Shepard on Politics

Liberty Political Systems Announces the Advanced PAULBOT 2012!

2012-01-21T15:46:00.007-05:00

Liberty Political Systems of America has announced it's latest amazing piece of engineering. The Paulbot 2012.

The "Paulbot" has an advanced operating system that replaces the old "Garbage In / Garbage Out" (GIGO) problem of information processing with an advanced "Knowledge In / Liberty Out" (KILO) software system. It is a much more advanced system as the 'Bot is specifically programmed to question and analyze all data fed into it rather than to just accept that data which leads to incorrect answer formulation. The 'Bot also seeks to maximize its operating environment with special Anti-Tyranny, Anti-Central Planning and Advanced Freedom sub-routines.

The Paulbot can have trouble interfacing with other company's products because the Paulbot has Advanced Foreign Policy Subroutines that require a very large database. This can cause buffer overflow and seg-fault in most other company's 'bots. Those 'bots can generally only database events back to 2001 or sometimes 1979 whereas the Paulbot has massive capacity allowing its special Middle East database tables to be indexed back to at least 1953 and in many cases the 1920s or earlier.

The Paulbot is economic too. Advanced cost reduction processes allow LPS to provide the Paulbot at a lower cost than any of the other, less advanced, political 'bots.

Supporting The Constitution and Pro-Liberty Candidates = Good For Business!

2011-12-30T22:56:00.003-05:00

Tired of Being Told You "Blame America" ?

2011-11-19T14:05:00.007-05:00

In a foreign policy discussion with some supposed Tea Party members where I engaged with lots of historical facts, information and philosophy I got one of those Hannity told them to say this responses like, "you just hate and want to blame America" and your only purpose is to "...tear down America."

I've written before on America's interventionist foreign policy missteps and ensuing blowback with "A Message For Pro-Interventionist Conservatives and Liberals" and at the beginning of "Ron Paul, CPAC and Loathing by the Ideologically Unprincipled and Intellectually Dishonest"

But, that "blame America" retort is just smarmy and usually thrown out by someone working their hardest to either be willfully ignorant of the facts or to ignore them in favor of endorsing the idea of being the world's bully. Of course, the people who argue these points will always be the first to tell you that government ruins nearly everything it touches (it does), can't do anything right, can't do anything cost effectively, etc. But, they somehow always exclude foreign policy or military activity from their laundry list. It is somehow, magically immune?

So, the next time this comes up with a so-called Conservative ... ask some simple questions. Maybe like this.

You suggest I blame (the) America(n government) for a lot of our trouble with overseas nations and people. So, let me ask you ...

Do you "blame America" for high taxes?
Do you "blame America" for high regulation?
Do you "blame America" for ignoring its own Constitution?
Do you "blame America" for our sour economy?
Do you "blame America" for our jobs going overseas?
Do you "blame America" for theft to bailout corporations like banks and auto companies?
Do you "blame America" for its $15 trillion debt?
Do you "blame America" for threatening your right to self-defense?
Do you "blame America" for crony capitalism?
Do you "blame America" for screwing up the healthcare system?
Do you "blame America" for dishonesty in government?
Do you "blame America" for electing idiots, socialists or worse?
Do you "blame America" for insecure borders?
Do you "blame America" for not drilling for oil?
Do you "blame America" for the welfare state?
Do you "blame America" for lots of other of things?
Do you "blame America" for Fannie and Freddie?
Do you "blame America" for ignoring state's rights?

So, let me get this right ... you are upset with me and call me anti-American because I "blame America" for just one more thing than you do?

The Root Of The Issue - Government Smoking Bans On Private Property

2011-11-18T17:13:00.007-05:00

Every year this item rears its ugly head. Some lunatic, anti-property rights, nanny-state authoritarians come around trying to tell private business and property owners what they must or must not allow on their property when it comes to smoking. This is despite there already being a ban in place on most everything but bars, private clubs and casinos.

I wrote about this back in 2009 when some Republicans on the Indianapolis City Council were threatening to push through this kind nanny-state, anti-freedom garbage. And now, IMMEDIATELY after the elections where, as usual, Republicans spill rhetoric about the "free market", "property rights" and "small government" they turn right around and spit on those very ideals.

This time, the person spearheading this nonsense is council president Ryan Vaughn (R). This is the same guy who helped push through legislation against individuals selling their own extra or unneeded event tickets. The line of the day which highlighted either his willful ignorance of private businesses leveraging the machinery of government OR his own naivety (you pick) was when he said that the ticket brokerages (paraphrased), "...want to be regulated." Well, DUH, they want me and anyone else to be forced to sell them our excess tickets at their low-ball prices and to not have to compete with us when they sell them. Amazing that so-called small government Republicans (as if) would allow this kind of obvious interference in the free market.

Since people voluntarily work at places that allow or don't allow smoking and individual consumers patronize places, voluntarily, that do or not allow smoking than this is the smoking ban issue, in a nutshell and it is arrogant and selfish. It is one group of people trying to use the government to force THEIR OPINION on everyone else.

They are basically saying, "I may want to come to your establishment, despite there being smoke-free options already in the marketplace, so I demand that the government threaten you with violence if my personal opinion on such smoke is not adopted by you. I am either not informed about or too lazy to seek out smoke free alternatives. I don't care if it violates your property rights or the wishes of your existing clientele."

That's it. People do not care who owns the place or what clients that owner may or may not want to serve. As with so many liberal, nanny-state causes, they want YOU TO DO WHAT THEY WANT rather than just take their business elsewhere or themselves create alternatives in the market.

And, once again, it seems we have those that the typical Conservative elects to protect us from this kind of authoritarian, anti-rights garbage helping make it happen. Apparently, they're afraid they'll be embarrassed if out-of-towners come to Indy for the 2012 Superbowl and see anyone smoking. And, don't think for a minute, that ticket scalping legislation wasn't also about trying to polish up the city in advance of the Superbowl. And one even wonders about the panhandler ordinance of a couple of years ago that made it illegal to even hold a political sign on a street corner.

I shudder to think that the elected city overlords are really willing to trade away freedom, rights and free market principles in exchange for a football game. And people wonder why the Libertarian brand is increasingly popular. Of course, it is because of consistent principles and ideology.

The Conservative Intellectual Dilemma Over Who Has Rights

2011-11-14T19:44:00.006-05:00

In an all too frequent political discussion on Facebook, this time with Brian Gaddie, one of my unashamed far left liberal friends, he kindly pointed out that he appreciated Congressman Ron Paul's opposition to torture. This prompted a quick thought I've had about rights. And, really, a lot of this discussion must ultimately rest on the nature of our rights as sentient, self-aware beings who value life with each of us being the legitimate owners of our own who take positive action to support or enhance that life.

There is an excellent write up at The Objective Standard regarding the nature of rights that I highly recommend reading, especially since it offers up a theory that does not depend on the existence of God. This is important, because if God cannot be proven than your rights cannot be proven if you solely rest the existence of them on its existence.

But, back to the point. Certainly, nobody in the United States would support kidnapping someone off the street, failing to give them due process, failing to find them guilty in any kind of trial but instead just sticking them in a secret room and torturing them just in case they might know something useful. This would be such a vast violation of rights and the character of who are SUPPOSED to be as a nation.

But, it did prompt me to post my comment from Brian's thread on a broader topic of the nature of our rights and why I think the typical Conservative has an intellectual dilemma that they either must resolve by becoming more authoritarian and deciding that we only have the rights our respective governments grant to us OR that all human beings have rights that come about by way of our existence as sentient, self-aware beings.

Brian - regarding torture. Conservatives have an intellectual dilemma that they must resolve.

Most Conservatives would argue that our rights come from our creator (God, the creative force of the universe or whatever mechanism by which we are sentient, self-aware beings). This is clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence as a founding principle of our country. That we have rights (life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness) that nobody, not even government - except as compensation for a harm done to another - can take away.

BUT THEN, in the same breath, they would suggest that immigrants, accused terrorists or other people not born here don't have the same rights.

This is intellectually inconsistent. Either our rights come from the creator OR they come from government by nature of which borders we are unlucky enough to be born between.

They must decide. And I appreciate Ron Paul consistently showing intellectual honesty in all matters, including torture as I very much appreciate you pointing out.

Two Down.

2011-11-10T00:18:00.004-05:00

After Rick Perry's horrendous debate performance tonight, that should be about the last we hear from him. And I'm pretty sure Santorum and Bachmann can give it up now too.

One Down

2011-08-14T22:32:00.005-04:00

Out of the top five Ames Straw Poll participants, distant third place Tim Pawlenty has already exited the race for the Republican presidential nomination. The top two, Michele Bachman who offered free Randy Travis concert tickets in exchange for support and Texas Congressman Ron Paul who has been seeing increasing support for his well-reasoned, pro-economy and pro-personal liberty positions basically were in a statistical tie with only 150 odd votes out of nearly 17,000 between them.

Rick Santorum having to devolve into name calling instead of being able to make legitimate foreign policy arguments in the last debate continues to cast doubt on his maturity to lead. This is in addition to his radical policy opinions that essentially involve using government to force his religious opinions and doctrine on all citizens. He managed less than 10%.

National Debt After Each Administration - 1976 to present

2011-08-12T23:55:00.000-04:00

The national debt, per capita after each Presidential administration [election year] from Ford (1976) to Obama (Present):

(figures are approximate)

1976 After Gerald Ford - $2,844
1980 After Jimmy Carter - $4,352
1988 After Ronald Reagan - $12,000
1992 After George HW Bush - $15,875
2000 After Bill Clinton - $20,121
2008 After George W. Bush - $31,600
2011 After Barack Obama - 46,326 [and still counting]

The debt debate is nothing new. It is not an Obama problem. It is not a Democrat or Republican problem. The two major political cults (parties) have held hands in the spirit of "compromise" for decades to send us over this cliff.

And "compromise" is a code word that a lot of people like but it really means that both sides will "compromise" the principles of those that elect them in order to say they accomplished something.

Dave Ramsey was recently quoted in a snippet that went viral on Facebook, "‎"If the US Government was a family, they would be making $58,000 a year, they spend $75,000 a year & have $327,000 in credit card debt. They are currently proposing BIG spending cuts to reduce their spending to $72,000 a year. These are the actual proportions of the federal budget & debt, reduced to a level that we can understand."

I think it is important to point out that Dave left out the $2,000,000 mortgage that this family has (we get this by looking at the additional $90 trillion in "future obligations" that our government already calculates it has committed to).

Interest on the Debt Consumes Almost HALF of Personal Income Taxes

2011-08-12T12:01:00.000-04:00

I attended Congressman Dan Burton's (R-IN 5th) town hall in Carmel this past evening and was pleased to hear him reference some cooperative efforts he has with Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) but he said something very early on in his talk about U.S. fiscal matters that caught my attention.

He made a statement basically saying that interest on the debt consumed 46 cents out of every tax dollar and that they then had only around 54 cents to spend on everything else like the military, social security, etc... Immediately this struck me as untrue but I knew he likely didn't pull that number out of thin air. But, it did get me to thinking and I worked out the math on the back of one of his political flyers.

We are quickly approaching the point where annual debt service is around $500 billion (one half trillion dollars).

The Federal government budget is around $3.6 to $3.7 trillion.

Federal tax receipts are in the $2.15 trillion area.

Of that $2.2 trillion, a little less than $1 trillion is Personal Income Taxes.

So, interest payment on the debt, will likely run well over $450 billion for the current fiscal year.

$450 billion is:

...about 12% of the total Federal budget.

...about 21% of all expected 2011 Federal tax receipts.

...about 46% of all expected 2011 Federal PERSONAL INCOME taxes.

So, there you have it. Out of every dollar in PERSONAL INCOME TAXES almost half of it now goes solely to pay interest on the national debt. So, the only error the Congressman made was in not being specific enough in his language. He was, basically, correct in his statement. Anybody with two brain cells to rub together still need a wake up call?

The Federal Government is too big and it costs too much. Repeat until it sinks in.

All Good Things: Thank You to Abdul In The Morning

2011-08-12T11:46:00.000-04:00

Friday morning was the final “Abdul in the Morning” show on WXNT Newstalk 1430AM in Indianapolis. I had started to listening to WXNT in the mornings when Greg Browning had the morning slot and I was a bit skeptical, but intrigued, when they announced that a “conservative, black Muslim from Illinois” was taking over the morning show. I still remember I was driving my toddler daughter (now nine years old) to her aunt's house in Brownsburg before going into the office that morning when I heard of the upcoming change.

Very quickly. Abdul's show became my favorite on radio not only because of his excellent coverage of local and state politics, cutting a different path than most that focus on the easier national issues, but because he did it so well and so fairly to all involved. I have to say I was amazed and impressed at how quickly he was able to establish himself as a fixture amongst all things political in Indianapolis. His show quickly became a daily must listen to event for anyone interested in staying up on government affairs in Indiana.

The next few years evolved in such a way that I became not just a listener to the show and sometimes caller, but a sometimes guest on tax policy, libertarian politics and as a candidate for public office. Eventually, I even got the opportunity to act as a guest co-host along with good friends like Chris Spangle (the current Executive Director of the Indiana State Libertarian Party and a former producer of Abdul's show). My loyalty to WXNT and Abdul's show even prompted me to advertise on their station a couple of times.

I remember sitting in my office one day when a gentleman named Tom Hervey walked in and introduced himself as being in radio sales with WXNT and I told him that any friend of the Abdul show was a friend of mine. Tom has also always been a class act. Somewhere along the way Abdul, miraculously, even managed to find a beautiful, charming woman who could tolerate his (and Abdul would say this himself) ego and was willing to marry him.

I think that ultimately, while Entercom had to make a financial decision, they may have shot themselves in the foot with the loss of Abdul's show. I like some of the other shows they have on WXNT but without Abdul anchoring the station with a friendly local presence, fresh locally significant content and his outreach to the community that they may have lost the biggest reason to keep 1430 AM as a featured pre-set in the car. If Abdul lands somewhere else on the local dial he is sure to take his audience with him. And his reporting and commentary can still be picked up at his Indiana Barrister BLOG site or his upcoming new site Indy Politics.

Abdul's last show can be heard at my friend and political ally Chris Spangle's web site http://www.chrisspangle.com/. Impressively, those calling in or stopping by to say thanks and wish him well included:

Governor and almost was Presidential candidate Mitch Daniels (R)
Congressman Mike Pence (R)
former Marion County Libertarian Party Chair Tim Maguire
Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller (R)
former Indiana Libertarian State Chair Brad Klopfenstein
Libertarian Party of Indiana Executive Director Chris Spangle
Speaker of the Indiana House Brian Bosma (R)
Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard (R)
Indianapolis City Councilor Ed Coleman (L)
Congressman and former Secretary of State Todd Rokita (R)
and, of course, Larry

You know you have made an impression and a positive impact when your list of friends and well wishers includes that esteemed group of folks.

So, let me say thank you to Abdul for his service to the community, his friendship and the opportunities he afforded me and others in being a guest on his show from time-to-time. Let me also say thank you to Andrew Lee, Brian Moore, Chris Spangle and everyone at WXNT that was involved along the way. I know there are a lot of us out there who look forward to Abdul's next broadcast media endeavor(s) – Democratic mayoral candidate Melina Kennedy and IPS Superintendent Eugene White not being among them.

Keynes vs. Hayek: Round 2 - Smarter than Gaga, Better than Cee-Lo

2011-04-28T22:44:00.007-04:00

Every once in a while something comes along that is so tremendously beautiful that you wish everyone could appreciate it. Many, many months ago EconStories put together a really well done rap featuring the dueling ideologies (and characters) of John Maynard Keynes and F.A. Hayak, the author of The Road to Serfdom. The sequel was released today. I first saw it when Indiana liberty advocate Amy Hagerstrom posted it on Facebook [link to my Facebook page]. It had around 3,000 views at that time. This evening it us up over 81,000.

Not only is this music video very, very well done but the message is educational. The combination of such a well done presentation of the opposing ideas of two leading 20th Century economists is absolutely beautiful to behold. So, please listen to and enjoy this and appreciate the differences these two gentlemen and their economic ideas represent. One has a preference for top down, central government planning and the other for a bottom up, each person controlling their own decisions approach. I've put transcribed lyrics below courtesy of HayekCenter.org. [Bold emphasis is mine]

Keynes vs. Hayek Round Two: The Fight of the Century

Round 2

KEYNES: Here we are. Peace out. Great Recession. Thanks to ME. As you see. We’re not in a depression. Recovery. Destiny. If you follow my lesson. More Keynes. Here I come. Line up for the procession.

HAYEK: We brought out the shovels and we’re still in a ditch. And still digging. Don’t you think it’s time for a switch from that hair of the dog. Friend the party is over, the long run is here, it’s time to get sober.

KEYNES: Are you kidding? My cure works perfectly fine. Have a look. The recession ended in ’09. I deserve credit. Things would have been worse. All the estimates prove it. I’ll go chapter and verse.

HAYEK: Econometricians, they’re ever too pious. Are they doing real science or confirming their bias? Their Keynesian models are tidy and neat. But that top down approach is a fatal conceit.

KEYNES: We could have done better if we’d only spent more. Too bad that only happens when there’s a world war. You can carp all you want about stats and regression. Do you deny that world war cut short the Depression?

HAYEK: Wow. One data point and you’re jumping for joy. The last time I checked wars only destroy. There was no multiplier. Consumption just shank as we used scarce resources for every new tank. Pretty perverse to call that prosperity. Ration meat. Ration butter. A life of austerity. When that war spending ended, your friends cried disaster. Yet the economy thrived and grew faster.

KEYNES: You too only see what you want to see. The spending on war clearly goosed GDP. Unemployment was over, almost down to zero. That’s why I’M the master. That’s why I’M the hero.

HAYEK: Creating employment is a straight forward craft when the nation’s at war and there’s a draft. If every worker were staffed in the army and fleet we’d have full employment and nothing to eat.

HAYEK: Jobs are a means, not the end in themselves. People work to live better, to put food on the shelves. Real growth means production of what people demand. That’s entrepreneurship, not your central plan.

KEYNES: My solution is simple and easy to handle. It’s spending that matters. Why’s that such a scandal. Money sloshes through the pipes and the sluices. Revitalizing the economy’s juices. It’s just like an engine that’s stalled and gone dark. To bring it to life we need a quick spark. Spending the life blood that gets the flow going. Were it goes doesn’t matter. Just Get Spending Flowing.

HAYEK: You see slack in some sectors as a general glut. But some sectors are health only some in a rut. So spending’s not free, that’s the heart of the matter. Too much is wasted as cronies get fatter.

The economy’s not a car. There’s no engine to stall. No experts can fix it. There’s no “it” at all. The economy is us. Put away your wrenches, the economy is organic.

KEYNES: So what would YOU do to help those unemployed? This is the question you seem to avoid. When we’re in a mess, would you have us just wait, doing nothing until markets equilibrate?

HAYEK: I don’t wanna do nothing, there’s plenty to do. The question I ponder is who plans for whom. Do I plan for myself or I leave it to you. I want plans by the many, not by the few. Let’s not repeat what created our troubles. I want real growth not a series of bubbles. Stop bailing out losers, let prices work. If we don’t try to steer them they won’t go berserk.

KEYNES: Come on are you kidding? Don’t Wall Street gyrations challenge the world view of self regulation? Even you must admit that lesson we’ve learned is more oversight is needed or else we’ll get burned.

HAYEK: Oversight? The government’s long been in bed with those Wall Street execs and the firms that they’ve bled. Capitalism is about profit and loss. You bail out the losers there is no end to the cost. The lesson I’ve learned is how little we know. The world is complex, not some circular flow. The economy is not a class you master in college, to think otherwise is the pretense of knowledge.

KEYNES: You’ve been on your high horse and you are off to the the races. I look at the world on a case-by-case basis. When people are suffering I roll up my sleeves and do what I can to cure our disease. The future’s uncertain, our outlooks are frail. That’s why markets are so prone to fail. In a volatile world we need more discretion so state intervention can counter depression.

HAYEK: People aren’t chess men you move on a board at your whim, their dreams and desires ignored. With political incentives, discretion’s a joke. Those dials are twisting – just mirrors and smoke. We need stable rules and real market prices so prosperity emerges and cuts short the crisis. Give us a chance so we can discover the most valuable ways to serve one another.

Ron Paul Prepares To Enter 2012 Presidential Race

2011-04-25T20:01:00.009-04:00

As the liberty rumor mill heats up this evening over the prospect that Texas Congressman Ron Paul is preparing to announce the formation of his 2012 presidential exploratory committee the headline on Drudge seeming to indicate the eve of welcome news.

In 2008 Ron Paul, who had difficulty getting respect from the mainstream political and media establishments as well as traction in his campaign, tried desperately to educate and warn the country about the dangers of loose monetary policy and expensive, budget-busting overseas militarism. The establishment “know-it-alls” and the conservative talking head puppets that everyone likes to just parrot instead of thinking for themselves tried the damndest to discredit him; but, increasingly Ron's predictions and warnings turned out to be spot on.

Ron tried to tell us that we could face a future monetary crisis, a devaluation of the dollar and a loss of credibility worldwide for not only the United States itself, but for what has been until recently the undisputed reserve currency of the world. Ron has railed against the growing nanny and police state. Ron had predicted the challenges that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would face and tried to get the attention of Congress on the likely failure of those government sponsored entities. He told us gold and silver, now at or near all-time highs, were good stores of value and that we faced a massive rise in inflation and commodity prices as a result of Federal Reserve Policy.

Even Ron's economic advisor in 2008, Peter Schiff had been laughed off of television shows when he had previously predicted the collapse of the mortgage market. I think only Ben Stein has since apologized to Peter, who is now much more respected than he was in 2007 or 2008 and even made a run for the Connecticut Republican nomination for U.S. Senate in 2010. To illustrate the problem people with a clue have in getting elected, Schiff, who saw our entire mess coming, tried to warn us and who has strong free market, pro-freedom credibility couldn't get the Republican Party's nomination. That doesn't give me much confidence in the Republican Party's ability to save our country; but, how the party faithful react to people like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson in 2011 and 2012 will tell us a lot about whether we can have hope or not.

So, how fitting is it that as the Drudge Report headline of “Ron Paul: He's In!” hit the Internet this evening that the surrounding headlines read, at least momentarily...

“Dollar's Decline Speeds Up”

“China planning to cut U.S. Reserves by two-thirds?”

“Gold and silver continue to surge. . .”

“Military patrols start in downtown Columbus, GA. . .”

“IMF: Age of America Nears End. . .”

“Gas prices rise for 34^th straight day...”

Add to those headlines that despite all of the talk of “Hope and Change” in 2008 we still have troops in Afghanistan, we're still sending drones into Pakistan, still have special units and contractors in Iraq, but now we've added Libya to the mix of countries we're overtly bombing or meddling in.

As I've written before, Conservatives like to talk a big game about the government staying out of people's lives and wallets. Does it ever occur to them that people in foreign nations want the U.S. Government out of their lives and wallets too? And always remember that it is perfectly okay to love your country and hate your government. Those two things are not mutually exclusive, especially when the government is doing its most incompetent and oppressive best to undermine the country, your countrymen and the high standing we once held in the world.

So, now is the time to lay down the gauntlet. To look every Republican voter right square in the eyes and tell them, “You say you're for small Constitutional government, low or no taxes, personal responsibility, individual freedom and a government that minds its own business and protects your privacy. You say you want honest, trustworthy politicians.”

“PROVE IT. Support Ron Paul for President in 2012.”

