Toy Story 3 and the Tea Party Movement

How concerns about lost liberty are filtering into mainstream culture. by David Harsanyi

July 14, 2010
 
Is Toy Story 3 a parable for today's deep political discontent?
Think about it. A slick sloganeering teddy bear convinces a gaggle of beleaguered toys that he holds the key to a brighter future. The toys, longing for leadership after years of broken promises and incompetence, uncritically submit to the teddy bear's vision.

Before long, even non-Ivy Leaguers like Mr. Potato Head, Rex, and Slinky catch on. All creeds of plaything are forced to sacrifice liberty and happiness for the collective good—as imagined by a technocratic leader, his feckless vice-leader (a Ken doll), and their muscle (a giant baby doll).


First there is concern and then anger and then revolt. Even Barbie—having shown no interest in political activism for more than 50 years—unleashes the best line in the history of animated films: "Authority should derive from the consent of the governed, not from the threat of force!"

Naturally, that's the lesson the screenwriters for Toy Story 3 were trying to convey to the American people. Though, admittedly, my 6-year-old had a somewhat different interpretation of Pixar's creation. Then again, she's a hopeless bleeding heart.

I, on the other hand, need this. Before children, a movie theater was a place for me to escape into flimsy narratives, hyper-violence, and juvenile bromances.

                                                                       Read More at Reason

Washington's Parasites Take Aim at Apple

by David Boaz
This article appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer on July 11, 2010

Following in the distinguished footsteps of Microsoft and Google, Apple is the latest innovative company to be targeted by politicians and regulators for being too successful. Will it be sucked into Washington's "parasite economy"?
For more than a decade, Microsoft went about its business, developing software, selling it to customers, and — happily, legally — making money. Then in 1995, after repeated assaults by the Justice Department's antitrust division, Microsoft broke down and started playing the Beltway game — defensively at first.

Washington politicians and journalists sneered at Microsoft's initial political innocence. A congressional aide said, "They don't want to play the D.C. game, that's clear, and they've gotten away with it so far. The problem is, in the long run they won't be able to."

The political establishment was essentially telling Bill Gates, "Nice little company ya got there. Shame if anything happened to it."


And Microsoft got the message: If you want to produce something in America, you'd better play the game. Contribute to politicians' campaigns, hire their friends, go hat in hand to a congressional hearing, and apologize for your success.
A decade later, it was Google. After a humble start in a Stanford dorm room, Google delivered a cheap and indispensable product and became the biggest success story of the early 21st century.

But in our modern politicized economy — which author Jonathan Rauch called the "parasite economy" — no good deed goes unpunished for long. Some policymakers threatened to create a federal Office of Search Engines to regulate Google. The George W. Bush administration wanted Google to turn over a million random Web addresses and records of all searches from a one-week period. Congress investigated how the company deals with the Chinese government's demands for censorship.


So, like Microsoft and other companies before it, Google opened a Washington office and hired well-connected lobbyists.

And now Apple. After years as a cute little niche player, Apple has suddenly started producing wildly popular products such as the iPod, the iPhone, and the iPad. The Federal Trade Commission has started rumbling about Apple's threat to competition. Note the absurdity here: Apple creates whole new products and industries, consumer benefits that didn't exist before, and the federal government worries that it's somehow going to "limit" competition in a field it brought to the market.

Apple's competitors, including the massive Google, continue to play the game by filing complaints with the government.

Read More at CATO

WAYNE ALLYN ROOT: Barack Obama: The great jobs killer

As former President Ronald Reagan might have said, "Obama, there you go again."


The current occupant of the White House claims to know how to create jobs. He claims jobs have been created. But so far the score is Great Obama Depression 2.2 million lost jobs, Obama 0 -- a blowout.


Obama is as hopeless, helpless, clueless and bankrupt of good ideas as the manager of the Chicago Cubs in late September. This "community organizer" knows as much about private-sector jobs as Pamela Anderson knows about nuclear physics.


