Indiana Libertarian to Appear in Three-Way Debate Tonight
Libertarian Dr. Eric Schansberg, who is running for Indiana's 9th Congressional District will appear in a three-way debate against Democrat Baron Hill and Republican incumbent Mike Sodrel.
The debate will be broadcasted live at 8:00pm tonight, August 31st on WTIU, Indiana University's public television station.
WTIU News Director Chuck Carney will moderate. Panelists asking questions will be Bob Zaltsberg of The Herald-Times, Jim Shella of WISH-TV in Indianapolis and Lesley Stedman Weidenbener of the Louisville Courier-Journal.
The debate is sponsored by WTIU, Hoosiers for Higher Education, and The Bloomington Herald-Times. The debate will be simulcast live on WFIU-FM.
The Indiana 9th Congressional race is predicted to be a close one, despite the incumbent Sodrel running for reelection. CQPolitics.com states there is no clear favorite in its 2006 Election Forecast.
Christine Smith Will Seek the 2008 LP Presidential Nomination
Christine Smith has announced she will seek the 2008 LP presidential nomination. Christine, a resident of Colorado, is a professional writer and was founder and president of a nationwide charity for seven years. She has experience in public speaking, having appeared on many national radio talk shows due to her writing.
Here's more about Christine from her press release:
I am a natural leader and passionate about my LP politics. I am dedicated to growing the LP by reaching out to the American people with our platform; a platform which I think the majority of Americans will respond to if it is given to them by an articulate LP candidate. I have the abilities needed, and the willingness, devotion, dedication; I believe my ability to effectively communicate and articulate Libertarian solutions will generate greater national media coverage.
I am determined to build our party...educate the people...and make a positive difference through my service with the LP. I have given serious consideration to pursuing a major political office as a Libertarian since a position of leadership will permit me to work for the changes we seek in government; the more I have thought about it, after careful deliberation, I feel I could do the most for our party and our country by becoming our presidential candidate in 2008.
Christine does not have a campaign website up yet, but states she will have one up and running soon. She suggests that if you wish to be notified of when her campaign website is up, email notification@christinesmithforpresident.com to be placed on the email notification list.
On August 30th, MoveOn.org, a liberal grassroots organization, held a rally opposing the Iraq war in front of the New York state capital building. The rally organizers were not expecting two Libertarian candidates to attend the anti-war protest.
Both Eric Sundwall, Libertarian candidate for New York's 20th Congressional District and Jeff Russell, Libertarian candidate for U.S. Senate spoke at the MoveOn.org rally.
Sundwall stated over the phone that it was an impromptu appearance and they were not formally invited to speak at the rally. He said the rally organizers were surprised at first that Libertarian candidates showed up. Sundwall remarked that those at the rally were polite and appreciative of his and Russell's appearance. None of Sundwall's or Russell's opponents appeared at the anti-war protest.
According to Sundwall, two local newspapers, the Albany Times-Union and the Troy Record, along with three local network affiliates, covered the event.
After the MoveOn.org rally, Russell and Sundwall went to the nearby New York Board of Elections to check on the petitions they filed to qualify for the November statewide ballot. The petitions are currently being challenged. The Libertarian Party of New York believes the state Republican Party is behind the challenge.
What do you do when you are an employee of a government contractor and complained about serious problems in the company, but no one seemed to be taking action? You make a video about it and post it on YouTube.
Michael De Kort was an engineer for Lockheed Martin and complained to his bosses, government investigators and members of Congress, but did not feel like anything was being done to correct what he felt were serious problems, the Washington Post reported.
The Washington Post provides some excerpts from De Kort's YouTube video:
"What I am going to tell you is going to seem preposterous," De Kort solemnly tells viewers near the outset of the 10-minute clip. Posted three weeks ago, the video describes what De Kort says are blind spots in the ship's security cameras, equipment that malfunctions in cold weather and other problems. "It may be very hard for you to believe that our government and the largest defense contractor in the world [are] capable of such alarming incompetence and can make ethical compromises as glaring as what I am going to describe."
It looks like De Kort has started to garner the attention of at least one member of Congress (via Washington Post):
The video also has caught the eye of people in high places. De Kort's video has been covered by defense trade magazines, and yesterday, Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), ranking Democrat on the Homeland Security Committee, wrote a letter to the Coast Guard asking for an answer to De Kort's "extremely distressing" allegations.
