Dueling Barstools

A weed is a flower, too, once you get to know it. ~ Winnie the Pooh

Here:

In sum, Holder’s attempt to make this all seem normal and common should insult anyone with the most basic understanding of American law. As The New York Times put it when first confirming the assassination program in April, 2010: ” The Obama administration has taken the extraordinary step of authorizing the targeted killing of an American citizen. . . . It is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing, officials said. A former senior legal official in the administration of George W. Bush said he did not know of any American who was approved for targeted killing under the former president.” To date, not a single such citizen has been identified.

As always, the most important point to note for this entire debate is how perverse and warped it is that we’re even having this “debate” at all. It should be self-negating — self-marginalizing — to assert that the President, acting with no checks or transparency, can order American citizens executed far from any battlefield and without any opportunity even to know about, let alone rebut, the accusations. That this policy is being implemented and defended by the very same political party that spent the last decade so vocally and opportunistically objecting to far less extreme powers makes it all the more repellent. That fact also makes it all the more dangerous, because — as one can see — the fact that it is a Democratic President doing it, and Democratic Party officials justifying it, means that it’s much easier to normalize: very few of the Party’s followers, especially in an election year, are willing to make much of a fuss about it at all.

And thus will presidential assassination powers be entrenched as bipartisan consensus for at least a generation. That will undoubtedly be one of the most significant aspects of the Obama legacy. Let no Democrat who is now supportive or even silent be heard to object when the next Republican President exercises this power in ways that they dislike.

Simply put, the police culture in our country has changed,” argued former San Jose Police Chief Joe McNamara, a Hoover Institution scholar, in a Wall Street Journal article in 2006. “An emphasis on ‘officer safety’ and paramilitary training pervades today’s policing, in contrast to the older culture, which held that cops didn’t shoot until they were about to be shot or stabbed.

Reason.

Part I:

Part II:

Via:

Have you been watching the insanity in Washington about the so-called Fiscal Cliff?

If so, you are seeing the same thing I am:  It is all a concoction by the status quo politicians to distract us from the REAL cliff we are headed for.

To listen to the politicians in both parties, you would believe this is all about taxes.  Somehow, the nation is approaching financial calamity because the government isn’t getting enough of our money.  And the two “sides” have managed to create the illusion that the debate is over how to best increase “revenues”.  (In Washington, of course, increasing revenue means turning more of our dollars into THEIR dollars.)

Here is how the charade is playing out:  President Obama is demanding that the so-called Bush tax cuts be allowed to expire for what he calls the wealthy to produce $800 billion in more “revenue” for the government.  In what only a politician could call a negotiation, the Republican Speaker of the House has countered with an offer to – you guessed it – raise revenues (taxes) by $800 billion.

If this wasn’t so serious, it would be laughable.

The only difference between the two “sides” is what they want to call their plan for the government to suck almost another trillion dollars out of the private economy to finance their wars, their take-over of our health care, and the never-ending erosions of our freedom.

Obama wants to call this money-grab a “rate increase” for the wealthy.  Speaker Boehner wants to call it “closing loopholes”.  I’m not seeing the difference.  The money all ends up coming from the same place.  Ask a school teacher or a construction worker how many “loopholes” they used last year to reduce their tax bill.

So why are the grown men and women in Washington playing this ridiculous parlor game?  It’s simple. They don’t want to talk about the real problem: Government is too big and does too much – and therefore spends too much.  And they certainly don’t want to talk about REAL tax reform, such as scrapping the income tax altogether and replacing it with a consumption tax.  Without their spending and their loopholes and complex rates, the politicians would lose the opportunity to pass out favors to their friends – and that is not something they want to give up, even at the cost of destroying the economy.

Right now, we need to be demanding that the politicians stop the games and deal with the real issues:  Deficit spending as far as the eye can see and a debt that is already more than $16 trillion.  The claim by Obama – and bought into by the Republicans – that we can’t balance the federal budget without raising taxes is nonsense.  Stop the wars, have a serious debate about Medicare and other entitlements,  stop sending borrowed dollars to other countries, and spending can absolutely be brought into line with revenues – without raising taxes on anybody, rich or poor.