And if they give you some lame excuse about why they can't. Please ask them to get the hell out of the way because there are some of us out there who really do desire to live free, amongst free people in a free country. The way it is supposed to be. I have my own “contract with America” called The Constitution that says so.

United States Bombs Libya - So Much For The Change You Can Believe In!

2011-03-19T20:21:00.009-04:00

Just more evidence that there is barely a dime's worth of difference between the two major political cults (parties) once they are in power. The United States just initiated violence against a country that has not attacked us. Sure, there may be some bad stuff going on over there, but how is it we so randomly pick and choose when to intervene in these countries.

I'm sure there are lots of people who would have rather had their tax money spent intervening in Darfur. Another fine reason why people should be free to support whatever causes they want, but not forced by threat of government violence being done to them to support those causes they do not. It does call the question as to whether or not the United Nations will come to the aid of freedom fighters and patriots in America, maybe even with their own "no fly zone" edicts, when the time finally comes to kick our out-of-control government to the curb. Although, it is kind of hard to imagine U.S. F-22s strafing people in Idaho, Montana or New Hampshire (I'm rooting for someplace warm like South Carolina or Florida, but not banking on it).

If George W. Bush was attacking Libya, the press and the left would be screaming about it. There would be anti-war rallies already lined up and Code Pink would get their panties in a bunch and start dumping blood, or red paint or whatever else on unsuspecting political folks. Gotta love the intellectual honesty amongst the politically active. Except for the Libertarians you won't find it anywhere.

So, let us take a quick look back at Barack "O-Bomb-A" Obama's statements about war and especially the kind of war Iraq was. Yes, let's examine what he said as we keep in mind that we are still in Iraq and Afghanistan and still conducting military activities in Pakistan and Yemen. Covert operations and software viruses unleashed on Iran.

"I will remove one or two brigades a month, and get all of our combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months. … Let there be no doubt: I will end this war." – Barack Obama, 2007

"If people tell you that we cannot afford to invest in education or health care or fighting poverty, you just remind them that we are spending $10 billion a month in Iraq. And if we can spend that much money in Iraq, we can spend some of that money right here in Cincinnati, Ohio, and in big cities and small towns in every corner of this country." – Barack Obama, July 12, 2008

"I don’t want to just end the war, but I want to end the mindset that got us into war in the first place." - January 31, 2008

"We live in a more dangerous world, partly as a consequence of Bush’s actions, primarily because of this war in Iraq that should have never been authorized or waged." - June 3, 2007

Q: In what circumstances would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress?
A: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. - Barack Obama on Dec 20, 2007 Questionnaire

That last one is a keeper. I actually agree with the President on that statement completely. Too bad he clearly didn't mean it. Can we just flat not trust a (insert expletive here) word these jokers say? Or maybe there is some twisted syndrome that creeps in. Once one of these bozos gets elected and the opportunity for THEM to become some kind of warrior, action hero (from the comfort of the Oval Office) they just can't resist. Who can say?

And remember, Democrats keep voting to oppose this stuff and it never ends. Republicans keep voting for smaller, less obtrusive government and, well, they never get that either. Wake up and smell the time for change - start voting for people who mean it when they say something. How man times do people have to, like Charlie Brown, have the football pulled away before they quit trying to kick the ball?

Tom Wood's New Book: Rollback

2011-02-25T03:07:00.006-05:00

Tom Woods, the same New York Times best selling author that gave us "Meltdown" which explained the current financial crisis, the "Politically Incorrect Guide to American History" , "Who Killed the Constitution" and others has a new book out. He talks a little bit about the book in this video clip and criticizes the government is our savior and all that is holy mythology we are all taught in the 6th grade.

What the book is about in Tom's own words:

The book does two things. First, it lays bare the true fiscal position of the U.S. government, and shows why some kind of default is not merely possible but inevitable. But this is not a book full of numbers about the impending collapse. The collapse is merely the jumping-off point. By far the more central part of the book is this: the critical first step for reversing this mess and checking the seemingly unstoppable federal advance is to stick a dagger through the heart of the myths by which government has secured the confidence and consent of the people.
We know these myths by heart. Government acts on behalf of the public good. It keeps us safe. It protects us against monopolies. It provides indispensable services we could not provide for ourselves. Without it, America would be populated by illiterates, half of us would be dead from quack medicine or exploding consumer products, and the other half would lead a feudal existence under the iron fist of private firms that worked them to the bone for a dollar a week.

and some of the topics covered:

Could we survive without the welfare state?
Was the Industrial Revolution a disaster for workers, and evidence of the wickedness of the free market?
The market vs. global poverty
How the market, in spite (not because) of government, leads to higher living standards for everyone
How the market leads to improved working conditions and does away with child labor
Federal education programs: a critique
Doesn’t Sweden prove a large welfare state is compatible with lasting prosperity?
If government shrinks, won’t big business fill the void and oppress the public via predatory pricing?
Why it’s impossible to design a wealth redistribution program that does not cause net harm
The truth about "affordable housing" programs
Iceland and the financial crisis: a case study of free markets run amok?
California energy "deregulation" – proof that free markets don’t work?
The real record of Sarbanes-Oxley
OSHA and workplace safety
The FDA
Don’t we need to make an exception for government science funding?
A primer on the War on Drugs
Obamacare: the problems and the solution
Why "stimulus" programs make things worse
Are some firms "too big to fail"?
Did the "repeal" of Glass-Steagall contribute to the financial crisis?
The real story of "deregulation" and the financial crisis
The Pentagon’s impact on the U.S. economy
Has the Federal Reserve really made the U.S. economy more stable, as so many proponents try to claim?
What caused the bank panics of the nineteenth century? Are they evidence of the need for a central bank?
The separation of money and state
Do we need the Fed to protect us from deflation?
Regulation as an anti-competitive device

The book goes a long way to dispelling a lot of myths and conventional wisdom about the role of government, government and quasi-government agencies and easing a lot of distrust and fear about the free market.

So, help keep your local Borders or Barnes & Noble in business by grabbing a copy or snatch one from Amazon.com.

Where's Gadhafi?

2011-02-22T02:00:00.003-05:00

As news reports of the day question the whereabouts of Moammar Gadhafi and Libya revolts against his leadership, my significant other, Ms. Lisa Kelly, had a funny idea. Here it is graphically represented.

Some Wisdom On The Patriot Act

2011-02-16T09:08:00.002-05:00

Excerpted from Rand Paul's Feb 15, 2011 letter to his Senate colleagues:

In the words of former Senator Russ Feingold, the only "no" vote against the original version of the PATRIOT Act, "[T]here is no doubt that if we lived in a police state, it would be easier to catch terrorists. If we lived in a country that allowed the police to search your home at any time for any reason; if we lived in a country that allowed the government to open your mail, eavesdrop on your phone conversations, or intercept your email communications; if we lived in a country that allowed the government to hold people in jail indefinitely based on what they write or think, or based on mere suspicion that they are up to no good, then the government would no doubt discover and arrest more terrorists. But that probably would not be a country in which we would want to live. And that would not be a country for which we could, in good conscience, ask our young people to fight and die. In short, that would not be America."

Ron Paul, CPAC and Loathing by the Ideologically Unprincipled and Intellectually Dishonest

2011-02-13T11:05:00.012-05:00

Conservatives have a real problem in Texas congressman Ron Paul.

Ron Paul doesn't think the United States should claim to be all about "freedom" and "democracy" while sending billions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer money to foreign dictators. The people of Egypt just rose up and booted out Mubarak whom the U.S. sent billions of dollars to each year. The Ba'ath Party in Iraq was supported early on by the U.S. and Saddam was all buddy-buddy with America for many years before we sought "regime change". In 1979 the people of Iran tossed out the increasingly brutal Shah Pahlavi whom the U.S. and Britain had put put in power, replacing their secular (non religious) democracy in 1953. I mean, it's not like the people in these countries are backwards cave people who don't know that the United States has funded and supported the same governments and leaders that have secret police kidnapping political dissenters off the streets, won't let women drive or vote or sometimes even punishes them with whippings, jail or being stoned to death for having gotten raped.

Former Pakistani President Musharraf, a military dictator, whom the U.S. sent billions and billions of dollars to each year just had an arrest warrant issued for him over the assassination of his political opposition, Benazir Bhutto, prior to the election. Yay! Hey, thanks U.S. Government for sending my tax money to a murderous, anti-democracy dictator who has women assassinated.

Ron Paul doesn't think the Federal Reserve should be able to just print money out of thin air, decreasing the value of the money already in circulation (including our savings) so that they can cover the massive deficits and out of control spending of our ridiculously bloated government while the rest of the world laughs at us. Has anyone else noticed the rest of the world starting to demand that the U.S. Dollar no longer be a key reserve currency and even China, a Communist Country whom we will borrow our entire military budget from (and then some) this year, is starting to rethink how far they will let us extend ourselves with them.

Ron Paul doesn't think that the Federal Government should be regulating religious rituals like marriage that a lot of us really think should be controlled by each person's respective church or religious beliefs. Nope, he doesn't think that the opinions of some people should be forced, by threat of government violence, on everyone else.

Ron Paul really means it when he talks about shrinking the Federal Government, making sure it minds its own business and actually protects not just the personal safety and freedom of Americans but our economic freedom and security as well.

A lot of conservatives like to talk about how they want the U.S. Government out of their lives and wallets. Yeah, well people in other countries want the U.S. Government out of their lives and wallets too. You want to stop terrorism against the United States? Heaven forbid we consider starting by not pissing off a whole region of the world with a hypocritical foreign policy.

Small government conservatives shouldn't be calling for the Government to not only take over marriage from the church; but, as the proposed Constitutional Amendment in Indiana would call for - actually banning voluntary, contractual agreements between people that might look too much like some kind of arrangement similar to that married people have. Yeah, banning voluntary, contractual agreements between consenting adults is exactly what small government conservative folks should be promoting. Idiots.

One of the elected politicians that represents me in the Indiana State House, and one of the few I respect quite a bit, pointed out how some of the same people who praised Governor Mitch Daniels' great speech at CPAC spent the very next day blasting and criticizing CPAC for Ron Paul's victory in their Straw Poll. Well, just keep this mind. As a Facebook post pointed out, "Ron Paul won that straw poll with 30% of the vote by INSPIRING people to be there. Mitt 'RomneyCare' Romney came in second place with 23% by PAYING people to be there." Nobody else garnered more than 6% and, thank goodness for small miracles, Sarah Palin only got 3% with the much more deserving Mitch Daniels ahead of her at 4%.

For all of the railing against the government takeover of healthcare under Obama where was all the fuss when George W. Bush pushed through the trillion dollar prescription drug benefit to Medicare? Where are the loud calls and protests to repeal that? Where is the acknowledgement about Mitt's involvement with Massachusetts so-called "RomneyCare" program? Hey! If the CPAC results are any indication 23% of conservatives agree that government takeovers are okay so long as a Republican does it!

So, yeah, there are a bunch of us out there who want a little (or a lot of) intellectual honesty and consistency from our politicians and our government. But, until we get it from the followers and supporters of the two major political party cults (and that's what they've devolved into), we aren't going to have it from government. And, so, people like Ron Paul pose a problem because he continues to point out the inconsistencies in the current political dialog and our own hypocrisy. Supporters of the status quo, of an oppressive global American empire or people who want to use government to push their hateful, religious anti-gay people agenda really, really hate that.

Don't Touch My Junk

2010-11-19T04:12:00.002-05:00

Can we all agree that it is time Americans were no longer treated like cattle? Whether in the TSA line at the airport, being prodded electrically to comply or when being detained by men with loaded firearms because your seat belt wasn't on. We should not have to be photographed naked or felt up to travel, we should not panic or feel stress when a police car is behind us on the road, we should not be cattle prodded by tasers over often very minor things and we should not be milked (taxed) by the government for all we're worth.

Indianapolis Can Do Better Than The ACS Parking Deal

2010-11-06T18:32:00.013-04:00

The City of Indianapolis is currently considering a proposal, being pushed by the Mayor's office, that would essentially sell off to the private firm ACS (a division of Xerox) a government sponsored monopoly on downtown metered parking. One of the partners in this deal includes an operator of parking garages as well. The deal has been subject of considerable criticism due to its length, stiff penalties for early termination and lack of attempting to create a competitive market for parking. Despite attempts by city officials to try and improve the deal, it still, to use the modern vernacular ... SUCKS.

There is an appearance that the city is willing to do this woefully one-sided, monopolistic deal because of the substantial up front payment that ACS is willing to make. The city is hungry for money right now to make improvements in the city prior to the 2011 elections and hosting the Superbowl in 2012. Despite a lot of criticism, and some of it justified, of Mayor Greg Ballard the bottom line is that the average person in the street doesn't perceive the city as being run poorly or having its priorities misplaced right now. I'm not saying this perception is or isn't accurate, just that despite the wishes of some local pundits the Mayor is not as unpopular as they might want. This is true, even with the very public problems that have plagued IMPD lately and despite having badly disappointed a lot of more free market, small government libertarian leaning folks who at one time cheered his election.

Local radio host and political commentator Abdul Hakim-Shabazz of Newstalk 1430 AM is fond of suggesting that if you're going to throw rocks at a plan, at least bring your own ideas or alternatives to the table. There are a lot of different ways that management of the metered parking could be privatized, here is just one idea.

Instead of granting monopoly control over all of the parking for decades at a time and with harsh penalties to the city for terminating the agreement, why not something like this?

Divide the metered parking into sections, maybe even into segments a block long (or other appropriate metric) and lease (perhaps via auction) the parking rights in chunks. Assuming that the parking rates are going up, no matter what happens, let's just use something slightly higher than the present cost, maybe $1.00 per hour as the lease rate and that lease holders could then build a margin into their rates. Parking downtown is hard to come by and most meters are occupied almost all day during the week. Let's assume the lease is valid from 6 AM to 6 PM during regular weekdays but use 10 hours a day as the expected average occupancy.

The lease terms could stipulate that no single lease holder can control more than some percentage of the parking, maybe something around 40%. It could also stipulate restrictions on how many consecutive blocks (or other grouping) could be controlled by one entity. The city could put other restrictions into the lease terms like that weekend and evening parking is still free. Rates for and management of each meter must be clearly marked. Early termination might involve just paying a pro-rated amount back to the lease holder for an remaining term and the city might just need to refund for days where it needs to close a section of street to parking. The lease term lengths could be for anywhere from 1 to 5 years. Shorter term length agreements might carry a premium, perhaps $12 to $15 a day instead of $10 just like how shorter term lengths in other industries carry premiums. Parking rates in excess of a certain cap (maybe $2.00 an hour just to randomly pull a number out of nowhere) might require a 50% premium back to the city.

There are, according to an IBJ article I read, around 3,600 spaces and there are about 261 regular weekdays (holidays notwithstanding). Ten dollars a day X 261 weekdays X 3,600 spaces X 5 years = $46,980,000 ... all paid up front. Insert your own lease rate, term lengths and other factors and come up with your own figures, this is just one example.

Not only could the numbers work, but private operators could opt one day to replace more standard parking meters with meters that can also charge electric cars (for an extra fee) or who knows what else.

The point is that as public, government owned property it could still be regulated while inducing privatization, competition and innovation. This is just one idea and I'm sure there are others; but, even as someone of a libertarian persuasion I'd rather the city just retain control than transfer monopoly control to a corporation. At least if it stays under city control the prospect of doing a good deal doesn't disappear behind millions of dollars in early termination fees. Privatization is fine when properly done, the problem is that government rarely does it so.

UPDATES:

An article at New Geography regarding privatization is worth a quick read. Tip of the hat to Advance Indiana for posting.

Also, it occurred to me to add that legal and administrative costs for managing the kind of system I propose above could be much less than the big, monopoly style deals governments typically engage in. For a small percentage of around 5 to 7% I'm sure an outside firm or consultant could be retained to manage coordinating the rules with city officials, creating basic legal agreements as well as segmenting, managing the bidding process, handling complaints if necessary and providing ongoing compliance checking.

Click here for a photo of a solar-powered, multi-space parking meter.

Regarding Henry - The Passing of Professor Henry Karlson

2010-10-25T23:33:00.007-04:00

A lot of people in the legal, political, conservative and pro-liberty communities are pausing this evening to remember Professor of Law Emeritus of the Indiana University School of Law-Indianapolis, Henry Karlson. Until a couple of years ago I had never met Professor Karlson or his wife Nancy despite being friends with his daughter Elizabeth and son-in-law Chris.

Even though I had never met them, when my own father passed away in early 2009 I received a wonderful message of condolences from Nancy on behalf of her and Henry. It was wonderful to eventually get the opportunity to get acquainted with him by way of some common political interests. Over the years, anytime Professor Karlson's name was mentioned it was always with love and respect and not once did I ever hear an ill word spoken of him. That is a tremendous accomplishment that few people can claim.

Gary Welsh at Advance Indiana posted some wonderful notes about Professor Karlson, so let me just add that I always enjoyed talking with him and it seemed he never stopped sharing his tremendous knowledge with others. The world is a better place because Henry was here and my thoughts this evening are with my good friend Liz and the rest of her family. The bright, wonderful, caring and tenacious person he leaves behind in his daughter and the great love you can always tell is there for her father when she speaks of him is an ongoing testament to this giant among men in Indiana.

Vanilla Ice To Do Home Improvement Show?

2010-10-03T13:24:00.005-04:00

Breaking from our usual politically oriented fare, I thought this might be a fun diversion. I was told by a friend (hi Joh!) that Robert Mathew Van Winkle (we affectionately know him as Vanilla Ice) was going to be leading a home improvement show on the DIY network. And sure enough, this is true.

So, I couldn't help but spend a couple of minutes putting some new lyrics to his most famous song.

(to the tune of Ice Ice Baby)

Alright stop, carpentrate and listen
Ice is back with a whole new profession
Grab some lumber and hold it tightly
With a saw and a level on prime time nightly
Will it pass code? Yo I don't know.
Call the inspector and he'll show.
To the extreme now I won't have to panhandle
Electrician I'm not though you might need a candle
I'll build it good so it won't go boom
Drywall this bitch then do another room
Deadly if my work is shoddy
You can use it but don't flush the potty
Love it or leave it the place will be great
When I do plumbing yo I don't play
If there is a problem, yo I'll solve it
Check out this blade while my saw revolves it

Rehab it ice ice baby (repeat x4)

(Okay ... who can spring for studio time so we can record this and make it a YouTube hit? I can play bass.)

A Message For Pro-Intervention Conservatives and Liberals

2010-10-01T18:35:00.007-04:00

A lot of traditional conservatives and even some liberals don't seem to have much of a problem with America's foreign policy. Libertarians, Ron Paul supporters and others like to point out the problems and repercussions, including what the CIA calls "blowback", that result from having a highly intrusive foreign policy that seeks to promote U.S. hegemony in parts of the globe.

I started to write a piece that focused on our Middle East interventions and finally realized on the third page that I was probably writing a chapter to a potential future book, not a BLOG post. So, let me put it in this perspective and I'm speaking mostly to (supposedly) small government conservatives.

Today, the U.S. apologized for using people in another nation as guinea pigs in unethical medical testing of sexually transmitted diseases. This took place in the 1940s.

In 1953, the U.S. and British overthrew the democratically elected, secular (non religious) government of Iran and replaced that government with a dictator (ref: Operation Ajax). Ultimately, this boiled down to helping British oil interests (the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, today we know it as British Petroleum).

After his failed assassination attempt on Qasim in Iraq (1959), Saddam Hussein became an asset of the CIA and the Ba'ath party was helped to power with the support of the CIA and British MI6.

In the late 70s it is widely believed that the Carter administration turned against the Shah of Iran (whom we had helped to power) because of human rights concerns and this helped his overthrow by the religious (Muslim) conservatives.

In the 1980s the U.S. assisted, funded or otherwise supported both sides of the Iran-Iraq war in which hundreds of thousands of Arabs died. All as part of a strategy to keep both sides weak and unable to develop into stronger nations less likely to be subject to the desires and designs of the West.

We fought a proxy war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. We can glamorize it all we want with movies like "Charlie Wilson's War", but at the end of the day the Middle East was used repeatedly as a way to play tug of war with the Soviets without actually having to fight them.

The U.S. supports, funds and arms - nearly without question - the state of Israel which a One World Government organization carved out of Palestine and gave to what was then the minority population there. I know how much conservatives love the United Nations and one world government organizations!

The U.S. has a long standing policy of supporting the ruling royal family in Saudi Arabia. This is a country where women cannot vote or drive, where a woman may be killed or harshly punished for being raped and where they still practice amputation as a punishment against criminals. Nary a word is spoken by our government about this. We maintain friendly relations with this country while invading or manipulating the regimes in others in the name of "freedom" or "democracy".

We help fund the military dictatorship in Pakistan.

In the past couple of years the U.S. demanded that Swiss banks turn over their records related to U.S. account holders. Some foreign banks are starting to cease doing business in the U.S. because they, like many of us, don't want to deal with our Internal Revenue Service.

Certainly, all of these sorts of things for which I highlight only a very, very small handful examples cost us lots of money. Especially when we end up sending our brave and honorable soldiers to war to clean up the messes that the upper-class ivy league twits at the CIA get us into. Not sure how one can be "fiscally conservative" and support constant meddling in the affairs of other nations or never-ending states of warfare; but, I digress.

This is my question.

Conservatives frequently state that they want the United States Government to stay out of their lives and their wallets. Does it ever occur to them that the rest of the world wants this too?

Government Regulation At Work: Why Don't Eyeglasses Cost a Dollar

2010-08-20T02:45:00.006-04:00

Something occurred to me at the Dollar Store this week.

The prescription to correct my near-sightedness has finally gotten high enough (but still not THAT high) that it affects my ability to read things close up. So, if I'm wearing my contacts it is difficult, uncomfortable or impossible sometimes to make out the text in a book or examine something close up.

So, I finally broke down and bought a pair of reading glasses so I don't have to keep borrowing Lisa's pink ones to read at night. The glasses were a moderate +1.5 power, they were easily available at the Dollar Tree* for, yep, a whole dollar. Now, interestingly enough, I cannot purchase -1.5 (or the -2.5 I need) glasses for $1.00. I must pay for an optometrist visit, get a prescription, pick out frames, pick out lens or contact options and ultimately I'm out the door for usually between $100 and $200.

Think about this for a minute. In one case I can go to the dollar store, select what works to improve my vision to my satisfaction and it costs me a dollar. In the other, because of government regulations, I have to spend 100 to 200 times that amount to get the others.

I think I might even go back and get a few extra pairs so I always have some handy (keep a pair in my desk, in the bedroom in my laptop bag ... why not?)

Think about this massive cost difference when you consider government's role in health care, insurance or any other industry.

*note: I wanted to look at Dollar General since they support Indy Car driver Sarah Fisher; but, the nearest Dollar General store to me appears to have closed down (even thought it's still listed on their web site). Also, cheap reading glasses at CVS right in front of where the Dollar General used to be were around $16.00 - I didn't buy those.

Libertarian Wayne Root and His Endorsement of Peter Schiff for Senate

2010-08-07T10:52:00.008-04:00

Most people in the liberty movement are well aware of Peter Schiff. Peter Schiff is the president of Euro-Pacific Capital and is running to be the Republican nominee for Chris Dodd's soon to be vacant Senate seat in Connecticut. Peter is frequently found on the cable TV news shows talking about the economy and the mistakes that government is making in their efforts to try and "fix" what government broke. He is a student of Austrian free market economic theory and predicted the big economic meltdown will eerie accuracy.