Some see this case as part of an exciting new trend (via Washington Post):
"This is an excellent example of the democratization of the media, where everyone has access to the printing press of the 21st century," said Dina Kaplan, co-founder of Blip.tv, a site that hosts grass-roots television programming.
Federal election regulators refused to ease limits on political advertising Tuesday, blocking an effort to let interest groups run radio and television ads mentioning elected officials within weeks of an election.
The Federal Election Commission voted 3-3 on a proposal that would have allowed such ads as long as they addressed public policy issues and did not promote, support, oppose or attack a sitting member of Congress. Supporters of the change said they wanted to strike a balance between campaign ad restrictions and constitutional free speech guarantees.
A wide array of interest groups are pushing for a change in the limits on political advertising (via Yahoo News):
Advocates of the change covered the political spectrum, from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to labor unions to the ACLU to a number of smaller nonprofit advocacy groups. They said the law not only restricted campaign advertising but also prohibited interest groups from voicing their views on legislation before Congress.
Rep. Nancy Pelosi and her fellow Democrats came up with another election-year gimmick to try to convince voters that they are more fiscally responsible party. Do they really think voters will believe this, coming from the same party that promoted universal health care coverage?
Democrats criticized the Bush administration's No Child Left Behind Act after it was passed; not because it was a massive, unfunded federal mandate that expanded the federal education bureaucracy, but rather because the law didn't increase federal spending on education enough to their liking.
Here's more on the Democrat "Truth Squad" from the Washington Times Inside Politics column:
With the fall elections little more than two months away, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi yesterday announced the formation of what she called a "Truth Squad," manned by some of her party's most partisan House members.
The Democrats' "Waste, Fraud and Abuse Truth Squad" will be chaired by California Reps. Henry A. Waxman and Dennis Cardoza. Mrs. Pelosi said the Truth Squad will focus on the Bush administration's mishandling of taxpayer dollars, which, she added, contributed to budget deficits.
According to the Washington Times, other members of the "Truth Squad" are David R. Obey of Wisconsin, John Tanner of Tennessee, and John F. Tierney of Massachusetts.
Let's see how fiscally responsible this group of representatives really are. The Citizens Against Government Waste, an independent non-partisan government watchdog group rates every member of Congress on how friendly they are to the American taxpayer, i.e. fiscally responsible.
According to the Citizens Against Government Waste's website, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Rep. Henry Waxman, Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin and Rep. John Tierney all received a rating of hostile to the taxpayer, the group's lowest rating for this current Congress. Rep. Dennis Cardoza and Rep. John Tanner did slightly better, as both received an unfriendly rating.
If voters are looking for the fiscally responsible party this November, the only choice is the Libertarian Party.
Loretta Nall and Dick Clark on WAUD AM 1230's Inside Auburn Politics
Libertarian candidates Loretta Nall and Dick Clark appeared on WAUD AM 1230's Inside Auburn Politics last Thursday.
Host Lane Powell commented on having two Libertarian candidates on his show at the same time, calling it a "Libertarianalooza." Nall is going for the Alabama governorship, while Clark is running for Alabama's 79th State House District.
Powell questioned Nall and Clark on how their campaigns differ from the two major parties, the challenges they face as third-party candidates and Libertarian William McLaurine's recent mayoral campaign in Auburn.
You can list to the entire interview here. The running time is slightly over 33 minutes.
At his news conference this week, President Bush is finding it difficult selling the progress (or lack thereof) that has been made in Iraq. It appears that even Bush is having a hard time believing his own administration's overly optimistic portrayals of what is happening on the ground in Iraq.
For three years, the president tried to reassure Americans that more progress was being made in Iraq than they realized. But with Iraq either in civil war or on the brink of it, Bush dropped the unseen-progress argument in favor of the contention that things could be even worse.
The shifting rhetoric reflected a broader pessimism that has reached into even some of the most optimistic corners of the administration -- a sense that the Iraq venture has taken a dark turn and will not be resolved anytime soon. Bush advisers once believed that if they met certain benchmarks, such as building a constitutional democracy and training a new Iraqi army, the war would be won. Now they believe they have more or less met those goals, yet the war rages on.
Baker notes how Bush is running out of signs of progress to placate the American public (via Washington Post):
Through much of the war, Bush and his advisers focused on meeting benchmarks laid out for rebuilding Iraq -- writing a new constitution, electing a new parliament, bringing disaffected Sunnis into the government and training Iraqi troops. As long as those benchmarks were met, the president had tangible events to point to as evidence of progress.
