Chris Bush Analyzes The Governor's Race

Originally Posted on the MD-Lib Discussion Board by Doug McNeil

Note: Chris Bush is a well-known Maryland blogger who writes extensively
about utility regulation and other political issues. He's a progressive who
favors re-regulation to reverse the recent electricity rate increases, which
(as he correctly notes) is not a position that we agree with. But he likes
us anyway, and he's happy that we're running.

I'm pleased to see that the word about our campaign is starting to get
out, even at this early stage, and that it's generating considerable interest
on the left. But I think it's premature to conclude that Ehrlich is
finished and that we might throw the election to O'Malley.

The following is excerpted from his "Electricity Crisis 12-11-09."

-- Doug McNeil

End of the Road for Ehrlich: Libertarians Running Candidate for Governor

~ Bobby was Already Behind in the Polls to O'Malley- Even though MOM
Himself in Trouble Electorally
~ w/ a Libertarian Candidate Running for Governor, Too, Ehrlich will NOT
Win for Sure
~ the Libertarian Party has Nominated Susan Gaztanaga for Governor in 2010
~ The Libertarians Certainly Will Peel Off Ehrlich Votes- the LAST Thing
that Bobby Needs
~ the Tea Party Activists May Also Turn to the Libertarians as Well-or
Possibly the Constitution Party- as the GOP has Become so Corrupt in Maryland
~ AND, Recent Polling by Rasmussen- as Referenced on WBAL 1090 AM's C4
Show on Wed., Dec. 9, 2009, During the 1:37pm Segment- Indicate that MORE
Folks Would Back the Tea Party, if It Were on the Ballot, than the Republican
Party
~ In Maryland, the Libertarian Party or Constitution Party (which Does NOT
Yet Have a Guv Nominee) Will be the Platform to Manifest Those Tea Party
Sentiments
~ While Susan Gaztanaga is Anti-Regulation in General- NOT Good News for
BGE Customers- She's Also HONEST and Would NOT be a Lackey for Constellation
Energy Like O'Malley AND Ehrlich
~ Also, Susan's Husband Lorenzo- Who's Running for Congress in the 2nd
Congressional District Against Dutch Ruppersberger (Chris Bush Supported
Gaztanaga for the Same Contest in 2008)- SUPPORTS Decentralized, Cheap Energy
for Households, the Kind that Comes from Solar
~ Assuming that Susan is of Like View, At Least There'd be a Governor
Trying to Help with Individual Homeowner's Electricity Bills Via Solar
~ However, Solar is NOT a Viable Alternative Currently- ONLY when
Ultra-Thin Film Solar Foil Becomes Available Will this Change- UNless there are Tax
Credits and Renewable Energy Credits: More in a Future EC on Gaztanaga's
View on Solar and Renewable Energy
~ As a Result, the GOP Should Run a PRO-Regulation Candidate for Governor,
Like EJ Pipkin- Who, UNlike Ehrlich, does NOT Have Baggage and Thus COULD
Beat O'Malley: if Not, there's NO REASON Why Phant Voters Should NOT Cast
Their Ballots for the Libertarian Candidate Instead, Again, as Polls Show
Ehrlich LOSING to MOM
~ Many Tea Party Activists in Maryland are ALSO Anti-BGE, so Pipkin's
Position Will Have more Resonance for Them (Although Tea Baggers Tend to be
More Right-Wing than Pipkin on Other Issues)
~ On the Other Hand, Voting for Robert Ehrlich Will be Throwing AWAY One's
Vote Should the Bobster's Arrogance Tempt Him into Running Again
~ Chris Bush Calls on the Green Party to Run a PRO-REGULATION Candidate
for Governor as Well, to Pressure O'Malley on the Left
~ This Writer is NOT in Favor of Splitting the Republican Base to Give
O'Malley a Re-Election
~ Indeed, for You Progressives Out There, Let's Get Behind a Green
Candidate to Pull Votes from O'Malley, Which Will Encourage Anti-GOP Conservatives
to Vote Libertarian
~ Some of Those Independent Righties Might Not Vote Libertarian- Assuming
Pipkin is the Nominee w/ a Real Chance to Win- if they Think O'Malley Will
Benefit, But if They See Progressives Gaining Ground on the Left, They'll
Feel More Comfortable Breaking w/ Ehrlich and/or Pipkin, and Sending the
GOP a Message
~ Picture This: a 4 Party Contest for Governor in 2010: Dem, Repub,
Libertarian, Green
~ the Political Environment Only IMPROVES if the Two Party Duopoly is
Broken Up!!!!
~ (NOTE: more on the "Tea Bagger" controversy, including a recent segment
on The Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC on 12-04-09, as well as an email from
the caller to WBAL 1090 AM who started it all, James Madigan)-cb
~ (NOTE 2: yours truly does NOT speak FOR, nor speak on behalf, of ANY
other group, individual- including Sen. Pipkin or Susan Gaztanaga)-cb
~ (Source: independentpoliticalreport.com; airamerica.com link; "EC
12-03-09" email attachment)
~ Analysis by Chris Bush

For feds, more get 6-figure salaries

USA Today has published an article pointing to the incredible increase of Federal Employees that have Salaries over $100,000 and $150,000 per year, before bonuses and benefits. This has happened during the current recession's first 18 months.

This was recommended under President Bush and is being continued under President Obama. In a time when we should be cutting government spending and reducing it's overall size, we are witnessing an unprecedented period of expansion. This has occurred under the watch of both Republicans and Democrats.

We have a federal government model that is offering services that are outside the scope of it's responsibility. Government has become to invasive, to large, bloated, redundant, and an incredible burden on the back of taxpayers. The debt that has been mounted in the name of the American Taxpayer is criminal and even worse, elected officials are in no hurry to eliminate it.

The other major issue is when State and Local governments follow the failed model of the Federal Government. Every level of government is threatened when these typed of flawed policies are implemented. Taxpayers get stuck with the burden of debt at every level.

The first thing to understand with our current Government Fiscal situations is that we do not have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. Looking at the ridiculous amount of pork that is wasted on a daily basis is a good place to start cutting. Implementing the holy philosophy of "No Sacred Cows" is very important.

Then we need to begin streamlining, consolidating, and eliminating programs, departments, and wasteful services. The IRS is good place to start.

We Need China's What?

Sam Adams on a Sunday Afternoon

"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, and thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can."

Samuel Adams

Stan Jones

The Rising Tide - Unintended Consequences of the Luxury Tax

Hanging By a Thread: Defending Economic Liberty in Texas

A Message from LP Chairman Bill Redpath

Quote of the Day

“We can only save this great country by limiting politicians to two terms -- one term in office . . . one term in prison.”

Wayne Allyn Root

Artificial Housing Respiration

Government-sponsored housing inflation is locking the next generation out of homeownership.

