LP Monday Message: If Libertarians save one life

July 26, 2010

Dear Friend of Liberty,

The War in Afghanistan has dragged on for almost nine years. According to the Washington Post, there have been 1,189 American military deaths, which is more than two per week.

And of course, today's big news about WikiLeaks raises a lot of questions about whether we've been honestly told how badly the war is going.

I'm often asked how Libertarian candidates make a difference in cases where they don't win their election. We have over 150 candidates running for U.S. Representative, and over 20 for U.S. Senator.

Here's how: ending the war sooner will save both lives and money. I'm also convinced that ending the war sooner will reduce terrorism, although I understand some others disagree.

I'm not attempting to put a dollar value on a life saved, but I've seen reports that some environmental and safety regulations cost anywhere from millions to billions per life saved. The cost of training and equipping replacement military personnel is also very high.

The entire national Libertarian Party budget, plus all of the funds raised by Libertarian candidates and affiliates, is a few million dollars at most.

I don't know when this war will end. But if our party and our candidates help end this war just one week faster, that alone could save two American soldiers' lives, plus contractors, and many more civilians. And with just a few million dollars in spending, Libertarians could save lives at a far lower cost than what the government spends on its attempts to save lives.

I think we can do even better than that, but I'm just trying to make the point that even a small improvement makes the whole effort worthwhile.

Libertarian candidates for Congress can help end this war by putting pressure on incumbents, particularly Democrats, who voted to authorize Afghanistan and Iraq. Simply mentioning it in a voter survey or media appearance makes a difference.

Any Libertarian volunteer can write a letter to the editor reminding people that Libertarians support a non-interventionist foreign policy. I often think that short letters work better. You could try, "I thought President Obama and the Democrats would end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and bring our troops home quickly, but I was wrong. Congressman ___ voted to authorize the wars and keeps voting for additional war spending. That's why I'm voting
Libertarian."

You can check here to see if there's a Libertarian running for Congress in your district.

Sincerely,

Wes Benedict
Executive Director
Libertarian National Committee

The possible dynamics of the Tea Party

NOTE:  I posted this because Michael Swartz is a very fair writer and a member of what I call the "Liberty Movement" here on the shore.  He always presents an interesting observation of the issues at hand.   --- Muir Boda

by Michael Swartz

In terms of sheer numbers, it can be argued that the local Tea Party movement is in decline. The original Tea Party in April 2009 drew about 400 people in a pouring rain, while a subsequent July 4th gathering later that year draw a good crowd on a holiday. But this year, despite beautiful April weather, the crowd at the Tea Party was noticeably slimmer and there was no local July 4th gathering.

Yet the movement may simply be in a state of maturation, with a number of those who participated early on in the protests taking the step forward into electoral politics. On Saturday night a number of Tea Party candidates gathered for a fundraiser at the Westside Community Center, one organized by District 2 County Council aspirant Mike Calpino. While I did not attend that event, this blog post at Right Coast can give you an idea on how it went. (Worthy of noting is that Right Coast author Julie Brewington is a candidate for Delegate herself.)

Read the rest at his Examiner.com page

Congress fiddles while the economy burns

Date: Fri, 07/23/2010
Author: Mark Grannis
This afternoon the White House once again availed itself of the rather sophomoric tactic of scheduling the release of really important but really bad news on a Friday afternoon so that fewer people would notice it. What was the bad news? That budget deficits for this year and next are likely to be even higher than the $1.4 trillion we had to borrow to keep the lights on last year.

Let me write that again, because I fear that our use of the word "trillion" is beginning to hide the magnitude of our budget problems. The bad news is that budget deficits for this year and next are likely to be even higher than the $1,400,000,000,000 we had to borrow to keep the lights on last year.

It's hard for me to write anything about this because it's hard for me to believe I have to. Isn't it obvious that we simply can't continue this way? Wasn't it already obvious when the deficits were less than half as large as they are now? All that has happened in the interim is that the change we so obviously need has become harder, and we have less time to effect it.