But the last step in that original timetable, election of a permanent parliament last December, has come and gone with no end to the violence. When Bush mentioned that election at his news conference, he depicted it not as progress but a sign that Iraqis want progress. "It's an indication about the desire for people to live in a free society," he said.
It's sad if the only argument you have left is "well, it could be worse".
Steve Kubby Will Seek the Libertarian Party's 2008 Presidential Nomination
Longtime Libertarian activist Steve Kubby has declared his desire to seek the presidential nomination of the Libertarian Party in 2008.
Kubby made his formal announcement to run for the highest office in America on August 20th in Seattle, Washington. His desire to run for president arose after his grueling legal ordeal with the state of California.
Kubby has already made his first campaign appearance in Washington state, speaking at a Bruce Guthrie for Senate campaign rally. Kubby stated that he is planning to start fundraising soon. His campaign will organize house parties where potential donors will get to meet Steve in person and discuss the issues. Kubby plans on stumping for Libertarian candidates this fall.
After the midterm elections, he plans to recruit additional staff and lay out his long-term campaign strategy. Kubby said he will work closely with state parties and visit state conventions as it gets closer to the 2008 Libertarian Party National Convention. Kubby's only other run for elected office was his 1998 California gubernatorial bid, where he received 70,000 votes.
Telecommunications company Qwest has taken an about face on its stance regarding the privacy of its customers. Apparently, they would like to help the government track what the public does online.
Broadband company Qwest Communications International on Tuesday strongly endorsed federal legislation requiring Internet providers to keep records of their customers' behavior, a move that could accelerate efforts in Congress to enact new laws.
Jennifer Mardosz, Qwest's corporate counsel and chief privacy officer, applauded efforts by politicians to force broadband providers to engage in so-called "data retention," which Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said will aid in investigations into terrorism and child exploitation. This appears to be the first time a broadband provider has called for data retention laws.
This move is surprising for Qwest, since they are the same company that resisted a request by the National Security Agency for their customers' phone records back in May, citing privacy concerns.
CNET News reports that Qwest already keeps logs for more than 99 percent of its services for one year. If mandatory data retention laws are enacted, companies could be forced to store personal identifiable data on its customers for several years.
Fortunately, other telecommunication companies have raised the red flag regarding proposed mandatory data retention laws, along with privacy groups (via CNET News):
Privacy groups have strongly opposed mandatory data retention, and many Internet providers have been skeptical of new laws. The U.S. Internet Industry Association has said current proposals aren't "going about this the right way," and the Information Technology Association of America has raised "real reservations" about legislation.
"Imposing broad data retention would be a significant change to U.S. law, especially when it has not been shown that a narrower data preservation approach will not work just as well," said Kate Dean, director of the U.S. Internet Service Provider Association. "The proposal to store enormous amounts of data on subscribers and keep it live for a lengthy period of time raises serious technical, legal and security concerns." (The association's members include AOL, AT&T, BellSouth, EarthLink and Verizon Communications.)
Gov't Opens New Intelligence Center - You've Been Warned
The federal government has opened the first ever Joint Regional Intelligence Center (JRIC) in a suburb of Los Angeles. CNET News reports that the agencies that will be a part of this new intelligence center will include the FBI, the Los Angeles Police Department, the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, and the Department of Homeland Security.
Government officials, perhaps looking to improve their public relations, allowed CNET News to videotape and take pictures inside the intelligence center.
Those behind JRIC state that the purpose of the center is to promote collaboration between various law enforcement agencies.
As of now, the data that is shared is housed in different databases, but that could change in the future (CNET News):
Individuals at the center represent their own agencies and are tapped into their own data sources. There is no universal access to multiple data sources. People have to make the information-sharing happen, so everyone is put together in an open bullpen instead of cloistered cubicles.
There is a vision for JRIC to unify all data from the various agencies in a single database and offer broad access to personnel, but that doesn't exist today. That's not because of technical limitations, but because of red tape and access restrictions, said Mario Cruz, technology director at JRIC.
The idea of a single massive government database that different levels of law enforcement would utilize seems very unsettling. It appears that the risk of potential abuse using such a system would be too strong to go through with such a plan.
Election Laws Just Got a Little Fairer in New Hampshire
Election laws just got a little fairer in New Hampshire.
From the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire press release:
On Thursday, August 17, the New Hampshire Supreme Court issued a decision in AKINS etal, vs. Secretary of State, which challenged current law which always puts the winning party first on the ballot (RSA 656:5).
