The Libertarian Current

Don’s Debates – when the Straw Man ariseth

2012-02-19T03:25:00.001-08:00

It’s been a few months since I enjoyed a good argumentation rodeo. One presented itself on a friend’s discussion thread in social media recently. I had been resisting the urge to throw-in my two-cents’ worth (or five bucks, depending on perspective).

By the way, as a matter of pure happenstance that friend is a fellow Libertarian.

In this latest installment of Don’s Debates, a video spoofing stereotypical comments made to libertarians by three pro-big-government characters was posted.

It appeared as though it was going to turn into a run-of-the-mill libertarian-love-fest in the comments section. Right after I posted a quote by Frédéric Bastiat there came a pair of replies by someone less libertarian-leaning. Another individual followed those two comments with his own selection of a Bastiat quote: “It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.”

Then the straw men were erected by the less-libertarian participant. He contributed the following observation: “State raised grain is inferior in some way to privately raised grain? Less iron or protein, or you just don't like anything any government might do? Will it feed fewer people?”

The banter continued after I had logged-out to start getting ready for work. It became a tad circular in nature while I was away. It had been my intention to not embroil myself in an elongated point-counterpoint session. But, I allowed Mr. Statist to suck me into the conversation when he opted to proclaim those who disagreed with him weren’t adequately making their point.

So, I gave-in and replied with the following:

The problem, [name omitted], is when government (be it here or anywhere else in the world) decides to participate in any industry – in the case you're attempting to make, agriculture – virtually all actions must be run through its internal bureaucracy which makes the production and delivery of the grain inferior: not the grain itself.

When the production and delivery are inferior, less of it gets to its recipients in a timely manner. The delays and inevitable loss to spoilage leads to increased hunger.

You're engaging in a complete straw man argument.

You're deliberately omitting the fact when government is thrust into a sector of the economy it soon disapproves of competition. This leads to laws and regulations that squeeze-out private-sector competitors and leave people few-to-no choices of alternate sources for that grain.

Adding to the potential for rampant hunger is the unavoidable political component when those elected (or appointed) insist distribution be fair, which then requires a massive regulatory establishment to oversee said fairness.

That doesn't factor [further] increased hunger in certain segments of the population where the political connections aren't as vibrant – thus the component of fairness becomes flexible in its definition as a result of cronyism.

Does cronyism exist in the free market?

Of course.

But, in a free market we are all consequently free to pursue our desired goods (such as grain) from other sources when that situation becomes intolerable. Or, depending on the circumstances of one's situation, some among us are then free to take it upon ourselves to engage in that industry and produce that good.

Mr. Statist responded later that morning with this end-all-be-all post:

“We don't have anything even approaching a free market. Talk about straw men!”

Sigh...

Right-wing collective salvation no less destructive than the Left’s

2012-02-05T16:22:00.001-08:00

“One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a libertarianish right. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, and that we shouldn’t get involved with the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved with cultural issues – that is not how traditional conservatives view the world... There is no such society – that I’m aware of – where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.”
Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), interview on NPR, August 4, 2005

In political analysis, temptations are everywhere. They lie-about like a minefield – designed to snap-up and bite you at the first careless step taken.

I’ve stepped on a couple of mines already in my own still-short and obscure foray into politics. As Santorum’s comments quoted above continue to make the rounds in social media, the minefield-like temptation is to engage early and often in ad hominem commentary.

But, such an approach inevitably would steer the overall discussion away from the real issue. The man is not where our focus should be: we must dismantle the premises he has promoted with such comments. Senator Santorum and others who share his views will come and go. But, failing to adequately and accurately refute the ideology and philosophy behind such views – at a time such as this in our society – is to miss an opportunity to expand the greater understanding of what liberty truly means.

So, suffice it to say I wholeheartedly disagree with Santorum. Now, here is why...

The logic flaw behind comments such as Santorum’s is he encourages a path toward public virtue of a right-wing nature that runs in parallel to the left’s.

The growing outlook among the left in America has become the quest for “collective salvation” via redistribution of income. President Barack Obama has discussed this concept on more than one occasion over the years.

The central premise with their argument is the establishment and its crowd of elites must be entrusted with saving us all from ourselves and our uncontrollable propensity – as mere, weak mortals – for the sins of greed and material avarice.

They – and they alone – know what is best for leading society into that public virtue.

As the concept of self-reliance continues to decay in America, one need only to look at the condition and plight of our larger cities to recognize how inevitably dehumanizing Progressive governance is.

With the sociological outlook being advanced by Santorum, we can see there is an effort underway to recharge the batteries for furthering what is the undeniable right-wing equivalent to Obama’s social agenda.

The central concept is the same: government must be granted the power and authority to save us from ourselves. The left wants to social-engineer us toward charitable virtue. The right seeks to social-engineer us toward moral virtue.

The left would have us believe that prosperity for all – fair and equal in their eyes – only can be achieved through government intervention. The right would have us believe that morality for all only can be achieved in the same manner.

Redistribution of income has had an irrefutable destructive effect on the American work ethic and dedication to self-reliance. As we have reached the point where 47% of the population is receiving some form of public assistance, this trend only will continue toward total dependence on the state. As long as availability continues to expand, so will not just the demand for it but the expectation.

The result is simple: the consequence of reliance on the state is our society is eating itself from the inside out.

The combination of welfare, tighter economic controls, and regulation of business has created an environment that is best described as “the race to the bottom” where people do what has been predicted by free-market economists for roughly one-and-a-half centuries: many seek to do the minimum in order to get by in life while others aggressively seek-out every possible loophole in the laws to exploit the opportunities for ill-conceived gain.

The same principle will apply to state-sponsored morality.

As the government attempts to nudge, push, and then steamroll citizens into behavior control as well as limitations on individual personal choices, the outcome as a result of securing America’s moral fabric is bound to be the exact opposite of the promise of easier access to salvation.

It will happen because we will be conditioned to rely on government and its body of laws to guide our consciences as opposed to scripture, prayer, and God.

Human nature will inevitably kick into overdrive as people become eager to settle for the legally acceptable minimum standards in moral conduct while others look for the aforementioned loopholes. With rebellion being humanity’s natural social state, the results can only descend from there as others engage in outright defiance of the law.

And, just as we have witnessed with the Left continually arguing for more and more economic and financial control by the government each time it becomes apparent the present body of laws is not “doing the trick” for society, the right will engage in the same pattern if allowed the opportunity (just examine the history of the war on drugs).

Those on the right – such as Santorum – who expound the notion it is possible to codify God’s law into man’s law unfailingly omit one vitally important fact: the process of codification ultimately is left in the hands of politicians.

What could possibly go wrong there?

It is apparent that Senator Santorum and those who agree with him either have forgotten or chosen to disregard a critical axiom in Christian society just as his counterparts on the Progressive Left have chosen to spurn it: Virtue cannot exist in the absence of free choice.

It is our free will, given to us by God, that makes us uniquely human. It is only through our individual free will that any of us can reach the glory of salvation.

Activism, in style

2012-01-14T05:18:00.000-08:00

While the story of Anthony Buehler [embedded below] steadily spreads across the online social media world and many (myself included) support him in his endeavor to draw full and proper attention to excessive use of force by law enforcement, I have a second pressing issue I wish resolved.

Take a good look at the picture above: where can I get a T-shirt like that?!

"D'Anconia Copper" is easy to read but I am rather curious what the rest of the printing below it says. Unfortunately, what you see up top was the best screen grab I could get during the second news segment used in the video.

Also, is it one of a matching set? You know: another has on display "Reardon Steel"; a third option offers "Wyatt Oil"...

2012: the year ‘conservatives’ embraced LBJ

2011-12-29T22:27:00.000-08:00

As this year winds-down, I know my pro-Ron Paul commentary will need to wind-down as well. The Libertarian Party has multiple outstanding presidential candidates – highlighted by former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson’s recent switch in party affiliation (and God Bless him for it!).

As chair of the Allen County Libertarian Party it is my responsibility and duty to begin focusing my energy and lead the energies of my local colleagues toward our own candidates and leave the Republicans to their own.

Perhaps, more appropriately, we need to leave the Republicans to eat their own – namely Paul and his supporters.

Still, it is my intent to churn-out one more essay espousing virtues of Representative Paul before the Iowa caucus on January 3 and then observe how the chips fall. My hope is that message will go viral if nothing else I write ever does.

Take a long look at the accompanying screen shot. Then, I want you to watch the embedded video below.

Once the connection struck me between the rhetoric contained in the pictured tweet and in the embedded video, I found myself compelled to put-aside everything else I’m working-on at the moment and author this note.

I’ve read the commentary and snark about how Paul’s entry into front-runner status in the GOP field has revealed how his supporters – be they his dedicated boots on the ground or armchair advocates such as myself – are thin-skinned, etc...

But the message on display here, originating from Twitter, is fully emblematic of what has been in play all the while – and being dished in extra generous servings over the last several weeks since he began ascending in mainstream polling.

Paul and his supporters have stuck to examining the track records, platforms, and rhetoric of his opponents and doing the requisite analysis – and when applicable even making comparisons to presidents past and present. His detractors, conversely, have offered the kind of discourse displayed here.

I have commented in social media ad nauseum about the irony that drips from commentary by so-called conservatives about him. President Barack Obama’s stimulus package was decried as unconstitutional. His Affordable Health Care Act is unconstitutional. His party’s finance reform law is unconstitutional. Damn near his entire agenda has been unconstitutional since he entered the White House. However...

Now, when discussing candidates’ qualifications, faithfulness to the Constitution has steadily and amazingly descended in pertinence.

Republicans and Conservatives who vote with that party have a chance to nominate and push into the presidency a candidate who has been the most consistent and reliable constitutionalist to hold any high-profile elected office in decades, in a lifetime.

What we are witnessing instead is the Grand Ole Party channeling the spirit of Lyndon Baines Johnson as it existed in his 1964 reelection bid.

When you throw-in the fact of all his predecessors within the Republican Party, Ron Paul has been most commonly compared to the late-Senator Barry Goldwater, the parallels approach new depths of comedy.

Given that the reemergence of nuclear holocaust rhetoric is coming from within his own party, the irony is as disgusting as it is mind-boggling.

So, take a bow, Republicans! Somewhere in his special little pit in Hell, good ol’ LBJ is enjoying a break from eternal torment and relaxing with a tall, cool one on your tab.

Conservatives and their selective hearing...

2011-12-21T08:28:00.001-08:00

Someone please explain something for me...

Why is it that Conservative talking heads and radio heads continually hammer home the arguing point that we must listen to what the Israelis are trying to tell us as well as their concerns...

...but the same Conservatives unanimously ignore this comment by Benjamin Netanyahu?

This wasn't some casual interview with Israeli media or some third-party quote in an obscure online publication. These were Netanyahu's remarks made on the floor of the U.S. Capitol Building before a joint session of Congress on May 24, 2011.

Due to budgetary concerns, the light at the end of the tunnel...

2011-12-16T17:44:00.000-08:00

Thank God for small miracles!

Earlier today, Congressional Republicans managed to finally attach an amendment to the latest Continuing Resolution spending bill that will operate (for the time being) as a sort-of de facto repeal of the 2007 incandescent light bulb ban.

While it's about damned time this happened (the legislation's components were set to take effect the first of the coming year) there is no shortage of comedic misdirection being perpetrated by the right-wing.

Here is a sample of such posturing from the article linked above:

"'When the American people gave Republicans control of the House in January, one of the major issues involved was the Democratic ban on the 100 watt bulb,' said Rep. Michael Burgess, who fought to preserve the incandescent bulb. 'Republicans have fulfilled our promise to the American people by allowing them to continue to be able to choose what type of bulb they use at home. Consumers should drive the marketplace, not the government.'"

Burgess will make such a comment with complete disregard for the fact Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) -- who presently chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee -- was one of the ban's legislative architects and the bill was signed into law by then-President George W. Bush.

But, we're all supposed to believe this was a "Democratic ban."

My next-favorite snippet appears two paragraphs before the one quoted above:

"Stopping the bulb ban was a chief GOP priority coming into this year, with all of the candidates seeking to become chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee saying they would push through a repeal."

Be aware that I refer to the GOP's "policy rider" as a "sort-of de facto repeal" due to the fact it doesn't actually overturn the original legislation it merely places prohibitions on expenditures related to its enforcement.

And some people still wonder why I'm a Libertarian.

Potential spoiler or possible ace in the hole?

2011-12-09T10:30:00.000-08:00

There is no denying the Republican Party has gone to great lengths in order to keep former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson out of the public eye and from presenting his vision of libertarianism to the public.

As time winds-down before the Iowa Caucus next month, Johnson could very well get a last laugh of his own at the GOP.

Discussions of him leaving the Republican field and pursuing the Libertarian Party’s presidential nomination have been America’s worst-kept secret which very, very few in the mainstream news media have mentioned.

Thank goodness for the Judge…

When Johnson made his appearance on Freedom Watch with Judge Andrew Napolitano, December 7 on Fox Business Network, he tackled that topic with a response that was noticeably noncommittal when it comes to offering a definitive “yes” or “no.”

What I noticed when watching the interview was he made a point of emphasizing that “the message” was always his goal with his campaign. As he pointed-out, his constant exclusion from GOP debates denied him any chance to spread it.

And then he hinted at something noteworthy during his interview with Napolitano: if former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney or former House Speaker Newt Gingrich land the nomination, he is likely to pursue the Libertarian Party’s ticket.

The unspoken hint is that he won’t do it if Representative Ron Paul gets the nod.

Johnson is a smart man. He wants to succeed personally yet at the same time has a genuine love of his country and his principles – principles of liberty which Paul shares. At this point it seems clear to me what Johnson’s strategy is moving forward: one way or another, libertarianism is moving to the forefront of America’s political discussion.

He also knows the GOP’s trepidations regarding how a strong third-party candidate could affect voting dynamics come November 2012. By inching ever closer to seeking the LP’s presidential nomination, Johnson may be the best thing to ever happen to Ron Paul’s candidacy.

How so? Johnson – in my view rather patriotically – is willing to serve as a bargaining chip for liberty.

If the message hasn’t already been explicitly sent (albeit behind closed doors) to the GOP establishment it will be coming soon: you need to support Ron Paul from here-on-out or face a three-way election in November.

The Republican Party’s regularly stated goal has been to unseat President Barack Obama in next year’s election. Its members have been saying this since 2009. Although Johnson has a strong track record of drawing Democratic voters in his two successful gubernatorial campaigns in New Mexico which easily debunks the worn-out notion of “stealing conservative votes,” common sense dictates the GOP is not the least bit interested in taking any chances.

If he chooses to run as a Libertarian, Johnson will be the most viable third-party presidential candidate to run in 100 years. Unlike H. Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996, Johnson has a solid track record as a government executive – which also lends him greater name recognition than Paul enjoyed in 1988 or Bob Barr in 2008.

Most importantly, unlike Theodore Roosevelt in 1912 he is not a Progressive, statist troll.

To summarize, as the Libertarian candidate Johnson would be poised to take a significant slice of the electorate pie. If he goes this route, the Republican National Committee may have to swallow its pride and accept his terms.

Still, his candidacy on the Libertarian ticket would be a dream-come-true for many party members – myself included.

Bloggers have noted in recent days that the Johnson campaign has been bombarded with correspondence by Libertarians to switch tickets. Members of our party have been reaching-out to him to make the right and honorable move – myself included.

While I will understand if he pursues the strategy laid-out above and secures the GOP nomination for Paul it will to the chagrin of many Libertarian Party members, we must remember one of our party’s most popular slogans: the party of principle. And if we believe in our core principle of maximum freedom – both economic and individual – through minimum government, we must then be willing to set aside our own partisanship and embrace this potential path toward restoration of liberty.

One key red flag being raised is time is slowly beginning to run short for Johnson to make a decision. Delegates for the Libertarian National Convention will be meeting in May to select the party’s presidential nominee.

My bet, however, is the picture for the Republican primaries ought to be fairly clear by the time Ohio holds its vote on March 6 – two months before the Libertarian convention.

In other words: fear not, my fellow Libertarians – there will be a resolution to this, one way or the other.

Amendments I'd like to see ratified

2011-11-21T16:44:00.000-08:00

So, who’s ready to fire-up an Article V Convention?!

The following brainstorms do not necessarily need to be ratified in order. The progression presented is the result of my own cursory perspective on how best to implement the necessary steps for reining-in the federal government’s power.

Amendment XXVIII

Section 1. The seventeenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed. United States Senators shall be selected by the legislatures of the several States. No Senator shall serve more than two terms in that office.
Section 2. Members of the House of Representatives shall be elected to no more than six terms in that office.

Amendment XXIX

Section 1. In light of historical abuses by the Congress and by the President of the power to regulate commerce among the several States, as contained in Article I, Section 8, third clause, of this Constitution, a proper and expanded definition of this clause has become necessary.
Section 2. The power to regulate commerce among the several States shall refer to the authority to ensure goods, services, and any other marketable commerce be able to be offered, bought, and transported across State lines without barriers of law created by any State’s legislature or directive from any State’s executive branch.

Amendment XXX

Section 1. The Congress is hereby prohibited from abdicating or conceding its Constitutional authorities, as established in Article I, Section 8 of this Constitution, to the President.
Section 2. The establishment or chartering of a central banking authority by the Congress or President, including any which exist at the time of the ratification of this article, is hereby prohibited.

Amendment XXXI

Section 1. The sixteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Section 2. The Internal Revenue Service, whose establishment was made possible by the Sixteenth Amendment, is hereby abolished. The United States Tax Code as it stands at the time of ratification of this article is null and void.
Section 3. In place of the tax code, taxation shall be executed through a 10 percent flat tax on a minimum annual income threshold beyond $25,000. In the same year as determination of the enumeration for the House of Representatives, Congress shall have the authority to adjust the minimum income threshold by increments of no less than $5,000. This minimum income threshold may be reduced only upon such occasion as increases in the value of the United States currency necessitates.
Section 4. No police powers shall be exercised by any tax agency, established by the Treasury or any other Department of the United States government. Upon suspicion of noncompliance by a taxpayer, said agency may only collect delinquent taxes due to the Treasury, through confiscation, after attaining a warrant from a court upon completion of due process for that taxpayer.

Amendment XXXII

Neither the Congress through legislation nor the President through regulations from executive order shall make laws prohibiting the use, possession, cultivation, or commerce of naturally occurring intoxicants.

Sports is going to hell (a.k.a., why I still like NASCAR)

2011-11-13T09:52:00.000-08:00

Earlier this autumn, I found myself unable to generate – what is termed in pop-cultural as – any Give-A-Damn when the news splashed across my television the NBA had to begin canceling games due to the ongoing lockout.

Millionaires quibbling with billionaires excites me not one God-forsaken bit.

The story was going to end there without much reason to actually write about the topic of sports… That is, until news recently began spilling out of State College, Pennsylvania, like a lanced infection point.

Charges of sexual abuse of young boys by retired Penn State assistant coach Jerry Sandusky, accusations of a cover-up by senior university administrators, as well as endless questions of who else knew what in now-former Head Coach Joe Paterno’s coaching staff since Sandusky’s tenure there are beyond horrific.

As an exclamation point, the alleged abuses are reported to have taken place at the youth services foundation Sandusky established in 1977 known as The Second Mile.

My intent here is not to go on a prolonged diatribe filled with disturbing details about the Penn State scandal. More than enough has already been published on the subject – and more undoubtedly is to come.

Instead, I want to explore what I see as the connection between Happy Valley and the NBA: the steadily growing entitlement mentality in sports – fueled by the celebrity worship which our society has nauseatingly embraced.

It is through our unhealthy fascination with celebrities that so many teens burst into tears at the sight of a singer or band, others go into prolonged mourning because someone famous dies, and unwarranted accolades are showered upon athletes – all taking place and increasing in intensity for generations.

When it comes to sports, today it starts in our schools. We all have either witnessed it, experienced it (meaning through bullying), or enjoyed being the beneficiary of it.

Student athletes – especially those who perform their sport(s) at the highest levels – simply are treated differently. In the vast majority of instances they are granted a far greater degree of forgiveness and leeway in their personal behavior and all too often enjoy latitude in their academic responsibilities other students do not.

This sense of behavioral entitlement is granted to them by school staffs and faculties, their peers, parents (their own and/or others), and the communities at large they “represent.” The social process originates in grade school. It expands in high school. It reaches new heights at the college level. By the time a select few lucky athletes are able to take their on-field/court performance to the next level, the absurdity of the situation is almost beyond comprehension.

When charges are filed against or word gets out of an arrest of a popular athlete, fans – without fail – begin clamoring for “second chances” or at the very a least slap-on-the-wrist consequence. Three years ago in northern Ohio, there was significant hand-wringing over the legal fate of Cleveland Browns wide receiver Donte Stallworth after he killed a man in Florida because he was driving drunk.

Other times, fans simply go into a disturbing state of denial that their beloved athlete could do any wrong.

An effective example of that is how people in Pittsburgh react to stories about Ben Rapistburger… I mean Ben Roofieburger… I mean… Aw, hell, you know who I mean.

Also, it should be noted the vast majority of coaches in sports are former athletes. So, it ought to be no surprise when we find them behaving in ways reminiscent of their less upstanding players.

We only have ourselves to blame – myself included. With all the money the average person dumps into tickets and league products – the replica jerseys, ball caps, T-shirts, posters, jackets, pins, bumper stickers, league television packages, trading cards, bobble heads, Beanie Babies, and even Christmas tree ornaments – it is no wonder so many athletes retain such senses of privilege. Personally, over the course of my lifetime I have poured my own money into these items as well as accepted them as gifts to the tune of thousands of dollars.

Liberty vs. the philosophy of sports

Much the same way my libertarianism has spilled into my approach to religion, a similar impact is taking place with my outlook on sports. Between the manner in which the NFL maintains its sense of preferred geographic dispersal via revenue sharing and how more and more professional sports franchises are demanding their localities pony-up tens- or even hundreds-of-millions of dollars to finance construction of a new stadium or arena, there is much for a libertarian to loathe about professional sports.

Simply put, when we invest significant emotional energy in a sports team, we essentially are embracing a form of collectivism. In many instances, top-performing teams actively frown upon individual-centered performances by their athletes in favor of shoehorning them into roles that typically require them to play below their full potential. Or, in a mirror of the corporatist establishment fostered by federal agencies and their bodies of regulations, we have seen more than our share of sports superstars receive preferential treatment by those who are supposed to officiate games impartially.

The states of affairs described above in large part (not entirely, I must confess) stand in contrast to what takes place in NASCAR. There, race teams operate in an environment which is the closest to a true free market setup: all race teams’ earnings from race to race are dependent upon their performances.

Additionally, race teams, even those which drive for the same ownership and must compete head-to-head, are expected to put forth their best individual performances each and every race.

And if not for NASCAR, we would not have stories such as Denny Hamlin’s, who made his Cup-level debut in the later stages of 2005.

Not long before then, Hamlin was pondering leaving stockcar racing. Wanting to see their son realize his dream, his parents took out a mortgage on their home to finance his racing endeavor in Late Model Stock Cars. It paid-off when he was able to land a driver development contract with Joe Gibbs Racing. And the rest, as the cliché goes, is history.

Hamlin reached the highest level of stockcar racing with no sense of entitlement, no expectation of unearned reward simply for showing-up. There are no participation trophies. He fought and worked to realize his dream – with a little help, love, and support of his family.

Most importantly, he had to be able to finance and then earn his own way to the top of his sport. You don’t see that anywhere else in sports.

Related (mildly) side note

Revisiting the subtopic of celebrity worship (but straying from the central theme of sports), I shall admit to feeling genuine sadness five years ago upon learning of Steve Irwin’s untimely demise. For a change and unlike the vast majority of his contemporaries in professional sports and the entertainment industry, it can be said Irwin became famous because of his genuine motivation to make his fans and viewers smarter. Additionally, he was trying to do so in a field of science – an area in which today too many people are lacking knowledge.

Beyond libertarian: an expository examination of modern anarchism

2011-11-07T17:07:00.000-08:00

In my two previous notes I made reference to the Voluntaryist movement. Those mentions were part of a message to those participating in the Occupy Wall Street movement who identify themselves as seeking small, constitutionally-limited government (libertarian) and seeking little-to-(essentially) no government authority in society (the aforementioned Voluntaryists).

While the idea for this essay has been rolling-around in my head for a while, it has been the recurring discussion of the presence of anarchists at OWS protests which has motivated me to finally tackle authoring my examination of anarchy in today’s society.

In many instances – when addressed during media coverage and public discourse – the term “anarchy” is assigned an unfairly negative connotation. Not all such harsh assessments are unwarranted, of course. However, due to the overuse of the term it has become an inaccurate blanket-description for many who not only disapprove of governmental use of force but become actively involved in decrying it.

The overly broad use of anarchy as a descriptor is unfair due to the fact there are primarily two distinct camps in it. Although the notion of government and politics being defined in terms of left versus right was debunked decades ago by the late-great David Nolan, the two main groupings of anarchists is best illustrated using a left-right dichotomy.

Among the key components of modern anarchism is the prevailing anti-elites sentiment. On the right hand of the scale there are those who fit the description of Voluntaryists and Anarcho-capitalists. To the left, there are those who seek a redistributive form of society sans the existence of a ruling government (research the term “neo-anarchist” dubbed by Keith Preston).

Voluntaryists and anarcho-capitalists believe the free market and unrestrained free choice will derive the necessary economic freedoms that impel prosperity while determining or maintaining social norms will be up to parents and broader family structures in bringing-up their children – as well as religious institutions.

Left-wing anarchists do not share the above economic outlook.

Property rights at the core

In all honesty, given the fact anarchy involves the anti-elites approach, the left-wing camp operates under an umbrella of irony. While the outlook on social norms is – on the surface – the same, this division of anarchism spurns the concept of fundamental property rights.

Where this approach to anarchism differs from its left-wing counterpart of totalitarian statism is simple: redistribution is achieved through mob rule as opposed to the force of governmental authority.

Herein lies the irony: given that anarchism is rooted in the rejection of the authority of elites, in order for redistribution of people’s assets to take place via mob rule someone must be in a position to direct the mob’s focus toward a perceived injustice.

Someone (obviously meaning multiple individuals) must enjoy or retain enough of a degree of credibility which enables them to stir the pot so as to set the majority’s mob-rule agenda.

In essence, these pot-stirrers become de facto elites.

Furthermore, when a vocal and determined minority in such a society identifies what they view as an injustice requiring immediate confiscation and redistribution but the majority disagrees, what is likelihood the agitated minority will concede the point in those instances and let the issue be?

Now, you have a situation where the majority must act in some regard as a force of authority to deter the disgruntled pot-stirrers – creating a scenario where leaders among the majority will inevitably need to emerge and potentially create a competing class of elites.

Conversely, respect for and defense of property rights stand at the heart of Voluntaryism. The forced redistribution of one’s earnings or tangible property is the complete antithesis of Voluntaryist aims for society.

On the right-wing end of the spectrum, the individual’s right to keep what he or she either earns through employment or builds through personal industrious efforts is unalienable: so is the right to share any of it strictly of their own volition for the benefit of others, as well as dealing with the consequences for one’s choices is the responsibility of each individual.

Voluntaryists believe that a society where its citizens are allowed to live within such constructs will steadily align itself toward prosperity and generosity – based on the principle that virtue can only exist when there is free choice.

What becomes of social norms?

Social norms stand a vastly better chance of lining-up with virtuousness under Voluntaryism and Anarcho-capitalism because they are approaches which center on respect for the individual and place emphasis on respect for property rights.

In the left-wing version of anarchism, the notion of social norms becomes much more fluid. This is due to the fact those who do enjoy the prerogative to influence and steer the sentiments of the majority will at some point play to the base desires of humans for the purpose of using such motivations as incentives for pursuing their agenda: as opposed to encouraging individuals to determine their own independent agendas and examining the potential effects on others – especially society at large.

The left-wing cycle of disregard for property rights can only lead from anarchy back to the Progressive ascent of the pot-stirring elite toward statist control of the masses.

In conclusion

Undoubtedly, the left-wing vision of anarchy is every bit the nightmare it is so often portrayed. When the denial of property rights collides with the individual’s unalienable right to defend their property, the resulting clash can only leave a bloody trail of carnage in its wake.

That is not to say there is a complete absence of genuinely well-meaning participants in that movement. Among the goals of these advocates is to create a society that operates while free of what they consider the burden of money. But, embracing this concept requires overlooking a vital truth that money is the medium by which people deal with one another on civilized terms. Without that medium – which represents the value of the product of labor and resources – we will be left with a society where individuals would eventually need to deal with one another via the barrel of a gun. (See pp. 380-385, “Atlas Shrugged” by Ayn Rand)

At the same time, honesty in assessing Voluntaryism is a must. Make no mistake: it is a genuinely noble ideal that is worth pursuing. However, the likelihood of it being realized in my lifetime or that of anyone who reads this is nil.

Much of that is due to the fact it will take generations for the necessary education of the masses regarding the simple principles of self-reliance and individual responsibility. In the interim, a dramatic society-wide change in perception of government’s role in our lives must sweep over the American population while dismantling takes effect of the various entitlements and unconstitutional safety nets.

In essence, we must grow into a society where dedication to self-governance prevails.

If it were as easy to do it as it is to express the notion, by now we would be nearly on the verge of achieving it. Reality does not smile upon the Voluntaryist idealist in today’s world.

That is not to say Voluntaryism’s full-time proponents should abandon their efforts. I stand side-by-side with anyone whose two-fold goal is to vastly reduce the size and scope of government while preserving the rights of the individual.

Some amount of government, though, is necessary: to provide for the defense of the country; to pursue justice once crimes have been committed; to settle disputes involving legally binding contracts; and to safeguard the rights of citizens in the event of their violation by any of the states.

My ultimate hope is that we can return to that system of governance through participation in the democratic process and the manner in which we do commerce: via the mechanism enjoyed by our forefathers in the United States – as opposed to the alternative.

Occupy for Liberty, not the Left

2011-10-21T08:42:00.001-07:00

To all the libertarians participating in the Occupy Wall Street movement and the various springboard protests across the country: break free while you can.

Okay, for all my agreement with their unalienable right to protest as protected under the First Amendment and my belief the overall "Occupy" movement is getting a few points right, this item is a bit much to swallow: as reported by the Associated Press, out of the $435,000 raised thus far to financially support the protest efforts on Wall Street itself, approximately $350,000 of it has been donated via online credit-card transactions.

Why does this matter? This movement is founded on the notion that financial sector greed is at the root of almost all of the evils gnawing and rotting away at America. So to combat that evil, OWS protesters are funding their effort via the very financial machinery against which they claim to be locked in righteous struggle.

Next, common sense dictates that for any grassroots movement to successfully win over popular support from the public at large they need to be willing and able to interact with traditional media in addition to the new media of the digital age.

