Star Democrat Article on Dr. Davis

Below is an article on 1st congressional candidate Dr. Richard Davis, that was published in the Sunday print-only edition of the Easton Star-Democrat:

Story courtesy of The (Easton) Star Democrat
Got a campaign contribution? Dr. Davis says give it to charityBy STEVE NERY
News Editor
HURLOCK -- Dr. Davis doesn't desire contributions.
That's Dr. Richard Davis, the Libertarian candidate to represent the 1st District in the U.S. House of Representatives, and he thinks people can spend their money on more useful things than political campaigns.
Despite declining contributions since he first ran for Congress two years ago, Davis, a dentist from Hurlock, still occasionally receives monetary offers.

His response: Make a donation to a charity instead, in honor of his campaign or the Maryland Libertarian Party.
"Rather than expend money on ads, yard signs or bumper stickers, I want to see that publicity benefit local communities regardless of the outcome of the campaign," Davis wrote in an e-mail. "My campaign is largely about returning maximum control to local communities, and anything that strengthens those communities from within is as valuable as what I hope to accomplish in running for Congress."

Davis said he just recently came up with the idea of directing donations to charities, after people kept offering him contributions despite his public stance that he would not accept them.

"I figured maybe I can do some good with this," he said. "If they really want to give money, let's put it to something useful rather than to yard signs and bumper stickers."

Davis wonders what the 1st District might look like if all the campaign contributions from the 2008 election went to local communities instead of the candidates.

U.S. Rep. Frank Kratovil, D-Md.-1st, spent nearly $2 million on his successful campaign, general election opponent State Sen. Andy Harris, R-7-Baltimore and Harford counties, spent more than $3 million, and state Sen. E.J. Pipkin, R-36-Upper Shore, and the former incumbent, Wayne Gilchrest, each spent more than $1 million leading up to the Republican primary, according to Federal Election Commission reports.

"With the economy on the Shore like it is ... think of what you could have done," Davis said. "I think there's too much money going in and too much money coming out of the process."

Davis said he agreed to run again when asked by the Maryland Libertarian Party.

"For a totally unknown, I thought I did reasonably well last time, plus I'm still thoroughly unhappy with what the two major parties are doing," he said.

He may spend a little of his own money on travel expenses and the like, but it again won't be anywhere near the $5,000 minimum required for filing an FEC report, Davis said.

"I'm not looking to buy votes. I would rather have people voting for me because they want what I believe in and not because they happened to see an ad," he said.

Davis received 8,873 votes last time, compared to 177,065 for Kratovil and 174,213 for Harris. He didn't win the election, but he won the title of most cost-effective candidate  [-] Harris' campaign spent $17.36 for each vote received and Kratovil's campaign spent $11.26 per, while Davis spent only his time.

While he's not willing to spend money on signs and stickers, Davis is willing to meet with any group interested in hearing his views. He said he's especially open to any organization that wants him to speak on a specific topic or answer questions. He can be reached at 410-943-8314 or at rjdavislp@gmail.com.

Davis believes in lower taxes and government spending (including shifting taxation on income to consumption), Congressional term limits and gradually doing away with Social Security. For more information on his views, visit  davis4congress.com.

Libertarians oppose census questions

WASHINGTON - Libertarian Party (LP) Chairman William Redpath released the following statement today regarding the 2010 census:

"The Libertarian Party believes that the federal government's current census procedures are unconstitutional, unnecessary, and too expensive. We believe that the census is constitutionally limited to collecting only one piece of information about each residence: the number of persons living in it. We urge Congress to change the census laws to comply with this constitutional limitation.

"The U.S. Constitution empowers Congress to provide for a census in order to apportion Representatives correctly. The Constitution does not empower Congress to use a census for any other purpose. There is no need for Congress to collect additional information such as names, races, ages, sexes, or home ownership status. Unfortunately, the federal government wants to use the additional information to fine tune its control over the lives and money of the American people.

"The 2010 census is expected to cost over $14 billion. A recent report from the Inspector General of the Department of Commerce indicates that preparations for the 2010 census have already been filled with waste and bloat. A proper census, limited to just a headcount, would be far less expensive.
"Many Americans fear that the Census Bureau will not keep their information secret, and might turn personal details over to other government agencies. The Census Bureau promises that they will keep everything confidential, but they have broken that promise in the past. As David Kopel of the libertarian Cato Institute has pointed out, during World War I the Census Bureau handed over lists of names and addresses so the federal government could search for draft resisters. And, shockingly, during World War II, the Census Bureau told the Justice Department which neighborhoods had high concentrations of Japanese-Americans. The federal government then used that information to find Japanese-Americans and imprison them in concentration camps.

"As Congressman Ron Paul, 1988 Libertarian candidate for President, recently said, 'If the federal government really wants to increase compliance with the census, it should abide by the Constitution and limit its inquiry to one simple question: How many people live here?'"
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.

Easton Star Democrat Feature's MDLP, Susan Gaztanaga

Easton, MD:  The Star Democrat featured the MdLP's Gubernatorial Candidate Susan Gaztanaga's message of "Zero to Six in Eight."  Our message is getting out and giving Marylanders a serious alternative.

Dr. Davis in Easton's Star Democrat

Here is a link to a short online article in the Star Democrat about Dr. Davis.

Libertarian Party opposes health care plan

WASHINGTON - The Libertarian Party adamantly opposes the health care bill passed on Christmas Eve by the US Senate that is currently being considered in the US House of Representatives. The Libertarian Party calls on the US House to vote down this disastrous plan, and instead to pass laws reducing federal involvement in health care.
Libertarian Party Chairman William Redpath commented, "We oppose this horrible federal government expansion into health care, just as we have consistently opposed all the increased government intrusion into health care proposed by Republicans and Democrats over the years. For example, we vocally opposed the huge Medicare expansion pushed through Congress by Republicans in 2003."
Redpath continued, "It is a virtual certainty that the cost estimates of this legislation are drastically understated. When Medicare Part A started in 1965, the projected cost for 1990 was $9 billion. It turned out to be $67 billion. Should this bill become law, when the debt of the United States government is downgraded by ratings agencies shortly thereafter, it will not be a coincidence. That will increase interest rates, and the entire economy will suffer."
The Libertarian Party Platform says the following about health care: "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."
The words "health care" and "medicine" are not found anywhere in the Constitution. Accordingly, the Libertarian Party asserts that Congress has no authority to regulate or appropriate money for health care. (The Libertarian Party has consistently argued for decades that the "general welfare" and "interstate commerce" clauses are not generic authorizations for spending and regulation.)
Redpath concluded, "This is a top-down, Washington-mandated control of health insurance and health care in this nation. It is the antithesis of consumer-driven health care, which is what will ultimately be necessary to control health care costs and to provide the best health care for the greatest number of people."
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.