Wayne Root was recently competing to be the National Chairman of the Libertarian Party and ended up settling for a spot on the Libertarian National Committee. Wayne is high energy guy who , during and after his stint as the party's vice-presidential nominee in 2008, has built up quite a resume of television appearances promoting the Libertarian party and his continuing to mature brand of big-tent libertarianism.

This past week a bit of a stink got raised because Wayne Root (Libertarian) sent out an endorsement and fundraising e-mail on behalf of Peter Schiff (Republican). I have to admit that it caused me some pause as I read it and considered the political ramifications and appropriateness of the message; but, as a huge fan of Peter Schiff and someone who wants him to win his race I agreed with Wayne's motive and intent. I also immediately knew others would use this as another reason to try and heap criticism on Mr. Root. Sure enough, as Libertarians are often want to do, the rock throwing commenced immediately and, I'm sorry, it's just silly and shows a non-commitment to freedom, sound economics and liberty and makes the rock throwers look like any other kind of partisan party hack.

There is no Libertarian candidate vying for the Connecticut Senate seat. And Libertarians (big L and small) should always be interested in having as many great pro-liberty options on the ballot as possible. As a fictional example, who wouldn't feel great about having to pick between three candidates like Ron Paul, Peter Schiff and Michael Badnarik (or Judge Napolitano, John Stossel, etc...) regardless of the letter after their name on a ballot?? How great would that be? Knowing that whichever candidate won, you're going to get a libertarian defender of natural rights and the Constitution?

A bunch of the rock throwers in this case are publicly on record as having given money to Ron Paul's Republican presidential campaign. So, if you're a Libertarian that is going to blast Wayne for endorsing the most libertarian candidate in a race with no "big L" competitor because the guy has an "R" after his name, you better darn well make sure you didn't give enough money to Ron Paul to show up on public FEC reports. Because, well, that would make you a hypocrite would it not? Hope you didn't vote in a Republican primary (for Ron or anyone else) either.

So, at the end of the day, SO WHAT if Wayne threw some support behind one of the best advocates for free market systems we have in this country, Peter Schiff. Wayne's endorsement came on the heals of one earlier in the week from Congressman Ron Paul who is the best friend to liberty and sound economic principles we have in the entire Congress at the moment. I'll take a good advocate for freedom and liberty wherever I can find one, and if that means having to accept certain electoral realities when a really great candidate manages to sneak his way onto the ballot in one of the two "old party" systems, I'll take it.

So, for whatever it's worth. Ron Paul endorses Peter Schiff for Senate. Wayne Allyn Root endorses Peter Schiff. And so do I. Go to Peter's campaign web site and toss a few bucks his way but don't forget your local Libertarian friends either. Let the children keep throwing rocks and whining, the rest of us will take freedom and liberty wherever we can find it.

Why you are unemployed? The Failure of decades of government violence attempting to narrow economic inequity.

2010-07-26T00:06:00.003-04:00

Here is part one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6G1rq5LdA4

Wayne Allyn Root Should Be Libertarian National Chair

2010-05-26T14:50:00.005-04:00

I'm writing today to publicly state that I support Wayne Allyn Root for Chairman of the Libertarian National Committee along with his running mate, Mark Rutherford who seeks the Vice-Chairmanship. I have had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Root on more than one occasion as he tirelessly and unselfishly has spent time visiting my state and engaging with some of our leaders. I have known Mr. Rutherford for what this year marks as a full decade.

There has no doubt been significant and often unflattering discussion amongst members, fans and observers of the Libertarian Party regarding who should next lead the party. The national convention approaches in just a couple of days and I know that the other individuals vying for these positions with the party are bright, well-meaning people. Even when some of the rhetoric and tactics in trying to discredit Mr. Root have been divisive or misleading I like to believe that it is over an interest in protecting the Libertarian brand however misguided the effort. Regardless, it is clear that the Libertarian Party needs leadership that goes beyond an interest in intellectual debate and rock throwing.

The current environment is ripe for the Libertarian Party, if not libertarians of any affiliation, to stand up, be heard and let America know that there is another way. So many voters have really started to realize that the two old political parties are really just clubs with an interest in raising money and seeking power via elections and that they are not really organizations dedicated to preserving liberties, rights or Constitutional government. Sure, there might be some good people holding office who are still trapped within the old two-party system; but, how often are those folks with whom we might most agree marginalized despite their broad appeal?

In order to get the libertarian message out, I firmly believe that the party needs not only the kind of savvy intellectual leadership that Mr. Rutherford brings to the table but also the energy, enthusiasm and know-how that Wayne Root desires deeply to leverage for the benefit of this great country. If you want someone who can take a message to the media and to the people, who can engage with them and spread enthusiasm for libertarian candidates and ideals than Wayne is the guy. His choice of Mark Rutherford, the once long-serving Indiana State Chairman, shows that he wants to ally himself with people who have proven they can develop a Libertarian organization into an accessible, credible and important part of the political dialog as Mark and his immediate successors have done.

If you're looking for some kind of purity test that would isolate libertarian support down to only the most anarcho-capitalist folks among the party's ranks than, indeed, you may not be ready to help demonstrate to the rest of the world the kinds of pragmatic, sensible solutions that would gradually and increasingly show people that libertarian ideals and philosophy can and will work in the real world. The kinds of things that show that we can be measured and patient while peeling back the onion of spending, taxation and government control of our lives. And more than anything the voters need to know that the Libertarian Party will pay more than lip service to these issues; but, that if given the reigns it will prove that they meant it. Let's give Wayne and Mark a chance to see what they can do. It's time for some fresh perspectives while still sticking true to our core beliefs.

(note: the author is a former Libertarian candidate for U.S. House of Representatives, a former communications director for his county party, a policy advisor and occasional speaker on libertarian issues and helped other volunteers organize and support Indiana Tea Party efforts as far back as 2007)

The More Things Change, The More They Stay The Same?

2010-05-06T17:14:00.002-04:00

Indianapolis Attorney Mark Rutherford Seeking National Vice-Chairmanship of Libertarian Party

2010-05-03T15:33:00.002-04:00

Local business attorney and former State Chairman of the Libertarian Party of Indiana is seeking the National Vice-Chairmanship along with Nevada entrepreneur Wayne Allen Root who is seeking the Chairmanship.

A letter, the text of which follows, issued by the Rutherford campaign went out to Libertarians across the country.

Dear fellow patriots,

America is not a place ... a country ... or even its people.

At its core, America is an idea. An idea that all men (and women) are by their nature endowed with rights and that government exists only to protect those rights. This was the vision of our forefathers and it is a guiding belief of the Libertarian Party.

The Libertarian Party has a strong platform of principles that uphold the American tradition of freedom and tolerance and in today’s political environment, never before have we seen so many willingly embrace these principles. Indeed, it is a proud day to be a Libertarian.

I am a proud Libertarian, and many of you know me to have championed many Libertarian causes and groups in the past. I led the Libertarian Party of Indiana for many years and helped make it one of the most successful state parties in the country. I am also on the Indiana Public Defender Commissioner (appointed as a Libertarian to the Commission by Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels) and currently serve as its Chairman. I started Atlas!Liberty Pac, a non-profit organization aimed at promoting the next generation of Libertarian thinkers and leaders. I am also on the board of directors for Advocates for Self-Government, which serves to spread the message of liberty. Most importantly, I served for many years as a faithful member of the LNC, where I’ve seen first hand what needs to be done so much better in order for us to become a dominant political party.

However, despite all my efforts to promote liberty, none have been as important as the challenge we face now, together. We will soon be electing our next Chair. Who we choose will determine the direction that this party, our party, shall take. It is a choice for the future of the Libertarian Party; can we fulfill our political destiny?

We can all agree that in order for us to continue growing, we have to show that the party of principle is broad, diverse, and inclusive. We need a Chair that is vocal about Libertarian principles and that can penetrate the media to reach the minds of more Americans. Only then can the Libertarian Party ascend to bring its principles to the national debate and save our country.

I am proud to be joining with Wayne Allyn Root in an effort to save our country through building a powerful, effective force of freedom.

I have joined with Wayne to help build the infrastructure, media outreach and professional branding the party will need to run effective campaigns and build a political party that can challenge the status quo of ever-growing government being imposed upon us by the two dominant political parties.

But we can’t do it without your help.

Whether you have been involved with our party for many years or even if you are brand new, I want you to become a delegate to the Libertarian Party National Convention.

Attend the convention in St. Louis this Memorial Day Weekend. As a delegate you can proudly cast your vote of support for the Root/Rutherford team

Vote to bring the Libertarian Party to the forefront to engage freedom’s opponents in a battle for America’s birthright.

Mark Rutherford,

Candidate for Vice Chairman of the Libertarian Party

What is "Panarchy" ??

2010-04-27T21:44:00.005-04:00

Somebody sent me a message on Facebook today (feel free to look me up and friend me) asking what "Panarchy" was. Panarchy is an idea that I've become very interested in because it is a concept that provides for open competition between systems of government and taxation. As we all know, when there is no competition for a product that service may be lousy and the price can be high, where else are you going to go?

In the case of government, that is exactly how it is too, "Where else are you going to go?". There also seems to be a lot of confusion, mostly due to misuse of the word, in the media over what "anarchy" is. Below is a slightly edited copy of my very brief and hastily typed response to the Panarchy question and their concern they had about anything that sounds anarchistic.

Anarchy is just a state where each person lives free to interact voluntarily with all others. All things would be private including police and legal systems with open competition and mediation and private third party intermediaries and other mechanisms between them to ensure justice and the protection of each person's natural rights. Anarchy should NOT be confused with "chaos" or "violence" even though those in the media who do not understand the nuance in word selection may try to substitute one for the other. While anarchy may mean no government, it does not mean those functions are not performed or handled in other ways.

Panarchy is an idea that basically allows for open competition between government systems and you would voluntarily align yourself, perhaps contractually, with the one that suits your needs, preferences and values.

Most government systems are basically nothing more than a monopoly on violence, force and theft within the imaginary lines drawn on maps by men. Imagine if a government system you belonged to started charging too much for the services they provide, or started providing services you don't need so you voluntarily de-affiliate and become a citizen of a different system without having to relocate geographically. That way socialists can be (broke) socialists, communists can be communists and free market capitalists can be just that and the different groups need not bother each other with their polices. So long as basic natural and contractual rights and obligations are enforced each system could operate under a very small legal framework with each sub-system augmenting as necessary for their needs.

The overlying mechanism that would make this work and one that I think still makes me prefer panarchy or minarchy instead of anarchy is the idea of that basic legal framework for the protection of individual natural rights. Nobody, not even elected officials or their minions, would be allowed to steal or oppress people without them first having agreed to such by their voluntary association.

Hope this helps. It's an idea that needs more attention and the advent of technology probably makes it more plausible today. There are a lot of potential complications, for example, a company might have to be authorized to do business with citizens of each or any particular system and might be subject to different kinds of restrictions within each population group; but, this is no different than companies doing business in different countries or jurisdictions. Even state laws and regulations vary.

Even if not at the individual level, which is preferable, different cities or towns might opt-in to a specific system of governance. There are lots of things that would need to be examined, and certainly the idea of people or groups of people having those kinds of options scares the heck out of big government apologists of the status quo variety who lack imagination; but, otherwise, you're stuck unless you want to pick up and move, emigrate to another country, potentially lose your voting rights, unseat your family or your career.

Basically, getting rid of government having a monopoly. Competition, like in everything else, would ensure better service and lower prices (taxes are the price way for our government - we know what happens when there is no competition). I've not really considered this idea fully from a practical perspective; but, I think it warrants some thought. But, I caution that when coming up with roadblocks, objections or complications to stop and really think through whatever the issue is and ask, "hmmmm... how might that work in this kind of environment?", "what kind of cooperation between groups would be needed?" and "could it be any worse than what we have now?"

Health Care Bill Restrictions Kill 60 Hospital Projects

2010-04-12T17:59:00.007-04:00

The recent so-called "health care reform" bill, which in reality didn't so much reform "health care" as to addressing the high cost of care but in reality was a big government shuffling of the health care "insurance" and "pre-paid care" business is already working to limit the supply of hospitals.

Here are some excerpts from an article at CNSNEWS.com today whose site was most unavailable after The Drudge Report posted a link:

The new health care overhaul law, which promised increased access and efficiency in health care, will prevent doctor-owned hospitals from adding more rooms and more beds, says a group that advocates physician involvement in every aspect of health care delivery.

Physician-owned hospitals are advertised as less bureaucratic and more focused on doctor-patient decision making. However, larger corporate hospitals say doctor-owned facilities discriminate in favor of high-income patients and refer business to themselves.

The new health care rules single out such hospitals, making new physician-owned projects ineligible to receive payments for Medicare and Medicaid patients.

Existing doctor-owned hospitals will be grandfathered in to get government funds for patients but must seek permission from the Department of Health and Human Services to expand.

To get the department’s permission, a doctor-owned hospital must be in a county where population growth is 150 percent of the population growth of the state in the last five years; inpatient admissions must be equal to all hospitals located in the county; the bed-occupancy rate must not be greater than the state average, and the hospital must be located in a state where hospital bed capacity is less than the national average.

The rules fall under Title VI, Section 6001 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The provision is titled “Physician Ownership and Other Transparency – Limitations on Medicare Exceptions to the Prohibition on Certain Physician Referral for Hospitals.”

More than 60 doctor-owned hospitals across the country that were in the development stage will be canceled, said Molly Sandvig, executive director of Physician Hospitals of America (PHA).

The article goes on to talk about nurse to patient ratios, the employment impact of doctor-owned hospitals and how corporatist interests have been working to limit the suppy of them:

The organization says physician-owned hospitals have higher patient satisfaction, greater control over medical decisions for patients and doctor, better quality care and lower costs. Further, physician-owned hospitals have an average 4-1 patient-to-nurse ratio, compared to the national average of 8-1 for general hospitals.

Further, these 260 doctor-owned hospitals in 38 states provide 55,000 jobs, $2.4 billion in payroll and pay $509 million in federal taxes, according to the PHA.

In one ironic aspect, President Barack Obama’s two largest legislative achievements clashed. The Hammond Community Hospital in North Hammond, Ind., got $7 million in bond money from the federal stimulus act in 2009. It will likely be scrapped because of the new rules on physician-owned hospitals, according to the Post-Tribune newspaper in Merrillville, Ind.

Doctor-owned hospitals have long been a target of the American Hospital Association, which represents corporate-owned hospitals as well as non-profit hospitals.

This is the kind of action on the part of government that limits competition and innovation rather than encouraging it. At the same time, if patients took more control of their health care dollars and decisions they might be more apt to shop around. Historically, people have just submitted themselves to the doctor's directions rather than asking if there are any less expensive options. We also have an issue where doctors are limited in which hospitals they may provide services at, this further limits patient choices in ways that may or may not be appropriate but might be understandable from a hospital administration perspective. The problem is that often the doctors can't tell you what the full price will be for any kind of procedure ... hardly anyone ever asks apparently.

In short, the whole health care delivery system needs to overhauled; but, massive government regulation and red tape stand in the way. Instead of getting less red tape, Congress just gave us a bunch more. Once again, taking the country in the wrong direction.

Indiana's 5th District Republican Primary - Brose McVey Should Scare You

2010-03-30T08:52:00.009-04:00

The Republican Primary is coming up and there are some interesting candidates in the field who desire to unseat long-serving 5th District Congressman Dan Burton. Certainly, many would say he has served far too long, has a tarnished image and maybe isn't the kind of leader they would like to see.

Those people may have some points; but, at the end of the day Burton's voting record is far better than most other members of Congress and he often gets credited with having a pretty decent staff. Perhaps there is room for improvement; but, for those who are looking for another option, there MAY be a good choice in that race but Brose McVey does not appear to be it.

Here are the main things that have led me to have concerns about McVey's candidacy:

Strike I:

I had the opportunity to meet Brose McVey at a Washington Township GOP Club Meeting and asked him about his stance on restructuring the tax code from one based on income to one based more on consumption like The FairTax would do I was told that he (Brose) was concerned that the government might not have enough power to tax in that circumstance so he would support keeping some kind of income taxes while ALSO empowering the Federal Government to levy sales taxes. Seriously? Grant the government an additional power of taxation?

The presumption here is that there would be some way to prevent the combination of these from being just as, or more, oppressive as the current system. Think about that, granting the government a power to tax your purchases without ensuring that its power to tax your income was taken away. Brose feels his idea is better than the one some Ivy League economists and $20 million in research developed leading to the sales to tax reform advocates of millions of books? I believe a sarcastic Dr. Evil, "Riiiiigggghhhhttt....." is appropriate here.

When pressed, his concern is for the government's ability to forcibly extract revenue regardless of economic conditions with no consideration for ensuring that people have a right to their property and the fruits of their labors. So in essence, although he might not see it this way, he believes government has a "first claim" on what you trade your life for (wages after all are exchanging the best hours of the best years of your life in exchange for money). We need politicians who are on the side of the people not government.

Strike II:

A friend of mine is at a Carmel, Indiana business gathering and Brose McVey is there shaking hands and campaigning. My friend, who is in the real estate business, is engaged in a serious conversation when McVey interjects himself into their space and discussion to introduce himself while shoving his campaign card at my friend. I'm told the card was immediately handed back with the admonition of, "Hey, I'm having a conversation here buddy!"

My friend was incensed and felt that it was rude and arrogant to not wait until an appropriate stopping point in his conversation to have a business card and handshake shoved at him.

Strike III:

Apparently, Brose supports the idea of a Constitutional Convention. He actually wants each state to pluck political appointees out of their partisan ranks and send them somewhere to open up, alter and re-write our Constitution? (we have a process for this - it's called "amendments" and at least a few of them like the 16th, 17th, 18th and 23rd were really bad ideas)

He posted this on a social networking site for professionals:

"It's time for a Constitutional Convention, called by THE STATES. Balanced Budget Amendment, Term Limits, reaffirmation of limits on federal" [the message ended there but presume he meant "power"?]

Now, as a member of and participant in numerous political discussion and e-mail groups I can tell you that a lot of people in the conservative and libertarian political community are terrified by that idea. No one believes that very many wise men of great pro-liberty conviction like Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, George Mason or James Madison would be sent to alter our founding documents in appropriate ways. Anyone appropriately plugged in to the pro-liberty movement in any number of libertarian or conservative forums would have already been privy to and able to engage in the arguments for and against this over the past year or two.

A Constitutional Convention does not mean that just people you agree with would be showing up to participate! In Indiana, with the Democrats in charge of the State House what kind of representative do you think would get selected to represent us at such a Convention? In fact, many believe we'd end up with the same kind of circus we currently see in Congress and it would result in something granting the federal government near unlimited power to do whatever it wants. Sure, there are a few things that could be changed in the document (see below*) but for the most part, the document itself is fine - it is the courts, bureaucrats and the politicians that are the problem.

I responded to Mr. McVey that opening up the Constitution to the current crop of big government Democrats and Republicans that stock our halls of government might not be the best idea. He responded with:

"The risk of opening this sacred document to the people is now much less that allowing the tireless march of Washington politicians to continue unchecked. I regret that we may disagree on this critical point, but you can bet that my position will remain firm."

Instead of engaging in a discussion, instead of asking questions about why or what the concerns are, how he perceives it would really be okay and that our rights would be safe, I got a rather arrogant, "...my position will remain firm." Really? No new facts, no input from others, no discussion on the subject could possibly alter your position? We may give politicians grief when they do a John Kerry "flip flop" but I don't know many people who believe the exact same things at 40 that they did at 20. Being open to new ideas, information, wisdom and debate is what shapes and hones our understandings.

The whole idea that a Constitutional Convention would end up with government more securely restrained than it was supposed to be in the original document is unbelievably naive. It's kind of like folks who are increasingly calling for their state to secede from the Union. I understand where they are coming from; but, to assume that your state legislators and governor would suddenly put together some kind of libertarian government is also a little naive. Doesn't mean it might not be a whole heck of a lot better than being under the thumb of the Feds (how could it not be better?) but don't be deluded into thinking you'd get something you're really probably not gonna.

So, on the whole, in Mr. McVey I see no firm grounding in any kind of ideology that concerns itself with protecting the natural rights of individuals or restoring the rule of law under our current Constitution. Even if his intentions are good, the lack of consideration for the impact, potential harm caused by or likely future abuse of some of the things he would seem to support is frightening. We've got enough know-it-all bozos in Washington with bad, short-sighted, misinformed or under-informed opinions - we don't need more.

Oh, and on this you can bet that my position will remain firm. ;-)

---

*A few things in the Constitution that might be worth altering (by no means an exhaustive list):

The commerce clause could be more specifically defined to meaning only what was originally intended, "making regular the free trade between the states". (research: 1942 Wickard vs. Filburn Supreme Court case)

We should just nuke the welfare clause out completely to avoid it being construed as an excuse to steal from one group of people on behalf of another. (significant usurpation especially the 1937 Steward Machine Company vs. Davis court decision)

The power to raise armies should be strictly limited to ensure only voluntary induction to the military (as anything else is involuntary servitude and presumes that you are the property of the government to dispose with as they see fit).

A requirement to use zero-based budgeting might not be a bad idea.

Penalties for government agents (elected or otherwise) who pass laws, regulations or act in ways that violate the natural rights of people should be in place - otherwise the document itself has no power over those who would ignore it. The document needs claws. Congress will pass unconstitutional laws and then let the courts sort it out. But, the courts are partisan so what's the point?

Absolutely we would scratch the phrase, "A well regulated militia," from the 2nd Amendment since the anti-self defense folks like to try and use that to disarm people.

Congress should be equally subject to all laws, regulations, restrictions and programs that get passed and never allowed to exclude themselves. (this has been previously proposed over the years as one possible 28th Amendment)

So, sure, there are some things that could be adjusted but the document really is not the problem. Politicians, judges and an apathetic population are really the problem when they have no respect for the natural rights of people and will interpret any document to mean whatever they want it to mean to serve their own agendas. Does anyone think if we have Constitutional Convention any of the above listed things are likely to make it through? Doubtful at best.

[note: article originally suggested Brose was an attorney, he is in act identified as a "businessman" on his web site and has an degree from Purdue's School of Agriculture]

Indiana's HB 1065, the Gun in Your Glove Box and Property Rights

2010-03-13T17:42:00.004-05:00

Every once in a while an issue comes up that pits some rights against others. HB 1065, which is legislation the Indiana State House passed and is now awaiting Governor Mitch Daniels' signature is one of those pieces of legislation.

The bill essentially makes it illegal for a business/employer to have a policy against employees bringing firearms, locked in a glove box or otherwise stowed away, onto their property.

Now, at first blush libertarians like myself might hail this legislation as a massive blow in favor of people's right to self defense. But, is this not also a massive blow against private property rights? Let's examine further and without getting tied up in the emotions of the gun issue. We'll also presume that we're addressing things from a natural rights perspective within the confines of Constitutional government (not what passes for the authoritarian government systems we have today).

Let's lay the ground rules first.

1. You have a right to your life, liberty and property.

2. Nobody may deprive you of these rights without your permission.

3. You have the right of voluntary association (you may not be forced to associate with people you do not desire to). Voluntary association and activity is always superior to that which is forced.

4. Government is the negation of liberty and exercises all authority by threat of force or violence.

5. Being on someone's property without their permission is trespassing.

6. The Constitution sets restrictions on what government may do.

7. Any private property owner could set a policy that nobody is allowed to park on their property. Or that only American made cars are allowed or only blue cars or whatever else.