When that same common sense employed in the previous paragraph is applied toward a situation where men donning masks engage in open hostility toward a local television reporter in Oakland because she simply is trying to give them news coverage, that should lead most people who choose to use it to realize the movement's radicalization is careening down an irreversible course.

And that is a shame. Occupy Wall Street began with genuine promise for affecting something positive in America. Instead, it has been so thoroughly overtaken in sheep-like manner by the Left it makes the Right Wing's effort to co-opt the Tea Party pale in comparison.

In my final appeal to common sense, take a moment to read a Bloomberg article explaining how there now is a greater concentration of wealth in Washington, D.C., than in Silicon Valley.

But Wall Street remains the central focus for protesters… The things that make you go, "Hmmmm…"

Or, as Lew Rockwell has pointed-out, the wrong 1% in America is being protested.

So, my fellow libertarians and voluntaryists trying to co-opt this movement, the left's infernal hypocrisy in most corners and radical agenda in others are too much to overcome. Splinter off and form you own movement – "occupy" in front of the Federal Reserve, Securities & Exchange Commission, and other public and quasi-public financial entities – but don't be afraid to piggyback on the left's efforts.

If they believe so much in redistribution, they won't mind sharing some of the media attention a few of them are so eager to spurn...

Occupy Wall Street… It’s not just for leftists anymore

2011-10-18T07:00:00.000-07:00

Establishment co-opting of a grassroots political movement is nothing new.

Just ask Ron Paul supporters their thoughts on former-Senator Trent Lott’s remarks in 2010 about the Tea Party movement.

While there has been no shortage of commentary and analysis of how various groups and limousine-comfortable celebrities – ranging from left-leaning to radical-far-left in nature – have been rabidly injecting themselves into the Occupy Wall Street movement, the coverage has been missing an important portion of this story.

The leftists are not the only ones active in this expanding scene of protests.

A steadily growing contingent of libertarian protesters has been present all the while. You’re just not hearing about them.

The only ones making mention of them have been libertarian news media figures such as John Stossel and Andrew Napolitano as well as entities led by the Reason Foundation.

With Occupy Wall Street, much like the Tea Party, the libertarians are being widely disregarded by those who blindly seek to disagree with that movement – zeroing-in on the co-opters and making them their focus.

Amidst a sea of so-called 99%-ers holding signs decrying their mounting student-loan debt stand pockets of legitimate activists holding “End the Fed” signs and other displays along that thread. The principle misstep being made by these libertarian and voluntaryist “occupiers” is they’re allowing themselves to blend-in with the kooks.

I appreciate the desire to highlight what ought to be the common thread shared with the left-wing so-called anti-establishment types: the understanding that the unholy marriage of major corporate interests with government regulatory authority is destroying our free market way of life by driving small local competitors out of business through oppressive, ungodly complex rules of operation.

That message is a far cry from the self-described 99%-ers who simply want to exact their pound of flesh from Corporate America. But, messengers for liberty are being largely ignored… unfortunately.

My advice for those who are part of the voluntaryist and libertarian camps in this movement is if you really want to get your views noticed while making a few sphincters tighten in the process, then depart from the corporate offices and march in front of the public institutions that are at the heart of the problem. Migrate away from Wall Street and begin protesting in front of the New York Federal Reserve and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

For those in Ohio who are looking to participate locally, don’t bother converging on Columbus. Instead, occupy Cleveland – in front of the city’s branch of the Federal Reserve Bank there (by the way, the Cleveland Fed is located at 1455 E. 6th Street).

Forget about Wall Street: Occupy for Liberty.

Thank you, Barack Hussein Obama

2011-10-07T18:30:00.000-07:00

Recently, it struck me that I have reason to be thankful Barack Obama is the 44th President of the United States.

Many conservatives have argued at length over the last 35 months that Americans elected the wrong candidate back in November of 2008.

I am not so sure about that.

That statement, however, is made for very different reasons than our more illustrious right-wing mouthpieces would have their viewers or listeners believe.

I am diametrically opposed to the vast majority of his party’s initiatives as well as his core ideology of redistribution as well as philosophy of social justice. Obama’s pace of spending in 2 3/4 years of governance has alarmingly accelerated the United States’ advance toward fiscal insolvency beyond anything perpetrated by George W. Bush and congressional Republicans.

On the other hand, there is no denying that if Senator John McCain had been elected, instead of recklessly hitting the gas pedal on irresponsible spending he would have sought to maintain what was then the status quo: the incremental march toward an all-encompassing, all-consuming federal government that swells to unsustainable proportions.

Most likely, if we had President McCain instead of President Obama, government’s bloat would have continued its creep toward the brink of fiscal collapse just slowly enough so that when Americans finally awoke to the need to reverse course it – in all probability – would be too late to do so.

Personally, there are additional reasons I am thankful events went the way they did three years ago.

If McCain were our president I’d likely still be in my Republican partisan intellectual slumber.

I’d still be embracing intellectually lazy talking points instead of researching constitutional arguments.

I would not have been motivated to research the Libertarian Party.

The idea of making a run for Congress two years ago would have been utterly ridiculous to me.

And, I wouldn’t be chair of a newly-formed county-level political party.

For society as a whole, in addition to the continuation of the incremental advance toward total statism (and being met with only token resistance), renewed interest in understanding the Constitution wouldn’t have arisen.

The Tea Party movement would not be the prominent force it is today.

We would not be discussing Progressivism and contrasting it against Free Market Liberalism (reference F.A. Hayek’s The Road To Serfdom).

So, thank you again, President Obama.

Thank you for beating Senator John McCain by employing a hokey, ill-defined campaign slogan. Thank you for setting the stage for millions of people to realize how positively ludicrous it is to vote for a candidate based on nothing more than an artfully meaningless catch-phrase such as “Hope & Change.”

Thank you for being so arrogant in your pursuit of redistributive legislation.

Thank you for being so disingenuous in your arguments and dismissive of those who disagree with you.

Thank you for buying into the “Astroturf” rhetoric by your fellow leftists and then being so smug toward the Tea Party during its early days.

Thank you – for awakening again the Sleeping Giant.

Don’s Debates – a new chapter

2011-10-04T07:40:00.000-07:00

As I have posted before, sometimes my most earnest work as a "self-styled, self-employed pundit" takes shape while engaged in social media banter on various topics (almost all of which has to do with politics and government).

This one is no different.

A fellow Libertarian was seeking feedback on a pair of issues when the topic landed on agricultural subsidies in the United States. One of his acquaintances kept insisting the elimination of farm subsidies would cause the price of food to go up. That is when I made the courageous decision to dive in via the comfort and safety of my keyboard.

Below is my contribution (lengthy as always) to the thread – cleaned-up a bit and made ready for primetime…

Actually, eliminating farm subsidies would steadily drive down the price of food.

Genuine farmers who receive the subsidies typically are urged by the USDA to do so for two purposes: either to literally grow less produce (typically grains) or in exchange for opting to grow particular kinds of produce.

The reason this is done is to control and moderate the price of food within our own borders. By offsetting the difference in potential revenue farmers would/could make if they were to grow the amount of crops they see fit, the federal government enjoys a much higher rate of participation in the endeavor to control food pricing.

The theory is that if food production were left to true free market forces, the price of food would potentially go up and down too dramatically for people in lower income brackets to keep up.

What this theory ignores, though, is the fact the United States overall now is producing much less food than what its true capacity for it is. This means we are exporting less food than we otherwise could and should be. That is important because by having less overall food to enter into the marketplace farmers are missing-out on foreign markets for additional revenue sources.

It's Economics 101: if farmers did not have subsidies nudging and steering them into various government-ordained agricultural endeavors, they would do what any entrepreneur would do – generate as much product as is within their capability and try to command the best market share possible.

If their overall output increases but domestic demand/consumption does not, then they need to adjust their prices lower to make their wares more competitive and appealing to consumers. This is how the price of food would go down in the abolition of agricultural subsidies. It also would in turn make food more affordable for all (and, yes, especially for poor/lower income Americans).

The farmer, on the other hand, does not take the financially crippling hit that most people would assume happens in this instance because even though the price per unit may go down the increase in total units harvested compensates for the price adjustment and balances it all out.

Next, my contention is that by encouraging lower agriculture output the way the federal government does (based on all the arguments laid-out above) this has a grotesquely negative impact on international famine relief and the worldwide fight against hunger.

Remember, if farmers are left alone to produce what they have the capacity to do, the overall supply of food increases and the price of food decreases. Not only can the average person here in the U.S. better afford food, so can those non-profit organizations which are dedicated to feeding the disadvantaged across the globe (and, of course, here at home).

Instead, we have the Nanny State in high gear manipulating our food supply and meddling with what once was the single-purest sector of the free market mankind has ever known.

Related side note
Earlier, I used the phrase "genuine farmers." This is because there are a growing number of subsidies being offered at the federal, state, and local levels for activities that go well beyond what people typically envision as traditional farming.

In other words, government at all levels is torturing the very definition of agriculture.

For example, one item which made the news earlier this year was the State of New Jersey's agriculture subsidy for honey bee farmers. The subsidy consists of a generous discount on one's property taxes for those who engage in this form of agriculture.

The problem, however, is the fact that equally as generous is New Jersey's definition of the minimum capacity to qualify for a subsidy.

It turns out that of all the people residing in rural New Jersey and taking advantage of this program, no one is making out as handsomely as multimillionaire recording artist Jon Bon Jovi – who opted to setup such a honey bee operation that meets the state minimum standards on his property.

So now, despite owning a home and plot of land worth millions of dollars Mr. Bon Jovi pays a fraction of property taxes than that of any of his surrounding neighbors – whose properties are valued much less than his.

That all sounds fair, doesn't it?

Vintage 1787...

2011-09-17T11:30:00.000-07:00

Today is Constitution Day. It was this day in 1787 when the delegates appointed by the Several States to attend the Constitutional Convention signed the Constitution and the resolution to submit it to the states for ratification.

Some have called it -- even those who support constitutionally limited government -- "just a piece of paper."

But it is far more than that. It is the embodiment of the principles of self-governance, shared authority and responsibility, distribution of powers, and accountability to the people.

It also represents the culmination of centuries of humanity's growth in understanding how to move ourselves forward as a society. The Constitution and its construct of a democratic republic designed to safeguard human liberty stand as the pinnacle of intellectual achievement.

The vast majority of the major philosophical and intellectual developments since the Constitution's drafting and ratification have been aimed at eroding or tearing down the institutions it was written to preserve. Yet, despite the tortured interpretations of its language in the 224 years since it was signed, the Constitution -- and its intended principles -- has endured as the centerpiece of our nation. This is a testament to the wisdom which went into the drafting of it.

I will be observing Constitution Day in my own, quiet manner, by finishing the book "The Road To Serfdom" and if time permits starting "Atlas Shrugged" -- two books written during a time when the push to subvert constitutionally limited government and the Rule of Law was picking-up steam and which warned heavily against doing so.

It is through the Constitution we remain free to read and discuss such literature.

It is through the Constitution we are free to dance in celebration of America's greatest philosopher, Thomas Jefferson.

It is through the Constitution we are free to challenge those who hold seats of power as well as thwart their attempts to enjoy them in perpetuity.

And, it is because of the Constitution that America remains unique on the world's stage.

Are my eyes going bad or are we seeing a bait-and-switch?

2011-09-15T09:02:00.000-07:00

Here's a brainteaser for you:

What's the difference between an Ohio Republican and an Illinois Democrat?

Well, once congressional redistricting is done, the honest answer will be, "Not a heck of a lot!"

As we get a sneak-peak at the proposed new districts for Ohio's U.S. representatives, we see a map displaying odd shapes and districts growing tendrils -- reminiscent typically of Illinois' Blue State tradition of shameless gerrymandering. It's drawn in a manner that would make Salvador Dali whistle in appreciation.

It looks downright ridiculous. For those who agree, let us remember which party holds four out of the five seats on the state's 2011 apportionment board. Curiously enough, it's the same party which pledged last year a departure from business as usual.

What should be especially alarming to Allen County voters is that our two General Assemblymen, Rep. Matt Huffman and Sen. Keith Faber, were major players in the process. Announcing his promise to fast-track the new map to a vote on the Ohio House floor is Speaker William Batchelder.

I'll go out on a limb and surmise these three gentleman were not very good at Geometry in high school.

Some of you are probably lamenting this is no joking matter. You are most likely staunch Democrats.

Some of you have taken offense to my observations. You are most likely staunch Republicans.

For the rest of you, there are 14 months left to decide how best to alert the two major parties you have had enough of the games.

You have 14 months to ponder how best to do the right thing on Election Day. I am more than happy to help.

10 years later...

2011-09-11T15:50:00.001-07:00

Milestone anniversaries – no matter what the event – invariably lead to greater than usual reflection as to why we remember those dates on the calendar.

For me, September 11 is a day which drives home the inevitability of our mortality.

Ten years ago, it was a day that stunned me into silence.

It was a day of ominous signs such as cable television channels preempting their entire day’s schedule to display a screen with the message, “In light of today’s events, all programming has been cancelled so staff may be with family.”

It was a day I sought the company of friends I hadn’t seen in a few months.

It was a day when I had one of the longest phone conversations with my mom we have ever shared.

It was a day I prayed for people I had never known – especially those whom I would never have the opportunity to know.

It was a day I feared not for my country necessarily but for the price that would be paid by our men and women in uniform.

While the vast majority of you who read my essays, columns, rants, and rare short notes have come to know me principally as one of a growing hoard of politicos, I find myself thoroughly unwilling to politicize 9-11.

There have been no lack of posts and discussions surrounding what has and what has not been included in various 9-11 commemoration ceremonies.

If you believe you can do better, then do it.

I went to the prayer sessions and candlelight vigils that were held that evening. People didn’t stand around waiting for someone to organize anything: they just came together.

If the ceremony plans of public officials don’t sit well with you, ignore them in favor of your own…

…And witness the power of the individual.

The brave men on United Flight 93 showed us that.

What will you show America?

Federal judge rules in favor of LPO in ballot access fight

2011-09-09T00:42:00.000-07:00

Below is a press release authored by Libertarian Party of Ohio Deputy Communication Director Kalin Stipe.

In addition to the comments offered by Michael Johnston, LPO Vice Chair and director of the party's Political Division, I would like to state that this development — first and foremost — is welcome news and speaks volumes of the Libertarian Party's comprehension of the Constitution of the United States. As I have been telling our members and supporters locally, how can we expect the public to believe we are prepared to fight for their constitutional rights if we are unable or unwilling to fight for our own?

Given the LPO's track record of successful litigation when this issue arose both in 2006 and 2008, the likelihood of prevailing in court never was in doubt. Unfortunately, Ohio lawmakers were fully aware of this but moved forward with the contested components contained in the bill despite knowing it would incur legal expenses on the taxpayers' dime.

With the Ohio Republican Party in control of the Governor's Mansion as well as enjoying substantial majorities in both chambers of the General Assembly, this was undeniably a partisan attempt to perpetuate the ongoing disenfranchisement of Ohio's registered voters — who have grown increasingly weary of the failed manner in which government at all levels has operated over the years.

Furthermore, that our state legislators would bury the key clauses designed to deny ballot access for minor political parties within a routine housekeeping bill (the update to Ohio's election laws) demonstrates a clear intent by the ORP to obstruct competition within the political system. As LPO Chair Kevin Knedler rightly pointed-out during a statewide party function in June, if what Ohio Republicans attempted with ballot access laws was perpetrated in private industry those companies would face federal investigation for violating U.S. antitrust laws.

While this plays-out in court, we in the Allen County Libertarian Party look forward to providing area voters with fresh options in the political arena as well as the opportunity to pursue a government that respects the individual and is less intrusive in our economic and personal concerns.

Together in Liberty,

Don Kissick
Allen County Libertarian Party Chair

********

Read the text of Judge Marbley's injunction.

********

Federal judge rules in favor of LPO in ballot access fight

COLUMBUS — A U.S. District Court judge ruled Wednesday against the state of Ohio in a lawsuit brought by the Libertarian Party of Ohio to preserve its right to be on the ballot.

Judge Algenon Marbley granted the Libertarian Party of Ohio’s request for a preliminary injunction that protects ballot access for the party through 2012, including for Libertarian candidates already on the November 2011 ballot in Akron and Troy.

The ruling is part of ongoing litigation, LPO v. Husted, which the LPO filed in response to the passage of HB 194 by the General Assembly earlier this year, a measure that made several changes to Ohio’s voting system.

“This ruling is not just a victory for the Libertarian Party of Ohio, but for the majority of Ohioans, including Republicans and Democrats, who are looking for a viable alternative to our current, dysfunctional two-party system,” said Michael Johnston, LPO vice chair. “With this ruling, Judge Marbley has guaranteed that our soldiers returning home from Iraq and Afghanistan will be able to participate in an open electoral process, not unlike the one they laid their lives down to create in the Middle East. We look forward to engaging all political opponents in a vibrant debate in the upcoming Presidential election cycle.”

Marbley noted that the General Assembly had “failed to respond” to previous federal court rulings in favor of the LPO’s ballot access rights in 2006 and 2008. Marbley’s decision recaps LPO v. Brunner, noting that the court found that the requirements set forth by then-Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner were a “severe, unconstitutional burden.” The decision also agreed with the LPO that the new requirements contained in HB 194 limit the ability of the LPO to participate in the democratic process, a fundamental requirement for a group such as the Libertarian Party that seeks to govern.

“Women fought for the right to vote 100 years ago, minorities fought the same fight 50 years ago, and here we are in the 21st century doing the same thing,” said LPO Chair Kevin Knedler. “At a time when the United States is trying to spread freedom and liberty around the world, it is unfortunate that we have to fight in courtrooms, right here in Ohio, for a basic freedom: the right to have more than just one or two choices on a ballot and the right to privately express ourselves when voting. The fight for our freedoms is not over, but after three federal court wins in five years, we are much closer.”

Several recent public opinion polls have demonstrated growing interest in political alternatives to the two major parties that routinely drive our nation and state to the brink of disaster. The Libertarian Party is that alternative, supporting balanced budgets, common sense laws, and promoting candidates who recognize that the United States Constitution is our nation’s primary source of law.

The Libertarian Party is the third largest political party in Ohio. Founded in 1971, the LP supports fiscal responsibility and social acceptance. LPO candidates espousing common-sense, middle class values in 2010 collectively earned enough voter trust to garner more than 1,000,000 votes statewide and earned an average of more than five percent for their respective races. The LPO was the only minor party to run a full statewide executive slate in 2010 — the first minor party to do so since 1934 — and had the only gubernatorial candidate bold and honest enough to release a budget plan for Ohio before the General Election.

Mr. Jordan, if one door closes, another will open

2011-08-23T05:43:00.000-07:00

Here’s what ought to be a fairly simple, straightforward question: does principle matter anymore in America?

There has been much discussion in recent weeks regarding the report by the Columbus Dispatch in which “two Republican sources deeply involved in configuring new Ohio congressional districts” asserted 4th District Representative Jim Jordan may find his territory unfavorably redrawn for next year’s election.

This, according to every media report covering the situation, would be in retribution for Jordan’s “open defiance of” House Speaker John Boehner during the process of negotiating a deal revolving around raising the national debt ceiling.

Mind you, General Assembly members Matt Huffman and Keith Faber – who represent Allen County in the House and Senate respectively and serve on the redistricting subcommittees – have gone on record saying they oppose such a move. They are joined by Ohio House Speaker William Batchelder in publicly expressing such sentiment.

Even Boehner has spoken words designed to create some amount of separation between himself and the story.

However, in light of the assertion that the sentiments expressed above were offered by two Republicans “deeply involved” with reapportionment process, one must wonder how many others in the party share that perspective.

A key barometer indication would be what has Ohio Republican Party Chair Kevin DeWine been saying on the subject?

All this builds-up to a return to the question posed above. Does principle matter anymore?

When it would have been easy to go with the flow and join his fellow Republicans in their verve for compromise Jordan held fast to a decidedly libertarian stance that raising the debt ceiling is only going to push the long-term prospects for U.S. fiscal stability that much closer to impossible.

The only caveat where he was willing to compromise and vote in favor of a debt ceiling increase was if it was accompanied by spending cuts and budgetary constraints which went beyond those proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and common sense dictates would never be supported by his mainstream GOP counterparts, who lack the backbone to embrace such measures.

And, kudos are warranted for Jordan that an aide for the Republican Studies Committee (which Jordan chairs) felt comfortable enough to send “emails to conservative groups urging them to push undecided Republicans to vote against Boehner’s plan.”

One of my key talking points during last year’s election was that it is not enough to simply maintain one’s voting record but have the courage of conviction to openly oppose even fellow party members who are clearly wrong on policy and legislative initiatives.

Admittedly, the two anonymous Republicans cited by the Dispatch raise a somewhat (at best) valid point regarding Jordan’s comfort in representing a district where he is able to rely on such an enormous voting base. In 2008 he won reelection with 65 percent of the vote and last year took home 72 percent of the 4th District vote (and that was in a three-way race!).

And, sure, based on that it is easy for Jordan to spurn many of the typical trappings of politics and rely on an adherence to principles. He’s highly unlikely to be without an elected seat of some kind under any circumstances other than his own choosing.

Then again, perhaps the ORP ought to stop and consider the reason he is so popular within his present district is because of his consistently conservative record.

But, we need to stop and consider what I believe is the most likely explanation for all this manufactured controversy. This has been pure subterfuge.

While it would appear easy for Ohio’s Republican establishment to single-out Jordan who is going to be tremendously popular no matter where he runs for office, the real agenda was to send the message to all other registered ORP members: “We have no qualms going after someone like Jordan – your seat us much less secure.”

On the odd chance, however remote, that the Republican Party here in the Buckeye State actually intends to target Jordan in that manner I would like to conclude with an open letter.

Representative Jordan, should the ORP manage to succeed in squeezing you out of your seat and spurn you in future election endeavors, I will make it my mission in life to make room for you in the Libertarian Party of Ohio.

While I disagree with your perspectives regarding use of legislation to control personal behavior and limit individuals’ choices in life (not to mention the fact $700 billion in defense spending clearly is unsustainable), you deserve recognition for consistently championing for generally smaller government.

If the ORP won’t have you anymore, I will see to it the LPO will.

You have my word on that.

Default is a lie!

2011-07-31T06:15:00.001-07:00

The soundbytes have been flying across the airwaves like missiles over Baghdad in 1991.

A succinct sampling of the news over the past several weeks would read something like this:

“We have bipartisan support.”

“We’re working on a deal to get this done.”

“No deal!”

“You’re not willing to compromise.”

“We have been in talks with the President to reach a deal.”

“No deal!”

“Why would you hold America hostage?!”

“You said the same things five years ago!”

“No deal!”

But, there is one soundbyte, one phrase, that inexplicably is being uttered and rehashed by the left, the right, and even some libertarians.

“We will default if the debt ceiling isn’t raised.”

Out of all components of the latest political circus on display inside the Beltway, that last non-stop, three-ring performance over the debt ceiling has been equally as nauseating as the doomsday rhetoric flowing out of the White House.

Ballyhooed by the party’s ringleader in chief, House Speaker John Boehner, congressional Republicans (and even a number of their talking heads) have also been prattling-on as though they believe the “default” hype.

But, there is one cold, hard truth being deliberately ignored.

Default is a lie.

As so many others have pointed-out already, given the fact the federal government is projected to bring-in $2.2 trillion for Fiscal Year 2011, payments on existing debt will run about $200 billion, Social Security is expected to exceed $700 billion, and the combination of Medicare and Medicaid will run almost $800 billion there will be enough in tax receipts to cover the $1.7 trillion in entitlements.

That leaves roughly half-a-trillion dollars to do the remaining federal business.

What does this mean?

The second-most-obvious answer is someone in the White House is going to (finally) have to understand how to prioritize spending.

Every other entity and operation in America has to learn to live within their means in similar situations… Although, they must do so since they don’t enjoy access to their own monetary printing presses while the federal government is immune from its own counterfeiting laws…

…But, as usual, I digress…

And then there is that pesky most-obvious answer I almost distracted myself from addressing.

The federal government has the money it needs to make all its mandatory expenditures. All the rhetoric, all the hype, and all the hysteria are predicated on lies.

Is default possible? Certainly.

But here is the ultimate truth in the discussion of such an event: should a debt ceiling agreement not be reached, the only way American debt payments, social security checks, and other domestic benefits won’t get paid-out would have to be as a result of a deliberate choice by the President.

So, no matter what chatter gets shot across the airwaves or splashed onto the front pages of all the periodicals about either the Tea Party “hijacking the process” or whatever other narrative gets manufactured, any withholding of payments which the government is legally (not to mention constitutionally) obligated to pay still boils down to a conscious decision within the White House.

And if the President makes that choice, all the “Impeach Obama” rallying cries which have rang predictably hollow so far just might unexpectedly get some teeth to them.

Related side notes

The single most nauseating talking point raised by Republicans so far has been the notion that forcing this administration to begin choosing where to drop the axe on federal spending means leaving all the discretion up to the Democrat-held White House.

The leading minstrel on this argument has been – surprise, surprise – Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

This is the same Mitch McConnell who practically broke into tears over mentions of reducing discretionary spending a year ago.

The Bluegrass State’s senior Senator continues to let his priorities shine like a beacon of patheticness.

Once again the tenuousness of Social Security has worked its way to the forefront political discussions. Every Libertarian across America ought to be beating this drum relentlessly in light of the opportunity presented.

For the first time last year, the Social Security Administration found itself having to dip into the so-called lockboxes and…

…Figure out what to do with stacks of worthless IOU’s.

And that has come to pass because of decades of borrowing against the Social Security Fund that was supposed to be funded by all the FICA taxes collected since the Roosevelt era.

Things were running smoothly until we finally reached that point – which had been predicted for years – when the amount owed in Social Security obligations exceed the amount of FICA taxes being collected to ensure the checks continue to go out in the mail.

There should be trillions of dollars in reserve to permit the seamless continuance of payments in transition from entitlement surplus to entitlement deficit without any hiccups. However, both parties kept dipping their digits into that cookie jar for years: now all we’re left with is the most extravagant Ponzi scheme ever fathomed – with 30-something sessions of Congress making Bernie Madoff look like a pocket change pilferer.

Losing my religion, saving my faith

2011-07-16T11:15:00.000-07:00

“Awakening” and “enlightenment” – they are terms which describe intersecting periods in American history.

In our nation we find ourselves in need of them again now more than ever. We stand at the cusp of either turning an amazing corner if we can wake-up as a society or becoming bonded into servitude of the whims of other nations which have been able to maintain greater clarity in seeing the consequences of nations’ choices: theirs and ours.

To save our country, we need a second “Age of Enlightenment.” With history as our road map, it then should become obvious we first need to enter a second “Age of Awakening.”

The original Age of Awakening was a stretch of the middle of the 18th century when a new ministry nearly exclusively the domain of Colonial America began to arise. It empowered the Enlightenment which had emerged in Great Britain in the late 17th century – which began slowly inspiring America’s greatest minds over the course of the century that followed.

We have gotten away from the ministry of that time, unfortunately. In truth, we have strayed terribly from it. The operative inquiry becomes, “How do we get back to it?”

One hope that I hold lies in my own personal awakening in my faith this year – and I pray it can take hold across our society.

In my previous note, I belabored the point that the Laws of God and the laws of man were never meant to be one and the same. I firmly believe the failure to acknowledge this truth is one of the key blunders of the American Right. When you vest that much broad-sweeping power into the bureaucracy of the state you allow much too dangerously great of an opportunity for those who hate Christianity to engage in destructive mischief upon stepping into that power.

But, this spring the truth to be found on the other side of that coin finally got through.

I was born into the Catholic Church. I attended Shrine of the Little Flower Catholic School for grades 1 through 8. I was raised Catholic.

Recently, though, I found myself struggling to return to faithful attendance of Mass on the Sabbath. I have been very delinquent in recent years with keeping my end of the bargain on the Third Commandment – so I understood my obligation to seek the sacrament of Reconciliation in order to be able to receive Communion again.

Even after forcing myself to not be lazy to that end for a few weekends, I still experienced significant angst over this matter.

Nevertheless, I have consistently longed to return to that path in life since I allowed myself to lapse in attending Mass.

Then it finally hit me. I don’t disagree with the Church on its Catechism. I disagree with its dogma that in order to be one with the Church you must rigidly meet points A, B, and C through X, Y, and Z.

With such an unwavering system of rules to be able to stay in the Church, in a mirror image of what the Evangelical Right Wing in America has been pursuing for decades the Vatican has been for centuries attempting to pigeonhole the laws of man into and amongst the Laws of God.

If structuring government so as to make the laws of man reflect the Laws of God is destined to be a failed concept in our society, then it stands to reason the pursuit of the other direction ultimately cannot succeed for any church.

My apprehension also stems from the massive bureaucratic framework the Church has built over the last 1700 to 1800 years.

Now, all the major denominations of Christianity have engaged in this practice. The Catholic Church, though, stands out as the leading example. (Quixotic as it may appear, I still believe in the Catholic Church’s Apostolic origins as well as the holy authority of the Pope)

This is where my libertarianism has bled into my religious province. My question now becomes, “Is it necessary for the ministry of spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ to be so heavily contingent on the existence of a massive, complex administrative hierarchy?

Much the same way I believe society will function just fine with minimal government and reliance on our ability to engage in self-governance, so too I believe the future of Christianity would be just as promising with significant scaling-back of church organizational apparatus.

Just consider the fact that as our government has gotten ever larger and more centralized so has the omnipresence of politics grown to nauseating proportions.

As our churches become more reliant on central authorities which operate with ever-expanding dogmatic networks, it is inevitable that the risk of politics creeping into these machineries will become more prevalent.

And when politics come into play, would not the need assuredly arise for a set of rules, or laws, to keep the political side of things in check? Would not some form of framework of laws be needed to keep the internal politics from overtaking the church affairs?

Ultimately, does that not also mean you then end-up with the laws of man taking precedent over ministering to parishioners the Laws of God?

Much like with the United States government, the bureaucratic nature of organized religion has become unsustainable.

What history has taught us

As we came to learn in America, during the Age of Enlightenment which preceded the Revolution, our relationships with God and Christ were always meant to be a personal one. The opposite of this outlook is known as collective salvation.

Collective salvation was what the churches in Europe had begun implementing as a means of maintaining control of the masses: if an orderly adherence to the official sermons was not maintained, no single person could hope to be saved in the absence of blessings for the whole of society.

However, here in the American colonies during the 18th and 19th centuries, ministers and preachers began sermonizing a more individual approach toward belief in God and Christ.

Thanks to a man named George Whitefield, who began a barnstorming tour across the colonies in the mid-1700s preaching his new – and (dare I say) revolutionary – outlook on finding God, the people in the New World would slowly but surely come to understand that when we as individuals are good and more virtuous then the parishes and congregations (and ultimately the communities) are stronger and greater.

What Whitefield would end-up not only teaching but inspiring in our American ancestors during that period in history was when we are more enabled as individuals to better ourselves and fortify the spiritual health of our families, our society as a whole gradually becomes a healthier and more vibrant place.

