlikely voters, lots of them, to vote. “Dr. Paul cured my apathy.” It’s his supporters' latest slogan, and one that a lot of once-unlikely-voters can relate to. I am confident that they have become voters, for Ron Paul.

This would all be theoretical if not for one glaring event in very recent history: Last Tuesday, Ron Paul (correction: Ron Paul’s supporters, completely unsolicited by their candidate) raised 4.3 million dollars for his campaign in a single day. In case you’re wondering, yes, that is a record. [Clinton and Romney both claim to have done better, but pledges, and multiple days’ donations reported in a single day, don’t count!] This is a “poll” that I tend to think has some inherent credibility. These were not enormous contributions from special interests and corporations: they were predominantly $50- and $100 donations from concerned private citizens. It seems awfully unlikely that people who organized independently to donate their own hard-earned money to their candidate on one specific date, would then fail to get out and vote for that candidate! Further, it seems very unlikely that each and every Ron Paul supporter donated money that day. Thus, he is sure to have more votes than he had contributions on that day, and let the record show that there were a heck of a lot of contributions!

They’re still calling him a long-shot. But remember, at this same time in 1991, Bill Clinton – as unfortunate an example as he is! – was dead last in the polls. A lot of things can change, and one of the things that is changing before our eyes is the amount of support for Ron Paul and the message of restoring true Constitutional freedom: it’s increasing exponentially!

This is our chance. We can vote yet again for the “lesser of two evils,” which, I may remind you, is still voting for evil… or we can vote for the latest bloodless revolution, a revolution in the tradition of the greatest generations of Americans. We can vote for the first and possibly only candidate in our lifetime who stands firmly, unapologetically, and consistently on the true principles of liberty that were built into the founding of this nation. We can vote for Ron Paul, and I believe we will.

Message from National Right to Life

2007-11-09T12:41:00.000-05:00

Please note: I did not write the following article. However, I find it absolutely brilliant and I agree wholeheartedly with every word of it. Here is the message in its entirety:

Today's News & ViewsOctober 26, 2007
Abortion, Giuliani, and Politics 1001

I am convinced that succeeding at politics is, above all else, keeping your nerve when others around you panic. Doing so helps ensure that you will not break one of the cardinal rules: never extrapolate out into the future what appears to be the case today. Breaking that rule is part and parcel of another fatal flaw: making premature judgments.

This may seem like Politics 1001, and it probably is. But it's also the fundamentals--the ABCs--that are most consistently ignored.

To switch metaphors, certain commentators whose opinion I ordinarily respect are looking at the 2008 presidential election as if it were a billiards game where the only consideration is the cue ball and the immediate ball that it strikes. Not only are they misreading the likely outcome of that initial collision, its impact on the remaining balls on the table is totally ignored.

Rudy Giuliani is, at this moment, the frontrunner for the GOP presidential nomination. Too many people who ought to know better treat that as (a) an immutable truism and, in an interesting leap in logic, (b) proof positive that no other Republican presidential candidate can defeat the putative Democratic nominee, Sen. Hillary Clinton. Let me tackle this first--the equivalent of the cue ball's impact on the first ball--before I briefly mention the disastrous carom of a Giuliani nomination on candidates lower down the ticket.

Nothing definitive can be said in October other than that Giuliani's performance on September 11, 2001 (and, to a lesser extent, as mayor of New York City) catapulted him into a lead over his GOP rivals he has held most of 2007. What we don't know--and shouldn't pretend to know-- is far more impressive.

With the compressed schedule of presidential caucuses primaries, it is impossible to gauge whether Iowa and New Hampshire [which come first) will play a lesser or greater role than in years past.

Nor can we know what happens if one of the other GOP presidential frontrunners catches fire and/or the impact if one of the top five candidates drops out sooner than anticipated.

Nor, most of all, can we know in advance whether an issue (or issues), now simmering, will boil over, igniting one man's candidacy. There are a host of tangibles and intangibles that will change the status quo.

The congealing consensus in some circles is that Giuliani is the candidate best able--probably the only such GOPer --to defeat Sen. Clinton. Frankly, this is a mystery to me, but the consensus seems to be the product of a combination of two assessments, both of which are dangerously wrong.

First, the core constituencies of the coalition that has kept the White House in Republicans hands for all but eight years since 1980 will line up behind a pro-abortion Republican who, in truth, is seriously at variance with those constituencies on absolutely pivotal issues, such as right to life. Second, a pro-abortion Republican from the Northeast can assemble a new, stronger coalition, which can make up for any losses.

