Sen. John Kerry on Monday proposed requiring all Americans to have health insurance by 2012, "with the federal government guaranteeing that they have the means to afford it."
So what if I don't want health insurance? It won't matter, as Kerry is proposing health care at the point of a gun:
The senator said his plan will lead to universal coverage by 2012, "but if we're not there by 2012, we will require that all Americans have health insurance, with the federal government guaranteeing they have the means to afford it."
So what if I don't wish to pay for other people's poor health choices?
Kerry proposes to pay for the program by repealing tax cuts enacted during the Bush administration that benefit those earning over $200,000 annually.
So what if soaking the professionals, small business owners and others who hire peoplerich doesn't generate enough income to pay for Kerry's ludicrous program?
He did not immediately elaborate on how he would enact his insurance mandate, but one aid said he would do so with a requirement written into the legislation spelling out that the government covers anyone who is uninsured.
The way I see it, there would be one of two choices to pay for the proposed socialized system if the "rich" can't cover the entire tab: tax everyone or decrease (ration) services.
Do the Republicans have a better idea?
The Republican National Committee, which typically responds to political criticism of the president, said Kerry's critique ignored the prescription drug program enacted by the Bush administration.
"It's unfortunate that John Kerry's bitterness over losing the election clouds his ability to recognize the president's prescription drug plan is providing millions of seniors with more affordable medicine," said RNC spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt.
Whatever his criticism, Kerry faces the reality that the governor of his home state - Republican Mitt Romney, himself a potential 2008 presidential candidate - has not only talked about but enacted a sweeping health care overhaul designed to bring universal coverage to Massachusetts. Last week, Michael Leavitt, secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human services, called the program "a model" for the nation.
So the choices the two parties provide are Democrat socialized healthcare or Republican socialized healthcare. Frankly, I'd prefer to pass - but what they're offering is "The Healthcare Plan You Can't Refuse."
Democrats Are Using the Same "Old Chestnuts" With Voters
When they are taking their August recess, congressional Democrats will be emphasizing the federal minimum wage and stem cell research, according to the Washington Times.
This is part of the Democrats' strategy of highlighting issues they feel appeal to middle-class voters.
On the other side, Republicans are taking a different direction (via Washington Times):
By contrast, Republicans next month plan to highlight a need to strengthen the porous borders and to keep the conversation either on local issues or security matters, such as terrorism.
Democrats criticized Republicans for having "misplaced priorities."
Here's what one Democratic Senator had to say:
"The Republican leadership doesn't get it in the House or the Senate," Mr. Schumer said. "They keep going back to the old chestnuts, and they just don't work anymore. This is a different world in 2006 than it [was] in 2004."
This statement is ironic coming from a Democrat. The issues they are highlighting during the August recess are the Democrats' same "old chestnuts" - pour more money into failed government programs (Medicare), promote government interference in private business (federal minimum wage), and have the federal government be involved in unnecessary areas (stem cell research).
Boston Looking to Regulate Memorials to Homicide Victims
Boston has seen a large surge in violence within the last year. Consequently, there have been more make-shift memorials erected in memory of the victims.
City officials are considering restrictions on the make-shift memorials (via Boston Globe):
For some residents, they are powerful symbols, akin to gravesites, where friends and relatives often pay tribute and tend them faithfully for years. But officials increasingly worry about sites that have become large gathering spots, littered with beer bottles and, occasionally, evidence of gang rivalries and simmering rage.
If known gang members are gathering at these memorials, doesn't that just make it easier to arrest them?
Some feel that the city's proposed restrictions on memorials could backfire (via Boston Globe):
Clementina M. Chery - founder of the Louis D. Brown Peace Institute, an outreach organization for those bereaved by homicide - said that the memorials give family and community members a way to express their grief and that removing them too early could create "more chaos than anything."
"If it's removed forcefully, the family is going to put it back up; there's going to be a tug of war," she said. "Memorials are a way of healing. When that is interrupted, it delays the healing process."
Apparently, some members of Congress have gotten a case of baseball fever.
This is from the Heard on the Hill section in Wednesday's Roll Call:
Rep. Steven LaTourette (R-Ohio) shepherded a highly urgent resolution through the House on Tuesday commemorating the 60th anniversary of the 1946 Major League Baseball season and the return of Hall-of-Famer Bob Feller from military service.
Not to be outdone, Senator DeWine offered his version (via Roll Call):
Sen. Mike DeWine (R-Ohio) offered companion legislation in the Senate, which was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Here's some of the bill's language introduced by Rep. LaTourette:
The committee is being asked to deliberate on such important clauses as, "Whereas, in the 1946 season, Bob Feller pitched 36 complete games in 42 starts" and "Whereas, on April 30, 1946, in a game against the New York Yankees, Bob Feller pitched his second career no-hitter."
Feller, a famous and voluble pitcher known as "Bullet Bob" and "Rapid Robert," is "big-time in Cleveland," said LaTourette spokeswoman Deborah Setliff.
I'm glad some members of Congress have their priorities straight.
Chicago Looking to Drive Retail Jobs Out of the City
It looks like Chicago is intent on driving out jobs from its downtown (via NY Times):
After months of fevered lobbying and bitter debate, the Chicago City Council passed a groundbreaking ordinance yesterday requiring "big box" stores, like Wal-Mart and Home Depot, to pay a minimum wage of $10 an hour by 2010, along with at least $3 an hour worth of benefits.
The Chicago City Council thinks they are doing the city's low-income residents a favor (via Fox News):
"It's trying to get the largest companies in America to pay decent wages," said Alderman Toni Preckwinkle.
The city's low-income residents might not even have a chance to be hired by America's largest companies if they all leave Chicago (via Fox News):
Wal-Mart spokesman John Bisio said earlier that if the measure passed, "We'd redirect our focus on our suburban strategy and see how we could better serve our city of Chicago residents from suburban Chicagoland."
Wal-Mart was already paying competitive wages before the "living wage" proposal was passed (via Fox News):
Wal-Mart said that its average hourly wage is almost $11 an hour in the Chicago area and that the lowest wage that will be paid at the new West Side store will be $7.25 an hour.
In a Real Clear Politics column this week, libertarian reporter John Stossel talks about a New York Times story that puts a favorable spin on a study that compared the performance of public schools versus private schools.
Stossel shows how the article is wrong on the performance of public schools:
The New York Times put the study on its front page, along with a quote from teachers' union president Reg Weaver, who claimed it showed "public schools were doing an outstanding job."
Please.
Most public schools are far from outstanding. America's government schools have rigid one-size-fits-all rules that reward mediocrity. Despite raising per-student spending to more than $10,000 (at least $200,000 per classroom!), test scores have stayed flat. On international tests, Americans now lag behind students from l less developed nations like Poland and Korea that spend a fraction as much money on education.