Naturally, humanity at that time 260 years ago had a long way to go in terms of realizing civilized living and overcoming many of the superstitions which still dominated the culture. But, during that period people in the New World were more focused on self-betterment than at any time before and since – paving the way for a societal rise to world greatness that the world had scarcely seen before.

And all the while, the collective gains were being made because the spirit of the individual had been unleashed – an individual who understood the vital importance of loyalty to country yet at the same time was free to seek salvation one-on-one with God and Christ.

So, what does this mean?

One of the most important components of the spread of Whitefield’s message and the rise it gave to the American Enlightenment was the fact the individual churches retained a great deal more autonomy across the Colonies than their counterparts back in Europe and Western Asia.

Of course, much of that was due to the existence of such an enormous geographical separation from the various councils and authorities for each Christian sect as well as the lack of modern transmittal of ideas as we know it today. Still, the overall conditions of the time – not just in terms of the absence of technology but the evolving sense of the American identity – led to an amazing awakening not just of Christianity but for Christian values.

Arguably the key messages being spread across the colonies during this particular junction in history was the importance of virtue among the people: that without Americans being a virtuous people the prospects for not only achieving independence but also for lasting as a sovereign nation would be rather dim.

But, it was the more independent nature of the congregations (particularly in the more remote, frontier reaches of the original colonies), outside of the reach of church bureaucracies, that helped cultivate the sense of American Individualism: the person who sought the optimum cross-section of self-sufficiency and Christian virtuousness.

Perhaps most importantly, the conditions of living in and maintaining a community in the more untamed, frontier portions of 18th century America also led people of differing faiths to work and worship together as a result of the necessity of unity just to survive, let alone prosper – bolstering the nation’s identity as a land of religious freedom.

Where should this lead us?

It has become a growing rallying cry – among those of us who wish to see the ship of America sail true again – “Where is our George Washington among us?” that person whom we need to step forward (no doubt reluctantly as the Father of Our Nation did) and inspire us as a nation to modestly and graciously seek the path toward Restoration: that individual who can do so having earned their place as “First in the hearts of America.”

What many of us (myself included) have forgotten from our history lessons is that even George Washington needed to be preceded by others in the greater scheme of things who would set the stage for him to become our nation’s most beloved leader.

Before Washington took his place in the annals of American history there needed to be the likes of Thomas Paine, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin.

Before them, there was George Whitefield.

Before we can find our modern-day Washington, we must find our modern-day Paine, Adams, Jefferson, and Franklin.

Before we can find them, we must find our modern-day Whitefield.

In the end…

If nothing else, my aim with this essay is to point-out that we are doing ourselves a disfavor by clinging tightly to our identities as Catholic, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist, and so on.

Do we not all believe in the Immaculate Conception, birth, life, ministry, crucifixion, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ?

And that leads me back to that juncture I reached this spring: that tightly-held notion of being a Catholic was nothing more than a label – and we have become entirely too preoccupied anymore as a society with finding a comfortable label for ourselves.

As a result, in the modern quest for labels we allowed ourselves to forget our identity as Christians.

Christ called upon His apostles James and John to become “fishers of men.” His call to us through the ages hasn’t changed: to be disciples of Him. He has never called upon us to fit neatly into an arbitrary category.

For Christianity to survive another 2,000 years, we must learn to focus on discovering Christian Unity. Ultimately, these labels of church identity serve as much to divide us as any other factor working against Christianity today. With so much stacked against us anymore when it comes to living by the Gospel, what sense does it make to actively pursue and erect additional barriers to unity as Christians?

Even if we are unable to arrive at the kind of ecumenical Christian faith I pray can be achieved, a united Christian faith will become a movement for good the likes of which the world has not previously witnessed.

I believe in Christ and I believe the Bible is the Holy Word of God.

I make those proclamations in the complete absence of shame or embarrassment. Of course, there will be those who try to peg a different set of labels on me – such as Jesus freak, bible thumper, and other, similarly derisive (if not blasphemous) markers.

Just know this: they only label me – they cannot define me.

My faith in God and Christ will accomplish that.

An Evangelical case for Libertarianism

2011-07-12T20:14:00.000-07:00

Important note: if material of an overtly religious nature and that actively examines Judeo-Christian theology and its role in guiding us ideologically is not of interest to you, this is a good point to stop reading and go about other leisure pursuits. I am a firm believer in the notions that America is a Christian nation, to remain in keeping with Christian doctrine means defending and preserving the rights of others to hold differing religious and spiritual beliefs, and that America is great because America is good. If any of these principles do not hold well with you, you will simply be laughed-at for keying-in on the various professions of faith contained in this essay as opposed to the connections between Christianity and libertarianism I assert exist.

It has been argued on many occasions through the generations that to preserve our country’s Christian heritage and identity we must use the force of government power to remove those components of society which exist in opposition to Christian moral values. Some arguments have not contained such an overtly worded premise while others have been uttered with even stronger language toward those ends.

I disagree with this concept entirely and have come to better understand why we need to steer clear of such legislative or constitutional endeavors in recent years.

In exploring what the true meaning of liberty is in America, what has dawned on me through this period of reflection has become a crucial facet to my conclusions: the importance of God’s second-greatest gift to us.

Obviously, our Lord’s greatest gift to his people on Earth has been His only Son, Jesus Christ: His birth, life, teachings, death, and resurrection. His second-greatest gift is the one which has made us uniquely human among all His creations: our free will.

And, it is our free will that serves as the focal point of this discussion. It leads us to one of our most important spiritual questions we must answer as Christians.

What is it about faith in Christ that leads us to salvation?

My answer is that in addition to accepting Jesus as our Lord and Savior, we must also prove that faith through the opportunity to rise above sin.

Which individual is more likely to be a true follower of Christ? Is it the person who lived a life of virtue only as a result of an overreaching central authority, due to their options in life having been legislated away to protect them from temptation?

Or, is it the person who – given the opportunity to hear the Word of God and know Jesus’ teachings – opened their heart to the Son of God of their own volition and sought the rocky, gravel road as their path toward following Him; the person who has every opportunity to give-in to temptation but willfully rejects the false promises which accompany it in pursuit of Christ’s Favor at their eventual time of judgment?

At this point, we need to remember two more undeniable and vitally important truths: first, that our God, Creator of Heaven and Earth, is ultimately a forgiving God; also, that belief in – and acceptance of – Christ as our Lord and Savior is the most important Way into God’s kingdom.

As one who seeks greater understanding of Evangelical Christianity, I enter into this pursuit with an unwavering belief in the loving forgiveness of God.

A vital truth Evangelical Republicans disregard

There is one component of a free people such as Americans which the right wing among love to celebrate when it comes to history – our rebelliousness.

Peculiarly though, such high regard for America’s rebellious nature fizzles in silently rapid fashion when it comes to modern society. And so, many conservatives press forward on social issues in politics, legislation, and governance while deliberately ignoring one key reality.

Rebellion is mankind’s natural social state.

We see this throughout American history and we are witnessing it today.

Look at the ongoing fight against the implementation of the so-called Affordable Health Care Act (whose nickname lately has morphed into “Obamneycare”). Through the peaceful exercise of our First Amendment rights, Americans have been engaged in a rebellion of rhetoric against a socialist legislative maneuver that was enacted despite the fact it was clear the majority of voters in the country did not want it.

We also see it in youth whose parents attempt to take the authoritarian approach further than necessary.

That second example best illustrates my point as it relates to this discussion. With rebellion being humanity’s natural social state, to some degree it is because the Evangelical element among Conservative Republicans have sought so fervently to thrust the Gospel of Jesus Christ into our laws that there has been such a rise in atheism as well as a wider disinterest in Christian values and principles among those who identify themselves as Christians.

It is the inevitable pushback against what amounts to right-wing big government: the thrust to deny us through the law our right to exercise our free will.

It happens with each Republican congressional majority and Republican-controlled White House. And, there is bound to be another round of it when the grand pendulum of voter sentiment finishes swinging back to the GOP’s way.

The conservative contradiction

Of late, much has been made about messages entailing so-called collective salvation. This idea is based on the notion that the individual cannot be saved if the community is not first saved.

This is a concept being gradually promoted by the Establishment Left to further distance us from the truth that salvation is on an individual basis. However, the Left’s approach to this is being made via economic-centered legislation and executive decree.

Conservative commentators have taken some note of this rhetoric and have been rightfully critical of it.

But, there is one problem.

The American Right’s social agenda is operating under the same premises as the Left’s economic agenda: that we cannot be trusted to make decisions and choices for the best interests of society – or rather we cannot be trusted to make the correct decisions and choices.

Among the Republican Party’s Evangelical base, there is a mindset that our laws must be written so as to “protect family values.” This perception of the role of government in our society’s system of values ignores one vital truth:

The laws of God and the laws of man were never meant to be one and the same.

In order to achieve the ends that Evangelical Conservatives insist are what are best for us, it would require Congress to author laws either so broadly written and wide-ranging they bestow to federal authorities frightening leeway to interpret which of our actions would be too immoral under the law or produce a behemoth of legislation that must tackle and specify so many possible personal activities that no one could possibly know whether or not what they’re doing is illegal – that is until one of those statutes was selectively applied to them after the fact.

All in all, what conservatives fail to recognize is that working to use man’s law to steer us all toward following God’s law is merely right-wing collective salvation.

And, if our society is to become one engineered for collective salvation then what need is there for us to seek God’s forgiveness on our own – to seek salvation through the Word of God?

Much like left wing economic safety nets and entitlements kill the motivation to be self-sufficient in our day-to-day lives, right wing morality safety nets will have the unintended consequence of killing the motivation to seek salvation on our own. Why worry about what the Word of God tells us when we have a ready-made authority here on Earth to take care of our moral spiritual needs?

The best path to Christ is the one which is freely chosen – a Free Will Evangelical path.

Where liberty and morality collide: resolving libertarianism and the sacrament of matrimony

While the temptation is compelling (pardon the ironic pun) when writing this essay to devote time to analyze each and every plank regarding individual liberties in the Libertarian platform, for the sake of some measure of concision it makes the most sense to focus on the single most controversial issue which has leapt to the forefront recently.

One of the key arguments against libertarianism in America involves the issue of marriage. The purest of libertarian platforms is that government has no place in overseeing, regulating, or having any kind of hand in the institution of marriage: this is because it is of the most personal nature between two individuals and its origins in society trace directly back to the churches (or other religious places of congregation).

As a result, it can be argued that the requirement to obtain a state-issued marriage license is unconstitutional on the grounds of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Since the “wall of separation between Church and State” as described by Thomas Jefferson meant the true original intent of the First Amendment’s verbiage was to protect the Church and its functions from encroachment by government, the continued practice by the states today to mandate acquisition of a license in order for two individuals to be “legally” married rightfully is beyond their reasonable, constitutional authority.

This leads us to the simple truth that what government defines as a “marriage” in all actuality is a civil union as it entails the signing of a legally binding contract between the two spouses. What makes such a union a Marriage is the understanding they have willingly come together as one life and one unified soul in the presence of God.

Returning to the question of morality, many who oppose the notion of the right of nuptials being opened to couples of the same gender insist this development will put our society on a path toward polygamy and other such marital arrangements.

There lies in this assertion a glaring problem of argumentation, not of spirituality. Any logical argument must follow the pattern that if “A” is connected to “B” and “B” is connected to “C,” then it is true that “A” must lead eventually to “C.”

But, those who insist that same-sex civil unions will lead to polygamy are missing the vital “B” component in their arguments. They’re making the case that “A” (gay marriage) will take us toward “C” (polygamy or worse) – but they’re omitting the all-important “B” connector in their reasoning: what happens after the initial allowance of same-sex unions that precipitates polygamous arrangements?

Still, some libertarian ideological purists would insist if three people willingly agree to an interconnecting marital arrangement that should be their right as well as their private business – and theirs alone.

To set the minds of my fellow Evangelical Christians at ease, I would contend psychological findings through the years have proven such relationship dynamics are doomed to fail in the vast majority of instances when and where they are pursued and will not see proliferation as a result of that alone – even if a legal or constitutional argument for polygamy could be successfully made.

And in all practicality, if we assume multi-spousal marriages remain prohibited, can anyone explain how a situation where a husband and wife simply invite a non-marital third partner into their relationship becomes less immoral or less potentially damaging to the sacrament of matrimony than if they were to engage in a three-way civil union?

Conclusion

Above and beyond the points raised above, right-wing Evangelicals have been deliberately ignoring the most important libertarian point which relates to their system of values and beliefs: that it is your right not only to disagree with the choices made by others but also to express it!

Even more importantly, you enjoy the right and freedom to raise your children to embrace the values and beliefs you (and I) hold so dearly and encourage them to advocate those values to others. That right and authority as parents must never be abridged under any circumstances if we are to remain a truly free society.

You have the right (especially if you are an ordained clergy) to assume the duty and responsibility to preach before those who will lend you their ear what steps necessitate the path toward personal salvation through Christ. We are all free to engage in either the ordained ministry or personal ministry (should entry into the seminary be beyond your means) for the sake of saving others’ souls.

But, they (we) must be allowed to choose to have their (our) souls saved.

By insisting that government assume any semblance of that role in society, are you not advocating that the State serve as a surrogate parent or minister? Is that a role we could ever reasonably or reliably trust any level of government to assume without the potential for grave unintended consequences?

Do you believe humanity is so corruptible and we are all so unable to grasp the need for redemption that we must be insulated from ourselves and our free will through the force of government?

One of our greatest Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, spoke of the preservation of individual economic freedom when he issued this well-known warning: “A government big enough to give you everything you want is powerful enough to take away everything you have.”

This same, undeniable principle also applies to our nation’s moral fabric. Does it not stand to reason that a government which enjoys the power to mandate we all live by a particular system of values is powerful enough to shift gears on us, turn that set of values on its ear, and thrust upon us a moral approach which operates in contradiction to Christianity?

As I’ve written before about this topic, those who would be in a position to set, influence, and shape social values policy – and have been holding many key offices and positions in the Executive Branch – fit that very mold.

Take a long, honest look at those who presently sit atop our institutions of power and ask yourself, “Are they people I trust with my salvation?”

Answer this: is it 1984 yet?

2011-07-10T22:29:00.000-07:00

Someone answer this for me: how do you not see the parallels in today's political theater with the more startling component's of George Orwell's "1984"?

Among several storyline components in the book, Oceania's government flip-flops between its announcements of being at war with Eurasia and then Eastasia in a matter of a couple months, but no one seems to take notice.

Contrast with with how today's Republicans and Democrats do the same:

For example, deficit spending. Republicans and conservative pundits were relentless in their apologist defenses of Bush spending policies from 2001 through 2008. In the meantime, Democrat leadership railed against the rising expenditures relentlessly -- among which was then-Senator Barack Obama.

Today, you cannot criticize the Democrats' massive run-up of spending over the last three years without being accused -- by them, their supporters, and many of the media's unabashed left -- of having racist motives in many instances. Still, Republicans are frothing at the mouth over the national debt eclipsing $14.3 trillion but will dismiss and demean anyone who tries to make them answer for the $4.9 trillion expansion of national debt during the Bush years.

On war, challenging the so-called Bush doctrine on the Middle East was automatically deemed unpatriotic by conservatives. Democrats were nearly united in their steadfast opposition to the Bush warfare state. Now, we witness mainly complicity for expanded war engagements by President Obama among Democrats while Republicans are now the outspoken critics of his aggressive use of American military might.

Simultaneously, most Republicans oppose any proposals for troop reductions in Iraq and Afghanistan and are quick to label such action "Cut and Run." All the while, modern liberals have been silently burning and shredding their "Dissent Is Patriotic" T-shirts since January 20, 2009.

Finally, I find it uproariously hilarious that for years before the turn of the century, Democrats and liberal commentators have decried the activities of the Federal Reserve Bank while Republicans and their conservative apologists were insisting its continued unabated operation was vital to maintaining a healthy and stable American economy.

Now, the left is half peculiarly silent on the Fed while the other half has warmed-up to cheerleading for it. In recent years, more and more conservatives are jumping aboard the bandwagon for reining-in the Fed's financial powers.

I know I have maybe a very small handful of Democrat/liberal followers. So, to those of you who identify yourselves as Republicans and staunch conservatives, explain to me without silly, predictable ad hominem attacks, why you don't agree with my assessment of 1984 parallels.

Wall of Separation or lines in the sand?

2011-07-07T12:24:00.001-07:00

(Don’s note: As dated as the opening discussion points may be, the need to write this essay never ebbed in the same manner it’s timeliness did with each passing day since the linked article was published by Lima News Opinion Page Editor Ron Lederman. As I kept the main arguments tucked-away in the back of my mind, it dawned on me this piece would be the best possible segue composition for the one which will follow. While my authorship of the blog below may be long overdue, its central points have been of vital importance to our Republic for 220 years and will continue to be so for many generations to come. Also, while it may be tempting at some point to write this off as a strangely tardy defense of the former candidate mentioned as well, her mention serves merely as necessary background for why I felt it was so necessary to at some point tackle the central theme.)

I stopped getting excited over candidates for elected office based on their party affiliation several years ago.

While I have supplanted that outlook with a small-government, third-party bias, my spurning of the failed two-party political system has led me to (finally/belatedly) assess what all candidates and pundits say with a more critical – and especially skeptical – outlook.

Sometimes, even a less confidence-inspiring (or so many talking heads would have us believe) individual can arrive at the truth – and in plain enough terms to draw equal amounts of public scorn and adulation.

Such was the case with Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell in Delaware last year. During the October 19 debate with Chris Coons (the eventual winner of that State’s Senate seat) at Widener University’s law school she asked her opponent point blank, “Where in the Constitution is the ‘separation of church and state?’”

According to the Associated Press, O’Donnell’s retorts to Coons – during a discussion centering on whether or not public schools ought to include Creationism in their curricula – drew a derisive response from an audience which consisted principally of law students and professors. Critics would insist her remarks in the overall exchange during that segment of their debate demonstrated O’Donnell lacks a comprehension of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause and what its original meaning and intent have always been.

Locally, Lima News Opinion Page Editor Ron Lederman would expand further on that observation (see, in particular, his post in the bottom of the comments section) by insisting that because she presented her perspective on this highly contentious topic while debating a lawyer and in front of a crowd comprised mainly of law students she is “an idiot.”

There are a couple of points that actually show favorably toward O’Donnell on this situation. The fact she would hold to the obvious on the First Amendment that the phrase “separation of church and state” is stated nowhere in it, and do so in the company present at that time, demonstrated a degree of courage of conviction so nauseatingly lacking among politicians today. It is easy to argue one’s convictions and principles while in the presence of a like-minded crowd. It is a far more daunting undertaking to do so when surrounded by people who are inclined to disagree with you vehemently.

Now had O’Donnell been surprised her stance on the Establishment Clause would be harshly-received, one would have a sound case that she lacks solid reasoning skills.

Otherwise, to say the least, Lederman’s criticism of O’Donnell on this specific point is nonsensical.

What is a legitimate criticism of her is how she defended her qualifications to be the next senator from Delaware instead of Coons, since she had not held any previous legislative seat or could boast of any other governmental experience. This was a gaff everyone who spent time tearing-her-down completely missed.

Bear in mind: she championed herself as embodying all that the Tea Party represented based on the notion she was not a Washington Insider trying merely to advance her political aspirations.

O’Donnell eventually pointed to her years of experience working for or establishing several right-wing think tanks and other non-profits (Concerned Women for America, Intercollegiate Studies Institute, Savior’s Alliance for Lifting the Truth [founder], and Catholic Advocacy Network [founder]), authorship of multiple articles for conservative and Christian publications, as well as her two years working in the communications office of the Republican National Committee in Washington, D.C.

In short O’Donnell, who promoted herself on the campaign trail as the non-Washington insider, heralded her qualifications to serve in the Senate based on her years spent as a Washington insider.

All in all, her perceived or real shortcomings aside, O’Donnell is right regarding the so-called intent of “separation of church and state” in the First Amendment. It’s not even a matter of semantics, as Lederman insists in his own observation.

What those with a Progressive outlook on the dynamics of religion and government have been pushing onto America over the last 64 years hinges on language used in the opinions of the Supreme Court justices in the Everson vs. Board of Education case.

Opinions written both by the majority and dissenting opinions in that case made reference to the “wall of separation between Church and State.”

What the Supreme Court did in 1947 – and what militant anti-religionists have continued to do to advance their agenda throughout the decades since – was thoroughly torture the words of Thomas Jefferson and completely disregard American and Western history.

On New Year’s Day, 1802, in the first year of his first term as President, Jefferson penned a letter in reply to one he received from leaders of the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut.

The Baptists represented a small minority among Christians in the young nation, particularly in the Nutmeg State – which at the time had the Congregational Church as its established state religion. At one time or another during the United States’ founding years, most states had (although their respective legislation had been adopted during their years as British colonies) state churches. Jefferson himself had signed into law while governor of his home state the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom in 1786, disestablishing the Church of England as the state church.

In their letter to Jefferson, the Danbury Baptists expressed their concerns that the state laws which declared a statewide church would result in their unalienable right to worship as they believed being reduced to privileges allotted by the legislature.

Within his response, Jefferson wrote the following passage which constituted the bulk of the second paragraph (of three) of the brief letter: “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”

The other historical point which cannot be understated is the fact when the Bill of Rights was being drafted, fresh in the minds of much of America were the lessons learned from the histories of most of the nations of Europe, where religious tyranny at the hands of the monarchs and their nobility had raged for centuries.

Many of those who had set sail for the New World over the course of roughly 200 years preceding the ratification of the Bill of Rights had done so to escape oppression or outright persecution for their religious beliefs. The most famous among these were the Puritans who are more commonly known as the Pilgrims who landed at Plymouth Rock in 1620.

While irony abounds in the fact the colonies would one-by-one establish state churches, it remains indisputable that America’s chief attraction throughout the years has been its promise of religious freedom.

The denial of religious freedom was most prevalent in Great Britain following the reigns of King Henry VIII and his daughter Queen Elizabeth I, where Catholic churches had been seized and re-established as Anglican churches – better known then as the Church of England. As time wore on, even other Protestant faiths came under assault as the perspective there evolved that failure to pay proper reverence to the King’s church was akin to disloyalty to the crown if not treason.

Understanding the people’s comprehension at that time of (what was then recent) European history of sectarian religious intolerance fills-in the crucial context of what the Founders truly meant in the opening clause of the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

Inspired heavily by their revulsion toward the actions of the English monarchy against competing faiths, the Founding Fathers wrote the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause to protect the Church from the State, not the State from the Church.

Their true original intent was to prevent what was done to the churches in Great Britain from happening here in the United States.

This is the vital truth so woefully forgotten by today’s general public and extensively disregarded by Progressives for over a century.

Both the misinterpretation of Jefferson’s words and the blatant brush-aside of historical facts by Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black and his colleagues have fueled the misconceptions that hang like a specter over one of the best-written defenses of civil liberties in our history.

Remember, the First Amendment is very specific in its language that “Congress shall make no law” when it comes to matters of religion or faith. The meaning presented in that clause was written to be much narrower than what is being applied in modern times.

Based on that precise wording, we understand this line item in the Bill of Rights was meant to ensure the federal government never passed laws or adopted policies which would or could deny any citizen the right to practice his or her religious beliefs – either through an explicit prohibition or slightly more subtly through the establishment of a State Church.

(On a related side note, part of the motivation for the First Amendment was to prevent the infamous Salem Witch Hunts from ever taking place again.)

The contemporary re-interpretation of the Establishment Clause has served as justification for the broad-sweeping prohibition of anything which could serve as even the remotest symbol of religious acknowledgment in any arena of the public sector.

Let’s examine this as it relates to the most common application of the Establishment Clause: local public entities.

If “Congress shall make no law” is the core language at the heart of the “wall of separation,” logically this means when a city hall puts a Nativity scene on display there is no constitutional prohibition against it – this is not Congress making a law favoring one religion or cracking-down on another.

When a crowd at a get-together on school grounds such as a graduation or sporting event wishes to engage in an invocation, this is not Congress making a law.

When a county courthouse has the Ten Commandments on display, this is not Congress making a law.

When a memorial for fallen soldiers or victims of a tragedy is erected on public land that bears the shape of a Cross, this is not Congress making a law.

What staunch religion opponents and those who have handled much of their litigation for them (i.e. the American Civil Liberties Union) have been doing since Everson vs. Board of Education is taking the examples mentioned above out of the realm of political concerns (where they rightfully belong) and falsely turned them into legal concerns.

Whenever an exhibit of any kind that holds any religious meaning is displayed on municipal or county property, it is a matter for the local residents of that jurisdiction who oppose it to settle through either a redress of grievance with the local elected body or the political process by getting individuals who agree with them on such an item elected to the respective council or commission.

Conversely, if a state or local government chooses to enact prohibitions on activities such as those, that rightfully should be their domain. Then, it is up to us as residents of that state, county, municipality, or township to petition for a redress of such a law, fight to elect those who would seek a repeal, or cast the ultimate vote by moving as we are free to do.

Unfortunately, the zeal with which a multitude of special interest organizations have attacked freedom of religion in America has outpaced the determination of those who would strive to defend it. Instead of pursuing legislation – which could be publicly debated and scrutinized – for their ends, they have achieved them through the use of our courts – bolstered by an ill-conceived legal opinion published by a Supreme Court packed with Progressive President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s appointees.

Jefferson in his incomparable wisdom said it best, “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

As the decades have worn-on, we have seen this truth trampled-upon with startling vigor.

An incident at Faurot Park during the City of Lima's 4th of July festival

2011-07-05T19:40:00.000-07:00

To: J. Howard Elstro, Director of Public Works, City of Lima
CC: Mayor David Berger
From: Don Kissick, Allen County Libertarian Party Chair

Re: the behavior of an individual affiliated with the July 4th Festival

Mr. Elstro:

As promised, this is the letter detailing the nature of the confrontation we discussed regarding the individual who identified himself only as a member of the committee which plans the annual 4th of July festival in Faurot Park.

Since I do not have his name I only have his description to offer: he was an elderly gentleman who is an apparent amputee (right leg) and was riding one of the green carts used throughout the park that day.

For the record, I wish to be clear my primary complaint is not about the prohibition against distribution of literature during the festival. In brief, I do reserve disagreements but they shall be addressed later.

The gentleman in question who approached my fellow Allen County Libertarian Party members and I (this was approximately 6 p.m.) did so in the most unprofessional manner possible.

As he rolled-up in the cart, he began repeatedly bellowing, “Give me that box,” and, “Hand over that box!”

In light of the fact he never once identified himself or under what authority he operated to be able demand forfeiture of anyone’s personal property, I politely refused.

At that point, his behavior went from threatening and combative to outright belligerent. All the while he insisted we were not allowed to distribute copies of the Declaration of Independence, he never once explained why or under what authority it was prohibited. He then attempted to interrogate me as to whether or not we had gotten “a permit from the committee” to pass out copies of the Declaration of Independence but refused to explain to what committee he was referring or how a permit was necessary to distribute anything on public property.

Throughout the exchange, I was resolute on the grounds that distribution of copies of the Declaration of Independence is a perfectly legal, First Amendment-protected activity and we were well within our rights to do so.

Eventually I was able to bring to his attention – after multiple attempts due to the belligerent manner in which he kept yelling over my responses to his questions – that there were no notices of any kind posted anywhere in or around the park informing the public of such prohibitions during the festival: to which he accused me of lying.

Next, he once more demanded that I surrender my property to him and this time included I had to “get out of the park” – again, without ever even hinting to what authority he retained to eject anyone from public property – and if I did not comply he would involve officers of the Lima Police Department.

When I reiterated we had every right to be on public property and distribute copies of the Declaration of Independence under the protection of the First Amendment he then employed his radio to contact others working the festival and asked them to direct law enforcement to our location, saying, “He thinks he’s got rights but he ain’t got no rights!”

After finishing his call to have the police step in, he continued with his belligerence and even commented, “If you want to be taken down you keep going! And, don’t think just because I got one leg I can’t do it!”

It was right after that he then violently ripped out of my left hand the copy of the Declaration of Independence I was holding in it (the box containing the other copies was in my right hand).

Within a few short minutes, three officers arrived on the scene led by Sgt. Holman (sp?). He very calmly and with far greater professionalism than the gentleman who suggested he was on the (yet unidentified at that time) committee explained that even though Faurot Park is public property since it was reserved via permit by a private entity they retained the prerogative to determine what activity was and was not permissible during the festival.

One of my fellow members and I let the sergeant know if that gentleman simply had informed us of all that there would have been no need for law enforcement to intervene and that we would have gladly kept to the sidewalk with our copies of the Declaration of Independence.

Instead, this committee member (who would not identify himself) engaged in the most unprofessional and atrocious (at times bordering on violent) behavior toward us. To demand forfeiture of my personal property constituted an attempted petty larceny, to engage in his threatening and menacing behavior constituted a public nuisance, and to grab any items out of my hand could very easily be interpreted as assault.

Clearly understanding he was not just in the wrong but way out of bounds, he changed his behavior as soon as he noticed law enforcement was approaching the scene.

At this point of the letter, having described the incident with this member of Star Spangled Spectacular, Inc.’s committee, I would wish to have some important technical points explained.

Now, per our conversation in the Lima Municipal Building this afternoon, you mentioned the City of Lima is “a partner” with Star Spangled Spectacular, Inc. If your description is accurate, then the 4th of July festival cannot be classified as a private event as it is conducted under a partnership by SSSI with the city government on public property.

Therefore, there is a complete lack of legal and constitutional standing when it comes to prohibiting the distribution of literature of any kind – political, religious, or otherwise – during such an event. The handing-out of copies of the Declaration of Independence on the 4th of July in Faurot Park remains a First Amendment-protected activity.

Furthermore, with the festival operating as a public-private partnership, those who (be they SSSI committee members or volunteers recruited by them) staff the festival under such an arrangement would become by default representatives of the City of Lima.

Given these circumstances, I would want to know if the city would be comfortable with the fact those who assume representation of it (even if temporarily) are treating members of the public in such a manner while on City of Lima property, operating with a City of Lima-issued permit, conducting the event in partnership with the City of Lima, and using the City of Lima’s name in the event.

This has the potential to reflect very unfavorably on the city.

It is our hope and expectation this matter can be resolved to the satisfaction of the Allen County Libertarian Party as well as the satisfaction of the taxpayers of this great community.

Thank you for your time and professionalism in considering this situation.

Together in Liberty,

Don Kissick
Allen County Libertarian Party Chair

Can our Free Will be amended?

2011-07-02T21:01:00.000-07:00

As I do so well and on such a consistent basis, I wish to state the obvious.

The leadership for both major parties have no idea what the ultimate function of the Constitution of the United States of America has always been intended to serve.

I bring this up yet again in light of reactions to the recent legislative action in New York. The idea has been reintroduced into the national conversation about pursuing a constitutional amendment to define and limit marriage as only taking place between one man and one woman.