But since the point has so far been lost on my own senators and congressman, and on most others, let me offer four brief observations, all inspired by the Washington Post's Friday afternoon dispatch on this disturbing development.

First, note how large these deficits are in percentage terms. It's not just that we're borrowing $1,400,000,000,000 per year; it's that we're borrowing 41 cents out of every dollar we spend. For every three dollars the federal government takes in, Congress has spent not just an extra nickel or even an extra quarter, but an extra two bucks. In other words, they're not even close!

Why does this matter? Partly because it tells us that no one's really trying very hard to balance the budget; it is as if no one really remembers that ideally the expenditures should be lower than the revenues. No one in Congress seems to remember what zero means anymore. (It means, "Stop spending.") Obviously, the correct response to this on our part is to fire Congress.

But perhaps more importantly, it also tells us that it's ludicrous for people to approach our budget problems by talking about how to save money here and there on existing programs. The only way to limit the size and cost of government is to limit the number of things we ask government to do. The only way to cut our government back down to a size we can live with is to eliminate all the extraneous programs that our founders never intended for a national government to do in the first place. The road to fiscal responsibility in 2011 and beyond runs right through Article I of our Constitution.

My second brief observation is that it's no mere coincidence that the deficit failed to improve in a year in which Congress decided not to bother passing a budget. If your budget were this out of whack -- and if one spouse is out of work, it may be -- then surely the first thing you would do is sit down and make a plan. Somehow expenditures need to be brought into balance with revenues, and there's no budget fairy that will do that for us while we're sleeping (or passing expensive entitlements, or even trashing the first amendment by passing new regulations of campaign speech). Saving money -- big money -- did I mention that we're talking about $1,400,000,000,000? -- takes thought; it takes effort. Without a blueprint for saving money, is it any wonder that no money was saved?

Remember this in November: In the face of a looming fiscal disaster capable of shaking the very foundations of our national government, our current representatives have done nothing. They didn't even take a shot at it. Again, obviously, the correct response to this on our part is to fire Congress.

Third, cutting the deficit in half is an idiotic goal. I've never met budget director Peter Orszag (who apparently wants credit for still being "on track" to achieve this goal), but I refuse on principle to believe that he is dumb enough to think that cutting our deficit in half by the final year of President Obama's term counts as any kind of policy success. We have got to stop thinking of budget deficits like annual scorecards that don't have continuing long-term consequences. Last year's deficit is not like last night's baseball score. Every year in which any deficit exists raises the national debt, and it's the national debt that determines how much of next year's budget gets soaked up in interest payments we can't do anything about. Even in the unlikely event that we remain "on track" to have a deficit of "only" $700,000,000,000 during the President's last year in office, that will be really, really bad. This is not a good-news-bad-news story. There is no silver lining.

Finally, it is nothing short of contemptible for our elected representatives to try to excuse their malfeasance by pointing to the creation of a bipartisan commission to balance the budget. We already had a bipartisan group that's supposed to balance the budget every year. It's called Congress, and we pay an awful lot to keep it in session. If the people we've been sending to Congress for years and years, Democrats and Republicans alike, are collectively too timid, too lazy, or too incompetent to even try to tackle the single biggest problem we face as a nation, then it's high time for us to send different people to Congress.

People sometimes debate hypothetical questions about how far we would go to make a terrorist tell us the location of a ticking time bomb. But for Pete's sake, there's a time bomb ticking loudly right inside the Capitol and no one in the Congressional leadership seems to care! How much time do they think we have?

This is not complicated. We need to spend less. Much less. Starting right now.

NAACP Forum and the Candidates that were not there

For the record, I spoke with several of the candidates listed as "No Shows" on another blog and none of them received an official invitation. Mike Calpino, Mike Brewington and Chris Lewis never received an official invitation, phone call or email to come to the forum.

It is stated that Bob Caldwell was not invited, learned of the forum and got in contact to inform them he could not make it. In 2009 Bob had a car accident on the way to the NAACP forum when he ran for Mayor. He made it but he was a little late.