Sunday Truth

"A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody ought not to be trusted by anybody."

– Thomas Paine

Libertarian Quote of the Day

" Those who beat their swords into plough shares shall plough for those who don't."  

Anonymous

Libertarian Quote of the Day

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government." 

James Madison

Libertarians Oppose Census Questions

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

March 16, 2010

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

Libertarians oppose census questions

WASHINGTON - Libertarian Party (LP) Chairman William Redpath released the following statement today regarding the 2010 census:

"The Libertarian Party believes that the federal government's current census procedures are unconstitutional, unnecessary, and too expensive. We believe that the census is constitutionally limited to collecting only one piece of information about each residence: the number of persons living in it. We urge Congress to change the census laws to comply with this constitutional limitation.

"The U.S. Constitution empowers Congress to provide for a census in order to apportion Representatives correctly. The Constitution does not empower Congress to use a census for any other purpose. There is no need for Congress to collect additional information such as names, races, ages, sexes, or home ownership status. Unfortunately, the federal government wants to use the additional information to fine tune its control over the lives and money of the American people.

"The 2010 census is expected to cost over $14 billion. A recent report from the Inspector General of the Department of Commerce indicates that preparations for the 2010 census have already been filled with waste and bloat. A proper census, limited to just a headcount, would be far less expensive.

"Many Americans fear that the Census Bureau will not keep their information secret, and might turn personal details over to other government agencies. The Census Bureau promises that they will keep everything confidential, but they have broken that promise in the past. As David Kopel of the libertarian Cato Institute has pointed out, during World War I the Census Bureau handed over lists of names and addresses so the federal government could search for draft resisters. And, shockingly, during World War II, the Census Bureau told the Justice Department which neighborhoods had high concentrations of Japanese-Americans. The federal government then used that information to find Japanese-Americans and imprison them in concentration camps.

"As Congressman Ron Paul, 1988 Libertarian candidate for President, recently said, 'If the federal government really wants to increase compliance with the census, it should abide by the Constitution and limit its inquiry to one simple question: How many people live here?'"

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.

The Death of Fiscal Federalism

It’s been a long time since economic policy was forged in the states.

Veronique de Rugy 

Last May the Obama administration forced South Carolina not just to take its share of federal stimulus funds, but to spend the money on new programs rather than paying down the state’s debt. I was horrified. Obama, I felt, had killed fiscal federalism. Then I realized that fiscal federalism has been dead for a long time. 

Fiscal federalism is the idea that states should set their own economic policies rather than following directives from Washington. Libertarians have a particular attachment to the concept. If states can differentiate themselves on the basis of taxes, spending, and regulation, that gives Americans more leeway in deciding the rules under which we live. If we’re dissatisfied with the policies of the state we live in, we can register our discontent by voting with our feet and moving to another jurisdiction. This competition for residents helps keep lawmakers in check, giving them an incentive to keep taxes and other intrusions modest.

 

For decades, alas, fiscal power has become increasingly centralized, making a joke of federalism. Washington has taken over more and more state functions, largely through grants to state and local governments, also called grants-in-aid. Figure 1 shows federal grant spending in constant dollars from 1960 to 2013. As you can see, total grant outlays increased from $285 billion in fiscal year 2000 to a whopping $493 billion in fiscal year 2010—a 73 percent increase. Grants also account for a bigger share of federal spending: 18 percent in 2009, compared to 7.6 percent in 1960. 

The same pattern is evident when you look at the total number of federal grant programs (Figure 2). According to data computed by the Cato Institute’s Chris Edwards, in 1980 there were 434 federal grant programs for state and local governments. In 2006 there were 814.

Meanwhile, Washington’s tax bite has grown so big that differences in state tax rates don’t mean as much as they used to. As the table shows, 60 percent of all government revenues in 2008 came from the federal income tax, making it the dominant tax burden in Americans’ lives. In 1930 the figure was 30 percent.

Read More Reason

Render Unto Caesar: A Most Misunderstood New Testament Passage

by Jeffrey F. Barr

I. INTRODUCTION

Christians have traditionally interpreted the famous passage "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God, the things that are God's," to mean that Jesus endorsed paying taxes. This view was first expounded by St. Justin Martyr in Chapter XVII of his First Apology, who wrote,

And everywhere we, more readily than all men, endeavor to pay to those appointed by you the taxes both ordinary and extraordinary, as we have been taught by Him; for at that time some came to Him and asked Him, if one ought to pay tribute to Caesar; and He answered, ‘Tell Me, whose image does the coin bear?’ And they said, ‘Caesar’s.’

The passage appears to be important and well-known to the early Christian community. The Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke recount this "Tribute Episode" nearly verbatim. Even Saying 100 of non-canonical Gospel of Thomas and Fragment 2 Recto of the Egerton Gospel record the scene, albeit with some variations from the Canon.

But by His enigmatic response, did Jesus really mean for His followers to provide financial support (willingly or unwillingly) to Tiberius Caesar – a man, who, in his personal life, was a pedophile, a sexual deviant, and a murderer and who, as emperor, claimed to be a god and oppressed and enslaved millions of people, including Jesus’ own? The answer, of course, is: the traditional, pro-tax interpretation of the Tribute Episode is simply wrong. Jesus never meant for His answer to be interpreted as an endorsement of Caesar’s tribute or any taxes.

This essay examines four dimensions of the Tribute Episode: the historical setting of the Episode; the rhetorical structure of the Episode itself; the context of the scene within the Gospels; and finally, how the Catholic Church, Herself, has understood the Tribute Episode. These dimensions point to one conclusion: the Tribute Episode does not stand for the proposition that it is morally obligatory to pay taxes.

The objective of this piece is not to provide a complete exegesis on the Tribute Episode. Rather, it is simply to show that the traditional, pro-tax interpretation of the Tribute Episode is utterly untenable. The passage unequivocally does not stand for the proposition that Jesus thought it was morally obligatory to pay taxes.

II. THE HISTORICAL SETTING: THE UNDERCURRENT OF TAX REVOLT

In 6 A.D., Roman occupiers of Palestine imposed a census tax on the Jewish people. The tribute was not well-received, and by 17 A.D., Tacitus reports in Book II.42 of the Annals, "The provinces, too, of Syria and Judaea, exhausted by their burdens, implored a reduction of tribute." A tax-revolt, led by Judas the Galilean, soon ensued. Judas the Galilean taught that "taxation was no better than an introduction to slavery," and he and his followers had "an inviolable attachment to liberty," recognizing God, alone, as king and ruler of Israel. The Romans brutally combated the uprising for decades. Two of Judas’ sons were crucified in 46 A.D., and a third was an early leader of the 66 A.D. Jewish revolt. Thus, payment of the tribute conveniently encapsulated the deeper philosophical, political, and theological issue: Either God and His divine laws were supreme, or the Roman emperor and his pagan laws were supreme.