Tim Cavanaugh

No major newspaper seriously questions the truism that foreclosures destroy neighborhoods. No news network doubts that “troubled borrowers” are overwhelmingly good Americans who have been set back by a job loss or medical emergency. And what kind of anti-American Shylock would claim that you shouldn’t give bad borrowers government-backed loan modifications, cutting their mortgage payments by 20 percent?

The interesting new wrinkle on those old, false arguments is that real estate interventionists no longer pretend they have any real goal other than keeping house prices inflated. Even a year ago, the arguments for rescuing real estate prices were phrased in broad, spillover-style metaphors—“meltdown,” “implosion”—that suggested a concern for the common bystander. Today, the argument is a lot plainer: We need to keep existing homeowners (or home borrowers) from experiencing any further decline in closing prices. When I ask Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) to explain his support for extending exorbitant Federal Housing Administration loan guarantees even while the real estate market continues to cool, he replies, “The economy of Los Angeles would tank if prices fell another 50 percent.” Here’s how Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), in an October interview with The New York Times, justified his support for the agency’s shoddy lending standards: “I don’t think it’s a bad thing that the bad loans occurred. It was an effort to keep prices from falling too fast.” Economy.com front man Mark Zandi puts it even more bluntly. The housing market, he says, “is showing improvement only because it is on government life support.”

Life support is expensive. When that troubled borrower gets a 20 percent haircut, his bank has to take a loss, and the bank is compensated for the loss by you, through the $50 billion Home Affordable Modification Program. The Treasury Department has paid more than $100 billion to allow the failed government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to keep on guaranteeing questionable loans. Fannie and Freddie, in turn, have been expanding rather than reducing their loan portfolios—the opposite of what you’re supposed to do when you’ve got an unmanageable debt load. Read More Reason

The Geography of Unemployment

Tom G. Palmer on Realizing Freedom

A Case for Secession – Taxation

by Patrick Samuels

We will begin with the area that was one of the primary motivations for the colonists to declare their independence from Great Britain – Taxes. Suffice it so say that the amount of taxes England sought to impose upon those Americans do not hold a candle to the taxes we already pay our imperial national government today. All governments require taxes to perform their functions and we all grudgingly admit the necessity of paying them. Our government has taken upon itself a myriad of functions it was never designed to perform and has therefore required large amounts of money. It is not the purpose of this section to debate the legitimate functions of government. Instead we will concern ourselves primarily with the morality and justice of taxing particular areas of human endeavor and for general purpose those taxes are utilized.

Thomas Jefferson stated that “government should not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.” All governments require money to operate. Obviously, the smaller the government, the less it will require. Consider, however, where the government gets this money. Again, obviously, it taxes its citizens and it is right to do so. Governments are a form of voluntary organization among free people to accomplish ends they are not able to do as individuals. Because these individuals have contracted together in such a fashion, there is the expectation that they will support their creation. However, the people retain the rights they received from their creator under the contract and the government has no right to infringe upon those rights. When it does, we consider it tyrannical. READ THE REST

Quote of the Day, Maybe Year

"Dramatics abounded Monday in Salisbury: Dramatic talk, dramatic allegations, dramatic innuendoes, dramatic declarations. Everything but dramatic action."

Daily Times Editorial Board

Click here to read the entire Editorial

A True Tale of Canadian Health Care: Why some patients need to go to the U.S. for surgery

Social Security Will Go Bust in 2010

by Gary North

For the third time in my life, the Social Security System will go belly-up.

The first time was in 1977 – well, almost. To head off the bust, Jimmy Carter got Congress to pass a major FICA tax increase – sorry, "contribution" increase – in order to save Social Security. The rate would be hiked in phases from 2% to 6.15% (times two: employee and employer). He promised: "Now this legislation will guarantee that from 1980 to the year 2030, the Social Security funds will be sound." http://tinyurl.com/ybksxs4

Carter's projection was off by a Georgia country mile. In 1983, the SSA program technically went bankrupt. Reagan signed a law that speeded up Carter's rate increases, added Congressional employees to Social Security, and delayed the age of eligibility.

Unless there is another Social Security tax increase in 2010, the system will go into red ink mode and stay there.

The public has not been informed of this, which comes as no surprise. There have been a few scattered stories on the Web, but nothing sustained. The media do not want to admit that the jointly operated Social Security program and Medicare program are going to bankrupt the Federal government if they are not cut back drastically.

They are never cut back. They always expand.

Medicare's Hospital Insurance program has been in red ink mode for two years. The public does not know this, either. To cover the program's insolvency, the government is quietly funding the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund with bailouts from the general fund.

Politically, this creates a problem. When the Treasury taps the general fund, the expenditure appears on the budget – the on-budget budget – as an expenditure. This immediately adds to the deficit, meaning the visible deficit, the one that gets recorded on those wonderful U.S. debt clocks.

When revenues flow into the four Social Security and Medicare trust funds, the money is instantly handed over to the Treasury, which issues non-marketable long-term IOU's to the trust funds. These IOU's are listed as assets by the funds. But, through the wonders of government accounting, they are not listed as liabilities on the government's on-budget budget. They are liabilities only on the off-budget budget, which most Americans are unaware of. This chicanery has been going on ever since the Johnson Administration (Lyndon's, not Andrew's). Read the Rest

Patrick J. Michaels discusses Climategate on CNN

The Gatekeeper

How a little bureaucratic office became the biggest impediment to Barack Obama’s health care plans

Peter Suderman from the January 2010 issue

It was January 2009, and Democrats were triumphant. Their party had won major victories in both the House and the Senate, and Barack Obama, arguably the most economically left-wing president in decades, had just won the White House on a promise to finally achieve what had eluded liberals for so long: universal health care.

As the new era unfolded in Washington, plans for overhauling one-sixth of the economy began to take shape. Health care reforms, Democrats vowed, would extend insurance to every American and be fully paid for without requiring middle-class tax hikes, all while cutting costs significantly enough to save the country from financial catastrophe. To sell these claims the party trotted out one of the most respected number-crunchers in town, Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag, a former Brookings Institution health care expert obsessed with cost cutting. With 60 votes in the Senate, nothing seemed to stand in the Democrats’ way.

Nothing, that is, except the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), a nonpartisan federal agency that until this year was run by none other than Peter Orszag. As drafts of various health care bills began to emerge on Capitol Hill, the CBO, responsible for devising Congress’ official legislative cost estimates (known as “scores”), released a series of reports that demolished key Democratic claims. According to the CBO, both the “tri-committee” bill proposed in the House and the bill proposed in the Senate Finance Committee would cost in excess of $1 trillion over 10 years, might leave tens of millions uninsured, and would not curb rising health care costs. Indeed, both would add substantially to the budget deficit in the long term. As the year progressed, the CBO proved a more effective check against key elements of the Democrats’ domestic agenda than anything concocted by Republican strategists or libertarian wonks. In an October article, The Washington Post concluded that the CBO had “essentially condemned two legislative proposals by slapping them with trillion-dollar price tags.”