This is being urged by high-profile members of the Establishment Right.

Throughout my lifetime (and for several decades preceding the start of it), there have been those who believe the Constitution is missing essential duties that the federal government should undertake on our behalf and thus needs to be amended to contain the additional language outlining those obligations as well as have key limits to governmental power eliminated.

This is being urged by high-profile members (and particularly those behind the scenes) of the Establishment Left.

The two points illustrated above share a key unifying component: they demonstrate how the top decision makers of both major parties either have no clue or are deliberately spurning the role our Constitution was meant to play in the governance of America.

To those who advocate for a constitutional amendment on marriage, I pose this question: was the Constitution ever intended to serve as a vehicle to limit the choices and control the behaviors of individuals?

While it is well-known it was written and designed to limit the power and constrain the actions of the federal government, is there also room for it to be used as a means to place similar limits and constraints on any of our nation’s citizens?

The answer to that can only be a resounding, “No!”

To those who yearn for a country where well-meaning authorities are enabled by law to act for us whether we wish it or not, I tell you that you share with your so-called opponents on the right one striking similarity: the deliberate disregard for our human free will.

If you all should get your way – those of you who insist that people cannot… must not… determine our own choices for ourselves, that we cannot… must not… be free to do for ourselves and brave the consequences for our decisions, choices, and actions – then at such time America will cease to be America.

What does Independence Day mean?

2011-07-01T20:52:00.000-07:00

The Fourth of July, more appropriately known as Independence Day, has endured the same kind of secular humanist transformation over the years and decades as the rest of our holidays.

So many of us in society have taken to "celebrating" it in ways that have little or nothing to do with its original significance or meaning.

While we all love the open-grill, summer cuisine as well as the many (professional and amateur) fireworks displays, too few of us fully appreciate why we adorn ourselves and our homes with so much red, white, and blue decor on the fourth day past the calendar midpoint.

The day marks the single most important turning point not only for America but also in world history.

On July 4, 1776, the most audacious revolt against an unjust ruling class was put in writing – after more than a year of open warfare had already been waged. Most of the signatures which appear on it were affixed on that date, with the final signings done by August 2.

In all, 56 men would "mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." And it is to these words we should pay extra attention. Most of these duly appointed delegates to the Continental Congress would lose their fortunes and their lives as a result of drawing the particular scorn of King George III for their role in approving this document.

Knowing full well they would be targeted by British authorities for their roles in boldly setting the American Revolution in stone, those individuals who shaped, voted for, and signed the Declaration of Independence had grasped and embraced one vital, unifying truth.

America's Revolutionaries understood there are certain principles and ideals so important, so indispensable, they are worth dying for.

What ideals and principles do you hold so dearly?

Potential libertarian implications may stem from presidential sloth

2011-06-29T18:15:00.000-07:00

When I previously wrote about the Obama Administration’s announcement that the Department of Justice would be taking a pass on litigating on behalf of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), I stated then I would not engage in analysis of the legislation itself as I recognized how easy of a divisive trap it was.

I stand by that observation still.

What has been slowly percolating in the back of my mind since then is a perspective on the implications President Barack Obama has created in terms of unintended consequences. This time, instead of pushing open the door to socialism wider he and his fellow party members – I believe – may have inadvertently bumped (or, perhaps, “nudged”) open another door that can lead America on a more libertarian path.

Making sense in this essay requires tying the new White House attitude on DOMA with its legal proceedings against the State of Arizona over SB1070.

With Arizona’s attempt to enact legislation authorizing state and local authorities to enforce immigration laws found in the U.S. Revised Code, the legislature and Gov. Jan Brewer were seeking to shoulder a burden that ought to have belonged to the federal government.

In response, the Obama Administration swiftly invoked the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the United States Constitution and sued to block Arizona’s new law in federal court.

So, here, we have an instance where our federal executive branch openly flaunts its choice to not exercise authority granted to it by legislation. Not only that, it pursued litigation to block one of the states from doing so as well.

Since that whole brouhaha played-itself-out in front of the media, I took the opportunity to pick the brain of a gentleman named Kevin Hawley, who approached me last year and identified himself has having taught constitutional law, and then offered to answer my questions concerning such subject matter.

My inquiry following the SB1070 deliberation centered on the notion of, “What if the states counter-sued the federal government?”

The idea is rooted in the premise that the Constitution serves as a legally binding contract between the federal government in Washington, D.C., and the governments of the Several States. Therefore if the federal government jeopardizes the general welfare of any of the states and their citizens by deliberately failing to act on a federal statute, it stands to reason that would constitute a breach contract.

Demonstrating greater wisdom than I, Mr. Hawley swiftly shot the notion down. He explained that to maintain the balance created by the Separation of Powers the Judiciary retains the power to tell the Executive Branch it must cease and desist with an activity but it cannot compel (or dictate) it to engage in an activity.

Then, in February, the present administration became more brazen in its insistence that it enjoys the prerogative to pick-and-choose when it is going to enforce or uphold certain laws: the aforementioned DOMA.

Now enters the libertarian potential for (pro-)constitutional hijinx.

Since this administration has invoked the Constitution regarding federal supremacy to suppress a state law (SB1070) but then turned around and invoked it on a federal statute they claim falls outside its purview (DOMA), then what are the limits, really, to be found here?

Many libertarians have argued the pair of measures cited above are constitutionally questionable. However, a far greater percentage stands in agreement that there is much, much more emanating from D.C. that is unconstitutional as well.

Just ponder the possibilities if – by the Grace of God – we can elect a libertarian (preferably of the capital-L variety) to the White House next year.

After all, if the President of the United States is well within his or her authority to pick and choose when to enforce any given law, then wouldn’t the President also enjoy the same authority to arbitrarily shutter any Executive Branch office, agency, or even entire department?

If the current president may decide, “This law no longer suits my needs nor agrees with my sensibilities,” then what is there to stop a future president from padlocking the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Office of Regulatory Affairs and even the Internal Revenue Service and telling thousands of career bureaucrats, “Thank you for your time and dedication, here are some lovely parting gifts, and now beat it!”

Bear in mind that, based on the Separation of Powers, when Congress writes and passes legislation which establishes new laws, appropriations, and agencies it merely authorizes the President to engage in these activities and expenditures…

…It cannot compel the President to do so.

Thanks to the American Establishment Left, the precedent to play this game already has been set.

For Libertarians, dual role comes with the territory

2011-06-26T17:44:00.000-07:00

Sometimes, a comment or sequence of events just seems to always standout in memory with unusual clarity. Such is the case with one explanation I heard last year from a friend regarding what he saw as the real difference between men and women when it comes to political activity.

He pointed out that when it comes to getting a political movement underway, women tend to be more task-oriented and focus on the nitty-gritty work which comes with it. All the while, men on the other hand are more likely to sit around and think deep thoughts and carry-on deeper conversations. In more pop culture-friendly terms, women are more inclined to “Walk The Walk” as opposed to “Talk The Talk.”

Based on that observation, he is insistent the Libertarian Party needs a lot more women to join its ranks.

There is great truth to what he says. And, I’ll just come right out and say it: I can vouch for at least half of his premises through my own activity. If you look at my Facebook page, you’ll see a lot of blogs as well as links to various articles of libertarian, small-government interest and the occasional comment on world events.

Still, there is an important point I wish to raise on the topic. Circumstances in our society almost dictate that anyone who joins the Libertarian Party must to some extent be ready to wear the hat of “armchair philosopher.”

Among the general masses, when you invoke the words Republican or Democratic, there is an inherent understanding of where those two political parties stand (in theory, of course) on a host of issues and subjects.

This is a luxury we as capital-L Libertarians do not enjoy.

Last summer, shortly after returning to work from a layoff I was settling-in with my new coworkers on the assembly line when the topic of politics came up. One gentleman, known for being a staunch Republican, expressed his curiosity what my political leanings or affiliation were. Being a candidate for Congress at the time, I boldly and proudly informed him of my membership as a Libertarian – to which he replied, “So how liberal are you?”

It would take the next three months we worked together to explain and impart at least a little bit of understanding how the old one-dimensional, left-right paradigm was outdated (although, thankfully for him, not in those abstract terms).

All this laboriously leads me to my ultimate point. In the vast majority of conversations across this great land of ours, those who identify themselves with either major party don’t need to explain what that identity means. We Libertarians, on the other hand, almost invariably need to engage in some degree of discussion as to what our core principles are.

And that is not to say this is a negative development. Every opportunity to espouse the virtues of true liberty for all citizens is a potential seed of thought planted in the minds of those who will engage us in these conversations.

But, all those who will join our ranks as active, participating members of the Libertarian Party for the foreseeable future will need to be ready to accept that dual role. While the need for functionaries can never be fully met – no matter how successful we may become – the need for the additional skill of readily espousing what true liberty really means inevitably will come with the territory.

So, ladies, be prepared to roll your sleeves up and back down at a moment’s notice.

Unintended consequences revisited: when two laws create combined misery

2011-06-23T15:20:00.001-07:00

As the Buckeye State’s Republican-controlled General Assembly and governor's mansion try to move forward in making Ohio a voter ID state, I am reminded of a previous hassle I recently endured with another state law.

Lawmakers bound to the Ohio Republican Party are pushing forward with HB159, which if enacted would be dubbed the “Ohio Fair and Secured Elections Act.”

This General Assembly house bill, which draws a harsh analysis from Examiner.com’s John Michael Spinelli, would require voters to furnish a state photo ID or other form of identification from a short list of options before being able to cast their votes in a primary or general election in Ohio.

In my opinion, this plan has the potential to hit a key snag given the newly-created potential difficulties of obtaining a new license or ID after you move into a new residence.

My prediction is misery will abound when these two measures collide at the expense of many Ohio residents.

I sent an e-mail to state lawmakers from the west-central region explaining the pitfalls of last year’s new ID law. Earlier this week, I received a postal-mail response from House Majority Floor Leader Matt Huffman.

Instead of transcribing portions of Representative Huffman’s letter I simply am attaching my e-mail response below – which includes references to his correspondence with me.

Toward the end, I make my case for how these two measures – one already on the books and one making its way through chambers – will likely combine to disenfranchise voters across Ohio.

*****

Representative Huffman,

I received your letter and I appreciate your reply.

Expanding the list to include the signed lease for acceptable proof of new residence was a basic matter of common sense. I find it surprising it wasn't in the original language of the bill which has become this portion of the Ohio Revised Code's language.

Three suggestions (as you requested) when it comes to aiding the economically displaced residents who are being affected by this law would be to allow them to present a notarized letter signed by the individual(s) needing a new license and the person(s) with whom they now reside, allow mail which has the yellow forwarding sticker affixed by the USPS, as well as doing more to inform the public of this new law. In most circumstances, public notary services are free of charge so this also would be a common-sense update.

In the information you included in your letter, it is not clear at all whether forwarded mail is acceptable.

With my initial e-mail, I stressed the fact that my wife is disabled and just getting to the BMV is a significant undertaking. Going in and waiting in line means draining what little energy she is able to muster for such an evolution. These new proof of residency stipulations have the potential to adversely impact not only the disabled but also the elderly.

When my wife, Marcy, and I went to update our licenses we were completely caught unaware that day. In light of the fact she spent most of May (and much of June) in the hospital receiving treatment for leukemia she still needs to obtain a new license from the local BMV office.

My concerns here are not based on any misguided notion of Social Justice but out of concern for those who are placed in a situation of great difficulty just to be in compliance with state law. From my own experience, the manner in which the new law inhibited my ability to get a new license resulted in me having to pay a $20 late fee. My birthday was May 4 and this year I was due to renew my license anyhow. I was not able to procure an acceptable proof of residency until after the seven-day grace period.

Had I been forced to go longer without a renewed license and were I to have needed to interact with law enforcement during a traffic stop, this law could very well have resulted in me being cited for driving with an expired license – which I would have fought in court in light of the circumstances. In this hypothetical situation, should I have won such a court ruling, you and your fellow legislators may well have been looking at this law being tossed-out and needing to start from scratch in order to put something similar to it on the books.

The more I contemplate this law, the more obvious it is to me that when it was being crafted, proper thought had not been given to the fact that in this electronic age, more and more billing, payments, banking, and other such business are being handled online to reduce paper correspondence. Such as with the documentation I procured for getting my license renewed, I had to go to Spherion and get a pay stub in person with my new address on it. With everything that has transpired personally recently I was unable to attempt this sooner.

Adding to the comedy of the overall situation is the fact my bank requires its customers to furnish a new ID with their new address before it will update it on their accounts. Obviously, this policy by the bank is intended to reduce its customers' risk for fraud or identity theft.

In fairness, I understand completely why these hoops were put in place: to prevent the degree of voter fraud which took place in the 2008 general election and created significant embarrassment for Ohio; and to a lesser degree ensure the growing number of illegal immigrants in our state are unable to fraudulently obtain Ohio drivers' licenses and other false identification.

Speaking of the issue of voting, I am aware there is an effort as of late to add the requirement for presentation of identification at polling places on days of election. When you couple all the difficulties described above (and in previous correspondence) in simply obtaining a new Ohio license with this election fraud initiative, now we are approaching the risk of significant – if not widespread – voter disenfranchisement. The litigation from such a development alone would result in tremendous legal expenses for the state and further add to the embarrassment of Ohio.

I would hope at this point it is obvious that the (both potential and very real) unnecessary obstacles to Ohio residents begin mounting rapidly once this situation is given proper thought. The new law carries with it considerable unintended consequences for Ohioans. We should not have to jump through so many hurdles to – again – simply be in compliance with state laws.

Thank you for your time,

Don Kissick
Lima

Who are the sheep?

2011-06-21T08:06:00.000-07:00

There is a video making its rounds on YouTube produced by a group calling itself Exposing Leftists.com where its participants can be seen circulating a petition calling for right wing political commentators to be taken off the air.

The petition isn't real. It's merely a prop to get people encountered on the campus of Cal. State-Fresno to say on-camera
1) they want to see such media personalities taken off the air to "limit their free speech" and
2) then at some point express their support of the First Amendment to the Constitution and the principle of Freedom of Speech.

As already stated above, all the while the conversations are taking place these people are (more than) agreeably signing a petition with the purported aim of removing select individuals from the airwaves and cable television.

At this point, I'll have to admit to being slightly torn on this... with emphasis on "slightly":

These people were being to some extent baited into participating in the fictitious petition. For the student-age individuals, they can be cut a sliver of slack (just a sliver)...

...Youthful exuberance and all that...

But (and there's usually a big "but" with me when I play devil's advocate on videos and other items of this nature) everyone near my age range or older – who were all in favor of somehow getting limits in place on anyone's access to the airwaves – has no excuse for being ignorant of the basic principles of free speech.

Just as importantly, this production reveals another glaring hypocrisy among those who lean this far to the left:

They love, revel-in, and pat each other on the back for labeling listeners and viewers of conservative commentators as "sheep"; however, with a little pandering to their sociopolitical sensibilities they will agreeably apply their signature to whatever you stick in front of them when it's under the auspices of taking from those whom they dislike.

Who are the sheep, exactly?

LP: 40 years is enough -- end the War on Drugs

2011-06-17T18:14:00.000-07:00

With today (June 17) marking the 40th anniversary of President Richard M. Nixon's declaration of the so-called War on Drugs, Libertarian Party National Executive Director Wes Benedict has released an astute assessment of where four decades of American drug policy has left our country. I would encourage everyone to read the LP's official statement.

Closer to home, as Ohio tries to solve its own concerns with overcrowded prisons and the bloated costs of the state's criminal justice system -- and specifically corrections -- the War on Drugs continues to exacerbate that problem.

Kevin O'Brien highlighted this problem two years ago when he wrote in the Cleveland Plain Dealer, explaining (out of the more than 52,000 total prison population in the Buckeye State) on a year-to-year basis Ohio incarcerates more than 28,000 individuals, out of which nearly 16,000 are imprisoned for non-violent felonies -- these are crimes for which they are sentenced to a year or less -- and basic possession and "low-level dealing" account for roughly 5,600 of that annual imprisonment rate.

That was in 2009 and the numbers continue to rise.

Prison crowding and the inevitable skyrocketing costs that come with it are just two of the unintended-yet-avoidable consequences of the needless War on Drugs. There also are the tolls taken on families and communities across America. The cold, hard truth on drug-related violence is that only a small percentage of it is committed by individuals while they are under the influence. The violence associated with drugs that shatters our neighborhoods is conducted by those who make their living off of its continued prohibition.

A great deal of that could be forestalled just through legalization of naturally occurring substances such as marijuana, the raw coca leaf, and even poppy plants. To accomplish this, the long-held notions that marijuana (and other natural intoxicants) is a gateway drug to harder substances and leads its users down a path of criminal behavior need to be laid to rest. As with Prohibition following ratification of the 18th Amendment, once alcohol was driven into the shadows those who still desired to consume it went into the shadows in search of it.

And as common sense will tell us, it is in those shadows where the darker elements of our society -- and the harder drugs -- typically are found.

The same holds true for today's War on Drugs. As has been pointed-out on many occasions in recent years, once we begin to address drug addiction in the same manner as alcoholism -- that it is a disease as opposed to a criminal matter -- progress finally will be made on reducing its impact in America.

Majority Whip's stance on lawmaker pay cuts perplexing

2011-06-08T18:24:00.000-07:00

Wednesday afternoon it was reported by Ohio News Network's Jim Heath that 78th District Rep. John Adams, Republican House Majority Whip, expressed his opposition to a proposed 5% reduction in pay for members of the state's General Assembly. The language for the cut in pay reportedly is part of an amendment introduced for the Senate's budget proposal and would amount to a little more than a $3000 decrease in salary beginning with the 129th General Assembly.

What is curious about Rep. Adams' stance is the basis for his argument against this cut. According to Heath, the Sidney-based legislator opposes it on the grounds "county officials, teachers, firefighters make more."

Considering how much of a staunch proponent Adams has been of SB 5, this comment invites the proverbial raised eyebrow.

And considering Ohio's budget deficit presently is in the billions, we must acknowledge that this situation is much like the fight to reduce the federal deficit: to get this done there can be no sacred cows in spending.

In light of our state's enormous budget gap in addition to the fact Mr. Adams so actively championed SB 5, I cannot help but find his supporting argument for his stance (shall we say) lacking.

Now, the manner in which SB 5 rolls-back collective bargaining power will not lead to base pay cuts or reductions in insurance coverage for public employees as union representatives have asserted. But, public employees will necessarily have to make very real contract concessions on future pay increases, insurance contributions, and pension pay-ins -- all of which are perfectly reasonable.

What does not seem reasonable is the idea -- in light of the enormous deficit Ohio is facing -- that anyone involved in drafting the above legislative measures would be unwilling to make their own corresponding concessions.

Rep. Adams' position on this particular item is reflective of a growing, broader nationwide concern with our elected officials: that they would deem it appropriate to pass one set of laws for themselves and another set for everyone else.

When it feels like home

2011-06-05T18:50:00.000-07:00

For a stretch of six hours, the worries of life melted away in pursuit of the fight over the worries of the world. And it felt good.

It was a light turnout in front of the Statehouse. But, it was an enthusiastic group which gathered in defense of liberty and the basic human right to live without the specter known as the force of government weighing on any of us.

I did not make my way there right away. I didn't want to leave my wife, Marcy, by herself for too long while she's doing chemotherapy at the OSU Medical Center. So, I arrived shortly before 2 p.m. I missed a few people who had already come and gone. And, the last vestiges scattered shortly before 3 when Richard, the gentleman who posted the dance party here in Facebook, got too dehydrated and feeling well-done in the sun to continue.

The gathering afforded me an opportunity to finally cross paths with a pair of liberty-driven political dynamos I've enjoyed the opportunity to get to know via Facebook, Valerie and Pádhraig, something to which I've looked forward for some time.

The Libertarian Party of Ohio's annual cookout drew a good crowd. There's still a fire in people's bellies to press-on despite the excessive anti-ballot-access measures voted-on by the state legislature. Since the last cookout, the brain trust in Washington, D.C., has piled another $1 trillion of debt on our shoulders. We're still ready to challenge the obsolete status quo.

The highlight of this year's cookout was a new feature conceived by Bob Bridges: auctioning-off opportunities to put a pie in the face of a party leader. The scheduled lineup consisted of Central Committee Chair Luke McKellar, Political Division Director Michael Johnston (also serving on the Central Committee), Central Committee Vice Chair Bob Bridges, and Executive Committee Chair Kevin Knedler.

Kevin was able to draw the highest overall bid for the pleasure of donning a face-full of whipped cream. But, just when it appeared that portion of the festivities were done, our Allen County Libertarian Party Treasurer Paul Hinds called out of the blue, "I'll pay $20 to put a pie in Don's face!"

I can only imagine what the look on my face must have been at that moment. Before I was able to process what I'd been thrust into, higher bids began erupting out of the crowd all around me.

And so I said, "Hey, if I can have a good laugh at others getting pied, then I can take one too."

When it was all said and done, for someone who wasn't on the pie-flinging docket I somehow elicited the second-highest winning bid: which was called by Josh Winkler.

While all this was playing out, I received a call and voicemail from Libertarian Party (National) Central Committee Chair Mark Hinkle, who thought so highly of my most recent blog -- dissecting local regulations of distributing meals to the homeless in Orlando and Houston -- that he was seeking permission to publish it at the LP Website blog.

After hearing the message, I felt compelled to share it with everyone who was still there. At that point I commented, "As if my head couldn't get any bigger," to which someone in the crowd replied, "So we'll need a bigger pie pan next year."

All in all, it was a good day for liberty in Ohio. And, I can't thank everyone enough for making me feel at home as a Buckeye.

When I got back to Marcy's hospital room, all that bluster and ego stimulation melted away upon seeing the one with whom I hope to spend the rest of my life feeling awful and looking so uncomfortable. Cancer just has a way of making you feel less effusive.

But that's OK. I feel at home. And, it feels good to be a Buckeye.

Can I get seconds on my portion of Big Government?

2011-06-03T17:29:00.000-07:00

For I was hungry, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Matthew 25:35,36

What would you say if I told you – depending on where you're at – you could go to jail for feeding homeless people?

If you possess a lick of common sense, your reply would likely include an expletive (or two) insinuating I was attempting to excavate livestock waste in your general direction.

Unfortunately, I'm not full of it. Down in Florida, three people were arrested recently for doing just that.

An article in the June 2 edition of the Orlando Sentinel detailed the roundup, which took place in one of the city's parks. The trio reportedly are members of an organization which calls itself Orlando Food Not Bombs. Two of the members posted the $250 bail shortly after their arrests; one – Keith McHenry – is reported to have chosen to forego bail and "let the legal process take its course."

McHenry, according to the Sentinel, is a co-founder of the International Food Not Bombs movement.

Worse yet, the arrests in Orlando are not an isolated story but may be indicative of a trend in American cities. It would seem the latest great new wave of public policy is the War on Individual Charity.

I read a story similar to this out of Houston months ago. There was a couple there who were told by authorities they had to cease and desist home-cooking meals and passing them out to the homeless people in the city as they found them – Progressive do-gooders were unhappy that they hadn't gone through all the health department inspections of their home kitchen and other credentialing.

A representative of the local Health and Human Services Department who spoke with the Houston Chronicle insisted the city had to look out for the public health and wellbeing of the homeless by enforcing controls for public food safety in all situations of food distribution.

So, the ultimate logic is it's better to increase the homeless' risk of starvation (or at the very least malnutrition) than have to worry about whether or not the less fortunate might or might not be exposed to the same risk of food-borne pathogens as they otherwise might be by going to a food pantry and getting the same food from there that they'd be getting from a Good Samaritan who bought those exact same food items at their nearby grocery store and cooked it for them.

But, all is not lost for the Houston couple. According to another government paper pusher there, instead of taking it upon themselves to do charitable work they could avoid the hassle by signing-up with one of the local-government-approved non-profits.

Yes, scoop-me-up another healthy serving of Nanny State, please!!

Weiner served-up as Dirt-Bag du Jour

2011-05-30T18:14:00.000-07:00

This weekend's breaking stories about the alleged online improprieties of Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) are the latest highlight reel on a long-standing game that has been played in national politics.

For those who may be living in an even tighter bubble than I am, Weiner is purported to have attempted to send – via direct message on Twitter – a picture of his semi-upright Mini Me (albeit under the cloak of his boxer-style briefs) to a college coed in the Seattle area.

An amusingly appropriate (or, inappropriate) #Weinergate hashtag has inspired an enormous load of 140-character commentaries on the swelling topic of interest.

The fact remains, however, that Weiner is just one more in a growing circle of jerks among the American political class.

Actually, if you briefly snake your way through the political history of the last 20 years, it’s not hard to recognize the slow-growing score between high-profile players of the two major parties.

Up until the last few days, the Democrats held a bulging 5-3 advantage in the box score. This weekend, Mr. Weiner managed to stiffen-up this particular unwelcome advance in the competition by inching the score one closer to being knotted-up.

Let's review the swelling list of contemporary, high-profile unfaithful – starting in chronological order.

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-GA) became the Left's first trophy by fooling-around on not one but two of his then-wives (he’s on wife No. 3 at the moment) – the affair behind his first wife’s back taking place even while she was hospitalized to have a benign tumor removed.

Former President Bill Clinton scored on the GOP's behalf by handling pork-laden legislation in the Oval Office with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

Democrat Gary Condit, the erstwhile representative from Fresno, was known first for being a Blue Dog and then turning other parts of him blue with one of his staffers ten years ago.

Larry Craig proved to be possibly the most amusing instances of the swelling congressional members who have been unfaithful. The now-former representative from Idaho was arrested in Minnesota several years ago for trying to solicit some fun-on-the-fly at an airport men's room. What’s exceptionally interesting is the fact Craig had been one of the Republicans’ leading opponents of gay rights.

The following year, Eliot Spitzer, then governor of New York (previously the state's attorney general) proved to be the most pragmatic of the lot by simply keeping the local high-dollar call-girl registry on his speed dial. By the sound of things in the media, there was no shortage of dialing going on outside of Albany.

Two years ago, then-Governor of South Carolina Mark Sanford followed the bursting of the housing bubble by bursting the GOP's "rising star bubble." Sanford had quickly risen in prominence by fighting a federal mandate to accept Stimulus money through President Barack Obama’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Soon after, it was revealed he had been pursuing his own stimulus through the benefits of a "friend" in Argentina.

A once-obscure (now former) representative named Chris Lee (R-NY) popped the cork on 2011's headlines of hedonism by becoming the first of a threesome of politicians to have news of their improprieties shoot all over the nation. Lee was caught attempting to hook-up with a woman via Craigslist, going so far as to send her a teenage-esque camera-phone picture of himself flexing shirtless in front of a mirror.

It's since been alleged he also pursued transgendered regulars of Craigslist. Perhaps he likes to find the same qualities in his illicit sex partners that he prefers in his doubles-tennis partners: experience players with the physical attributes to swing both directions.

Several short weeks ago as we all know, California's outgoing governor Arnold Schwarzenegger aroused new laughs as revelations of a 10-year-old love-child with one of his housekeepers splashed everywhere – revealing he had gone from the Governator to the Fornicator.

Representative Weiner now becomes the new tip of the spear.

As far as so-called scandals go, his story of sexual impropriety is actually fairly lame. What we have is a newlywed inserting himself into a midlife crisis that allegedly involves sexting a gal half his age – using a soft-core digital picture that would seem to say, "I'm kinda happy to see you."

Let's face it: the eye of this political storm centers on the social media equivalent of IHOP’s "pig in a blanket." Anthony Weiner is a veritable Steve Urkel among a collection of Joey Tribbianis.

Also, what separates Weiner – and his fellow camera-happy counterpart Lee – from the rest of the crowd is the fact with Newt, Slick Willy, Condit, Spitzer, Sanford, and Arnie we know they at least were getting some on the road to public shame and embarrassment. With Craig we are left to presume he must have got some previously since when he found himself in the grips of law enforcement it appeared he’d had plenty of practice at that handicraft.

Lee and Weiner, on the other hand, basically got caught trolling for hoes on the Internet – so not worth it, as I'm sure hindsight has illuminated for them by now.

All adolescent double entendres aside at this point, it is quite obvious (to me, at least) the fervor with which so many on the right have pounced on the New York Democrat's indignity is in response to the back-to-back embarrassments caused by Schwarzenegger and Lee to the GOP this year. The right had been jonesing for someone to rake over the coals of public opinion so they could regain some token, meaningless moral-high-ground points.

It honestly should go without saying that the next question on this matter is, "Does anyone, anywhere, anymore really believe there isn't a widespread, across-the-board character deficit in the greasy world of politics?"

As we can plainly see by the list above of revisited infidelities, there is nothing at all remarkable about Anthony Weiner. He is little more than the Dirt-Bag du Jour.

The majority of the focus on his willy-nilly cyber adventures is due to the fact he has been on a public campaign of righteous indignation over the last year that has had little to directly do either with his party's policies while they held across-the-board power in Washington or the DNC's platform.

Like it or not, Weiner should not be surprised by the conservative feeding frenzy. He invited much of it upon himself with his own accusatory finger.

A rant for the sake of ranting

2011-05-18T08:17:00.000-07:00

Just when I thought it was safe to apply the brakes and let the engine's idle move the car forward at its own good pace, I find myself wanting now more than ever to straddle that line – as perilously as I can – between inexorability and infirmity.

If you have been to my Website recently or are among my social media contacts, then you are aware of my wife Marcy's recent leukemia diagnosis. As a result, I have found myself looking at how I can set aside politics as much as I can for the time being until her battle with Cancer is won – all without losing the momentum that has been built by the members of the Allen County Libertarian Party here in its inaugural year.

Very simply, it's a matter of priorities.

But then, this morning, I had my Howard Beale moment. I now can say, without hesitation or equivocation, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!"

On my way home from work, I made a brief grocery stop for principally the staples – as well as one or two other items. I went to the checkout lane with what would amount to two armfuls of groceries – thinking nothing of it beyond it being a typical jaunt to the store that ought to cost less than average.

And then the cashier read aloud the final tally. It is rare for me to feel the need to catch my breath. It takes a lot to shock me and even more to offend me. But, at that moment, I not only reflexively drew-in a short breath and held it I also had rapidly overcome the urge to absent-mindedly blurt-out an expletive relating to the waste product of domesticated, horn-bearing livestock.

Two months ago, a load of groceries such as what I purchased this morning would have run under $40.

My total on this day was more than $61.

And, this sticker shock moment was brought to you by Save-A-Lot, Inc.

During the strolls up and down the aisles I had two or three moments that prompted me to silently observe, "Wow, that went up in price."

But, I was there with a pretty brief list and deviated from it only by picking up cheese, two frozen family-size entrees, two cans of soup, and some canned fruit. It was the same kind of abbreviated shopping run at a discount, no-name-brand grocery store that I have been making for years.