We are told by various experts that Giuliani's gestures to pro-lifers will be--should be--enough for us to enthusiastically support a man who once said, hypothetically, he'd pay for his own daughter's abortion.

Ask yourself, if his gestures are all that persuasive--not only to us but to many other constituencies--why would liberal pro-abortionists with lifestyles tastes far to the left possibly choose Giuliani over the real deal? The real assumption is that pro-lifers are docile and that people with values indistinguishable from Giuliani's will understand that it's all wink-wink, nod-nod and choose him over Hillary Clinton, the wife of a wily tactician, a man who retains an immense popularity.

All of this is, in my opinion, astonishingly unpersuasive, and reflective of a panic that, while understandable, threatens to guarantee the very disaster it is said to be able to prevent. Choosing someone like Giuliani could fracture the coalition that has been elected pro-life Presidents five of the last seven presidential elections and resulted in a Supreme Court which has upheld the first ban on an abortion procedure since 1973.

The likelihood of another Clinton in the White House is dramatically increased if Giuliani is the Republican nominee.

Furthermore, when it becomes clear that a colossal miscalculation has taken place, it will be too late to save countless other candidates who will pay the price for widespread disillusionment with the choice at the top.

The necessity/inevitability argument goes hand in hand with a campaign to persuade us that Giuliani is BOTH anti-abortion AND pro-choice. That is, he is "personally pro-choice" but operationally pro-life in the sense that Giuliani has promised to nominate "strict constructionists" to the bench. We have discussed this canard previously in TN&V and in National Right to Life News.

But the ultimate trump card remains, "Take what you can get, or you will get Hillary!" Everything pro-lifers have achieved would then be at risk. Of course it would be, if Sen. Clinton is President.

But insisting that Giuliani is the Republican most likely to keep her out of the White House is to falsely assume that choosing a pro-abortionist to head the party that has stood for Life since 1980 makes it more likely the GOP would prevail over Sen. Clinton rather than less likely. So much is at stake that such a fatally wrong diagnosis must be rejected.

We know that the Movement has made steady progress since 1980. The number of abortions has diminished--still horribly high but much lower than in the 1990s. Conversations about the intricacies of fetal development that were few and far between are now common currency, made possible by 4-D color ultrasounds and a younger population that is more pro-life than ever. Pro-life groups are also now thriving in states where they were once virtually invisible.

Having made all these gains, assisted in no small measure by genuinely pro-life Presidents, pro-lifers are now being told that we would be better off with Giuliani as the nominee. Why?

Paradoxically, because his position is not the same as President Reagan's or President George H.W. Bush's, or President George W. Bush's. Sure, they won five elections between them and, granted, the country is more open to the pro-life message than ever before, but it is Giuliani's position on abortion, we are told, that is supposedly is harmony with the majority of Americans.

This is so wrong, it makes your head hurt.

A majority of Americans oppose the reasons that account for more than 90% of the abortions performed in the United States. This majority accepts abortion only in cases where the mother's life is at risk, or in case of rape and incest, or doesn't accept any abortions.

There are plenty of pro-abortion columnists who are touting Giuliani's candidacy. But there are also "experts," who are not hostile to our cause and who ought to know better, who are so panicky they're confusing the forest with the trees.

My advice to them is the same as it is to you. Keep calm, keep steady, and don't be browbeaten into thinking black is white and up is down.

Che's Repulsive Legend Lives 40 Years After His Death

2007-10-09T10:05:00.000-04:00

Today marks the 40th anniversary of the death of Ernesto Guevara, better known to many as “Che.” If it’s anything like the 30th anniversary in 1997, there will likely be all kinds of celebrations and commemorations from here to Havana, all across Latin America and on university campuses throughout the U.S. Who is Che Guevara, and what did he do to deserve all this recognition? Why is his likeness plastered everywhere from the bodies of Hollywood stars to the t-shirts of teenage mall rats?

Put simply, Che Guevara was a mass murderer. It would be impossible to describe the extent of Guevara’s crimes against humanity within these few paragraphs, but for starters, he executed, either personally or by direct order, thousands upon thousands of Cubans who were accused of “counter-revolutionary” actions or attitudes. These firing squad executions were carried out in cold blood, usually without the accused so much as standing trial for their so-called crimes. On the rare occasion that there was a trial, it was nothing but a show for the international media, much like the Cuban “Revolution” itself.