Created as an afterthought and initially intended as a low-profile congressional calculation service, the CBO has quietly risen to a place of unique prominence and power in Washington policy debates. Widely cited and almost universally respected, it is treated as judge and referee, resolving disputes about what policies will cost and how they will work.

But the agency’s authority is belied by the highly speculative nature of its work, which requires an endless succession of unverifiable assumptions. These assumptions are frequently treated as definitive, as if on faith. In practice, this means the CBO is not merely an impartial legislative scorekeeper but a keeper of the nation’s budgetary myths, a clan of spreadsheet-wielding priests whose declarations become Washington’s holy writ. READ MORE REASON

So Much for the Peace Presidency

by Gene Healy

This Thursday, Barack Obama will swing by Oslo to pick up the Nobel Peace Prize — just over a week after he announced that he'd escalate the war in Afghanistan. Awkward.

When Obama won the prize in October, you had to wonder whether the self-esteem movement, where every kid gets a trophy, had made its way from little league to the Nobel Committee. Gandhi, Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King, Jr. — and a guy running two wars, who'd been president for two weeks when nominations closed?

Despite the committee chairman's defensive insistence that Obama "got the prize for what he has done," clearly it was awarded for what the committee hoped he might do (which is rather like giving a physics Nobel to a guy who hopes he'll invent cold fusion).

Well, if the committee hoped a pre-emptive prize would influence Obama's behavior, they must feel pretty silly right now. On Dec. 1, the former surge critic spoke at West Point, defending his decision to throw 30,000 more troops into an unpopular, unwinnable, and unnecessary war.

Sure, the president packaged the decision as part of a plan to "begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011." But that's not the beginning of a genuine withdrawal. It's, er, an "inflection point," according to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, at which, maybe, "some handful, or some small number" will be able to come home. READ MORE @ CATO

Gene Healy is a vice president at the Cato Institute and the author of The Cult of the Presidency.

This article appeared in the DC Examiner on December 8, 2009.

LP Monday Message: Global Warming LP Poll Results

December 7, 2009

Dear Friend of Liberty,

Last week we sent a poll asking for your opinions on global warming. If you haven't already taken it, you can still take the poll here.

The poll has proven to be popular. Below is the poll question, responses, and results after one week.

Which of the following statements best matches your view of global warming?

* 28% (1785 votes) This whole global warming thing is a hoax.
* 6% (347 votes) I don't know whether global warming is real, but the government should limit carbon dioxide emissions just to be safe.
* 10% (639 votes) Global warming is real, it's a threat, and the government should limit carbon dioxide emissions.
* 27% (1676 votes) Whether or not global warming is real, it doesn't justify more taxes or regulations.
* 29% (1835 votes) Global warming is mostly natural and there's not much we can do about it.

6,282 votes total

Several people sent comments about the poll. People asked why they couldn't select multiple answers. One person suggested the questions were biased.

For those of you skeptical about our poll, I'll be the first to admit it is an unscientific poll written by a biased author (me).

My natural inclination is to distrust politicians' proposals that grow government. I also distrust the scientists who live off government grants and benefit from generating hysteria over global warming.

However, just because I distrust politicians and government funded scientists doesn't mean I'm inclined to trust the business community. I certainly understand that big oil companies have an incentive to mislead the public about the impact their products may have on the environment.

This poll question was interesting to me because even though Libertarians generally agree that government should not gain new powers because of popular global warming worries, we don't always have exactly the same reasons.

In any case, I think the vast majority of you agree with me that government should not start restricting people's energy use, whether it's "cap and trade" or some other scheme.

We will continue to advocate against these kinds of schemes for government growth. I'd like to ask you to help support us by making a donation. When you donate, let us know if we're communicating the issues you want to hear about.

Sincerely,
Wes Benedict
Executive Director
Libertarian National Committee

What is a Libertarian? by Susan Gaztanaga

Interesting Comment by Bill Harris

Comment by Bill Harris as Antinomian

One need not travel to China to find indigenous cultures lacking human rights. America leads the world in percentile behind bars, thanks to ongoing persecution of hippies, radicals, and non-whites under prosecution of the war on drugs. If we’re all about spreading liberty abroad, then why mix the message at home? Peace on the home front would enhance global credibility.

The drug czar’s Rx for prison fodder costs dearly, as life is flushed down expensive tubes. My shaman’s second opinion is that psychoactive plants are God’s gift. Behold, it’s all good. When Eve ate the apple, she knew a good apple, and an evil prohibition. Canadian Marc Emery is being extradited to prison for selling seeds that American farmers use to reduce U. S. demand for Mexican pot.

Only on the authority of a clause about interstate commerce does the CSA (Controlled Substances Act of 1970) reincarnate Al Capone, endanger homeland security, and throw good money after bad. Administration fiscal policy burns tax dollars to root out the number-one cash crop in the land, instead of taxing sales. Society rejected the plague of prohibition, but it mutated. Apparently, SWAT teams don’t need no stinking amendment.

Nixon passed the CSA on the false assurance that the Schafer Commission would later justify criminalizing his enemies. No amendments can assure due process under an anti-science law without due process itself. Psychology hailed the breakthrough potential of LSD, until the CSA shut down research, and pronounced that marijuana has no medical use, period. Drug juries exclude bleeding hearts.

The RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993) allows Native American Church members to eat peyote, which functions like LSD. Americans shouldn’t need a specific church membership or an act of Congress to obtain their birthright freedom of religion. John Doe’s free exercise of religious liberty may include entheogen sacraments to mediate communion with his maker.

Freedom of speech presupposes freedom of thought. The Constitution doesn’t enumerate any governmental power to embargo diverse states of mind. How and when did government usurp this power to coerce conformity? The Mayflower sailed to escape coerced conformity. Legislators who would limit cognitive liberty lack jurisdiction.

Common-law must hold that adults are the legal owners of their own bodies. The Founding Fathers undersigned that the right to the pursuit of happiness is inalienable. Socrates said to know your self. Mortal lawmakers should not presume to thwart the intelligent design that molecular keys unlock spiritual doors. Persons who appreciate their own free choice of path in life should tolerate seekers’ self-exploration.
*************************

Bill, thank you so much for your comment.

Ragged Old Flag by Johnny Cash

My Friend Sarah

How to Fix Health Care: Lasik Surgery For The Medical Debate

Chris Matthews calls West Point the "Enemy Camp"

Red Skelton's Pledge of Allegiance

Nanny of The Month - November 2009

GARRETT PECK ON "THE PROHIBITION HANGOVER: ALCOHOL IN AMERICA FROM DEMON RUM TO CULT CABERNET"

Why the U.S. has such strange liquor laws

Reading People’s Faces

Tattoos, dueling scars, and other rational acquisitions

Katherine Mangu-Ward

It is a truth universally acknowledged that messing with a guy who has facial tattoos is a really bad idea.