After paying the charge I more aggressively in my head began itemizing the prices I saw this morning and comparing them to what I had been used to paying: with some items having been purchased just six or even three weeks prior.

My lunch meat and granola bars had not changed in price. These items I buy because it is much more cost effective to pack a lunch to work than buy it at the engine plant’s cafeteria. However, the same six-pack of pop – out of which I take one with me to work to defray the cost of buying the same quantity from the vending machines in the break areas – I had been able to buy there near the end of April had gone up 66 cents – from $3.33 to $3.99, a 20% jump in price.

At the beginning of last month, as part of a larger effort to fully stock our pantry, I remember the cans of evaporated milk ran less than 80 cents. This is an item that comes in handy every so often for cooking anything calling for milk, such as instant potatoes or fluffing your scrambled eggs. Today the exact same store brand evaporated milk cost 99 cents – another 20% leap in price.

The two cans of mandarin oranges I bought – in an effort to snack healthier and make subtle, incremental choices toward that all-important healthy lifestyle – were 65 cents each: up from the 59 cents I remember paying for them at the beginning of April. That is a jump of 10% for the price of an 11-ounce canned good.

A dozen large eggs cost $1.49.

A year ago at this time, a 48-ounce bag of rice and a 16-ounce tube of frozen ground turkey – two items I have been buying with great regularity for years – were just being bumped-up in price from 99 cents to $1.19. Today, the same ground turkey is $1.59 and the rice has ballooned in price to $1.79.

And there remain other examples from my receipt that are just as astonishing.

Mind you, all this retail apprehension took place at a discount supermarket (i.e., Aldi and Save-A-Lot), where people just looking to stretch their dollars go so they can feed themselves and their families without breaking the bank.

I shudder to think what has been happening price-wise at other locations.

All this background and all this build-up are meant to angle this diatribe toward one, seminal thought: when do we finally decide as a society that enough is enough?!

Now, I have no doubt there will be two or three people who will read this and reach the conclusion "the government should step in and do something about this."

If that is where your thought processes are taking you, then you have buried your head deep enough into the sand to crack your forehead against the bedrock beneath it. "Government stepping in and doing something" is precisely why America is poised to begin pricing itself out of existence.

And, all this is being driven most heavily by two factors: the price of gasoline and the rapidly descending value of the U.S. dollar.

Let's start with gas.

We have a braintrust in Washington, D.C., that is preaching supposed energy independence yet insists upon stonewalling all petroleum drilling efforts within the United States. All the while, every subsequent geological survey that has been published within the last few years has determined we have more oil under our ground than previously believed.

In fact, within our borders and territorial waters, there is enough untapped petroleum beneath the land and ocean floors that American oil producers can potentially outpace the production all of the Middle Eastern nations combined.

Instead, we are spoon-fed a fairy tale of alternative energy sources that will take years (if not decades) to perfect to a point where these industries can make any measurable impact on the costs of energy in America.

The previous administration in the White House bought into the green lie enough to enact (with the blessing of Congress) a ban on the manufacture of incandescent light bulbs. Once this ban goes into effect in this coming January, consumers will be able to choose between compact fluorescent light bulbs which contain toxic levels of mercury or the forthcoming LED light bulbs which will cost approximately $50 each once they hit the market.

Since the food we wish to buy can't get to our nearby stores without the transportation industry trucking it all hither-and-yon for our convenience, when the price of gas skyrockets like it has over the last year the cost of keeping all those Kenworths (et al) rolling down the highways inevitably finds its way into those pesky barcodes on our Cheerios and Weetabix.

The other major factor making our lives too expensive to live-out anymore is the all-out assault of stupidity on the U.S. currency. Between the Bush Administration's T.A.R.P. debacle, the Obama Administration's stimulus lie, and our ongoing projected deficit of roughly $1.6 trillion for this fiscal year, the dollar is being driven to the brink of worthlessness and being abandoned wholesale in the international currency markets.

All three of the preceding examples have required the United States Treasury to borrow more than $3 trillion over the past 2 1/2 years – and that doesn’t even include the debt which had to be incurred to cover the deficits for fiscal years 2008, 2009, and 2010 over the same period of time.

What too many people are not realizing is in all of these instances, in order for the government to pay out all these waste obligations, more currency than previously existed must be printed so that all the transactions associated with these federal appropriations can actually see money changing hands. The spike in the money supply invariably means the value of each and every U.S. dollar out there in the world retains that much less value.

To break it down into terms most people ought to be able to understand, when a number of items or goods are deemed to be a "collector's item" – whether it's a Mario Lemieux rookie card, first edition Barbie Doll, or original print Elvis Presley record – the fewer there are of these particular mementos the greater the value each one retains.

This exact same principle applies directly to our currency.

This isn't even the proverbial Economics 101: we are talking about basic, indisputable mathematics.

As companies in any and all industries here in America see their revenue streams gouged due to the drop in value of the money they presently have, in order to stay afloat they must adjust their prices to cover that shortfall in revenues.

That means their prices must go up – hence inflation.

And when you have the flood of money hit the markets across the world at the pace we have seen since autumn 2008, the analogous effect is best illustrated by the floods coming down the Mississippi River these past few days. The devastation is eerily similar as we witness people's lives and livelihoods washed away with the rising floodwaters.

And the truly insidious part lies in this all-important question: for what?

What is it we had to do that required jeopardizing the viability of the U.S. economy?

If the spigot enabling the flow of money that is the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Obama's Stimulus) can be shut off before the rest of its allocations can be spent, then it truly will be said that T.A.R.P. will go down in history as the single largest fiscal fraud ever perpetrated upon American taxpayers.

Very little of the $700 billion poured into the Wall Street entities which received them actually went into circulation with the U.S. The most egregious example of this was AIG, which received roughly $180 billion from Uncle Sam and then immediately paid the majority of that money to various financial institutions across Europe to which AIG was indebted.

Massive chunks of T.A.R.P. money – which Bush and leaders in both major parties insisted was necessary to save the financial sector and the economy – will never find its way into circulation within our own borders. Bankers and other financial corporate titans in Europe continue to reap the riches of a cash cow that will leave us all paying-off the interest out of our hard-earned tax dollars for decades to come.

The other major component of Bush's and Obama's combined fraud was the notion the federal government could more wisely pick-and-choose how to distribute and award a combined $1.5 trillion than the people of the United States of America.

Let's say for the sake of argument I agreed with the Washington braintrust that T.A.R.P. and the so-called Stimulus were absolutely necessary to prevent economic armageddon two-and-a-half years ago. If it were up to me, I would have taken that $1.5 trillion and evenly disbursed it to every household which was under mortgage at that time. Based on my research for this statistic, in the late months of 2008 that would be (very) roughly 50 million homes. So, with my plan, almost 50 million households would have received a U.S. Department of Treasury check for approximately $30,000 each.

Common sense dictates that in light of the urgent nature of the situation for both the U.S. economy and the international market, the vast majority of those recipients would have done the right thing with that money and paid enough to their respective lenders to at least get current with their mortgages. Most, I’m inclined to believe, would have used enough sense to even pay-off several additional months’-worth of mortgage payments – which would have helped those homeowners knock-down the principle of those debts, thus significantly reducing their monthly due amounts.

For some, $30,000 would be enough to pay the remaining balance in full and rid themselves of that form of debt.

At the very least, this activity would have led to a flood of about $1 trillion into the American financial sector as the people at-large began feverishly making payments to save their homes.

These speculations leave about half-a-trillion dollars still to be used, which (again) common sense dictates many of the recipients would have opted to buy a new car – thus eliminating the need for the automotive bailouts. Unspent portions beyond that would have led to a surge of cash flow in domestic retail markets and created a genuine recovery from the nightmare.

A small percentage, of course, would have gone into savings and other retirement/"rainy day" accounts. But even that option would have had positive benefits as still just $10-to-20 billion (just… *sigh*) out of all that would have shored-up the liquidity of banks nationwide and boosted confidence in financial markets.

And then, there is the largely unexamined positive consequence of tackling the 2008 crisis in the manner described above.

Over the course of 2008 through 2010 a total of roughly 8 million homes were foreclosed-upon (that doesn’t include the 1.3 million in 2007, when the housing bubble began to burst). For the purpose of simpler math (and due to the absence of the hard data on this) let's assume more than half of those mortgages had two (or even more) signatures (spouses, co-signing parents, etc.) on them.

Now, by bypassing the homeowners and lending $700 billion directly to the banks and other financial sector entities in the manner the Bush Administration did, nearly 15 million people since then now have a foreclosure hanging like an albatross over their credit histories. If you believe in a borrow-and-spend-on-credit economy much like so many politicians advocate today, this means there are now as many as 15 million adults who have been completely taken out of that portion of the economy. Their credit ratings are far too deep in disrepair for any of them to be able to establish credit again for the remainder of this decade.

This is the ongoing complication to the American economic picture that will play as significant of a role in preventing recovery as any other factor.

And no one is talking about this.

But, had anyone in the capitol actually taken a moment to think things through in the waning months of 2008 and handled the bailout intelligently – as opposed to the money carrousel that played-out – it would have served, unfortunately, to only cement in the minds of the general public this misguided notion that all the solutions to society's ills can be found in government action.

They're all experts, don’t you know.

Here in 2011, despite growing public sentiment against further expansion of government, to push to do just that continues to gain steam among our elected so-called leadership.

The push is on for greater control of our energy sources.

The push is on for greater control of the financial sector.

The push is on for greater control of our food supplies.

The push is on for micromanagement of the health care industry.

The push is on for unprecedented control over the Internet.

And so on…

So, let me get this straight, the same government that has:

Given us the compassion of the IRS;
Given us the efficiency of the U.S. Postal Service;
Given us the effectiveness of the Katrina response;
Given us the promptness of the Gulf oil spill response;
Executed a "War on Drugs" that has cost $1 trillion over 40 years and accomplished squat;
And has managed our children's education for the past 40 years…

This same government somehow can be counted-on to manage our health care, our financial sector, our nutritional needs, our energy supplies, and automotive companies?

Seriously?

What will it take? When are we going to finally come together as a nation and say, "Enough is enough?!"

And why, you may ask, do I want to see this take shape?

Because I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore!

Moms and their timeless advice

2011-05-06T15:43:00.000-07:00

I can't say for certain if my mother has truly gotten any wiser over the years (or, rather, decades) since I've been on this earth or if I just have slowly done a better job of appreciating her sage words as I've aged myself.

But, I recall from my childhood words of wisdom she always would direct at me whenever I got on a rant about someone with whom I was having difficulty at school, or a temperamental cousin, or anyone else.

Mom would say to me, "Pray for your enemies!"

I remember thinking – at the time – now that's dumb!

At the Catholic school I attended, we did daily prayer offerings for family and friends because they were sick, had fallen on other hard times, or approaching some big opportunity: the whole premise being to pray for their recovery and/or good fortune. During Sunday Mass, the prayer offerings seemed to be conducted under the same premises – with the addition of prayers for Church leaders and our elected officials so they may bring wisdom with their actions and decisions (don't snicker at that last example… the good intentions were undeniably pure).

All in all we were encouraged during our youth – both in school and at Mass – to pray on behalf of people for whom we cared or held some perceived vested interest.

So, the notion of praying for someone I disliked seemed rather counterintuitive.

But my mother – being a tremendously more patient person than I – bided her time as she kept telling me time and again, "Pray for your enemies."

And, I say she bided her time because finally, in my mid teen years, she gave me her evidence to support this paradoxical advice. Mom finally shared the story of our old next door neighbor, Mr. Dugan.

Even at that juncture in life I had retained scant memories of Mr. Dugan. Most of what I knew about him came from the myriad of stories I'd heard from my three older brothers as well as Mom. None of these stories were good.

Mr. Dugan was a heavy drinker, a terrible husband, an abusive father, and a general misery to have right on the other side of one's property line. He also was not shy about who saw and heard how miserable he could be. On at least one occasion, his abusive tendencies motivated Mom to walk back into the house, crawl in bed, and cry herself to sleep in the middle of the day.

Living next to Mr. Dugan was bad enough to inspire her to plant a row of Russian olive trees along our chain-link fence to serve as a buffer.

Over the years Mr. Dugan lived next door to my family, Mom said, early-on she began praying for him. She never asked God for anything specific. Mom just prayed for him.

And she kept praying for Mr. Dugan. The more time that passed, the harder she prayed for him – especially as my brothers got older. Eventually as tensions between our families grew and my oldest brother, Michael, was rapidly approaching the age of 18, Mom’s anxiety grew as well. She worried over what the legal consequences would hold for my brothers should a confrontation erupt once any of them were of adult age.

Mom kept praying.

Then all of a sudden, shortly after I turned 5, Mr. Dugan landed a great new job, packed up his wife and three children, and moved away.

We never heard from him again.

Ordinarily, one would think the fable ends here and the moral would be self-evident. But, as the late-great Paul Harvey used to say, "And now, the rest of the story."

Mr. Dugan didn't move all that far away, as it turned-out. His new job was a few miles farther north from where he had been working – yet not so far where he had a real need to relocate. But, while he had no apparent shame, he was at the same time a vain individual: the higher paying, better job meant "the old neighborhood" no longer was good enough and his home no longer was big enough.

The city to our north was rapidly growing and brand new subdivisions were springing-up there left and right – with bigger and nicer houses. The allure was too great for Mr. Dugan to pass-up.

We knew that much before they left. Six years later, however, big gaps in the storyline were rapidly filled-in for us.

The school district into which the Dugans moved participated in the same vocational cooperative (in some areas known as an intermediate school district) as ours. It was called Southeast Oakland Vocational Education Center (SEOVEC).

My brother Brian signed-up for a program at SEOVEC. He happened to be the same age as the oldest Dugan child, Scott. When Brian met several students from the Dugans' new school district, he immediately developed curiosity about our old neighbors and asked these students if they had happened to know them – and Scott specifically.

Upon hearing the name, they seemingly froze in their positions, glanced at Brian in a sideways manner, and gave him "the look." After a second of awkward silence they asked my brother, "How do you know Scott Dugan?"

Brian's new SEOVEC classmates relayed harried tales of malcontent involving Mr. Dugan and Scott. It turned out as he entered his teen years Scott was becoming a chip off the old block. He had begun to grow into a burly young man much like his father. He also was adopting his father's disposition and keen sense of social skills.

Bear in mind, in the late 70s and into the early 80s, the city where they moved – even though it was only a few miles north of Detroit – still predominantly had farmland and other rural expanses and was populated principally with what you could call "northern rednecks."

In short, these were people who didn't take kindly to new inhabitants bringing with them a bad attitude combined with a sense of superiority.

The kids didn’t take kindly to Scott. Consequently, no one took kindly to Mr. Dugan when he stuck his nose into his son's business once the local youth began administering their brand of frontier justice.

Mr. Dugan practically invited the town's youngsters to torque on him, failing to anticipate the hornets nest he was stirring-up. It hadn't occurred to him the folks in the area might not share the same sense of restraint demonstrated by us in the old neighborhood.

Quite possibly the coup de gras perpetrated upon Mr. Dugan happened one summer very shortly before Brian crossed paths with these young men.

Allow me to set this up: Mr. Dugan was quite the lawn freak. Now, our two homes – when he was still next door – were situated on a bend in our street. The position of our house as a result gave our property a trapezoidal shape and, accordingly, the largest front yard on the block.

Mr. Dugan, being so vain and as much of a lawn freak as he was, made it a habit of when he mowed his lawn to mow a portion of ours so as to create the appearance the property line mysteriously angled at some point – thus making his property look bigger.

The Kissicks, being a pragmatic people, quickly determined that if he wanted to do the extra work for us, there was no point in raising any fuss. We knew the truth: it appeared Mr. Dugan needed to "compensate" for something…

So, Mr. Dugan, being so OCD over the quality of his lawn years before the term "OCD" entered the greater lexicon of our society, eventually gave the local ne'er-do-wells of his new community the perfect target for their displeasure.

That summer, Mr. Dugan evidently was so dissatisfied with the appearance of his lawn he had it ripped-up and replaced with brand new sod. Very shortly thereafter, he took the family on a nice, lengthy vacation.

The next night, a few of the youth whose displeasure had been earned by Mr. Dugan and his oldest child paid their home a visit. They pulled up all his fresh, new sod and threw it in as big of chunks as they could wield on top of his roof. The next day, the area saw the start of a classic summer-in-Michigan, multi-day deluge. It was immediately followed by several days of cloudless, hot days of intense sunshine.

The heavy rains ran long, chunky streaks of dirt and grass all along the sides of Mr. Dugan's house and the days of unabated sun exposure baked it all in there for good measure.

For some reason, Mr. Dugan didn't share the other residents' humorous outlook on the situation.

From there, the circumstances only got worse for Mr. Dugan and Scott. Although, the level of creativity demonstrated during all the subsequent activity never quite matched the episode above.

Herein lies the real moral of the story. Whenever you feel the need to subject your neighbors to your social shortcomings and even air your own family's dirty laundry for everyone else living in earshot, be sure to bear this in mind:

Just imagine my mom praying for you.

My own 'libertarian moment'

2011-04-29T04:26:00.000-07:00

I understand sometimes one can inject too much of him- or herself into a body of writings. Sometimes, however, finding a way to help some readers relate to one's principles trumps the natural human desire to not run afoul of those in one’s social or community sphere.

With that, I offer the following thought despite its mild redundancy to the opening paragraph.

It is one thing to observe the multifarious orders of business which constitute government – relying heavily on standard and online media for information as well as other opinion analysis – and then publish a semi-disconnected perspective on it all.

It is quite another to experience something in life which is tremendously analogous to a topic of particular ire to libertarians and other small-government proponents: handouts and public entitlements.

While it has taken me a couple of months to finally get around to this topic, and it goes hand-in-hand well with a previous blog entry, this is a personal experience which reinforces a core libertarian principle that freebies in life almost invariably bring with them a dehumanizing effect on their beneficiaries.

Two months ago I became a former employee of YMCA. I started off at the South Oakland Family YMCA in Royal Oak, Michigan, in 2003 and then was hired at the Lima Family YMCA in 2007. In the nearly 7 1/2 years I was a part of YMCA I have enjoyed the opportunity to see the good things the organization does for the communities its branches serve. Even after parting ways, I will continue to be a proponent of it.

As any YMCA employee can verify for you, one of the more popular benefits of working there is the free membership. Last June, when I was called back to work at Honda's engine plant in Anna, my supervisor – who oversees the Lima Y's fitness center – said he would be willing to keep me on payroll as a substitute so I could continue to enjoy a membership there at no cost.

In case you are one of the few readers who is not aware, I was the Libertarian Party's candidate in Ohio's 4th congressional district race for 2010. Also, my now-former Y supervisor is an ardent Progressive Liberal.

I'm also a weight-lifting junkie.

Well, as the months progressed after my return to (and then second layoff in September from) Honda and as the campaign entered the homestretch toward the November 2 election, he began pestering me more and more often about subbing at the fitness desk. He became especially persistent in October, roughly three week before the election.

On one occasion he called me on the road while I was out campaigning in Wapakoneta and left a voicemail message to call him back. Since I was on the campaign trail and preparing to participate in a meet-the-candidates event hosted by the Auglaize County Patriots, I made the executive decision to wait until the morning to return his call.

The next day, I awoke extra early and decided to head to the Y for a good hard workout. That evening was the first public debate with Representative Jim Jordan and I wanted to enjoy a healthy surge of endorphins before campaigning some more and preparing one last time for the debate.

When I arrived, there was the Fitness Supervisor covering for the early-morning staffer. Since I had not returned his call as promptly as he felt I should have he opted to confront and lecture me on the subject in front of several members. The fact I was out campaigning and was not in a position to call back until rather late in the evening mattered none in the conversation.

I ended-up leaving the gym even more stressed-out than I already was.

Adding to the bizarreness of the day, while I was at the auditorium on the OSU-Lima campus waiting for the debate to commence, I got a call. It was a local number but one I didn't recognize. Thinking it might be election related I decided to answer: and it was one of my coworkers asking me to sub for her the very next morning as our supervisor had suggested she call me first.

With the debate about to start in six minutes and out of the shear surprise of being hit with this at that particular moment, I quickly made another executive decision: I said, "No."

While I did come in and sub on one Saturday during that time span to keep the hounds at bay and there are even more details of this story with which to bore readers, cutting to the chase the nagging and pestering curiously came to an end on November 3.

In late October I had returned to work at Honda yet again and I did sub for a coworker a couple of times during the annual Christmas shutdown at the plant in order to maintain my employment status and enjoy the free gym access. But, in late February I received one more call from that supervisor. He simply phoned to say since I had not "subbed in a really long time" I was being taken off the payroll the next day.

If you've stuck with this treatise this far, I’m sure the obvious question would be, "Why didn’t you quit after the first time he gave you grief?"

You wouldn’t be the first person to ask me that. My answer consistently has been, "I wanted to keep the free membership."

During the stretches I was laid-off I could not afford a gym membership. Heck, there were stretches of time while I was working when I couldn't afford a gym membership.

But, after that last phone call, I made one more executive decision and checked-out Westwood Tennis & Fitness Center. I knew the first day into my one week trial access I was going to join there. After signing-up and making the first membership payment, it was during my second workout when my libertarian epiphany occurred to me.

All those months I was willing to tolerate unprofessional behavior, mild yet tempered hostility, condescension, an occasional hateful look, and the general indignity of the situation… And for what?

Simply put, I had gotten used to enjoying what amounted to a handout.

By that point, during that second paid-for workout at Westwood, I realized what it was beyond being in a superior facility that made working-out there so enjoyable. I could be there without having to wonder if I was going to be questioned about the frequency of my visits. I could go there without anyone really caring who I was or why I was there. And, I could go there because I had paid for my access to it just like everyone else in there.

And you know what: that last one just felt so good.

So, if you're a Libertarian like me and you're dealing with someone who rolls their eyes at you when you discuss how government assistance leaves recipients trapped in their situation and forced to accept the inevitable indignity of it, tell them to talk to someone who – in a roundabout sense – knows what you’re trying to convey.

In my own strange and peculiar way, I've been there.

Government, my driver's license, and the wonderful world of unintended consequences

2011-04-23T17:08:00.000-07:00

Below is a letter I e-mailed recently to Ohio General Assembly Senator Keith Faber (12th Senate District) and later modified slightly and sent to Representative John Adams (78th House District). Let's see if either legislator acknowledges it.

Dear Sen. Faber,

I called your Celina office a few days ago and relayed the points below to your staffer there (I believe his name was Joe[?]), and he advised me to send you an e-mail detailing my concerns.

Two Fridays ago, my wife and I went to the local Bureau of Motor Vehicles office here in Lima to get new licenses. We had just moved earlier in the week and wanted to get that done promptly.

Much to our surprise, we were turned away because we lacked proof we reside at our new address. The employee at the BMV was very cordial and let us know this was a relatively new development in Ohio within the last year and the new stipulations require we furnish a piece of official mail with our names and new address such as a bank statement or utility bill.

This is the part that puzzles us: historically, one’s driver’s license or state ID serves as proof of residency for the above functions in society. Equally perplexing is the fact our recently inked lease for the duplex we’re renting is not on the list of acceptable proof of residency.

Now begins our catch-22: our bank will not change the address for our checking account until we are able to furnish new IDs with that update. To reiterate the irony, we need an item such as a mailed bank statement with our new address on it to prove we have moved into our new home and get our new licenses but our bank requires new licenses before it will enter our new address into our account information.

So far, this merely is the inconvenience side of the issue. Even more important to consider are the unintended consequences of the new BMV policy.

Before going any further, I would like to state I get why this was implemented. First, I know Ohio has a growing illegal alien problem that is taxing the state’s resources and I can see how this would be a potentially effective means of combating it. Also, it is easy to recognize the policy is meant to be a tool for thwarting voter fraud.

But, do those two efforts outweigh the predicament in which Ohio residents – who are disabled or caught-up in the severely adverse effects of the recession – are being placed?

My wife is disabled. Simply getting to the BMV and waiting in line for a new license is very physically taxing on her. Still, her situation does not present the obstacles to personal mobility faced by many disabled and elderly Ohioans – especially those dependent upon transportation assistance.

On another personal note, I am reminded of our experience when I was laid-off from my job in February 2009 at the peak of the current recession. Without employment, we could no longer afford the rent at our residence at the time and had to move-in with my wife’s family. Since all the bills there were in their names we had no means of proving we lived at that address. Had the new BMV policy been in place then, we would have spent months waiting for the ability to update our address with the state of Ohio.

When you couple those two situations (economically displaced residents and the transportation limitations of the elderly and disabled) with the fact state law requires residents to update our addresses within 30 days of moving before incurring a penalty it becomes clear many of us will invariably be caught between a rock and a hard place with little or no means to resolve this dilemma.

I do not know if the BMV policy was enacted via legislation or was set through the internal bureaucracy of the BMV or Ohio Department of Public Safety. If it was passed as a new law, my request would be to please consider my concerns above and quickly pursue a repeal of it out of consideration of the unintended consequences it is creating for so many Ohioans. If this policy was established internally, it is my hope you and other lawmakers in the General Assembly would lobby Governor Kasich’s office to issue a directive to ODPS Director Kyle Dupler and BMV Registrar Mike Rankin to reverse this harmful policy.

Thank you for your time and consideration and Happy Easter.

Sincerely,

Don Kissick

The logic flaw no one ever questions

2011-03-27T05:22:00.000-07:00

"New" liberals in their embrace of Progressivism over the last 100 years have created an astounding paradox. For some reason, however, no one seems to feel the need to shine any light on it.

They so proudly trumpet themselves as unfailing champions of the individual's right to privacy. And, to listen to them and take them at their word, one would be led to believe that crowd is privacy rights' lone champion in America.

All the while, though, the progressive liberals also believe in and have promoted a broad-reaching public assistance system – more simply, welfare.

But, you cannot have a society with a supposed institutional respect for privacy rights at the same time as a society of vast public entitlements.

Herein lies the contradiction the American Left so desperately wants us all to ignore: have you applied for assistance lately?

If you have, how much of your privacy that you cherish can you honestly say you still have left? After all, when you file for assistance the government expects you to divulge information about yourself and your family most people would not be comfortable sharing with neighbors – and even information that in many instances can get you fired for discussing in one’s workplace.

How much have you made on a week-to-week basis over the last year?
How much has your spouse made on a week-to-week basis over the last year?
What is your current bank balance?
Do you own your home?
If so, how much do you still owe on it?
How much is it worth?
What kind of car(s) do you drive?
What are they worth?
What is your social security number?
What is your driver's license number?
How much do you have in monthly utility bills?
What other monthly expenditures do you have?

But if you wish to qualify for aid, your choice of comfort zones narrows drastically.

And, ultimately, we are expected to handover various personal concerns and documents to complete strangers whom we are supposed to trust because they have signed a piece of paper stating they agree not to misuse knowledge of your personal affairs under any circumstances.

Then again, our presidents and members of Congress have been swearing an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution at each inauguration ceremony. In just looking back over the last 20+ years, how would you say that's worked out for us?

No pre-wedding jitters...

2011-03-24T05:20:00.000-07:00

Today marks four years ago Marcy and I exchanged our vows. In a small way to commemorate our anniversary, I have opted to republish this old blog entry I wrote about it. I originally authored this on April 7, 2007: two weeks after our wedding. It initially was written as a MySpace message to an old friend I knew while I was in the Navy and stationed at Newport, RI. When I was almost finished typing it, it occurred to me that this would make a nice item to share with everyone and so here it is, a little revised and with an item or two added.

Also to all who see this and attended our wedding and reception, for being there with us to share in our most special day, THANK YOU! Words cannot express how grateful we still are.

Well, we only got half the crowd we expected (we paid for a minimum attendance of 125 guests). But that's okay. The folks who showed and stayed through the evening had an absolute blast.

Just like everyone said it would be, the day went by much too quickly and it was over before I knew it. In looking back two weeks ago, now it seems like a whirlwind (although I know it didn't have that feel while it was happening).

I have to say, watching her walk down the aisle was the most magical moment of my life.

It was funny, in retrospect, because I remember how glad we were to get out of our formal wear once we got home... and she was saying all the while in the weeks leading up to our wedding that she's waited all her life to don her wedding gown but that was going to mean wearing upwards of 30 pounds of clothing and she knew she would be soooo ready to take the thing off.

She had her gown on by about 2:30-3 p.m. that afternoon, I had on my tux shortly after 3, and we were out of our gear sometime close to midnight. Nine hours in a tux and gown. Yeah, I couldn't wait to get in a T-shirt, sweats, and my worn-out sneakers I use for slippers.

In fact, not long after the ceremony her feet were hurting her so bad in her shoes my brother Todd ran really quickly to the Kmart next door to the Crystal Gardens hall and grabbed her a pair of nice slippers to wear the rest of the day and evening. Our photographer got some photos of me helping her out of and then into footwear out in the lobby area. As soon as we get them from him, I'll be sure to post those on my profile.

Another anecdote that Marcy will never live down to some degree came during the ceremony. Our officiate, Tony, later admitted that ours was only the second wedding he's done this year and so he was a little rusty. Where that came into play is that during the part where we say after him, "I take thee..." he was kinda hesitating a little bit. She was waiting for him to say my name in the process, waiting for his prompts, and it caused just enough of a hiccup in the proceedings that she called me by my middle name since in her mind she'd already said my first name several times: "I take thee (hesitation for a split second) Charles..."

So now, my best man keeps calling me Chuck. And Marcy is "Bride of Chuckie."

That's OK, though, since when we said our own personal words to one another I had a brain fart (which I knew I would; that's why I try to stick to writing instead of public speaking) of my own. What I had intended to say and had rehearsed in my head for during my part was:

Marcy, very simply you are the one.
You are the one I know who loves me unconditionally.
You are the one who brings out the best in me.
You are the one who makes every morning worth waking up to.
And you are the one who makes every evening something to look forward to.
And, you are the one and only one I see spending the rest of my life with.
You are the one.

Well, after the opening line, I had a brain freeze and couldn't remember the second stanza (which, I felt, was the most important to say) and skipped to part 3, then four, and then finally remembered the second part -- and in my sense of relief I believe I ended up omitting the fifth line.

One other thing that is a little amusing is the minor controversy that has taken on a life of its own in my workplace. I teach a teen weight training class where I work at the South Oakland Family YMCA. The weekend before the wedding I called in sick and so there wasn't any class. Well, I could have tried to arrange for someone to be there but felt I owed it to the kids, having missed the week before. During the rehearsal dinner the night before the wedding, other members of the bridal party convinced me to pursue a sub to teach the next day's class (what if there's a traffic jam, what if you're in an accident, what if your truck breaks down) -- and I earnestly tried to call someone and make those arrangements.

Well, no one was available. So, I went in around 8:30 that next morning (class is at 11) to the "Y" and got in the workout I was hoping to have. And I taught my class, but being the thinking man I am, I cut it short at 11:30 and let no one interfere with my departure. Of course my boss, Michele, marveled at my presence while I was working-out and apologized for not being able to cover the class herself; but she needed to be able to scoot early that morning since she needed the time to get ready so she could attend the wedding herself!