Restoring Liberty as a cornerstone of America starts with making government smaller.  And making government smaller starts with drawing a line and stopping the politicians from taking more of our money.  More money for them means more government imposed on us.

I’m ready to draw that line – and I hope you will join me.  Your contribution at www.GaryJohnson2012.com today will let me communicate the message of liberty on behalf of millions of Americans who are not today being heard.  The next three weeks, when the politicians will be making their deals, is critical.

Please go to the www.GaryJohnson2012.com today so that we can give voice to REAL solutions:  Cutting spending, cutting government and saying NO to more taxes.

The politicians in the White House and Congress won’t tell the truth, so we must!
Thank you,

Governor Gary Johnson

Invention is the most important product of man’s creative brain. The ultimate purpose is the complete mastery of mind over the material world, the harnessing of human nature to human needs.

Nikola Tesla

Speaketh Adrian Gabriel in re this article discussing the most recent dismal job report.

“Four more Wars….Four more Wars!!!” Sorry to rain on your parade Obamabots, but Obama is bad for the economy. He likes wars and drone striking innocent children, but no need to worry Romney was just like him. Romney wanted to expand the military state. Gary Johnson was no better, he seemed to think humanitarian killing was ok…whatever that means. Stop voting.

There are two strains of anarcho thought on voting. One, don’t do it because it’s inconsistent with the NAP (and besides, if voting really changed anything, it’d be illegal).. Two, given that nation states own individuals as ranchers cattle, vote either as a self defense strategy or a symbol, however unclean, of resistance to the shit show concocted by the two great statist armies comprising the 99% who didn’t vote for Gary Johnson. I voted for Gary Johnson, symbolically.

Understanding the effects of the “money-out-of-thin-air” methods of governments, sure would make people realize that every recession resulted in a longer bust period. Governments prolong the recalculation process with their intervention, and if it seems they have done something right, it actually reveals itself as a bubble or “false” boom. Whatever…it seems people have enjoyed this type of economic stagnation, considering they keep gobbling up the Keynesian and Monetarist unrealistic jargon. Learn some Austrian Economics you fools. Even though this guy’s blog here is very informative, he still also misses the dire effects of credit expansion and its harms on the economy. Interesting stuff nonetheless:

BUT WHO WILL BUILD THE ROADS? Stefan Molynieux knows. Roads, Part One. Roads, Part Two. Hit his tip-jar.

The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can’t get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods.

H.L. Mencken

Via Libertopia:

In this video, the narrator walks through five fallacies of Voluntaryism that often get discussed when speaking about being a Voluntaryist.

The video is not very long, but long enough to provide excellent examples for each statement. We hope you’ll watch and join in the discussion.

1. Voluntaryism is trying to create a Utopia which could never exist. [0:10]

2. Voluntaryism cannot work because people are evil. [1:19]

3. Voluntaryism permits alternative justice like courts, so it is no different than government. [2:23]

4. Voluntaryism would allow big business to control everything. [3:35]

5. Voluntaryism would lead to total anarchy, and anarchy is total chaos. [4:30]

Good read here by Seasteading Ambassador Ian CoKehyeng. Excerpt below:

Fighting for free markets within the democratic system is a steep uphill battle. Anarcho-capitalists may even call it useless. The inherent biases of democracy swing towards populism and crony capitalism. The dilemma faced by Western democracies stems not from the fact that everyone benefits from freedom, but from the fact that everyone can benefit from one particular intervention granting them a special privilege whose costs are dispersed onto everybody else. Such is the mixed economy- a battle for rule by pressure groups and lobbyists. The great statesman, Frederic Bastiat, describes this situation elegantly when he said:

The State is that fictitious entity in which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.

The analysis of political institutions in public choice theory demonstrates that the perverse incentives of political actors (from politicians to bureaucrats to voters themselves) gear governments and their bureaucracies to grow.

The principle – which is quite true within itself- The big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.

The following via:

Jury nullification is a constitutional doctrine that allows juries to acquit defendants who are technically guilty, but who don’t deserve punishment. When a jury disregards the evidence and acquts an otherwise guilty defendant, it has practiced jury nullification. The jury is saying that the law is unfair, either generally or in this particular case.