This undercurrent of tax-revolt flowed throughout Judaea during Jesus’ ministry. All three synoptic Gospels place the episode immediately after Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem in which throngs of people proclaimed Him king, as St. Matthew states, "And when he entered Jerusalem the whole city was shaken and asked, ‘Who is this?’ And the crowds replied, ‘This is Jesus the prophet, from Nazareth in Galilee." All three agree that this scene takes place near the celebration of the Passover, one of the holiest of Jewish feast days. Passover commemorates God’s deliverance of the Israelites from Egyptian slavery and also celebrates the divine restoration of the Israelites to the land of Israel, land then-occupied by the Romans. Jewish pilgrims from throughout Judaea would have been streaming into Jerusalem to fulfill their periodic religious duties at the temple.

But by His enigmatic response, did Jesus really mean for His followers to provide financial support (willingly or unwillingly) to Tiberius Caesar – a man, who, in his personal life, was a pedophile, a sexual deviant, and a murderer and who, as emperor, claimed to be a god and oppressed and enslaved millions of people, including Jesus’ own? The answer, of course, is: the traditional, pro-tax interpretation of the Tribute Episode is simply wrong. Jesus never meant for His answer to be interpreted as an endorsement of Caesar’s tribute or any taxes.

This essay examines four dimensions of the Tribute Episode: the historical setting of the Episode; the rhetorical structure of the Episode itself; the context of the scene within the Gospels; and finally, how the Catholic Church, Herself, has understood the Tribute Episode. These dimensions point to one conclusion: the Tribute Episode does not stand for the proposition that it is morally obligatory to pay taxes.

The objective of this piece is not to provide a complete exegesis on the Tribute Episode. Rather, it is simply to show that the traditional, pro-tax interpretation of the Tribute Episode is utterly untenable. The passage unequivocally does not stand for the proposition that Jesus thought it was morally obligatory to pay taxes.

II. THE HISTORICAL SETTING: THE UNDERCURRENT OF TAX REVOLT

In 6 A.D., Roman occupiers of Palestine imposed a census tax on the Jewish people. The tribute was not well-received, and by 17 A.D., Tacitus reports in Book II.42 of the Annals, "The provinces, too, of Syria and Judaea, exhausted by their burdens, implored a reduction of tribute." A tax-revolt, led by Judas the Galilean, soon ensued. Judas the Galilean taught that "taxation was no better than an introduction to slavery," and he and his followers had "an inviolable attachment to liberty," recognizing God, alone, as king and ruler of Israel. The Romans brutally combated the uprising for decades. Two of Judas’ sons were crucified in 46 A.D., and a third was an early leader of the 66 A.D. Jewish revolt. Thus, payment of the tribute conveniently encapsulated the deeper philosophical, political, and theological issue: Either God and His divine laws were supreme, or the Roman emperor and his pagan laws were supreme.

Because of the mass of pilgrims, the Roman procurator of Judaea, Pontius Pilate, had also temporarily taken up residence in Jerusalem along with a multitude of troops so as to suppress any religious violence. In her work, Pontius Pilate: The Biography of an Invented Man, Ann Wroe described Pilate as the emperor’s chief soldier, chief magistrate, head of the judicial system, and above all, the chief tax collector. In Book XXXVIII of On the Embassy to Gaius, Philo has depicted Pilate as "cruel," "exceedingly angry," and "a man of most ferocious passions," who had a "habit of insulting people" and murdering them "untried and uncondemned" with the "most grievous inhumanity." Just a few years prior to Jesus’ ministry, the image of Caesar nearly precipitated an insurrection in Jerusalem when Pilate, by cover of night, surreptitiously erected effigies of the emperor on the fortress Antonia, adjoining the Jewish Temple; Jewish law forbade both the creation of graven images and their introduction into holy city of Jerusalem. Pilate averted a bloodbath only by removing the images.

In short, Jerusalem would have been a hot-bed of political and religious fervor, and it is against this background that the Tribute Episode unfolded.

Read More @ Lew Rockwell

Jeff Barr [send him mail] practices law in Las Vegas, Nevada. He received a Master's Degree in Business Administration from UNLV where he took classes from Hans-Hermann Hoppe and Murray Rothbard.

Copyright © 2010 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Libertarian Quote of the Day

"Government control gives rise to fraud, suppression of Truth, intensification of the black market and artificial scarcity. Above all, it unmans the people and deprives them of initiative, it undoes the teaching of self-help..."  

Gandhi

MdLP Press Release

Dundalk, Maryland:  On Saturday, March 13, 2010 the Maryland Libertarian Party held its annual state convention.  The Libertarian Party’s Candidate for Governor, Susan Gaztañaga, began to outline some key issues and the platform of her campaign.  Two issues that she has brought are the Sales Tax and the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

“Six to Zero in Eight”, Gaztañaga pledges:  “We need to eliminate our State Sales Tax and boost the economy of Maryland.”  The plan would reduce the sales tax rate to zero in eight years.

The Maryland Libertarian Party strongly opposes the draconian tax policy of Governor Martin O’Malley, who raised the Sales Tax in an economic downturn.  Businesses on the Eastern Shore of Maryland would directly benefit from this proposal by the Gaztañaga Campaign, as they would be on equal footing with Delaware businesses, which currently do not have a sales tax.

Gaztañaga also pledges to order home all Maryland National Guard troops.  Since there is no imposing threat or impending attack on our Country, there is no need for the troops to be abroad any longer.  President Obama has done nothing but increase our involvement, and Governor O’Malley has not stood up to Bush or Obama on this issue. 

Doug McNeil, the MdLP’s candidate for Lt. Governor, proposed that a Gaztañaga Administration would lift the tough restrictions on Concealed Weapons Permits by executive order.  This would enable citizens to better protect themselves and help reduce crime.

Two more Candidates were nominated:  Jerry McKinley for U.S. Congress, District 3; and Arvin Vohra for House of Delegates, District 15.  Both will be filing their paperwork in the coming weeks and hitting the campaign trail.  (The LP nominates candidates by convention and does not waste taxpayer money on primary elections.)

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.

JUDGE JIM GRAY ON THE SIX GROUPS WHO BENEFIT FROM DRUG PROHIBITION

From drug lords to law enforcement to prison builders to terrorists.

Libertarian Quote of the Day

"To protect us from terrorists our government treats us like terrorists." 