Stossel points out that the private school students performed better than public school students in the study, but the researchers and the New York Times didn't want the public to know:
It seems the private school kids actually scored higher on the tests, but then the researchers "dug deeper." They "put test scores into context" by adjusting for "race, ethnicity, income and parents' educational backgrounds to make the comparisons more meaningful."
Maybe it's unfair to call that "torturing the data." Such regression analysis is a valid statistical tool. But it's prone to researcher bias. Statistical hocus-pocus is not the best way to compare schools. "Ideally, to ascertain the difference between the two types of schools, an experiment would be conducted in which students are assigned (by an appropriate random mechanism) to either public or private schools." That quote, believe it or not, is from the study. But the ever-scrupulous journalists at The Times didn't find that "fit to print."
Stossel offers up a reason behind the spin in the New York Times story:
Why are the mainstream media so eager to defend a unionized government monopoly? Maybe The Times gave the "adjusted" test data (and an earlier version of it published in January) so much play partly because of the editors' dislike of "conservative Christian" schools (which did poorly in the study) and the Bush administration (which has talked about bringing market competition to education).
But I suspect the biggest reason is that the editors just don't like capitalism and free markets.
Snap a picture and get arrested? It just happened to Philadelphia's Neffy Cruz. According to this report, Cruz was arrested, cuffed and hauled off to jail for the despicable act of snapping a picture of the police with his cell phone camera:
Cruz said that when he heard a commotion, he walked out of his back door with his cell phone to see what was happening. He said that when he saw the street lined with police cars, he decided to take a picture of the scene.
"I opened (the phone) and took a shot," Cruz said.
Moments later, Cruz said he got the shock of his life when an officer came to his back yard gate.
"He opened the gate and took me by my right hand," Cruz said.
Cruz said the officer threw him onto a police car, cuffed him and took him to jail.
A neighbor said she witnessed the incident and could not believe what she saw.
"He opened up the gate and Neffy was coming down and he went up to Neffy, pulled him down, had Neffy on the car and was telling him, 'You should have just went in the house and minded your own business instead of trying to take pictures off your picture phone,'" said Gerrell Martin.
Cruz said police told him that he broke a new law that prohibits people from taking pictures of police with cell phones.
From the NSA wiretapping to local issues like this, government knows it's doing something nefarious when they go to such extremes to ensure there is no accountability for its actions.
Chicago's Prohibition Mentality has Deeper Implications
What's up with Chicago these days? Like many cities, they've jumped on the "public" smoking bandwagon. You can't talk on a cell phone while driving in the city anymore. They've even "led" the country by being the first municipality to ban foie gras.
Now, a federal judge in Chicago has implemented a new ban. District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly has prohibited our longstanding tradition of governmental checks and balances. In this instance, the judge dismissed the case brought about by author Studs Terkel which challenged the actions of AT&T in disclosing to the federal government customer telephone records without proper search warrants.
Kennelly wrote:
"Nothing in this opinion," he wrote, "prevents the plaintiffs from using the legislative process, not to mention their right of free speech, to seek further inquiry by the executive and legislative branches into the allegations in their complaint."
We believe that innocent Americans - including our clients in this case - should have a venue through the courts for vindicating their rights against the abuses and overreach of the executive branch. We are consulting with our clients and will consider our options for future actions.
Even a few years ago, most people didn't believe that smoking bans would lead to bans on fatty foods. Perhaps this recent ban on pate will open more eyes about how far people with a prohibitionist mentality will take things. Likewise, when the Executive Branch blatantly disregards the Bill of Rights and the Judicial Branch won't allow this action to even be challenged in court, they've more or less banned our rights protected by the Fourth Amendment. Cigarette bans may be the local equivalent to already established efforts to prohibit our right to defend ourselves with firearms. We're now in the foie gras phase with warrantless searches. One wonders which of our natural and legal rights will next be banned by the neo-prohibitionists.
American Bar Association Denounces Presidential Signing Statements
The opposition to President Bush's use of signing statements is not confined to just members of Congress.
The American Bar Association weighed in on the debate on Monday, stating President Bush's use of signing statements run contrary to the system of separation of powers and "the rule of law," Roll Call reported.
The ABA further explained the seriousness of the problem (via Roll Call):
"Quietly, but with devastating force, modern presidents are using signing statements to seize that which our nation's founders purposely denied - absolute power...without any check or balance," said ABA President Michael Greco at a press conference Monday. The executive and legislative branches "must negotiate with one another, and neither must unilaterally impose its will on the other."
Roll Call provides some of the hard evidence:
A Boston Globe report on April 30 cited 110 signing statements by Bush that sought to question or contradict nearly 800 portions of laws passed by Congress, many of which checked executive authority.
Some of the ignored provisions included reporting to Congress on the USA PATRIOT Act and the amendment sponsored by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), which opposed torture of detainees in U.S. custody.
It is fairly obvious that a Congress under Republican control is unwilling to rein in the president's inappropriate use of signing statements. I think having new Libertarian leadership in Congress will go a long way in restoring our constitutional system of checks and balances.
Here's what Jay Leno had to say about the recent flooding in DC:
"And terrible rains in Washington, DC, this week. In fact, Karl Rove's office was leaking again. It rained so hard today President Bush ducked into to take shelter in a theater showing Al Gore's movie. Major flooding struck all parts of the Federal Government. You know the FEMA office had over three feet of water in it. And here's the sad part. They still don't know. The other day, a 140-year-old tree fell on the White House lawn because of the storm. Well, actually, a combination of factors that brought the tree down. The weather, the age of the tree, and of course Patrick Kennedy's car."
The jokes may be funny, but the fact that FEMA had to get involved because of a little flooding in DC isn't. Nor is it funny that Delaware received federal disaster aid for "severe storms and flooding that began on June 23, 2006." We can add five counties in northeastern Pennsylvania to the list, but have to note that at least one county in New York is whining that it didn't get it's share of gub'mint cheese.
According to FEMA data, we've had four to five times the amount of "declared disasters" in the last couple of years as we had in the early 1950s. This begs the obvious question: Has the weather become considerably worse over the last few years, or is government becoming more considerably more expansive?
Right now, people in the Queens borough of NYC are upset because the governor didn't declare their area a disaster area after a power outage. They want their potential cheese and are willing to whine about it. As there are currently power outages in St. Louis, expect more cries for government assistance.
My family is forced to rely on FDR's New StealDeal program, the Tennessee Valley Authority, for their electricity. Power outages at the family home are a very frequent occurrence. Does this mean we and our neighbors should receive government assistance because of the government incompetence which caused our power outages in the first place?