And a number of people remarked about me being there and working out and doing the class the day of my wedding. What I began telling people is I wanted to get the after-workout endorphin rush as a preemptive strike against potential pre-wedding jitters. At least I think it worked.

Anyhow, since then people have been coming up to me saying things such as, "What's this I hear about you having to work on your wedding day?!?" and, "I can't believe they made you come in to work on your wedding day!"

What adds a little to the confusion on the subject is that I used to work Saturday mornings in the Wellness Center. Now, the only time I come in on a Saturday is to teach my class (which is very rewarding).

But, getting back to the subject of avoiding the jitters... Once I got out of the YMCA and hit the road, I had to swing over to Ecorse and pick up Keith, my Best Man, at the truck stop on Ecorse Road. He had to drop-off his rig that morning as he had to deal with some rocket scientists in Ohio at his final point of destination along his run down south.

So, I meet him at the diner there at the truck stop. And I figure he's going to be ready to get going fairly shortly after I get there. No, he's just getting ready to place his breakfast order. Well, I went ahead and had something as well. I was anxious to go, so I had my plate cleaned off well before Keith did. And then he wants to sit there with his boss and shoot the $#1+ and smoke cigarettes for a while -- meanwhile I'm getting antsier... and antsier. Finally I had to blurt out, "Dude, I really, really don't want to be rude, but we really, really got to go."

So, we head over to where his rig is parked, he gets his tux and other needed items out of his truck. As best we can in my well-worn Dakota, I'm flying down I-94 to Southfield Road, I'm cruising the streets as fast as I can without needlessly risking a stop by a cop, and get our nappy asses to the house, where I now need to get groomed (no pun intended) and a shower (another unintended pun). As bald as I am, I just shave my head anymore and for some reason that day, things just seemed to take longer to accomplish than normal.

We got to Crystal Gardens at 3 -- mind you the wedding is at 3:30 p.m. and we had determined that all my groomsmen and I should be there by 2:30. When we get there, Amy (Marcy's Matron of Honor) is standing there in the lobby and says, "I was getting ready to send out a search party for you!"

We race into the area we scouted as a good changing place. My first groomsman, Larry, is helping me get changed and all set up while Keith's wife, Lana (Marcy's Second Bridesmaid), is helping him do the same. I am trying like hell not to work up a sweat and get all grubby as a result. But, we probably got me tuxed-up in near record time.

After that, then I had to help with getting my two absentee fellows (Larry and Keith) up to speed on things since they weren't able to be there the night of the rehearsal (Keith was on the road and Larry lives up by Clare): the order of procession, where we're all standing when we get to the altar, and so on.

Now, for all of you who have known me for some time and have marveled at my sense (or lack thereof) of punctuality, you need only look at my family... At this point in the day, my brother Brian (the second groomsman), has not yet arrived. In fact, since he, my oldest brother Michael, and my mom are all riding together, I'm now starting to wonder whether they will be there at least in time for the ceremony or perhaps sometime before dinner during the reception. Time is ticking away and in the design of entrances for the ceremony Michael is supposed to be escorting Mom to her seat, followed by Marcy's brother Jason with their mom, Brian, Larry, Keith, and then Tony and me, and the bridesmaids one by one before Marcy and her dad make their entrance.

Making the moment even more interesting is that Tony hadn't even arrived yet (although, if memory serves me correct, he did get there before my family). Of course, on our wedding day, there had to be construction on I-75. That caused a lot of people to miss the ceremony but at least be there for the reception. My family, though, was taking the Southfield Freeway, which was flowing quite smoothly when I was on it around noon. They pulled-up at 3:21 by my watch.

Between anxiously awaiting for their arrivals and doing pre-photos in the lobby area with the photographer, and saying "hello" to invitees, I was too busy to even think about being nervous.

But, all in all, I'm inclined to think the day went well. I couldn't be happier.

I'd like an order of St. Patrick's Day, and please hold the stereotype...

2011-03-23T07:55:00.000-07:00

(Originally published on March 18 in the Notes of my personal Facebook profile; but, over the last few days the urge to publicly publish this has taken hold...)

As I get older, I do find the blind association of St. Patrick's Day with excessive libation disquieting. Also troubling for me is the harsh criticism of Christians (Catholics in particular) for "allowing" such a development.

The problem with that observation is it ignores two key points:

First – the entire history of St. Patrick (or Pádhraig if you go with the Gaelic spelling) and how his holiday became a Holy Day of Obligation for observance in Ireland;

Second – the fact it was not Catholics who steadily evolved this holiday into an excuse for alcoholic debauchery but secularists who seem to take bizarre pleasure in ruining Judeo-Christian traditions.

The notion of drinking being associated with St. Patrick’s Day is based in part on the old (very old) tradition of the men in the towns across Ireland coming together for a round of ale at the end of a long day spent commemorating and honoring his bringing Christianity to the Emerald Isle. In olden days (and even in a number of instances back in Ireland today), the holiday was begun with a long mass dedicated to Patrick’s memory and legacy. Families came together in a manner much like how Thanksgiving and Christmas used to be observed many moons ago. The work involved in making the day what it was meant to be left most of the Irish people feeling a bit deserving of a spirit of some sort (usually a pint) at the end of the day.

The other component of alcohol consumption being tied to the holiday is the result of people gradually expanding upon the stereotype of the Irish nationality and its reputation for alcoholism.

But to revisit the subject of secularism wrecking time-honored traditions and holy days of obligation for recognizing certain saints, this is the same process that played-out with St. Valentine’s Day.

The St. Valentine for whom February 14 had been set aside for remembrance (there are several saints named Valentine) was a priest who was martyred in the 3rd century AD for marrying Christian couples – this was before the conversion of Rome, so aiding Christians was a crime punishable either by imprisonment or death. His order for execution was handed-down by Roman Emperor Claudius Gothicus after Valentine attempted to convert him during his imprisonment.

This is why the date is associated so inextricably with romance. Observance of February 14 began in England during the late 15th century.

And, of course, there is the obvious manner in which secularists turned Christmas into a near-orgy of commercialism. Enough said on that, basically.

Japan: condolences and caution

2011-03-16T09:21:00.000-07:00

First and foremost, it must be said my thoughts and prayers are with the people of Japan. I cannot even begin to imagine what their ordeal must be like – and was like for those whose lives have been lost so far.

Justifiably so, the news and images that have streamed out of the West Pacific have been a source of immense anxiety and sorrow for those who have kept-up with them. We need to give – and give generously.

Unfortunately, there must come a time to begin the distasteful portion of the Japanese story: discussing the economic impacts of the string of massive natural disasters which have taken their toll.

In short, the United States either will face great peril or tremendous opportunity. I do not see much potential for middle ground on this.

The peril stems from the fact Japan currently is the second-largest foreign holder of the United States’ national debt. The Japanese nation presently owns just under $890 billion in U.S. Treasury Bonds.

In the very, very near future, the Land of the Rising Sun’s government will be selling those treasuries in significant chunks as a means to afford the enormous rebuilding effort which must begin there. Another viable option for Japan simply doesn’t exist.

Don’t be surprised to read or watch in the coming weeks (or days) about the Japanese selling U.S. debt in chunks of tens-of-billion-of-dollars at a time. When you consider the U.S. federal government now is running monthly deficits in excess of $220 billion , our picture here at home has the potential to look almost as bleak as Japan’s (I reiterate: almost!).

A run like this on the U.S. dollar in the international currency market creates the potential for interest rates on our national debt to rise sharply, further erode the dollar’s value, and spike inflation rates – all placing even greater pressure on our economy.

The worst-case scenario is if Japan struggles to find buyers and its leadership comes knocking on the doors of the U.S. Treasury insisting upon emolument for anywhere from $100 billion to $200 billion. A cash-out demand of that size could very well put the United States on the brink of defaulting on its debt.

If that happens, the next big meltdown to hit the headlines will be in Washington.

Averting this disaster will require urgent but very careful negotiating on the part of the Obama Administration’s top economic minds. When you consider the present crew has demonstrated more economic incompetence than the Carter and Bush 43 administrations combined, all I can think of at this point is God help us… God help us all.

The silver lining?

The operative question – now – centers on what the potential “tremendous opportunity” could possibly be.

While the economic news out of Japan at times seems to be changing on an hourly basis, the latest reports I read as of this time of writing state widespread plant closings for that country’s top manufacturers. Toyota has shut down all 12 of its plants there, Honda, Nissan, and Subaru have suspended operations at multiple locations, and Sony has had to initiate closings as well.

The shutdowns have had to do as much with electrical power concerns due to the multiple nuclear reactor crises as with assessing structural damage and other earthquake-related concerns. Some – but not all – timelines for reopening plants remain unclear.

Any long-term closures by Japanese manufacturers inevitably will lead to immense voids in the respective market shares they control. Toyota alone, shutting-down all 12 domestic plants, represents a massive drop-off in the country’s overall exports. Add to the mix Sony – one of the top electronics and entertainment producers in the world – and the cross-section of industries impacted beyond automotive is tremendous.

While this is not how a civilized mind would anticipate an opportunity for a resurgence in America’s manufacturing sector, the fact remains that the unavoidable shortfall in Japan’s ability to meet its present market share for exports means someone must poise themselves to fill those voids.

Here on our shores, government at all levels can greatly aid our own manufacturers by vastly reducing the red tape required to build either new businesses or new locations for present companies.

Otherwise, I have no doubt China, Russia, and India will be more than happy to fill-in the worldwide gaps for us.

Barack Obama: Divider in Chief

2011-02-27T05:58:00.001-08:00

America is facing a number of political showdowns which stand to further reshape the nation's ideological landscape beyond what we’ve seen over the last two years.

Budget battles have been popping-up in almost domino fashion in state capitals over the last couple of weeks, threatening the financial predominance of the Democratic Party's – particularly President Barack Obama's – stalwart union base. And, this administration's inconsistency in its responses to the popular uprisings taking place in the Middle East is causing the White House to take a PR beating.

So, what is Obama's plan for putting out the fires?

"Hey, look over there!"

On Wednesday, February 23, he got almost every conservative in America to reach for the bait and work themselves into an uproar over the announcement by Attorney General Eric Holder that the Justice Department would no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in court if a case should arise.

I find myself reminiscing about a line made popular by the old Monte Python troupe: "And now, for something completely different…"

Instead of stepping up and demonstrating himself as a true leader, Obama opted to fall back on his life as a lawyer-turned-career-politician and give good old fashioned misdirection a try. Just when any semblance of success anywhere seemed out of his reach, our president took a chance on trying to create division among his opposition.

So far, it seems to be working out for him fairly well. After all, when a crisis erupts you never want it to go to waste; if there's no crisis to exploit, invent one.

There are two key camps within the tide of popular sentiment rising against progressive establishment dogma over the last two years: the mainly libertarian-leaning crowd that got the snowball which is the Tea Party rolling and the Republican establishment camp which has not only jumped all over that bandwagon but is trying to wrest the reins away for their own use. If there was one issue that could get tossed out there and create in-fighting, DOMA was it.

In fact, even libertarians are experiencing rifts over the topic. One libertarian blogger whom I recently began following has chosen to take Representative Ron Paul to task for his criticism of the Obama Administration over the DOMA announcement.

Now depending on with whom you talk, there are two key opposing arguments in this discussion: "DOMA is unconstitutional" vs. "government has no business redefining marriage."

At this point I am taking a stand and examining those points no further. I will leave it up to anyone who reads this to do their own research on them. I refuse to reach for that hunk of cheese positioned on the wooden rectangle or bite into that worm bouncing magical through the water.

Instead, I am going to re-emphasize the deliberately ignored third argument on this issue – one that I tackled already: why does government at any level need to concern itself with any situation regarding who marries whom in the first place?

Until that argument reaches more audiences across the nation, we leave ourselves in a position to be unnecessarily divided on a truly peripheral issue.

Let there be no doubt how clear Obama's mindset is: if he can’t get you to drink his Koolaid, then he will poison your tea!

Union busting or self-preservation?

2011-02-20T00:23:00.001-08:00

Like so many of my blogs and other essays, this one was inspired by my two-cents-worth I added as part of a larger discussion of the topic of public education (thanks for the inspiration, Jennifer and Josh!). I've added a little more here than where this was originally posted and cleaned-up any typing or grammatical errors that were there, of course.

The legislative battles over collective bargaining for public employees have sparked multiple firestorm debates and discussions. We're seeing this take shape both here in Ohio and in Wisconsin.

What bother me are the notions being spread that public employees are being denied the right to collectively bargain and they will face abusive working conditions.

First of all, no law can deny anyone – whether they are publicly employed or not – the right to affiliate with any labor organization. This is guaranteed by the Freedom of Assembly clause in the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.

So, that argument is laid to rest pretty quickly.

The key point being deliberately ignored by many people in the broader conversation is to whom the politicians, their appointed and hired administrators, and the publicly employed laborers are supposed to be answerable. We are their bosses, not the governor, state senators, state reps, county commissioners, township trustees, or municipal office-holders. We, the voters and taxpayers are their rightful bosses. And, for decades, we have been steadily pushed right out of the loop on collective-bargaining contract negotiations.

No one is saying workers of any stripe have no right to collective bargaining. But, it is time we returned the service portion to the key old phrase "public service." These jobs were never intended to become tenured, lifelong positions requiring a near-act-of-God in order to terminate an ineffective employee: especially when it comes to education.

Among the new terms Wisconsin's legislators are looking put into law are calling for increases on behalf of all public employees with their own contributions to their retirement plans and health insurance coverage. They are all in an uproar in Madison: but the punch line there is the potential new contribution levels are still well below (in some instances half that of) what the average private sector worker pays into their respective plans out of each paycheck.

But, we're supposed to believe these proposed working conditions constitute abuse of the public sector. Give me a break.

Also, the vast majority of states are facing monstrous unfunded liabilities. According to a study released a year ago by the Pew Center on the States, when you combine the retirement obligations for public employees of all 50 states, they face a grand total $1 trillion shortfall in their ability to meet $3.35 trillion in total liabilities.

Illinois is in the most extreme situation. That state is projected to have $131 billion in such liabilities by the end of the current fiscal year and only $46 billion in available assets (roughly 35%) to cover them.

The majority of states are facing such legacy-cost obligations at varying degrees of severity.

I would contend that if the unions are so adamant they have the support of the people, then they ought to agree to my idea of putting all negotiated contract proposals at the state and local levels up for a public referendum vote. That would require all the terms of each contract to be made available for public scrutiny and evaluation well in advance of the day of the election. If they have that all-important public support they claim, then they should have no problem embracing that "pure democracy" for which they regularly clamor.

A focused discussion on public education

Perhaps the single-greatest point of contention when it comes to America's public sector workforce is education.

While most of the problems with public education in America are the combined result of federal policy (Department of Education) and teachers unions, at the state and local levels dealing with issues of collective bargaining is the area where these governments can have the most significant influence.

Where the unions have had the most intense impact is they have gone beyond merely engaging in collective bargaining for "fair" salaries and other compensation for their vocation. These unions have sought to create work environments where their members enjoy job protection to such a degree (especially once they've "earned" tenure) they cannot be dismissed except under the most extreme circumstances – and even then it depends on where you're examining this condition.

A tenured teacher enjoys a work setting which allows for little to no regard for the basic principle of job performance – half of that is the result of the deliberate dilution of what constitutes job performance while the other component is the set of legal hurdles (enormously expensive ones at that) in place inhibiting the process of getting a defective teacher terminated. The most extreme examples of that are the "Rubber Rooms" in New York's school district.

Human nature being what it is, this opens-up room for a growing number of people in this profession to become perilously comfortable with their station in the workplace – at the expense of our children. It's a problem that has grown pervasive to the point of becoming institutional in nature.

And all that is before you even factor-in the influence within the vocation by its vocal and active members who make up its left-leaning political culture – a culture whose size within the education profession is often debated but whose impact is undeniable.

Getting back to my original point, in this situation there gradually becomes little room for dissenting views among peers. This is why we rarely – if ever – hear of internal reforms coming about in any of the local chapters of whichever union represents a given school district. What usually has to happen is what we're seeing taking shape here in Ohio and in Wisconsin: so-called union-busting proposed legislation.

Until something gives in this process, the good teachers will continue to be overshadowed and even swallowed-up by the education system and the work environment that has evolved within it.

Tunisia, Egypt, and other dominoes

2011-02-18T16:42:00.000-08:00

In light of the domino effect that is apparently taking shape in the Arab World in recent weeks, we as a nation may have no choice but to reevaluate our role in the affairs of other states.

As uncomfortable as this is sure to make many people, the time may be upon us to end our policies of propping-up everyone else's so-called quality of life in various corners of the world when we're failing at an increasing rate at maintaining our own country's way of life.

If the people in the Middle East want the caliphate, I just don't see how we can legitimately deny them the basic right of national self-determination.

To my fellow Tea Partiers, how can we argue that we can no longer afford widespread entitlements and corporate welfare and then turn around and promote a continuation of interventionist foreign policy?

Furthermore, it's easy to make an ally of a dictator when you're slipping him taxpayer-funded kickbacks every year.

Ultimately, for many Americans there is real concern surrounding the perception of the United States’ prestige in the world going into decline. Many among us are blaming this particular situation on President Barack Obama’s tendency toward waffling during such instances as the demonstrations in Egypt and in 2009 in Iran – and most of the criticism is well deserved.

However, if meddling in the affairs of other, sovereign nations is a legitimate component of American vital interests (of which I am, shall we say, dubious), then equally to blame for our dramatic loss of prestige is former-President George W. Bush for not just entrenching America in two undeclared wars on the other side of the world but also for woefully mismanaging both war efforts before Obama came along and continued the trend.

This overall sentiment is extrapolated-upon much more eloquently by Pat Buchanan in his columns published on February 18 and January 18.

Egypt and the Either/Or Fallacy

2011-02-05T05:57:00.000-08:00

Before my own analysis of the Egyptian political situation begins, I need to share my own feelings on what has transpired -- or perhaps more accurately what we're being told has transpired -- thus far in that country.

With this topic, much like the WikiLeaks story, I am torn.

The growing movement in Egypt is in response to the people's fatigue with a heavy-handed head of state and a desire for greater self-determination among those who initiated the protests in Cairo. Weighing against that is a very real concern about who may opportunistically emerge to fill a power void if the people succeed.

Predictably, the news coverage of the demonstrations in Egypt has devolved into a cacophony. Making the noise worse as of late is the barrage from conservative commentators who insist an ouster of Hosni Mubarak's regime (not just Mubarak himself, but of the regime he has put in place) is the last thing anyone wants to see.

Across the board, the right wing spin wizards steadily have fallen in line and declared if Mubarak steps down he will inevitably be replaced by a Muslim Brotherhood-designed radical theocracy.

This is the American Right Wing employing the either/or fallacy, a topic I have addressed before. The either/or argument relies on a typically false premise that in any situation or problem there are only two possible causes, courses of action, resolutions, or outcomes.

In the case of Egypt and Mubarak, the assertion is we have to choose between the devil we know or the devil they're convinced will be worse.

Most of the radio and television pundits insist Egypt is poised to become the next Iran and Israel is on the brink of going up in flames. As far as I've been able to determine, Glenn Beck is the only one who has suggested Egypt's Marxist Party has demonstrated the same degree of opportunism as the Muslim Brotherhood.

Before continuing, make no mistake that Mubarak (the "devil we know") is a thug: he has cracked-down relentlessly on his own citizens who are active in Egypt's Islamic wing, followed by his reported participation in rendition efforts in recent years.

Where I disagree vehemently with conservative talk hosts is their absolutism regarding the prospects for a post-Mubarak Egypt.

The movement in that country began in true grassroots fashion. Much of the Egyptian population simply has had enough of the conditions there, not the least of which has been the steadily worsening economy. Now, their frustration has motivated hundreds of thousands of them to take to the streets and call for Mubarak's unconditional resignation.

To suggest the protests serve only to set the stage for the rise of a fundamental Islamic theocracy requires ignoring that Egypt's Islamists and Marxists have been johnnies-come-lately who are trying to co-opt the rising tide of public sentiment. They are not the originators of the movement.

Dare I say it, but a number of American conservatives are taking the exact same approach toward their spin of this story as our left-dominated news media has employed in covering the Tea Party.

Before anyone gets their knickers in a knot, as a Tea Partier myself I am not comparing what is taking place in Egypt to the Tea Party movement. What I am comparing are the similar slants set forth by the analysts for both wings of the outdated linear political scale. It's curious how eagerly dismissive they both have been of their respective quarries as dangerous.

And, both sides are being driven by a desire to maintain their respective status quos. Statists on the left want to continue the march toward socialist domestic policy while statists on the right want to continue an active interventionist foreign policy.

As a result of all this -- getting back on course -- what is being ignored by too many conservatives is the possibility the Egyptians may be ready to put in place an establishment that offers greater freedom and possibly a little bit of liberty (or at the very least the aforementioned expanded opportunity for self determination).

It won't be easy. I agree that any representative democracy which emerges from the ashes of a displaced Mubarak regime will be regularly and aggressively challenged from the onset. And, those jockeying for position to overrun the system will be the Muslim Brotherhood and Marxist parties -- both of which will assuredly receive significant foreign financial backing.

A new government may even have to withstand militant violence. We have seen similar circumstances elsewhere in the Middle East.

One could easily point to the days of protests in Iran following the results of the 2009 presidential election there. But, there also is the war-torn nation of Lebanon.

The Lebanese had long enjoyed a more Western society and was once a popular tourism stop. Christians and Muslims were able to live together in relative peace. All that changed in 1975 as radical Islamic extremists began to overrun the country.

While that nation began to fall into factioning, most who joined the fighting in Lebanon did so for the purpose of reestablishing their representative democracy. The rebuilding process began in 1990 after the end of their civil war.

Tensions have been sparked on and off since 2006, but that has been due to external influences and interests. Despite it all, the Lebanese people seek to restore their way of life. Unfortunately, their border with Israel makes the country a strategic focal point of interest for organizations such as Hezbollah and the countries aiding them.

Yet, the Lebanese still persist. Americans ought to be able to appreciate that.

While this may not be a scenario that would strike most people as the most desirable possible outcome for Egypt, it is what I believe to be the most likely outcome to result from the political unrest there.

Will it mean strife for Egyptians similar to what the Lebanese have had to endure? Yes. That may not be avoidable. And, it will be a shame considering they were the first of the Arabic nations that declared war on Israel to sign a peace accord and recognize the sovereignty of the Israeli state.

But, at some point this must be for the Egyptian people to determine for themselves. There are all the libertarian philosophical talking points which I could belabor at this juncture. But, just as importantly, there are the practical reasons. Primarily, we can no longer afford the tens-of-billions of dollars in foreign aid we have been doling-out every year. To continue using part of that dole to help prop-up someone such as Mubarak simply is more than many Americans can stomach: myself included.

Returning to my point at the beginning of this composition about being torn on this story, to some extent it is because of the simple fact change is always unsettling. And, as has been examined at great length, a change of power in Egypt means an even more uncertain future for a big chunk of the world.

To a larger extent, I'm torn because of the potential ramifications for Israel. While this surely will rankle a number of my fellow Libertarians, for reasons I will argue at a later date I am not ready to see the United States end material support for the Israeli state. I shall admit upfront that statement stands in immediate contradiction to the point raised two paragraphs prior. However, if America can only afford to maintain continuing support for one ally in the world, it should be Israel.

Obviously, the uncertainty facing Egypt, that lone nation to seek a peace accord with the Israelis, has the potential to mean an even more precarious situation for their neighbors to their northeast.

My hope is the fire in the Egyptian people's hearts for liberty is stronger than the resolve among a small percentage among them who seek to rain fire on parts of the world.

Fun with Senator Sherrod Brown

2011-02-04T20:35:00.000-08:00

A friend of mine brought this survey to my attention at Senator Sherrod Brown's (D-OH) home page: "Where Do You Stand?"

Instead of pointlessly eating-up a lot of time recreating the site's contents I encourage you to click the link above, check out the questions and choices Senator Brown offers, and then come back to this tab to muse over my responses.

Being the infernal smartass that I am, I had to take advantage of the "Other" option and elaborate on the ways where Progressivism has gone terribly wrong.

Still, I love how in the main question -- regarding what are my economic concerns -- one of his choices is, "Big Bank Practices that Put Our Economy At Risk." If "Big Bank Practices" are so bad for American society, I'm wondering why Senator Brown voted to confirm former Goldman Sachs executive Tim Geithner as Treasury Secretary, nominated by President Barack Obama... But, as usual, I digress...

Back to the regularly scheduled program: for the question, I selected "Job Loss" and "Tax Reform" out of the available answers and then added in the "Other" section, "The excessive amount of regulation standing in the way of creation and expansion of businesses. Independent entrepreneurship has traditionally been the most effective path for the unemployed to emerge from recession conditions."

So-called Question 2 is how I'd like to hear back from Senator Brown (or, more likely one of his staffers hiding behind the anonymity offered by their Internet browser). Again, I opted for "Other" and stated my choice as "Phone." I then proceeded to type-in my cell phone number out of pure curiosity if someone will actually call me and take a chance on hearing what I have to say.

If they do, I'll likely feel compelled to press him or her on the whole Big Banking/Geithner thread. It ought to be a fun call.

Two links on ObamaCare you need to read

2011-02-02T22:02:00.000-08:00

From the Washington Times, here are a pair of articles that tackle a few of the nuts-and-bolts of ObamaCare: the constitutionality of the law as well as the recent revelations of how many waivers have been handed out in the past few months.

There are – as of late January – 733 exemptions to ObamaCare's provisions which have been bestowed to various interests by the Department of Health and Human Services. More than 500 were issued this past December alone.

According to Washington Times editorial contributor Dr. Milton Wolf, a healthy chunk of these waivers have been handed-out to politically-well-connected recipients

My thoughts and prayers are with the victims of the Tucson massacre

2011-01-09T16:19:00.000-08:00

Allow me to start by stating how deeply saddened I am by the news out of suburban Tucson.

I was not sure how to address this story: if at all. This is a primarily political blog and the notion of politicizing such a tragedy nauseates me to no end.

But, before the clock struck midnight on Saturday night it had already begun.

An Associated Press article on the shooting that ran on the main page of Yahoo! angered me more than the loss of life. I eventually was able to successfully search for it after it appeared to have been pulled by the AP.

When you read it, you'll notice the first two paragraphs damning the "raw politics" and "rhetoric" are followed by the offering, "The gunman's motive is not known."

But, the article immediately returns to its slant by citing an opinion of Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, who is quoted in a pithy diatribe about the so-called consequence of free speech.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm certain one of the central components to Sheriff Dupnik's oath of office when he was sworn-in was to "defend the Constitution."

The families and other loved-ones of those fatally shot on January 8 barely had a chance to let the weekend's news sink-in or even begin the grieving process and we're already getting spin.

Shameful. Nothing less than shameful.

News you can use to start the new year...

2011-01-01T13:40:00.000-08:00

An excerpt from an October 27, 2005 speech by Rep. Ron Paul on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives regarding what he recognized then as the impending financial crisis involving Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac:

"One of the major privileges the federal government grants to the GSEs is a line of credit from the United States Treasury. According to some estimates, the line of credit may be worth over $2 billion. GSEs also benefit from an explicit grant of legal authority given to the Federal Reserve to purchase the debt of the GSEs...

"Ironically, by transferring the risk of widespread mortgage defaults to the taxpayers through government subsidies and convincing investors that all is well because a "world-class" regulator is ensuring the GSEs' soundness, the government increases the likelihood of a painful crash in the housing market. This is because the special privileges of Fannie and Freddie have distorted the housing market by allowing Fannie and Freddie to attract capital they could not attract under pure market conditions. As a result, capital is diverted from its most productive uses into housing. This reduces the efficacy of the entire market and thus reduces the standard of living of all Americans.

"Despite the long-term damage to the economy inflicted by the government's interference in the housing market, the government's policy of diverting capital into housing creates a short-term boom in housing. Like all artificially created bubbles, the boom in housing prices cannot last forever. When housing prices fall, homeowners will experience difficulty as their equity is wiped out. Furthermore, the
holders of the mortgage debt will also have a loss. These losses will be greater than they would have been had government policy not actively encouraged over-investment in housing.

"Perhaps the Federal Reserve can stave off the day of reckoning by purchasing the GSEs' debt and pumping liquidity into the housing market, but this cannot hold off the inevitable drop in the housing market forever. In fact, postponing the necessary and painful market corrections will only deepen the inevitable fall. The more people invested in the market, the greater the effects across the economy when the bubble bursts.

"Instead of expanding unconstitutional and market distorting government bureaucracies, Congress should act to remove taxpayer support from the housing GSEs before the bubble bursts and taxpayers are once again forced to bail out investors who were misled by foolish government interference in the market."

2010 In Review 5: “it’s the transparency, Stupid!”

2010-12-30T23:04:00.000-08:00

Two years ago, the promises (or, dare I say, pledges) were as clear as they were frequently appearing in the news. We were told this administration would bring far greater transparency in its dealings and affairs.

To my amusement, when I began nosing through my notes for this "year in review" process I happened upon an Associated Press article printed March 17 with the headline, "Obama fails to open up records."

The story elaborates on the point by explaining that although President Barack Obama publicly instructed federal agencies to stop refusing Freedom Of Information Act requests via the so-called deliberative process exception – which allows the government to withhold records that describe decision-making behind the scenes – invocations of it have spiked.

During fiscal year 2009, top agencies cited the exception 70,779 times while in 2008 it was raised on 47,395 occasions.

The kicker is Obama ended-up having his promise kept for him by someone else in relation to transparency (albeit not in the manner he likely had in mind) due to the efforts of Julian Assange and his WikiLeaks operation.

My gut instinct tells me the White House hadn't intended to be transparent with the State Department's instructions to agents on pilfering the credit card numbers of foreign diplomats for the purpose of tracking which restaurants they patronized most often.

Say what you will about Assange and his ideological pursuits, he undeniably has succeeded in infuriating U.S. politicians on both sides of the out-dated two-party aisle.

If Obama can somehow tap into some of that bipartisan aggravation, he might stand a chance in November 2012.

2010 In Review 4: government IS distress

2010-12-30T22:39:00.000-08:00

Among the items qualifying for the category Stories That Just Won't Die this year-wrapping-up is the saga of Grand Lake. The reports of people and pets becoming alarmingly ill and pictures of the green and blue slime in the water were in a state of continual supply.

But, just when the story seemed to be headed for winter hibernation, the State of Ohio put the ellipses at the end of the paragraph for us in the first week of December. A report in the Columbus Dispatch informed us the state will be declaring Grand Lake a “watershed in distress.”

One of the key points the distress status carries is the Department of Natural Resources will impose new restrictions on the use of fertilizers by area farmers. The concern is the manure they are using is running-off in too large amounts into the lake.