It's time to call Obama what he is: The Great Jobs Killer. With his massive spending and tax hikes -- rewarding big government and big unions, while punishing taxpayers and business owners -- Obama has killed jobs, he has killed motivation to create new jobs, he has killed the motivation to invest in new businesses, or expand old ones. With all this killing, Obama should be given the top spot on the FBI's Most Wanted List.

Meanwhile, he has kept the union workers of GM and Chrysler employed (with taxpayer money). He has made sure that most government employee union members got their annual raises for sleeping on the job (with taxpayer money). He made sure that his voters got handouts mislabeled as "tax cuts" even though they never paid taxes (with taxpayer money). And he made sure that major campaign contributors collected billions off government stimulus (with taxpayer money). 
Read The Rest........ 

Rule by Consensus

by Mike Calpino

What determines our morality? How do we determine the right course of action? How do we differentiate right from wrong? In the political sphere, how do we argue against our current rush into socialism? Too often, much too often, we quote polls or election results or statistics. If one major party or another wins an election, especially by a large majority, it becomes a license to act according to their platform or program, no matter how destructive, irrational or wrong.

The statists for years have been arguing from polls, getting the ‘feeling’ for what the people want, using the media to steer their desires, stating their case from the standpoint of emotional crisis. They have convinced the majority of the people that a government answer to a problem is the only answer that needs to be explored, the politicians simply need to argue details and emphasis.

Every year we slip further and further into the statist nightmare, we lose more and more liberty, the government gets bigger and bigger, exerts greater and greater control and takes more and more money. Few statists are honest about their goals because most people, due to the fact that they have been endowed by their Creator with a rudimentary understanding of the basic rights and liberties that make us human, would never choose slavery given an opportunity to hear a reasoned argument for and against its adoption. Nor do most want to be honest about the logical conclusions of statism, it has always led to the gulag and the death camps because it negates the value of the individual and the individual’s inherent rights. They simply want to be pragmatic, getting the benefits while trying to balance an inherently unbalanced system, hoping to get theirs before everything comes apart.

Now that there is a group in charge who are unbalancing the system in order to bring about the final resolution of the conflict between freedom and tyranny in favor of tyranny, people are getting nervous, at the least.


What do we hear from those who rail against the obviously socialist polices and actions of our government, the so-called conservatives? Two thirds of the people want health care repealed. This percentage think we shouldn’t bail out the banks. A certain percentage don’t think we should own General Motors. For those who make such argument, what happens if the majority do want health care, bank bailouts or direct government ownership of industries? Where are their arguments then? The same place as their arguments against Social Security and Medicare. They don’t make them because the majority of the people, while they may complain, don’t want them repealed or abolished. Because of that, arguments based on polls or public opinion or even elections cannot ever be winners for libertarians.

The statists have the time to make people comfortable in their slavery, accepting of their chains, and in so doing they move the argument; not over whether or not to have state control of this or that arena but only the degree of control. At best, policy based on public opinion is what we have now, with a hodgepodge of special interest groups vying for an ever larger piece of the pie. At worst, it becomes mob rule in which anything becomes possible and no right or property is respected.


The men who founded this nation did so according to principles, the key one of which was an understanding of the sacrosanct nature of individual rights. Men have a right to their lives as men. Their lives and the production of their lives does not belong to any other man and it certainly does not belong to the state. That is the fundamental argument that needs to be joined today. Not over how to reform a system that has become increasing statist. The reformers will always lose because it only requires another election to reverse any progress made in the defense of liberty. We should not be arguing about what degree of statism we should have but whether the state should be involved in any of the things we currently accept.

If we are going to argue against government run health care and be consistent, we cannot accept Medicare and Medicaid as legitimate forms of government intervention. If we try, the most consistent argument will win and the most consistent argument will either be all or nothing. The argument that allows exceptions will lose every time because once the exception is allowed, the premise of government control is accepted and the game is over. The same could be said for any government intervention in the market or our lives that is not directly related to the preservation of our fundamental rights.