Getting dirty words tattooed on your eyelids—a popular choice, judging from the mug shots available online—is a serious commitment. It is, as social scientists say, a “signal that is costly to fake.” The bearer of a facial tattoo announces to the world: I expect to be in prison for most of my life, or to hang out with people who consider prison experience a character reference.

Those of us who are not a part of the criminal underworld have a much cheaper system: Asked for a reference, we happily provide our colleagues’ phone numbers and email addresses. But for crooks, broadcasting signals about their professional pasts and current social networks is a good way to wind up with a new pair of concrete shoes. In Codes of the Underworld: How Criminals Communicate (Princeton), the Oxford sociologist Diego Gambetta uses colorful stories and a minimum of jargon in his quest to analyze how people advertise when their business happens to be illegal.

Unlike a legal trademark, an underworld brand can’t be defended with little more than an expensive attorney. If another gang steps into your turf, you can opt for a violent defense of your signal of choice. But gangsters who previously relied on large gaudy tattoos to get a message across can hardly go around roughing up every 17-year-old with a tramp stamp on her tailbone.

As tattoos go mainstream, criminals have to adapt. These days, even art on your neck, collarbone, and wrists is barely enough to signal your commitment to subcultures that are totally legal.

But there are still some kinds of tattoos—including those inky eyelid admonitions and the homespun variety created with a shard of a ballpoint pen during long hours behind bars—that retain their signaling power, demonstrating a commitment to the criminal way of life. A guy with extensive Aryan Brotherhood facial tattoos is unlikely to snitch on his buddies. The only thing worse then getting an eyelid tattoo is having one removed. What’s he going to do, go into witness protection and start a new life as a kindergarten teacher in Ohio?

In Japan, members of the yakuza have long favored tattoos covering the entire upper body to signal their mafia status. They also amputate all or part of a pinky finger. One study estimated that between 40 percent and 70 percent of the yakuza had sacrificed a digit, generally making the cut themselves. READ MORE REASON

Time to Wind Down the War on Drugs

by Gene Healy

It's hard out here for a libertarian in the Age of Obama. From bailout mania to the drive to nationalize health care, those of who want less federal involvement in American life have plenty to be depressed about.

Is there any area in which it's not too audacious to hope for less intrusive government?

Yes, thankfully: Today, more and more Americans are open to winding down our destructive war on drugs.

In October, Gallup recorded its highest-ever level of public support for marijuana legalization, with 44 percent of Americans in favor. There's "a generational rift" on the issue, Gallup reports: A majority of voters under 50 back legalization.

This Election Day, Maine joined a growing number of states that have legalized medical marijuana dispensaries. Meanwhile, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has called for a "robust debate" on the issue, and activists are on pace to put a marijuana decriminalization initiative in front of the state's voters.

In Congress, unlikely allies Ron Paul, R-Texas, and Barney Frank, D-Mass., recently introduced a bill to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana. Most encouraging, Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., has called attention to the scandalous fact that the United States has more people in jail per capita than any other nation in the world, in large part because of the drug war. READ MORE @ CATO

Challenging Virginia's Unconstitutional Regulation of Yoga Teacher Training

Killing Slaughterhouse

Understanding the controversial 1873 decision at the center of the Supreme Court's upcoming gun rights fight

Brian Doherty

The Supreme Court has set a date of March 2, 2010, for oral arguments in McDonald v. Chicago, the case that will decide whether the revival of the Second Amendment won in 2008’s Heller case will extend to overturning gun control restrictions imposed by local and state governments.

The legal briefs from the plaintiffs, and many of their amici, are now circulating. And an interesting division in the preferred strategy for winning the case has appeared, one based on the daring legal gambit around which most of lead McDonald lawyer (and Heller lawyer) Alan Gura’s brief is built.

To understand Gura’s radicalism, we need to take a quick stroll through a century and more of legal precedent. For decades, the rights contained in the Bill of Rights (both explicitly enumerated and unenumerated) were interpreted to bind only the federal government (see the 1833 Barron case, regarding takings under the Fifth Amendment, for the beginnings of this line of thought). Then in 1868 the 14th Amendment was enacted to impose substantive limitations on the ability of state and local governments to infringe individual rights.

The 14th Amendment was passed in the historical context of Reconstruction, when many southern governments were violating the rights of newly freed blacks. As many of the briefs in McDonald detail quite convincingly, one of the rights that was almost universally understood to fall under 14th Amendment protection (or to use the lingo, one of the rights meant to be “incorporated” on the states via the 14th) was the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

The 14th Amendment lists three distinct ways in which states and localities are prohibited from violating our rights: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” READ MORE REASON

The Discoverer of HIV Speaks Out

by James Foye

The new film House Of Numbers (reviewed by me here) contains excerpts of interviews with almost everyone of significance in the debate about whether or not HIV causes severe immune deficiency (aka AIDS). In a true scientific debate, the defenders of AIDS orthodoxy would jump at every chance to engage in debate with HIV skeptics, in the hope of either clearly refuting their arguments, or else learning something from them. But instead their mantra is:

"We will not engage in any public or private debate with AIDS denialists or respond to requests from journalists who overtly support AIDS denialist causes."

Some of the people interviewed by filmmaker Brent Leung didn’t realize that his final product was not going to be a one-sided rehash of the nonsense that has been fed to us for the last 25 years by the AIDS establishment, but rather would feature both sides of the story. They therefore regret their participation in the film, and are trying to explain away the comments they made and to portray Mr. Leung as being deceptive. But, had he stormed into their offices telling them that he had doubts about HIV, by their own admission, they wouldn’t have given him the time of day. In any event, is there one question they would have answered differently had they then granted an interview? The answer, one must presume, must be "No." So what difference does it make? Read More

Libertarians opposed to new war plans for Afghanistan

WASHINGTON - The Libertarian Party (LP) today expressed its opposition to the Afghanistan war plans announced by President Barack Obama last night.

Wes Benedict, Executive Director of the LP, said, "Rush Limbaugh should buy Obama a nice cigar. The liberal president has done exactly what the conservative leader wanted: escalate the war."

William Redpath, Chairman of the Libertarian National Committee (LNC), commented, "This is further evidence that the differences between Republicans and Democrats are, at most, rhetorical. This president, whose votes made him the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate, has just announced an escalation of a foreign war. His campaign promise of 'Change' now sounds a lot more hollow."

Redpath continued, "Some congressional Democrats may make a rhetorical show of opposing Obama's decision, but that is all it will be. Obama is guaranteed to get the additional troops and funding that he wants."