Jury Nullification is perfectly legal and has a long history- indeed the framers of the Constitution intended jurors to serve as a check on bad prosecutions and ineffective laws. Northern jurors helped abolish slavery by refusing to convict people “guilty” of helping slaves escape. Nullification was also a factor in ending Prohibition, which locked up people for selling liquor, and created the same violent market and drive-by shootings (remember Al Capone?) that we now see for other illegal drugs.

The Fifth Amendment prohibits defendants from being tried for the same crime twice. This means that when a jury finds someone not guilty, there can never be a re-trial — even if the judge disagrees with the jury’s verdict, or if there is compelling new evidence of guilt. The Supreme Court has ruled that this doctrine gives juries the power to nullify the law. If jurors believe the law is unjust, they don’t have to apply it. There is nothing that anyone can do to prevent jurors from nullifying — under the Constitution, when it comes to acquittals, jurors have the last word.

Nullification works only in one direction — in favor of acquittals. If a jury finds someone guilty, and there is compelling evidence that the person is innocent, judges have the power to overturn the jury’s conviction (that doesn’t happen a lot in the real world). Giving jurors more power to acquit is based on the constitutional principle that it’s better to let guilty people go free than to allow the innocent to be punished.

The idea that jurors should judge the law, as well as the facts, is a proud part of American history. The concept that jurors decide justice became an important part of American jurisprudence.

Perhaps the most shining example of nullification occurred during the shameful time in US history when slavery was legal. People who helped slaves escape committed a federal crime — violation of the Fugitive Slave Act. But when Northern jurors sat in judgment of these “criminals,” they would often acquit, even when the defendants admitted their guilt. Legal historians credit these cases with advancing the cause of abolition of slavery.

This strategic nullification is perfectly legal, and has two great benefits. First, it helps the community by safely reducing the number of incarcerated people. Second, it sends the message that “We the People” want fundamental change in our criminal justice system. This message is intended for both lawmakers and prosecutors.

On Knowing Thyself. (Translation via Google Translate–any improvements are welcomed.)

“Aussi longtemps qu’il y a encore un égo, il n’y a pas de silence parce que l’égo ne peut jamais vivre le présent. Il est toujours entre le passé et le futur, entre l’avoir et le devenir ; c’est une oscillation constante !

Ce que vous êtes foncièrement apparaît d’une manière abrupte, instantanée, c’est la vraie joie ! Le silence s’éveille après un examen en profondeur, quand on a cette conviction qu’il n’y a rien à atteindre et, de ce fait, toute attente cesse, il y a un lâcher-prise. Ce silence est, de toute éternité !

La naissance et la mort ne sont aussi que projections ! Chaque pensée apparaît et meurt. Quand vous expirez, il y a un silence et l’inspiration vient sans que vous vous en occupiez, le corps se prend en charge… C’est parce que vous vous croyez obligé de vous prendre en charge que vous ne voyez pas les moments de silence, par exemple à la fin d’une expiration ou quand une pensée meurt, quand un son s’éteint !”

English:

As long as there is an ego, there is no silence because the ego can never live in the present. It is always between the past and the future, between the have and become c is a constant oscillation!

What you are basically appears abruptly, instantaneously, is the true joy! The silence awakes after a thorough examination, when it was this conviction that there is nothing to attain, and thus unexpectedly stops, there is a letting go. This silence is of eternity!

Birth and death are also projections! Each thought arises and dies. When you exhale, there is silence and without inspiration comes as you were in, the body supports … This is because you believe you have to take care that you do not see the moments of silence, for example at the end of exhalation when a thought or dies, when a sound is off!

In which Michael Rizzo explains the problem with higher education (and partisanship, and government at large). Excerpt below, but read the whole thing.

Higher education shares some of the same problems that plague non-profits. Non-profits have many “owners.” It is unlikely that the interests of parents, students, alumni, faculty, local communities, competitors, employers, vendors, and politicians are in harmony. It is asking a lot of a board of directors to align those many interests, particularly when they have interests of their own. In contrast, for-profit stakeholders have myriad interests, but the lure of profits and the need to avoid losses form a powerful glue that binds them together. Absent such glue, all we have are vague mission statements.