"Officials think the manure is the prime source of algae-feeding phosphorus and nitrogen in the lake," the Dispatch informs us.

It is the opening phrase of that passage which leaves me so incredulous: Officials think….

So even though it is well within the realm of possibility that compost for agricultural use is a key contributor to Grand Lake’s algae blooms for the past several years, the best that our generously-paid public desk jockeys can present us is, "We're not entirely sure, but we’re going to operate under the assumption anyway regardless of the impact on farming in the area."

As if the stress being endured by independent and local farmers wasn't enough as of late, now they get to enjoy the DNR breathing down their necks over how much crap they’re shoveling out.

What I am curious to learn is if any studies have been done to compare the potential impacts of crop fertilizer versus ChemLawn, et al. After all, it would be useful to bear in mind that commercial lawn fertilizers use predominantly nitrogen in their formulas.

And, people in Celina and St. Marys sure have some beautiful lawns.

Now in all fairness, the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation State Policy Director Beth Vanderkooi gave the plan her stamp of approval. Also according to the Dispatch, the plan did not receive any opposition during the committee hearing when it was presented.

Still, I cannot help but harbor doubts about taking a singular approach on this matter.

2010 In Review 3: the lie of Quantitative Easing

2010-12-29T12:09:00.001-08:00

We have heard the decrees repeatedly over the last 25 months: we have to take these measures now or watch America go up in flames.

The most recent round of this prevarication has been QE2 (the second round of so-called quantitative easing), called-for by U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. We must have QE2, we were told, to stave-off deflation. Deflation, the experts insisted, will lead to greater difficulty in making our payments on the national debt and simultaneously cause the value of our goods to decline – thus further imperiling our economy.

There are several outright frauds contained within Bernanke’s justifications and the Obama Administration’s sales pitch for arbitrarily injecting an additional $600 billion of currency into circulation. The first talking point to debunk is the premise that deflation automatically equates to economic distress.

“Inflation” and “deflation” refer to the country’s overall price index for goods and services. Economic analysts attempt to take into account the rate of change in pricing for as many of the most common purchases made on as recurrent of a basis as possible.

Inflation is an indicator of the rate at which prices are going up. Conversely, deflation means prices are generally going down.

(Which leads me to an elongated side note: in my opinion, the present use of the terms “inflation” and “deflation” constitutes a deliberately deceptive oxymoron. Prices in all industries and economic sectors are perpetually in some state of adjustment. Rarely do they remain static anymore.
All one needs to do is contrast the price trends between automobiles and personal computers since 1980. Around that time, the average family car and the average PC sold for approximately $6,000. In the ensuing 30 years, most automobile model types which sold in that price range then now run almost $25,000 while the typical desktop PC sells for as little as $300.
Cars, for the most part, have inflated more than 400% while PCs have deflated to around 5% of their comparative market levels over the same span. This doesn’t even factor-in the differences in how both products have advanced in performance and quality during the same period.
A more accurate use of the two price index terms ought to be for indicating changes in the value of the U.S. dollar. Public dissemination of average, overall prices in America centers on a concept that is so abstract and misleading, the average person watching or reading the news usually gives little thought to the subject’s broader impact on their lives. What the average person has little difficulty grasping is the rise or fall in the value of something.
People may rarely devote significant energy toward contemplating fluctuations in prices, but when they hear the money in their wallets and bank accounts is losing value, that they will understand: followed by widespread calls for more sensible monetary and spending policies!)

So in the present context, the alleged concern is that prices in general are falling and thus creating additional difficulty for businesses of all sizes to meet their obligations (labor, supplies, other overhead expenses, etc.).

What Bernanke and other Keynesian disciples in Washington are deliberately leaving out of their discussions is the simple fact that in a free and open market costs will adjust in response to any deflation: when prices deflate, the result is we need less money to buy the same goods and services. It is the net result of the cost of living going down instead of up.

It is a ripple effect process that does require some time and patience while it cycles through the economy. But, a steady deflationary cycle in the U.S. economy would lead to an easing of financial stresses for the bulk of our working population and small business owners while proving to be a mixed bag of results for Wall Street.

This leads us to the next fraud being sold to the public. Actual deflation of the cost of living in our country would have to come from a robust, actively growing, and internationally dominant U.S. economy.

An official unemployment rate stagnating at just under 10% while banks are closing by the hundreds every month and the number of independent businesses nationwide continues to shrink demonstrate otherwise. Not that I needed to list those conditions: we just need constant reminding of the truth, if you ask me.

But, our capitol braintrust insists the truth should not impede their efforts to promote the false notion of widespread deflation. In fact, all the leading price indicators that reflect either the immediate or near-future costs for consumers have shown over the last two months quite the opposite taking shape.

Light, sweet crude oil is now over $92 per barrel – driving up the national average price for unleaded gas well in excess of $3 per gallon. Textile prices also are on the rise, especially for cotton products: this will inevitably balloon the cost of new clothing across the board. And, food also has been steadily rising as of late.

The trillion-dollar question inevitably arises: what is deflating in price in America? After all, if deflation is an actual problem then something must be dropping in price in our country. And, how many sectors of our economy are being affected?

The answer to that is “one.” And, it is real estate.

I cannot help but bristle just trying to type this next part but not enough of us are shedding light on it. Obviously, deflation concentrated in a single market sector where people typically invest will create financial hardship for a lot of folks. As a consequence, equally as vulnerable to such market forces are the banks issuing the mortgages and the larger firms which typically back them up. It is a trickle-up process that deteriorated into an upward-flowing deluge in 2008.

And this pierces right to the heart of why congressional Democrats and this White House have been so adamant in their support of QE2.

Guess who owns or guarantees well over 90% of mortgages in the U.S.: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Guess who – in December 2009 under the auspices of a Democrat-controlled White House and Congress (at the behest of Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Christopher Dodd) – got their $400 billion line of credit at taxpayers’ expense extended into a no-limit credit lifeline: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

If real estate continues to deflate at its current pace, the already-microscopically-slim possibility of Fannie & Freddie ever getting out of the red will blow away in the breeze very soon without some artificial means of inflating prices.

This is not about economic recovery. It never has been. This is about staving-off a fiscal meltdown and its political consequences long enough to be able to shift the blame for swelling an already ungodly mess to near-catastrophic proportions.

The other motivation – and one our so-called leadership has not been shy about admitting – is that with all the trillions of dollars in debt we owe to foreign nations, printing money and devaluing our currency (in theory, mind you) will make it easier to buy back our treasury bonds down the road if their worth can be lessened enough in the short term. This crap-shoot strategy requires our economy to come roaring back to life quickly enough and at just the right time to spur a large-enough surge in tax revenue that would allow a spree of Treasury Note buy-backs before their value rises again in the international currency exchange.

In short, the plan to lower our national debt rests on ripping-off our creditors. What could possibly go wrong?

The miserable part is it doesn’t end there.

In the meantime, the entire remainder of the American populace is forced to live with the other consequences of devaluing our currency. There is the resultant inflation everywhere else as detailed above. Adding to it, however, is the fact crude oil prices will be driven even higher than they already have (and, as a result, gasoline prices).

This is due to the fact in the international market light, sweet crude oil is bought and sold strictly in U.S. dollars. That also plays a large role in why our dollar continues to be the international reserve currency.

Thus, as the value of the dollar goes, so goes the price of oil – but in the opposite direction. In essence, QE2 is driving gasoline into a self-feeding loop of inflation.

And as we saw in 2008, when the price of gas skyrockets every corner of our economy takes a beating.

For some reason, very few at the top of our society’s food chain seem alarmed by all this.

To think, the current administration was supposedly going to steer us away from the failed policies of the previous one. Conversely, all this gang has done is decorate them a little differently and inject them full of steroids.

2010: Don’s look back at some of the year’s news, part 2

2010-12-28T02:27:00.000-08:00

Author’s note: to be completely upfront and honest, these year-in-review essays typically are my way of finally writing about the topics that had lost their timeliness by the time I finally got around to attempt tackling them but were important enough – I felt – to warrant revisiting under some format down the road. These are stories that hold ramifications for what we can expect to see play-out in the coming year, retain a degree of poignancy as time has worn-on, had key points missed by the media during coverage of them, or were dropped from the news cycle much too quickly for my taste.

Governor-elect John Kasich’s choice to appoint State Representative James Zehringer as his director of the Ohio Department of Agriculture (ODA) – a selection he made two weeks after winning the election – appears to be a mixed bag to me.

Due to my reflexively distrustful nature of any action by members of either major party, the Zehringer appointment wreaks of appeasement. As will be spelled out below, this state’s GOP establishment has a great deal of bridge building and repairing to be done with large expanses of Western Ohio’s electorate: a crucial effort for the party’s future success that has gone completely unreported.

Some of the tiles in Kasich’s path to nominating Zehringer were set in place because of other developments earlier in the year relating to another race for an Ohio statewide office: Attorney General. Or, rather, I mean the interesting shortage of candidates for that race.

Just in case my effort in sardonic wit isn’t working, my suspicions about Kasich’s selection are tied to the would-be candidacy of Hardin County attorney Steve Christopher for the office about to be occupied by Mike DeWine.

Unlike all the statewide election winners fielded by the Ohio Republican Party (ORP), Christopher was a bona fide Tea Party candidate. His ORP colleagues were merely riding the wave of voter dissatisfaction or – in the case of Secretary of State-elect Jon Husted – engaged in outright co-opting of the Tea Party symbolism and message (as prescribed in Trent Lott’s advice to RNC senators).

The connection between Kasich and Christopher is Mercer County – where Zerhinger calls home.

Christopher’s campaign efforts received a great deal of support from Mercer County residents active in the Tea Party movement. They extensively circulated his Declaration of Candidacy petitions in the months leading up to the February 18 filing deadline and collected hundreds of signatures for his campaign.

Now, to qualify for the Republican Party primary on May 4 he needed approximately 1,000 valid signatures. The preliminary count of total signatures turned-in at the Secretary of State’s office in Columbus was roughly 1,700 according to Christopher. A “preliminary count” was the result of just a cursory run-through of his petitions by the SoS staffer at the desk to get an estimate of how many signatures were being submitted for verification by the state.

Bearing in mind Christopher’s claim of approximately 1,700 signatures in all, imagine his surprise when he was informed that he had little more than 600 valid signatures from registered Ohio voters out of the roughly 700 signatures submitted, according to outgoing-Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner.

Also much to the surprise of the people of Mercer County was the tally Brunner’s office listed as having originated from their area: zero.

Murmurs rippling through the Tea Party and Patriot groups in this region of Ohio suggest other counties where Christopher supporters circulated petitions also are on record as offering goose eggs in that statistic.

To most readers, I’m certain, the response being spoken or noted silently is, “So, why is this ORP’s controversy as opposed to all arrows pointing at Brunner?”

Well, when one considers we’re talking about a major political party that raised and spent over $100 million in one state on midterm elections and ordinarily looks for any reason to pillory any ranking member of the opposition as a means to scoop-up more votes, the ORP’s inexplicable, complete silence on this matter was deafening across the western counties. There was no demand for an investigation by a single state party leader and the ORP didn’t even so much as pay Christopher lip service out of support.

And, out of pure coincidence, over the course of his own signature-gathering efforts in 2009, State Auditor-elect Dave Yost switched gears completely at the request of party leadership so that DeWine could enjoy smoother sailing in the Attorney General primary. Oops, I almost forgot to include the fact that Yost initially began pursuing the Republican candidacy for Attorney General, not Auditor.

In addition, I’m sure Mike DeWine’s extensive connections after serving four years in the General Assembly Senate, eight years as a U.S. representative, two years as Ohio’s Lieutenant Governor, and 12 years as a U.S. senator played absolutely no role in Christopher coming-up short or in any way influenced anyone’s actions behind closed doors in Columbus.

Furthermore, I highly doubt that ORP Chair Kevin DeWine – who by pure happenstance is Mike’s second cousin – even for one second pondered pulling any strings at his disposal to help a family member enjoy an uncontested primary.

Those sorts of activities simply never happen in Ohio politics. It’s just all on the up-and-up.

Since term limits were implemented in 1992, Ohio has served as the single-worst source of evidence for anyone trying to argue for their passage elsewhere: the game of Musical Chairs being played by both major parties each time a beloved insider of theirs hits their respective term limit has grown into an increasingly acknowledged joke in recent years.

But, the ORP’s antics over the last year should serve as an unmitigated embarrassment to anyone who still votes Republican.

So, after all that background development, let’s take inventory of the trail of destruction left behind by the state GOP in terms of the electorate’s confidence in them. With at least one county – and likely more – here in Western Ohio we have dozens of community leaders still on the verge of foaming at the mouth as a result of the aforementioned storyline. As linked earlier, Tea Party leaders at the state level have been actively trying to wash their hands of any perception of affiliation with Republicans throughout 2010. And as I have witnessed in recent months, a growing number of local Tea Party groups’ leadership are beginning to share that sentiment. And, the town- and county-level Tea Party organizations are rapidly networking all the more with one another.

Between the Ohio Liberty Council, the Abigail Adams Project, and the local assemblies, more and more Tea Partiers (principally along the I-75 corridor) are priming themselves for a RINO witch hunt in the next several election cycles and possibly even a rebellion against the party altogether.

If the ORP fails to consider all that, there are going to be quite a few unpleasantly surprised Kevin DeWine cronies down the road – in Novembers falling on even-number years.

And that is where, in my opinion, Zehringer enters the equation. My instincts tell me someone on Kasich’s team – to some extent – is quietly aware their party runs the risk of losing significant numbers of voters in coming years in Western Ohio’s predominantly Ag counties.

Seeking out a local person for a high-profile administration seat such as ODA – I’m confident someone has postulated – may appear to be an ideal way to salve just enough wounds to avoid torpedoing state and local Republicans in 2012 and ‘14.

On the other side of the coin

None of this is meant to be an indictment of Rep. Zehringer himself. To play devil’s advocate, his nomination in fact is an intriguing one from a libertarian standpoint.

Based on what I’ve had the opportunity to read about him thus far, Zehringer seems to fit the bill of a small-government conservative: the kind for whom the Tea Party movement in general has been clamoring to see in such senior elected and appointed offices. The Associated Press article covering Kasich’s announcement specified that in 2009 Zehringer co-sponsored a bill designed to put the ODA on a track toward elimination.

Certainly on the surface, nominating someone to direct the Department of Agriculture who is known for wanting it dismantled would appear to be an effective scheme for winning-over a lot of Ohio Farm Bureau members.

Perhaps the Kasich Administration’s strategy is to make as many farmers happy as they can in addition to placating a few locals as a way to mitigate enough losses in voters to counter-balance any Tea Party backlash against the ORP – even if it should turnout to be a large-scale defection of previously reliable voters.

2010: Don’s look back at some of the year’s news, part 1

2010-12-27T15:51:00.000-08:00

Obama considering Indefinite Detention?

2010-12-27T07:42:00.000-08:00

This entry centers on a column I read through my morning musings:

Further muddling the shades of gray that is Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, is this piece from Common Dreams.org delineating what those in President Barack Obama's circle of advisors are suggesting: establishment of a secondary legal system that entails indefinite detention of citizens through presidential executive order.

What is equal parts perplexing and infuriating (to the point of risking a return to my old Republican mindset) is the absence of outcry in the mainstream media. Were this being floated by a right wing administration, the opposition rhetoric would become a 24-hour news cycle in and of itself.

If you take the time to sift through my blog archive, you'll notice I wrote at length about being thoroughly uncomfortable with the fact we are aleady actively engaged in the practice of incarceration without due process: a.k.a., GiTMO.

I support the use of military tribunals for GiTMO detainees who are foreign nationals. They are not American citizens and thus are not guaranteed the same rights. Also, to some extent there are legitimate concerns over public disclosure of classified information in the process of conducting a public trial.

But, more than likely and in the same spirit of the WikiLeaks hysteria we would come to see during trials for most detainees that much of what is considered "sensitive information" likely is over-blown in its deemed importance.

But the reality is this: such discussions presently taking place in the White House prove the talking point that this administration is just the previous one on steroids. George W. Bush was a right-wing big-government crackpot whose policies kicked the door to socialism wide open for his successor. His approach to governance made Obama's nanny-state rhetoric on the campaign trail actually hold appeal for the masses.

It's time to vote Libertarian. We need to begin electing them locally come 2011 and then move the trend to the state and national levels in 2012.

Chris Zorich – timeless inspiration

2010-12-25T15:21:00.001-08:00

In the Christmas holiday season, stories that inspire the soul and are borne from accounts of personal generosity regularly abound – usually without exception.

In 2010, America is a land in exceptional need of inspiration.

A growing effort to find it in the stories of our Founding Fathers has served as a welcome development this year. Other, more recent such features also have been spotlighted.

Not long ago, one of my all-time favorite athletes’ personal story came to mind. While in recent years I have focused my mental energies on spurning celebrity and athlete glorification, the chronicle of Chris Zorich is simultaneously uplifting, heart-breaking, and amazing.

Most of the details contained below are written from memory. My family for years had a subscription to Blue & Gold Illustrated, a periodical dedicated wholly to University of Notre Dame athletics – especially the football program. The staff at BGI published regular personal interest stories about the school’s players – particularly in the off-season issues. After rapidly establishing himself as one of Notre Dame’s top players of his day, Zorich would become a frequent focus of these articles.

He was born and raised in Chicago’s South Side, the only child of single mother Zora Zorich. They were abandoned by his father while Zora was still pregnant.

His childhood was one of constant adversity and struggle. Being mulatto, he dealt with rejection from both whites and blacks in his neighborhood. While he desired an education, he had to overcome a learning disability. And, the Zorich’s lived in the most impoverished of conditions.

Their situation in life forged a mother-son bond that was beyond comparison. It was in large part because of their relationship the younger Zorich managed to avoid gang entanglements as a child, despite the nature of their surroundings.

For many youth in an area such as the South Side, high achievement in sports or education were the only means of ascent from it. Zorich dedicated himself to both his education and athletics with equal zeal.

He was a standout football player at Chicago Vocational High School and in his senior year, 1986-87, was heavily recruited by numerous college programs. At Zora’s urging, he ultimately accepted the football scholarship at Notre Dame offered to him by then-Head Coach Lou Holtz.

Complying with his mother’s wish also was not an easy endeavor, as Zorich faced the inevitable commentary of naysayers. He was told repeatedly to go elsewhere, that he lacked the scholastic aptitude to maintain his eligibility to play football at Notre Dame, and he could never weather the school’s stringent academic standards.

Others advised Zorich – who stood just under 6-1 and weighed roughly 220 lbs. at the time – during his senior year of high school that he was too undersized to effectively compete for playing time with the Fighting Irish.

But, Zora was able to get Chris to promise her that his first priority was to graduate. She believed Notre Dame was the only school recruiting him that would hold his feet to the fire when it came to his studies and that if he finished his degree, no matter what became of his football career, his future would be secure.

He was sidelined by an injury his freshman year. But, he used the recovery time to dedicate himself to strengthening and conditioning as well as his course work. Not long after the start of August drills for his sophomore season, Zorich quickly established himself as the Fighting Irish’s first-string nose guard for the 1988 season.

Zorich would prove to be a dominant force on Notre Dame’s defense from the opening game against the University of Michigan Wolverines to the final regular season match against the USC Trojans and then the Fiesta Bowl versus the West Virginia Mountaineers en route to the first (and so far only) 12-0 record in Fighting Irish history.

In his junior and senior seasons, he would earn consensus All-American honors as a defensive lineman and be awarded the Lombardi Trophy his senior year as the NCAA’s top-ranked defensive player.

By the end of his final season in a Notre Dame uniform, Zorich had bulked-up to almost 290 lbs. and built a nationwide reputation as one of the most physically dominating and technically proficient football players in the college ranks.

With the scrutiny faced by collegiate athletic programs in the NCAA to maintain compliance with its rules, living conditions at the Zorich home remained unchanged, despite the enormous success Chris Zorich built for himself as a student athlete. This was chronicled, in part, in a BGI article centering on a trip home he took with teammate and fellow defensive lineman Troy Ridgley.

The piece focused on the friendship the two had formed, which in and of itself was interesting as they came from such divergent backgrounds: Zorich, a biracial young man raised in poverty in inner-city Chicago; Ridgley, a white teenager who grew up in privilege in the affluent town of Ambridge in western Pennsylvania.

If there was one key development for the Zorich family during Chris’ time at Notre Dame, it was Zora’s steadily declining health. A longtime diabetic, she was unable to afford insulin and other basic medical care.

Toward the close of the 1989 season, a number of analysts deemed the younger Zorich primed and ready for an illustrious pro football career if he were to pursue it a year ahead of time. Nevertheless, even with all the pressure to follow the growing trend of stellar college athletes bypassing their senior years to enter the NFL draft, Zora never stopped holding Chris to his word to see his education all the way to graduation day.

The end of his Hall of Fame-worthy college football playing days came on January 1, 1991, as Notre Dame faced the University of Colorado Buffaloes in a return to the Fiesta Bowl and a second-consecutive bowl match-up with Colorado. The Fighting Irish would lose that game 10-9 on a controversial clipping penalty that negated what would have been a potential game-winning kick-off return by Raghib Ismail with less than a minute remaining in the 4th quarter.

On the same night Notre Dame lost that bowl game, Chris Zorich would lose much more.

According to the article that ran in the ensuing issue of BGI, after the team’s return flight landed and he was able to find a ride to his home in Chicago for a brief spell of R&R before the start of the next semester, Chris entered their apartment the next day – bags still in hand – and found his mother lying dead in their kitchen with the television set still on.

The coroner’s office determined Zora Zorich had died on New Year’s Day shortly after falling into a diabetic coma. Her time of death was estimated to have happened roughly around or after the end of the game: she likely spent her last waking moments alive watching her son play his final game on national TV.

Zorich told BGI that after he found her unresponsive and came to the realization she had already passed, he sat on the kitchen floor, picked her up in his arms, kissed her, and told her, “I love you, Mom.”

He would be drafted that spring by his hometown Chicago Bears in the second round of the NFL draft. More importantly, Zorich kept his promise and saw his final semester through to the end, earning his bachelor of arts in American Studies. He would confess to BGI that he finished college with the minimum allowable 2.0 grade point average and did so with the help of extensive tutoring the entire time. But, he always successfully maintained his academic eligibility and truly earned his four-year degree.

Let us not forget: he did so after being repeatedly warned and cautioned as a high school recruit that he would never able to hack it at Notre Dame.

While Zorich would enjoy a successful NFL career – even earning All Pro honors after the ’93 season, injury would prevent him from playing beyond the fall of 1997 (his knee, if memory serves me correct). Shortly after his retirement from football, he re-enrolled at Notre Dame to begin working on his law degree, which he earned in 2002.

His professional life outside of football also has been filled with successes, including a position with the Chicago law firm of Schuyler Roche, P.C., where he distinguished himself through his work counseling clients on starting and growing their careers and improving their businesses. He also has established himself as an acclaimed motivational speaker.

Over the years, Zorich has received a multitude of civic, community service, and humanitarian awards and honors.

In 1993, he founded the Chris Zorich Foundation (which he originally titled the Zora Zorich Foundation in honor of his mother) to help low-income and poverty-level individuals and families through various community programs, particularly in and around Chicago. Among the foundation’s programs is the Zora Zorich Scholarship at the University of Notre Dame – distinguishing Chris Zorich as the university’s first student-athlete alumnus to ever establish a scholarship fund at his alma mater.

The nausea of Net Neutrality

2010-12-21T10:50:00.001-08:00

The Federal Communication Commission’s decision to arbitrarily begin implementing Net Neutrality likely will be next piece of iron-clad evidence for this truism: the legal profession is truly recession-proof.

During a stretch of time when most vocations, professions, and other lines of work are taking a beating, all the activity emanating out of Washington, D.C., these last 20-or-so months is helping lawyers across America stay both busy and rolling in the dough. Net Neutrality will once again serve as a cog in America’s big legal machine.

The subject of so-called Net Neutrality has been ongoing for almost a year-and-a-half. A growing number of Progressives in this country have begun arguing that the Internet should be classified as a public utility and consequently placed under federal regulatory control. It already has been first a major point of contention in Congress as well as shot down by a federal appeals court.

Depending on to which talking head you listen, there are several key concerns lawmakers and federal regulators allegedly have in terms of recent practices by Internet Service Providers.

One of them is so-called tiered access for servers and routers – commonly described as “leverage price discrimination.” The primary alarm over this centers on the supposed potential for ISPs to make the price of bandwidth access too cost prohibitive for various online operations. In essence, this is an allegation that ISPs will begin creating cyber-haves and have-nots.

Another talking point that has come-up is a practice among ISPs where they allegedly are adjusting bandwidth access at-will with their customers. Proponents of this practice insist it is a technical necessity – certain online activities demand greater amounts of bandwidth than others.

One example that has been mentioned is a user (meaning your or me) who is downloading or watching a streaming movie needs more bandwidth in order to have optimum Internet service than some who is reading a blog.

What Net Neutrality proponents are omitting from the discussion (deliberately or otherwise) is the fact there is a multitude of ISPs from which we all can choose. For example, here in West Central Ohio if I’m unhappy with pricing or bandwidth management by Time Warner, I can switch to CenturyLink. If they tick-me-off, I am free to pursue the services of AT&T. If I don’t like how they’re managing the candy store, Verizon and Sprint would be more than happy to compete for my money. Depending on one’s area, the list goes-on from there.

As it stands right now, should any one or two (or even three) major players in the industry attempt the kind of high jinks over which alarmists on the Left are raising their furor, Internet customers will rebel. People will drop ISPs that push their luck on these matters and give their competition the larger market share they deserve.

Also, if there is one thing society at large has been able to deduce from watching government get bigger and bigger it is the fact private entities (and even a few non-profits) can conduct business far more efficiently than any part of the public sector.

At this point, there comes along the burning question: why is it so imperative for the federal government to exert authority over the Internet?

While many conspiracy theories abound and clearly Net Neutrality is a piece that fits multiple puzzles, the one thing I have yet to hear or read anyone mention is the first point I thought of when I heard the news of the vote among the FCC’s heads: it is the first step toward ensuring tax collections for online commerce.

As the Obama Administration continues to advocate for the Value Added Tax, the ability to regulate the Internet would be a major boon for Washington and its appetite for taxpayer money. Having witnessed the hit-or-miss nature of sales tax collections by the states on Internet purchases over the last 20 years, the legal precedent the FCC is looking to purloin for the rest of the federal government undoubtedly will wedge the door open for the Internal Revenue Service.

The only uncertainty on this thread is who will be the third agency or department to benefit? Off the top of my head, the likely candidates would be the Justice Department, Department of Commerce, Health and Human Services, and Homeland Security.

Having had to stomach a compromise with House Republicans on extending the present federal tax rates and keeping the estate tax threshold at its present $5 million mark, I have no doubt the White House is in part laying the foundation for circumventing the will of the people once again.

Except on this order of business, the cost to us all will reach well beyond the extra pound of flesh extracted by our friendly neighborhood taxman.

I can’t help but wonder how many Telecom CEOs have the necessary lawyers on their speed dial. At the rate of activity we’ve seen during the lame duck session, job openings for legal aids may be the one field that outpaces medical in 2011.

More to WikiLeaks than being adequately reported

2010-12-19T04:20:00.000-08:00

In some respects, the WikiLeaks controversy has been a libertarian’s dream: thousands of government secrets ripped from the servers of naïve little Washington bureaucrats and splashed all over the world.

Libertarians (with capital and small-Ls alike) have come close to even jumping with glee over this story while some have ardently defended its founder Julian Assange.

In my first treatise on this topic I admitted to being of two mindsets about it all. It is undeniably satisfying to watch governmental arrogance get knocked-down two or three pegs. At the same time it would be woefully irresponsible to simultaneously ignore the inevitable peripheral consequences many of these leaks will bring-about.

While there is the obvious issue of heightened exposure to danger for our Armed Forces directly related to the security breach, antiwar libertarians also face an enormous Catch-22.

Let us not forget that part of the WikiLeaks process has been the release of thousands of diplomatic cables between the United States and other nations. Some of the contents of these communications have brought significant consternation to all countries involved in them.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t hampering diplomacy counterintuitive to the libertarian platform of avoiding foreign entanglements with our military?

My next point is a cautionary one, especially as it relates to Assange himself. I find the long list of Progressive organizations stepping-up to his defense quite unsettling. Especially telling when it comes to Assange and WikiLeaks is the fact his attorney (helping him deal with the criminal sexual conduct charges out of Sweden) is Mark Stephens, who just happens to do a significant amount of pro bono work for George Soros’ Open Society Institute.

Also, the more of his own words I read, the more uncomfortable I am with growing libertarian support for Assange. I’m particularly troubled by comments such as this he made to Time Magazine (published December 1): “Since 2006, we have been working along this philosophy that organizations which are abusive and need to be [in] the public eye. If their behavior is revealed to the public, they have one of two choices: one is to reform in such a way that they can be proud of their endeavors, and proud to display them to the public. Or the other is to lock down internally and to balkanize, and as a result, of course, cease to be as efficient as they were.”

In my mind, the key question becomes this: Isn’t it a matter for the people of America to decide and tackle, not a foreign interest?

We must remember: Julian Assange is not an American citizen. He is a foreign national. Yet, he is seeking to affect policy in the United States as if he were a ranking U.S. Senator, White House cabinet member, or senior political pundit.

Make no mistake, Assange’s efforts and motivations are ideological in nature. He discusses revolutionary ideology at length in the Time interview mentioned above.

What Libertarians in the United States must ask ourselves is if his vision of revolution for America and the world is compatible with our goal of constitutional revolution aimed at constitutional restoration.

If they are not, then how close do we wish to cozy-up to him?

WikiLeaks creating predictable convolution

2010-12-16T06:05:00.000-08:00

In my first installment regarding WikiLeaks, I did exactly what I suggested against: give in to bad rhetoric.

I was called-out – and rightfully so – on the passage stating, "I agree that some action deserves to be taken against [Julian] Assange," WikiLeaks founder. I allowed myself to give-in to the "kill the messenger" rhetoric that has been gaining ever greater circulation in recent weeks.

Even after local columnist Thomas J. Lucente, Jr., refuted that thought with a defense of the First Amendment, I insisted on countering on the grounds of protecting our national security. And, I did it blindly.

I'll admit that the temptation to resort to a useless argument of semantics and context presented itself: "'action… to be taken' doesn’t necessarily mean legal or covert; blah blah blah!"

Now, to engage in minutiae as I often customarily do, my mentioning of potential repercussions for Assange were really meant to be little more than a peripheral lead-in toward my larger point about the ineffectiveness of the Department of Homeland Security.

However, even a nondescript comment in passing such as that illustrates how easy it is to let old habits creep back in. If we believe in the Constitution, then it must apply at all times, not just when it suits our sensibilities.