It is time that those who stand for liberty stop trying to be "moderate", accepting a degree of slavery, a degree of respect for rights, a degree of redistribution, a degree of social justice, a degree of security or a degree of brute force. It is time to stand on absolute principles and learn to articulate those principles. After all, the fundamental nature of man yearns to be free, he must be fooled into becoming a slave. For too long so called "conservatives" have cooperated in the deception of the statists to reduce us all to servitude. They have failed to rise up to promote the "extreme" of "absolute" liberty. They have made arguments from fickle popular opinion, faith or even through appeals to history for history's sake and not according to the fundamental nature of man or the moral principles that make liberty and freedom so much better than tyranny. If we do not explain it and live it, freedom will continue to lose.

Mike Calpino
Candidate for Wicomico County Council

LP Monday Message: 10 reasons to end the wars now

Dear Friend of Liberty,

The long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been back in the news recently, and we just had the bizarre spectacle of the Republican National Committee Chairman saying he didn't like Obama's war in Afghanistan, while the DNC chastised him for failing to support the troops.

Here are ten reasons to end the wars now. I hope you'll take a look at some of the links.

1. American military and contractor casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan.

2. Iraqi and Afghanistan civilian and military casualties.

3. These wars are a tremendous waste of taxpayer money in a time of extreme deficits, high unemployment and a falling stock market.

4. Invading and occupying Afghanistan and Iraq feeds terrorism.

5. Osama Bin Laden and his co-conspirators who attacked the World Trade Center were Saudi Arabian.

6. As Congressman Ron Paul recently said: "In Afghanistan, we are fighting the Taliban, those dangerous people with guns defending their homeland. Once they were called the Mujahideen, our old allies, along with bin Laden, in the fight to oust the Soviets from Afghanistan in the 1980s."

7. Most Republicans in Congress now admit Iraq was a mistake.

8. Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele's comments show that even the hawkish Republican Party can't support this war with a straight face.

9. As James Madison said, "If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." (Witness the PATRIOT Act.)

10. The U.S. military has been in Iraq over seven years, and in Afghanistan almost nine years. It's time to give peace a chance.

(Note, the LP doesn't necessarily endorse the organizations linked above. We encourage you to research these issues for yourself.)

Sincerely,

Wes Benedict
Executive Director
Libertarian National Committee

Lorenzo on Immigration

Candidate for U.S. Congress, District 2:
Lorenzo Gaztañaga

PEACEFUL people should be able to cross borders PEACEFULLY for PEACEFUL purposes. What's going on along the southern border between the United States and Mexico is not an open border. I am tired of hearing that it's an open border. We don't have an open border any more than Sarajevo had open streets when people had to dodge bullets from snipers on rooftops. What we have on our southern border is chaos, mayhem and horrific crimes. People's property is being invaded, people are being kidnapped and murdered; women trying to cross the border (admittedly illegally) are being raped. The march across the border becomes a death march. Who does this benefit? I guess the people whose only goal is cheap labor. It has some benefit for those who make it in, IF they make it on the death march through the desert, since they can work, etc.

Before I get to my complete answer, let's knock down one myth-that these illegals don't pay taxes. They pay the same sales taxes that we all pay. The ones that are here using forged papers, including social security numbers from dead people, etc., are also paying income tax, which of course, the IRS in its infinite goodness doesn't mind or care about, as long as it gets its cut. What to do about the 12 to 14 million illegals here? Well, you find them. A government that knows everything about everybody living here should be able to find where they're working, go to these work places where illegals have been determined to be found, and fine the employers-but not to the extent of closing the business just to make the enforcers look good. There are many reasons for hiring illegal immigrants besides cheap labor. Some of them are very good workers.

