Friday, January 6, 2017

2011 Russian Election seems connected to 2016 US Election

I'm watching  the Rachel Maddow Show right now.  In it, she is showing how the State Department might have influenced the 2011 Russian Election.  You've got to see it to believe it, but there were definitely people in Russia, who didn't  like having Putin in charge.  See this clip!

Tuesday, June 23, 2015

Why I Started this Political Party

A lot of people, seeing this Political Party want to know why we need another one.   Like, for example, don't we have enough Political Parties, already? If I can't handle the Republican Party, the one I "sound" closest to, why not the Democratic Party? Well, if I "seem" close to the Republican Party, it's actually because I'm the "polar opposite" of them. If you look closely at our current Republican Party, you will see that their "Social Side" is actually a pretty mean spirited, repressive part. A "Green" part of the Republican Party? Well yes, if you consider fining homeowners, for putting Garbage in their Recycle, or Recyclable items in their garbage! But then, their "Libertarian" portion? Only if you're a Corporation! If you're a Corporation, there's this talk about "Overwhelming Regulations". How about the "overwhelming regulations" you want to put on the body of a woman? Anyway, back on track, when I state that I'm a "Fiscal Conservative", that means, in my case, that I scrutinize Corporate Welfare first (which includes subsidies to corporations that don't actually -- pay -- Corporate Income Taxes anyway. This includes corporations like GE, BP, and Exxon/Mobile). The next part I'd scrutinize, is waste in our Defense department. (I'm sure you've seen stories about $400 wrenches, and $1200 toilet seats). But then, I have NO trouble subsidizing corporations that help Planet Earth, like renewable energy companies (i.e. Solar and Wind). Also, agencies that help provide food to the poor (i.e. Meals on Wheels). So, to recap, my Green part, is in service to Planet Earth, and the people who have the "joy" and/or "misfortune" to live on it. And my Libertarian part has to do with eliminating Victimless Crimes. For example, I'm in favor of handling Drug Abuse, through our Medical infrastructure. "What?", a rhetorical person retorts. "What about if a person robs a Convenience Store, for their drug money?" My answer, "Robbing a Convenience Store is Armed Robbery, a felony, in every state I've checked. Lock the person up, for that crime. But then, provide them medical care, to heal them of their Drug Addiction". Enough of an "Executive Summary".

Let me introduce myself.  My name is Kenneth Wayne Parker, of Carrboro, North Carolina.  I represent the Green Libertarian Party, which has the motto, "Neutrality  --   With Attitude".

This Political Party was created several years ago  (around 2002),  and put online, via this BLOG in August, 2008.  I got the idea for it, when I attended the Great, Year 2000  (Y2K)  edition of the California State Fair, in Sacramento, California.  In the area with "miscellaneous tents", there was one, medium sized,   "Political Tent"   with two people, sitting right next to each other, sharing a single table, and with lots of materials you could take with you.  One of them was a representative for the California Green Party, and the other was a representative for the California Libertarian Party.  When I came to the table, they were having a spirited, and  VERY  friendly conversation with each other, such that neither of them saw me for a couple of minutes (and I didn't interrupt them, as I was fascinated with their conversation).  To make a long story short, I talked to both of them equally, and received handouts from both the Green and Libertarian parties, with  COMPLETE  cooperation between both people, who were not competing  AT ALL  with each other, at that time.

I revisited these two Political Parties at the end of 2000, when Ralph Nader ran for the Green Party, against both George W. Bush and Al Gore, saying, quite clearly, that it would  MAKE NO DIFFERENCE  which one we voted for  --  life would be equally bad with  EITHER  Bush  OR  Gore.   Needless to say, life was  VERY different, under George W. Bush, than it was under  Bill Clinton.  The  DETAILS of that difference depends on who you talk to, and whether they are a Democrat or a Republican.  The election was  EXTREMELY  close, with  LOTS  of "hanging chads", and was finally decided via the Supreme Court  "Bush v. Gore" decision.  The Democrats still say the election was "stolen", and the Republicans still say the Democrats were "sore losers".  Both sides generally agree that having Ralph Nader on the ticket swung the election towards Bush.  The rest is history.