The court ruled that the law did not pass strict scrutiny and is thus unconstitutional under Part I, Article 11 of the New Hampshire Constitution.
This reversed an earlier decision by the state Superior Court, and party affiliation or past election results will no longer provide an undue advantage on the ballot.
Here's the reaction from LPNH:
"We are quite pleased at the results. Election laws should be fair to all with no advantage to any one particular party or individual. We look forward to other election law changes that would level the playing field in accordance with Article 11 of the Bill of Rights in New Hampshire Constitution." said LPNH chairman John Babiarz.
The Washington Times reports that, due to healthy economies and conservative economic forecasts, states are putting money into "rainy day" or reserve funds.
Good fiscal times are widespread among state governments (via Washington Times):
Cumulative revenues were projected to grow by 2.7 percent for the last budget year, but they ended up growing by 7.7 percent, nearly three times higher than expected.
State revenue forecasts are often imprecise because they are made up to 18 months in advance, the report said.
Twenty-eight states' year-end balances increased over the 2004-2005 budget year, 19 states' balances declined and two experienced no change. No state ended with a deficit, though Arkansas was expected to end with a zero balance.
State governments believe they are being fiscally prudent by putting their budget surplus into a "rainy day" fund. Few states will resist the temptation of raiding their "rainy day" fund when tax revenue declines.
It would be more fiscally prudent to give the budget surplus back to the taxpayers in the form of a tax cut and eliminate unnecessary programs.
Michael Schiavo Strikes Back at Politicians That Invaded His Privacy
Even after a year and a half, Michael Schiavo is still angry about the federal government invading his privacy. And rightly so. President Bush and Congress intervened to prevent Michael from removing his wife Terri's feeding tube in March 2005.
The New York Times reports how Michael Schiavo, with his political action committee TerriPAC, is doling out funds to candidates that will respect personal privacy.
Michael was involved in Connecticut's hotly-contested primary (via NY Times):
Mr. Schiavo flew to Connecticut last month to help Ned Lamont, who defeated Senator Joseph I. Lieberman in the Democratic primary. Mr. Schiavo reminded voters that Mr. Lieberman had supported an emergency bill asking a federal court to consider reinserting Ms. Schiavo's feeding tube days before she died in March 2005.
He has also publicly endorsed the Republican opponent in the Florida gubernatorial race, Jim Davis (via NY Times):
Representative Jim Davis, a Tampa Democrat running to replace Gov. Jeb Bush, a Republican, widely distributed a letter that Mr. Schiavo wrote after endorsing him in June. Mr. Davis was among the most vigorous opponents of intervention in the Schiavo case, criticizing it on the House floor before Congress enacted the now-famous measure that President Bush cut short his vacation to sign.
Michael has used the recent media attention about his foray into politics to make sure the public doesn't forget about his nightmarish experience (via NY Times):
"I had to remind people that what this government did to me, they can do to you."
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) eased restrictions covering liquids and gels on Monday. Passengers can now bring up to four ounces of non-prescription liquid medicine solid lipstick, glucose gel for diabetes, and baby food, CNN.com reported. The TSA is trying to show that their restrictions on liquids are not entirely ridiculous.
Even the Airline Pilots Association feels the TSA is lacking in providing airport security.
...there is still much work to be done to ensure that we are not merely bandaging the security problems facing us today. For example, we must adequately use our available security resources. Five years after 9/11, we still do not have a screening system in place that uses individual risk assessment to look for those who intend to do harm, rather than just screening for objects. The vast majority of individual travelers pose no security threat.
In addition, trusted crewmembers, like pilots, need to be taken out of the screening process so that resources and time spent screening them is not wasted. Pilots have gone through strict background checks. It makes sense for TSA security assets to be effectively used to discover actual threats, not pilots who are often sent through airport security checkpoints four or five times per day.
A Wired article reports how liquid explosives can be brought onto an airplane undetected:
At U.S. airports, passengers are inspected, tested and searched, and in the wake of the bomb plot foiled Thursday by British police, they can't even bring a latte on board. But terrorists armed with liquid or plastic explosives can still make it onto planes because there's little technology to stop them from smuggling bombs on their bodies or in their clothes, experts say.
If this trend continues, we will be reaching the point in the future where passengers will not be allowed to bring anything onto a plane.
During the airport screening process, TSA does not want to single out people who look suspicious for fear of profiling, even though it would make more sense than not allowing soda and coffee on planes.