Hal O'Boyle

PORK PARTY HOUSE

Where DC insiders go for taxpayer-subsidized fun

"Six to Zero in Eight"

As a part Susan Gaztañaga's platform and plan for change in Maryland she is proposing an incremental sales tax reduction from 6% to 0% in 8 Years.  This be an incredible boost to the Maryland Economy and give Maryland businesses an edge when competing against states that lower sales tax rates.  This will be especially beneficial to businesses on the Eastern Shore who constantly compete with Delaware for business. 

Libertarian Quote of the Day

"The most destructive thing governments do is divide people against each other, all in competition over the reins of the state."

Anthony Gregory

Madaleno to pitch Internet sales tax for online companies

Plan could mean $7.5 million a year for state

by Marcus Moore | Staff Writer

A Montgomery County state senator plans to reintroduce a bill in the next legislative session to collect taxes from certain online companies, much to the dismay of some business advocates who say the plan won't solve the state's money woes.

Sen. Richard S. Madaleno Jr. (D-Dist. 18) of Kensington first introduced the legislation in the final days of the 2008 session, but the bill did not make it out of the Senate Budget and Taxation Committee — a key panel in Annapolis.

Madaleno said last week that he will refile the bill, which would allow Comptroller Peter V.R. Franchot to collect sales taxes from Maryland affiliates of Amazon and similar online retailers in the state.

The move could generate $7.5 million annually for the state and help plug a multimillion-dollar budget gap next year, Madaleno said.  Read The Rest of the Article

ADVICE GODDESS AMY ALKON ON BEATING SOME MANNERS INTO IMPOLITE SOCIETY

No Recovery Until America Invests Again

by Robert Higgs

While most Americans are familiar with the broad ups and downs of the economy and the job market – the stuff of daily headlines – the deeper story of the continuing recession can be found buried in the statistical appendix to the 2010 report of the president's Council of Economic Advisers.

That story: a devastating decline in investment spending.

The government's data reveal that, contrary to popular belief, consumer spending held up fairly well during the recession, falling less than 2% from the fourth quarter of 2007 to the second quarter of '09.

Most of this decline was erased during the third and fourth quarters of 2009, so by the final quarter of last year real private consumption spending was less than 1% below its previous quarterly peak.

Read More @ Lew Rockwell

  

Final 'Reform' Push: Twisting Arms

by Michael D. Tanner 

President Obama's attempts to ram health- care reform through an increasingly reluctant Congress are starting to resemble a really eventful episode of "The Sopranos."

Whether or not you believe former Rep. Eric Massa's bizarre accusations of locker-room confrontations and conspiracies to drive him from office, there is no doubt that the Obama administration and its congressional allies are willing to use every trick in the book to get this bill passed.

They've already bought votes with pork and special deals -- the "Louisiana purchase" ($300 million to bolster that state's Medicaid program, which swayed Sen. Mary Landrieu); the "Cornhusker kickback" ($100 million to Medicaid there, sweetening the pot for Sen. Ben Nelson), and Florida's "Gator Aid" (a Medicare deal potentially worth $5 billion, a hefty price for Sen. Bill Nelson's vote). Plus the millions for Connecticut hospitals, Montana asbestos abatement and so on.

Nor were the Obamans willing to let a little thing like election laws stand in the way. They rewrote Massachusetts law to allow for an appointed senator to hold office for several months, hoping to get the bill through before the special election that Scott Brown ultimately won. Their plans spoiled, they even considered holding up Brown's seating to let the appointed senator continue to vote on health care -- until public outrage forced them to back down.

Read More @ Cato

MdLP 2010 State Convention - A Huge Success

The MdLP experienced a great State Convention in 2010.  Here are some of the highlights.

Were treated with listening to Wes Benedict, the Libertarian Party's Executive Director, who offered some his advice and experiences from when he was the Chair of the Texas LP. 

Paul Jacob, a Liberty Warrior in the trenches for decades, gave us his 10 Commandments, these will be included in a separate post with links to his website.

We had a speaker about a possible Constitution Convention in the State of Maryland, with a question on the ballot in November.  Here is a link to the website.  Until he "comes out officially" we will keep him nameless.

There is no change on the Executive Board as the Central Committee elected the following individuals:

• Chair: Robert S. Johnston III
• Vice-Chair: Dave Sten
• Treasurer: Michael Linder
• Secretary: Robert E. Glaser
• Media: Muir Boda
• At-Large: Lorenzo Gaztañaga
• At-Large: Justin Kinsey

Two individuals were nominated for Maryland House of Delegates:

Arvin Vohra for District 15 

          Jerry McKinley for District 42.

 Two awards were handed out at the Convention.

Samuel P. Chase Award:  Joe Miller

Defender of Liberty Award: Gary Hoover

Our featured speaker for the evening Radley Balko is a Senior Editor at Reason Magazine.  He provided us  with a positive outlook on the Liberty Movement and some great advances on that front.  He also gave some great quotes from his research like this:

"Support for legalizing Marijuana is higher than the support for the Republican or Democratic Parties."

On behalf of those that attended, we wish to thank MdLP Chair Bob Johnston for putting together another great convention.

Sunday Truth

"The welfare state reduces a citizen to a client, subordinates them to a bureaucrat, and subjects them to rules that are anti-work, anti-family, anti-opportunity and anti-property … Humans forced to suffer under such anti-human rules naturally develop pathologies. The evening news is the natural result of the welfare state."

– Unknown

Libertarian Quote of the Day

"The proper and limited use of government is to invoke a common justice and keep the peace – and that is all."

– Leonard Read

Early Voting Centers In Maryland by County

Here is the link for Early Voting in Maryland by County.  We will post this again nearer the Election and by then there may be more places available.

Behind the Curtain: Assessing the Case for National Curriculum Standards

 by Neal McCluskey

The argument for national curriculum standards sounds simple: set high standards, make all schools meet them, and watch American students achieve at high levels. It is straightforward and compelling, and it is driving a sea change in American education policy.

Unfortunately, setting high standards and getting American students to hit them is extremely difficult. Politically powerful interest groups must be overcome. Crippling conflicts between different religious, ethnic, and ideological factions must be avoided. And a culture that is generally averse to an intense focus on academics must be transformed. These challenges help to explain why the research on national standards is both very limited and inconclusive.

But what if the research were to clearly show that having national standards leads to superior performance on international tests? Still, there would not be compelling evidence that national standards produce optimal outcomes; economic growth, as well as personal fulfillment, could very well require an education focused on much more than just high test scores.