I do recall that when I ran for City Council in 2009 I received an official invitation from the NAACP for the forum. I enjoyed the forum very much and it was a very good experience.

This again shows a side of politics where creating an impression of something that is not there serves no good purpose. Neither of the candidates listed were contacted before that post was made to see if they received an invitation or had been contacted about the forum. Insinuating that certain candidates are racist or do not care about the African-American community is extremely irresponsible.

As someone who supports these candidates, I refuse to sit by and allow insinuations and lies to be spread without a response in their defense. Especially on an issue that is this sensitive and inflammatory, this deserves a response.

1 Caught, 2 sought in one Murder in the 'Bury

Brooks Lamar Seldon --- Caught.

In what has been a dangerous week in Salisbury, which is turning in to the norm, many city residents are on edge.  Two murders and one that has left a man brain dead has sent shock waves through the community.

Brooks Seldon has been arrested in connection with a murder on Charles Street.  Troy Wilson was sitting on his front porch Monday at 1:25 AM when a red Dodge Neon stopped and the passengers opened fire on Troy Wilson, who was unarmed.

As the group was attempting to get away, they struck a vehicle.  They exited the car and fled on foot.  One suspect was witnessed dropping his gun.

Frederick Coston -- Wanted

Wilson was transported to PRMC and is reported as brain dead according to the Daily Times. 

Seven hours earlier the bodies of Antonio Smith and Arlene Byrd were found at Parkside Apartments.  Police discovered their bodies during a welfare check after a concerned neighbor reported a disturbance.  Their deaths have been ruled as a homicide. 

This All-American City winner is quickly becoming a city with an out of control gang problem, bank robberies, hotel robberies,  and daily shoplifting incidents.  That is not even scratching the surface.

Keshawn White -- Wanted

The culture in this city and county has taken a downward spiral.  With millions of dollars being spent on education every year, the current approach is not working.  We are still ending up with people who do not respect other people's civil liberties.

The focus is on the Police which is the wrong approach because they are a reaction to crime.  They are constantly spread thin and run from one call to another.  Our State's Attorneys Office is overloaded with petty cases that are clogging up the resources of our justice system.

Our judicial system is one area that is failing us.  Education is the other.  These are the two areas we need to focus on for reform.  I just hope we are not to late.

The J. Millard Tawes 34th Annual Crab and Clam Bake

Mike Brewington (D) and Dr. Richard Davis (L).

Crisfield, MD: The J. Millard Tawes Crab and Clam did not disappoint if you were in search of politicians. Candidates from the Democratic Party, Republican Party and Libertarian Party were present meeting voters and distributing campaign flyers.

Independent District 1 Congressional Candidate Jack Wilson had his people gathering signatures. Dr. Richard Davis signed the petition form to show his support for Wilson to be on the ballot, even though he would be an opponent. Wilson needs around 40,000 signatures according to the campaign worker.

Richard Davis(L) and Andy Harris(R).

                Read the rest at Examiner.com

The Vote Libertarian Buttons were very effective.  Governor O'Malley got the message when we shook his hand.

Grannis explains why Libertarians are different

Q&A: Why should someone who distrusts both major parties believe the Libertarian Party is different?

Last week on Mailbag Monday, we discussed where Libertarians fit along the popular but not-very-informative left-right spectrum. This week we discuss the logical follow-up that should appeal especially to the 20% or so of 8th District voters who have learned to hate both major parties: How can any party be trusted? Why should anyone believe the Libertarian Party is different?

I love this question, because it was my question for most of the last decade. The short answer is that while most parties exist to promote the electoral success of their candidates, the Libertarian Party exists to promote Liberty, win or lose. We would rather be principled than powerful. And that’s what makes it safe to trust us with power.

As we saw last week, the Libertarian combination of views looks like an ungainly hybrid to people who are used to arranging political views along a single left-to-right spectrum. By combining fiscally conservative and apparently “pro-business” views on economic matters with socially tolerant and anti-war views, Libertarians can look to some people as if they are trying to sew an elephant’s head onto a donkey’s torso.