Universities are aware of this, of course. Two commonly proposed  “solutions” end up making things worse. First, in an effort to maximize something, schools focus on burnishing their reputations—which are inherently unmeasurable and depend on others’ perceptions. Second, many groups (all with their own interests) are given a “seat at the table” in crafting important decisions.

Paradoxically, working on your reputation promotes actions that degrade the reputation of the higher education system as a whole. When our peers invest in green elephants, so do we, because “all schools like us have a Solar-Dok.” When our peers inflate grades, so do we.

In the zero-sum game to “be the best” among our peers, we are drawn into the trap of arms races—for facilities, athletic program victories, mission creep administrative overhead, and more. But there can only be five schools in the top five, and this remains true whether we all have climbing walls in our athletic facilities or not.

These races persist because there is comfort in doing “what all good schools do,” without having to evaluate whether such programs make schools better.

And there are other pressures to conform, such as the accreditation process. Our university is accredited by the Middle States Commission on Higher Education. This means that Adelphi, Hofstra, St. Johns and Seton Hall, Penn State—competitors of ours—each have a say in whether we remain accredited.

How would such institutions view proposed research programs and curriculum changes that are risky, innovative, and out-of-the-box? And how would such institutions feel about questioning some of our green elephants, since we, too, have a seat at their accreditation table?

Americans would be uncomfortable if the major agri-businesses were responsible for ascertaining what foods were healthy and safe, or if investment banks determined the quality and safety of financial instruments. Yet we see exactly that in higher education.

Ha, as if major agri-business does not already dictate food safety policy. In 2009 Obama appointed a former Monsanto executive and lobbyist as ’senior adviser’ to the FDA. Said Monsanto executive is now “deputy commissioner for foods at the FDA.” LOL at anyone concerned about GMO voting for Obama.

When outputs are hard to measure, as learning outcomes are, and when accountability is hard to enforce, there is great protection in “everyone else is doing it.” Mere effort is seen as evidence of progress, and any failures to achieve goals can be deflected by arguing that “there is a tough balancing act.”

With vagueness preferred over precision, and with important decisions made by many stakeholders, none typically having sole authority, a likely outcome is to serve a lowest common denominator. That is the easy way to build support for programs, especially when third parties pay a large portion of the bill.

See also:

In Re this Onion article: Marxists’ Apartment A Microcosm Of Why Marxism Doesn’t Work

This is funny, but less so is the fact that Marxist arguments were taken seriously by most 20th century intellectuals and a 100 million people died as a result. It was the most horrific episode of mass insanity in history.–Pete Kofod

I’m generating some content for MMA Recruiter. Fight picks will improve with time, practice, and a cooperative baby.

The ostensible supporters of the Constitution, like the ostensible supporters of most other governments, are made up of three classes, viz.: 1. Knaves, a numerous and active class, who see in the government an instrument which they can use for their own aggrandizement or wealth. 2. Dupes – a large class, no doubt – each of whom, because he is allowed one voice out of millions in deciding what he may do with his own person and his own property, and because he is permitted to have the same voice in robbing, enslaving, and murdering others, that others have in robbing, enslaving, and murdering himself, is stupid enough to imagine that he is a “free man,” a “sovereign”; that this is a “free government”; “a government of equal rights,” “the best government on earth,” and such like absurdities. 3. A class who have some appreciation of the evils of government, but either do not see how to get rid of them, or do not choose to so far sacrifice their private interests as to give themselves seriously and earnestly to the work of making a change.

I’ll be blogging at Libertopia.org this week. Here’s the first:

Now, an Ode to State:

On the Police State:

Interest in the political conventions has plummeted, approval of politicians has reached historic lows and our public treasury is nearly broke. So what does the behemoth bureaucratic government apparatus do?

It erects the most impenetrable wall of security ever amassed to protect and promote the political gatherings that separate the hyper-elite from those out of power, unimportant and irrelevant. In other words, taxpayers.

All in the name of security, the operation protects politicians and party operatives from the wrath of the people whose money they spend and whose freedoms are trimmed with every new law they pass.