Let's analyze the impact of HB 1065

Currently, an employer may set a policy that says that nobody is allowed to bring a firearm onto their private property, even if it is locked in the glove box of a car. Now, personally, I find this terribly offensive to anyone who has gone through the process and is licensed to carry a firearm or even more offensive to anyone that might be former military. BUT, if the private property owner sets this policy then:

1. It is not the government forcing one side or another to accept anything.

2. Voluntary associations are maintained (you may park elsewhere; petition the property owner for relief; do it anyway and keep your mouth [and glove box] shut; choose to no longer provide labor or professional services to a company, business or property owner that does not share your values)

3. The property owner's sovereign control of their property so long as nobody's rights are involuntarily violated is preserved (you volunteer to the restriction by continuing to park on their property or work there)

4. There is no Constitutional violation because government did not create this restriction, a private property owner did. Just like a private business owner might choose to fire somebody for saying something stupid, offensive or threatening - there is no "free speech" protection in the private sector.

If the government sets a law that requires property owners to allow this then:

1. Association is no longer voluntary. The private property owner must now accept your trespass against their wishes.

2. It reinforces the idea that the government, not property owners, is the final arbiter of what is permissible on your premises. (smoking ban advocates try and pretend that patrons are involuntarily deprived of their right to life by the cigar or cigarette smoke in bars, completely ignoring that people voluntarily walk in and expose themselves or voluntarily work there [SAME LOGIC APPLIES HERE - You believe in private property rights and voluntary association or you do not])

3. An employer might just add a line to their job applications - "Are you licensed to carry a firearm" and start denying employment based on the answer. If gun permit information is available as part of a background check that might also cause an employer pause if they are adamant in ensuring no firearms are on their property [note: payment for a permit to exercise a right is a ridiculous notion but, at least the General Assembly is working to protect that information by making it private via HB 1068]

4. Instead of somebody risking losing a job if discovered, the business owner is now a criminal if they attempt to retain control over their property.

So, while people may momentarily think they've won some kind a "take that you bozo employer I'll bring my gun if'n I wanna" victory, just remember that property owners just got a big, "government is the final arbiter of what you must allow and you'll shut up and take it" from big government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong.

As for me personally, I strongly support the right of people to be prepared to defend themselves but I abhor the idea that government has to tell me what must be allowed on my property. Remember, the 2nd Amendment applies to government restrictions not to private property owners.

The Trees

2010-03-03T00:08:00.003-05:00

While browsing through some music earlier I was reminded of how much I like the lyrics to Rush's song The Trees. If you've never heard the song or are not familiar with the words, please take a moment to consider it and the message contained within.

There is unrest in the forest,
There is trouble with the trees,
For the maples want more sunlight
And the oaks ignore their please.

The trouble with the maples,
(And they're quite convinced they're right)
They say the oaks are just too lofty
And they grab up all the light.
But the oaks can't help their feelings
If they like the way they're made.
And they wonder why the maples
Can't be happy in their shade.

There is trouble in the forest,
And the creatures all have fled,
As the maples scream "Oppression!"
And the oaks just shake their heads

So the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights.
"The oaks are just too greedy;
We will make them give us light."
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.

Self Defense in City Parks, Washington State Validates Right to Carry and Gun Free Zones Continue to Be Violence Magnets

2010-02-14T09:33:00.008-05:00

A female Superior Court judge in King County, Washington has ruled in favor of individuals who sought to end a ban on carrying firearms in city parks.

Judge Catherine Shaffer did not mince words in her order, part of which was handwritten and issued from the bench following an afternoon hearing in her Seattle courtroom.
“The court finds that the plaintiffs have a clear legal or equitable right to carry firearms under the federal and state constitutions,” she ruled.
The judge also noted that the “court finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact on which reasonable minds could differ.”

As some people are aware, Indianapolis Councilor Ed Coleman (Libertarian - At Large) has introduced legislation which would eliminate the unconstitutional city ban on individuals, who have gotten permission from the government by way of a permit to exercise their rights (sarcasm intended), carrying their personal firearms onto city park property. In other words, he has introduced a proposal to restore an individuals right to defend themselves in a way that would align city code with both state and federal law where such restrictions either don't exist or are expiring this month.

Now before the anti-gun folks have a fit, let's consider the following.

You walk up and down city streets and drive all over public roads every day with countless other people who are licensed to carry their firearms and have them on their person or in their vehicles either openly or concealed. The streets are not running red with law abiding citizens shooting each other are they? Do you feel unsafe walking around Monument Circle at lunch time because some of those folks have guns on them? Of course not. Interestingly enough, in some states (like New Hampshire) one can legally "open carry" into the State House (although bureaucrats are trying to play games with it now [see this link and associated video] )!

Where should you feel unsafe? So-called "gun free" zones maybe?

This past week we saw a faculty member at the University of Alabama kill three people and wound others when she was denied tenure. We also saw this month where an elementary school teacher shot other faculty members when he was told he would not have a job next year. We all remember what happened at Columbine or at Virginia Tech. All "gun free zones". Yet, that didn't stop crazy people with criminal intent from taking a gun into those areas and attacking people who were legally (but unconstitutionally perhaps?) denied the choice of defending themselves.

It was great to see the Fraternal Order of Police speak publicly in favor of Mr. Coleman's proposal. Unfortunately, the proposal caught Mayor Greg Ballard (R) off guard and he probably spoke too quickly when suggesting he would veto the proposal if it landed on his desk. There is never a wrong time to restore rights or liberty to the people.

Most conservatives and libertarians would expect Republican officials to fully support this kind of thing if they truly believe in protecting people's natural rights. One can only hope that the Mayor doesn't feel backed into a corner as after careful consideration there would be no reason not to support this except to play silly political games.

There was a rumor that councilor Mike Speedy, who is running for State House this year, has been interested in this kind of proposal in the past but never thought it would get enough support. Now that with the Heller and the Seattle decisions showing courts will support individual rights, there should be no reason other councilors shouldn't jump on as co-sponsors. But, again, political games could trump actually doing the right thing. We'll see.

The important thing to remember is that "gun bans" are "massacre enabling" restrictions and do not protect anyone. You can't protect the sheep from the wolf by making all of the sheep weaker.

Iranian Government Has No Monopoly On Violence Against Citizens

2009-12-27T14:10:00.002-05:00

In considering all of the actions and violence committed against "anti-government protesters" in places like Iran, is it not worth considering whether or not the scenes here are often that much different? At the end of the day, Americans live under a system that steals from them, lies to them, commits fraud, illegally invades other countries, detains people, puts them on lists, sometimes allies itself with dictators and now threatens to make laws at the Federal level that REQUIRE you to buy products from insurance corporations or be threatened with fines and jail time?

G20 protesters get assaulted:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3CYknz7FCQ

Police make a joke and laugh about shooting a peaceful protester (think about a culture where this is promoted as funny and worthy of reward):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G63FEamhpA0

There is always a worthy discussion about new laws where ultimately, the question should be asked ... "Are you willing to shoot someone over this?"

People chuckle and say, "we're just talking about a fine or a warning or something minor." BUT, the ultimate enforcement mechanism of any law, no matter how seemingly innocuous, is that it presents additional opportunities for there to be potential armed aggression against citizens.

This puts police officers in the position of not being thought of as "protecting and serving" us, but puts them in adversarial positions with the general public. How many people can say they've never been pulled over for something? How many people felt they were posing a clear and present threat of immediate harm to someone else and thereby warranted being detained by someone with a gun, fined and otherwise inconvenienced? Why do we accept this as okay?

Think about tax enforcement. Being required, by threat of potential government force being used against you, to pay for sports stadiums, convention centers, transfers of wealth to private entities, for abortions or stem cell research, billions to foreign dictators or paying for research on the mating habits of butterflies. We must again ask... Are we willing to destroy people's lives, reputations or families? Are we willing to march armed soldiers to their door steps and even shoot them over their objections to this? Yes, even in America, the political elites are willing to do so.

And this is why we must always remember that "The Law" is there to protect our life, property and rights. It is not supposed to be used to take away our life, transfer our property to others or reduce, limit or undermine our rights.

Live your life as you chose so long as you do no harm to, or violate the rights of, others. There is a foundational principle to live by and one that nobody should have any objection to.

If Our Rights Are Natural, Then Everybody Has Them Not Just Citizens

2009-12-18T18:13:00.010-05:00

I had a good back and forth discussion with one of our Indiana Tea Party Patriots today.

Our good patriot friend said:

I mean the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, the natural rights bestowed upon us by God, our Creator. I believe our country does not/cannot give us rights..they are from God.

But then in a subsequent message added:

My concern is not to give terrorists the same constitutional rights that citizens have.

So, understanding that the debate over the current Guantanamo prisoners is terse and heated, I still waded in to the water a bit as I perceived a bit of circular logic here. I don't propose that true enemy combatants in a war should be granted the same privileges non combatant citizens enjoy; however, it did spark a train of thought related to the source of our rights and who has them. It occurred to me that there is a trap in the debate about the prisoners and whether or not they have rights. If you believe rights come from government and can be taken away, then you have to believe that the prisoners have no rights. If you believe we all are endowed with natural rights and that government does not grant them, then you have to accept that even prisoners accused of terrorism have a right to due process and fair treatment.

E-mail is never a great place for debate and for busy people the responses can often be quick, not well thought through or riddled with typos, but here is what I responded with:

Do people have rights guaranteed by the creator or not? If the rights come from, as you state, God (or whatever creative force one subscribes to) and not from our Constitution then do these people have rights or not? (I'm not taking a position either way - just confused by the circular logic).

I would argue that anyone has a right to face their accuser, be presented with evidence, given a fair and speedy trial and then either required to provide compensation/restitution for their crimes or set free. I would also be curious as to how many people we have in Gitmo who were captured just, as far as they were concerned, defending their country and were not really "terrorists". I don't trust anything the government tells us about anything or anyone anymore.

You can't invade a country and then accuse everyone who fights back of being a "terrorist". Most of the problem we have with modern terrorism is that these folks feel they are fighting back against U.S. hegemony. Unfortunately, they cross an unforgivable line when they target innocent people and private interests. Again, a lot of terrorism's roots lay in the response to actions most Americans are not even aware happened 'on their behalf'. The foreign foot soldiers may not know this, but their leaders and those that manipulate are keenly aware of their political and economic goals.

We fell right into their trap by spending trillions on these wars overseas that have contributed to tanking our economy and weakening our nation. They knew they couldn't win a military victory, but they knew they might get us economically eventually. They saw us do it to the U.S.S.R.

In all fairness, entitlements are ultimately the bill that we will not be able to pay; but, in an already weakened and debt ridden state tacking an extra couple (or few) trillion for war just isn't helpful. We should always be wary of the economic warfare, not just the physical warfare fought by troops and machinery.

Regardless of disagreements, it is oftentimes in conversations like these where thoughts, opinions, policies and approaches are forged. A far better source of belief, understanding and rationale than just parroting whatever the favorite partisan hack of the day is saying on the boob tube.

Indiana's Mark Souder (R - 3rd) Co-Sponsors FairTax Act

2009-12-10T00:39:00.003-05:00

As always let me preface my FairTax post by saying that it is my second favorite tax reform plan. My favorite is to repeal all income taxes and replace them with pretty much nothing. But, in the meantime, I consider HR 25, The FairTax, to be the single largest potential transfer of power from government back to voters and taxpayers ever short of an armed insurrection.

When I first got involved with the grass roots FairTax movement in 2004 we had representatives Dan Burton (R - 5th) and Mike Sodrel (formerly R - 9th) as co-sponsors. Under the leadership of then State Director Ron Heilman and some support from Congressman Burton's office at that time, the Indiana team was able to get Rep. Mike Pence (R - 6th) on board. Sodrel ended up losing his seat to Baron Hill (D) but has continued to advocate for this important change to the tax system.

Now, under the leadership of Dan Higgins (and his wife Diana) and with the influx of energy and enthusiasm he and other FairTax leaders in the state have brought, it is exciting to see that Rep. Mark Souder (R - 3rd) has become a co-sponsor of HR 25. Out of the Republican delegation to the House of Representatives, Indiana now has all but Rep. Steve Buyer (4th) on the non-partisan bill as co-sponsors.

Below is a copy of the press announcement that the Indiana FairTax team has put out. I believe that a couple of us are scheduled to spend time with WXNT's Abdul Hakim-Shabazz at 7:30 AM

on Friday, December 11 [2009] (http://www.newstalk1430.com or 1430 AM out of Indianapolis) to talk about the FairTax and progress that is being made in gaining support.

The Indiana FairTax team maintains a site at infairtax.ning.com

FAIRTAX INDIANA

Press Release

CONTACT:

Sean Shepard, Media Contact

Email: sshepard94@gmail.com

317-513-2406

Dan Higgins, State Director

Email: fairtaxindiana@gmail.com

765-346-5029

GRASSROOTS FAIRTAX SUPPORTERS WELCOME ADDITION OF REP. MARK SOUDER (R – 3^rd) AS A CO-SPONSOR

FT. WAYNE, IN – Grassroots activists and supporters from Indiana of the bi-partisan tax reform legislation known as “The FairTax” (H.R. 25) applaud the addition of Congressman Mark Souder of Indiana’s 3^rd Congressional District as a co-sponsor.

Representative Souder joins Representatives Mike Pence (R – 6^th) and Dan Burton (R – 5^th) as co-sponsors of critically needed legislation to restructure the United States tax code from one based on productivity to one based on consumption that will completely un-tax the poor and improve America’s competitiveness in a World economy.

Congressman Souder praised the consistent and persistent efforts of grassroots volunteers and voters who ensured that their support for The FairTax was noticed.

Dan Higgins, State Director of FairTax Indiana, said “The current state of the economy and the need to ensure American competitiveness in the World is causing many to re-examine and embrace The FairTax as the best and most fair reform plan before Congress.”

ABOUT THE FAIRTAX

The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including a progressive national retail sales tax, a prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar federal revenue neutrality, and, through companion legislation, the repeal of the 16th Amendment.

The FairTax Act (HR 25, S 296) is nonpartisan legislation. It abolishes all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes and replaces them with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax administered primarily by existing state sales tax authorities.

More information is available at http://www.fairtax.org/

###

Cuba Becoming More Capitalist To Save Socialism?

2009-10-14T12:58:00.002-04:00

There was an article posted to McClatchy that appears to be by Frances Robies of the Miami Herald. Drudge linked it up today and when I read it I was reminded of George W. Bush saying that we had to become more socialist in order to save capitalism. Of course, this showed a complete misunderstanding of the state of capitalism and (what haven't been for decades) free markets in the United States.

But the article today was about Cuba becoming a little more capitalistic in order to save socialism. We know that increased socialism has led to some of the worst economies in the world (Cuba, Soviet Union) and that free market capitalism is what made America the most prosperous and powerful nation in the world well prior to the The Federal Reserve System, Income Taxes, FDR, The Welfare State, The Great Society and such. In fact, we can easily point to increased economic intervention as the root causes of the malaise which afflicts us now. Even the Communist Chinese had enough sense to keep their hands off their economy as possible to allow it to prosper, and now they make fun of us and our economic and fiscal policies. Strange how the tables have turned, yes?

From the article:

As the Cuban government struggles through a deep recession, its leaders have begun picking away at socialism in order to save it. But experts say the latest buzz by the Cuban government is simply another desperate fix to stem the slide of a failed economy that buckled long ago.
Even one of Havana's leading economists recently said Cuba's economy needed to be turned upside down -- "feet up." So taxi drivers got private licenses, farmers now have their own plots of land and government workers have to pack their own lunches.
"I think what they are trying to do is prepare the people for a hard landing," said Cuba expert Jonathan Benjamin-Alvarado of the University of Nebraska. "The government is really saying in so many words: We've got limited resources and can only do so much. I think they are stuck."
Since he took office early last year, Raúl Castro has been saying that the country's severely battered economy needs fixing. In a widely quoted August speech, Castro said Cuba was spending more than it made.
"Nobody, no individual nor country, can indefinitely spend more than she or he earns. Two plus two always adds up to four, never five," he said. "Within the conditions of our imperfect socialism, due to our own shortcomings, two plus two often adds up to three."

As with any government redistribution of resources ... 2+2 always equals 4 no matter how much the politicians like to try and claim they can make 5 out of it. Just like Alchemists found out they couldn't turn lead into gold, so it is true with those who might pretend to be "economic alchemists".

State of the Libertarian Party in Indianapolis

2009-10-09T03:23:00.004-04:00

On one of the local political BLOGs someone made a comment about Libertarians supposedly being absent on opposing the government funded construction of the Colts' stadium and the recent bailout (by tax increase and even more borrowing) of the entity that operates it. They tried to spin things as Libertarians suddenly coming out of the wood work over the silly nanny-state smoking ban garbage that comes up perennially. Clearly, they weren't paying attention.

It did prompt me to think about how much the party has grown, how closer as a group of friends and 'comrades in arms' it seems many of us have become and so I thought I'd repost some excerpts of my response to that individual.

Libertarians did go off the hook on Lucas Oil Stadium, but arguably had a smaller and maybe less organized Marion County presence at the time. Libertarians were all over the CIB bailout and mismanagement garbage, I personally appreciated the Libertarians being invited by Chairman Lutz (R) to speak before his committee on that subject. Unfortunately, the Chicken Little crowd won that battle.

A few years ago at some of the (not directly party functions - just social in nature) Libertarian MeetUp group we would get five to eight people. In the last year there have been up to 30 or 35 attendees and the group recently split into a North Side and South Side group (check out MeetUp.com for details). Tim Maguire has been very active as the Marion County (LPMC) Chair, there is a core group of bright and active people and there is now even a Libertarian Party City Councilor.

At a recent (July 31?) Friedman Foundation event downtown where State School Superintendent Tony Bennett (R) spoke, and I think Councilor Ben Hunter's (R) wife was one of the organizers, the Libertarian Party of Indiana's Exec. Director Chris Spangle took home the prize for bringing the most people to the event and, the LPMC filled more than four tables (40+ people) at the Stossel / Economics Club event this week.

Note: The sense is that the party is continuing to grow as more people realize the other two parties are continuing to field less than impressive and often outright anti-Constitution candidates. More people are recognizing that the economic and foreign policy positions of BOTH the typical Democrat or Republican are harming our country. There is also a sense that existing Libertarians are becoming increasingly organized.

The smoking thing is just continuing to prove that SOME Republicans on the council aren't REALLY for small, unobtrusive government and low-taxes. In fact, Vernon Brown (D - 18th) has voted better than every single one of the Republicans [at least through August he had]. But, it always helps being the opposition to whatever tax increases or tyranny those in power want to bring forward.

For what it is worth, Christine Scales (R - 4th) has the best voting record of the Republicans and is proving to be someone who is really trying to do her own homework on issues and do the right things. As you would expect, none of them are perfect though and that's understandable.

Recent Jobless Claims Data - Two Stories To Get Whole Picture

2009-10-08T10:52:00.006-04:00

The following two articles came out today. I am always struck by how when "continuing claims" are reported, they never (almost never?) actually report the number of benefit recipients who reached the end of the benefit period. So, when you see "continuing claims dropped 16,000" but have to go dig to find out that "400,000 had their benefits expire" ... well, you do the math.

Even more fascinating is that both articles are from the same news source, CNN/Money. I'm just surprised that when these things are written the authors don't think to go find what that number is (benefits expired) and just include it. Is that not part of the story?

From the first article:

The 4-week moving average for ongoing claims fell by 15,750 to 6,144,250, from the prior week's revised average of 6,160,000.
But the slide in continuing claims may not be a positive sign, Resler said, as it may signal that more filers are falling off that count and into extended benefits.
Continuing claims reflect people filing each week after their initial claim until the end of their standard benefits, which usually last 26 weeks.

From the second:

more than 400,000 people ran out of unemployment benefits in September, according to the National Employment Law Project.

and it also noted:

Some 1.4 million people will stop receiving checks by year's end

Anti-Free Market Busy Bodies Seek Total Ban On Smoking In Indianapolis Bars

2009-10-08T01:42:00.014-04:00

Once again the ‘smoking ban’ in bars advocates have reared their nanny-state heads (Proposal 371). This time it looks like more of the Republicans on the council might stab their "small, unobtrusive government" conservative supporters in the back on the issue.

One would think nosy busy-bodies in government would have more important things to do (like reducing taxes, preventing crime, stopping transfers of public money to private organizations, trying to get out of the sports stadium business that is draining taxpayers and city coffers) … but, no.

For most Republicans or “conservatives” one would think they would expect their elected representatives to support and promote the principles of small, unobtrusive government … again, they would be sadly mistaken. To be sure, there are some like Councilor Christine Scales (R - District 4) or State Senator Mike Delph (R - 29th) that, even if the voting record is not perfect, really try to do the right things, do their homework and listen to all sides of an issue. I would even suggest that Libertarian, and my good friend, Ed Coleman (Indianapolis City Council - At Large) doesn't have what I'd call a 'perfect' voting record, but he sure is trending far and away better than anyone from the other two parties and is proving to be the best taxpayer advocate on the Council.

I question whether or not supporters of the ban that are e-mailing councilors are actually people who go to bars or would, however frequently, if they were all smoke free. Why wouldn’t they visit places like Scotty’s Brew Pub which is already smoke free? Of course, as with so many things, anytime people can relieve themselves of the opportunity to have to think about something or make a hard choice, they turn to government to force their wishes or opinion on everyone else. Didn’t this battle get fought a few years ago and the result was the current compromise that seems to work pretty well? BUT, no, those who would force their will on everyone else never rest until their victory is absolute – this is a lesson we should remember every time our politicians give a little ground, make a little compromise and budge just that little bit. And this why Libertarians typically oppose giving up any ground to the enemies of freedom and liberty.

Considering some core principles we should ask advocates of the total ban about:

Do you believe in private property rights? Specifically, that if I own property I can decide certain policies for that property so long as no one else is forcibly denied their rights?

Do you believe in voluntary association? Do you believe that I have the right to associate or not associate with whomever I choose?

Do you believe a business owner has a right, racial discrimination notwithstanding, to decide what customers he or she wishes to cater to?

Do you believe that people are smart enough that if they fail to verify ahead of time and end up at a smoking establishment that they may exercise their own judgment to stay or leave that establishment in favor of another that more serves their particular desires?

Do you believe that employees in smoking establishments most likely applied for those jobs with the full understanding that the environment was not smoke-free or were they somehow duped and then stuck there, possibly for years, with no other employment options?

If you support a smoking ban on establishments just because they open the doors to the public (who can choose or not choose to go there) do you also support a ban on smoking at private parties, in houses or other dwellings where more than the smoker may be present, in cars so long as more than one person is in it? What about exhaust fumes at drive through restaurants? What about exhaust fumes on I-69 during rush hour? Parking garages? What about standing too close to a bonfire? Or a grill?

There is a great line about “politics is the art of the possible” but I take that to mean that politics is how far one can get the opponent to budge on their principles. With luck, the opponent might not even have any core beliefs or principles and that makes the job ever easier. They will sway in the wind doing whatever is popular, what they are told to do or what is best for their future political career (Maybe like Ben Hunter, District 21? [note: he claims to be a small government conservative but after voting for a recent tax increase (proposal 285), voting to limit free speech and voluntary charitable contributions (237), voting to transfer public money to private organizations (18, 117)… he’s not fooling some of us]).

Even politicians who think they are doing the right thing because their constituents (or some vocal ones) are for something often fail to consider whether they are having to reduce the rights or freedoms of others . Is this not what our Republic and the ‘rule of law’ is intended to provide protection from? Specifically, the law is supposed to protect our rights, our lives and our property not to undermine them. This is in contrast to ‘pure democracy’ where majority rules and if 6 (or even 9) out of 10 people decide they want to take away your rights, your life or your property they can do so? That is called ‘tyranny of the majority’ or ‘tyranny of the masses’.