What's happened is an expansion of welfare mentality. We have individual safely nets, corporate safety nets and now safety nets to "protect us" from Mother Nature and Con Edison.
Perhaps I shouldn't complain so much. Next time we experience a power outage, I can buy that expensive suit I always wanted. My wife has always had a thing for Louis Vuitton handbags. While she's busy shopping, perhaps I can run over to the local strip club and booze it up a bit. If you think this sort of thing doesn't happen with FEMA funds, I'd suggest you think again.
Texas School to Randomly Drug Test Student Drivers
A Texas high school will randomly drug test students who drive themselves to school this year, according to the Forth Worth Star-Telegram.
Apparently there is a serious problem in De Leon, Texas of students driving to school while high.
School officials felt that just randomly drug testing athletes wasn't enough and now have found a way to test even more students (Fort Worth Star-Telegram):
The school board decided to expand former drug testing regulations to include students who park on school property and those who participate in all extracurricular activities. Athletes, beginning in seventh grade, were already being tested, the Abilene Reporter-News reported.
"Our goal is to include as many students as possible into our drug-testing program," said Randy Mohundro, superintendent of De Leon schools.
Students must agree to the program when they register this fall and obtain their parking permit, officials said. Marijuana, cocaine, barbiturates and methamphetamine can be detected by the test.
The school superintendent explained that they already have the ability to invade the privacy of students who drive to school and were just taking it a step further (Forth Worth Star-Telegram):
Mohundro said officials already had the right to search student vehicles and were simply expanding that policy.
"Bringing a car to school is a privilege, not a right," he said.
Barry Hess, LP candidate for Governor of Arizona, just pulled in a pretty cool endorsement. Sean Morley, better known as Val Venis to professional wrestling fans, took the time out of his schedule to tell voters why they should vote Libertarian in Arizona's gubernatorial race.
Comedian Doug Stanhope has announced his intention to run for president on the Libertarian Party ticket for the 2008 elections. Stanhope endorsed Michael Badnarik in the 2004 presidential race. Here's Stanhope's announcement from his MySpace campaign site:
This is the official Myspace page for Doug Stanhope's presidential run in 2008. I've decided to run for the nomination of the Libertarian Party. (www.lp.org)
Yes, I am very serious. Most of us know how completely screwed the system has become. Yet we shrug it off as something to deeply rooted to change. I'm tired of accepting what we have as the best we can do and yelling about it in barrooms and comedy clubs isn't going to force anyone's hand.
That is why I have decided to run for the office. If this country can buy Jesus and American Idol, I think we can sell them actual freedom and self-determination.
The campaign will focus on individual freedom, self-government and making America fun again. And this campaign, if goes as planned, will wreak an adreneline-fueled havoc across the land.
This planet belongs to you as much as it does anyone. It is your choice - not any government - to decide how you will live.
This is - at the moment - the most powerful country in the world which makes inexcusable the fact we have become so oppresive and boring at the same time.
I may not be the best possible candidate but I am the best one willing to run. Jump on the bandwagon. Win or lose, we are going to have a fantastic, bizarre and screaming ride towards the White House.
Please subscribe to the blog for updates. You will be highly amused and hopefully greatly inspired between now and November, 2008.
Have fun with this topic for the weekend open thread!
Libertarian Candidate Bill Peirce on Brian Wilson Show
Stephen Van Dyke at Hammer of Truth reported on Thursday that Libertarian gubernatorial candidate Bill Peirce appeared on Toledo radio station WSPD during the Brian Wilson Show.
Van Dyke came away with a good impression about Peirce's radio show appearance:
It was a rather pleasant interview with a very nice host, which is becoming the norm for Peirce when he’s interviewed.
Van Dyke includes an audio link where you can listen to the complete Peirce interview.
DC Decides to Punish the Innocent for Recent Crime Wave
There's been a crime wave in Washington, DC lately. Since they've already outlawed self defense in the district, there isn't much that can be done to halt this latest rash of robbery and murder. Instead of catching the bad guys, DC officials are focusing their efforts on further restricting the rights of district residents. From WaPo:
Seeking to combat a surge in violent crime, the D.C. Council approved an emergency bill that would impose a 10 p.m. curfew on youths younger than 18 years old, give police immediate access to some confidential juvenile records and install surveillance cameras in residential neighborhoods for the first time.
Youths will have to be off the streets by the tightened curfew for the next three months unless they are with a parent, on the way home from work, or attending a civic or church outing. Visiting teenagers from Maryland, Virginia and elsewhere will be subject to the same provision. The curfew is two hours earlier than the one in effect since 1999.
Our congress penalized America with the Patriot Act for the actions of terrorists on 9/11. The executive branch continues the assault on the innocent with their continued wiretapping efforts. It seems that DC officials have learned well from their federal masters.
Police Group Is Helping Out Rep. McKinney's Primary Challenger
Even though Rep. McKinney managed to escape criminal charges when she struck a Capitol police officer last March, it looks like the incident will damage her in other ways (via Roll Call):
Defeated and later politically redeemed in the span of two election cycles, Rep. Cynthia McKinney's electoral fate once again hangs in the balance after the controversial Georgia Democrat failed to garner a majority of the vote in Tuesday's primary.
She now faces an Aug. 8 runoff with former DeKalb County Commissioner Hank Johnson (D), who came within roughly 1,650 votes of the incumbent in a contest that received relatively little attention before the votes were counted.
It seems that the Fraternal Order of Police wants to make sure Rep. McKinney doesn't get reelected (via Roll Call):
After remaining neutral in the primary, the DeKalb County Fraternal Order of Police lodge endorsed Johnson on Wednesday afternoon and said it would request a contribution from the national FOP political action committee.
"I've been in touch with Hank Johnson's campaign and I've placed all of the resources of the state lodge at their disposal, whatever they need, whatever we can do, we've placed our resources with Hank Johnson," said Carlton Stallings, president of the Georgia state lodge of the FOP.
Things have gotten so bad for Rep. McKinney that even the Congressional Black Caucus, which is usually protective of its members, is divided in its support for her (via Roll Call):
McKinney has some staunch loyalists in the CBC - Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) chief among them - but there also are pockets of resentment in the 43-member group.
"I think she's going to get some help. But it's not going to be across the caucus," said one CBC source. "She very seldom attends meetings, and the only recent one she did attend was when she got in trouble and she came for help."
One Capitol police officer made it clear on who he wanted to win (via Roll Call):
"It's really now in the hands of the voters in her district and I hope those voters make a better decision than Cynthia McKinney did when she struck a U.S. Capitol Police officer," said Andy Maybo, an officer with the department's K-9 division.