Redpath continued, "Instead, Congress should re-assert its authority in matters of war, by passing legislation that terminates the president's authorization to make war in Afghanistan, and that calls for an orderly withdrawal from Afghanistan. If the president vetoes it, Congress should override the veto."

In September 2008, the LNC adopted a resolution calling for a military withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Benedict commented further, "One problem with the president's strategy is that it demonstrates a hyperinflated fear of terrorists. When we act worried and threatened, we make the terrorists feel like they're having their intended effect, which encourages them to keep doing what they're doing."

Redpath continued, "According to the Cato Institute, 'the U.S. military's counterinsurgency doctrine says that stabilizing a country the size of Afghanistan would require far more troops than the most wild-eyed hawk has proposed: about 600,000 troops.' President Obama is proposing to put a total of about 100,000 troops in Afghanistan, which won't come close to accomplishing anything."

Redpath concluded, "The president's speech was surprisingly content-free. The speech was nearly all platitudes, which is typical for politicians, particularly presidents. Will someone please restore substance to American political discourse?"

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.

PJTV: The Danger and Power of Iconography

CEI Video: Why Won't Al Gore Debate?

Three Decades of Politics and Failed Policies at HUD

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has long been plagued by scandals, mismanagement, and policy failures. Most recently, HUD's subsidies and failed oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac helped to inflate the housing bubble, which ultimately burst and cascaded into a major financial crisis.

Given this giant policy blunder, now is a good time to review the many failures in HUD leadership over the years. This study discusses how HUD officials operate within a highly politicized environment, which is heavily influenced by the groups that HUD subsidizes and regulates, including the housing industry, financial institutions, and community activists.

At the same time, HUD leaders often put their personal goals ahead of those of the general public. Recent HUD secretaries have focused on gaining private benefits while doing favors for business interests and political insiders. These leadership failures are illustrated in this study by profiles of four recent HUD secretaries: Samuel Pierce in the 1980s, Henry Cisneros and Andrew Cuomo in the 1990s, and Alphonso Jackson in the 2000s. Read More @ Cato

Click Here to see the Entire Report

DeHaven, Tad. "Three Decades of Politics and Failed Policies at HUD." November 23, 2009. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10981 (accessed November 30, 2009).

A Red-Ink Train Wreck: The Real Cost of Government-Run Healthcare

The Unfortunate Example of Tiger Woods

The once unblemished image of golfing great Tiger Woods has taken a serious blow in recent days. Millions of people claim to be fans, millions of young people look up to him as a role model. Millions buy the products that he endorses, making him worth millions of dollars from endorsements alone. He lives in an exclusive neighborhood, set apart from the world. Obviously he thinks that includes the law and cooperation with Law Enforcement.

Personal responsibility for your own actions requires more than a statement through your people. Setting an example for young people whose parents like having you, as a role model should include cooperating with Law Enforcement when they are investigating an accident or a murder. Everyone is subject to the law in this country.

Nobody is above the law and we all work within those limits, even if we disagree them. Hiding behind your lawyers, money and the walls of your home is not acceptable behavior, though it may be legal. Step up and be a man. Do as you are asked, tell the truth no matter where it leads, and then accept the consequences. That is how regular people live and you are no exception. In the long run people will actually respect you more.

LP Monday Message: Republicans and Democrats are both terrible for health care

November 23, 2009

Dear Friend of Liberty,

I don't know about you, but I'm getting a little tired of hearing Republicans act self-righteous about this health care bill. Of course it's a terrible bill that will increase government and taxes and make our health care worse -- but let's take a short trip down memory lane.

In November 2003, almost all Republican senators voted to pass the "Prescription Drug and Medicare Improvement Act of 2003." That was the horrible humongous Medicare expansion that ended up costing about $1.2 trillion. It was a huge federal intrusion into health care. Republican darlings like Kay Bailey Hutchison and James Inhofe were among those who voted for it.

Now Republicans are saying they oppose government expansion into health care. What a joke. A few years ago they thought it was the greatest thing in the world. Messages being sent out by the Republican National Committee are telling people that the current bill is bad because it will "cut Medicare"!

There's only one party that really opposes government health care, and that's the Libertarian Party. We've always been against it, and we'll always be against it. But that doesn't mean we want to force your health care into the hands of big insurance companies or big pharmaceutical companies, or subject it to the monopolizing effects of today's licensing laws.

As our platform states, "We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want, the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions."

Thanks to everyone who called your Congressman a few weeks ago. The bill still got passed by the House, but maybe it will be weakened or killed in the Senate. I certainly hope so.

Sincerely,

Wes Benedict
Executive Director
Libertarian National Committee

Todd Wynn on Climate Change & Free Market Environmentalism

Ron Paul - New Orleans Investment Conference, Pt. 4

Owings Mills, MD: On November 21, 2009 the Central Committee of the Libertarian Party of Maryland selected Susan Gaztañaga as their candidate for Governor and Doug McNeil as their candidate for Lieutenant Governor.

The MDLP will be releasing more information as well as the Gaztañaga Campaign's platform and plan for Maryland in the coming weeks. With the extraordinary burden placed on Maryland Taxpayers, businesses and the over regulation of everything from fishing to the gaming industry, the Libertarian Party believes that reducing both taxes and regulations will strengthen the stability of Maryland's economy. It will bring more freedom to all citizens and make Maryland a more attractive place to live, work, and raise a family. These are the core principles of the Libertarian Party and what drives Susan Gaztañaga and Doug McNeil to serve.

For more information on this issue, or to arrange an interview with the Maryland Libertarian Party, please call Communications Director Muir Boda at (410) 603-3347, or email at mwboda@mac.com.

The Libertarian Party is America's third-largest political party, founded in 1971 as an alternative to the two main political parties. You can find more information on the Maryland Libertarian Party at www.md.lp.org, their blog at www.mdlibertarian.com, and the Libertarian Party by visiting LP.org. The Libertarian Party proudly stands for smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom.

Ron Paul - New Orleans Investment Conference, Pt. 3

Ron Paul - New Orleans Investment Conference, Pt.2

Dan Mitchell: Is Government Intervention Working?

LP Attends School Choice Rally

Ron Paul on Monetary Policy

Missing the Point

After receiving emails and messages concerning others opinions on my Letter to the Editor, I have decided to respond.

First, I believe the point of the entire editorial was missed. It is not about any one person, the issue is larger than that. Whether Chief Webster is terminated or not, will not affect the crime rate. Chief Webster is not the issue. This obsession with Chief Webster is personal and vindictive.

Second, those that propose to get rid of him have never offered any detailed solutions to reduce crime. Sub-Stations have been proposed and we have talked about the crime numbers and that is about it.

Third, I believe now is the time we need to have the discussion on how do we reduce crime and improve the effectiveness of our Law Enforcement.