This time, one of the excuses is ‘economic development’. That if the city government bans smoking in all the bars, more organizations will hold their conventions here and buy services from the (inappropriately government owned and operated) convention industry. There is always the possibility that this could just be the latest excuse from the ICVA (Indianapolis Convention and Visitors Association) sales department? I’m not saying it is, but I know how sales folks come up with excuses and can see somebody saying that.

Let us not forget that nobody seemed real concerned that the hotel tax increase the City Council passed through a few months ago made it basically one of the highest taxes in the nation (from 9% to 10% in the last go around but from around 5% to 9% in the past few years prior. I bet food and beverage taxes like the extra 2% to subsidize a monopoly sports team gets figured in too). It was sad to not hear councilors ask questions of the convention center folks like, “how much MORE business could you bring if we figured out how to lower the tax instead of increasing it?”

Oddly, the argument that if we had casinos we might attract more convention business probably wouldn’t play well, but let’s make that argument now. There is probably a reason why Las Vegas is one of the top convention spots. Personally, I think weather and scenery might have a boat load to do with popularity of the top 20 or 25 locations too. But, never let intuition, logic or facts get in the way of an elected government busy-body with an agenda and ambition.

The ban debate, combined with the recent fervor over panhandlers makes one wonder if the City Council is trying to ‘shine up’ the city a bit - to sanitize it so we can make pretend like we’re the Disney World of the convention industry? The problem is, of course, we don’t have a Disney World, we don’t have Casinos, we don’t have awesome weather most of the year, no mountains and no ocean. Great city, you bet’cha but let’s not have false illusions about our drawing power.

Having government trying to shoehorn our city into being tops in the convention business is just economic intervention of the kind where poor and middle class people get taxed so that government officials can flail about trying to centrally plan the economy and engage in economic adventurism without having the guts to do it privately with their own money at risk. What’s interesting, is there is massive competition because half the cities in the country it seems decided to try and enhance their attraction to conventioneers and built out space (my guess is space has been built out faster than the convention business has grown).

Instead, why not just cut the crap, keep tax rates and regulation as low as possible and actually attract business and industry? That might bring higher paying jobs than just hospitality ones too. One has to think we’d end up with a more diverse and resilient business environment as a result. Just create the right environment for things to grow and they will.

UPDATE: some of the discussion is about companies supposedly having decided not to relocate to Indianapolis because we don't have a blanket smoking ban and that affects their cost to provide healthcare. In that case, I suppose we should ban Twinkies and soda pop to help reduce the obesity problem, thus lowering healthcare costs? If some big-government statist doesn't want to move a company here because our politicians aren't all up in everybody's private business, that seems just fine to me.

Please Watch These

2009-08-29T13:14:00.002-04:00

I know he takes some criticism and sometimes seems inconsistent; but, he is pretty much the only guy saying the things that need to be said. You would think self-avowed "Communists" being appointed to positions of power in government would make newspaper headlines, heck that should be the lead story, but the mainstream media is far too cozy with government, fears losing "access" to celebrity politicians and their credibility, importance and necessity suffer as a result.

Health Care Reform IS Important

2009-08-28T07:42:00.008-04:00

In the current debate over health care reform I believe both of the typical sides (left/right, liberal/conservative, statist/statist-lite) are completely missing the mark.

Wednesday night, at the Indianapolis North Side Libertarian MeetUp, I heard the story of a young man the other night who said that repair of his broken arm cost around $4,500. He said when he went to the emergency room they couldn't tell him what treatment would cost. Interestingly, I also was recently looking at a procedure and the surgeon had no idea what the total cost would be, he couldn't tell me. Huh?

Anyway, broken arm guy ended up at a med check place and after some questioning indicated that, including getting a couple of different casts over the healing cycle, he spent no more than 3 or 4 hours with an actual physician and did not require anesthesia.

Let's put this in perspective of other vocations.

A well paid Telecommunications or IT Consultant might make $120 to $220 an hour depending on what they are doing and whether it is 'after hours' work. It would not be unusual for a lawyer to charge $200, $230 or for an experienced partner or specialist (but perhaps not Johnny Cochran or Mark Garagos) up in the $300 or $400 an hour range. So, let's just use $250 an hour as a fair figure.

Four hours of time = $1,000 + materials (orthopedic cast, an x-ray).

So, maybe, worst case this should have cost less than $1,500 and maybe very close to $1,000 even ... CERTAINLY not $4,500.

Now, we know that since Medicare/Medicaid underpay physicians for services so much that it drives up costs on the rest of us by at least fifteen percent and potentially up to one third and that over reliance on "prepaid healthcare" separates consumers from the actual cost of each unit use of services. We also know that a high default rate on (far too high) medical expenses shifts the burden of those bills to those who do not default. We also know that the AMA has leveraged a lot of government protectionism of physician services into the marketplace which limits supply, specialization, innovation and other things that could drive changes in the industry or increase the supply of doctors.

So, when we talk about health care "reform" can we please talk about it outside the scope of just having somebody else (like the government) pay for everything and instead focus on why it costs $7,000 to lay in a hospital bed for two days with a kidney stone (arguably not a good use of the bed) or $4,000 to put a cast on a broken arm? How about $6,000 for an out patient procedure to fix an umbilical hernia? I'll bet, physicians or hospitals who declined to accept insurance or government payments for services could easily drop their costs down to $2,000 or $3,000 for the stone (including the MRI and the IV bags of fluid) and $1,000 or less for the arm.

The point is, libertarians and conservatives are not opposed to health care "reform". But, as is typical in arguments with more left leaning big government folks we just have a much better grasp of the root of the problem and the economics of it rather than just not caring and begging for our woefully inept government to come sweep the problem under the rug.

The cost problem in health care must get resolved before any kind of dialog on how to cover the 8.6 to 12.5 million chronically uninsured people is addressed.

The Government Can

2009-08-28T07:36:00.004-04:00

"The government takes, everything we make
They're power hungry and malicious
Their economics are fictitious
Soon we'll have to eat our dishes..."

Will Indianapolis Vote To Stifle Free Speech Tonight?

2009-08-10T12:53:00.005-04:00

It is very possible that the really bad anti-panhandling proposal the Indianapolis City County Council has under consideration will get called back for a vote tonight. I understand that a lot of people would like the panhandlers to go away, a majority in fact, but there are some better ways to approach this problem. At minimum this proposal needs to be pulled back and redone to focus on the intended problem. As it is now, it's like spraying the hose when an eye dropper was needed.

Unless, of course, they really intend to criminalize people like this:

This gentlemen, is my profound conviction: I believe we are at this moment sleeping on a volcano.

2009-08-07T14:07:00.009-04:00

The political dialogue in America is starting to get riotous. But to highlight the justness of those opposing ever larger government, consider the following:

You must first understand that people have a natural right to their life, property and freedom and that this is regardless of the protection of any formal legal framework ... these are inherent rights that you have as a human being. And that no action or inaction on the part of one person should create a liability on the part of any other unless they have voluntarily contracted to be responsible. For example, if my neighbor falls off the roof of his house and breaks his arm, what part of his medical bill should I be forced to pay for? If I am in a car accident and in a wheelchair for life, what part of my lifetime care should YOU be now FORCED to pay for? Would it be okay if I came to your house with a gun and forcibly demanded or took the money? Is it okay if I get someone else to do it on my behalf? Is it okay if they have a badge when they do it?

In any group of ten people, not even six (a majority) or nine has the right to take away any other's life, property or freedom except as just compensation for damages created by someone first violating one's rights. (ie: you can't take somebody's property away except as compensation for some harm they have first done to you and even then only with due process of law). So, even if you mean to do great things with someone else's money, it gives you no right to forcibly extract it from them (taxes, for example, are government force: threat of confiscation of your property, threat of violence, threat of destruction of your life, career, reputation, family or revocation of your freedom.)

The Health Care debate is bringing thousands of people out of the wood work to fight back against ever encroaching government control of our lives and our economy. Most people don't know the difference between Health Insurance or "prepaid Healthcare". Health insurance is typically intended for those things that might happen just like auto insurance is in case you have an accident. Auto insurance doesn't cover keeping the car operating well, replacing the tires or changing the oil. Nor can you get auto insurance to cover an accident AFTER you've had the accident (that is a pre-existing condition).

Prepaid healthcare is just that. You're prepaying ahead of time (generally as part of a collective group who have volunteered to participate in a plan) for your doctor visits, shots, prescriptions, eye glasses or whatever else. A third party typically administers the program and that third party has their own needs to pay staff, have computer systems and offices and earn a profit. Thus, you're paying somebody else to 'take the bet' that you'll, on average, spend less in health care than you are paying them to cover on your behalf.

Very few know the tax preferences to employers, that Democrats regularly and routinely have voted down giving tax incentives for medical savings accounts to citizens or that Congress actually mandated HMOs in the 1970s. Few know that Democrats have blocked attempts for years to increase competition for health insurance which would have lowered costs. Few consider the employer provided health coverage was at one time a "benefit" used to lure the best talent to such employer and the practice generally spread, via the free market competition for labor resources, to the point where now everyone expects somebody else to pick up and cover their medical bills.

Few understand that government provided healthcare currently doesn't pay market rates and this transfers the shortfall and additional administrative expense to the rest of us. Or that when there is less money to be made as a doctor or in inventing some new life saving drug, there will, indeed, be fewer of them to help us. Senator Jim Demint recently commented that this cost transfer increases everyone's health care costs by as much as 33%.

This issue is very complex and demands an understanding of history, technological advance, the regulatory environment, economics and human nature. I trust very few of our elected popularity contest winners, who are constantly besieged by lobbyists, special interests or the "rationally greedy" (as my friend Matt Nettleton recently pointed out) to be educated and principled enough to properly put all of these things in perspective. This is not because they are unintelligent; but, perhaps more so because a main reason for keeping government small and unobtrusive is that the free market always works better at absorbing and responding to these things than any one individual could ever possibly orchestrate from on high. Central planning doesn't work, just ask the U.S.S.R ... oh, you can't now. It is unfair to expect our politicians to be 'omniscient experts in everything' and able to foresee and correct for all unintended consequences.

The two things that have skyrocketed in cost over the past few decades are education and health care. Both things that government is deeply involved in not only via policy, but via subsidy. Do you really think a college education could cost what it does today if the government didn't subsidize people mortgaging their future with low interest, guaranteed loans? Do we really think government complexity, regulation and massive reliance on third-party payers has lowered the cost?

My initial thought in going down this path was this. Those who do not wish their rights taken away by out of control government and its elected, appointed or 'hired bureaucrat' representatives are starting to stir, and I am reminded of this great excerpt from a speech given by Alexis De Tocqueville in 1848.

...I am told that there is no danger because there are no riots; I am told that, because there is no visible disorder on the surface of society, there is no revolution at hand.

Gentlemen, permit me to say that I believe you are deceiving yourselves. True, there is no actual disorder; but it has entered deeply into men's minds. See what is passing in the breast of the working classes, who, I grant are at present quiet. No doubt they are not disturbed by political passion, properly so-called, to the same extent that they have been; but can you not see that their passions, instead of political, have become social? Do you not see that there are gradually forming in their breasts opinions and ideas which are destined not only to upset society itself, until it totters upon the foundations on which it rests to-day? Do you not listen to what they say to themselves each day? Do you not hear them repeating unceasingly that all that is above them is incapable and unworthy of governing them ... And do you not realize that when such opinions take root, when they spread in an almost universal manner, when they sink deeply into the masses, they are bound to bring with them sooner or later, I know not when nor how, a most formidable revolution?

This, gentlemen, is my profound conviction: I believe that we are at this moment sleeping on a volcano. I am profoundly convinced of it.

------

as an addendum - please see the following link to see an example of the increasing tensions:

http://hoosieraccess.com/blog/2009/08/07/seiu-thugs-attack-black-conservative/

Republican Leadership in Marion County Continue To Destroy Their Own Party

2009-07-25T04:24:00.017-04:00

I wish I could say I was shocked by the dismissal of two Marion County Ward Chairmen today, on the heels of a major victory for honesty, transparency and conservative ideals. Two Ward Chairs, outspoken supporters of newly selected State Senator Scott Schneider were dismissed Friday, at least one of them over some partially trumped up accusations. Even worse, the person who supposedly did the deed is an attorney that lives in HAMILTON COUNTY and isn’t even a Marion County resident but seems to somehow have far too much influence. Marion County folks should resent his influence if the county isn't good enough for him to live here.

The bottom line is that the Marion County Party leadership, which this past week not only suffered rumors that payroll checks had bounced, but also suffered a major blow when their chosen one, which they hoped to anoint as Theresa Lubbers successor, failed to overcome the more independent and ideologically conscious Senate District 30 Precinct Committeemen.

Unfortunately, one of those Ward Chairman was one of the Republican Party of Marion County’s (and of Indiana’s) hardest workers and strongest advocates, Elizabeth Karlson. The party even went so far as to accuse her of trying to recruit Republicans to switch to the Libertarian Party … SERIOUSLY? Are these guys for real? Are they REALLY that clueless and out of touch? Probably not, the bottom line is they needed a better excuse than, “You are more honest, more ethical, more ideologically grounded than we are, so being complete tools, we need someone to make an example of because we lost and we have to do something to pretend we are real men.”

Make no mistake, they are sore losers after not being able to place one of their law firm buddies, a City Councilor and seemingly nice guy that I hope can be saved from becoming another special interest controlled puppet, into the State Senate.

I can’t even begin to count the number of times Elizabeth Karlson has tried to sway me into jumping back into the Republican Party. She has even been working hard to create a home within her party for more pro-liberty members and candidates. Libertarian leaders had questioned her Republican influence at the occasional libertarian (small "l" ideological, not big "L" party) social events so it is sad, if not ironic, that the apparent bozos in her own party want to claim the opposite was happening. I suppose, maybe, they don't know the contextual difference between an ideological bent and a party label.

In striking indication of how strongly they really support free speech, intellectual honesty, integrity, independent thought and individual opinions she was criticized for daring to hold a panel of conservative (and one libertarian) bloggers at a GOP club meeting who discussed the corrupting influences in government and corporate welfare.

While they may have objected to the bloggers largely not being fans of the party leadership – the real problem is that some people can’t stand criticism and independent thought. We call them ‘dictators’ when they run countries and they do, indeed, stifle and kill dissent. Sometimes, dictators … say it again, DICTATORS … assassinate people just for having the wrong friends.

At least we know now why our government is so screwed up and we keep going farther and farther towards authoritarianism. The authoritarians start out as ideologically ungrounded party bureaucrats who are there for their own glory, not to protect the rule of law, the Constitutions or even their own party platform. Unfortunately, they do the same thing in weeding through and promoting candidates to eventually present to voters.

A credit to her party, Karlson has actively promoted Republican candidates to even her Libertarian friends. I’ll state right now that I voted for at least a couple of Republican City County Council candidates in 2007 based on feedback I sought out and got from her. She has consistently promoted the good character and intent of numerous Republican candidates, including my own State Senator, whom I personally have considerable respect for, but often hear his own party leadership does not (that darn honesty, integrity, reform, Constitutions stuff getting in the way again perhaps?).

I have stated several times in the past, as friends from Florida all the way to Indiana keep telling me, “You need to join the Republicans” (Liz being the loudest voice among them) and I have stated for the past couple of years, “The Republicans don’t want people like me. They want followers who will fall in lock-step to do whatever they are told or they want people who can help them all make partner at their law firms or otherwise cash in at taxpayer expense.”

When I ran for Congress, I remember doing a radio interview and conservative leaning local radio host, Greg Garrison, threw off his headphones as we cut to break and said, "Why don't you run as a Republican? You could win!!" ... Seriously? If the treatment of some of the most honest people I know in government, like Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, is any indication they wouldn't let me past the slating process, much less on the ballot.

Every once in a while I start to get encouraged, like the election of Senator Schneider the other day, the leadership shown on particular issues I’m fond of by Senators Delph or Walker. The fight for justice that State Treasurer Richard Mourdock undertook this year in trying to protect state pension funds from the Obama administration’s complete disregard for the rule of law. But, then…

...then I have a Monday night at the City Council Meeting (July 20) where Democrats are the ones fighting for free speech and to avoid unintended consequences of bad legislation and Republicans are voting en masse with the Democrats to transfer a million dollars of taxpayer money to private organizations. Then the leadership goes, and because of their own shortcomings, wreck vengeance on the wrong people when a truly fiscally conservative guy squeaks through their net. No wonder the electorate is frustrated and confused.

I hope that Marion County Chairman, Tom John, whom I have met personally once or twice (might write about that one day) will review the actions by his underling and reinstate both of the Ward Chairmen that were affected by this either (a) misunderstanding or (b) revenge tactic and warning for others not to think too much. It was either one or the other, you decide.

...

And, just for the record, we all know politics is a dirty, revenge ridden game. But, I naively have hope for a better tomorrow anyway.

...

Update: More on this story at Ogden on Politics

Indianapolis City County Council - Panhandlers Must Be Professionals?

2009-07-21T13:54:00.006-04:00

Last night the Indianapolis City County Council was presented with two proposals to vote on that I found of particular interest, especially given that they were to be considered in back-to-back to votes.

The first was a proposal to grant $1,000,000 (one million dollars) of taxpayer money to "the arts". When I think of arts organizations I think of people producing a product that they either need to figure out how to sell or charge money for. Tickets to the museum or symphony are good examples. I find it abhorrent that the brute force of government is so often used to pry loose money from taxpayers and private organizations can then go "panhandling" at the City Council, State House or Federal legislative chambers.

The second was a proposal that would have essentially banned holding signs or panhandling within 50 feet of an intersection (measure how, nobody was sure). The target of the bill was, indeed, panhandlers and was prompted by one Councilor who indicated a few bad interactions with panhandlers. Personally, I find them generally standing on corners, holding their signs minding their own business unless money is offered; but, I do note the many private security people who actually step out in the roadway to direct traffic for business parks, eating establishments or parking garages.

There are laws already on the books regarding panhandling in roadways, blocking or impeding traffic or pedestrians and, certainly, accosting or assaulting somebody. The point was made quite clear, largely by Council Democrats, that these laws existed but were not necessarily being enforced.

Instead of tabling the bill and trying to come to some better solution or evaluate options to strengthen the current laws or get increased enforcement, the Republicans pushed ahead. The Democrats even offered up concern about Constitutional issues regarding free speech in public places (I'm sure they would not have brought up the Constitution if this had been a "right to self defense" issue). Fortunately, the measure narrowly failed 14 to 12 (with 3 councilors not in attendance - it otherwise would have likely passed).

It will likely be brought up again at the next meeting and I'm hoping at least one of the Republicans will realize how wrong this is and what kind of unintended consequences there could be. Oddly, NONE of them seemed very concerned about unintended consequences. Seriously, what is the hurry? If you're going to do something, do the right thing properly not just rush through a bad proposal.

Bringing a handful of chuckles from the crowd, Councilor Pfisterer actually commented, "This is not a restriction on free speech, this is a restriction on where you can have it." Huh? I guess everyone eventually has a "I voted for it, before I voted against it" moment.

At the end of the day two core principles were under assault. The are as follows and politicians need to learn and understand these concepts:

(1) People have a natural right to their property. Stealing their property to transfer it to private organizations that should be privately funded is inappropriate. If one of those people mugged someone in the street to subsidize museum tickets or something it would be a crime, it should also be a crime when legislators do it their behalf just because they put on a suit and came begging. The "good intentions" or perceived improvements to livability in the community do not matter, if those things are legitimate and important than private donors should give to the cause and/or legislators should promote the idea and help them raise funds for such purpose without using taxpayer money.

As Bastiat wrote, once the government (the Law) is used as a tool to transfer from one group to another unjustly, it opens the doors to it being a free for all. You lose all moral authority to challenge other similar arrangements. I'll give legislators a pass for roads, police and fire protection but not on private arts organizations, government operating what should be private businesses (like stadiums and convention centers) or subsidizing sports teams.

(2) People have a natural and Constitutional right to free speech. Your rights exist to the extent that you do not harm or violate the rights of others. Just because a couple of bozos were "unprofessional panhandlers" doesn't mean you can just set Freedom of Speech aside and ban people from standing roadside or on a corner with a sign. This is ill considered legislation and without meaning to, comes across like jack-booted thugs trying to recklessly stomp out something just because they are annoyed by others' behavior. Personally, I'm annoyed by the "elected class" more than anything these days.

Besides. The panhandlers downtown are great when I need parking meter change. Give 'em a dollar and ask for 75 cents back and good for an hour.

COPY OF THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF MARION COUNTY PRESS RELEASE ON THESE ITEMS IS BELOW:

INDIANAPOLIS, IN - In back to back votes, a majority of Council Republicans voted to transfer $1 million of taxpayer money to private "arts organizations" and then immediately moved to restrict the freedom of speech of panhandlers who may be passively seeking VOLUNTARY contributions.

Tim Maguire, Chairman of the Libertarian Party of Marion County said "There are already significant laws on the books regarding panhandling that perhaps just need better enforcement, but this fell on deaf ears as Republicans worked to rob taxpayers on behalf of private arts organizations and then, immediately following, tried to tell poor people they can't even hold a sign asking for money."

"We had a room full of people seeking to panhandle by using the force and power of government to extract money from citizens while, at the same time, a motion to restrict those who might seek voluntary contributions by denying them their rights to free speech was next on the agenda." said Sean Shepard, Communications Director for the Libertarian Party of Marion County.

"We are proud of Councilor Coleman, the sole Libertarian on the council, for voting against both of these terrible proposals." Maguire added.

Laws against standing in traffic or otherwise impeding the progress of traffic or pedestrians already exist. New laws against passively holding signs will accomplish nothing other than to restrict unpopular speech.

Councilor Coleman (L) noted during debate that it is not reasonable or appropriate to try and ban every little thing that annoys people.

Maguire also noted that, "Perhaps the Council should make laws against solicitations in the City-County Council chambers so private companies and organizations don't come begging for tax money."

2009-07-06T12:12:00.002-04:00

My post on Wednesday, June 10 regarding the coming explosion in the U.S. Government's cost of borrowing now has company in this article from the UK's Daily Telegraph.

From the article:

In a 2003 paper, Thomas Laubach, the US Federal Reserve’s senior economist, calculated the impact on long-term interest rates of rising fiscal deficits and soaring national debt. Applying his assumptions to the recent spike in the US fiscal deficit and national debt, long-term interests rates will double from their current 3.5pc.
The impact would be devastating by making it punitively expensive to finance national borrowings and leading to what Tim Congdon, founder of Lombard Street Research, called a “debt explosion”.

Voters and the Executive Branch

2009-06-11T17:17:00.003-04:00

A lot of people were amused by the Obama Administration selecting someone with absolutely no experience in the automobile industry to run General (Government) Motors.

But, it occurred to me that it's not like voters really check the qualifications, knowledge or experience of the people they vote for... not really, anyway. Most of them just pick the person their preferred "club" (political party) has promoted up the chain and put in front of their nose on the ballot. Most of these people can't tell you about the 1953 Iranian Coup, the 1959 Iraq Coup Attempt, the history of the income tax or Federal Reserve, the difference between Keynesian, Chicago and Austrian schools/theories of economics or what the REAL purpose of "The Law" is supposed to be.