Feds Trying to Make it Easier to Federalize National Guard Forces
When 51 governors (state and territory) oppose a piece of federal legislation, there's probably a really good reason. Here's howThe Washington Post describes the story:
The nation's governors, protesting what they call an unprecedented shift in authority from the states to the federal government, will urge Congress today to block legislation that would allow the president to take control of National Guard forces in the event of a natural disaster or threat to homeland security. [snip]
"This provision was drafted without consultation or input from governors and represents an unprecedented shift in authority from governors as commanders of the Guard to the federal government," the governors state in the letter.
One can be sure that if the federal government is granted additional power over deployment of National Guard troops, the threshold level for "emergencies" will quickly be reduced. Let's hope the governors get their way on this one.
Steven Milloy writes on FoxNews.com about how the Associated Press failed to report the full story about a scientific review of the link between sugar-sweetened beverages and obesity.
It looks like this AP story is another case of "drive-by journalism."
Here is an excerpt from the Associated Press article:
Americans have sipped and slurped their way to fatness by drinking far more soda and other sugary drinks over the last four decades, a new scientific review concludes.
Milloy notes that the Associated Press failed to report the whole story (via FoxNews.com):
... the researchers acknowledge in their review article that, "Despite our overall findings of a positive association between sugar-sweetened beverage consumption and weight gain and obesity, other investigators have suggested that such a relation does not exist. Multiple studies... did not find a significant association between consumption of soda or fruit drinks and [weight gain] in American children and adolescents."
The researchers concede that, "interpretation of the published studies is complicated by several method-related issues, including small sample sizes, short duration of follow-up, lack of repeated measures in dietary exposures and outcomes, and confounding by other diet and lifestyle factors."
The AP continued with its shoddy reporting later in the article, as Milloy points out (via FoxNews.com):
...the researchers and AP reporter added insult to injury by summarizing the review with this outlandish sound-bite: "An extra can of soda a day can pile on 15 pounds in a single year, and the 'weight-of-evidence' strongly suggests that this sort of increased consumption is a key reason that more people have gained weight."
While it's certainly true that the caloric content of 365 sodas (of 140 calories each) equates to about the caloric content of 15 pounds of body fat, it's not true that merely consuming one soda per day will translate to a 15-pound weight-gain over one year or that skipping one soda per day will translate to a 15 pounds weight-loss over one year. Bodyweight results from complex interactions between metabolism and lifestyle.
Public health advocates latch on to favorable studies for justification for more government intervention in our private lives.
If there is not conclusive evidence of a link between the daily consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages and obesity, then this really weakens the argument for those public health advocates who advocate increased taxes on snack foods and beverages.
FoxNews.com reports how political attacks are becoming more common on blogs.
Blogs can be a double-edged sword for a campaign. They can help publicize a campaign, allowing the candidate to reach a wider audience. But on the other hand, a candidate could be linked to a blog, for example, that has made offensive statements or launched personal attacks, even though the blog has no official ties to the campaign.
Here are some examples of when a blog can be a liability to a campaign (via FoxNews.com):
Accusations have been made about Montana U.S. Senate candidate Jon Tester's leanings because of support he received on the DailyKos site, which also has postings in support of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro; and Democrat Bob Casey has been linked to an anti-Semitic Web log after a blogger on the site threw his support to the Pennsylvania candidate for U.S. Senate.
One online media expert says that blogs fill a void (via FoxNews.com):
Chris Nolan, editor and founder of spot-on.com, said the medium is a powerful way for political consultants to operate online.
"What they are replacing is good, old-fashioned op-ed research," Nolan said. "It's a symptom of how mediocre much of the political reporting being done in this country really is."
Blogs are no different than a TV advertisement, direct mail or other campaign-type effort to push an issue or candidate, said Nolan, whose site uses blogging software to post objective reporting on the Internet.
Others say that the influence bloggers have in politics should be put in perspective (via FoxNews.com):
But Democracy for America Executive Director Tom Hughes said bloggers are not the go-to source for campaigns seeking an edge.
"Blogs are a new battlefield for campaigns, but they don't replace television, radio or knocking on doors," Hughes said.
One of the architects of the Reagan Revolution is calling on fellow conservatives to withhold support of the Republican Party establishment - including most GOP incumbents in Congress this year.
Richard Viguerie outlined his plan to punish the GOP for a couple of years:
* Withhold financial support from Republican committees and most Republican incumbents.
* Withhold support from all 2008 presidential candidates.
* No longer call yourself "a Republican" but rather a Reagan Republican or a Reagan conservative.