Republicans Looking to Wrap Themselves in a Security Blanket
Roll Call on Thursday reports how Congressional Republicans are going try to tie as many issues as they can to national security:
With crises popping up around the world, Congressional Republicans are looking to exploit their traditional political advantage on defense matters by placing a growing number of issues under the national security umbrella.
One Republican lawmaker explains why his party is wrapping itself in a security blanket (via Roll Call):
In a speech at the Heritage Foundation Wednesday laying out the GOP's agenda for the year, Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) made a similar argument about the centrality of security issues.
"It all starts with our commitment to keeping America safe," Boehner said. "The world is a dangerous place today, with crises across the globe. It's just one more reminder that Republicans have carried the burden of leadership during some pretty difficult times."
Under Republican leadership, the United States has become less safe and less free. The military has become bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan. This has emboldened America's enemies like Iran and North Korea. Now Iran is having its proxy, the terrorist group Hezbollah, spread more instability in the Middle East by attacking Israel.
A federal judge on Wednesday overturned a Maryland law that would have required Wal-Mart Stores to spend more on employee health care, arguing the retail giant "faces threatened injury" from the law's spending requirement.
The state law would have required large employers to spend at least 8% of payroll on health care or pay the difference in state taxes. Only Wal-Mart would have been affected by Maryland's law.
This federal court ruling really puts a crimp in Maryland's plan to extort money from Wal-Mart.
Under the liberal mindset, it's Wal-Mart's fault that Maryland has trouble paying for their bloated $4.6 billion Medicaid program. Go figure.
Attorney General Says the President Blocked Justice Department Investigation
Here is the latest sign that President George W. Bush is turning into Richard Nixon (via Chicago Tribune):
President Bush personally blocked an internal Justice Department investigation of the National Security Agency's warrantless surveillance program earlier this year, Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales said Tuesday.
The president didn't see the need for a Justice Department investigation (via CNN.com):
...at the White House, spokesman Tony Snow said the eavesdropping program is reviewed every 45 days by senior officials, including Gonzales. The president did not consider the Justice unit that functions as a legal ethics watchdog to be the "proper venue," Snow said.
"What he was saying is that in the case of a highly classified program, you need to keep the number of people exposed to it tight for reasons of national security, and that's what he did," Snow said.
One Congressman felt that President Bush was being inconsistent (via CNN.com):
An internal Justice Department memo in April, released Tuesday, said the administration had granted clearances to a "large team of attorneys and FBI agents" to investigate news leaks of the NSA program. Lawyers defending the department against lawsuits involving the program also had no trouble getting clearances, according to the memo.
"With so many other lawyers in the Department of Justice being granted clearance, it raises the obvious question of whether there was some interest on the part of the administration in not having that opinion given," Specter said.
Bush's Signing Statements - a Threat to the Separation of Powers
On Tuesday, former Congressman Bob Barr wrote a guest column in Roll Call. His topic was presidential signing statements, which he admits may seem "an obscure issue," but actually goes "to the very heart of our country's system of checks and balances."
Barr explains why everyone should take this issue seriously:
Article I of the Constitution gives Congress the power to make the laws. Under Article II, the president has the duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. The Constitution also says that if the president objects to a law, he should veto it. This gives Congress the chance to override his veto, enacting the law despite the president's opposition or to sustain the veto and work to address the president's objections. This system drives an ongoing negotiation between the two political branches.
In his nearly six years in office, Bush has not vetoed a single bill. Instead, he has signed bills into law and then issued signing statements that declare he will not give them, or a provision of them, effect. In doing this, the president is cutting off the negotiation and usurping the power of Congress. He effectively is vetoing the law without giving Congress the opportunity to override his veto or address his concerns, as required by the Constitution.
Barr notes that Congress has been asleep at the wheel in stopping the president's inappropriate use of signing statements:
Unfortunately, Congress has been complicit in this "power grab." Congress repeatedly has acquiesced to Bush's unilateral actions. It has failed in its constitutional obligation to make the laws and to oversee the White House's actions to make sure it is implementing those laws and doing so lawfully and constitutionally.
At the end of the column is where I disagree with former Congressman Barr. He states that we should "urge Congress to make unmistakably clear the link between a president's inappropriate use of signing statements and the costs of doing so - and then to follow through with specific actions to restore our checks and balances."
I have little faith that this Congress will take the necessary steps to rein in the president. It will take new Libertarian leaders elected to Congress to stop this presidential power grab.
Federal Drought Aid Program Turns Into a Cash Bonanza
The Washington Post reports how a federal program designed to provide limited assistance to dairy farmers and ranchers hurt by drought turned into a bloated entitlement program:
In all, the Livestock Compensation Program cost taxpayers $1.2 billion during its two years of existence, 2002 and 2003. Of that, $635 million went to ranchers and dairy farmers in areas where there was moderate drought or none at all, according to an analysis of government records by The Washington Post. None of the ranchers were required to prove they suffered an actual loss. The government simply sent each of them a check based on the number of cattle they owned.
This level of incompetence and bungling approaches FEMA levels.
Much of the problem, as usual, can be traced back to Congress and special interests (via Washington Post):
At first, livestock owners were required to be in a county officially suffering a drought to collect the money. But ranchers who weren't eligible complained to their representatives in Washington, and in 2003 Congress dropped that requirement. Ranchers could then get payments for any type of federally declared "disaster." In some cases, USDA administrators prodded employees in the agency's county offices to find qualifying disasters, even if they were two years old or had nothing to do with ranching or farming.
Terri Noteboom, a livestock farmer in Washington state, notes how the drought aid program unexpectedly ballooned in cost:
"The way I see it, many times they do these programs and instead of applying it to one area, they find a way to apply it to the entire country. I don't know if you call that a loophole or not."
I would call it another instance of where good intentions turn into a wasteful government program.
DownsizeDC has posted information about a memorial service for former LP presidential candidate Harry Browne:
Harry Browne's memorial service will be held at the Historic Moravian Chapel in Kernersville, NC on Saturday, August 12th at 2 PM.
The Reverend Amis Daniel, a family friend and the pastor who married Harry and Pamela in 1985, will be officiating. Also officiating will be Harry's son-in-law, Michael Buss, who was a Baptist minister in England.
The service will include CD music that Harry personally selected for his funeral, scripture, a message by one of the pastors, poetry that Harry selected for his wedding with Pamela, a eulogy, an opportunity for spontaneous eulogies, and a message Harry wrote to be read at his funeral.
There will be a reception with light hors d'oeuvres afterwards in the church fellowship hall until around 5 PM.