It appears that the route to successful education goes in the opposite direction of national standards; it goes toward universal school choice. Only a free market can produce the mix of high standards, accountability, and flexibility that is essential to achieving optimal educational outcomes.

www.cato.org

 Behind the Curtain: Assessing the Case for National Curriculum Standards, Cato Policy Analysis No. 661

They Spend WHAT? The Real Cost of Public Schools

 by Adam B. Schaeffer

Although public schools are usually the biggest item in state and local budgets, spending figures provided by public school officials and reported in the media often leave out major costs of education and thus understate what is actually spent.

To document the phenomenon, this paper reviews district budgets and state records for the nation's five largest metro areas and the District of Columbia. It reveals that, on average, per-pupil spending in these areas is 44 percent higher than officially reported. 

Read the Report Below for Enlightenment.

They Spend WHAT? The Real Cost of Public Schools, Cato Policy Analysis No. 662

Susan Gaztananga & Doug McNeil Are Officially On The Ballot!

Susan Gaztananga & Doug McNeil are officially on the ballot as Governor and Lt. Governor for the general election.  Congratulations and now the real work begins!

Here is the link to open up the PDF with a list of State Candidates for the 2010 Gubernatorial Elections.

Justin Kinsey in 5B for House of Delegates is on it as well as Dr. Richard Davis and Lorenzo Gaztanaga for Congress.

Your View: City zoning enforcement is becoming oppressive

When Jim Ireton announced his candidacy for the office of mayor for the city of Salisbury, he quoted the following section of our Declaration of Independence:

"When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the Earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them."

However, recent actions by Mayor Ireton have me reflecting on this particular stanza from that same great document:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

In good faith, Karen Marshall purchased a home that included a one-bedroom apartment above the garage which, from everything she understood, was OK for her to rent out to help pay for her mortgage. The American dream -- exercising her liberty and pursuing happiness -- has all been crushed by an overzealous mayor and Zoning Board, wishing to make an example of somebody.

Imagine our forefathers' reaction to such a situation. It would range from disgust to contempt or embarrassment that our elected officials have made a mockery of our history, founding documents and the blood shed over the centuries to prevent this very situation -- an oppressive government.

I, for one, would rather err on the side of liberty than oppression.

Muir W. Boda
Salisbury
Boda is a member of the executive board of the Maryland Libertarian Party. --Editor

Libertarian Quote of the Day

"A nation that expects the government to prevent churches from burning, to control the price of bread or gasoline, to secure every job, and to find some villain for every dramatic accident risks an even larger loss of life and liberty."

– William A. Niskanen, For a Less Responsive Government, 

Cato Policy Report

Libertarian Quote of the Day

"The greater the number of laws and enactments, the more thieves and robbers there will be."

– Lao Tsu

Libertarian Quote of the Day

"I am convinced that we can do to guns what we've done to drugs: create a multi-billion dollar underground market over which we have absolutely no control."

– George L. Roman

Road to Ruin

Federal highway taxes should be spent on interstate highways, not urban transit.

Robert Poole

America's highway system is not delivering the high-quality transportation a competitive economy needs. Congestion gridlocks our urban expressways, costing Americans $76 billion per year in wasted time and fuel. The interstate highways, begun 50 years ago, are wearing out and will need repairs and reconstruction costing many hundreds of billions of dollars. Two national commissions have estimated that the shortfall in productive highway investment (federal, state and local) is in the vicinity of $60 billion to $90 billion per year.

We invented the federal Highway Trust Fund in 1956, promising motorists and truckers that all proceeds from a new federal gas tax would be spent on building the interstate system. They aren't. Congress has expanded federal highway spending beyond interstates to all types of roadways. And ever since 1982, a portion of those "highway user taxes" have been diverted to urban transit. Today, the federal role in transportation includes mandating sidewalks, funding bike paths, and creating scenic trails.

As a result, spending exceeds gas-tax revenues and the Highway Trust Fund is broke. Some claim this is because the 18.3-cents-per-gallon federal gas tax needs to be raised. But drivers can fairly put the blame on the fact that 25 percent of gas-tax funds are diverted to non-highway uses.

A key to fixing the problem is to identify what should be federal and what should be state and local responsibilities. In principle, only the interstate highways—our key arteries for interstate commerce—should rise to the level of the federal government. Other highways, streets, sidewalks, bike paths, local transit lines, etc., are more properly state and local concerns.

Reserving the federal Highway Trust Fund just for highway improvements would mean a 25 percent boost in federal highway investment—about $11 billion per year, a good start toward repairing our aging infrastructure.

But what would happen to urban transit if gas taxes went back to being spent solely on highways? Proper federalist principles would make transit a matter for metro areas and local governments to fund themselves, but realistically, that's not going to happen anytime soon—this Congress will continue to fund local transit projects. But a good case can be made that if the federal government is going to support transit, bikeways and sidewalks, it should do so out of general revenues, not highway-user gas taxes.

READ MORE @ REASON

Robert W. Poole Jr., an MIT-trained engineer, is director of transportation studies at Reason Foundation. This article originally appeared in The Washington Times.

Libertarian Quote of the Day

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities."

– Ayn Rand

MDLP Candidate Spotlight: Jusitn Kinsey

We are casting the spotlight on Justin Kinsey, the Maryland Libertarian Candidate for House of Delegates in District 5B.

Check out more about Justin on his website www.kinsey5b.com.

When Government Tramples The Rights of Property Owners....

A most unfortunate situation is arising in the City of Salisbury, our government - particularly the office of the Mayor - are instituting Nazi like tactics against law abiding, tax paying, responsible citizens.  During his campaign Mayor Ireton vowed to crack down on non-compliant Rentals, clean up our city, reduce crime, clean up our river (swimmable & fishable in 10 years), among other things, leading us all to Utopia.  So far he has not been very successful in his quest.  He is gaining success though, on shutting down converted rental units.

In a featured article in yesterday's Daily Times titled  "Salisbury rental war takes another casualty" Home Owner Karen Marshall has been ordered to evict a tenant that lives in a one bedroom apartment over her garage.  Ms. Marshall bought the property because she saw the apartment as a great way to help offset the cost of her mortgage.  Her tenant also has a great opportunity to save on an apartment in a very nice neighborhood.  Yet, in the great wisdom of those who make decisions and think they know what is best, they decide this horrible situation must end.  It is a danger to our city, the rental industry is destroying everything we hold dear ......... whatever.

We have debated about FBI crime statistics and the false impressions they can imply.  Every city in America has a crime problem.  Anyone who implies crime is not that bad is foolish.  Yet, what are people supposed to think when the very government that writes and enforces laws cannot get it's story straight and in the end makes a decision that detrimental to the rule of law?

I certainly understand that rental properties need to be in good, livable conditions.   Property owners should take the extra step of screening people who will be living in their rentals.  Property owners also reserve the right to include certain requirements and expectations in the contracts that they have tenants sign.  However, we must understand that People Commit Crimes, Not Houses.