* And work for wholesale change in Republican leadership.
Viguerie is not calling for an ultimate defeat GOP. He thinks it can be resurrected if they take some short term losses. Many Libertarians gave up such hopes years ago; others never entertained such hopes in the first place.
In the article, Viguerie was very critical of federal spending by so-called conservatives:
Viguerie compares spending by the federal government, adjusted for inflation, during the Clinton years vs. the Bush years. In Clinton's first term, federal expenditures rose 4.7 percent. In his second term, they rose 3.7 percent. In the first term of the Bush administration, however, spending rose 19.2 percent.
Here's my suggestion to fiscal conservatives who are looking for some place to dump their contributions (while sending a strong small government message) for the next couple of years.
Here's a reminder that the Harry Browne Memorial Service will be held this weekend in North Carolina. Here's the general information about the service:
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"
U.S. Senate Sells Out on National Sovereignty and Constitutional Protections Again
Former Congressman Bob Barr's latest special (registration required) to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution begins by stating what's more than obvious to you and me:
The most dangerous time of the year for America is right before a congressional recess, and it matters not whether the Republican Party or the Democratic Party is in charge.
What's truly scary is what that statement was in reference to. It seems that the Senate adopted what Barr describes as "a treaty that will stand as a tribute to Big Government and internationalism - the Cybercrime Treaty."
Here's why every American should be concerned about this treaty:
Now, thanks to the Senate's indifference, any person in this country who uses a computer in a manner that is of interest to a law enforcement agency of another country that has signed the Cybercrime Treaty may find themselves subject to our government collecting information on them and then sharing it with that foreign agency. The list of other nations that have already signed the treaty is not one that inspires confidence the data thus sought will be afforded proper privacy or constitutional protections. The list of signatory countries already includes Albania, Croatia, Ukraine, South Africa and dozens of others.
Why should this treaty, now part of the law of the land, concern the average American citizen?
For starters, its scope. The treaty covers not only crimes commonly considered "cybercrimes," that is, crimes of computers by computers. It covers any activities considered a crime by any signatory country that simply involves the use of a computer somewhere along the line. In other words, if the law enforcement officials in Croatia are investigating activities in their country that they consider criminal - political speech, or possession of a firearm, for example - they can now demand of U.S. law enforcement that it collect and turn over to them information they might demand which they allege involves a U.S. citizen, notwithstanding that U.S. citizen has done nothing deemed a crime under U.S. law. Of course, the U.S. citizen would be unaware his own government was thus snooping on him and sharing the fruits thereof with a foreign government.
Moreover, this latest treaty affords no privacy protections whatsoever for U.S. citizens. It also will force Internet service providers to comply, yet requires neither the U.S. government nor the foreign requesting government to reimburse Internet service providers for costs of such forced cooperation. In addition, if disputes under the treaty arise, the foreign requesting government is empowered to take the issue to the International Court of Justice. Even though the United States has not formally acceded to the court, it would be required pursuant to the terms of the Cybercrime Treaty to be bound by its decisions. Although Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, in a letter to the Senate offering unqualified support for the treaty, promised the administration would not submit any disputes to the International Court of Justice, such promises are meaningless, because other nations will do so.
Even laws in other countries respectful of civil rights could pose problems if they were enforced in America. For example, France and Germany have laws prohibiting discussion of Nazi philosophy, an activity protected here under the First Amendment. Under the treaty, these countries could demand assistance from the United States to investigate and prosecute individuals for speech that is constitutionally protected in this country.
It looks like the U.S. just paid homage to our international masters by shredding the few remaining scraps of our Constitution.
The national LP's communications team needs your volunteer assistance. Here's who we're looking for at the moment:
* Writers who can develop externally focused articles for the LP website, blog and LP News.
* People who can provide well written updates about what's happening in your local and state party.
* Researchers for articles, policy statements and candidate support.
* Internet activists to assist with distribution of releases and other information to blogs, e-mail lists, Yahoo groups and related electronic media.
* Graphics designers who can help develop Internet graphics and Flash animations.
If you can assist locally, we also need help with these projects:
* Archival of 35 years of video footage
* Database entry
* Other miscellaneous local office projects
We are looking for dependable volunteers who will accept responsibility and provide accountability for the projects they accept. In some cases, we'll be able to attribute your name to what you've written, in other cases we won't. While there's no paycheck, you will get the reward of knowing that you are performing a vital role in helping the Libertarian Party spread the word.