So, if the voters can elect people to Congress who know nothing about (a) the rule of law, (b) the Constitution, (c) economics or (d) history then why can't the President's bozos put some schmo in charge of GM that doesn't know a thing about cars? Not saying I agree, but, just a thought.

As Government Debt Increases, Interest Rates Will Rise, Dollar Will Fall

2009-06-10T15:48:00.002-04:00

(cross posted to the HFFT blog also)

I've been paying very close attention to the 10 year treasury bond rate since the current economic meltdown started taking hold. As the Federal Reserve began massively printing money, essentially doubling the money supply in the last four months of 2008 alone, it occurred to me (and anyone else with a casual understanding of economics) that a couple of things must happen:

(1) bond yields will need to significantly increase in order to find buyers for the increased supply and risk of U.S. treasury bonds [ie: our government's borrowings].

(2) the value of the U.S. Dollar must fall relative to more stable currencies that are expanding at a slower rate [ie: Euro is bad comparison, I suggest evaluating dollar value against a basket of world currencies]

As with many things in economics, timing is always difficult to guess and even though you know the treasury rate must increase, other actions the government may take or human beings (and the markets) reaction to conditions and such is always difficult to guess ... but the long-term outcome is undeniable.

Instead of immediately rising, treasury rates (10 year) dropped to as low as 2.08%. Of course, this happened as I incredulously told people it was going the wrong way and HAD to go to 4 or 5 percent and then probably, and potentially much, higher.

The challenge here is that as people dumped their stock market investments and moved their holdings into what are historically considered "safe" government bonds, the demand drove up the price of the bonds. Understanding that bonds trade like stocks and can increase and decrease in price which affects the net percentage income you can derive from them, this made the bond's "effective interest rate" lower. So people may have been paying $1080 for a bond that pays 3% on $1,000. Thus, another asset bubble was created by the Federal Reserve intervening in the economy.

Now, the government is having trouble finding enough buyers for the massive amount of borrowing it is doing and that is driving the price of those $1,000 bonds DOWN. So, now anyone who bought those bonds at prices at $1,000 or higher, thinking they were "safe" is sitting on bonds worth $930. What this also means is that the interest rate our government is having to pay on 10 year debt (just to use this example) is now approaching 4% and is continuing to spike. In fact, it should rise past 4% pretty easily and quickly at this point.

At the same time, the government is planning to intentionally devalue our currency so as to "buy down" the value of its debts. Unfortunately, this also "buys down" the value of your savings, essentially creating a different kind of tax, and to the extent that it increases the dollar value of your home and other assets, you ultimately get taxed on the "inflation portion" should you sell assets and derive income from such. (ie: inflation rises over a period of time by 20%, your equity investments go up 40% ... you pay taxes on the 40% increase, not the 20% "REAL" increase - another reason the Income Tax is a terrible way to extract revenue from citizens).

The long and short of this is that our government is going to have to pay increasingly higher interest rates on ever increasing debt. Remember, "...trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see..." ? Without looking it up, I believe in 2007 the U.S. Government paid around $420 billion in interest on the debt. Imagine the interest rate on that doubling while the debt increases by ever more trillions of dollars. The personal income tax brought in around $1.1 trillion that year, which means we could very quickly see every penny of income tax revenue going to nothing but the Interest on our government's debt.

And you wonder why libertarians and other fiscal conservatives keep saying government is out of control, spending is out of control and we can't afford the programs we have now, much less new ones like national health care. Even if you raised the tax rate to 100% on EVERYBODY you wouldn't be able to collect enough money in a decade to pay our current and future obligations.

Republican Liberty Caucus Set To Organize In Marion County (Indianapolis)

2009-05-27T16:59:00.005-04:00

It looks like the liberty movement is getting some traction in Marion County amongst a good group of libertarian leaning Republicans. While I officially self-identify with the Libertarian Party and worry that the RLC could continue to end up shoved in a closet and ignored except around election time when somebody wants their votes, I applaud the effort and consider several of the leaders organizing the group as amongst some of the best people I know.

I always try to be non-partisan in my approach to politics in that so long as people are fighting for the right things we should always find ways to work together. In keeping with this idea, here is information on the Marion County meeting and my thoughts on the leaders stepping up to organize it.

Marion County Republican Liberty Caucus chartering meeting
Thursday, May 28 at 6:00 PM
The Front Page Tavern
310 Massachusetts Avenue
Indianapolis, IN 46204

more information: lizkarlson@yahoo.com or lakelly@iupui.edu

If you are at all a Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan or Ron Paul (or Taft or Coolidge) style Republican or conservative and can’t bring yourself to join the Libertarian Party because you haven’t been abused enough yet [reference: Battered Voter Syndrome] then you should definitely show up with $30 (I’m sure they’ll take your check) in hand to be a charter member of the Marion County Republican Liberty Caucus.

I know that local Washington Township GOP Club President Liz Karlson and Andy Horning’s former running mate for Lt. Governor, Lisa Kelly, have been working to organize this group and should either one of them run for Chair or Vice-Chair they definitely deserve the support. Both of them are team players who are willing to reach out to other groups when common cause provides opportunity and they always take time to thank people for their efforts. Not taking your supporters, volunteers and contributors for granted is an important trait of good leadership.

If you have finally gotten tired of getting battered by the Republican Party, then I highly recommend giving the Libertarian Party your support (it’s cheaper too, only $25) by visiting www.lpin.org and getting involved. In fact, even if you haven’t gotten battered enough yet, think about how much work libertarians do arguing against and fighting against high taxes, out-of-control government programs and spending and other causes and drop a few bucks their way anyway. Whether you avail yourself of it or not, having that third option that allows you to not endorse bad candidates from the other two parties is something worth preserving.

more information on the LPIN: cspangle@lpin.org

Something to Consider - Politicians and Why Voting Isn't Working

2009-05-25T20:12:00.003-04:00

This is an excerpt from a Facebook comment I posted after someone lamented the whole "RINO" label when it comes to Republicans who aren't either (a) fiscally conservative enough or (b) theocratic enough to meet some kind of non-existence test or threshold.

I do like to remind people that some of the most supposedly fiscal conservative Republicans often still vote for hundreds of billions of dollars in out of control spending omnibus bills and that if you are a hard core religious conservative, the last thing you probably really want is the government regulating your religious practices (marriage being a religious practice) and should really work to get government out of it completely.

Always remember, you never want to grant to government any power you would not grant your worst enemy. The reasons for this should be self-evident.

Here is the excerpt though:

The fallacy in the whole discussion is that people fail to see how very few people get involved in electoral politics over any kind of ideological bent or passion for the rule of law. It is seen as a career choice, a status symbol or an opportunity to be influential and feel important. This is true of both of the major "clubs".

Those who want most badly to reign over us are typically those we should least allow to do so.

This is why I love Libertarian folks. They truly want things fixed within the confines of free market economics, the Constitution and the rule of law ... not to be in charge of others, wield power or have "status".

Overwhelmed, Burned Out And Somewhat Encouraged?

2009-04-30T10:35:00.005-04:00

Friends, neighbors and patriots -

I've been feeling a bit overwhelmed lately by so many things not the least of which is all of the bad stuff that is going on with our government and our economy. All of the sudden these past few weeks I've felt a bit burned out and not sure where to focus my thoughts and energies so please excuse as I just ramble for a bit to get some things out of my system.

One thought I've had repeatedly in light of the MIAC and DHS controversies follows. Those controversies of course were where basically anyone of the following characteristics classified as you as a potential enemy of the state to be watched closely for potential extremist tendencies:

(list includes people who are)
Anti-Abortion
Anti-Taxation
Pro-Constitution
Libertarians
Supporters of Third Parties
Supporters or Fans of Ron Paul
Supporters or Fans of Bob Barr
Supporters or Fans of Chuck Baldwin
Ex Military Personnel
[and probably more]

The MIAC situation even suggested law enforcement pay closer attention to people with bumper stickers on their cars in support of the above. Of course, I look at that list and think to myself, "8 out of 9 isn't bad."

But, the point of this is that for all of the people who were so concerned about terrorists, and who mostly still refuse to acknowledge the root causes, that they were not concerned about granting the government all kinds of power via things like the Patriot Act I have the follow questions:

(1) Does it ever occur to you that you should never, ever grant the government power that you would not want your worst enemy to have? Because, at some point (perhaps now?) your enemy will have that power that was so willingly given when the administration seemed less inclined against you.

(2) Do people ever stop to think that at some point, all of this surveillance, wire-tapping, invasions of privacy, no fly lists and other things could be used against the most pro-American, pro-Constitution patriots? Power is granted to reign in the threat of "terrorism" but how many stop to consider that someday, THEY could be the terrorist the government is worried about?

As I've stated many times in the past, I am far more afraid of Congress than I am of "terrorists". Granted, I have the benefit of living in Indiana, not in New York or L.A. but, if the migration of people out of those states is any indication, their people are increasingly feeling a need to escape their own governments and move to more tax friendly and less restrictive environs themselves.

I have been encouraged by the recent surge in activists with the "Tea Party" people. Apparently some of their leadership was concerned that "Libertarians" were against them somehow because of the comments of one person. Why do people try to assign group think to libertarians? I mean, if some Republican or Democrat goes around saying "9/11 was an inside job" I don't assume they ALL think that, even if one of their elected officials were to do so. Everyone does realize that with libertarians running things we wouldn't have had terrorist attacks on our soil, massive FED induced market bubbles and collapses (2 in a decade now folks), massive government debt and a near monopoly stranglehold on a failing education system by government? Right? People do understand this I hope.

Some thoughts on the Tea Party groups and their seemingly growing batch of awesome supporters and volunteers, many of whom seem very sharp.

(1) Remember that most libertarians who have been paying attention and active for many years are pretty much past the point of mild protest. Been there, done those, what's next? When 95% of calls to Congress are adamantly opposing things like bailouts or stimulus packages and they vote for them anyway, waving signs with eloquent speech seems to likely be just as ineffective.

(2) A lot of libertarians and even fiscal conservative Democrats are concerned about things becoming a "social conservative" movement because of a lack of a true understanding of liberty or the philosophical underpinnings. Especially when, in Indianapolis, one of the more visible pro-NeoCon voices is one of the speakers at the Tea Party and laments that, as people wave "boot out all incumbents" signs, some good ones (the Republican ones he's friends with) got tossed in the last couple of elections. Yeah, I'm sure NONE of those guys EVER voted for a large omnibus spending bill. So much for non-partisan but I think the organizers are sincere even though they will likely fall into the two-party system trap and have their eyes opened when things like slating, slating fees, campaign war chests and primaries start getting in the way of getting their candidates on the ballot. Again, we'll just have to see how things go.

(3) It was definitely odd, or maybe it was just perception, that with so many libertarians, Ron Paul supporters, Campaign for Liberty folks, the Republican Liberty Caucus, the Democrat Freedom Caucus (anyone in Indiana?), the John Birch Society and others who have well established lists of pro-liberty and pro-Constitution activists, educators and talent that those resources weren't better included in some of the Tea Party recruiting and planning. But, the fact that all of those factions exists maybe speaks more to the "divided we fail" principle and helps explain some of the lack of progress. Certainly, those groups have been warning us for years, if not decades, about the very things that are becoming crisis now. But now, it seems, being one of those issuing the warning is enough to put you on the DHS "watch list".

(4) A lot of folks are starting to realize that voting isn't working when it comes to protecting the rule of law, our country and our economy. That is exactly why we are supposed to be a Republic (rule of law) not a Democracy (rule of men [aka: mob rule]). Always remember that in a room of ten people, no six should be able to violate the rights or lives of the other four just because a majority decided so. This is a concept called "Tyranny of the Masses" or "Tyranny of the Majority".

One last thought on all of the recent "secession" talk. I've heard the word "secession" in the media and even from elected officials more in the past year than in my whole life combined. It is a fair topic for discussion and debate and just because Lincoln had ego and tax collection concerns with the South seceding doesn't mean that the States don't have that option legitimately. (and please remember the rest of the world ended slavery peacefully and not with the deaths of 640,000 people and tearing their countries apart). I mean, seriously, can you imagine the United States Government going to war with Texas or any other state that desires MORE FREEDOM instead of less?

What a mess.

This Car Caught Littering At 79th And New Augusta Road

2009-04-20T00:05:00.008-04:00

Around 5:00 PM today I snapped this vehicle speeding away from where they had stopped at the bridge over a small creek on New Augusta Road, less than a block South of 79th Street. They threw out what appeared to be some boxes and assorted trash. I hoped the picture would come out better (Treo Cameraphone - not so great) so I could get the plate number but it didn't. If I hadn't had my kids in the car I would have chased them down while trying to get the police on the line. It was so blatant, lazy and infuriating. Heck, we were right across from a school with outside trash dumpsters and next an apartment complex with the same. Of course, it's probably illegal or something to use the school's dumpster and I know the apartment complex frowns on outsiders using their trash containers, but still.

Note: they had a temporary license plate that appeared to be held on by strips of masking tape.

Could It Be True?

2009-04-01T08:02:00.003-04:00

WISH-TV Part II: The Classy Way To Tell The Story

2009-03-27T00:57:00.004-04:00

See the video at this link. A reporter with some class at WISH-TV, Rob Youngblood, shows that you can professionally cover an event, even with a slightly humorous slant, without distorting facts or taking the opportunity to embarrass any individuals.

The item in question here relates to the second of three forums established to talk about an anti-property rights group that is working to supercede people's authority and individual judgement on their own property. The first townhall was organized, and had the audience stacked, by the anti-property rights group. The second one was organized by the opposition, but instead of participating the same way the opposition did in the first, the anti-rights group decides to try and hold their own event either in protest or to compete. That didn't work out so well.

WISH-TV hit Job: Bankrupt Country, Losing Your Property and Corporate Welfare Are Funny to Jim Shella?

2009-03-26T08:51:00.014-04:00

On Wednesday, March 25 several taxpayer and property rights groups teamed up with reporters from a few of the more popular Indiana BLOGs to congregate at the Indiana State House. The event was well attended by several hundred people and there were booths staffed by unpaid volunteers that typically had to take a day off from their day job to try and help whatever cause they advocate.

The event's speakers consisted of Republicans, Libertarians and Democrats. Groups from across the state were invited to participate. Several people from the media attended and while there is probably a valid point to be made that the event over reached in its attempt to be very inclusive and address more than one issue, overall it was a good event with many concerned and well meaning people there.

Unfortunately, one of the local television stations decided to make a big joke out of the event in one of the worst and most unprofessional "hit pieces" I've ever seen done by a (formerly?) reputable news outlet. In fact, Shella did not air any interviews with the organizers or any speakers, instead choosing to cruelly showcase an unpaid volunteer organizer for one group who was not accustomed to media attention and got nervous. He also chose to use only the last few seconds of a much longer interview to ensure the substance of it was removed and then in an obvious hard cut in the middle of a sentence, make one of the Democrat speakers sound like they were against education funding. I mean it was almost as if I said, "If we're not going to properly fund education" and someone cut it to say, "we're not going to properly fund education".

Even more curious, was the blatant attempt to characterize the event as a "Libertarian event". The speakers included people from all three major parties. The booths included a couple of concerned property tax groups as well as the Republican Liberty Caucus, the Campaign for Liberty (mostly Republican volunteers but essentially a non-partisan group) and the people promoting the FairTax (which has 50+ co-sponsors in Congress). I guess because the invited host who introduced the various speakers is a Libertarian and maybe because one of the eight or so booths at the event included one for the Libertarian Party that gave WISH-TV creative license to write a piece of fiction and pass it off as news?

And as the above mentioned invited host of the event, I may be biased but let us just say:

A country with $60 trillion in obligations that is now impossible to pay, well Jim Shella, that's not funny.

Mr. Arnold from Delaware County who had his property taxes jump over $3,000 in one year, I'm sure he appreciates you finding humor in him being given an opportunity speak.

People being threatened with having their family's multi-generational property taken to give to the Indianapolis Motor Speedway or other private development projects, yeah, really glad you think that is funny.

People who don't agree with taxpayers being asked to FURTHER SUBSIDIZE sports team season ticket holders to the tune of $1,200 a seat. Yep, Jim Shella, taxing poor people to help pay for billionaire's money losing hobbies ... that one is always a knee-slapper isn't it? Laugh it up.

So instead of focusing on the issues and the concerns of these people, one media outlet decided to try and do a hit job on, I guess, libertarians? Huh? Or was it just an attempt by WISH-TV to tell taxpayers and common citizens who want to vent their frustrations with government to sit down, shut up and take it?

Now, make no mistake, in Indianapolis the local establishment Republicans and the local media perhaps have some things to worry about. For starters, the Republicans here just had one of their elected City Councilors switch to the Libertarian Party after a little over a year in office. This switch was partially brought on by Republican willingness to support, if not their outright promotion of, increasing benefits for the largest welfare recipients in the city, the Indiana Pacers and the Indianapolis Colts as well as unwillingness to address a major conflict of interest on the Capital Improvement Board.

Combine that with the fact that the Libertarian Party of Indiana, has pretty much offered up, regardless of ideology, some of the sharpest, most thoughtful candidates for office in the past several elections and that has led to increasing vote totals for them.

The local newspaper continues to struggle, but overall, several of the local BLOG sites (Advance Indiana, Ogden on Politics, Indiana Barrister) have done more insightful, investigative style reporting and fact finding than I have rarely (if ever) seen from the local newspaper or mainstream media outlets. So, what was the purpose of this blatant disregard for journalistic integrity? I mean, really, to focus their whole segment on a couple of people manning information booths, not the organizers or speakers? I mean, perhaps as some kind of sophomore prank that ultimately just undermines the credibility of the media.

Of course, to make things worse, pro-tax, pro-property confiscation leftists like Thomas Cook at Blue Indiana picked up the story and promoted the fiction. Of course, Thomas is on record as admitting that personal attacks are more fun than journalistic integrity. Hey, we were all young and silly once I suppose. I'm glad a staunch Democrat like Thomas finds government taking money from poor people to give it to sports teams is funny.

Here is what one attendee wrote about the event:

As hard as this may be to comprehend, the speakers actually believed what they were saying. This was not politics as usual, but real human beings, taxpayers no less, who want a change to come about before it’s too late. Libertarians, Republicans, and Democrats were all there as this was not about party lines but about true change.

Believe it or not, we made a little noise out in the crowd as different speakers brought up issues that affect us all. While on the surface some of the issues only relate to Indianapolis, such as the Speedway Redevelopment Commission and the Capital Improvement Board, they are really the same thing we all have in our local communities but with different names and on different scales.

We wonder why our country is going down the tubes, but when the media isn't mature enough to take the issues seriously, especially if someone isn't an establishment insider politician or a well-paid, well-spoken lobbyist than the checks on government must come from the people.

Although it's not necessarily the truth, it is nostalgic to think of past days when reporters were the guardians of truth and protectors of freedom rooting out back room secret deals and investigating wrong doing. Even early American and colonial newspapers were used as political tools to promote an agenda so the question of the day is, whose "agenda" was Jim Shella serving with the piece of trash he aired yesterday?

--------

This is a link to WISH-TV's contact information in case anyone wishes to contact them regarding their blatant mocking of average citizens trying to be heard.

UPDATE: Link to Indianapolis Star coverage.

More coverage in a post at http://www.libertyfile.com/IN/

--------

Don't forget your daily dose of national news and information that is affecting liberty and the economy. Visit The Liberty File.

Political Games People Play And A Quick Ethics Note

2009-03-14T02:35:00.010-04:00

For at least the past six Presidents of the Indianapolis City County Council, it has been tradition for the Council Minority Leader to read any requested recognitions of deceased persons and conduct the adjournment of the Council proceedings. By council rules it is the decision of the Council President to decide who does this task. As a matter of courtesy, it has traditionally been extended to the minority party.

I don't know all of the details, but this past year the Council Vice-President, Ryan Vaughn (R), apparently went to Council President Bob Cockrum (R) and made a request to be allowed that privilege and while nobody can know for certain, since we're dealing in politics and it can be an unpleasant game, it was presumably to either (a) increase Councilor Vaughn's visibility for future political career ladder climbing or (b) intentionally diminish opportunities for the Democrat Minority Leader, Councilor Joanne Sanders, to speak in one of the few formal duties traditionally done by the minority party. Let's assume both and understand that neither concept is new or shocking to politics.

Regardless, well before his switch to the Libertarian Party, Councilor Ed Coleman (L) saw the political gamesmanship and took exception to what he perceived as a show of disrespect for the minority party and treatment that he feared could all too easily just be reciprocated after 2011, when it is likely the council could shift back to the Democrats. So, he introduced a proposal (#63) that would have permanently codified who was responsible for the task. While it's a fair argument that this proposal was one that perhaps more restricted than liberated, it did make a point and ensure there was some debate on what was going on.

I attended the committee meeting where the measure was voted down on a strict party line vote (4-3) with Republicans opposing. What struck me was that Councilor Coleman was very direct that he felt there was a bit of political gamesmanship going on. Laughably, the chair of the committee, Councilor Lutz (R) made some awkward and lame attempt to admonish Coleman for comments against the Council President. Coleman never said it had anything to do with the Council President, just that there were some political games going on. In fact, I don't think Coleman was thinking of Councilor Cockrum at all when he made that statement. And, seriously, Lutz was ridiculous admonishing somebody who merely stated that in a political body, there were some politics going on! But, in fairness, lots of ridiculous things happen in politics, we sometimes call them Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy, John McCain, Pete Stark or, for Indiana folks, Pat Bauer (clearly no relation to Jack).

On a much more serious note. The committee also reviewed some ethics proposal that I think would easily be gotten around just by making sure lobbyists are all "salespeople". At least that was my initial impression of what appears to be a loophole big enough to drive a truck through. Of course, it didn't appear to me that this ethics reform would do anything to stop, oh, maybe partners at big law firms that do business with Indianapolis's sports team from sitting on the boards that negotiate the deals with those teams or oversee management of sports facilities. Perhaps we should fix THAT problem first? In fact, I think that's a grand idea.

---
If you're wanting to keep up on news related to government encroachment of our freedoms or the continued erosion of our economy please consider visiting The Liberty File and visiting every day or subscribing to the RSS Feed!

Forgot How To Make The Bomb? Just Ask China.

2009-03-11T01:46:00.006-04:00

In speaking with my good friend Travis Cross recently the topic of the United States forgetting how to make a material related to nuclear weapons came up.

To quote the Fox News article:

The Department of Defense and the National Nuclear Security Administration had to wait more than a year to refurbish aging nuclear warheads — partly because they had forgotten how to make a crucial component, a government report states.

Regarding a classified material codenamed "Fogbank," a Government Accountability Office report released this month states that "NNSA had lost knowledge of how to manufacture the material because it had kept few records of the process when the material was made in the 1980s and almost all staff with expertise on production had retired or left the agency."

So the effort to refurbish and upgrade W76 warheads, which top the U.S. Navy's (and the British Royal Navy's) submarine-launched Trident missiles, had to be put on hold while experts scoured old records and finally figured out how to manufacture the stuff once again.

Travis humorously asked, "Couldn't we just ask the Chinese?"

After all, remember this scandal?

A scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory has provided information that seriously contradicts Clinton administration claims that nuclear secrets obtained by China were solely the result of espionage during the late 1980's.

It's also been speculated that since the material is believed to be either very toxic or very hazardous to make, subjecting the government to potential lawsuits from anyone exposed to it, they may have "intentionally misplaced" the formula to minimize the likelihood of it being used against them or maybe even just declassified in a trial.