But if we pay closer attention, we see that the part of each major party that Libertarians combine is the principled part. Libertarians oppose government interference with individual liberty for any purpose other than to protect the person or property of another individual. This is known as the “non-aggression principle,” and it is more fundamental for Libertarians than any particular plank of the party’s platform. Thus, what may look at first blush like a mixing and matching of standard R and D positions is actually a much more consistent application of a principled preference for individual liberty over government coercion.

Neither major party accepts the non-aggression principle, but that’s not the only way they differ from the Libertarian Party. In practice, there is no political principle to which either major party is committed more strongly than it is committed to winning elections. The two major political parties exist, first and foremost, to win elections. They are private clubs that exist for the purpose of electing their members, and if they believe that changing their policy positions or even their political philosophies will help them elect more members of their club, they will change positions in a heartbeat. This has actually happened many times in the history of the Republicans and the Democrats, as any good history of those parties makes clear. (For anyone who wants to check this out, I can recommend Lewis Gould's Grand Old Party.)

Libertarians are different. If you don’t believe this, go to the Libertarian Party’s website, http://www.lp.org/, and try to join the party. Before the party accepts your membership (or your money), you will be asked to take the following pledge: “I certify that I oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.” Libertarians don’t all agree on exactly what the pledge means, and there is sometimes room for reasonable minds to differ about what counts as protection of person or property rather than a “political or social goal." The value of the pledge, though, is that it anchors the debate around a principle that is much more protective of individual liberty than the perpetual, poll-driven pursuit of power practiced by the major parties.

The first time I thought about joining the Libertarian Party, I stopped at the non-aggression pledge. It was so broad that, even if it sounded good in theory, I wasn’t sure it would succeed in practice. After a few more years of watching the clown show we call Congress, I came to understand that it’s the unchecked pursuit of electoral power that is the ultimate practical failure. After spending years as an “unaffiliated” voter, it now seems to me that the pledge is the only reason I could consider joining any party again. It is the pledge, and the party’s principled commitment to non-aggression, that makes the Libertarian Party more trustworthy than the others.

by Mark Grannis

Dr. Richard Davis Campaign Updates

Annapolis, MD:  In an article that was published in the The Capitol, Dr. Richard Davis is mentioned in an article about the upcoming heated race in the First Congressional District.

Crisfield, MD:  On July 21, 2010 Dr. Richard Davis, Libertarian candidate for Maryland's First Congressional District, will be in attendance at the 34th Annual J. Millard Tawes Crab and Clam Bake.   The event is held the third Wednesday every July and usually attracts politicians by the dozens in an election year.

J. Millard Tawes was the 54th Governor of Maryland and a Crisfield native.  The event was named in his honor and is held at Somers Cove Marina.

Seeing the Miraculous in Manufacturing

Date: Sun, 07/18/2010
Author: Mark Grannis
Some correspondence this morning with a friend who teaches economics reminded me of this 1946 essay/short story by Leonard Read. It's called "I, Pencil," and in it an unusually literate pencil substantiates the surprising claim that no one person on earth knows how to make a pencil, despite the fact that billions are made. The story is so simple that a kindergartener can understand it.

This is, of course, a celebration not of pencils but of human genius and of the remarkable way in which people in free economies coordinate their activities to produce things that are beyond the capacity of any single mind. The implications for centralized regulation of our natural productive capacities are clear enough.

Voting is one way to change public policy, and of course I hope everyone who reads this will vote for me and for other candidates who recognize how vital our economic liberties are to our well-being.