If you are interested in a volunteer opportunity to help the national office, please contact Stephen Gordon at media@lp.org.
Voter dissatisfaction with their representative came to a head on Tuesday in a few congressional districts.
Both Democratic and Republican incumbents lost in their respective primaries (via Washington Post):
The defeat of Georgia's outspoken Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D) and Michigan moderate Rep. John J.H. "Joe" Schwarz (R) appeared to confirm the strong headwinds that polls suggest members of Congress will face in November from an angry electorate looking for change.
Voters were also angry in Connecticut (via CNN.com):
Lieberman lost the primary election to Lamont, a millionaire cable executive, by 52 percent to 48 percent on Tuesday night.
In the Michigan 7th District race, where Rep. John Schwarz lost, voters will not have to settle for just Republican and Democrat. Libertarian Robert Hutchinson is running for Schwarz's seat.
This could be a bad year for incumbents in Congress (via Washington Post):
Most Americans describe themselves as being in an anti-incumbent mood heading into this fall's midterm congressional elections, and the percentage of people who approve of their own representative's performance is at the lowest level since 1994, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
In the past, Americans have given a poor rating for Congress but high marks for their own representative, but not so this year (via Washington Post):
Especially worrisome for members of Congress is that the proportion of Americans who approve of their own representative's performance has fallen sharply.
... 55 percent now approve of their lawmaker, a seven-percentage-point drop over three months and the lowest such finding since 1994, the last time control of the House switched parties.
Voters may be dissatisfied with Republicans, but are reluctant in choosing Democrat (via Washington Post):
...the poll's findings underline the challenge for Democrats. For all their disenchantment, most voters are not sure what the party stands for. Just 48 percent say Democrats offer a clear direction different from Republicans, while 47 percent say they do not. The public does not think that Bush or the Democrats have a clear plan for Iraq.
This video was written by James Bell, Brad Forschner and Kevin Cherry with a voice over by LP long-timer Brit Williams. Editing (and I'm assuming production) was by Van Gogh Productions.
Here's some coverage, courtesy of C-SPAN, of the LP National Convention in Portland. Please note that RealPlayer (free download) is required. The LP portion begins at time marker 14:22 and is slightly over an hour long.
Speaking are Christopher Farrell of Judicial Watch and Andrew Neil of Sky TV, The Sunday Times, The Economist, BBC and other organizations.
Enjoy!
UPDATE: C-Span is apparently moving pages around on their site right now. The video can currently be viewed from their front page at c-span.org.
Waiting for the "Media Company Profit Windfall Tax"
Time Warner Inc. this week reported a $1 billion profit for its second quarter, with the company's shares rising sharply in wake of the announcement, ABC News reported.
With a $1 billion in profit, I'm sure they're will be some Democratic members of Congress who will feel that is too much profit and will be looking to punish Time Warner for not treating the consumer "fairly".
I'm sure it won't be long until a Democratic congressman will propose a "media company profit windfall tax."
It looks like Republicans are making a quiet retreat from the issue of 'freedom fries' (Washington Times):
The fries on Capitol Hill are French again.
So is the breakfast toast in the congressional cafeterias, with both fries and toast having been liberated from the appellation "freedom."
Three years after House Republicans trumpeted the new names to get back at the French for snubbing the coalition of the willing in Iraq, congressmen don't even want to talk about french fries, which are actually native to Belgium, and toast.
While some members of Congress were downplaying the story, Tim Dickinson at Rolling Stone's National Affairs Daily finds some insight in the abandonment of the 'freedom fries' moniker:
Over at The Plank Michael Crowley finds hidden meaning in the retreat from the preening arrogance of "freedom fries":
As a symbolic, almost literary device, it's hard to imagine something that could capture the arc of Bush/DeLay-era Capitol Hill more perfectly than this stunt. Back when the House cafeterias changed their menus in March 2003, House Republicans enjoyed near-total power and displayed an arrogance to match. But a few years later, look at what's happened: The war that the French opposed has turned out to be a disaster. The initial proponent of the menu switch, North Carolina Republican Walter Jones, has since said Iraq was invaded "with no justification," and displays faces of U.S. soldiers killed in action outside his office.
Do you want the Libertarian Party's Founder in Congress?
I bet you do. And, TODAY you can let the Tucson Citizen newspaper, and every voter in Arizona's hotly contested 8th Congressional District know that you want to see David Nolan - the man in whose living room the Libertarian Party was founded - fighting for freedom on C-SPAN, in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Every vote that Nolan garners in the Tucson Citizen's online poll proves how serious he is about this race. We can point to volunteers, contributors, the media and voters that the David Nolan for Congress ball is rolling and won't slow down until Election Day.
