Some people would have us believe that if the United States were to "stop enforcing the War on Drugs" our country would "turn into Mexico."
The problem with this line of reasoning is that it ignores one simple truth: as the violence in Mexico escalates, it is slowly spilling over our borders because of the "War on Drugs."
The reason why Mexican drug cartels are so brutally and cold-bloodedly violent is that since what they're doing already is illegal, there's absolutely no incentive to spurn other criminal actions such as turf wars, kidnapping, and so on. Instead of vying for customers through marketing and offering a superior product – which is the case with legal goods, the most assured way to get and keep customers is through violently eliminating the competition.
By legalizing at the very least all-natural intoxicants such as cannabis, the raw coca leaf, and poppy plants, there becomes incentive for those who still would engage in distributing and/or selling them to not just step out of the shadows but even to comply with regulatory statutes such as those governing the production, handling, marketing, and sales of alcohol. There would be no point in violent activity directed at competitors.
Also, by ending the "War on Drugs" that would mean no longer aggressively pursuing, prosecuting, and incarcerating those who use drugs: there becomes incentive for those individuals to step out of the shadows with their choices (much the same as what happened with alcohol consumption once Prohibition ended as a result of the repeal of the 18th Amendment), which would in turn make it much easier for those who wish to engage in drug abuse outreach to identify the people they desire to help.
That, right there, is billions (if not tens-of-billions) of dollars saved every year. Much of the remaining tens-of-billions of dollars saved comes from not having to house the vast majority of those who are in prison for "drug-related crimes" – particularly those prosecuted as felons for simple possession of small amounts.
Also, the reason why Mexican drug cartels are multi-billion-dollar operations is that there is (for a lack of a better phraseology) a market for their products. If those who would produce, ship, and sell legal intoxicants were given the incentive to stay out of the cross-hairs of the criminal justice system (licensing, taxation compliance, local zoning ordinances, etc.), there would be an even further quelling of violent and corrupt practices as operating completely above board offers the promise of staying out of prison.
When the 21st Amendment was passed, America did not descend into a sea of drunkenness where anyone and everyone old enough to unscrew a bottle cap would die by drowning in booze and their own vomit. The same will hold true with drugs.
It is beyond time to do-away with the irresponsible rhetoric permeating this issue.
Showing posts with label Libertarian. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Libertarian. Show all posts
Sunday, April 22, 2012
Monday, April 9, 2012
GOP antics took ugly turn
Just when I thought it was safe to deduce partisan politics couldn’t get any more bizarre in Ohio, another story emerges which boggles the mind.
Bill Yarbrough was an erstwhile candidate for the Libertarian Party in 2010: he sought the 3rd District State Senate seat then. For this year’s election cycle, he made the decision to re-identify himself as a Republican and challenge incumbent congressman Pat Tiberi for that party’s nomination for Ohio’s District 12 seat. At his Website he even discusses frankly the fact he “ran as a third party candidate to learn the ropes” about pursuing public office.
Since getting to know him during our respective campaign trails two years ago, I came to admire Yarbrough. Naturally, I was disappointed to learn he had chosen to make the switch in party identities. But, I will do my best to respect his choice – the freedom for him or anyone else to do so is one of the many little things which make America great.
That choice, however, led to circumstances I doubt Yarbrough (or anyone else, for that matter) could have anticipated.
When I spoke with him during the recent Libertarian Party of Ohio state convention, he told me when he began his run for Congress he contacted each of the Republican Party chairs in each county the 12th District touches. His main goal in doing so was to seek potential endorsements from the county parties.
What he got, instead, from Delaware County’s Executive Committee chair Bob Mann was a complaint filed with the Ohio Elections Commission alleging Yarbrough had committed federal election fraud.
And the heinous crime about which Mann felt so strongly that he sought federal felony charges to be brought against him?
Yarbrough identified himself as “Republican” on his candidate petitions.
That’s right: for engaging in the sinister act of realigning himself with the Grand Ol’ Party, it was not enough in Chairman Mann’s eyes to petition the OEC to have Yarbrough removed from the Republican Primary ballot – Mann was fully ready to have him prosecuted and incarcerated.
So, instead of being able to run an effective primary campaign, Yarbrough had to begin pouring money into his legal defense, spend time publicly clearing his name in the weeks leading-up to the March 6 primary, and watch the inevitable stress on his wife and children mount.
Needless to say, Tiberi coasted to his party’s nomination by a wide margin.