But if you want to improve our public policy not just for a couple of years but for decades to come, read this story to your younger kids and have your older kids read it themselves. It's short -- just 28 brief paragraphs that barely run to five typewritten pages altogether. Do yourself, your kids, and your country a favor and print it out.

www.grannisforcongress.org

MdLP upcoming events

Upcoming Events:

J. Millard Tawes Crab and Clam Bake

Wednesday, 21 July, 12:30 pm to 4 pm

Somers Cove Marina, Crisfield, Maryland

http://www.crisfieldchamber.com/clambake.htm



MDLP Central Committee Meeting

This is special meeting of the CC for the purpose of nominating 2 potential candidates for the state House of Delegates elections this November:

Josh Crandall 31st legislative district (AA County)

Ron Owens-Bey 45th legislative district (NE Baltimore City)

The meeting will be held on Wednesday, 21 July, 7 pm, at the home of Robert Glaser.

http://www.md.lp.org/events/events.php?2010#202



There will be a fundraising event for Mike Calpino, candidate for the Wicomico County Council, next Saturday:

Bivalve, MD: On Saturday July 24, 2010 from 7:00pm - 9:00pm, District 2 Wicomico County Coucnil candidate, Mike Calpino (Libertarian), will be holding an Ice Cream Social at the West Side Community Center in Bivalve, Maryland. This will be a joint fund raising event with fellow AFP/Tea Party activist and At-Large Wicomico County Council candidate, Mike Brewington (Democrat). Both candidates will be speaking to share their vision for Wicomico County and what the Liberty Movement is all about.

Contact Muir Boda for more details, at (410) 603-3347, or mwboda@me.com.


Congratulations to Dr. Richard Davis, our candidate for the US House 1st district, for being endorsed by the Conservative Congress:

http://www.examiner.com/x-53057-Wicomico-Libertarian-Party-Examiner~y2010m7d14-Dr-Richard-Davis-endorsed-by-the-Conservative-Congress?cid=channel-rss-Politics




Not a member of the MDLP? Has your membership expired? Please join; your much-needed funds go to ballot access, outreach, publishing the triennial newsletter, and supporting our candidates.

http://www.md.lp.org/join-form.pdf (cash, check, money order)

https://co.clickandpledge.com/advanced/default.aspx?wid=23698 (credit card)

If you prefer, I would be happy to mail you an order form.



Be sure to join the MDLP Yahoo Groups email lists, particularly the "announce" and discussion lists: http://www.md.lp.org/email_lists.php

Where Do Libertarians Belong?

Brink Lindsey, Jonah Goldberg & Matt Kibbe from the August-September 2010 issue

For those who cherish the ideals of free minds and free markets, 21st century politics in the United States has not been a particularly welcoming place. The big-government conservatism of George W. Bush has been followed by the bigger- government liberalism of Barack Obama. The twin crises of 9/11 and the 2008 financial meltdown spawned the twin leviathans of national security hyperextension and the never-ending bailout. The nation’s political class has rallied around the economic ideas of John Maynard Keynes, and the country’s short-term financial picture only looks tenable when compared to the long-term fiscal nightmare that just about everyone agrees is coming.


So where should libertarians drop anchor and forge alliances within the famous four-sided Nolan Chart spectrum of political beliefs and groupings? In this exchange, Contributing Editor Brink Lindsey argues that it’s time, once and for all, to sever the libertarian-conservative alliance that dates back to the New Deal while remaining skeptical about the illiberal populism of Tea Party activism. In response, a conservative writer—National Review Online Editor-at-Large Jonah Goldberg—disputes Lindsey’s portrayal of the right and contends that the only major party giving free market economics the time of day is the GOP. Meanwhile, FreedomWorks President Matt Kibbe tells Lindsey and his think tank fellow travelers to climb down off that high horse and celebrate the most promising limited-government popular uprising in generations.


                                                                                  Read more at Reason

Toy Story 3 and the Tea Party Movement

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

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

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


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

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

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

                                                                       Read More at Reason

Washington's Parasites Take Aim at Apple

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

Read More at CATO

WAYNE ALLYN ROOT: Barack Obama: The great jobs killer

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


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


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


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

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

Rule by Consensus

by Mike Calpino

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

Mike Calpino
Candidate for Wicomico County Council

LP Monday Message: 10 reasons to end the wars now

Dear Friend of Liberty,

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

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

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

2. Iraqi and Afghanistan civilian and military casualties.

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

4. Invading and occupying Afghanistan and Iraq feeds terrorism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Wes Benedict
Executive Director
Libertarian National Committee