If you plan to attend please RSVP to "COMMENTS at DOWNSIZEDC dot ORG"
Harry Browne died on March 1, 2006. Lew Rockwell's words perhaps best sum up my feelings about him:
He was a man of great principle who courageously and consistently stood up for liberty even when his position clashed with mainstream political culture and public opinion. He was a great writer who worked hard to turn a phrase in a way that would serve to educate people about free markets and the free society. He was a supremely thoughtful man, who read voraciously to educate himself, was not adverse to admitting error, and constantly struggled to say what was true as he understood it.
Houston Business Connections seems to be taking the Libertarian Party seriously. Check out this page, where you can leave an endorsement (didn't seem to work for me with Firefox, but it did with IE) for one of three candidates: Republican Tom DeLay, Democrat Nick Lampson or Libertarian Bob Smither.
The webpage has other cool things on it, like a tool for facial recognition of the three main Texas party chairs.
Bob Smither (site, blog) is running on constitutional integrity, while DeLay's platform seems to be based on a lack of integrity. Looks like DeLay may be about out of money, too.
Political Analyst Takes Note of LP Founder's Candidacy in Hot Congressional Race
On Monday, Libertarian Party founder David Nolan was featured by one of Tucson's prominent political columnists. Nolan has entered into one of this year's mostly hotly contested House races.
The Tucson Citizen column reported that Nolan's entry is not "intended as symbolic gesture by the man who created the nation's most successful and enduring third party."
Nolan knows he faces an uphill battle, but remains undeterred:
"I think it's a very long shot that I can win, but I think we'll have something to say about the balance of power," said Nolan, 62. "We're going to become a factor to be reckoned with. We're looking at getting concessions from one or the other candidates to treat our issues with sincerity."
Nolan is in the race to make sure the voters of southern Arizona hear his Libertarian message:
"We just want to see a general reduction in the size, cost and scope of federal government," Nolan said..."
A proposal to award $1 million in every general election to one lucky resident, chosen by lottery, simply for voting - no matter for whom - has qualified for the November ballot.
Mark Osterloh, a political gadfly who is behind the initiative, the Arizona Voter Reward Act, is promoting it with the slogan, "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? Vote!" He collected 185,902 signatures of registered voters, far more than the 122,612 required, and last week the secretary of state certified the measure for the ballot this fall.
Not everyone favors Osterloh's voter lottery proposal (via NY Times):
Curtis Gans, director of the Center for the Study of the American Electorate in Washington, said the idea of a voter lottery had come up in other states, but he could not recall any moving forward with it. And he's glad.
"People should not go vote because they might win a lottery," Mr. Gans said. "We need to rekindle the religion of civic duty, and that is a hard job, but we should not make voting crassly commercial."
I would tend to agree with Gans's comments. The problem of low voter turnout is not going to be solved with gimmicky solutions. It's going to be solved with better candidates and more choices at the ballot box.
As most internet active people in the libertarian movement are aware; blogger, Cato analyst and Fox News columnist Radley Balko has been leading the crusade against no-knock raids by police departments. His research also unearthed the story of Cory Maye, who was (probably wrongfully) convicted of murder in the death of a police officer in Prentiss, Mississippi. Maye contends that the killing was an act of self-defense.
The paper has an appendix of nearly 150 examples of documented botched raids, including: the case of Alberto Sepulveda, an 11-year-old boy shot in the head during a bungled raid in Modesto, California; Clayton Helriggle, a 23-year-old shot and killed when an inexperienced SWAT team raided a house of college-aged men guilty of recreational marijuana use; Sal Culosi, an optometrist in Fairfax, Virginia mistakenly killed by a SWAT team that had come to his home to arrest him for betting on sports games; and Mississippi police officer Ron Jones, shot and killed when Cory Maye, a man asleep at home with his daughter and who had no criminal record, mistook Jones' raid team for criminal intruders.
Balko has found more than three dozen examples of completely innocent people killed in mistaken raids, twenty cases of nonviolent offenders who've been killed, and more than a dozen cases of police officers killed by suspects or mistakenly targeted civilians who thought the police were criminal intruders.
Additionally, Cato is releasing an interactive Google Map app that shows the locations of a score of bungled raids over the last two decades. If you're not familiar with Google Maps, you'll be able to zoom onto the local street where the raid happened and view either traditional street map detail or enjoy a satellite view of the area. The data are also searchable by state, year, or type of unnecessary harm done by government entities to private citizens.
Sen. Ted Stevens: "The Internet is Not a Truck...It's a Series of Tubes"
At a Senate Commerce Committee meeting this week, Committee Chairman, Sen. Ted Stevens (R - Alaska) weighed in on the net neutrality debate.
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart reports on Sen. Stevens speech:
Judging from his speech, Sen. Stevens is clueless on how the Internet works, yet he is the chairman of a Senate committee that has jurisdiction over online communications.
Wonkette posted a remix video of Sen. Ted Stevens set to techno music here.
President Bush Will Let FISA Court Rule on Warrantless Wiretapping Program
The New York Times reported on Thursday that the White House finally agreed to allow a federal court to review the legality of the National Security Agency's (NSA) warrantless wiretapping program.
The catch is the court that will decide the program's legality is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, a secret intelligence court.
Even if the FISA court rules against the warrantless wiretapping program, the public might be left in the dark (via NY Times):
The plan, brokered over the last three weeks in negotiations between Senator Arlen Specter and senior White House officials, including President Bush himself, would apparently leave the secretive intelligence court free to consider the case in closed proceedings, without the kind of briefs and oral arguments that are usually part of federal court consideration of constitutional issues. The court's ruling in the matter could also remain secret.
One congresswoman felt Sen. Specter may have caved in to White House (via NY Times):
In a separate interview, Representative Jane Harman of California, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said she saw the Specter-White House agreement as an "end run" around the FISA law requiring the approval of individual wiretapping warrants.
"I have great respect for this guy," she said of Mr. Specter, "but he hasn't been briefed on this program, and he's giving away in this legislation a core Fourth Amendment protection by basically saying that the FISA court has permission to bless the entire program, which will abandon as best I can tell the requirement of individualized warrants."
The U.S. Supreme Court, not a secret federal court, should rule on the warrantless wiretapping program's constitutionality.
CNN reported that a study done by the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General's office found that the department's database listing vulnerable critical infrastructure and key resources is severely flawed.
According to Homeland Security, some of the vulnerable critical infrastructure and key resources included an insect zoo, a bourbon festival, and a kangaroo conservation center.
Here's some more evidence of where Homeland Security's priorities are (via CNN.com):
The report noted that Indiana has 8,591 assets listed in the database -- more than any other state and 50 percent more than New York.
New York had 5,687 listed. It did not detail which ones, but the Homeland Security assessment of New York this year failed to include Times Square, the Empire State Building, the Brooklyn Bridge or the Statue of Liberty as a national icon or monument.
