China Celebrates Status As Number One Polluter

Libertarians: Obama is shockingly pro-war

WASHINGTON - Following President Obama's "end of our combat mission" speech, Libertarian Party chairman Mark Hinkle released this statement:

"President Obama needs to stop lying. In his speech, he repeated the ridiculous and false claim that the U.S. combat mission is over in Iraq. He seems to think that if he keeps talking about the war in a nice way, then the war isn't really happening.

"Unfortunately, even though President Obama is the one person on Earth with the authority to withdraw the U.S. military from Iraq, he has chosen instead to keep over 50,000 troops there, risking their lives, and bleeding American taxpayers.

"The Republicans in Congress are just as bad. They have consistently failed to own up to the terrible financial impact of these wars, all the while claiming that they want to cut government. They want to nit-pick Obama's past statements about the war, but in fact they should be showering him with praise for doing exactly what they want.

"This war has been a shameful failure from the beginning. But even if the U.S. military could impose a sustainable modern democracy on Iraq, it would in no way be worth the hundreds of billions of dollars, and thousands of American lives, lost in the process. The Bush-Obama War in Iraq has done nothing to safeguard the rights of Americans -- on the contrary, it has probably made Americans less safe, and certainly poorer.

"The purpose of the U.S. armed forces is to defend the territory of the United States, not to re-engineer foreign societies.

"Contrary to his rhetoric before being elected, the president has proven himself to be shockingly pro-war. In addition to sustaining the American war presence in Iraq, he has greatly escalated the War in Afghanistan. Just like his predecessor, Obama believes that government force is the answer to everything."

The Libertarian Party platform states under "3.3 International Affairs": "American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world. Our foreign policy should emphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid."

For more information, or to arrange an interview, call LP Executive Director Wes Benedict at 202-333-0008 ext. 222.

The LP is America's third-largest political party, founded in 1971. The Libertarian Party stands for free markets and civil liberties. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party at our website.

QUESTION 1: CAN WE DO IT?

30 August, 2010
Dear Editor:

Here begins a short series on what I think a Congressman should consider about every issue. Washington abounds with wonderful ideas of things the federal government could do to make life better for the people, the country, and the world.

QUESTION 1: CAN WE DO IT?

The quick response is the President’s glib “Yes, we can!” After all, this is the country that has repeatedly put men on the moon. Yes, if we have a well-defined goal we can usually work out the details. That if, however, can be a big one. Yes, we have sent men to the moon, and, more impressive, brought them back to earth alive. We have NOT explored the moon, or established commercial mining there, or established a base to try to control tides or weather; we have simply sent men there and back.

Our record is not so impressive on less well-defined goals. In 1917-18 we sent troops off to “the war to end all wars” to “make the world safe for democracy”. It looks to me like war is still going on, and currently we’re just trying to make Iraq and Afghanistan safe for democracy – 92 years later. We’ve had a “war” on poverty for 45 years now and one on drugs for about the same. When your goals are poorly defined or you keep changing them, it’s a lot harder to meet them.

NEXT MONTH: PART 2 – SHOULD WE DO IT?

Sincerely,

Richard J. Davis D.D.S.
Libertarian for Congress

What's the Libertarian way to protect the environment?

 

by Mark Grannis

I’m an environmentalist. I spend several weeks each summer in New York’s Adirondack State Park, enjoying the mountains, lakes, and rivers in that beautiful place. But I’m against the “cap and trade” bill and most other ideas for new environmental laws and regulations, because they don’t work. Environmental protection has been dominated for decades by large government regulatory initiatives, but experience shows that government regulation can’t and doesn’t protect the environment as effectively as private ownership and a strong dose of civil liability for actual environmental damage.

In the short term, I favor waiving the government’s sovereign immunity in environmental litigation, so that government is fully accountable for the environmental harms it covers. In the longer term, I favor a transition away from government regulation, which doesn’t work, and toward strict enforcement of property rights so that people can sue for restitution from polluters who put things in our air, water, and soil that we don’t want there.

The first thing to understand about environmental protection is that government is the main culprit. Our federal government (particularly the military) is the nation’s largest polluter, and a great deal of pollution by commercial enterprises occurs on government lands that are being poorly managed. Why are government lands poorly managed? Because government managers do not take care of them as well as a private owner would. The Izaak Walton League, the Nature Conservancy, the Sierra Club—any of these would manage our national parks better than the federal government does.

Sharptown Meet & Greet - Question for At-Large Candidates

A High Quality version will be available later.