Lorenzo on Immigration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Libertarians: The Secret Strength of the Immigration Reform Movement

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

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

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

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

Allan Webster to run for Somerset County Sheriff

Official Press Release

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

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

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

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

Catching up on Lower Shore Politics

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

Libertarians pleased by ruling on gun rights

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 30, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GET INVOLVED:


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

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

June Letter to the Editor

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

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

MDLP Chair's Report

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Robert Johnston III, Chairman, Maryland Libertarian Party

Page Elmore Passes Away

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

Condolences to the family of Sam Vincent

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

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

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

More challengers needed to keep our elections vital

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

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

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

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

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

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

Status Update on Maryland's Minor Party Candidates

Status Update on Maryland's Minor Party Candidates

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

Historic District in Salisbury infringes on the rights of property owners

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

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

Read the rest at Examiner.com

Libertarians note anniversary of bad Kelo decision

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(signed)

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

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

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

Libertarians say government shares blame with BP for oil spill

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Smoke & Mirrors on the Rental Industry

I was able to get the list that Mayor Ireton put up on the City Website of Property Owners who refused or did not respond to request for inspections. I have it attached at the bottom of this post.

So they were unable to perform 143 inspections. It appears to me that over half of them they were unable to get a response from for one reason or another.

The other issue is that Mayor Ireton makes it seem that all of these property owners are Members of SAPOA [Salisbury Area Property Owners Association]. My understanding, from having discussions with members of SAPOA, is they do police their own. They are also known for helping out other members when needed. Unfortunately not all Rental Property Owners are members of this group; it is difficult for SAPOA to police those who are not members.

The major issue I have with Mayor Ireton over this, is his Slum Property of the Week feature on the City Website. I do not feel this provides a healthy service and it diminishes the image of the city.

I also feel his singling out of Stu Leer on a particular property was unfair. Mayor Ireton claims the property is drain on City resources based on Code Violations and calls for service. The code violations happened before Mr. Leer purchased the properties. The other point that Mayor Ireton misses is that Stu Leer purchased that property because it was a problem and it was his intention to bring it up to code because it was devaluing neighboring properties.

I keep hitting home that point about Mr. Leer as an example because Mayor Ireton's fixation on this issue is borderline unhealthy and he is creating an atmosphere of deception to drive home his political agenda. Certainly we all would like to see more people own homes. We also have to face reality and the situation of our city.

We are a blessed to have a growing university. With that naturally comes a demand for temporary housing. We also have to understand that every city has a need for people to rent based on economic situations. Not everybody has the ability or desire to own a home. That needs to be understood as well and unfortunately I believe Mayor Ireton cannot see the forest for the trees.

Socialism is Selfish

by Mike Calpino

One of the most often repeated arguments against free market capitalism is that is makes selfish, greedy monsters out of all of us. That a system based on one’s self-interest instead of the interests of the "collective" is evil on its very face. It is almost accepted as a fact that if it wasn’t for government enforcing our charity through the social safety net, poor people would starve, old people would die penniless in the streets, the infirm would be on the street corners begging for spare change and children wouldn’t be educated while a few rich individuals would spend their time rolling around in their money like Scrooge McDuck.

In fact, history has demonstrated the exact opposite. The more the government exercises control over the economy and the people that make it up, the less freedom the people have and the poorer they are. In the 1920’s millions of people were dying of starvation in Communist Russia while America, experiencing a resurgence of freedom after the tyranny of Woodrow Wilson, was prospering like no other place on earth. Before we allowed the government to control the economy through the Federal Reserve and New Deal programs, we never had a recession that lasted more than a few years. Up until the Roosevelt era, the history of the United States was one of prosperity, innovation and upward mobility. Only in America could a bobbin changer or desk clerk amass some of the largest fortunes on earth within their lifetimes. It was these men, acting in their self-interest, attempting to satisfy the self-interest of consumers free from government direction, regulation, taxes and control that created the standard of living we enjoy, a standard of living that is still the envy of the world.