This is where my blood begins to boil over this situation. I don’t give a damn what your party affiliation may be, no one can deny that Mann was perfectly willing to risk destroying the life of an innocent man, a good man, a family man with young children. And, he was willing to do so for the narrow, repugnant purpose of preserving the status quo.
To all of you who identify as Republicans, there is no middle ground on this item. Anything less than an unequivocal repudiation of Mann’s actions constitutes complicity and approval. Sympathy for Yarbrough is cheap. You need to show a backbone and fully denounce what Mann did.
Furthermore, it is easy to see Chairman Mann clearly wanted to set a precedent that was intended to have a chilling effect on anyone further down the road who might dare challenge any Republican incumbent within the party – especially if they’re running as a liberty candidate or constitutional conservative.
So, Tea Partiers, take heed of Bill Yarbrough’s ordeal. To those of you who insist the path to restoring America must be accomplished by reforming The Republican party from within, does your beloved political party really want that reform?
In his run for State Senate two years ago, Yarbrough successfully earned the endorsement of local Tea Party groups and identifies heavily with the Tea Party movement.
Now, we know what the Republican Party was willing to do to him.
What will they be willing to do to you?
Bill Yarbrough was an erstwhile candidate for the Libertarian Party in 2010: he sought the 3rd District State Senate seat then. For this year’s election cycle, he made the decision to re-identify himself as a Republican and challenge incumbent congressman Pat Tiberi for that party’s nomination for Ohio’s District 12 seat. At his Website he even discusses frankly the fact he “ran as a third party candidate to learn the ropes” about pursuing public office.
Since getting to know him during our respective campaign trails two years ago, I came to admire Yarbrough. Naturally, I was disappointed to learn he had chosen to make the switch in party identities. But, I will do my best to respect his choice – the freedom for him or anyone else to do so is one of the many little things which make America great.
That choice, however, led to circumstances I doubt Yarbrough (or anyone else, for that matter) could have anticipated.
When I spoke with him during the recent Libertarian Party of Ohio state convention, he told me when he began his run for Congress he contacted each of the Republican Party chairs in each county the 12th District touches. His main goal in doing so was to seek potential endorsements from the county parties.
What he got, instead, from Delaware County’s Executive Committee chair Bob Mann was a complaint filed with the Ohio Elections Commission alleging Yarbrough had committed federal election fraud.
And the heinous crime about which Mann felt so strongly that he sought federal felony charges to be brought against him?
Yarbrough identified himself as “Republican” on his candidate petitions.
That’s right: for engaging in the sinister act of realigning himself with the Grand Ol’ Party, it was not enough in Chairman Mann’s eyes to petition the OEC to have Yarbrough removed from the Republican Primary ballot – Mann was fully ready to have him prosecuted and incarcerated.
So, instead of being able to run an effective primary campaign, Yarbrough had to begin pouring money into his legal defense, spend time publicly clearing his name in the weeks leading-up to the March 6 primary, and watch the inevitable stress on his wife and children mount.
Needless to say, Tiberi coasted to his party’s nomination by a wide margin.
This is where my blood begins to boil over this situation. I don’t give a damn what your party affiliation may be, no one can deny that Mann was perfectly willing to risk destroying the life of an innocent man, a good man, a family man with young children. And, he was willing to do so for the narrow, repugnant purpose of preserving the status quo.
To all of you who identify as Republicans, there is no middle ground on this item. Anything less than an unequivocal repudiation of Mann’s actions constitutes complicity and approval. Sympathy for Yarbrough is cheap. You need to show a backbone and fully denounce what Mann did.
Furthermore, it is easy to see Chairman Mann clearly wanted to set a precedent that was intended to have a chilling effect on anyone further down the road who might dare challenge any Republican incumbent within the party – especially if they’re running as a liberty candidate or constitutional conservative.
So, Tea Partiers, take heed of Bill Yarbrough’s ordeal. To those of you who insist the path to restoring America must be accomplished by reforming The Republican party from within, does your beloved political party really want that reform?
In his run for State Senate two years ago, Yarbrough successfully earned the endorsement of local Tea Party groups and identifies heavily with the Tea Party movement.
Now, we know what the Republican Party was willing to do to him.
What will they be willing to do to you?
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
The Morality Card versus the Race Card
To the inevitable chagrin of readers who lean to the right, it is time to restate the obvious: former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum is blurring further the lines between the Democratic and Republican parties.