Not including the Statue of Liberty in the database just boggles my mind.
How can Homeland Security protect us from terrorism if they can't even determine the important places to protect?
California Senate Looking to Limit Smoking in Cars
Here's a proposal for a law that can only originate from California (via San Luis Obispo Tribune):
A plan before the state Senate, which local lawmakers support, would make it illegal to smoke in the car when small children are inside.
According to one California lawmaker, it's all about saving the children:
Assemblyman Sam Blakeslee, R-San Luis Obispo, said he would vote for the plan if it goes to the Assembly floor.
"It's not fair to children to subject them to secondhand smoke," Blakeslee said Sunday.
The proposed law would make it illegal to smoke a pipe, cigar or cigarette in a parked or moving vehicle if a child under the age of 6 or weighing less than 60 pounds is inside, according to the San Luis Obispo Tribune. A law enforcement officer could stop the vehicle and issue a warning on the first violation, and on subsequent violations issue a fine up to $100.
Here's is the local Libertarian reaction (via San Luis Obispo Tribune):
Local libertarians strongly oppose the bill, saying the government shouldn't meddle in people's private spaces.
"It's ludicrous," said Gail Lightfoot, chairwoman of the San Luis Obispo County Libertarian Party.
In an article just published in Playboy, Nixon White House Counsel John Dean asked:
Are we really safer from terrorism after having provoked almost the entire world to hate America? What has become of Congress's constitutional and institutional role of oversight, checking and balancing? Why do rank-and-file Republicans and longtime traditional conservatives tolerate the recent shift in the tenor of conservatism and the Republican Party?
Dean, a self-identified Goldwater conservative, took a stab at answering these and related questions in his article entitled "Radicals on the Rise." Using the work of Bob Altemeyer; who penned Right-Wing Authoritarianism, Enemies of Freedom: Understanding Right Wing Authoritarianism and The Authoritarian Specter; Dean took a look at the personality traits of some conservatives. He found that the following common traits tend to exist among right-wing authoritarians:
These men and women are typically conventional in their ways and highly religious with moderate to little education; their prejudices (particularly against homosexuals, women and religions other than their own) are often conspicuous; they are mean-spirited, narrow-minded and intolerant; they are uncritical in their thinking regarding their chosen authority and therefore hold inconsistent and contradictory positions; they are prone to panic, highly self-righteous, moralistic and punitive; they throw the book at others when punishing; and they have little self-awareness.
He stated that Altemeyer told him this group would "attack France, Massachusetts or the moon" if the president pushed the idea. His critique of socially dominating authoritarian leaders was more damning:
They are typically dominating men who constantly seek personal power for themselves; they have an amoral view of the world; they intimidate and bully as a matter of course; they are faintly hedonistic and generally vengeful, pitiless, exploitive, manipulative, and dishonest; they are highly prejudiced (racist, sexist, homophobic), mean-spirited, militant and nationalistic; they tell others what they want to hear, will take advantage of suckers, and they often create false images of themselves to achieve their goals.
He then brought to our attention the truly scary people: the ones who score high on both the authoritarian and the leader scale. He categorized Karl Rove as a right-wing follower and Bill Frist as a socially dominating authoritarian. Obviously, Hitler was the prototypical example of one who scored high on both scales. Dick Cheney served as a more recent example of a "double high."
In the recent branding survey conducted by the Libertarian Party (details available in the next issue of LP News), we took a look at Altemeyer's work, too. The chart (click to enlarge) shows how libertarians compare to right-wing authoritarians in the general U.S. population. Approximately one third of the thousand respondents in our survey fell into the libertarian or authoritarian camp, with the number of people in each of these two groupings being equally distributed.
Based on our survey results, it is thought that much of present resistance to libertarian political thought in America derives not so much from considered and well-reasoned anti-libertarian opinion as from a basic psychological tendency of many people to oppose any political orientation which they perceive as being counter to that supported by the "legitimate authorities." Americans who are strongly counter-libertarian will continue to oppose the Libertarian agenda so long as they see it as not being sanctioned by their existing political authorities. We now know that it would be fruitless to target the seriously authoritarian groups, but fortunately they are a minority.
In closing his article, Dean suggested:
Authoritarians are conservatives without a conscience, and they want to take America to a place the great majority of thinking Americans--including Goldwater conservatives--do not want to go. Let's not follow.
While Dean provided great reasons for "thinking Americans" and Goldwater conservatives to ditch the GOP, he didn't provide them with a new direction which complies with their general philosophies. Fortunately, the Libertarian Party provides just this home.
On June 11, the ACLU Voting Rights office sued New Mexico over the law that requires qualified minor parties to submit separate petitions for each of their nominees. [The case is] Libertarian Party of New Mexico v Vigil-Giron, 06-615. The case was assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Martha Vazquez, a Clinton appointee. New Mexico is the only state that requires a new party to submit one petition to qualify itself, and then completely separate petitions for each of that party's nominees (who would have been nominated by convention). A new party that wanted to run a full slate of candidates for all partisan offices would need approximately 250,000 valid signatures.
Dr. Steven Taylor at PoliBlog shows how American policy toward Cuba remains woefully counterproductive. He notes a BBC News article that reports on an $80 million plan developed by the Bush administration to boost democracy in Cuba.
Taylor argues that rather than pursuing the same old tired Cold War policies when dealing with Cuba, the Bush administration should try something different:
All well and good, but how about putting the Cold War policies on Cuba out of their misery and open up relations? If the goal is to help the Cuban people and to contribute to the liberalization of its government and economy, then nothing would help accomplish this feat like a flood of US dollars, products and citizens into Cuba.
Aside from the obvious political ramifications in the Florida electorate, it is unclear to me what the negative ramifications of such a move would be. If we can make nice with Qadhafi, not to mention the Chinese, then I don't see why it is beyond acceptable to normalize relations with Cuba.
Taylor has an answer to those who are adamantly opposed to lifting the Cuban embargo:
For those utterly opposed to lifting the sanctions on Cuba, I would ask: precisely why? What is the risk to the United States of such a move? Yes, Castro is a dictator and a bad man, however our current policy is hardly affecting his power and influence (arguably it enhances it, by giving him an scapegoat to blame for Cuba's ills). And it isn't as if we deal with only nice guys. Quite frankly, the government in Saudi Arabia is more of a security risk to the US than is Castro.
How much of a security risk can Castro be? He will be turning 80 soon. This is the perfect time to lift the embargo.
Taylor explains why now is such a good time:
Indeed, in terms of US goals vis-a-vis the island, it would make more sense to start making connections before the death of Castro and the uncertainty that that will create.