That being the case, why is socialism selfish while a system based in individual self interest is not? The reason is that a system of socialism removes all meaningful interaction and responsibility among individuals within the society. The primary relationship in an individual’s life is with the state, not his or her neighbor or even his or her family. The government takes care of our children. With pre-K and Head Start, we place them in the care of unionized government employees from the time they are three until they are eighteen. The government is now also responsible for their higher education as well. If they choose not to try to make anything of themselves, we are not responsible for them then either. The government confiscates our money through taxes to pay for the basic sustenance of those who are either too lazy to work or have made bad choices that have placed them in poverty. When our neighbor or family member gets sick, the government will now determine their care. Once our parents get old, the government takes care of their needs and medical care until they die. Then the government confiscates their remaining wealth and sticks us with the bill for burying them.

Before government stepped in, people relied on their families and neighbors for all these things. If the government is going to take care of us, what do we need family for? We have seen this play out in Europe. The socialist countries of Europe have extremely low birth rates. Why? Who needs children? They are a pain when they are young and they don’t need them when they are old so why not just remain an eternal adolescent, enjoying whatever the government lets them keep on their extended vacations and abundant weekly leisure time. Not considering the next generation, getting the goodies even at the expense of the future, living only for yourself with no regard for the needs of others is the most selfish lifestyle possible.

Pure capitalism, on the other hand, encourages us to be considerate of others. In a truly free, capitalist society where government stays completely out of the economic and social spheres, confining itself to the role of protector of rights, selfishness results is very negative consequences. If one tried to live as an ‘island’, giving no thought for the needs or wishes of others, you would quickly be reduced to living in a hovel as a hunter gatherer. Why? Because you would not be able to get a job. Employment in such a society requires that your labor meet the needs of an employer who is, in turn, trying to meet the needs of his customers. If you did not care about the needs of the employer you would not have a job very long. Compare the products of communist countries with those of free ones. Workers under communism cannot be fired for lack of efficiency or quality, in free countries they can be. Continuing, if you didn’t care about your neighbors and you fell on hard times, charity would be hard to come by. If you don’t make yourself valuable to others, they find it hard to put any value on you. Consider the value free counties place on individual life as opposed to counties based on the "collective". In a free country, any life lost is a tragedy. In a communist country, twenty million lives lost is a footnote. In a "collective", it is the group that matters and those at the top decide what is best for the group, the individual life is only worth something if it serves the needs of the collective. In a free county, every individual is valued as an individual, every individual has rights simply because they exist as a man or woman and government's only role is to ensure that each individual’s rights are respected by all the other individuals in a society. Finally, if you do not have children or choose to be a bad parent, there will be no one to take care of you when you’re old. The point of all these examples is to show that in a free, capitalist society it is in everyone's self interest to be considerate of the self interest of everyone else. In a socialist society, the opposite is true. As long as the individual maintains good relations with the state, other relationships are superfluous and have little value. This does not apply simply to economics but to our societal relationships as well.

For the last hundred years America has been turning its back on all the things that made us great, embracing the very philosophies that have not only demonstrated their utter failure everywhere they are tried but are the complete antithesis of the system we were founded upon. Today, with our government taking a greater role in controlling our lives and the economic and social systems we inhabit, the family is disintegrating, we have created a permanent and growing underclass, we have seen the devaluation of individual life at both ends, and a stifled economy and for all our efforts we have stuck our great-grandchildren with a bill even they will not be able to pay. So who’s selfish now?



Mike Calpino

Candidate for Wicomico County Council

The Local Scene, Tea Party, AFP, and You Know Who....

For a variety of reasons I had stayed away from the local Tea Party scene, one of them was a concern that establishment Republicans and others were attempting to "hijack" what this movement was all about.  The past couple of weeks the results have shown that the establishment's attempts were rejected and this has caused me to reconsider my position on the local Tea Party movement.