So, there we go. Next time we have difficulty remembering how to build our weapons, we can just ask the foreign nations that we've sold the secrets to or just ask their spies for our plans back.

---
If you're wanting to keep up on news related to government encroachment of our freedoms or the continued erosion of our economy please consider visiting The Liberty File and visiting every day or subscribing to the RSS Feed!

South Dakota Passes HCR 1013 - 10th Amendment "Sovereignty" Resolution - Goes To Governor

2009-03-09T23:19:00.007-04:00

On March 2 the South Dakota State House introduced what is now commonly referred to a "Sovereignty Resolution" whereby, if passed, a state would take whatever action or notification are spelled out in the resolution to reassert 10th Amendment States Rights.

Numerous states have had these resolutions introduced and Oklahoma has passed, I believe, a different version in each of their State Legislative Bodies but it appears that South Dakota has, in very short order, passed a resolution that now may just need the Governor's signature. Their House passed the resolution on March 3 by a vote of 51 to 18 and on March 5 it looks like their Senate voted 20 to 14 to concur.

Text of the Resolution follows:

HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 1013
         A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION,  Reasserting sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over certain powers and serving notice to the federal government to cease and desist certain mandates.
     WHEREAS,  the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:
     "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."; and
     WHEREAS,  the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more and the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and
     WHEREAS,  today, in 2009, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government and many federal mandates are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and
     WHEREAS,  the United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and
     WHEREAS,  any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America, or Judicial Order by the judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of the United States of America by the Constitution of the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of any of the several states or their citizens constitutes a nullification of the Constitution of the United States of America by the government of the United States of America; and
     WHEREAS,  a number of proposals from previous administrations and some now pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States:
     NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,  by the House of Representatives of the Eighty-fourth Legislature of the State of South Dakota, the Senate concurring therein, that the State of South Dakota hereby reasserts sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States; and
     BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,  that all compulsory federal legislation that directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed; and
     BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,  that this concurrent resolution serve as Notice and Demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.

---
If you're wanting to keep up on news related to government encroachment of our freedoms or the continued erosion of our economy please consider visiting The Liberty File and visiting every day or subscribing to the RSS Feed!

How To Fix The American Economy And The Dimes Worth of Difference

2009-03-08T12:01:00.010-04:00

I bristle every time I hear someone try and blame the current economic crisis completely on the woeful eight years of the Bush Administration. As someone who has consistently desired reductions in government spending and decreases in our deficits, I am stunned and saddened by the spending we now see, the deficits that are being incurred and debt that our children and grandchildren will never be able to pay without significant reductions in government and confiscatory taxes.

The following is an annotated and cleaned up excerpt from a comment I posted in response to an Obama supporter pinning all the blame on Bush. I'm not a supporter or fan of either man and when you hear libertarians in particular talk about there just not being much difference between MOST Democrats and Republicans, the following highlights some of the proof there.

Excerpt from Indiana Barrister, Abdul Hakim-Shabazz's Blog. Abdul is the host of Abdul in the Morning, an Indianapolis based morning talk show that generally does an excellent job covering local and state politics. The show is currently found on WXNT - Newstalk 1430AM from 6 until 9 AM Eastern and is followed by the Glenn Beck program.

“Bush Led Recession” is an intellectual dishonesty. Don’t get me wrong, he was woefully bad and could have helped avoid this but, accelerated by his big government spending and lack of proper attention to economic matters, the clock ran out on his watch.

The only purpose of suggesting Bush caused it is to be a willing tool of one political party over another rather than truly evaluate the economic circumstances and policies going back close to 100 years.

It is about a half hour conversation to go through all of the causes and issues at a very high level. The solutions are simple, but politically unrealistic under the ‘one party system’.

Steps:
(1) Massive cuts in government spending
(2) Cut taxes
(3) Where taxes are necessary tax consumption not productivity
(4) Allow bad debt to be liquidated
(5) Allow distressed assets to fail and be reborn into productive ones
(6) Phase out the Federal Reserve
(7) Restore “sound money”
(8) Phase out SS/Medicare/Medicaid using ‘opt outs’ ‘buy outs’ and attrition
(9) Dismantle GSEs (Government Sponsored Entities)
(10) Start ‘educating’ our children instead of ‘graduating’ them.

These items would eliminate market distortions, restore economic risk to private entities instead of public, increase confidence in our currency, balance our budget, build barriers to excessive taxation, allow economic resources to be put back to productive use, reduce inflation, reduce interest rates and restore solvency to the government.

Currently, the United States Government owes so much money that if we could tax the entire world’s productivity at 100% for an entire year, it would not cover the tab. Taxing the entire U.S. at 100% for nine or ten years wouldn’t do it. Selling everything our entire country and our people own … still can’t pay it.

The seeds were planted and watered all along the way from Wilson, Hoover and FDR up through Eisenhower, LBJ, Reagan, Bush (41), Clinton and Bush (43). I fear Obama is just pouring gasoline on the fire.

To prove the "dimes worth of difference" claim let's look at each of the items listed above:

(1) Massive cuts in government spending

Bush grew government spending in eight years from under $1.9 trillion to over $3.1 trillion (excluding off budget war costs). Fiscal Conservatives voting for Bush were betrayed like no other. Obama continues to grow government spending (recently proposing $3.6 trillion budget) as well under the guise of "stimulus" but that is just cover to finally spend money where they want to and serve their political interests.

(2) Cut taxes

Eliminating the Personal Income Tax completely would take government spending back to around year 2000 levels depending on who's numbers are used. Tweaking or bouncing from 35% to 39.6% is an argument over semantics, not whether it is right to take anything at all. Taking a single dime from one American to send to a U.N. program that pays for forced population control abortions in China is theft and to anyone of strong religious convictions reaches a whole other level of crime against them. Bush did correctly reduce the capital gains and estate taxes and modestly cut taxes for everybody. Obama appears prepared to increase taxes only on those who actually create the wealth in the country. Remember, someone like Bill Gates got rich by creating many, many thousands of jobs and even whole industries around him. He did not 'plunder it'. (I know, Mac and Open Source folks are groaning right now - I feel your pain - hurrah for Ubuntu!).

(3) Where taxes are necessary tax consumption not productivity

You get more of what you subsidize, less of what you tax. Income taxes tax productivity instead of spending or consumption. This creates a disincentive to savings and investment. Our savings rate, until very recently as people pulled back their purchasing, has been negligible and sometimes negative. Taxes on income allow the government steal your money, via withholding, before you ever get it while if consumption was taxed, if the rate got too high, people could voice their opinion by closing their wallet [Hamilton - Federalist #21]. While my ultimate choice would be to eliminate as many taxes as possible, I do favor legislation like HR 25, The FairTax Act, over most other forms of tax tweaking and tax reform that are presently talked about and immediately viable.

While last session around 74 members of Congress supported this legislation by putting their name on it, neither Bush nor Obama support this much needed type of tax reform. The benefits of the FairTax over the Flat Tax will be the subject of an upcoming post. I used to favor the Flat Tax over the FairTax until I really evaluated both plans.

(4) Allow bad debt to be liquidated

Both Presidents have supported the idea of direct government intervention to bail out failing financial institutions. This is a whole other discussion to be had, but why not let these organizations fail and let the healthier, better managed ones pick up the pieces and prosper?

(5) Allow distressed assets to fail and be reborn into productive ones

If GM goes out of business tomorrow there is still a demand for the quantity of cars that they normally would sell, the demand for cars and need for people to make them would not go down. GM and Chrysler have gotten beat by better competitors. This is how capitalism works via a concept called "creative destruction". Make a better mousetrap and you can make money by putting the maker of the inferior mousetrap out of business, to compete he must sell his product for less than yours or come up with an ever better product than you have invented. A third option, frequently used, is to petition the government to ban, restrict, regulate or tax your better invention.

If the American owned manufacturers are allowed to go out of business, their factories, parts, inventories, buildings, patents, copyrights, trademarks and brand names do not disappear into thin air. Yes, it would be painful, but other organizations will buy up those assets and, using (we hope) better management, put them to more capable and productive use in the economy. Remember, the other car makers are going to need more employees, more factories and more of everything else in order to meet the demand for cars currently met by the failing organizations.

Neither President appears to support this option although the patience with GM does seem to be wearing thin.

(6) Phase out the Federal Reserve

The Federal Reserve is a privately owned banking cartel that Congress has unconstitutionally delegated the power of money creation to (the Constitution 'delegates' this to Congress already). Wise men throughout history have repelled the idea of central banks (President Jackson dismantled our first one) but private banking interests prevailed in 1913 to establish the current system (and the income tax to pay them interest). I highly recommend this 40 minute YouTube documentary on Money, Banking and the Federal Reserve. Watch it, and if it doesn't make you mad watch it again.

The FED allows for interventions in the monetary system that are generally harmful, not beneficial. Remember, it was founded under the promise that we would never have another recession; however, within 20 years we were in the middle of the worst one our country has ever experienced to date.

Neither Bush nor Obama are advocating for an elimination, reform or even an audit of this system. Congressman Ron Paul has introduced legislation to at least audit the Federal Reserve and has picked up over a dozen co-sponsors including Rep. Dan Burton of Indiana (R). Some Democrats have even signed on.

(7) Restore “sound money”

Our money, starting in 1913 but with the nail in the coffin being hammered into place in 1971, is no longer backed by anything of value like Gold. Many people consider this idea outdated, but when your currency is backed by "The Full Faith and Credit" of a deeply in debt government and when it's value can be reduced merely by firing up the printing presses, harming poor people the most, then our currency is not "sound" it is just an illusion. It is like the baseball card that has value only so long as others believe it does, it is difficult to get or has scarcity value, and are willing to pay for it in the belief that it will hold or increase in value in the future.

Neither Bush nor Obama are advocating the idea of restoring sound money.

(8) Phase out SS/Medicare/Medicaid using ‘opt outs’ ‘buy outs’ and attrition

Touching Social Security or Medicare/Medicaid is considered taboo in politics. So much so that when the Bush Administration actually tried to promote the idea of privatizing just a portion of this, putting people in more control of the funds, it went no where as yellow streaks appeared in the backs of even Republicans.

Democrats claim that Social Security is an "insurance policy", Republicans and Libertarians view it as a forced investment scheme that pays very low interest [ie: you are FORCED to loan money to the government for very little interest]. Insurance policies are for IF you need it and most people do not view it as "insurance". They consider that they have paid into it, they want their money back when the time comes.

At least Bush made a modest effort, Obama or some future administration will now have no choice but to reduce benefits or use printing presses to inflate the currency in trying to keep up.

(9) Dismantle GSEs (Government Sponsored Entities)

Without government sponsorship, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would have never been able to grow to the size they did and create the consolidation of risk they posed. The loans and risks they held would have been spread amongst hundreds or thousands of smaller firms, each with varying levels of (likely better) management, immune from political influence and with varying degrees of risk tolerance instead of that directed by politicians trying to force home ownership onto people who maybe can't afford it.

I have not heard either party promote the idea of dismantling these entities and restoring financing and risk decision to the private market.

(10) Start ‘educating’ our children instead of ‘graduating’ them.

Despite ever increased government spending and regulation, our public school system is terrible. All efforts to introduce competition to this system are met with staunch resistance by teachers unions. I would think competition for the best teachers would be good for teachers salaries and increase promotion opportunities, but then what you need the union for?

If we did a better job teaching basic personal finance and economics, the right kind of economics (Austrian School) not that now discredited Keynesian crap, we might improve our savings rates, reduce the amount of oppressive debt our people get into. They might understand the implications of the things our elected officials do.

If we did a better job teaching Math, Science and Grammar we might have a much more skilled and productive work force.

If we should actually teach children our own system of economics and inspire them with limitless opportunity instead of funneling them into cubicle jobs and massive student loans they'll spend 20 years paying off. We need to inspire people to become the next Thomas Edison, Nicola Tesla, Henry Ford, Bill Gates, Stan Lee, Steve Jobs (and Wozniak) or Ray Kroc.

George Bush massively grew the Federal Department of Education rather than restoring those functions to the States. It appears that the new administration is not supportive of school choice initiatives nor will address eliminating the Department of Education. We've only had the Department of Education since the Carter years, Reagan promised to get rid of it (still waiting). I think we could argue things have gotten worse, not better since its inception.

So, looking at the above items, admittedly limited to mostly economic matters, there isn't a significant difference in policy. NEW BOSS. SAME AS THE OLD BOSS. Although, now we're just bombing stuff in Pakistan instead of Iraq ... there's your "change".

---
If you're wanting to keep up on news related to government encroachment of our freedoms or the continued erosion of our economy please consider visiting The Liberty File and visiting every day or subscribing to the RSS Feed!

D.L. Hughley Interviews Ron Paul - "You Are Too Human"

2009-03-08T11:54:00.005-04:00

This is an excellent discussion between D.L. Hughley and Congressman Ron Paul (R - TX). They cover a lot of topics including bailouts, the American Civil War, foreign policy, Rush Limbaugh and others.

Hughley tells Congressman Paul that he is "pragmatic" and "too human to be a Republican." No politics from Ron Paul, just the truth and plain, straight talk.

Collection of All Newborn DNA By Federal Government Without Consent

2009-03-07T20:11:00.008-05:00

A lot of people are unaware that in 2007 a bill (S.1858) was passed by Congress that requires DNA samples of all newborn children to be sent to the Federal Government, warehoused, databased and tagged to note any genetic anomalies. This law does not require notification, much less consent, from the parents.

Every newborn child is now having samples of their DNA sent to the government for screening and indexing. The title of the bill was "Newborn SCreening Saves Lives Act of 2007" but probably should have been titled "Stealing Your Kid'S DNA for Databasing and Tracking Without Telling You."

Beyond establishing a list of genetic conditions for which newborns would be tested, the bill also establishes guidelines for sharing test results nationwide, creating systems for surveillance and tracking of the status of anyone diagnosed at birth with any kind of defect, tracking genetic traits and defects within families and to subject people to genetic research without getting their consent or even having to inform them. The DNA is taken and then becomes the property of the government.

Now, I know a lot of people aren't really too concerned with what powers the Federal Government has granted to it by our Constitution, but I'm pretty sure nowhere in there does it authorize the quiet theft of our genetic material for purposes of research, tracking and whatever else they decide to do with it once they have it. And, of course, they always eventually choose to expand uses of information once collected. Besides all of that, isn't it a bit creepy to suddenly become, as World Net Daily suggested in 2008, a population of "guinea pigs."

For those who have some historical perspective on the 'eugenics' movement in the early 20th Century, you will be familiar with the name Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, who advocated eugenics as a way to eliminate traits from the population that were considered 'unfit'. In fact, a large part of this movement and the advocation of abortion to be more widely accepted had outright racial motives associated with one of the project names and who knows what she meant when she criticized, "the ever increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born."

This massive violation of everything from privacy to medical ethics was introduced by Senator Christopher Dodd [D-CT], ultimately passed by both houses of Congress and signed by President Bush on April 24, 2008. Yeah, let me say that again and note I didn't say "vetoed". SIGNED by President Bush into law. There were 21 co-sponsors and while you might expect Hillary Clinton [D-NY], Bernie Sanders [I-VT] or Ted Kennedy [D-MA] to be among them (they were) there were a few surprises. Those included embattled Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman [R] and Senator Richard Lugar [R-IN], Orrin Hatch [R-UT] and the recent stimulus bill sellout Susan Collins [R-ME]. These Senators didn't just vote for it, they CO-SPONSORED it.

And the story gets better. This bill was passed in the Senate by "unanimous consent". In other words, no recorded vote was taken. This is what cowardly legislators do on controversial bills when they don't want a record of how they voted to be used against them later. Sure enough, the House of Representatives did the same thing.

Hey isn't this great! You don't have to be accused of a crime to get your fingerprints taken, the government will already have your DNA. Convenient. And hey, somewhere in a lab somewhere they could be doing medical research ... ON YOU.

---
If you're wanting to keep up on news related to government encroachment of our freedoms or the continued erosion of our economy please consider visiting The Liberty File and visiting every day or subscribing to the RSS Feed!

HR 875 Would Essentially Outlaw Family Farms In The United States

2009-03-05T11:15:00.013-05:00

I get a lot of e-mails each day and one today (hi Cheryl!) pointed my attention to HR 875, a bill introduced into the 111th Congress. SO, I went and did something that members of Congress rarely do and actually read the bill.More accurately, I glanced through it which is still more than they ever do. It was introduced by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT 3rd) and, as of this writing, has around 36 co-sponsors including my Congressman, Andre Carson (D-IN 7th). It immediately strikes me as being terribly bad legislation.

Under a heading described as protecting the public health and ensuring the safety of food it creates a "Food Safety Administration" within Health and Human Services. Oddly, it doesn't just add regulations to the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) which is also under HHS. And don't we have the USDA as well? The bill applies to all manner of "Food Establishments" and "Food Production Facilities" (note the following excerpt).

(14) FOOD PRODUCTION FACILITY- The term ‘food production facility’ means any farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard, aquaculture facility, or confined animal-feeding operation.

The bill would appear to even cover some fishing boats and potentially your downtown hot dog street vendors. "Transportion" of food also could be covered. In fact, the bill probably would also apply to your family garden since no exemption is apparent.

What it essentially does is place a tremendous regulatory burden on all of these organizations and individuals by requiring them to have "food safety plans", consider all relevant hazards [note: I wish Congress would consider all "relevant hazards" or unintended consequences of everything THEY did], testing, sample keeping and to maintain all kinds of records. The bill also allows the government to dictate all manner of standards related to fertilizer use, nutrients, packaging, temperature controls and other items.

This massive bloat in government regulation (and taxpayer expense to support it) would add additional cost and headache to every farm, some fishing boats, slaughterhouse, processing plant, CO-OP and anyone else associated with growing, storing, transporting or processing food. The bill authorizes fines of up to $1,000,000 (one million) dollars for "each act" and for "each day" of a violation.

We'll skip over the concern over how important food production and distribution, largely recession proof, could be if our economy continues to decline and inflation takes hold and just address this on the apparent lunacy that it is. As those familiar with history know, large dominant corporations often will use government to demand industry regulations that force the small competitor out of business or introduce barriers to entry that prevent new companies from starting up to compete. In the early part of the 20th century a tremendous amount of regulation was written by the industries themselves to be enacted into law.

In this case, I think this bill could do tremendous harm to family farms or independent food operators. Only massive companies have the ability to meet these regulations and imagine the legal expenses that could be incurred to defend oneself? Never forget, the government has near unlimited resources where you might have to cough up $200 to $500 an hour for a good attorney to defend yourself, your farm, boat, truck, restaurant, orchard, vineyard or hot dog stand. And what about the increased cost of food associated with the cost of compliance, it's not unreasonable to think that many places would have to hire staff or outside assistance just to comply with the law.

We have an excellent history in the United States of safe food, but as Obama's Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel suggested recently, "You should never want a serious crisis to go to waste." He spoke those words relative to looking for opportunities to do things that people would not otherwise accept without some crisis. We should be very careful not to let the very rare instance of something like the recent peanut problem be used as such a "crisis". There is no impetus to point the bureaucrats of government and the guns they control, their ability to not only deprive someone of life or freedom but to destroy whole families, careers and reputations, at everyone in the country who might be involved in ensuring we have stuff to eat.

We're doing just fine without this legislation.

UPDATE: Friday, March 6 - 10:50 PM EST

This video clip was included in a news update that went out to supporters of Congressman Ron Paul (R - TX) this evening. Also - If you're wanting to keep up on news related to government encroachment of our freedoms or the continued erosion of our economy please consider visiting The Liberty File and subscribing to the RSS Feed there.

Californians Plan Tax Protests - Work For Recall Of Elected Officials

2009-03-04T16:31:00.005-05:00

The following information is from the "Tax Revolt 2009" web site. An event is also planned in Indianapolis, Indiana for March 25, 2009 that is being dubbed The "Revolt at the State House." Voters and taxpayers are expected to speak out against various abuses, insider dealings and lack of property tax reform after massive increases in 2007. There is an increasing tone of outrage around the country and while the masses may not jump on board, the tireless efforts of those that demand the rule of law, fairness, accountability, transparency and competency in their government will increasingly draw attention.

Regarding the California Event:

The Revolution is now! Tax Revolt 2009 is here! Politicians in Sacramento and Washington have plundered California and the nation. It is time for taxpayers to rise up and take back your state and your nation.

News! Attend Saturday’s Tax Revolt Rally!

Attend Saturday’s Tax Revolt Rally!

Spread the word (print out and distribute the flyer to your friends and neighbors)!

The Slidebar Café
122 East Commonwealth Ave.,
Fullerton CA 92832 (map)
Saturday, March 7, 2009, 3-6 PM
Hold Lawmakers Accountable

You must Sacramento lawmakers accountable:

Recall Arnold Schwarznegger
Recall Jeff Miller
Recall Jim Silva
Hold Sacramento Accountable

Sacramento has betrayed taxpayers by passing the largest state tax increase in the nation’s history. Californians pay the highest income and sales taxes in the nation - while we suffer job losses, pay cuts, and dwindling 401k’s. Hold Sacramento accountable.

Hold Republicans and Democrats Accountable

State spending has grown 40 percent in the past five years because of deal-making and political corruption by special interests. Lawmakers of both parties are not protecting taxpayers because lawmakers put their power, prestige, and lifestyles first. Hold Republicans and Democrats accountable.

---

And don't forget to visit The Liberty File for your daily dose of liberty impacting news and information.

Dow 6,760 Means $1,452 Loss After Inflation

2009-03-02T17:54:00.004-05:00

If you bought into the Dow Jones Industrial Average the last time it was at 6,760, the approximate close from today, after inflation you would have lost approximately $1,452 even though the price is the same.

This basically means that the Dow would need to be at 8,100 or so just to break even, but that excludes the fact that you would be paying taxes on the inflation portion of your earnings. So that means you'd need to be at 9,180 or so, assuming the top federal tax rate and some reasonable allowance for state income taxes. Considering that inflation is the result the government printing too much money (inflating the money supply) which results in price increases, meaning it is basically a 'hidden tax', you essentially pay taxes on your taxes.

Now, an adjustment could clearly be made to the above figures to use a capital gains tax rate, but keep in mind that the reduced capital gains rates are not long for this world. BUT, does this not highlight why capital gains taxes should essentially be zero? Should you pay taxes on inflation?

No wonder people try and shelter their money elsewhere.

Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN 5th) Joins Ron Paul on FED Transparency Act

2009-03-02T10:32:00.006-05:00

Indiana's 5th District representative to the U.S. Congress, Dan Burton, has signed on, along with ten other representatives, to Ron Paul's Federal Reserve Transparency Act (HR 1207). The bill's summary says:

To amend title 31, United States Code, to reform the manner in which the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is audited by the Comptroller General of the United States and the manner in which such audits are reported, and for other purposes.

Out of the ten other co-sponsors, there are three Democrats which is an encouraging sign that there may some bipartisan support for finally getting an audit of the Federal Reserve. Oddly, I became aware of this when a friend in Florida let me know that 61 year old freshman representative Dan Posey, (R-FL 15th) had signed onto the bill.

Ron Paul Comes in Third at CPAC and Glenn Beck Gets a Second!

2009-02-28T23:59:00.011-05:00

At CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) this year, "Bush" was a four-letter word and the attendees seem to be leaning a little more libertarian.

Congressman Ron Paul of Texas came in third out of ten choices in the CPAC "...who would you vote for as the next Republican nominee for president?" poll. Representative Paul, who become something of a phenomena amongst younger voters and old-dog liberty activists in 2008 got 13% of the straw poll vote right behind Mitt Romeny at 20% and Bobby Jindal's 14%. Rep. Paul edged out Alaskan governor Sarah Palin just barely.