The Daily Times of Farmington, NM ran a column written by local city councilman George Sharp about banning smoking in private businesses. Here's a clip from the article:
This IS a health issue. The first question, then, is whether it is government's role to mandate a healthy environment. The government already plays that role over and over and over again. They require seatbelts, which is the ultimate individual right decision. If you choose to take your seatbelt off, you aren't forcing everyone else in the car to take theirs off as well, while if you light up a cigarette, your passengers are forced to join in. Like it or not, because of that law, more people wear seatbelts, and many, many lives are saved.
Fortunately, local Libertarian Joseph Knight was on the ball. His column appeared just below Sharp's. While it wasn't intended as a rebuttal, Knight is pleased that it serves as one anyway.
You say you have a right to clean air? Fair enough. But your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. In this case my nose begins at the front door of my home or business.
The choices concisely stated
The city will choose between two basic philosophies. The first is simply stated by the Communist Party: "We believe that all employers must provide a safe working environment for their employees. Where restaurants are filled with second-hand smoke, the workers are endangered." (Source: ask the Communist Party at www.cpusa.org.)
The second is stated by the Libertarian Party of San Juan County: "In a free market, we have a choice. If we are concerned about second-hand smoke, we can choose to work or dine in a non-smoking restaurant. If we enjoy smoking after a meal, we can choose a place that allows smoking. Let businesses set their own policies, let workers and customers choose."
Normally, local politicians don't get away with implementing the Communist Party line, but they can do it while the people cheer if they invoke one or more of the "holy mantras."
I'm not sure if Knight or the copy editor picked the title for the article, but "Smoking is healthier than fascism" is certainly applicable. What's even more interesting is that some people who criticize Libertarians as being extreme spend their time implementing fascist or communist public policy.
YouTube Is Helping Leveling the Political Playing Field
Another revolution is starting in politics - the YouTube revolution.
Washington Post columnist Howard Kurtz explains how a website that host video clips could change politics forever:
If any teenager can put up a video for or against a candidate, and persuade other people to watch that video, the center of gravity could shift to masses of people with camcorders and passable computer skills. And if people increasingly distrust the mainstream media, they might be more receptive to messages created by ordinary folks.
"YouTube is a campaign game-changer, shifting the dynamics of how to reach voters and build intimate relationships," says Julie Supan, senior marketing director for the small, California-based firm, which by one measure now runs the 39th most popular Web site. "YouTube levels the playing field, allowing well-backed and less-known candidates to reach the same audience and share the same stage."
Anyone can register on the site and upload videos. The vast majority of the video clips that are posted on YouTube are designed to entertain, but Kurtz notes that politicians are using the site to help get their message out.
He notes two prominent examples:
Politicians are increasingly joining the party. Former Virginia governor Mark Warner, a Democrat who is weighing a White House bid, has posted a two-minute video, which has been viewed 426 times. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has a channel featuring C-SPAN clips of various Democrats. (Readers can offer comments; one called her "the biggest windbag in the House.") Krissy Keefer, a Green Party candidate challenging Pelosi, also has a channel, which includes a taped endorsement by a San Francisco street poet named Diamond Dave.
Being on YouTube allows a political candidate to reach the largest possible audience, with 80 million videos being watched on the site every day. The site could be especially beneficial to LP candidates who have trouble getting coverage in the mainstream media.
Some Libertarians have already joined the fun and posted videos on YouTube.
Here's the link to a YouTube video clip that has been viewed over 1,000 times called "Vote Libertarian."
According to the AP, our political leadership is sorry for the alleged rape of an Iraqi female as well as her murder and the murder of members of her family.
The top U.S. commander in Iraq and the American ambassador expressed condolences Thursday to the family of the victims of an alleged rape-slaying attack against an Iraqi family by U.S. forces.
Gen. George W. Casey and U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, in their first remarks on the case, said the investigation into the attack would be pursued in a "vigorous and open process."
"On behalf of the U.S. Mission and the Multi-National Force in Iraq, we wish to express our heartfelt condolences to all the family members who lost a loved one in Mahmudiyah on March 12, 2006," they said in a statement, calling the alleged rape of a young Iraqi woman and the killing of her and her family "absolutely inexcusable and unacceptable behavior."
While the neocons would argue that the Iraqis should apologize for 9/11, we know that to be a complete barrel of lies. However, a bare minimum of serious apologies are due for "absolutely inexcusable and unacceptable behavior," such as the deaths of 2538 Americans and approximately 40,000 Iraqis since hostilities began. While the neocons are at it, they could also apologize to Iraqis for their torture at Abu Ghraib and to Americans for wasting $294,000,000,000 of our tax dollars.
"We will hold our service members accountable if they are found guilty of misconduct in a court of law," it added.
Perhaps they should apply this same sort of accountability to our political leaders, too.
One of the highlights of the national convention was Krist Novoselic's speech at the Sunday breakfast.
Novoselic played bass guitar in the legendary 90's band Nirvana. He now devotes his time to fighting for electoral reform. Krist has a seat on the board of directors of FairVote, a political advocacy group that promotes voter turnout, fair representation, and competition in elections.
His keynote speech at the Sunday breakfast focused on the lack of competition in today's elections.
Krist stated that the "status quo is failing us right now." He noted how ideological minorities have a strong influence in their respective party's primary. If the election is uncontested, the highly motivated ideological minority chooses the general election winner. As a result, only a very small percentage of the electorate has a say in who wins the general election.
One of the reforms Krist proposed during his speech is instant runoff voting. He argued that instant runoff voting generates competition in elections, thereby leading to more choices for voters.
In instant runoff voting, voters rank the candidates by preference. If there is no clear majority, the candidate with the least votes is dropped from the ballot and an instant runoff election is held. The ballots are counted again. This time each ballot cast for the defeated candidate counts for the next choice candidate listed on the ballot. The process of eliminating the last place candidate and recounting the ballots continues until one candidate receives a majority of the vote.
He noted that instant runoff voting has already been tried in a few cities and was found to lessen negative campaigning.
Krist said another benefit of instant runoff voting is it allows political parties to nominate multiple candidates in order to appeal to a larger swath of voters. He also noted that instant runoff voting is an effective answer to the "wasted vote" syndrome.
Remember the Republican Contract onwith America which helped propel the GOP to power in 1994? Texas LP congressional candidate Michael Badnarik has a pretty cool idea along the same general theme. Unlike the Republicans, Badnarik's plan actually has serious teeth behind it. Here's an overview of the issues Badnarik is pledging to honor:
stay within the constitution
defend individual rights
pursue a balanced budget
end US adventurism abroad
preserve the means of self-defense
preserve states' "rights"
preserve national sovereignty
secure the borders
manage immigration sensibly
Here's the really interesting part. Badnarik is actually signing a binding contract with the voters in Texas CD10. If he reneges on the deal, he zaps himself with the worst penalty a politician could ever imagine.