The other dynamic that Salisbury has, is we are a University town.  70% of the living space in Salisbury is rental, however 50% of single family homes are primary residences.  Certainly we want as many people to own homes as possible, that is a good thing.  We also have to understand that not everybody is in the position to own a home for a variety of reasons. 

Many in the Camden neighborhood feel invaded by a growing University.  Salisbury University has acquired nearly all the homes directly around it.  Many homes have been converted into rentals to help sustain the needs of a growing Student Body and what comes with that.  People have made the decision to sell homes and move elsewhere or let go of homes they have inherited, or turned them into rentals themselves.  Times change, neighborhoods will change, even the very City we live in will look different in 20 years.  We have to understand that.

Many scenarios have led where we are now.  However, I do not believe a Government Entity has the right to tell you what you can do with or on your property, within limits of how it would affect another person's property.  What is Liberty and Freedom in this great country when a government over reaches and sticks it's nose where it does not belong.  This is also another situation where we have too many laws and too many people who think they know better.  I do believe we need rules and regulations but there comes a point when these laws over extend and destroy the very thing we all hold dear - liberty.

Muir Boda

Carry On

Does the Second Amendment apply outside the home?

Jacob Sullum | March 3, 2010

Yesterday the Supreme Court considered the question of whether the Second Amendment applies outside of jurisdictions controlled by the federal government. The Court will almost certainly say yes, and soon it may consider a question that should be equally easy to answer: whether the Second Amendment applies outside of the home.

In 2008, the first time the Supreme Court explicitly declared that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to “keep and bear arms,” it ruled that the District of Columbia’s handgun ban violated that right. Since the Chicago handgun ban at issue in the case the Court heard this week is virtually identical, it will be overturned if the Court concludes that the Second Amendment binds states and cities as well as the federal government. And since the Court has ruled that almost all of the other guarantees in the Bill of Rights apply to the states by way of the 14th Amendment, it would be very strange if the fundamental right to armed self-defense did not make the cut.

Assuming the Court strikes down Chicago’s handgun ban, what other forms of gun control could be vulnerable? Since the Second Amendment protects the right to “bear” arms as well as the right to “keep” them, restrictions on carrying guns in public are a ripe target.

Forty-one states either do not require handgun carry permits or issue them to anyone who satisfies a few objective criteria, which generally include firearms training and lack of a criminal record. Seven states let local officials decide whether to issue permits, while Illinois, Wisconsin, and Washington, D.C., do not allow even that option.

 READ MORE @ REASON

Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason and a nationally syndicated columnist.
© Copyright 2010 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

Obama, Congress Wink at Massive Surveillance Abuses

by Julian Sanchez 

This article appeared in the American Prospect on March 3, 2010. 

Here's how it was supposed to be. Under his administration, candidate Barack Obama explained in 2007, America would abandon the "false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we provide." There would be "no more National Security Letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime" because "that is not who we are, and it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists." Even after his disappointing vote for the execrable FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which expanded government surveillance power while retroactively immunizing telecoms for their role in George W. Bush's warrantless wiretapping, civil libertarians held out hope that the erstwhile professor of constitutional law would begin to restore some of the checks on government surveillance power that had been demolished in the panicked aftermath of the September 11 attacks.


The serial betrayal of that hope reached its culmination last week, when a Democratic-controlled Congress quietly voted to reauthorize three controversial provisions of the USA Patriot Act without implementing a single one of the additional safeguards that had been under consideration -- among them, more stringent limits on the national security letters (NSLs) Obama had once decried. Worse yet, the vote came on the heels of the revelation, in a blistering inspector general's report, that Obama's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) had issued a secret opinion, once again granting retroactive immunity for systematic lawbreaking -- and opening the door for the FBI to ignore even the current feeble limits on its power to vacuum up sensitive telecommunications records.
 
NSLs have been around for decades, but their scope was radically expanded by the Patriot Act and subsequent intelligence bills. They allow investigators to obtain a wide array of financial records and telecommunications transaction data without a court order -- revealing the phone numbers, e-mail accounts, and Web addresses with which their targets have been in contact.

READ MORE @ CATO

Greek Financial Troubles

Chip Bok | March 5, 2010

The Same Rotten Rx

by Michael D. Tanner 

If at first you don't succeed, try, try, try, try again.

With Plans A, B and C having failed miserably, President Obama yesterday unveiled his latest "new and improved" version of health-care reform. He says that this incarnation "incorporates the best ideas from Democrats and Republicans — including some of the ideas that Republicans offered during the health-care summit." Unfortunately, its fundamental premise remains exactly the same — a government takeover of the health-care system.

Start with those "Republican ideas": Though mostly not bad, they're hardly game changing.

• Increase the financial incentives for states to experiment with malpractice reform by $50 million. Wow — a million dollars per state! That undoubtedly has the trial lawyers quaking in their boots.
• Undercover stings to help root out Medicare and Medicaid fraud. Fine — but when fighting fraud in government programs becomes a major concession, it shows just how out of touch Washington has become.
• Increase Medicare reimbursements. OK, higher spending for a program that's already going broke may well be a Republican idea, but it doesn't exactly make Obama's better.
• Allow health-savings accounts to be sold through the government-sponsored exchanges. This could be a positive step — but the details are key, and they remain to be seen.

HSAs have been proven to reduce the cost of health care and have added nearly 3 million people to the ranks of the insured since their inception. But they only really work in conjunction with high-deductible insurance — if your policy already pays for everything, there's not much point to saving for health expenses.
And every version of ObamaCare to date has restricted high-deductible insurance and/or mandated low-deductible policies. Unless the president is prepared to make major changes in those areas, the HSA concession is just bait-and-switch.

READ MORE @ CATO

Keep Your Laws Off My Body

John Stossel | March 4, 2010

The case for legalizing drugs, prostitution, organ sales, and other consensual acts.

"It's a free country."
That's a popular saying—and true in many ways. But for a free country, America does ban a lot of things that are perfectly peaceful and consensual. Why is that?

Here are some things you can't do in most states of the union: rent your body to someone for sex, sell your kidney, take recreational drugs. The list goes on. I'll discuss American prohibitions tonight at 8 and 11 p.m. Eastern time (and again on Friday at 10) on my Fox Business program.

Here are some things you can't do in most states of the union: rent your body to someone for sex, sell your kidney, take recreational drugs. The list goes on. I'll discuss American prohibitions tonight at 8 and 11 p.m. Eastern time (and again on Friday at 10) on my Fox Business program.