Whether in his laughable attempts at guerrilla warfare, or his running the Cuban economy (into the ground), Che was a pathetic failure at everything except for the merciless, point blank murder of his unarmed prisoners.

Guevara’s “heroism” is a fictional invention of the Communist government of Cuba, as are their celebrated utopian health care system and their U.N.-acknowledged authority on human rights. To this day, starving and oppressed Cubans speak out against their tyrants and find themselves in prisons and concentration camps. Many people may be singing Che’s praises today, but the Cuban refugees here in Syracuse won’t be among them, and neither will I.

3:10 to Yuma

2007-09-10T09:21:00.000-04:00

Anybody else seen this movie?

It's a remake of a classic western, and it stars Christian Bale and Russell Crowe. It has all the "stereotypical" elements of a good western - so if you don't like westerns, you won't like this, but if you do... oh, if you do! This is the best I've seen since Unforgiven, definitely better than Tombstone. Actually I'd say it's kind of a cross between Unforgiven and Open Range.

One thing I really appreciated about 3:10 to Yuma is that the storyline is essentially true to the values of the time in which it's set. A lot of times you have these epic movies (such as Titanic or Braveheart) where the things people say and the way they think are really late 20th Century ideas imposed on characters from earlier times. 3:10 to Yuma seems to have a genuine comprehension of the way people would have thought in that environment (well, with some exceptions).

The particular example I'm thinking of, and what I liked so much about it, was that Christian Bale's character never sells out his integrity. He keeps getting cumulative opportunities and motives to "take the easy way out," or in some other way compromise what he believes is the right thing to do - to the point where, by the end of the movie, virtually nobody in the audience would blame him for doing so. But he never does. (I don't think that gives too much away, incidentally!) That kind of strength of character is not often deemed worthy movie material by modern Hollywood, but as far as I'm concerned, it makes for a great western.

3:10 to Yuma is a spectacular western.

2007-09-04T13:17:00.000-04:00

Yuni at Nine Months

2007-08-28T09:55:00.000-04:00

Hey folks. It's been almost two months since I posted anything here, but the summer is a busy season where I work, so I'm sure you'll understand ...those of you that haven't entirely given up on checking this blog!

Anyway, a lot has happened this summer; I hope to post some stuff about it in the near future. The biggest event would have to be the wedding of Mike and Ruth. I actually didn't bring my phone (qua camera in this case) to the ceremony, so we'll have to wait until I get copies of someone else's photos to post any of them here. But at any rate, they're now married and living in Rochester. More on this when time permits.

For now though, enjoy these latest photos of my nephew David Jr. (a.k.a. Yuni, Nuni, et.al.) As of this Thursday, he will be nine months old. At this point, he speaks a few words, crawls or stands at every opportunity, and continues to be remarkably even-tempered for an infant!

With "Crash"

Proof that Yuni's happy with me babysitting!

Y con la orgullosa mama!

New Bass Guitar

2007-07-06T12:10:00.000-04:00

I bought this bass yesterday. It's an Epiphone Viola (aka Paul McCartney wannabe) bass...

It's just so beautiful! It's so light, so easy to play, and has this tremendous warm tone. Everyone is quick to note that it's "no good for playing punk rock," but at 250 bones, I still just couldn't resist!

To me (as a non-bassist!), this is the kind of bass I could just sit around and play for hours.

2007-06-05T13:30:00.000-04:00

"Yuni" Gets Baptized

2007-04-09T13:43:00.000-04:00

OK, so I never did write anything about JJ's wedding... Perhaps the pictures just about say it all! And in that spirit, here are some pictures from my nephew's baptism yesterday. I can't quite explain why I was so thoroughly looking forward to it, but at any rate, I was thrilled to be there to witness it! David Jr, the newest member of Hope OPC!

The happy family.
I think this photo helps illustrate why Yuni is so big!

This is the best shot I could get of the actual sacrament.
...Mainly 'cuz I was trying to pay attention!

A blurry picture with the Pastor.

The grandfathers.

Seriously, how does she even carry him?!

My new desktop background.

"Collective Property" in VZ

2007-03-26T08:53:00.000-04:00

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/03/25/america/LA-GEN-Venezuela-Chavez.php

Just another step in Venezuela's "Maximum Revolution."

Revolution... what a farce.