And, to some greater or smaller extent, that may be part of the intent behind the entire WikiLeaks controversy. A lot of American and international far-left groups are steadily coming to Assange's defense. The Progressive Left – especially domestically – are notorious for their lack of genuine enthusiasm for constitutional rights.

Generating a crisis such as this at a time when White House staffers in the Federal Communication Commission are angling toward a bypass of both the Judicial and Legislative branches in order to establish so-called Net Neutrality regulations creates a perfect atmosphere to whip-up the general public into an angry storm of complicity.

Arguing for government action against Assange falls right in line with that mindset.

While his journalistic claims in this endeavor are dubious at best, in all fairness the same could be said for my crappy little Website.

If there is anyone who could legitimately face criminal consequences, it is Pfc. Bradley Manning, who violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice by improperly downloading the information in the first place and then passing it along to unauthorized recipients.

Even then, as I stated in my previous essay, too much regarding Manning does not add-up for me to believe he truly acted alone or possibly is little more than a patsy for someone else.

In the meantime, what the United States ought to do with Assange is what they should have done when faced with possible entry into World War I: declare that Assange – like that war nearly 100 years ago – is Europe's problem; let them deal with him.

If he is convicted on the criminal sexual conduct charges filed in Sweden, the best choice is to wash our hands on his situation and then brush him aside and into the circular file of history.

WikiLeaks verifies as well as reveals

2010-12-15T06:58:00.000-08:00

It has become the one story that could possibly overshadow the midterm elections in 2010.

The controversy swirling around WikiLeaks and its leading public face, Julian Assange, has grown to near-epic proportions. Up until recently, I have made a point to avoid forming and expressing a hard opinion on this story. I’ve been of the mindset shared by Glenn Beck and the folks at BigGovernment.com: I’m a bit torn on the subject.

Undoubtedly, the release of so much classified information invariably will have damaging effects on national security – which assuredly will trickle down to some extent onto our troops overseas. For this, I agree that some action deserves to be taken against Assange.

On the other hand, I am reluctant to assign Assange the title of Public Enemy No. 1 – as opposed to World’s Most (Over-)Glorified Computer Geek. If there is one thing American society has come to understand it is the potential danger for our government to enjoy the degree of secrecy it has in recent decades. Assange’s operation has taken a healthy bite out of that setup.

I’ve been holding out on commenting to any real length on this topic for several reasons, not the least of which has been to avoid the appearance of being anti-military. Also, knee-jerk reactions tend to contain erroneous conclusions on any given topic.

And then there is the fact – if I have heard in the news correctly – that to date WikiLeaks has released in excess of 90,000 documents and 250,000 diplomatic cables which totaled in terms of disk storage to nearly 5 gigabytes of data. No single human being has the time and wherewithal to even attempt to individually sift through all that information and glean from that body a definitive pattern of activity.

As a result, I have allowed myself to rely on traditional and digital media to sort out the story for me. Obviously, temperance is a must.

But, the news I’ve caught to date actually has done more – albeit unintentionally – than alert me to vast amounts of raw information being revealed to the world at large. It has served to verify a perspective I have held for some time: the Department of Homeland Security is a colossal waste of taxpayer money ($42.6 billion in fiscal year 2010) and does far more of a disservice than any perceived benefit to our society.

That was particularly reinforced by a McClatchy News article that ran last week in the Columbus Dispatch. According to McClatchy, one item published at WikiLeaks was a collection of information titled the Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative. This project entailed analyzing public and private operations – in as many as 60 countries around the world – which are viewed as vital to U.S. interests, such as oil and gas pipelines, rare metal mining sites, undersea cable communication stations, vaccine production facilities, and other seemingly unrelated outfits deemed important to America.

The article mentioned how publication of the list “has infuriated U.S. officials.” The primary concern is that this Initiative now has served as a convenient index of potential targets for organizations such as al Qaeda.

What is being ignored, however, is the simple truth. This situation reveals the undeniable danger that comes with DHS’s core purpose: centralization of information relating to national security.

By compiling the CFDI laundry list of various sensitive locations – presumably collected through input from the customary source agencies and departments such as the Pentagon, State Department, CIA, and NSA – our brain-trust in Washington essentially made it that much easier for someone such as Private First Class Bradley Manning to compromise this aspect of national security in the most efficient manner possible.

Those around the world who are a genuine threat to do harm to the United States just had all the legwork done for them. Al Qaeda operatives, not having to be burdened with trying to steal sensitive documents on their own and then sift through the digital reams for any useful intelligence, have been freed-up to start directly putting this information to good use.

Essentially, with the unintended aid of Washington bureaucrats Osama bin Laden has outsourced his espionage needs.

Related side notes

Now, in addition to decrying the pitfalls of attempting to unify all the various sources of classified knowledge, I am reminded of my other charge against DHS: when lives were on the line, its collection of minds failed – at least twice of which we know – to meet that objective.

First, there was the Fort Hood massacre in November of last year. Both the U.S. Army and FBI (at the very least) had information on Nidal Hasan that warranted further investigation and surveillance, but as we’ve been able to see since then rampant political correctness prevented any effective action until after 13 of his fellow American soldiers lay dead.

Then, on Christmas Day 2009, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to bring down a commercial airliner from the skies over Detroit. Both the CIA and State Department were aware of the “Underpants Bomber,” but this information was not effectively coordinated in the manner we have been led to believe we could rely on DHS to perform.

How much more failure do we have to have before we begin working on $42.6 billion in savings?

Next up…

The overall WikiLeaks story holds technical points that just don’t add up. Not the least of which is how a private first class (Manning) was able to get his hands on 5 gigabytes of classified information.

To put that in slightly clearer perspective, an Army Pfc. is an E-3 pay grade on a scale that ranges from E-2 to E-9. Basically, Pfc. Manning is (or perhaps before long, was) one rank above someone fresh out of boot camp (for my fellow sailors, remember that the U.S. Navy is the only branch of the service which does not automatically advance people to E-2 upon completion of boot camp).

The most pressing question at this point is where was his chain of command during that process? Also, how did the U.S. Army fail to establish security measures one would reasonably expect in order to prevent such an en masse download of files? Or, if there were such measures in place, how was he able to bypass them?

Common sense dictates something just does not add up.

One thing with Manning, though, is certain. This Pfc. has made a celebrity of someone (Assange) who is/was/is nothing more than a glorified computer geek. But, he certainly does have nice hair.

Not so much a spontaneous debate as it is a diatribe...

2010-11-23T10:32:00.000-08:00

About a quarter of my way through writing the treatise below the asterisk line, I realized I was on enough of a roll that it would warrant further publication as the central essay in addition to an entry in a Facebook discussion thread.

The full discussion can be read on columnist Tom Lucente's page in order to get the full context as well as understand several references I make below to others' comments.

**********

There are so many false premises and technical points being slung around in this exchange, I don't know where to begin -- my off-kilter state due to working 3rd shift isn't helping me, either.

However, I'll start by pointing out the obvious that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (the "Underwear Bomber") and how his actions relate to present TSA policy are moot beyond description. Let's not forget, HE BOARDED FLIGHTS IN AFRICA AND AMSTERDAM that were en route to the U.S., HE DID NOT EXPLOIT ANY SECURITY MEASURES IN U.S. AIRPORTS. So, the argument that the new measures are necessary to prevent "the next underwear bomber attempt" is false, false, and -- oh yeah -- FALSE.

What would have prevented Abdulmutallab's attempt on a Detroit-bound flight?

How about if SOMEONE AT DEPT. OF HOMELAND SECURITY WOULD HAVE EXTRACTED THEIR CRANIUMS FROM THEIR RECTAL EXPANSES and paid attention when Abdulmutallab's own father went to the U.S. Embassy and ATTEMPTED TO ALERT CIA OFFICERS THERE OF HIS SON'S INVOLVEMENT WITH ISLAMIC RADICALS.

The ultimate point that has not yet been spelled-out in the outrage over the increasingly intrusive nature of the updated airport so-called security measures is that it's effect -- either by design or circumstance -- is to condition us ever further toward accepting conditions of living within our own borders that rightfully ought to be unacceptable.

They are unacceptable if you have read the Constitution and devoted any time to study and understand its original, founding meanings and intents.

And, it's a shame those last two points even require spelling out.

To bring up the players in the OK City bombing, Columbine, VA Tech, or the Manson gang and compare and contrast those examples against what is a response to the threat of radical Islamic terror makes no sense. None of them had anything to do with mass transit within the U.S. or jihad being waged by an organized international outfit such as al Qaeda. With one exception, they all were individuals reacting to their own detachment from reality.

McVeigh tried to join the Michigan Militia. But, they asked him to never come near them again with the message in essence being, "You're too nuts for us."

The closest thing to an exception is Manson, who organized a "family" around himself. But, none of those examples cited above were acting in the name of Allah, Jesus, Buddha, or Bozo the Clown or as part of a global network of like-minded other combatants pursuing the exact same ends elsewhere in the world.

Next, the ultimate problem with profiling of Muslims is the fact that those who are "identifying themselves as Muslims" when they board a plane in the manner Juan Williams described in his well-known comments are almost assuredly not going to engage in terror activity on it.

I point this out based on the fact the 19 al Qaeda hijackers who boarded their planes were not dressed in any manner that would lead anyone to believe they embraced a sense of Middle Eastern identity. They all were dressed to blend in and not draw attention to themselves -- which is what makes Williams' comments all the more nonsensical.

Honestly, instead of dreaming up arguments to condition us all to accept what is rightfully unacceptable treatment in our own country, a major part of the solution to our security worries on airplanes is to free-up our 2nd Amendment rights aboard them.

Now for all you left-wing reactionaries whose sphincters just tightened up a few extra notches, perhaps instead of "reverting to the Wild West in the skies" as I'm sure you're ready spew-forth how about this compromise:

If you're active duty military (and possess a valid CCW permit if not traveling in uniform), then you may carry a firearm aboard that flight. By virtue of completing basic training (or, Boot Camp as us non-Air-Force-flimsies call it) you have demonstrated you have completed more-than-adequate firearm safety training and know how to effectively handle that piece.

Next, if you are a current, badge-holding law enforcement officer you also get a free pass to carry a sidearm based on all the same criteria listed above.

In those two instances, we now potentially have among the passengers aboard any given commercial flight a number of armed responsible individuals who have pledged an oath to protect their fellow citizens and are not just equipped to deal with a 9-11-style threat but enjoy the inherent training that better enables them to act in such an emergency than the average citizen.

Finally, please stop assigning racial bias to every opposing argument. Wasn't this supposed to end with the 2008 election? Zzzzz...

Tea Party, Pro-Life movements do not require intertwining

2010-11-15T16:42:00.000-08:00

Displeasure is heating up over a recent letter co-signed by a number of prominent bloggers, a libertarian commentator, gay-rights Republicans, and Tea Party leaders.

Steven Ertelt, writing for Lifenews.com, points out how these factions have come together to urge Republican leaders to keep reducing the size of government at the forefront of their legislative efforts – after making significant gains in the House of Representatives and Senate – and not emphasize social issues over the next two years to the extent that party has in the past.

On the Facebook page titled "Support Tebow's Super Bowl Ad" (a group for which I clicked "Like" several days before the Super Bowl was played), a spirited discussion is shaping-up in the comments section below expressing displeasure with this letter.

As a pro-life conservative and an active Tea Partier, I believe the letter's point is being missed. No one is saying there needs to be a shift in social policy platform by Republican leadership.

But, the Tea Party movement arose out of a general alarm over the insane pace of growth in the size of government in recent years (and that's under both major parties).

What Ralph King, with the national Tea Party Patriots Leadership Council, is trying to promote is for the Tea Party to remain focused on its core concerns that led to its rise in the first place. Also, as long as organizations such as Right to Life remain active and vibrant (my wife even was an employee of Right to Life years ago in Downriver Detroit) we can rest assured that this good fight is being carried-on.

Personally, I am of the mindset that the best way to protect life and traditional values is to reduce government back down to its constitutional limits. It is through the expansion of government that we have seen the implementation of policies, programs, and even entire agencies that serve as an assault on our Judeo-Christian values.

If we get government shrunk in this regard, it will invariably include elimination of federal abortion funding, Department of Education programs that promote counseling high school students about abortion without requiring parental consent, and other abominations.

But, making these line items the core focus of small-government activism instead of accepting that they can be the by-product of working toward its current central goal runs the risk of sidetracking the Tea Party's overall effort. The best results on both fronts is to let the Pro-Life and Tea Party movements operate in parallel with one another instead of intertwining the two.

One of the Tea Party's libertarian-oriented goals is to see an unnecessary federal department such as Education eliminated. When that goal is achieved, the goal to end promotion of such high school counseling policies will invariably follow. However, even if Pro-Life groups are successful in targeting these policies by themselves, leaving the governmental infrastructure in place that led to their implementation will mean leaving open the door for their reinstatement the next time Progressive Liberals regain control of both houses of Congress and the White House simultaneously.

The Tea Party was formed on the basis of conservative fiscal policies and greater individual liberty. Right to Life was formed on the basis of protecting the lives of our unborn. Both are working toward truly conservative ends. For either movement to take-on the other's fight means spreading their respective resources thin and risking falling short of their ultimate goal: preserving our unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Finally, a moment to reflect

2010-11-07T15:05:00.000-08:00

Before I do anything else, I must extend an enormous offering of gratitude to all who assisted my congressional campaign, offered much appreciated support, and (most importantly) voted for me.

My reaction to the final vote count is a mixed bag. When you consider I spent less than $1,000 on my campaign with only $120 of it coming from cash contributions, to garner 7,499 votes in a region that votes solidly for one major party is – in itself – a notable accomplishment. But, I genuinely believed my percentage of the vote was going to reach well into double digits, as opposed to 3.74%.

In recent Gallup and Rasmussen polling roughly a week before the election, almost two-thirds of Americans believe our country’s two-party political system is failing us and harbor a strong desire to see a third party emerge that is dedicated to smaller government across the board. Which minor party might fit that description?

But as I do so frequently, I digress…

When weighing my decision to throw my hat into the political ring for the 4th congressional district, among the factors I took into consideration were two key sentiments that appeared to be trending among likely voters: the rapidly growing anti-incumbent sentiment and the already rampant anti-Democrat sentiment.

Well, I was right about the anti-Democrat perspective. Doug Litt drew less than 25% of the vote in the district. Based on past election results in addition to gauging the current mood, I was predicting he would garner below 30%.

The anti-incumbent wave, however, turned out to be little more than a pond ripple. Over the course of the year, I was bolstered by feedback from people who were steadfastly determined to support the notion of a “congressional reboot” on Capitol Hill. As one supporter put it, he was greatly appreciative of my candidacy because with me on the ballot voting anti-incumbent meant not having to vote Democrat.

I had every reason to believe many more felt the same way.

But, I cannot help but scratch my bald head at the results in other races in Ohio. In the 3rd State Senate district for the General Assembly, Libertarian challenger Bill Yarbrough was at one point polling ahead of the Democratic Party’s candidate, Mark Pfeifer, in that race. Yarbrough received 4.1% to Pfeifer’s 44.35%. What happened between August and November?

In Ohio’s 12th U.S. House district, retained by incumbent RINO Pat Tiberi, Libertarian challenger Travis Irvine had been polling as high as 10% depending on whose polling you read. Irvine received 3.23% on election day and he had run one of the most creative congressional campaigns I’d ever seen.

Both Yarbrough and Irvine were able to eventually do radio and/or television advertising.

Undoubtedly, the biggest hurdle for all of us to overcome was the fact this was the first general election in decades where Libertarian candidates could actually have a primary and appear on the November ballot with our actual party affiliation next to our names. Jeff Blevins, our second-best-performing congressional candidate with 6.63% in the 16th district, received a significant bolster from having his debate with Democratic incumbent John Boccieri aired on CSPAN. Jim Renacci, the Republican challenger who won that election, refused to participate in any debates that included Blevins.

Not being able to do any advertising myself, I had to rely on the handful of supporters lending me an occasional hand and a lot of time pounding the pavement in as many towns as I could in all 11 counties.

I wasn’t able to hit all of them, unfortunately. There were a lot of towns I wanted to and should have canvassed such as Elida, Cairo, Carey, Belle Center, Forest, Beaverdam, Harrod, and East Liberty. Should I opt to run for this office again, and of course depending on how the 4th district is reapportioned by a board that will see four out of five members from the Republican Party, I’ll have to make a point of correcting those oversights!

Still, every time I made my way through each town, I was encouraged by the feedback I received along the way. There were a couple of naysayers in face-to-face encounters, but there was an impressive lack of vitriol and venom on those rare occasions.

The most uplifting moment, though, happened ironically enough at the end of the Republican Party rally in downtown Lima that I crashed the week before the election. A fellow member of the Allen County Ohio Patriots grabbed my arm as we all were making our way to the exits and took a moment to greet me. She made a point of letting me know she was going to vote for me and concluded her comments by saying, “Because I believe in you.”

I was having one of those days when self-doubt was creeping in and left me wondering if my efforts were worth it all. I paused for a brief moment and told her, “That is the most important thing one could hear at a time like this.”

She immediately began to get choked-up and gave me a big hug. While on our way to our cars, I told my friend and campaign supporter who attended the rally with me about the exchange – and I began choking-up as well.

Between then and the election, I made a point of hitting five more towns to disburse my campaign literature.

I know there is quite a bit of discussion going around as to where the party needs to go from here. I don’t know what the future holds – either for the Libertarian Party of Ohio or my place within it. But, what I can assure to everyone is the fight for true liberty in America is just heating-up.

10 Ways I Have Distinguished Myself from Jim Jordan

2010-10-29T10:47:00.000-07:00

10. I have discussed specific cuts that can and need to be made in Washington.

Jordan has offered platitudes, generic sound bytes, and vague proposals.

9. I have laid-out my goal on taxes as centering on permanently scrapping the current tax code in favor of a 10% Flat Tax as part of a 10-year (maximum) plan to transition toward the Fair Tax.

Jordan proposes making token, one-year tax cuts on a limited basis, which will do nothing to alleviate the market uncertainty that is squelching economic recovery.

8. I have made returning the federal government to its Constitutional constraints the focal point of my campaign.

Jordan never even uttered the word “Constitution” in any appearances we made together.

7. On legalization of marijuana, I laid out the case for it based on the fact it is clearly less dangerous than alcohol, can be taxed and regulated seamlessly under the same auspices as alcohol, and the ongoing prohibition against it is recreating the same disastrous results in our country as we witnessed historically with the 18th Amendment.

When asked to explain where he would “draw the line” when it comes to deciding which intoxicants should and should not be legal, Attorney Jordan ran with the literal definition of that phrase instead of differentiating between alcohol and marijuana, which was the obvious intent of the question.

6. I have been clear and unwavering in my opposition to the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, arguing clearly on the grounds of its unconstitutionality.

Jordan is fully on board with it, which no real Libertarian – capital-L, small-L, or misspelled – can embrace with a clear conscience.

5. On immigration, I have outlined fortifying and completing the physical barrier along our southern border, drawing down the trillion-dollar war on drugs and redirecting much of those federal resources toward border security, coordination with state and local authorities, and reinstituting an Ellis Island-style format for entry into the United States by foreign nationals.

Jordan has rehashed completing the border fence (which all three of us running in this race favor) and then pumped us full of his feel-good story of witnessing a naturalization ceremony.

4. I have pointed out, in detail, that Jordan’s proposal for a 2008 baseline federal spending plan still leaves the United States with a roughly quarter-trillion-dollar deficit that risks driving the national debt well in excess of our GDP before we can reasonably expect to balance the budget.

Jordan has had nothing but silence in response.

3. I have explained thoroughly that within five years we are at severe risk of not only our payments on the national debt but also the staggering amount of interest resulting from it becoming the majority of federal expenditures if rapid reductions in spending are not made, as opposed to Jordan’s plan for a gradual phasing-out of deficit spending.

Jordan stared at me with a blank look on his face.

2. Rough and unpolished as I may be in my public appearances, I speak from the heart and tell you exactly what’s on my mind.

Jordan spits out tried-and-true talking points from the GOP campaigning play book.

1. I offer voters what the majority of us across Ohio and America have been craving: an opportunity to buck politics-as-usual by electing someone who will stand apart from Washington’s either-or setup that has seen both major parties trade places on growing government.

Jordan pledges to be a right-wing parrot who is perfectly content playing follow-the-leader behind John Boehner.

Jordan's economic ideas disappoint

2010-10-25T14:55:00.000-07:00

Representative Jim Jordan (R-Urbana) may be among the most conservative members of the U.S. House or Representatives. That does not automatically mean, however, that he can offer any viable ideas on turning around our economy or controlling federal spending.

Among his top proposals for reining-in deficit spending is for the federal government to return to fiscal year 2008 spending levels and freeze total federal expenditures at such an outlay (approx. $2.9 trillion) as a baseline for future fiscal year budgets for an undetermined length of time thereafter.

So, what Jordan is proposing as a gleaming example of fiscal conservatism is instead of the nearly $1-and-a-half trillion deficit we face in FY 2010, we should embrace nearly a quarter-of-a-trillion-dollar deficit.

The first problem with this strategy is we still are measuring the federal deficit in terms of trillions-of-dollars. So, Jordan’s grand plan is to take the government from grotesquely unsustainable to only fairly unsustainable in its spending habits.

This leads us to the other major flaw in Jordan’s plan. Obviously what Jordan is trying to achieve in terms of fiscal policy is to prevent voter backlash against Republicans who start to promote cuts that are likely to prove to be unpopular over the course of the 112th Congress as well as freeze total federal spending at an amount that – in theory – should allow a steadily growing Gross Domestic Product to present enough of an opportunity to allow tax revenues to eventually eclipse total expenditures.

The prevailing logic is along the lines how the United States managed to enjoy several years of a surplus in the late 1990s, which topped-off at $122 billion.

However, one factor that was present 15 years ago which is absent today was our country’s rate of economic growth was much more robust at that time. And that was before the tax cuts in 2003 which appear to be set to expire in about two months.

The recent rates of GDP growth (which was 1.7% for the second quarter of calendar year 2010) have been as stagnant as America’s unemployment rate. Based on the latest economic outlooks, under Jordan’s plan we can at best anticipate bringing the U.S. government back to a balanced budget in 10 years.

In the meantime, we can expect to add roughly another $1.5 trillion of national debt on top of the $13.6 trillion presently accumulated – pushing the total beyond $15 trillion and likely leaving us with a national debt that will finally have eclipsed our GDP.

I also have to question how genuine Jordan’s pledge is to fight for real tax relief. During the October 12 debate, he mentioned supporting a number of temporary tax relief measures, including a one-year, 50% tax cut for independent business owners.

This also appears on the surface to make sense. But, in light of all the burdens being heaped onto the shoulders of business owners in America as a result of the legislative activity over the last 18 months, Jordan’s plan does nothing to alleviate the uncertainty stifling our markets.

Common sense dictates that a truly savvy business owner – trying to stay afloat during the current economic conditions – will hold-on to most of the money saved as a result of such a tax measure and put it in a rainy day fund in anticipation of when their taxes go back up. A healthy chunk of that money will go toward their personal finances. And, in the end, a very small portion will actually be applied toward hiring. Even then, most if not all of those who are hired during this time can expect to be laid-off again when those tax breaks expire at the end of the year as a result of those business owners trimming overhead costs in anticipation of the expected surge in taxes.

Businesses in America can have all the tax breaks imaginable, but they are not going to see real increases in revenue until the rest of us – those upon whom the independent business owner depends to walk through his or her door and spend our money in their establishments – have the financial wherewithal to perform that vital component of the economic cycle.

None of that can happen without two definitive courses of action taking place in Washington, D.C.: dramatic, across-the-board cuts in spending; massive, across-the-board reductions in taxation. This is how the crushing uncertainty preventing economic recovery in America must be dissipated.

Jordan has spoken at length about being the only member of the House of Representatives to have submitted a balanced budget during his time in office. He also mentioned that his budget proposal was shot-down by party leaders. What Jordan is short on when it comes to details is who in the Republican Party’s House leadership rejected his budget.

Where he disappoints me on that order of business is by only making the vaguest references in that comment – instead of calling-out his fellow members of Congress by name and pressuring them to do what is best for America – Jordan shows us that he has forgotten why he was sent to Capitol Hill in the first place. He was elected not to represent the interests of his party; he was elected to represent the people of the 4th District of Ohio.

Where he also is skimpy on details is when he discusses how to tackle federal spending reductions. In that first debate he mentioned the need to look through the various agencies and programs and assess where there are redundancies and inefficiencies. Can he give us any examples of such programs or agencies? After all, since he did submit a balanced budget for consideration, then surely he was aware of a number of specific cuts that his proposal would have made.

Honestly, he did read his own budget before sponsoring it, didn’t he?!

I’ve said this before and I’ll likely say it repeatedly between now and until God calls me home: no one in either major party is going to get into specifics on how they intend to turn around the federal government’s fiscal mess before, during, or even after the November 2 election. None of them – no matter how conservative they’re rated by various political analysis organizations – has the testicular fortitude to stick their neck out because of their inimitable fear of it ending up on the chopping block of public opinion.

I hold no such fear. I can tell you right now we can do without the departments of Labor and Energy as well as the Environmental Protection Agency. Labor and environmental protection are redundant by virtue of the fact they are the rightful domain of the states to tackle.

The same holds true for the Department of Education. I stick by my platform of slashing its budget in half up front, set aside only the bare minimum ($1 billion, tops!) to pay for the administrative overhead needed to pool the remaining $80 billion and disburse it on a per capita basis to all 50 states and the District of Columbia based on their enrollment totals. Once that is set in motion, they have three years to make the necessary plans to continue forward once that well goes dry.

But, at the risk turning this into a circular discussion, the states, local school districts, and local governments will not have the room to take on the proper share of responsibility if federal taxes remain so oppressively high and the tax code remains so unnecessarily complex.

Predictably, though, Jordan will continue to present to his constituents the vaguest set of specifics he can conjure despite the undeniable truth that governmental size and spending two years ago, just like it is today, is thoroughly unsustainable.

So, the people of Ohio’s 4th congressional district have a rare opportunity this year to initiate the beginning of the end of politics as usual. Every two years you get to vote for someone to represent you – but on November 2 you can elect a candidate who is representative of you.

You need to decide who best fits that description. Is it someone who has worked on the assembly line, been employed at your local charitable organization, held down both jobs trying to make ends meet, and had to figure out how to do that during two layoffs – someone who has walked a mile in your shoes?

Or, is it someone who clearly demonstrates that his top priority is – when the 112th Congress is sworn-in – to do little more than play Follow-the-Leader behind John Boehner?

Jim Jordan, why did you need to lie?

2010-10-22T21:57:00.001-07:00

It is expected, if not guaranteed, that everyone who gets into elected office will at some point or another lie to their constituents in order to maintain short-term favor with them. Far more often than not, the falsehoods they utter or publish in press releases are aimed at those voters who are on the fence when it comes to how they will vote in whatever election may be forthcoming.

But that does not make the situation any less perplexing when a politician serves-up a bold-faced lie to those who typically can be counted-on to be his most dependable voters.

Such is the case with Representative Jim Jordan (R-Urbana), who could not find it in his heart to be straightforward with the members of the local Tea Party organization based in Lima.

At the center of this story is Jordan’s lack of participation in the Abigail Adams Project. This is one of the grassroots efforts that sprung to life over the last year-and-a-half. Yet instead of involving demonstrations or protests, Abigail Adams Project is focused entirely on informing voters whether candidates for local, state, and federal offices support or oppose previous, current, or proposed legislative issues.

On September 9, Jordan showed up at the monthly meeting of the Allen County Ohio Patriots and accepted questions from members and anyone else in attendance. With the deadline for candidates’ responses to the Abigail Adams questionnaire looming, Jordan was asked whether or not he was going to participate in it. He told the members that evening that it was “under consideration.”

The problem with that reply involves a letter he sent to the Ohio organizers of the Abigail Adams Project dated September 7 – two days before the ACOP meeting. Jordan’s letter spells-out where he stands on matters of federal spending, abortion, and other issues commonly important to conservatives in America. The letter’s message, ultimately, was that he would not be going to their Website to answer their survey.

So if he knew on the 7th that he was not going to participate in that organization’s effort, why would he tell the membership of Allen County’s Tea Party group that in essence he was looking into it? Why not tell them the truth that he was letting it go by the wayside?

To the casual follower of such political affairs, this would seem like such a trivial matter and non-story. “So, he didn’t fill out a questionnaire.”

Here is the rub: as conservative as the majority of voters in West-Central and Northwestern Ohio tend to be and in light of the rise of the grassroots political action committee movement over the past 18 months, the Tea Party represents Jordan’s base. Much of the participation over the last eight to 10 months in the county organizations that have sprung-up comes from staunch conservatives – the people who would be considered his base supporters.

Why would any politician in his or her right mind so casually lie to their base?

And there still is more to this story.

At the October 11 meeting of the Auglaize County Patriots, which was a candidates night event, Ohio General Assembly incumbents Cliff Hite and John Adams – both Republicans – were straightforward in mentioning that the Ohio Republican Party had instructed its candidates specifically not to fill-out the Abigail Adams Project surveys. Also to their credit, Hite and Adams chose to tackle the Abigail Adams questions and not comply with party leaders.

In an election year when both the country and Ohio are expected to lean very heavily to the right at the polls, what could the strategy possibly be with refusing to cooperate with organizations playing a key role in bolstering the Republican Party’s expected large-scale gains in offices held?

One answer to that last question is the simple truth that Ohio Republicans have as little interest in acknowledging the legitimacy of or extending respect to the Tea Party movement as most Democrats.

We have seen this in Secretary of State candidate Jon Husted’s television ads which open with the Flag of Gadsden waving in the beginning and end with the narrator proclaiming him to share “your values.” Considering that Husted was Speaker of the Ohio House of Representatives during the Bob Taft years – when state Republicans were running up spending and taxes like they were disciples of Jimmy Carter – such a claim is laughable and insulting.

Then there is the plight of would-be-candidate for Ohio Attorney General Steve Christopher. He would have been a bona fide Tea Party candidate had he been certified on the primary ballot as opposed to getting shafted eight ways to Sunday – when the Secretary of State’s office could not find the majority of the signatures Christopher had submitted (And this is not a baseless assertion. None of the signatures collected for him in Mercer County were counted – and I have spoken with Mercer County residents who circulated his candidate petitions and they still bristle when the subject comes up).

The ORP made no effort to investigate the situation and would not demonstrate the decency to even pay lip service to Christopher with any form of support.

And now, we have the same Republican Party establishment spitting in the face of an important Tea Party effort designed to help voters know more about how their candidates lean on various issues.

Jordan’s choice to lie outright about the situation has him falling right in line with his fellow Ohio GOP faithful.

As much as Jim Jordan likes to tout himself as standing apart from other Republicans when they are in the wrong, on this matter he certainly has proven himself to be a good little servant of the Party when they called on him to be one. What more could we expect from a lawyer turned career politician?