But is that true? Or is much of what you think you know ... wrong?
I believed the Drug Enforcement Administration's claim that drugs like crack and meth routinely addict people on first use.
But Jacob Sullum, who wrote Saying Yes, says, "If you look at the government's own data about patterns of drug use, it clearly is not true."

READ MORE REASON

Sunday Truth

"Virtually all reasonable laws are obeyed, not because they are the law, but because reasonable people would do that anyway. If you obey a law simply because it is the law, that's a pretty likely sign that it shouldn't be a law. "

– Unknown

Libertarian Quote of the Day

"Things in our country run in spite of government, not by aid of it."

– Will Rogers

Libertarian Quote of the Day

"When the government fears the people, it is liberty. When the people fear the government, it is tyranny."

– Thomas Paine

Libertarians On The Campaign Trail

The Libertarian Party's candidate for the 2nd Congressional District Lorenzo Gaztanaga will be speaking to the Baltimore area Campaign for Liberty group this Wednesday, March 3, at 7 p.m. The meeting will be at Hightopps Backstage Grille, 2306 York Road, Lutherville/Timonium.

Lorenzo's wife and the Maryland Libertarian Party's candidate for Governor will also be there handing out literature and doing a meet and greet.

Libertarian Quote of the Day

"The American Dream was not about government's taking huge sums of money (under the label of "taxation") from citizens by force. The American Dream was about individualism and the opportunity to achieve success without interference from others. "

– Robert Ringer

A Tale of Two Libertarianisms

The conflict between Murray Rothbard and F.A. Hayek highlights an enduring division in the libertarian world.

Brian Doherty from the March 2010 issue

Rothbard vs. the Philosophers, by Murray Rothbard, edited by Roberta A. Modugno, Ludwig von Mises Institute, 168 pages, $14.

If Murray Rothbard—free-market economist, anarchist philosopher, American historian, and inveterate activist—had never lived, the modern libertarian movement would have nowhere near its current size and influence. He inspired and educated generations of influential intellectuals and activists, from Leonard Liggio to Roy Childs to Randy Barnett. He helped form and/or shape the mission of such institutions as the Institute for Humane Studies, the Cato Institute, the Libertarian Party, and the Ludwig von Mises Institute (and wrote a regular column for Reason for more than a decade). His initially unique combination of a Randian/Aristotelian natural rights ethic, Austrian economics, anarcho-capitalism, fervent opposition to war, and a populist distrust of “power elites” both public and private have injected modern libertarianism with a distinct flavor distinguishing it from other brands of pro-market thought. It was a differentiation intensified by Rothbard’s bombthrowing polemical style.

Put it this way: When the likes of F.A. Hayek and Milton Friedman died, the conservative flagship National Review could and did praise the Nobel Prize–winning economists unreservedly. But when Rothbard died in 1995, his old pal William Buckley pissed on his grave. Rothbard, Buckley wrote, spent his life “huffing and puffing in the little cloister whose walls he labored so strenuously to contract, leaving him, in the end, not as the father of a swelling movement…but with about as many disciples as David Koresh had in his little redoubt in Waco. Yes, Murray Rothbard believed in freedom, and yes, David Koresh believed in God.”
Things look a little different now when it comes to Rothbard’s influence, though it’s unlikely anyone at National Review will note it—except maybe in the context of yet another attack on Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas). The rise of Paul and his young and enthusiastic fan base, which Buckley could not have foreseen, contradicts the contention that Rothbard’s divisive radical intransigence doomed him to irrelevance.
The Paul phenomena, the largest popular movement in the postwar period to be motivated by distinctly libertarian ideas about war, money, and the role of government, has been influenced far more heavily by Rothbard than by the beliefs or style of any other prominent libertarian intellectual. The Paul movement is the sort of mass anti-war, anti-state, anti-Fed agitation that Rothbard dreamed about his entire adult life.

  

CNN Poll: Majority says government a threat to citizens' rights

From CNN Deputy Political Director Paul Steinhauser

Washington (CNN) – A majority of Americans think the federal government poses a threat to rights of Americans, according to a new national poll.
Fifty-six percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Friday say they think the federal government's become so large and powerful that it poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens. Forty-four percent of those polled disagree.

Read More @ CNN

Obama's openness on health care reform

Henry Payne

Libertarian Quote of the Day

"Fundamentally, there are only two ways of coordinating the economic activities of millions. One is central direction involving the use of coercion – the technique of the army and of the modern totalitarian state. The other is voluntary cooperation of individuals – the technique of the marketplace."

– Milton Friedman

4.5 SWAT Raids Per Day

Maryland's SWAT transparency bill produces its first disturbing results

Radley Balko | March 1, 2010

Cheye Calvo's July 2008 encounter with a Prince George's County, Maryland, SWAT team is now pretty well-known: After intercepting a package of marijuana at a delivery service warehouse, police completed the delivery, in disguise, to the address on the package. That address belonged to Calvo, who also happened to be the mayor of the small Prince George’s town of Berwyn Heights. When Calvo's mother-in-law brought the package in from the porch, the SWAT team pounced, forcing their way into Calvo's home. By the time the raid was over, Calvo and his mother-in-law had been handcuffed for hours, police realized they'd made a mistake, and Calvo's two black Labradors lay dead on the floor from gunshot wounds.

As a result of this colossal yet not-unprecedented screw-up, plus Calvo's notoriety and persistence, last year Maryland became the first state in the country to make every one of its police departments issue a report on how often and for what purpose they use their SWAT teams. The first reports from the legislation are in, and the results are disturbing.

Over the last six months of 2009, SWAT teams were deployed 804 times in the state of Maryland, or about 4.5 times per day. In Prince George's County alone, with its 850,000 residents, a SWAT team was deployed about once per day. According to a Baltimore Sun analysis, 94 percent of the state's SWAT deployments were used to serve search or arrest warrants, leaving just 6 percent in response to the kinds of barricades, bank robberies, hostage takings, and emergency situations for which SWAT teams were originally intended.

Worse even than those dreary numbers is the fact that more than half of the county’s SWAT deployments were for misdemeanors and nonserious felonies. That means more than 100 times last year Prince George’s County brought state-sanctioned violence to confront people suspected of nonviolent crimes. And that's just one county in Maryland. These outrageous numbers should provide a long-overdue wake-up call to public officials about how far the pendulum has swung toward institutionalized police brutality against its citizenry, usually in the name of the drug war.

But that’s unlikely to happen, at least in Prince George's County. To this day, Sheriff Michael Jackson insists his officers did nothing wrong in the Calvo raid—not the killing of the dogs, not neglecting to conduct any corroborating investigation to be sure they had the correct house, not failing to notify the Berwyn Heights police chief of the raid, not the repeated and documented instances of Jackson’s deputies playing fast and loose with the truth.