Then, confront the illegal individuals and give them an ultimatum: a one year visa to stay in the country so long as you have work, which can be extended to two years as long as you're gainfully employed. If you do not accept or meet the criterion for that first year visa, you go back. A three year extension can be applied for after the two year extension, as long as you are gainfully employed. As long as you remain gainfully employed, after ten years you can apply for an indefinite period work visa. During this time, after five years of legal residence, you can begin the process of naturalization. There will also be a $50 fine for every year that you were here illegally before you were found out.

This is how to deal with the people who are here illegally now. Much like the Arizona law, for which I don't blame Arizona (my only concern is the possible violations of the fourth amendment), it would be a psychological deterrent to coming here illegally. Now, what do we do about changing the current immigration law? Well, you can come to the border peacefully and get a work visa at the border for $500 and proof that you have a job waiting for you. You can keep this visa until such time as you're no longer gainfully employed. A $500 processing fee is very reasonable, considering that poor people are paying thousands of dollars to criminals to get them across the border-coyotes who murder them in the desert or leave them to die in hot, unventilated trucks. In the United States, employers who are interested in hiring these folks could actually initiate contact with them in their home countries. This would be an easy matter in this age of the internet and cell phones and an entrepreneurial spirit that wants to rise above a calamitous economy. Job banks could easily be created in the countries of origin to match potential employers with potential employees. This should be managed as a private enterprise, not as a government service. The role of government is to ensure that people are not being abused or defrauded. Since they would be here legally, they would be able to report cases of abuse and fraud to the appropriate authorities. Any one of these immigrants will be treated as citizens or legal residents. If convicted of a crime, they will serve out their sentence here. If they have no job waiting for them after serving their time, they will be deported.

No fixed immigration policy can be complete without understanding the need for assimilation, and I know a thing or two about that personally. I am from Cuba. I'm very proud of my ancestry. I speak, read and write Spanish, my first tongue, fluently. My favorite dish is still Cuban black beans with white rice and pork chops. None of that has stopped me from loving my adoptive country, or from learning its language. Of course, I am fortunate, because when I came here, school systems were not trying to balkanize and separate Latin American immigrants and refugees by teaching them courses in Spanish that should have been taught in English, delaying their assimilation. The number of politicians back then who were trying to keep these immigrants as dependents of the government by keeping them apart and separate was not as large as it is today. This needs to change.

Lastly, concerning the virtual war that goes on along the southern border of the United States: we cannot separate the effects of the so-called War on Drugs from the mayhem along the border. To try to do so would be like separating the "H2" from the "O" and still thinking you have water. There's more, of course. I welcome questions and comments on this and all the other issues I've laid out here. Remember:

PEACEFUL PEOPLE SHOULD BE ABLE TO CROSS BORDERS PEACEFULLY FOR PEACEFUL PURPOSES.

Libertarians: The Secret Strength of the Immigration Reform Movement

Campus Progress, a "national organization that works with and for young people to promote progressive solutions to key political and social challenges," has published an online report about libertarian feelings about immigration.

...More and more, immigration is becoming a major issue among libertarians, who believe in smaller government and more personal freedom. Traditionally, libertarians are more open to immigration than both conservatives and liberals, explains Daniel Griswold, director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the libertarian research center the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C. “Most libertarians are sympathetic toward immigration. They see human migration as a personal freedom. That’s in contrast to conservatives and Republicans."

...A majority of libertarians take issue with the fact that everyone suffers with certain kinds of immigration laws, like Arizona’s SB 1070 or housing regulations that target undocumented immigrants like Farmers Branch, Texas’ Ordinance No. 2592 [PDF]. Such laws can create a your-papers-please policy which place unnecessary burdens on residents and citizens.

"SB 1070 has a lot of un-libertarian characteristics," says Wes Benedict, executive director of the Libertarian National Committee. "It’s too much intrusion on privacy. We’re taking away too many rights. It penalizes everyone when only a few people are breaking some law."

Allan Webster to run for Somerset County Sheriff

Official Press Release

After much thought and encouragement from law enforcement officials, business owners and community residents, I am officially announcing that I will be seeking the office of Sheriff for Somerset County. I will be filing the appropriate documents with the Election Board this week.