Since the Green Libertarian Party is a synthesis between what I consider the best of Liberal (the Green Party) and the best of Conservative (the Libertarian Party),  I feel free to pick and choose which parts of  the two parties to include in the combined version.  So I look for the "Highest Essence" of each.  For the Green Party, it is a general position that we  MUST  take care of Planet Earth and the People who live on it.  It takes a hard line on how Corporations behave, especially on Environmental issues (Planet Earth) and how Managers treat their "Rank and File" employees (the People on the Planet).  However, it takes a moderate view on how Individuals behave (encouraging individual behavior, such as recycling, but not instituting huge fines for, say, putting recyclables in the garbage, such as happens in many cities.  In other words, setting a good example, but avoiding using force).

Now, it's trickier when I approach the Libertarian Party.  The "best of" part I use is the "Social" part of the Libertarian philosophy, which shows up mainly in eliminating "victimless crimes", such as consensual prostitution and simple drug possession (which I would prefer to treat medically, when drug use creates erratic behavior.  I find it a travesty how many people are in our jail and prison systems, simply because of drug possession and use).  The biggest objection I hear is how Drug Use goes with other crimes like, for example, a person holds up a Convenience Store to pay for Crack Cocaine.  In this case, I would suggest throwing the book at the person for the Armed Robbery!  That crime has clear victims (the store, and its employees), and deserves vigorous prosecution.  However, at the same time the person "pays" for the robbery, he/she can be medically treated for the drug use.  In addition, if drugs are decriminalized (though not encouraged, with the possible exception of Marijuana), sales can include  HUGE  taxes, paying for the medical treatment these people require.  Now, the existing Libertarian Party (and the current Republican Party) includes "Corporate Libertarianism" (where corporations can behave as they please, with as few regulations as possible).  That is the part of  Libertarianism that I  COMPLETELY  leave out of the Green Libertarian Party.

My position on the Democratic Party is that I have an easier time having a polite and respectful conversation with Democrats, than I do with Republicans (who often do not trust me).  So, if I were to find myself in Congress, I would likely caucus with the Democrats, even though I absolutely  DO NOT  consider myself a Democrat.  There is one exception, on the Republican front, as I work well with the Log Cabin Republicans, even temporarily representing myself as such, including on the big day of debate in the Senate, at the end of 2010,  on the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy in the US Military.

So there you have it, a Fully Operational Political Party with only one person  (myself, Kenneth Wayne Parker, of Seattle, Washington)  that currently could run under it.  Remember its URL (stated here as greenlibertarianparty dot blogspot dot com, without any "W's" needed), because it's hard to find under Google.  There's one "counterfeit web site", which preaches Corporate Libertarianism, with a page or so about the Green party, that's presented by Google to confuse the issue.  I consider this party fiscally conservative, by the way, as I would question  ANY  funding for wars, since they are destructive to Planet Earth, as well as hostile to the people who live on it.  On the question of  Guns verses Butter, I take the Butter   ANY DAY!

Thank you and Best Regards,

Kenneth Wayne Parker, Carrboro, NC

Wednesday, December 18, 2013

The Bridge Fiasco.

We're in a big nightmare, having to do with people trying to get from New Jersey to New York.  Unfortunately, political party politics  can mess things up, much worse than a traffic accident.

More later.  Kenneth Parker

Thursday, April 11, 2013

Speaking of "hot air", how about this?

It seems that, in the World of Gun Violence, a New Orleans Judge sees fit to rule that a statute forbidding felons from having firearms
is unconstitutional after " a 'fundamental right' amendment".


Tuesday, April 17, 2012

Infinities everywhere

A lot of hot air.

Could we run a government on it?

Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Why defund the IRS? Make Life Easier for White Collar Criminals?


I think I just found one GOP "Constituent": The White Collar Criminal!

See the story Here.