Border Agents Having Trouble Spotting Fake Documents
Here's another instance of the Department of Homeland Security making us feel safe (via Yahoo News):
Undercover investigators entered the United States using fake documents repeatedly this year - including some cases in which Homeland Security Department agents didn't ask for identification.
At nine border crossings on the Mexico and Canadian borders, agents "never questioned the authenticity of the counterfeit documents," according to Government Accountability Office testimony to be released Wednesday.
Now Homeland Security's side of the story (via Yahoo News):
Homeland Security spokesman Jarrod Agen said agents are trained to identify false birth certificates, driver's licenses and other documents. But he conceded that agents sometimes cannot verify more than 8,000 different kinds of currently acceptable IDs without significantly slowing border traffic.
8,000 different kinds of acceptable IDs? Are they accepting gym membership cards as a form of ID?
Apparently, the 9/11 Commission pointed out this problem a while back and Congress still hasn't fixed it (via Yahoo News):
The 9/11 Commission called for tougher ID card rules at borders to help prevent terrorists from entering the country. Responding, Congress in 2004 approved requirements for all travelers - including Americans - to show passports or a small number of other approved secure documents before entering the U.S.
Those requirements are supposed to take effect Dec. 31, 2007. But lawmakers from states that border Canada have since rebelled, contending the rules could hamper commercial and tourist travel. They are pushing to delay the rules by 17 months to ensure Homeland Security has proper technology to speed legitimate travel though border checkpoints.
Unlike the other two parties, the Libertarian Party has come up with a practical solution to immigration.
Universities Look to Federal Earmarks For Boost in Funding
The Christian Science Monitor reports how an increasing number of universities are looking to federal earmarks as a way to boost their funding:
Like most public universities, Mississippi State wants to help improve the state economy - the nation's poorest.
But unlike most schools, MSU is getting $37.2 million this year in special help from Congress to get the job done.
It's a magnet for money - call it pulled "pork" - that few schools can rival. By comparison, North Carolina State University, which serves a population four times larger, got $500,000 this year.
The $37.2 million speaks to the school's efforts in research and development and in industrial outreach. But it also signals MSU's political connections in obtaining federal earmarks - money for pet projects that lawmakers add anonymously to spending bills. It's a trend that's growing prodigiously in academia.
In the past, universities were uncomfortable accepting earmarks, but many schools like MSU got over that (via Christian Science Monitor):
"Ten years ago, earmarks in academia were viewed as dirty pool, but now it's just a different approach to the federal government fostering academic research," says MSU's Marty Wiseman, director of the John C. Stennis Institute of Government.
MSU is having trouble keeping track of where all their money from federal earmarks ends up (via Christian Science Monitor):
While many school officials welcome the funds, some find it hard to follow the money, and they question the lack of transparency in the process. The school's three-year-old Industrial Outreach Service (IOS) received a $5 million earmark this year. But only $500,000 has arrived so far. Even considering the 40 percent overhead most universities deduct from earmarks, IOS director Joe Jordan isn't really clear himself what happened to the money.
CNN.com reported on Tuesday that Fidel Castro will cede power temporarily to his brother Raul due to intestinal surgery.
Many observers are taking the news as a sign that the 80-year old dictator is approaching the end (via CNN.com):
The news sparked celebration across the Straits of Florida in Miami, home to Cuban-American exiles for more than four decades since Fidel Castro's rise to power.
..."My first reaction was disbelief. My second reaction was hope," the AP quoted Armando Tellez as he watched hundreds of cars clogging the streets of Hialeah, a Miami suburb. "This is a singular event in Cuba's history because there has never been anything that has given the people so much hope."
The U.S. government is monitoring the situation closely and is not getting too optimistic (via CNN.com):
The administration took a more measured approach to Havana's announcement.
"The White House is monitoring the situation. We cannot speculate on Fidel Castro's health," spokesman Peter Watkins said. "We continue to work for the day of Cuba's freedom."
If the Bush administration hopes that a post-Castro government will lead to a more free and democratic Cuba, the United States can do its part and lift its trade embargo.
The United States should not intervene in the country's internal affairs in the event of Castro's death to push for a democratic transitional government. This will only create a backlash among the Cuban populace. We must let the Cuban people move towards democracy on their own.
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