My forty years of public service and professional law enforcement experience will benefit the residents of Somerset County and assist me in organizing the Sheriff’s Department to become more efficient and professional. I am looking forward to meeting business owners and residents throughout the county over the next several months to discuss issues and share my goals for the next four years. Some of my goals include:

1. Obtaining grant funding to equip all of the Department’s vehicles with lap-top computers and in-car video systems
2. Improve the efficiency of the department to reduce the costs to taxpayers of Somerset County
3. Aggressive enforcement of drug crimes and seizure of drug dealer’s assets
4. Stabilize the Department by seeking competitive pay and
benefits for Sheriff’s Deputies

Growing up, I have fond memories of Somerset County, spending many summers with my aunt and uncle, Margaret and Linwood Mariner on their chicken farm in Rehobeth, Maryland. My father, Carpenter Webster was born on Deal Island and my grandfather Howard Webster’s home still stands on Osburn Webster Road on Deal Island. I live in Marion Station with my wife, Carol Ann of Crisfield, Maryland.

Catching up on Lower Shore Politics

Check out my latest article on Examiner.com concerning Liberty Movement candidates on the Lower Shor.

Libertarians pleased by ruling on gun rights

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 30, 2010

Contact: Wes Benedict, Executive Director
E-mail: wes.benedict@lp.org
Phone: 202-333-0008 ext. 222

WASHINGTON - Following the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on gun control in the McDonald v. Chicago case, Libertarian National Committee Chairman Mark Hinkle issued the following statement today:

"We are very pleased that the Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment protects individuals from state governments wishing to violate their right to own handguns.

"Libertarians have always firmly supported the individual right of self-defense.

"Now there is some hope that Chicago's horrible violent crime problem can be reduced by law-abiding citizens who will now be able to deter and resist criminals. More guns = less crime.

"It is disturbing that four justices voted to uphold Chicago's gun ban. Their position is an attempt to pursue a policy goal from the bench, not to apply the Constitution -- and to make matters worse, it is a policy goal that would be very harmful to the people of Chicago, and potentially to everyone in America.

"This ruling follows the District of Columbia v. Heller ruling, which overturned D.C.'s ban on handguns. That case was originally brought by Dick Heller, Libertarian Party member and treasurer of the D.C. Libertarian Party.

"We hope that this ruling will lead to further court decisions that reduce the government's ability to infringe on gun rights with burdensome restrictions and red tape.

"Republicans and Democrats both deserve blame for violating gun rights. While Republicans often position themselves as Second Amendment defenders, it is worth noting major examples to the contrary:

"Republican 2008 presidential nominee John McCain received an F- rating from Gun Owners of America;

"Republican president George W. Bush supported a program called Project Safe Neighborhoods that sought to toughen and federalize prosecution of gun control laws;

"When he was running for Massachusetts Governor in 2002, Republican Mitt Romney said, 'We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them; I won't chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety.';

"In 1991, former Republican President Ronald Reagan announced his support for the Brady federal gun control bill."

The Libertarian candidate for New York Governor, Warren Redlich, has commented that the ruling will affect New York gun control laws. On June 28 Redlich wrote, "This landmark ruling will require New York State to take immediate action to amend its gun laws so they do not violate the constitution. It is a striking victory for gun owners and for anyone who believes in the fundamental rights the constitution provides."

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.
###

P.S. If you have not yet become a member of the Libertarian Party and wish to do so, please click here and join the only political party dedicated to free markets and civil liberties. If you need to renew, please click here. If you would like to make a contribution separate from membership, please click here.

GET INVOLVED:


Paid for by the Libertarian National Committee
2600 Virginia Ave, N.W. Suite 200, Washington D.C. 20037
Content not authorized by any candidate or candidate committee.

You are currently subscribed as "mwboda@mac.com". Click here to unsubscribe.