All the speeding SUVs with blacked-out windows, screaming sirens, lines of police in riot gear with long batons and choppers whapping overhead also add to the feeling of great importance that already deludes these people. And it serves to deepen their sense of entitlement to your money and your freedom.

It starts to feel like the last, desperate gasp of a dying power.

The problem is that once the government or the rulers gain control of money, it progressively ceases to be a medium of exchange and becomes a medium of control. That impinges on the functioning of markets which in turn impinges on the maintenance of property rights. Thus, we come full circle from a free society to a command society. There has never been any shortage of those who want to rule. The problem has always been with the vast majority who are content to be ruled. Today’s global outcry for the manufacturing of more and more “money” out of thin air is an eloquent testimony. It shows that most people have no understanding of freedom, markets or money. Lacking such understanding – and having no desire to gain it – most people have accepted government as their masters.

Sharad Bailur is an Individual in India I “subscribe” to on Facebook, I really don’t know anything about him, or how we crossed Internet paths. C’est la vie. Today, he went full Libertarian / Chris Hitchens (in what is probably his second, or third language) on Government and God, with respect to the terribly unfortunate human in the photo below:

http://duelingbarstools.com/wp-admin/post-new.php

(Photo Background: “7 year old Sumit , From Guwahati Assam Doesn’t Have Hands. He still works in a hotal as a dish washer to feed his 3 year old sister. Except her he have no one in His life. Please Share , So that this post will reach Any offical Who can help this poor boy!”)

Bailur’s Comment:

Two points: One, [] the Central Government has made child labour illegal. What happens to his source of livelihood? Second God has NOT blessed him. If he had he would at least have had hands and no three year old sister to look after. It is up to us to undo God’s work as well as we can and help him and his sister live as normal a life as possible.

BOOM.

The principle that the end justifies the means is in individualist ethics regarded as the denial of all morals. In collectivist ethics it becomes necessarily the supreme rule.

A Psalm of Life

What the heart of the young man said to the Psalmist:

TELL me not, in mournful numbers,
Life is but an empty dream ! —
For the soul is dead that slumbers,
And things are not what they seem.

Life is real !   Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.

Not enjoyment, and not sorrow,
Is our destined end or way ;
But to act, that each to-morrow
Find us farther than to-day.

Art is long, and Time is fleeting,
And our hearts, though stout and brave,
Still, like muffled drums, are beating
Funeral marches to the grave.

In the world’s broad field of battle,
In the bivouac of Life,
Be not like dumb, driven cattle !
Be a hero in the strife !

Trust no Future, howe’er pleasant !
Let the dead Past bury its dead !
Act,— act in the living Present !
Heart within, and God o’erhead !

Lives of great men all remind us
We can make our lives sublime,
And, departing, leave behind us
Footprints on the sands of time ;

Footprints, that perhaps another,
Sailing o’er life’s solemn main,
A forlorn and shipwrecked brother,
Seeing, shall take heart again.

Let us, then, be up and doing,
With a heart for any fate ;
Still achieving, still pursuing,
Learn to labor and to wait.

Via:

As you may be aware, El DuelingBarstool strongly endorses Gary Johnson for President because his platform is MORE FREEDOM, EQUAL TREATMENT, LESS WARFARE–NOW. (More here.) The below is from the Gary Johnson Campaign, concerning the anti-democratic cock-blocking of Gary Johnson from the ‘national debate’ stage.

–

Dear [Commission Member]

I am writing to request that the national Commission on Presidential Debates reconsider your current – and exclusionary – requirements for participation in this Fall’s all-important Presidential and Vice-Presidential debates.

I am well aware of the history and genesis of the Commission, including the reality that it was created largely by the respective national leadership of the Democrat and Republican Parties. While I respect and understand the intention to provide a reasonable and theoretically nonpartisan structure for the presidential debate process, I would suggest that the Commission’s founding, organization and policies are heavily skewed toward limiting the debates to the two so-called major parties.