Libertarian leaning South Carolina governor Mark Sanford grabbed 4% at the seventh spot edging out former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's 3%.

Also of interest was Glenn Beck's second place showing in the poll that asked, "Who is your favorite conservative media personality on either television or radio?" Beck garnered 17% compared to Rush Limbaugh's first place spot at 26%. Beck has recently used the word "libertarian" when describing his politics and not only beat Sean Hannity's third place 11% but slaughtered the 'Republican Queen of Mean', Ann Coulter, who scooped up fifth place.

Update On Indiana Federalism Resolution SCR 37 - Sen. Mike Delph Added As Second Author

2009-02-26T10:49:00.001-05:00

The on-line information for Indiana's 10th Amendment (aka: Federalism) Resolution has been updated to represent that State Senator Mike Delph (district 29) was indeed one of the co-authors (now listed as "second author") and initiators of this legislation along with Senators Greg Walker and Dennis Kruse. Not only that, but the list of Senators now listed along with them on this bill has grown to FOURTEEN (14).

In addition to the previously mentioned Walker, Delph, Kruse and Stutzman the following have all been added: Boots, Buck, Holdman, Leising, Nugent, Paul, Steele, Waltz, Waterman, Young.

This sort of measure would always be difficult to support and pass and that is even more so in an environment where massive government (anti)stimulus billions are being offered to the states. It will prove difficult to pass a resolution that tells the out-of-control Federal Government to 'back off' while at the same time having your Governor accept billions of federal dollars.

To step up and put their name on this kind of legislation shows their commitment to the form of government (a Democratic Republic) and the limitations that were placed upon the Federal representation of that in our founding documents. As for this author (using the term loosely), I appreciate their bold commitment to make a statement.

Indiana Federalism Resolution Filed As Senate Concurrent Resolution 37

2009-02-23T13:26:00.000-05:00

Although it was made public late last week, the text of SCR 37 which would propose, if passed, to reassert Indiana's rights under the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was posted on-line today.

Despite early suspicions that Senator Mike Delph (29th District) might join Senator Greg Walker (41st) and Senator Dennis Kruse (14th) on introducing the resolution, it appears that Senator Marlin Stutzman (13th) completed the trio.

It has been referred to the Committee on Rules and Legislative Procedure.

This resolution is very similar to ones introduced in somewhere around twenty different states including Arizona, Oklahoma and New Hampshire. Oklahoma's resolution was introduced last year and passed their state house 98-2 before getting stalled out in their senate. This year, the resolution passed 83 to 13. New Hampshire's HCR 6 has thus far been considered to have the strongest language, many suggesting it was close to a threat to secede if the Federal Government encroached any further. HCR 6 was defeated in a committee 11 to 7 but still goes to a full vote.

Text of the Indiana Resolution follows:

Introduced Version

SENATE CONCURRENT
RESOLUTION No. _____

DIGEST OF INTRODUCED RESOLUTION

A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION urging the honorable Barack Obama, President of the United States, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States, in Congress assembled, and the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House of Representatives of each State's legislature of the United States of America to cease and desist, effective immediately, any and all mandates that are beyond the scope of their constitutionally delegated power.

WALKER , STUTZMAN, KRUSE

, read first time and referred to Committee on

Introduced

First Regular Session 116th General Assembly (2009)

SENATE CONCURRENT
RESOLUTION No. _____

A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION urging the honorable Barack Obama, President of the United States, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States, in Congress assembled, and the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House of Representatives of each State's legislature of the United States of America to cease and desist, effective immediately, any and all mandates that are beyond the scope of their constitutionally delegated power.

Whereas , The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States specifically provides that, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people ”;

Whereas , The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being those powers specifically granted to it by the Constitution of the United States and no more;

Whereas , Federalism is the constitutional division of powers between the national and state governments and is widely regarded as one of America 's most valuable contributions to political science;

Whereas , James Madison, “the father of the Constitution, ” said, “The powers delegated to the federal
government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people ”;

Whereas , Thomas Jefferson emphasized that the states are not “subordinate ” to the national government, but rather the two are “coordinate departments of one simple and integral whole. The one is the domestic, the other the foreign branch of the same government ”;

Whereas , Alexander Hamilton expressed his hope that “the people will always take care to preserve the constitutional equilibrium between the general and the state governments. ” He believed that “this balance between the national and state governments forms a double security to the people. If one [government] encroaches on their rights, they will find a powerful protection in the other. Indeed, they will both be prevented from overpassing their constitutional limits by [the] certain rivalship which will ever subsist between them ”;

Whereas , The scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be limited in its powers relative to those of the various states;

Whereas , Today, in 2009, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government;

Whereas , Many federal mandates are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States;

Whereas , The United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States , 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and

Whereas , A number of proposals from previous administrations and some now being considered by the present administration and from Congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States; Therefore,

Be it resolved by the Senate of the General Assembly

of the State of Indiana, the House of Representatives concurring:

SECTION 1: That the State of Indiana hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.

SECTION 2: That this Resolution serve as a Notice and Demand to the federal g overnment to maintain the balance of powers where the Constitution of the United States established it and to cease and desist, effective immediately, any and all mandates that are beyond the scope of its constitutionally delegated powers.

SECTION 3: That the Secretary of the Senate immediately transmit copies of this Resolution to the Honorable Barack Obama, President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of each state's legislature of the United States of America, and each member of Congress from the State of Indiana.

-----

Don't forget to check daily at The Liberty File for regularly updated news and information related to the economy and your freedom.

Response To Foreign Money Scam E-Mail

2009-02-22T06:01:00.000-05:00

Below, I am posting the full text of the message I received from one of those "help me get a gazillion dollars out of my country" messages. It follows my response.

Mr. Han,

Your message finds me at the most opportune time as I think I can help you.

As you are aware, our country recently elected the Communist Barack Obama to be President. President Obama is quickly moving upon an agenda which would have significant negative implications to the holding or creation of any wealth in America. Just this week he has suggested drastic increases in taxes on anyone who might be economically prosperous, through their hard work, intelligence and effort, to actually provide capital to business and investment or hire people and create jobs.

I fear that should we, as you have so generously offered, try to move any significant assets to America, their value would quickly be eroded by the new Communist leader and the massive, out of control inflation we are expecting to appear as our bankrupt government tries to give money no one in our country has to bankrupt private companies and their bumbling, anti free market, hat-in-hand wealthy principals.

I suggest instead that you work towards getting your assets into some country that is far less socialist, like perhaps Russia. I hear Lichtenstein and the Bahamas can also make fine places to put financial assets to help protect them although the oppressive, interventionist regime here is actively engaged in 'foreign blackmail' upon the Swiss to pry open such private dealings and destroy the honored business practices of another country. I will not blame them if they now hate us like much of the rest of the world has learned to do over the past few decades. Our country was once so great, but now it is in decline and has lost its beloved status in the world as we arrogantly spent our treasure dictating our way of life and our business interests to them.

Soon they will be coming for the weapons to which we cling and force government service onto us. I must go now, I hear knocking at my door, they no doubt are still using the George Bush surveillance systems and know of the grave warning I am preparing to send you. They will demand to see my Real ID card (aka: my 'papers').

I urge you, for your own protection, to find a safer country to transfer your funds to so that they are not stolen by out of control politicians.

Sincere regards and may God bless you sir,

Sean Shepard

http://www.libertyfile.com/

United States of America

On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 11:11 PM, Mr. Paul Han wrote:

URGENT PROPOSAL!!!
Mr.Paul Han,

Compliments of the Day,

I want to make a proposal of business transaction which value sum is £52,559,000 GBP(Fifty Two Million, Five Hundred And Fifty Nine Thousand British Pounds Sterling) to you, of which I believe will be of much interest to you and also a mutual benefit for both of us.

I need your co-operation to transfer the above mentioned sum out of England to any part of the world. And I am confident that you will give your consideration to this proposal and response positively within a short period of time. I am available to discuss this proposal with you and to answer any questions you may have in regard to this fund.

As soon as you give your positive response to this proposal, I will not hesitate in sending you the details and procedures of the transaction.

Look forward to discussing this opportunity further with you in more detail shortly.

REPLY TO:mrpaulhuk1@msn.com

Sincerely,
Mr.Paul Han,
Chartered Accountant
Lloyds Banking Group Plc

Don't forget to get your economic and pro-liberty news at The Liberty File!

Ed Coleman Press Conference Audio

2009-02-20T03:55:00.001-05:00

Here is a link to the audio of the February 17, 2009 press conference where Edward Coleman, Indianapolis City County Councilman, announced he was joining the Libertarian Party.

Tim Maguire, Libertarian Party of Marion County Chairman also speaks.

-----

visit www.libertyfile.com for economic and liberty affecting news!

Indianapolis City Councilman Leaves GOP for Libertarian Party

2009-02-16T22:00:00.000-05:00

News leaked this evening that current Indianapolis City County Councilman Edward Coleman is announcing at a Tuesday (February 17^th, 2009) morning press conference that he is joining the Libertarian Party.

Coleman, who served twelve years in the military between both the Navy and National Guard is leaving the Republican Party. He has increasingly been frustrated with what he believed to be a party system that tried to hush dissent and create followers instead of leaders. He recently came under fire for questioning whether greater transparency or oversight was needed in the relationship between the city’s Capital Improvement Board (CIB) and local law firm of Barnes and Thornburg, which Bob Grand, head of the CIB is a partner and wields significant influence in Indianapolis Republican politics.

The CIB has become the subject of voter outrage as it was revealed that the ‘sweetheart’ deals the local sports franchises have been getting has created a $43 million hole near-term and potentially $110 million over the next few years.

An excerpt of Coleman’s expected statements at the press conference include:

This is not a decision I take lightly, nor did I come to it without deep reflection. I have found that the direction of the Republican Party has changed, and it is not the same party I joined many years ago. Nor do I believe its current leaders truly represent the ideals that the party markets and advertises to voters.

Both of the old two parties have forgotten their ties to the common man, and instead focus on power and control as elitists. I am a common man, I campaigned for the common people, and I still represent the common people; the voters and taxpayers.

I have come to find that my politics are actually more aligned with the Libertarian Party than any other; a party that still allows free thought, a party where dissent is not necessarily a dirty word.

Both of the old parties endeavor to silence dissent. During the Council’s previous period of Democrat control, the majority’s powers were used to silence Republicans. Now, under Republican control, the Council majority abuses their power to weaken Democrat influence. Over the past year I have been criticized for votes I made in response to the concerns I heard from my constituents. As a leader I have spoken out again the secretive and expensive affairs of the Capital Improvement Board; but the two old parties want obedient followers, not leaders.

While criticism for the move and the typical and intellectually dishonest character assassination attempts are likely to come from Republicans and biased pundits who may lack impartiality due to their friendly insider relationships, this is an extremely bold announcement and one that everyone can be certain was not undertaken without fully understanding the implications.

In fact, Libertarian Party of Marion County officials are making it clear that, despite the gradually changing political tide, discussions with Mr. Coleman included the political realities of third party candidates as well as the likely assault from his former party leaders as they attempt to try damage control and save face rather than reach out to find common ground where they can continue to work together.

William Redpath, Chairman of the Libertarian National Committee issued the following statement, “I commend Ed Coleman on his courage and his recognition that the Libertarian Party is the only political party in Indiana and the United States that truly stands for limited, fiscally responsible government and real respect for civil liberties. I gratefully welcome him, as I hope to do with other elected officials who are tired of the now clearly unaffordable politics as usual, and who yearn to join ‘The Party of Principle.’”

Increasingly, voters are starting to open up to abandoning the destructive politics and policies that continue to undermine our cities and our country and, perhaps, it takes courageous decisions like Councilman Coleman’s to suggest that the time has come for party tribalism to give way to once again having real representative government.

------

Don't forget to keep up to date with important news that affects the economy and your freedom at The LibertyFile.

Smoking Ban Issue Sends Some Over The Edge

2009-02-14T12:46:00.000-05:00

It seems that the smoking ban issue has sent one of the locals off the deep end. Sometimes self-proclaimed but now former libertarian Patriot Paul Wheeler, who gained some very minor notoriety dressed as an 18th century American at anti-tax protests, appears to have left the farm. This is unfortunate as "Patriot Paul" seems like a good guy and he has done some great work helping protest skyrocketing property and local income taxes. This is something the citizens of Indiana owe him some thanks over but doesn't excuse some more recent comments which can only be labeled, in my opinion, as "looney".

Let's start with a basic premise that libertarians believe in personal property rights and personal responsibility. There is a belief that you have a choice as to whether or not to work at a bar or restaurant that allows (or does not allow) smoking. In fact, chances are, when you applied for or took the job there, you probably knew it was a smoking environment. You also probably know that while you work at such a place, getting pregnant is probably not the best of ideas or, for the health of your child, you might consider working somewhere else for a while. You are responsible for choosing your environment, not for everyone else to yield to your desires.

The owner of any such establishment, has no obligation to give anyone a job. When an owner voluntarily takes money out of their own pocket to pay someone for their work that does not create a "right" on the part of the employee to that job. It creates an employment situation that either side may terminate for just about any reason.

Even if you take a job as a copy machine repairperson, you knowingly enter into a job where you may not always control your environment. You accept that you may not like the language used at some offices or that you might be asked to, infrequently, enter an establishment where people could be smoking.

Now, what someone does NOT have right to do is to keep someone in a compulsory environemnt or otherwise against their will exposed to something they object to. In fact, if you want to have a conversation about not being allowed to smoke in a car with the windows up and children in it, that is a fair conversation to have. I agree completely that there should be no smoking in any public place that people are compelled by law to be at (schools, courtrooms and BMV to name a few). However, the government telling a private business owner that he can't go into his office, close his door and smoke an otherwise perfectly legal cigar is an intervention in someone's private affairs where there is no victim.

The anti-smoking lobbyists (some of whom actually are smokers we are told but make their money lobbying for the other team) like to talk about 950 Hoosiers dying each year from 'second hand smoke'. They don't tell us how much of that exposure was in years long since gone when far more people smoked EVERYWHERE, even in government buildings. How much of that exposure was from a spouse they lived with? Let's see more detailed information. Today, people's exposure is far more limited unless they choose for it not to be.

A couple of days ago Mr. Wheeler called Chris Spangle, the State Executive Director, a "baby killer" for not supporting a smoking ban in bars and casinos. Mr. Spangle responded that Evil Kneivel was jealous of the leap Wheeler took to get there.

Well, today, the previously mentioned Mr. Wheeler, who has for the most part refused any kind of meaningful engagement to have policy discussion at libertarian oriented Meet Ups or even the County Business Meetings jumped the shark today in a letter to the editor he got published in The Speedway Navigator.

In the letter he seems to claim to speak for most libertarians (he does not) while suggesting that the party leaders (chosen by majority votes) are a bunch of extremists solely because they support the rights of a property owner to dictate smoking policy instead of the government. That makes "extremists" out of at least half the population then doesn't it? He even makes the claim that libertarians think the Constitutions become null and void on private property. Unfortunately, Mr. Wheeler appears to have 'made up' most of his understanding of libertarianism on his own. But, it gets worse as he libels the party by some completely delusional suggestion that we think that rape and murder are okay on private property?

Clearly, there is a disconnect in his (lack of) logic and failure to understand libertarian principles. But, what is to be expected when someone assumes they know what we believe but refuses to actually learn? There's quite a bit of difference between saying, "people who think a person on their own property should be able to dictate smoking policy of an otherwise legal product" and saying that, "taking someone's life or raping them must also be okay." He claims that libertarians would believe it okay since you 'voluntarily' agreed to work there... how does someone get 'voluntarily raped' anyway???

Clearly, this is utter nonsense and he has no evidence to support anyone of significance holding such a ridiculous opinion. But, then again, every party has a few Tony "the great porn dragon" Zirkles. Making up "straw man" arguments to try and add credibility to one's own biases is weak at best, dishonest at worst. In fact, it is clear that the REAL EXTREMISTS are the activists working to ban smoking everywhere.

Mr. Wheeler maintains that "right to life" trumps all, and in that argument I believe he is mostly correct except when it comes to smoking at bars, nobody is forcing anyone to end their own life. He also seems to believe that people have a right to their job. Really? Don't show up to work for three days or call the boss a few choice names and see what kind of "right" to that job you have. And just because choices are sometimes difficult or uncomfortable, doesn't mean that the government should relieve you of having to make one.

If talking about rights within the context of the U.S. Constitution we are talking about restrictions on what government can do to people and/or to the States. For example, libertarians believe in a Constitutional right to bear arms and protect oneself; however, we also believe in personal property rights. You have a protected right against the government taking your guns away; however, if I am a home owner or business property owner your right to bear arms does not mean I have to allow you on my property with them. Just like your employer can restrict what you say at work or in any duty representing their company. The government; however, cannot restrict your speech... no matter how unpopular or ridiculous.

If you don't like smoking in bars, that's fine, go start your own non-smoking bar. Quit trying to force your wishes on others, go set the example yourself. People will vote with their wallet and their patronage.

Excerpts from an e-mail conversation in opposition to the smoking ban:

"If I own a business and have no employees. Can I smoke there (assume I own the property)? If I own a business, own the property, have my own office and can close the door with nobody else in there with me can I still light up a Cigar? Not if a bunch of wrong-headed, nosy busy-bodies trying to interfere in people's property and freedom of association rights have their way.

...nobody is forcing anybody to breath anything (for any harmful period of time). If 60 seconds of exposure to somebody's cigarette from 10 feet away is killing them then we now need laws to shut off all motors in the fast food drive-through so exhaust doesn't "kill" everyone in line. We now need laws to ensure that everybody stand a safe distance from bonfires for fear soot could get in someone's lungs and, someday, kill them. My goodness, I believe it now also must be illegal to remove the air filter from any HVAC system including your own home (kids you know) because increased dust content in the air could possibly, someday, lead to some syndrome akin to black lung... oh crap.... now we have to shut down all the coal mines.

I do believe in the printing business it is common to use spray powder corn starch as a drying agent. Certainly, lots of that floating around the air.

Next we can focus on over exposure to UVA and UVB radiation on tanning salon workers since some of that light might leak through cracks in the doors and such or that they might get exposed to the lights when not actually intending to tan. Let's forget, of course, that they work there voluntarily. That doesn't matter! The salon owner is killing them with skin cancer!!!

You may think all of this sounds silly. Just keep in mind this is EXACTLY what Smoke Free Indy sounds like to anyone who is not so biased and selfish that they want to force what is convenient for them upon everyone else."

Mr. Wheeler has a right to his opinion, but he does not have a right to libel libertarians by suggesting they are in favor of rape and murder. Even the most ardent adversaries of libertarianism (they are called statists, fascists, socialists and communists) will recognize that as absolute lunacy. In fact, if he has any semblence of class and honesty he will publically retract those statements.

At the end of the day, I really don't get the whole smoking thing. Just like I don't agree with lots of things people might say. But just like I would defend anyone's right to their OPINION, I'll defend the right of the property owner to set the rules on their own property. Otherwise, next thing you know, the Twinkie Police will be coming around telling people the Quicky Mart can't sell Twinkies or sugared soda pop because it "kills people".

Think that sounds nuts? New York's Governor has proposed an "obesity tax" on sugared soda pop and fruit juices. And recently, the movement against "third hand smoke" has started. Third hand smoke being particulate matter left on your hair and clothing after being around cigarette smoke.

We may all disagree at where the line should be drawn, but seriously, at some point, enough is enough.

[note: in thinking about the Indiana State and Marion County Libertarian Party leaders, I was hard pressed to think of any that I know are extremists or smokers (of anything).]

----

Don't forget to keep up to date daily on national news that affects your freedom and our economy at The Liberty File.

The "UnFairness" Doctrine

2009-02-13T04:33:00.000-05:00

There is considerable chatter right now suggesting that the Democrats plan to reintroduce what is tragically referred to as "The Fairness Doctrine". The idea is that they can use the force of government to restrict, mold, guide or punish media outlets that do not offer programming that espouses opinions counter to those of, what the market has determined represents, mainstream America.

Think of the following example.

You decide to open a store. You incorporate, file for a retail sales certificate, rent retail space and start hiring people, buying products and stocking your shelves. Things are going really well and you continue to put products on the shelf that people like to buy. Then, one day, a government representative shows up and tells you that you have hired too many people who 'think the wrong way'. They make you throw away half of the stuff on your shelves and replace it with products that don't sell well, some of them you may have even tried to sell in the past but lost money on. They tell you that if you put the wrong products back on your shelves they will fine you a lot of money or even use the massive power of government to put you out of business.

This is what the Democrats want to do to media outlets because those outlets, and their listeners, have determined that they really want to listen to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Michael Medved, Bill O'Reilly, Neal Boortz, Laura Ingraham and others.

Famously, the more socialist / fascist elements of the media attempted to start their own talk radio empire called "Air America" and it failed almost immediately despite having minor celebrity Al Franken (because he's good enough, smart enough and doggone it... people like him - NOT) involved. These people supposedly got some big money backing but couldn't make a go of it. Nobody wanted to listen!

In an attempt to intervene in the free market and the freedom of people to choose what to listen to, or perhaps more nefariously, to try and manipulate public opinion and thought the Democrats are seeking to destroy talk radio by forcing stations to carry products that far fewer people would listen to, making it hard to sell advertising and destroying the business model. We are a nation that has as its most important founding principal the freedom of speech. To have a whole political movement aligned with the idea of using the power of government to shut people up if there is disagreement is anathema to our way of thinking.

Here is a topic that I think is worthy of discussion. Has it ever occurred to anyone that the people who actually pay attention to their government, want to know what is really going on, have an appreciation for staying informed or even involved just happen to be more conservative, or even libertarian, people who will turn off the latest pop music channel; self-promoting, mind numbing and juvenile 'shock jocks'; sports radio or morning shows in exchange for something intelligent to listen to? A lot of these same people are avid readers too as near as I can tell.

I just don't know that I believe nearly as many on what is traditionally, but not necessarily accurately, described as "the left" are really following logic and paying attention to the nuance in our policy. I believe they are indeed far more likely to want to shut someone up at gunpoint or shout them down instead of having to make reasoned arguments and find their own audience. This is always the case with "the left". They don't want to earn it on the merits, they want to use the guns of government to FORCE IT upon people. Doesn't matter if it's charity programs, retirement savings, restricting educational choices, having your newborns DNA stolen and filed in a national database, taking care of your own health care decisions - they know what is best for you and will decide for you.

Well, if they are so damn smart why can't they figure out to assemble, market and advertise successful radio programs instead of having to use government force to coerce us into listening to what THEY want us to? Maybe, just maybe, it's because they really don't know everything after all. Good luck convincing them of that.

------
Note: Don't forget to keep up to date on news that impacts the economy and your freedoms at The Liberty File.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY AND THANK YOU PRESIDENT REAGAN

2009-02-06T19:24:00.000-05:00

I was sitting here taking a few moments to privately celebrate Ronald Reagan's birthday when my daughter, Elizabeth, joined me and watched some of it. She is not unfamilar with Ronald Reagan (or Thomas Jefferson and Ron Paul for that matter).

She laughed at the letter he got, after being shot, from a young boy warning him to get well before he might have to give a speech in his pajamas. She watched a snippet of his Challenger and "tear down this wall" speeches. And when we got to the end of one of the clips and it showed parts of President Reagan's funeral, she got very quiet and I realized she was crying.

Sometimes there are little things that give you hope for the next generation.