June Letter to the Editor

This weekend is Independence Day; a day to remember what America is all about. It’s also what this campaign is all about.

My no-contributions, no-ads campaign probably looks naïve to the professional politicians, and we may not yet be to where people are disgusted enough to look at something really different, but I’m trying to establish a change in the way we do all this.

If you secretly want to run your neighbors’ lives, or want the government to take care of your every need, you’ll get a lot of what you want from both the Republicans and the Democrats as long as the money holds out – there will just be minor variations in how these things are done.

If you want to be left alone as much as possible to live YOUR life and spend YOUR earnings as you see fit and not have the government meddling (in YOUR name) in the affairs of other countries, then we need a change.

I won’t pretend I can make these changes alone in Congress. I believe, however, that we don’t need a Libertarian majority to accomplish a lot of the change we want. All we need is enough libertarians (actual party members or not) to block the intrusive and expensive schemes of the leadership of both larger parties and to send them the message that we want to live and let live – WITHIN OUR MEANS – and they need to honor OUR desires if they want to serve in Congress.

Sincerely,

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

MDLP Chair's Report

The Maryland Libertarian Party now has 15 candidates nominated for the November 2010 elections, including candidates for Governor, Lt. Governor, 7 of the 8 US House races, 5 for the Maryland House of Delegates, 1 for Wicomico County Council, and 1 for Cecil County Board of Education.

This is the most candidates the party has ever run. And it may be the most ever run by a non-establishment party in Maryland in over 30 years.

Running candidates is a great way to get the Libertarian message out, find new members and activists, and build the party. It also forces the Democrats and Republicans to acknowledge our policies.

Further, with only 2 weeks to the Board of Elections filing deadline, several of our candidates have one-on-one races: Mike Calpino (Wicomico County Council 2nd), Justin Kinsey (MD Delegates 5b), and Shawn Quinn (MD Delegates 29c).

Bryan Walker (MD Delegates ) is in a race with 4 candidates for 3 positions, and no Republicans have currently filed to get on the ballot.

How can you help? Call talk shows and mention our candidates and their positions, and how they differ from the other candidates. Write letters-to-the-editor in your local paper about your local MDLP candidate.

When talking politics to your family, friends, and co-workers, make it a point to show how similar the Democrats and Republicans are to each other, and how Libertarians are the alternative to the 2-party political machine.

Are you willing to save $10 a week for the next 4 month and donate the money to our candidates? Perhaps $50 to our gubernatorial candidate, $50 to your congressional candidate, and $50 to a local Libertarian running for office.

Make sure you can work your local voting precinct on Election Day, Tuesday, 2 November, and support our candidates. Bring family and friends with you, if possible.

Let's build on our 2008 results, by doubling our federal candidates' vote percentages to 5-6%, and keep increasing them with each election. And while we may be lacking in resources, we also may have several local races in which the MDLP candidate will be the only opposition. What if we could win one or more of those races!

Robert Johnston III, Chairman, Maryland Libertarian Party

Page Elmore Passes Away

Page Elmore lost his battle with cancer and has passed away. We wish to extend our condolences to his family.

Condolences to the family of Sam Vincent

On behalf of the Maryland Libertarian Party, I would like to extend our condolences to the family of Deputy State's Attorney Sam Vincent. Even prior to his untimely death many commented on his integrity, honesty and commitment to the citizens of Wicomico County. It is hard to find good men and his shoes will most certainly be hard to fill.

We ask everyone to please keep his family and his colleagues in your prayers.

Mike Calpino's letter to the editor in the Daily Times

More challengers needed to keep our elections vital

Over the last year, hundreds of people have shown up at town hall meetings and budget hearings. There has been a degree of involvement with our government at all levels not seen for years.

While some came out to defend their piece of the pie, many genuinely wanted to see government do things differently. Many have come to the conclusion that the way we have been doing government for years costs too much and does not adequately serve "we the people."