Those that choose to make the discussion personal, resort to name calling, and degrading an individuals chosen profession are simply blinded by their own arrogance. They have the audacity to question a concerned taxpaying citizen, voter, and someone who is willing to express their opinion because they care. These actions show their true nature and that they have no alternative plan, proposal, or fresh ideas. This is their M.O. against anyone who may disagree on a particular policy. Unless they can engage in meaningful debate and exchange ideas, I plan on simply ignoring them from this point forward.

What I do propose is this:

• We should phase in merging all law enforcement agencies in the county. Creating a Public Safety Commissioner (Elected Position). Under the PSC should be the Police Chief, Fire Chief, Fire Marshall, and Emergency Management.
• Develop strong, anti-crime educational courses in our schools, taught by Law Enforcement.
• Encourage our legislators to pass mandatory sentencing and fines for all levels of convictions.

These are ideas that may not be the final solution. The problem is, there is nobody offering any solutions except hanging all their hopes on a person or whether we fire someone. Our problems are bigger than any individual, that is why it will require all of us to be engaged in the solutions.

Ron Paul - New Orleans Investment Conference, Pt. 1

The 'Stimulus' for Unemployment

by Alan Reynolds
This article appeared in the New York Post on November 17, 2009.

Why did the unemployment rate rise so rapidly — from 7.2 per cent in January to 10.2 percent in October? It was clearly the administration's "stimulus" bill — which in February provided $40 billion to greatly extend jobless benefits at no cost to the states.

As Larry Summers, the president's top assistant for economic policy, noted in July, "the unemployment rate over the recession has risen about 1 to 1.5 percentage points more than would normally be attributable to the contraction in GDP." And the rate has moved nearly a percentage point higher since then, even though GDP increased. Countries with much deeper declines in GDP, such as Germany and Sweden, have unemployment rates far below ours.

Summers knows why the US rate is so high. He explained it well in a 1995 paper co-authored with James Poterba of MIT: "Unemployment insurance lengthens unemployment spells."

That is: When the government pays people 50 to 60 percent of their previous wage to stay home for a year or more, many of them do just that.

And the stimulus bribed states to extend benefits — which have now been stretched to an unprecedented 79 weeks in 28 states and to 46 to 72 weeks in the rest. Before mid-2008, by contrast, only a few states paid jobless benefits for even a month beyond the standard 26 weeks.

When you subsidize something, you get more of it. Extending unemployment benefits from 26 to 79 weeks was guaranteed to leave many more people unemployed for many more months.

And longer unemployment translates to higher unemployment rates — because the relatively small numbers of newly unemployed are added to stubbornly large numbers of those who lost their jobs more than six months ago.

Until benefits are about to run out, many of the long-term unemployed are in no rush to make serious efforts to find another job — or to accept job offers that may involve a long commute, relocation or disappointing salary and benefits.

(Incidentally, the "mercy" of longer benefits does no long-term favors: The literature is quite clear that a prolonged period on unemployment tends to depress income for years after you finally go back to work.)

The median length of unemployment hovered around 10 weeks for six months before February's "stimulus" plan. Since half the unemployed found jobs within 10 weeks, more than half of those counted among the unemployed in one month would no longer be included three months later. In other words, more frequent turnover among the unemployed held down monthly unemployment.

But after February, with jobless benefits stretched out to 46 to 79 weeks, the median duration of unemployment nearly doubled, reaching 18.7 weeks by October.

READ MORE @ REASON

Reason.tv: UPS vs. FEDEX—Ultimate Whiteboard Remix

Great Letter From Dr. Adrian Moore of the Reason Foundation

I received this yesterday from Dr. Adrian Mooore, Vice President of the Reason Foundation.

***************************************************
I live in a small town with a large state prison on the outskirts. Fortunately relations between the prison and the city are pretty good. In fact, the city, facing another tough budget year, has been very innovative in working with the prison to use work crews on public works projects. A great way to turn what some might think is a liability into an asset.

From Congress to the smallest town in America, the pressure is on to do more with less. To help stir that pot, here are some recent items from my colleagues at Reason:

Setting the Record Straight on Chicago Parking Meter Privatization
While glitches in the early implementation have prompted significant scrutiny of the transaction from local officials and media, the turbulence of the early rollout now seems to have subsided as operational improvements have taken hold in recent months.

Selling" State Buildings in Arizona, California
Arizona has made national headlines in recent months for a $735 million dollar proposal to sell state buildings to generate revenue in the face of ongoing, massive budget deficits. Given their high-profile nature, the inclusion of the state House and Senate buildings, the Governor's executive tower and state prisons in the package has generated a great deal of publicity, generating headlines like "Desperate state may sell Capitol buildings, others" in the Arizona Republicand even a Daily Show segment poking fun at the idea.

San Quentin, I'd Sell Every Inch of You: Reason Foundation's Anthony Randazzo on Why California Should Sell Off Useless Assets (video)

Getting Virginia Off the Sauce
Virginia is one of 18 states where the government is the monopoly rumrunner. Supermarkets, gourmet shops, and corner stores are all forbidden to sell liquor. But Bob McDonnell, the newly-elected Republican governor, has promised to end the monopoly on liquor sales in the Old Dominion.

Privatize the Post...Oh, Just Forget It
As unlikely as it may seem to today's wee young Ron Paul supporters, "Privatize the Post Office!" was once a seriously stirring rallying cry.

Some Officers of Their Own
The citizens of a housing estate in Darlington, U.K., try a private solution to crime:

And to get a sense of how many places are looking at some kind of outsourcing, competition, or privatization, check out the links to news stories in these updates:

Privatization News Roundup, 10/2/2009
Privatization News Roundup, 10/16/2009
Privatization News Roundup, Oct. 23, 2009
Privatization News Roundup, Nov. 5, 2009
Privatization News Roundup, Nov. 13, 2009



Adrian
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dr. Adrian Moore
Vice President
Reason Foundation
(661)477-3107

Libertarian Party of Maryland Program

First Steps Towards Freeing the Citizens of the Free State
The purpose of the Libertarian Party of Maryland is to use the political process to promote freedom as the primary value in the organization of a healthy society. To that end, it seeks to elect Libertarians to public office, influence other elected and appointed officials, and move public opinion toward supporting increased liberty in our daily affairs. Our liberties were not curtailed overnight and we do not expect them to be restored overnight. This program represents our first steps toward restoring our freedoms.

Education
Encourage variety in education through local control, including:

• Allowing for increased parental choice within the government public school system (e.g. tax credits, vouchers, school district selection, etc.);
• Supporting small autonomous schools within the larger school buildings;
• Allowing K-12 neighborhood schools (reducing busing costs);
• Encouraging privately funded K-12 scholarships for non-government educational activities; Discouraging government interference and control with home schooling;
• Encourage counties to elect school boards.