AFP Member, Tea Party Activist and Libertarian Mike Calpino filed to run as a Candidate for Wicomico County Council District 2 against Incumbent Republican and Establishment representative Stevie Prettyman.  I offered to Mike to be his treasurer and help in any way I can with his campaign and he accepted.  I truly believe Mike would make a great County Councilman and represent the people in his District with dignity, honor and an open ear for the citizens in District 2.  Mike gave me a better insight of those in the Tea Party movement.

Then the Julie Brewington issue came to the forefront.  Many have been the target of his [Albero's] ire, Julie being the current one.  After the County Council meeting the other day, I talked with Julie for a few minutes - the first time I have met Julie.  Everyone knows the reason that she is Joe's current target and it is mainly her opposition to Councilwoman Stevie Pretyyman's stance on several issues.  Joe being an ally of Mrs. Prettyman decides to defend her the only way he knows how - attack, threaten, and blog you.  Frankly, nobody really cares and this will probably be the last post I make about him because there are more important things to worry about.

This brings to the forefront what I have been saying for long time about local politics.  People simply cannot disagree on an issue anymore, many see the need to destroy people with a scorched earth policy.  This is why good people refuse to get into politics and "We the People" lose out on quality candidates to choose from.

I also believe there is some light at the end of the tunnel.  With Tea Party Activist Mike Brewington stepping up to run for the Wicomico County Council At-Large as a Jeffersonian-Democrat, I am optimistic.  Julie Brewington also captures what I believe is the real deal behind the local Tea Party movement.  I truly hope it stays independent and makes some real change that can jingle in our pockets.

Salisbury Mayor Jim Ireton declines conflict resolution with SAPOA

Salisbury, MD:  The following statement was issued from Salisbury Mayor Jim Ireton concerning an invitation from Salisbury University's Center for Conflict Resolution on behalf of the Salisbury Area Property Owners Association [SAPOA].  Read the Article here....

Daily Times features Mike Calpino's run for County Council

Libertarian runs for Wicomico council seat

Mike Calpino to take on councilwoman Stevie Prettyman

By Greg Latshaw • Staff Writer • June 15, 2010 

SALISBURY -- Mike Calpino, a Nanticoke resident who says government needs a philosophical makeover, will run against Stevie Prettyman for her Wicomico County Council seat.

"We need to change the way we do government. Trying to be all things for all people is too expensive," Calpino says.

The 42-year-old has filed with the Maryland State Board of Elections as a Libertarian candidate. Calpino said the county government has grown too large under the executive form of leadership and supports keeping the revenue cap in place, switching to elected school boards and holding evening council meetings.

"If we were still spending what we were in 2006, we wouldn't be in this position," Calpino said of Wicomico's spending habits.

Read the rest of the article.....

 

O'Malley's big spending hurts Wicomico

By Marc Kilmer • June 12, 2010

In 2007, Gov. Martin O'Malley led the effort to expand our state's Medicaid program. But instead of finding the money to fully fund the cost of Medicaid in this year's state budget, the governor counted on the federal government increasing its funding for the program. Congress had not appropriated the money yet, but the governor and legislators assumed it would and pronounced the state's budget "balanced."

It is now looking likely that Congress will not give states a Medicaid bailout. If Maryland doesn't get this money, the state would resort to another budget trick: taking money away from local governments. O'Malley would once again tap the local income tax reserve fund to help cover the budget shortfall.

This is the fund into which our local income taxes are paid and then distributed to county governments.One of the reasons Wicomico County is having trouble balancing its budget this year is because the state is holding back money properly belonging to counties. For instance, the gas tax collected in Wicomico County is supposed to be given to our local governments to spend on roads. In this fiscal year the state only gave us 10 percent of our allocation and used the rest to cover its high spending.

Read the rest....

Stu Leer demands an apology from Mayor Jim Ireton

Stu Leer demands an apology from Mayor Jim Ireton

Mike Calpino to challenge Stevie Prettyman for Wicomico County Council District 2 seat

Mike Calpino to challenge Stevie Prettyman for Wicomico County Council District 2 seat