Read More Reason

Reason.tv: Nanny of the Month for February 2010! Here's to you, Kansas state rep. Robert Olson, for banning fake pot

Safe Toyotas, and Other Surprises

Driving is a hazardous activity, but that's rarely because of unsafe cars.

Steve Chapman | March 1, 2010

Last week, facing a congressional committee acutely dissatisfied with his company's safety record, the head of Toyota, Akio Toyoda, was asked what he would tell President Barack Obama if he had the chance. His surprising reply: "Toyota cars are safe."

It was surprising because more than 8 million Toyotas have been recalled for safety flaws that have caused dozens of deaths. It was even more surprising because he was right.

No one denies that these defects have caused some horrifying accidents that were preventable. Still, worrying that you are going to be killed while driving a Toyota that suddenly zooms out of control on the road is like worrying that you are going to die of a spider bite while climbing a ladder onto your roof. Though either is possible, the chief dangers are the ones you take for granted. Driving is a hazardous activity, but rarely because of unsafe cars.

During the last decade, the sudden acceleration of Toyota vehicles has been blamed for 34 fatalities. In that same period, more than 21,000 other people died in accidents while riding in Toyotas. Your own lapses, and those of other drivers, are far riskier than the flaws found in your automobile.

Chuck Hurley, CEO of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, agrees on the pressing need for Toyota to repair its troubled cars. But he estimates that more than 80 percent of traffic deaths are the result of excessive speed, drunken driving, or unused seat belts. Last year alone, more than 11,000 Americans died in accidents involving drunk drivers. By contrast, only about 2 percent of wrecks stem from vehicle defects.

Yet Congress is not holding hearings to ask Toyoda why his company sells cars that can travel well above the speed limit, with engines that start even if the operator is too drunk to spell "key." It would rather worry about freakish risks inflicted on us than common ones within the control of individual motorists.

READ MORE REASON

Getting the 14th Amendment Right

The Chicago gun case and the fight for economic liberty

Damon W. Root | February 26, 2010

When the Supreme Court hears oral arguments on March 2, 2010 in the landmark gun rights case McDonald v. Chicago, the Second Amendment won’t be the only thing on the justices’ minds. That’s because when it comes to protecting constitutional rights from the depredations of state and local governments, the Court must obey the 14th Amendment, which commands: “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.”

McDonald will therefore turn on whether the right to keep and bear arms applies to Chicago via the 14th Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause or via its Due Process Clause. That distinction matters because the Privileges or Immunities Clause has been a dead letter since the controversial Slaughterhouse Cases of 1873, which gutted the clause while upholding a state-sanctioned slaughterhouse monopoly in Louisiana. And despite overwhelming historical evidence that the Privileges or Immunities Clause was specifically written and ratified after the Civil War in order to secure individual rights against state abuse—including the right to armed self-defense—Slaughterhouse has never been overturned.

So the stakes in McDonald are high indeed. And they aren’t just limited to gun rights.

Consider this: Among the legal experts lining up in support of overturning Slaughterhouse and reviving the Privileges or Immunities Clause is liberal law professor Akhil Amar of Yale University. Nobody’s idea of a gun nut, Amar is a supporter of progressive politics. And in his opinion, so were the authors of the Privileges or Immunities Clause. “The framers of the 14th Amendment were radical redistributionists,” Amar told The Wall Street Journal. “The 13th Amendment frees the slaves and there’s no compensation. It’s the biggest redistribution of property in history.” Under this interpretation, the privileges or immunities of citizenship might include the right to health care, to a living wage, or to some other welfare right fancied by today’s progressive activists.

READ MORE REASON

Libertarians criticize CPAC conservatives

WASHINGTON - As the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) holds its annual conference, Libertarian Party Executive Director Wes Benedict offered the following statement:

I'm sure we'll hear an awful lot about "limited government" from the mouths of CPAC politicians over the next few days. If I had a nickel every time a conservative said "limited government" and didn't mean it, I'd be a very rich man.
Unlike libertarians, most conservatives simply don't want small government. They want their own version of big government. Of course, they have done a pretty good job of fooling American voters for decades by repeating the phrases "limited government" and "small government" like a hypnotic chant.
It's interesting that conservatives only notice "big government" when it's something their political enemies want. When conservatives want it, apparently it doesn't count.

• If a conservative wants a trillion-dollar foreign war, that doesn't count.
• If a conservative wants a 700-billion-dollar bank bailout, that doesn't count.
• If a conservative wants to spend billions fighting a needless and destructive War on Drugs, that doesn't count.
• If a conservative wants to spend billions building border fences, that doesn't count.
• If a conservative wants to "protect" the huge, unjust, and terribly inefficient Social Security and Medicare programs, that doesn't count.
• If a conservative wants billions in farm subsidies, that doesn't count.

It's truly amazing how many things "don't count."
Conservatives like Rush Limbaugh can't ever be satisfied with enough military spending and foreign wars.
Conservatives like Mitt Romney want to force everyone to buy health insurance.
Conservatives like George W. Bush -- well, his list of supporting big-government programs is almost endless.
Ronald Reagan, often praised as an icon of conservatism, signed massive spending bills that made his the biggest-spending administration (as a percentage of GDP) since World War II.
Some people claim that these big-government supporters aren't "true conservatives." Well, if a person opposes the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, opposes the War on Drugs, opposes border fences, and opposes mandatory Social Security and Medicare, it's hard to believe that anyone would describe that person as a conservative at all. Most people would say that person is a libertarian (or maybe even a liberal).
Obviously, most liberals don't want limited government either. It's just that their support for big government leans toward massive handout and redistribution programs.
The fact is, liberals and conservatives both want gigantic government. Their visions sometimes look different from each other, but both are huge. The only Americans who truly want small government are libertarians.

An article posted at CNS News, linked prominently from the Drudge Report, noted that the Obama administration is on track to beat the Franklin Roosevelt administration in terms of average federal spending as a percentage of GDP. However, the article failed to note that the Reagan Administration already beat the Franklin Roosevelt administration easily. Roosevelt's average was 19.4 percent of GDP, while Reagan's average was 22.3 percent of GDP. (Source: White House OMB data)
Wes Benedict will be observing the proceedings at the CPAC conference on Saturday, February 20. For more information, or to arrange an interview, call 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.

Libertarian Quote of the Day

"If you ruin your life, you will pay the price of rehabilitating yourself … We are not punished for our sins, but by them. Liberty means responsibility."

– Michael Cloud

A Message From Our Sponsor

Sunday Truth

"When you subsidize poverty and failure, you get more of both."

  – James Dale Davidson, National Taxpayers Union