Read the rest at The Daily Times.....

Steny Hoyer: Middle-class tax cuts should not be permanent

How not to get elected. Gavin Shickle is the Libertarian candidate running against good ole Steny. I know he disagrees with Mr. Hoyer!

Steny Hoyer: Middle-class tax cuts should not be permanent

Status Update on Maryland's Minor Party Candidates

Status Update on Maryland's Minor Party Candidates

Editors note:  The Maryland Libertarian Party is running 15 candidates statewide for a variety of races from Governor, House of Delegates, County Council, to School Board.  This the most the Libertarian Party has run in Maryland in an election and the most any Third Party has run in Maryland in quite a while, if ever.

Historic District in Salisbury infringes on the rights of property owners

The Historic District in Salisbury is increasingly becoming another major issue. The Daily Times' most recent article on the issue highlights the positions of those advocating for a change of boundaries and those who wish to keep the current boundary. Ironically there is a third position on this issue that advocates for reduction in the authority of Historic Committees.

There are many who feel that a reduction of authority of such groups is appropriate and would certainly allow property owners to upgrade and repair properties with more freedom. The idea that an individual who invests his own money in a property, is subject to the opinions of a committee, is thought by some as Un-American.

Read the rest at Examiner.com

Libertarians note anniversary of bad Kelo decision

Contact: Wes Benedict, Executive Director
E-mail: wes.benedict@lp.org
Phone: 202-333-0008 ext. 222




WASHINGTON - Tomorrow, June 23, marks the fifth anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's Kelo v. New London decision. Today the Libertarian Party published the following open letter:
We, the state chairs of the Libertarian Party, and members of the Libertarian National Committee (LNC), wish to call attention to the fifth anniversary of the wrongful Kelo v. New London decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Susette Kelo and her co-plaintiffs simply wanted to be left in peace in their homes, but the New London Development Corp. wanted their land for its own development purposes, and convinced the City of New London to condemn their property for its benefit.

By rendering its decision against Susette Kelo and her co-plaintiffs, the court gutted an important private property protection of the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court decided that it is acceptable for government entities to condemn and seize private property, even when the purpose is to offer that property to another private owner for economic development.

The Supreme Court's decision expanded the government's unjust power of eminent domain.

Even more shamefully, the proposed development never materialized. The Institute for Justice recently noted that 'The very land where Susette Kelo's home once stood remains barren -- home to nothing but feral cats, seagulls and weeds.'

Eminent domain is bad enough when it is used to expand government roads and schools, but the practice of forcibly taking a person's land to give to a company for things like shopping malls is utterly wrong.

The Libertarian Party has always showed strong support for private property rights. Our platform states that 'we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain.'

Last year, Susette Kelo commented that 'even though over 40 states have passed legislation offering some protection to home and business owners, don't think your property is safe, because it is not.' The Castle Coalition, which works to protect property owners from eminent domain abuse, has given only five states an A or A- rating for eminent domain reform in the wake of the Kelo decision. Many states have passed reforms that sound strong at first, but contain major loopholes or other bad provisions. Republicans and Democrats like to posture as eminent domain reformers while they carve out exceptions for special interests.

We call on the Supreme Court to reverse the Kelo ruling in a future case, and we call on all 50 states to adopt laws or constitutional amendments to eliminate this practice.

(signed)