Excerpt: "You might argue the money we spend on the IRS is a legitimate target for spending cuts given the size of the federal budget deficit. But keep in mind that every $1 dollar Congress appropriated for the IRS during 2011 generated $200 in revenue. (That's also in Nina Olson's report.) Talk about a multiplier effect".

Question: Any VALID reason to cut funding for the IRS?

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Introduction for New Readers

Hello to new readers, seeing this Political Party for the first time.  My name is Kenneth Wayne Parker, of Seattle, Washington.  I represent the Green Libertarian Party, which has the motto, "Neutrality  --   With Attitude".

This Political Party was created several years ago  (around 2002),  and put online, via this BLOG in August, 2008.  I got the idea for it, when I attended the Great, Year 2000  (Y2K)  edition of the California State Fair, in Sacramento, California.  In the area with "miscellaneous tents", there was one, medium sized,   "Political Tent"   with two people, sitting right next to each other, sharing a single table, and with lots of materials you could take with you.  One of them was a representative for the California Green Party, and the other was a representative for the California Libertarian Party.  When I came to the table, they were having a spirited, and  VERY  friendly conversation with each other, such that neither of them saw me for a couple of minutes (and I didn't interrupt them, as I was fascinated with their conversation).  To make a long story short, I talked to both of them equally, and received handouts from both the Green and Libertarian parties, with  COMPLETE  cooperation between both people, who were not competing  AT ALL  with each other, at that time.

I revisited these two Political Parties at the end of 2000, when Ralph Nader ran for the Green Party, against both George W. Bush and Al Gore, saying, quite clearly, that it would  MAKE NO DIFFERENCE  which one we voted for  --  life would be equally bad with  EITHER  Bush  OR  Gore.   Needless to say, life was  VERY different, under George W. Bush, than it was under  Bill Clinton.  The  DETAILS of that difference depends on who you talk to, and whether they are a Democrat or a Republican.  The election was  EXTREMELY  close, with  LOTS  of "hanging chads", and was finally decided via the Supreme Court  "Bush v. Gore" decision.  The Democrats still say the election was "stolen", and the Republicans still say the Democrats were "sore losers".  Both sides generally agree that having Ralph Nader on the ticket swung the election towards Bush.  The rest is history.

Since the Green Libertarian Party is a synthesis between what I consider the best of Liberal (the Green Party) and the best of Conservative (the Libertarian Party),  I feel free to pick and choose which parts of  the two parties to include in the combined version.  So I look for the "Highest Essence" of each.  For the Green Party, it is a general position that we  MUST  take care of Planet Earth and the People who live on it.  It takes a hard line on how Corporations behave, especially on Environmental issues (Planet Earth) and how Managers treat their "Rank and File" employees (the People on the Planet).  However, it takes a moderate view on how Individuals behave (encouraging individual behavior, such as recycling, but not instituting huge fines for, say, putting recyclables in the garbage, such as happens in many cities.  In other words, setting a good example, but avoiding using force).

Now, it's trickier when I approach the Libertarian Party.  The "best of" part I use is the "Social" part of the Libertarian philosophy, which shows up mainly in eliminating "victimless crimes", such as consensual prostitution and simple drug possession (which I would prefer to treat medically, when drug use creates erratic behavior.  I find it a travesty how many people are in our jail and prison systems, simply because of drug possession and use).  The biggest objection I hear is how Drug Use goes with other crimes like, for example, a person holds up a Convenience Store to pay for Crack Cocaine.  In this case, I would suggest throwing the book at the person for the Armed Robbery!  That crime has clear victims (the store, and its employees), and deserves vigorous prosecution.  However, at the same time the person "pays" for the robbery, he/she can be medically treated for the drug use.  In addition, if drugs are decriminalized (though not encouraged, with the possible exception of Marijuana), sales can include  HUGE  taxes, paying for the medical treatment these people require.  Now, the existing Libertarian Party (and the current Republican Party) includes "Corporate Libertarianism" (where corporations can behave as they please, with as few regulations as possible).  That is the part of  Libertarianism that I  COMPLETELY  leave out of the Green Libertarian Party.