Open and Responsible Government

• Create or maintain small, single member legislative districts at the state and local levels. This will encourage politicians to be accountable to their constituents for their actions.
• Take steps to create a nonpartisan redistricting process. Politicians should not be able to choose who votes for them.
• Work to decentralize the governmental bodies in Maryland. Politicians should respect the right of local communities to govern themselves and not micro-manage every aspect of peoples’ lives. Political decisions should be made at the lowest feasible level in order to encourage civic participation.

Job and Wealth Creation without Corporate Welfare
Reduce government spending and lower the tax burden by:

• Ending public funding for stadiums, hotels, concert halls, etc., and stopping unfunded mandates;
• Promoting economic growth by restructuring the tax system in order to eliminate subsidies or special tax breaks to businesses;
• Reforming licensing laws that unfairly restrict competition, thus allowing the creation of more jobs and business opportunities.

Secure Property Rights

• Forbid government entities from abusing the power of eminent domain in order to transfer private property to privileged individuals.
• Phase out government entities that compete against the private sector, such as the Maryland Economic Development Corporation (MEDCO).
  

Land Use, Transportation, and the Environment
Encourage private redevelopment of vacant and underused urban land and remove developmental pressure on farms and wilderness lands by:

• Removing subsidies to developers, such as publicly funded infrastructure for new developments;
• Encouraging efficient land use by reducing the tax on buildings and property improvements, leaving only assessments on land itself;
• Revising zoning laws to allow the development of self-sufficient communities. Transportation systems in the compact communities resulting from the above policies would increase pedestrian, rail, and mass transportation relative to automobile traffic. Prevent pollution and increase environmental awareness by making polluters pay for their irresponsibility by facing strict civil liability. Promote free market environmentalism to solve problems.

Crime and Public Safety

• Free up our law enforcement resources by concentrating efforts on crimes against persons and property, rather than non-violent offenders.
• Stop any use of “asset forfeiture” until the property owner has been properly convicted of a crime in the judicial system. Seizure of property before a conviction is an un-American policy of “guilty until proven innocent.”
• Promote medical treatment, rather than prison sentences, for those who abuse alcohol or drugs.
• Stopping the national War on Drugs will reduce profit of the drug trade, resulting in a decrease in crime.
• Permit the carrying of firearms with training and a background check (shall-issue). This will allow law-abiding citizens the constitutional right to arm themselves to protect their homes and liberties. Waiting periods, bans, and registration may actually increase crime.

Lou Dobbs Resigns from CNN

11/18 Fiat Dollar Reserve System Dead New World reserve currency

Letter To the Editor

For some time now FBI Crime Statistics have been waved around in our faces. They tell us Salisbury is the second most dangerous city in America. All we have heard is “Crime is out of Control!” “You do not want to go out after dark.” Yet through all of this, the only solution that seems to be out there is to replace the current Chief of Police – Allan Webster. Some how magically that will solve all our problems.

The truth is that crime is not just Salisbury’s problem it is Wicomico County’s problem. As the economical hub of Delmarva, Salisbury becomes a city of over 100,000 during the day with all the people who come here to work, shop, and do business. So many of the people who commit crimes are from the county, lower Delaware, and beyond. That would be an interesting statistic – how many of the crimes committed in the city are from people outside of the city?

The police react to crime they do not stop crime. Individuals make choices to commit crimes and the police arrest them when they discover who has committed the crime. At that point they are turned over to the court system and eventually released back into society where many fall back into the same cycle.

Without a comprehensive regional plan to fight crime – that should begin with education, rehabilitation, and streamlining law enforcement resources – the situation is not going to improve if we continue with a vacuum in our leadership.

Reason.tv: Mike Flynn on Big Government (The Website!) & The Videos That Cut Down ACORN

I'll Never Smoke Weed With Willie Again

Kiss Your Freedoms Goodbye If Health Care Passes

Why we cannot afford to sit out this fight

Andrew Napolitano | November 16, 2009

Congress recognizes no limits on its power. It doesn't care about the Constitution, it doesn't care about your inalienable rights. If this health care bill becomes law, America, life as you have known it, freedom as you have exercised it, and privacy as you have enjoyed it will cease to be.

Last week the House of Representatives voted on a 2,000 page bill to give the federal government the power to micromanage the health care of every single American. The bill will raise your taxes, steal your freedom, invade your privacy, and ration your health care. Even the Republicans have introduced their version of Obamacare Lite. It, too, if passed, will compel employers to provide coverage, bribe the states to change their court rules, and tell insurance companies whom to insure.

We do not have two political parties in this country, America. We have one party; called the Big Government Party. The Republican wing likes deficits, war, and assaults on civil liberties. The Democratic wing likes wealth transfer, taxes, and assaults on commercial liberties. Both parties like power; and neither is interested in your freedoms.

Think about it. Government is the negation of freedom. Freedom is your power and ability to follow your own free will and your own conscience. The government wants you to follow the will of some faceless bureaucrat.

When I recently asked Congressman James Clyburn, the third ranking Democrat in the House, to tell me "Where in the Constitution the federal government is authorized to regulate everyone's healthcare," he replied that most of what Congress does is not authorized by the Constitution, but they do it anyway. There you have it. Congress recognizes no limits on its power. It doesn't care about the Constitution, it doesn't care about your inalienable rights, it doesn't care about the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights, it doesn't even read the laws it writes.

America, this is not an academic issue. If this health care bill becomes law, life as you have known it, freedom as you have exercised it, privacy as you have enjoyed it, will cease to be.

When Congress takes away our freedoms, they will be gone forever. What will you do to prevent this from happening?

We Can't Sit Back and Allow the Loss of Our Freedoms

We elect the government. It works for us. As we watch the Democrats' plans for health care take shape, we can only ask how did our government get so removed, so unbridled, so arrogant that it can tell us how to live our personal lives?

On Saturday November 7, at 11 o’clock in the evening, the House of Representatives voted by a five vote margin to have the federal government manage the health care of every American at a cost of $1 trillion dollars over the next ten years.

For the first time in American history, if this bill becomes law, the Feds will force you to buy insurance you might not want, or may not need, or cannot afford. If you don’t purchase what the government tells you to buy, if you don’t do so when they tell you to do it, and if you don’t buy just what they say is right for you, the government may fine you, prosecute you, and even put you in jail. Freedom of choice and control over your own body will be lost. The privacy of your communications and medical decision making with your physician will be gone. More of your hard earned dollars will be at the disposal of federal bureaucrats.

It was not supposed to be this way. We elect the government. It works for us. How did it get so removed, so unbridled, so arrogant that it can tell us how to live our personal lives? Evil rarely comes upon us all at once, and liberty is rarely lost in one stroke. It happens gradually, over the years and decades and even centuries. A little stretch here, a cave in there, powers are slowly taken from the states and the people and before you know it, we have one big monster government that recognizes no restraint on its ability to tell us how to live. It claims the power to regulate any activity, tax any behavior, and demand conformity to any standard it chooses.