[You know, sometimes when I write a song, and go on to sing it for a number of years, it's hard to say the words with the same feeling. They come out so easily that I can only think about their meaning if I really concentrate on it. I feel the same way about my anti-communist rhetoric. I've said this stuff so many times, it's difficult to reiterate the message with the same urgency, again and again and again...]

For the last time (yeah right), Communism presents not the slightest idea for wealth generation. It is a system of wealth redistribution and nothing more. Whereas Capitalism describes a natural process of wealth creation and a resulting natural distribution of wealth, Communism presupposes wealth capitalistically generated, and operates exclusively on the level of redistributing it. So if a communistic economy is failing, it is because the supply of capital has been cut off; by the same token, if it is succeeding, it is because of a continual supply of wealth generated capitalistically.

And everybody knows it! Cuban communists will readily explain that the reason the island is languishing in poverty is the embargo. But if Communism were a viable economic system, Castro should be thrilled that the corrupting influence of Capitalism was blocked off. In reality, the existence of incoming wealth from capitalistic governments is what helps Communists preserve the illusion that any form of prosperity is even possible within their system.

Life under that illusion is precisely what the United States continues to provide Venezuela, which is only in business because we keep buying their oil.

Pho' and Spring Rolls

2007-03-15T09:25:00.000-04:00

Well, perhaps this is indicative of a slow news day for me... But when a dinner is so good that I'm still happy about it the next day, well that's worth sharing, isn't it? Yesterday I went to the Vietnamese restaurant near my house, with my Dad, Craig (CM's drummer), and the Davids.

My meal consisted of the following three delicious items:

Some shrimp spring rolls with peanut sauce

A nice big bowl of beef brisket pho'

A three-bean coconut drink
(tastes oh-so-much better than it looks!)

"Maximum Revolution"

2007-01-30T12:19:00.000-05:00

Venezuela Puts Finishing Nails in Her Coffin

It's such a shame to see that whole country swept up with Marxist fever. Screw the lessons of the 20th Century... We wanna learn the hard way how communism can ruin a nation!!

David Andrew Gay, Jr.

2006-11-30T11:51:00.000-05:00

My nephew was born today!! He weighs 9.5 lbs, and looks just like his dad did. Also, it's reported that he has huge feet!

The Real Che Guevara

2006-09-14T12:15:00.000-04:00

by Humberto Fontova: http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4455

I realize this article is some 4 years old, but it is a great educational tool: it is still as important as it ever was for people to learn the truth about this murderous coward.

The Lost City

2006-05-02T09:32:00.000-04:00

Here's an article about an anti-commie movie that I will be watching at my first opportunity:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/fontova/fontova56.html

Thanks to Benito for bringing it to my attention.

David's Birthday Present

2006-04-12T09:31:00.000-04:00

David turned 25 yesterday. He's getting so old, ha ha!
Old enough to be a . . . .

DAD!!

Yup, Yusimy's pregnant! They didn't waste any time, heh heh. Anyway, I'm very excited, as of course they are. I just couldn't believe that David broke the news to me in the form of a text message: "Umm . . . Not sure boy or girl . . . But im gonna have a kid!"
So, please pray for them, especially Yusy, and if you have their contact info, congratulate them!!

Mike Adams' Communist Holocaust Museum

2005-09-12T09:42:00.000-04:00

The best anti-commie article I’ve read this summer. And by best, I mean most recent…

Pointing out the fact that “the communists murdered 100 million innocents in just 72 years,” Mike Adams proposes “the establishment of the first National Communist Holocaust Museum on the campus of one of our nation’s public universities.”

Adams explains:

It will not be difficult to raise several million dollars to fund this bold new initiative. The generosity and patriotism of Americans will see to that. The real difficulty will be finding a public university that will allow such a museum to be constructed in the face of staunch opposition from socialist professors.
Take a moment to imagine the impact of such a museum. The atrocities of Stalin could be outlined in the Stalin Room. The atrocities of Mao could be displayed in the Mao Room, and the atrocities of Pol Pot could be shown in the Pol Pot Room. Each room could feature a burning candle for every 1 million innocents murdered by the dictator after which the room is named.
Just imagine the possibilities. And imagine how difficult it would be to teach communism on a campus with such a museum standing as a guardian of truth, justice, and individual liberty.

These are just the parts of the article that I found particularly worthwhile. The rest can be found here.

I would of course recommend additional rooms for Ho Chi Minh and Castro/Guevara...