A Binding Candidate Employment Contract With the People of the 10th Congressional District, Texas
Michael Badnarik will sign a binding "Candidate Employment Contract" with the voters of Texas congressional district 10 which will protect the interest of the voters and the integrity of the office by stripping him of his eligibility to run for re-election if he violates the terms & conditions of that contract.
In short, if he violates his contract with the voters, Michael Badnarik will have voluntarily made himself ineligible to run for re-election.
Violate the Contract, Abstain from Office!
Michael Badnarik's voluntary "Candidate Employment Contract" will include a provision that outlines a binding arbitration process through the American Arbitration Association that will prevent Michael Badnarik from filing for re-election if he is found to have violated his employment contract. What better way can there be to guarantee integrity in politics than for the candidates to voluntarily put themselves into a legally binding situation that prevents them from continuing in office if they betray the voters?
It will prove interesting to see how the voter's in Badnarik's district react to this contract.
Libertarian journalist John Stossel, in his latest RealClearPolitics column, takes a swipe at Al Gore's convenient lie about global warming.
Stossel shines some light on the other side of the global warming debate. It is the side that is often overlooked by the mainstream press.
Stossel gives an example of the gloom and doom reporting by the mainstream press:
The Washington Post reported that because of melting ice caps and glaciers, "The End Is Near!" But melting Arctic ice won't raise sea levels any more than the melting ice in your drink makes your glass overflow.
Stossel shows how Gore goes for the dramatic in his new film, An Inconvenient Truth, and doesn't let facts get in the way:
The former vice president's film shows dramatic film of big chunks of ice breaking off glaciers, but the "calving" of icebergs is a normal, natural process involved in the growth of glaciers into the sea. The movie features some majestic glaciers that existed in the 19th Century that have all but disappeared today -- but it doesn't bother to mention any of the glaciers growing in Norway, New Zealand and even the United States. The U.S. Forest Service reports that the Hubbard Glacier in Alaska's Tongass National Forest is advancing so rapidly, it threatens to close off a major fjord.
Stossel asks the question, Why don't we hear about the other side of the global warming argument?
Here is the response he received from Harvard astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas:
"It's the money!" says Dr. Baliunas. "Twenty-five billion dollars in government funding has been spent since 1990 to research global warming. If scientists and researchers were coming out releasing reports that global warming has little to do with man, and most to do with just how the planet works, there wouldn't be as much money to study it."
It seems the final battle of the Kelo v. City of New London case is now over. Susette Kelo and Michael Cristofaro have signed a deal with the city as the aftermath of the controversial Supreme Court wraps up. From WaPo:
Two homeowners who had refused to leave their riverfront homes to make way for private development have reached a tentative agreement with the city of New London, Gov. M. Jodi Rell said Friday.
Officials did not release details of the deal, which came a year after the Supreme Court ruled that New London could seize the property under eminent domain.
The settlement was announced a day after a deadline for Susette Kelo and Pasquale Cristofaro to either settle or lose a chance at extra funds authorized by Rell. The deal should be wrapped up by June 30, the governor said in a statement.
Kelo, the lead plaintiff in the Supreme Court case, and Cristofaro had faced the possibility of forced eviction from their homes in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood to make way for a hotel, convention center and upscale condominiums.
While this battle may be officially over, the war against private property owners certainly isn't. I'd advise Americans to be on the lookout for surprise attacks coming from various governmental forces.
We are waiting for the official results to come in from the Secretary (and our equipment and materials to arrive back from Portland), but we'll try to get the platform changes properly annotated on the website as soon as possible. In the mean time, here are the unofficial results for the LNC officer and at-large positions:
Chair
** Bill Redpath 182
Ernie Hancock 66
George Phillies 26
Vice Chair Round 1
Chuck Moulton 117
M Carling 96
Tony Ryan 71
NOTA 3
Round 2
** Moulton 169
Carling 105
Secretary Bob Sullentrup ran unopposed
Treasurer
** Geoff Neale 191
Mark Nelson 77
NOTA 12
AT LARGE
** Admiral Michael Colley 251
** Angela Keaton 231
** Patrick Dixon 212
** Jeremy Keil 175
** Dan Karlan 149
Above were elected
Unprecedented overturn of most of the LP Platform!
Bonnie Scott provided the following update from the convention floor with regard to platform votes:
Normally, the platform retention vote is merely a formality. This year, however, the majority of the just under 300 delegates voted to not retain a majority of planks in the LP Platform.
What WAS retained, either through vote or through amendment during the convention, follows:
* I.1 Freedom and Responsibility
* I.12 Property Rights <- IV.D.3, IV.C.3
I.2 Crime <- I.3
* I.13 The Right to Privacy
* I.16 The Right to Keep and Bear Arms
I.17 Conscription
I.18 Immigration
I.20 Reproductive Rights <- III.5
I.22 Sexuality and Gender
II.5 Government Debt
II.6 Corporate Welfare, Monopolies and Subsidies <- II.7
II.9 Public Services <- III.13
* indicates approved by over 50% of delegates for retention
<- indicates consolidation
Ballots have been handed out for the second, confirming vote on the platform retention (i.e., a second chance for the planks not on the above list). There are three hours for voting, and we may or may not hear the results before the convention ends.
Here is some of the latest news from the national convention. It has been an interesting convention so far. At Saturday's business session, the delegates debated various changes to the LP platform. One change that experienced heavy debate was the proposed change to the immigration plank.
At the Saturday morning breakfast, featured speakers Greg Nojeim and Bob Barr were very well received, judging by their respective standing ovations.
Nojeim, the legislative director for the American Civil Liberties Union, discussed the real danger of the Patriot Act and our loss of civil liberties under the Bush administration.
Former Congressman Barr told the breakfast attendees what action the Libertarian Party needs to undertake to take to be a "protector of liberty."
Barr issued a virtual call to arms:
"To be a true and meaningful protector of liberty as a political party, an organization must be ... organized ... prioritized ... committed ... serious ... It cannot spend its time and resources nibbling at the edges of the fundamental problem facing America today - the loss of liberty at the very hands of government - but must instead truly join the battle; lead the fight."
Libertarian National Committee, Inc. - 2008 - Privacy Policy Paid for by the Libertarian National Committee -- 2600 Virginia Ave, N.W. Suite 200, Washington D.C. 20037 -- 1-800-Elect-Us Content not authorized by any candidate or candidate committee
Houston Business Connections seems to be taking the Libertarian Party seriously. Check out 
In an article just published in Playboy, Nixon White House Counsel 
One of the highlights of the national convention was Krist Novoselic's speech at the Sunday breakfast. 