The Founders did not give us a government like the one we have today. The government they gave us was strictly limited in its scope, guaranteed individual liberty, preserved the free market, and on matters that pertain to our private behavior was supposed to leave us alone.

In the Constitution, the Founders built in checks and balances. If the Congress got out of hand, the states would restrain it. If the states stole liberty or property, the Congress would cure it. If the president tried to become a king, the courts would prevent it.

In the next few weeks, I will be giving a public class on Constitutional Law here on the Fox News Channel, on the Fox Business Network, on Foxnews.com, and on Fox Nation. In anticipation of that, many of you have asked: What can we do now about the loss of freedom? For starters, we can vote the bums out of their cushy federal offices! We can persuade our state governments to defy the Feds in areas like health care—where the Constitution gives the Feds zero authority. We can petition our state legislatures to threaten to amend the Constitution to abolish the income tax, return the selection of U.S. senators to state legislatures, and nullify all the laws the Congress has written that are not based in the Constitution.

One thing we can’t do is just sit back and take it.

Judge Andrew Napolitano is Fox News' senior judicial analyst. This article originally appeared in two parts on FoxNews.com.

Maryland Libertarian Party Central Committee Meeting

Date: November 21, 2009
Time: 2:00PM
Location: 3213 Patmor Road Owings Mill, MD 21117

Agenda: Nominations for Governor/ Lieutenant Governor and other public offices. Approval of last two Treasurer's reports.


RSVP: n3ic@ICengineering.com (410)363-6626

The Judge on Helthcare

Dr. Davis' November Letter to Editors

As Veteran’s Day approaches, I’ve been pondering why I accepted when the chairman of the Maryland Libertarian Party asked me to run again for Congress.

I concluded that, like my service in the Navy, I owed it to my community and my country. I owe it to those who came before me – the great-great-grandfather who fought for three years in the Union Army; my father and late father-in-law who spent several of the prime years of their lives in the Army Air Force in World War II; my father’s high school friend (whose first name I carry) who died on Iwo Jima in his fourth invasion in a thirteen-month span of 1944-45; my Boy Scout buddy’s older brother, killed as an army medic in Viet Nam.

I owe it to those here with me: family, friends, neighbors and patients who live with me in a free and prosperous country that is becoming less free and less prosperous.

I owe it to those yet coming. To my children, nieces and nephews and their friends who will inherit what we leave them: the freedoms we preserve or fail to; the prosperity or debt; the peace or the unresolved conflicts; the clean air and water or the pollution.

Whether or not I serve in Congress will be up to the voters of this district, but I owe it to myself to know that I did my best to offer an alternative and to serve if I am elected.

Sincerely,

Richard J. Davis, D.D.S.

Libertarian for Congress

www.davis4congress.com

Don't Copy Europe's Mistakes: Less Government Is the Right Way to Fix Healthcare

Ron Paul: Important News on Audit the Fed

GODDESS OF THE MARKET AUTHOR JENNIFER BURNS ON AYN RAND

The $1.5 Trillion Fraud

by Michael F. Cannon

If House Democrats hold a vote on their health-care overhaul this weekend, they might as well vote on abolishing the Congressional Budget Office too. It would be no more audacious — and much more honest — than their current strategy for hiding the true cost of their legislation.

Never mind the everyday budget gimmicks House Democrats have used, such as removing $250 billion of deficit spending to be voted on separately. Or claiming their bill would cost just $894 billion — around $400 billion less than the CBO actually projected. We've seen this kind of trickery plenty in recent years; to suppress an inconvenient cost estimate of its proposed Medicare drug entitlement, the Bush administration threatened to fire Medicare's chief actuary.

Deceptions on this scale are child's play, at least when compared to what has to be the biggest fiscal obfuscation in the history of American politics: The current leadership has rigged the legislation so that 60 percent of its total cost will not be made public by the CBO in advance of the House vote. Here's how they did it.

The centerpiece of the bills currently under consideration is not the "public option," but the "individual mandate" — a legal requirement that all U.S. residents purchase health insurance, on penalty of fines and/or imprisonment.

The CBO describes an individual mandate as "an unprecedented form of federal action" whose closest analogue in federal law is the draft. But as President Obama told a joint session of Congress, the rest of the legislation won't work unless the federal government forces Americans to purchase health insurance. READ MORE @ CATO

Kratovil Grows A Pair, Votes No On The Healthcare Bill

Frank Kratovil bucks his party leadership and votes no on the House's version of their Healthcare Bill. In his press release he gives this explanation:

“I support healthcare reform, but it must be the right kind of reform that works for my constituents in the First District. I have consistently argued for healthcare reform that reduces long-term health care spending, improves quality, and expands coverage in a fiscally responsible manner. Our nation is facing an $11.9 trillion national debt, and we simply cannot afford a bill that does not lower healthcare spending. It is also essential for healthcare reform legislation to support, not burden, our nation’s small businesses.

I was not able to support the bill before Congress today because I do not believe it meets my criteria for a sustainable solution. While I recognize the need for reform and I applaud some aspects of this bill, I do not believe that this bill offers a sustainable solution. I will continue to work with my colleagues to pursue a better bill as this process continues, and I urge constituents to continue to offer their input.”

Too bad he did not have this set of stones when he voted for Obama's stimulus package which simply printed a ton of paper that went into the big black hole of what is the national debt.

Here is what Congressman Kratovil is looking for according to his website:

• I believe that any reform plan must begin with an understanding that any individual must be allowed to keep the coverage they have now if they so choose. I will not support any reform plan that forces consumers to give up a plan with which they are currently happy.
• I believe that a public option may help reduce costs by increasing competition and expanding consumer choice, but it is important that any public option be forced to compete on a level playing field with private insurers.
• I oppose taxing health benefits as income.
• I believe we must protect small businesses and entrepreneurs from unreasonably burdensome mandates that could limit their ability to create new jobs.

On this he seems to be on target and sticking with his principles. Again, too bad he could not stick to his principles on the Stimulus Bill. With other legislation coming up in the next year where will he fall. At some point he will have to tow the party line on a major piece of legislation, one that could be tremendously devastating. He obviously made this vote to keep his job and probably got a pass from the party. You only get so many of those.

A Third Party Will Rise in 2010

"Listen to the highly respected Gerald Celente, who pulls no punches, announce that the political system is failing the America people and that the Banks (Oligarchy) are robbing us blind. If you're not outraged, you're on life support. As Celente predicts – watch for the formation of an angry Progressive / Libertarian third party before the mid-term elections in 2010 and I'll be an active participant."

DREW CAREY CLASSICS