My position on the Democratic Party is that I have an easier time having a polite and respectful conversation with Democrats, than I do with Republicans (who often do not trust me).  So, if I were to find myself in Congress, I would likely caucus with the Democrats, even though I absolutely  DO NOT  consider myself a Democrat.  There is one exception, on the Republican front, as I work well with the Log Cabin Republicans, even temporarily representing myself as such, including on the big day of debate in the Senate, at the end of 2010,  on the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy in the US Military.

So there you have it, a Fully Operational Political Party with only one person  (myself, Kenneth Wayne Parker, of Seattle, Washington)  that currently could run under it.  Remember its URL (stated here as greenlibertarianparty dot blogspot dot com, without any "W's" needed), because it's hard to find under Google.  There's one "counterfeit web site", which preaches Corporate Libertarianism, with a page or so about the Green party, that's presented by Google to confuse the issue.  I consider this party fiscally conservative, by the way, as I would question  ANY  funding for wars, since they are destructive to Planet Earth, as well as hostile to the people who live on it.  On the question of  Guns verses Butter, I take the Butter   ANY DAY!

Thank you and Best Regards,

Kenneth Wayne Parker, Seattle, WA

Sunday, July 17, 2011

Debt Ceiling: Clean Increase verses Republican House Plan

I am currently alarmed at the possibility of the United States defaulting on its debts.

There appears to be an "infinite chasm" between the Democratic and Republican approaches to the Debt Ceiling debate. Many Democrats are in favor of simply increasing the Debt Limit, the same way it was done during the George W. Bush administration. (Other Democrats, while supporting some budget cuts, want more tax revenues also, in search of fairness).

Many of the Republicans (especially the House Republicans) are holding out on requiring that the 2012 Budget, submitted by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), become law, as a condition of approving the Debt Ceiling increase.

The problem that I see with this is that the Ryan 2012 Budget is Revenue Neutral.

What does this mean? The the Debt Ceiling is required, even with the Ryan 2012 Budget!

Therefore, I am in favor of increasing the Debt Ceiling, cleanly, and then debating the budget separately.

Sunday, February 27, 2011

All Stick and no Carrot

A word to the "wise" in Madison, Wisconsin:

The current "Budget Repair Law" has no carrots, to entice any cooperation from the public employees. In other words, it says, in effect, "We will destroy your Union, and punish you, and keep punishing you, until you cower before us!" No wonder they are demonstrating in front of the Capitol building in Madison!

And the same thing about the Senate Democrats? You have no motivation for them to come back from Illinois. These 14 democratic senators know exactly what to expect when they do: The Budget Repair law passes in its current form, and their constituency is mad, because they couldn't help.

What is the answer? Actual cooperation and negotiation. A carrot for the other side, in effect. (Carrot? The Unions made it easy for you, Governor Walker, by capitulating completely on the financial aspects of the Repair law. Take out the Union Busting part, and the Democratic Senators already said they could come back).

Thank you and best regards,

Kenneth Parker, Seattle, WA, 206-307-6757

Thursday, February 17, 2011

Union Busting in Wisconsin.

Today, I would like to honor Ed Schultz of The Ed Show on MSNBC.

He went out into the trenches in Wisconsin to bring us the huge Union-Busting activities, by the Republican Governor and Republican Legislature.

One thing I learned is that Wisconsin doesn't really even HAVE a fiscal emergency right now, meaning that there is no emergency requiring the draconian bills they are trying to force into law. (Apparently, there was a tax cut, put into effect in January, which puts them into their situation. Without it, they wouldn't need the current chaos).

Incidentally, there are no filibuster rules in the Wisconsin Senate. The law in question is on a "Fast Track", limiting the debate and amendments possible on it. That, in my opinion, is why the only way the Democratic members of the Senate have to stay away from the Wisconsin capitol to keep the law from passing.

Thank you and best regards,

Ken Parker, Seattle, WA.