Mark Bodenhausen, Alabama
Scott Kohlhaas, Alaska
Michael Kielsky, Arizona
Rodger Paxton, Arkansas
Kevin Takenaga, California
David Williams, Colorado
Rich Lion, Connecticut
James W. Rash, Delaware
J.J. McCurry, Florida
Daniel Adams, Georgia
Roger Taylor, Hawaii
Rob Oates, Idaho
Lupe Diaz, Illinois
Sam Goldstein, Indiana
Ed Wright, Iowa
Andrew Gray, Kansas
Ken Moellman, Kentucky
T. Lee Horne III, Louisiana
Shawn Levasseur, Maine
Robert Johnston, Maryland
David Blau, Massachusetts
Emily Salvette, Michigan
Bob Odden, Minnesota
Danny Bedwell, Mississippi
Glenn Nielsen, Missouri
Mike Fellows, Montana
Gene Siadek, Nebraska
Jo Silvestri, Nevada
Rich Tomasso, New Hampshire
Jay Edgar, New Jersey
Jay Vandersloot, New Mexico
Mark Axinn, New York
Barbara Howe, North Carolina
Richard Ames, North Dakota
Kevin Knedler, Ohio and LNC Representative
Angelia O'Dell, Oklahoma
Jeff Weston, Oregon
Mik Robertson, Pennsylvania
David Bibeault, Rhode Island
Michael Carmany, South Carolina
Tony Ryan, South Dakota
John Sebastian, Tennessee
Patrick Dixon, Texas
W. Andy McCullough, Utah
Jeremy Ryan, Vermont
Wilbur (Bill) Wood, Virginia
Rachel Hawkridge, Washington and LNC Representative
Kyle Hartz, Washington D.C.
Tad Britch, West Virginia
Ben Olson, Wisconsin
Don Wills, Wyoming
Mark Hinkle, LNC Chair
Mark Rutherford, LNC Vice Chair
Alicia Mattson, LNC Secretary
James Oaksun, LNC Treasurer
David Nolan, LNC Representative
William Redpath, LNC Representative
Wayne Allyn Root, LNC Representative
Mary Ruwart, LNC Representative
Doug Craig, LNC Representative
Stewart Flood, LNC Representative
Daniel Wiener, LNC Representative
Rebecca Sink-Burris, LNC Representative
Norman Olsen, LNC Representative
Dr. James W. Lark, III, LNC Representative
Daniel Karlan, LNC Representative
Dianna Visek, LNC Representative

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.

Libertarians say government shares blame with BP for oil spill

WASHINGTON - Wes Benedict, executive director of the Libertarian Party, issued the following statement today:

"The federal government and BP share the blame for the large oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

"When the CEO of BP appeared at a Congressional hearing yesterday, Republicans and Democrats predictably engaged in finger-pointing and blame-ducking, trying to score political points. Their fingers should have been pointed at themselves.

"When President Obama gave his Oval Office speech on Tuesday, there was one important word missing: the word 'liability.' The president never mentioned that, thanks to liability caps provided by the federal government, BP was able to engage in riskier activities than it would have otherwise. If BP had known in advance that it would be fully liable for all damages related to an oil spill, it probably would have taken greater safeguards. When you know that your liability will be strictly limited, cutting corners becomes a lot more attractive.

"The spill will cause a lot of damage to the property and livelihood of people living along the Gulf. We have a well-developed system of civil courts to help people obtain compensation. Unfortunately, the legislative and executive branches have inappropriately trampled on this territory, and they seem to be trying to take the place of the courts.

"The president has apparently convinced BP to put $20 billion in some kind of compensation account. He said in his speech that it will be 'administered by an independent third party.' Will this third party be able to decide what 'legitimate claims' are, and how much they should receive? Assessing damages should be done by courts, not by political bureaucrats appointed in backroom deals between the president and a large corporation.

"The president could have taken the opportunity to talk about getting government out of the energy industry, and allowing the free market to guide the future of energy production. Unfortunately, he instead blamed the free market for government failures, and discussed his hopes of increasing government interference in the energy industry.

"For decades, Libertarians have warned against putting trust in government regulatory bureaucracies like the Minerals Management Service (MMS). While costing the taxpayers a lot of money, these agencies generally fail to deliver the kind of protections they promise, they tend to become corrupt, and they discourage vigilance on the part of citizens by lulling them into
a false sense of security.

"When large companies and the government start working together, the results can be disastrous. Congressional liability caps, the MMS bureaucracy, and BP have all cooperated to create a costly disaster that should never have happened."

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.