That is unfortunate, and frankly, out of touch with the electorate. You rely very heavily on polling data to determine who may participate in your debates, yet your use of criteria that are clearly designed to limit participation to the Republican and the Democrat nominee ignore the fact that many credible polls indicate that a full one-third of the electorate do not clearly identify with either of those parties. Rather, they are independents whose voting choices are not determined by party affiliation.

That one-third of the voters, as well as independent-thinking Republicans and Democrats, deserve an opportunity to see and hear a credible “third party” candidate. I understand that there are a great many “third party” candidates, and that a line must be drawn somewhere. However, the simple reality of our Electoral College system draws that line in a very straightforward and fair way – a reality that is reflected in your existing criteria. If a candidate is not on the ballot in a sufficient number of states to be elected by the Electoral College, it is perfectly logical to not include that candidate in a national debate. If, on other hand, a candidate IS on the ballot in enough states to be elected, there is no logic by which that candidate should be excluded.

Nowhere in the Constitution or in law is it written that our President must be a Democrat or a Republican. However, it IS written that a candidate must receive a majority of the votes – or at least 50% – cast by electors, and that any candidate who does so, and otherwise meets the Constitution’s requirements, may be President.

As the Libertarian Party’s nominees for Vice-President and President, Judge Jim Gray and I have already qualified to be on the ballot in more than enough states to obtain a majority in the Electoral College, and we are the only candidates other than the Republican and Democrat nominees to have done so, or who are likely to do so. In fact, we fully intend and expect to be on the ballots of all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

However, the Commission has chosen to impose yet another requirement for participation: 15% in selected public opinion polls. Unlike your other requirements, this polling performance criterion is entirely arbitrary and based, frankly, on nothing other than an apparent attempt to limit participation to the Democrat and the Republican.

Requiring a certain level of approval in the polls has nothing to do with fitness to serve, experience or credibility as a potential President. Rather, it has everything to do with the hundreds of millions of dollars available to and spent by the two major party candidates, the self-fulfilling bias of the news media against the viability of third party candidates, and an ill-founded belief that past dominance of the Republican and Democrat Parties should somehow be a template for the future.

In all due respect, it is not the proper role of a non-elected, private and tax-exempt organization to narrow the voters’ choices to only the two major party candidates – which is the net effect of your arbitrary polling requirement. To the contrary, debates are the one element of modern campaigns and elections that should be immune to unfair advantages based upon funding and party structure. Yet, it is clear that the Commission’s criteria have both the intent and the effect of limiting voters’ choices to the candidates of the two major parties who, in fact, created the Commission in the first place.

Eliminating the arbitrary polling requirement would align the Commission and its procedure for deciding who may participate in the critical debates with fairness and true nonpartisanship, which was the purported intent behind the Commission’s creation. As of right now, eliminating that requirement would not disrupt the process or make it unmanageable. Rather, it would simply allow the participation of a two-term governor who has more executive experience than Messrs. Obama and Romney combined, who has garnered sufficiently broad support to be on the ballot in more than enough states to achieve a majority in the Electoral College, and who, without the help of party resources and special interests, has attracted enough financial support to qualify for presidential campaign matching funds.

I urge and request you to remove the partisanship from the debates, and allow the voters an opportunity to hear from all of the qualified candidates – not just those who happen to be a Democrat or a Republican.

Thank you.

Governor Gary Johnson

Libertarian Nominee for President of the United States

###

About presidential candidate Gary Johnson: Gary Johnson, two-term governor of New Mexico from 1995-2003, has been a consistent advocate for limited, efficient government and personal liberty. Johnson switched from the Republican Party to the Libertarian Party on Dec. 28, 2011. As the Libertarian Party nominee, Johnson will appear on all 50 states’ ballots. An outspoken pro-Constitution Libertarian, Johnson would end the war in Afghanistan now. He opposes the failed multi-billion dollar war on drugs and demands greater transparency at the Federal Reserve. As president, Johnson would cut federal spending by 43 percent, slash debt and make government live within its means while reducing taxes and regulation to foster real job creation and economic opportunity like he did in eight years as governor. The National Review said he was “#1″ in job creation as governor. An avid skier and bicyclist, he has reached the highest peaks on four of the seven continents, including Mount Everest.

More Here and Here.