The only genuine differences between those two parties are their target audiences (in terms of appealing to their respective voter bases) and the occasional controversy du jour.
While I already have examined Santorum’s argument for Right-Wing collective salvation, his campaign stop at the Greenwell Springs Baptist Church in Louisiana on March 19 and the more notable activities therein have prompted me to take my analysis one step further.
Conservatives and libertarians alike have long lamented the left-wing propensity for playing the Race Card in political discourse – a tactic which especially hit overdrive when President Barack Obama began to emerge as a frontrunner in the Democratic nomination process in 2008.
However, in 2012 Santorum may have perfected a mirror image of this argumentation device and given the American Right Wing its own card to play when the debates and public sentiment aren’t going the way they like: the Morality Card.
Playing the Morality Card at this juncture of the primary and caucus process appears to be the logical next step for Santorum’s campaign. He has tried to portray himself as a fiscal conservative and staunch defender of Christian values. The problem for him is his voting record does not back that up, having cast “Yea” votes for No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, and various pieces of legislation he knew contained earmarks for Planned Parenthood. That is just the tip of the ice berg.
So, what is a candidate left to do when they cannot run on their record? The answer is find the quickest boogeyman against-which to redirect everyone’s attention. In Santorum’s case, it’s the steady decline in America’s moral compass. It is the perfect way to rally the GOP’s Christian Conservative base – pandering to voters who place much of their focus on issues of morality.
I am a lifelong Christian. I have recently come to understand the importance of Evangelism in spreading and promoting the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
I have no problem seeing right through Santorum’s rhetoric.
Please tell me I’m not the only Christian who does.
The only genuine differences between those two parties are their target audiences (in terms of appealing to their respective voter bases) and the occasional controversy du jour.
While I already have examined Santorum’s argument for Right-Wing collective salvation, his campaign stop at the Greenwell Springs Baptist Church in Louisiana on March 19 and the more notable activities therein have prompted me to take my analysis one step further.
Conservatives and libertarians alike have long lamented the left-wing propensity for playing the Race Card in political discourse – a tactic which especially hit overdrive when President Barack Obama began to emerge as a frontrunner in the Democratic nomination process in 2008.
However, in 2012 Santorum may have perfected a mirror image of this argumentation device and given the American Right Wing its own card to play when the debates and public sentiment aren’t going the way they like: the Morality Card.
Playing the Morality Card at this juncture of the primary and caucus process appears to be the logical next step for Santorum’s campaign. He has tried to portray himself as a fiscal conservative and staunch defender of Christian values. The problem for him is his voting record does not back that up, having cast “Yea” votes for No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, and various pieces of legislation he knew contained earmarks for Planned Parenthood. That is just the tip of the ice berg.
So, what is a candidate left to do when they cannot run on their record? The answer is find the quickest boogeyman against-which to redirect everyone’s attention. In Santorum’s case, it’s the steady decline in America’s moral compass. It is the perfect way to rally the GOP’s Christian Conservative base – pandering to voters who place much of their focus on issues of morality.
I am a lifelong Christian. I have recently come to understand the importance of Evangelism in spreading and promoting the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
I have no problem seeing right through Santorum’s rhetoric.
Please tell me I’m not the only Christian who does.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Right-wing collective salvation no less destructive than the Left’s
“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.
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.
Thursday, December 29, 2011
2012: the year ‘conservatives’ embraced LBJ
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.
Friday, December 9, 2011
Potential spoiler or possible ace in the hole?
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.
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.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Sports is going to hell (a.k.a., why I still like NASCAR)
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.
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.
Monday, November 7, 2011
Beyond libertarian: an expository examination of modern anarchism
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.
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.
Friday, October 21, 2011
Occupy for Liberty, not the Left
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...
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Occupy Wall Street… It’s not just for leftists anymore
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.
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.
Friday, October 7, 2011
Thank you, Barack Hussein Obama
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.
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.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Don’s Debates – a new chapter
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?
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?
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Are my eyes going bad or are we seeing a bait-and-switch?
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.
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.
Friday, September 9, 2011
Federal judge rules in favor of LPO in ballot access fight
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.
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.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Mr. Jordan, if one door closes, another will open
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.
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.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Default is a lie!
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.
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.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Wall of Separation or lines in the sand?
(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.
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.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
An incident at Faurot Park during the City of Lima's 4th of July festival
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
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
Saturday, July 2, 2011
Can our Free Will be amended?
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
