A Most Dangerous Man

"The time to guard against corruption and tyranny

is before they have gotten ahold of us.

It is better to keep the wolf out of the fold,

than to trust drawing his teeth and talons after he shall have entered."

Thomas Jefferson

As one crisis after another has spread across the globe, particularly in the Middle East, many people are scratching their heads and wondering exactly what drives President Obama’s decisions in foreign policy. Its obvious he has lost interest in it now that it has become much more than an apology tour. It is Secretary Clinton, who was a ghost for the first year and half of the Obama reign, who is now the face of American foreign policy in the absence of the president. She jets around the world, she hold news conferences, she makes statements, while he enjoys spring break in Rio, goes golfing and hosts Motown parties in the White House.

However detached he may appear, Barack Hussein Obama is still the president and he is still the one that drives American policy. It would appear that our decisions are made "on the fly" and place a glaring spotlight on his complete lack of experience. While that may be partly true, and while it may often be more reasonable to ascribe bad decisions to stupidity rather than malice, in the case of this White House and this president, I don’t think that we can cut them even that much slack.

It is my belief that this president has two primary motives for every one of his actions and if we understand these motives, what he does makes a lot more sense. Most past presidents were not hard to figure out. George W. Bush was motivated by his born again Christian faith and his belief that America should not only lead the world but should spread "democracy" by whatever means necessary. This explains why he would go to war so quickly and why he would preside over such a large expansion of domestic government programs. "Compassionate conservatism" embodied both concepts. Clinton just liked being president and he wanted everyone to like him as president. That is why his policies were pragmatic or poll driven. He wanted to do what was popular. Was he an ideological leftist, sure, but that took a back seat to popularity. He had no qualms about dropping "Hillarycare" or eventually signing welfare reform. He had no interest in getting us into long, drawn out, unpopular wars which is why he conducted war from thirty thousand feet and cut and run when it looked tough. Clinton enjoyed the perks of the presidency, sometimes a bit too much, but the "popularity president" explains much of what he does.

President Obama also has motives for being president. There is no question that, like Clinton, he loves the perks. But unlike Clinton, we get the feeling that Obama uses the perks like a stick in our eye, as if he thinks we have denied him what was owed and now he is flaunting his new found status as our overlord. The constant vacations, the air force one flyby of the Statue of Liberty, his arrogance in press conferences all seem to stem from this idea. But that is a side-show to the main event.

There are two things that motivate Barack Obama and while we may dismiss the talk show jock who proclaims "we have elected the enemy," there is no question that Barack Obama has embarked on a course of action that is severely detrimental to the health, and yes, honor, of our nation. The question is why? Two reasons. First, he divides the world into two camps-the haves and have nots, the oppressed and oppressor, the good and the evil. While traditionally we have viewed ourselves as the guys in the white hats, to Barack Obama, we definitely wear black.

This explains many of his actions toward our traditional allies like Great Britain. If there was ever an oppressor, great Britain and its colonial heritage fit the bill for Obama. In fact, with England, it is personal. It was the policies of Winston Churchhill that led to the imprisonment of his Marxist father in Africa. He has a deep seated hatred of previously colonial nations and his actions toward our traditional allies demonstrate this bias.

His division of the world is also based on his Marxist ideology. He believes in the redistribution of wealth not just from Joe the Plumber to the welfare queen but from the "haves" to the "have nots" of the world. That is why we will shut down American drilling in the Gulf of Mexico but grant drilling privileges to Brazil, which happens to be led by a fellow Marxist, a twofer for Obama. We will never move toward energy independence under Obama because by sending our dollars abroad we are facilitating a huge wealth transfer.

The second motivation is one which will, no doubt, put me in the camp with the tin foil hatters and conspiracy theorists. But if we accept the fact that we could elect an anti-American communist it should not be a stretch to say that we could have elected a Muslim radical as well. Yes, I said it, president Obama is a Muslim. Just as his Marxism was hidden in plain sight during his campaign and has become obvious in his policies, so his Islam was, and is, obvious if you look. In two interviews before the election he had a "Freudian slip" in which he referred to "My Muslim Faith," the one with George Stephanopolis being the most memorable. His early years were spent in Indonesia, the largest Muslim country in the world and one in which radical Islam has more than a toehold. He went to a Madrassa where he was taught Islam, a fundamentally anti-Semitic, anti-western ideology, a perfect complement to his anti-colonial Marxism.

This motivation will explain his actions in the Middle East. If the stated policy is to encourage "democracy", his actions are inconsistent at best. Why ignore the Iranian protesters, who may be the only pro-American group in the region, and throw support behind the Egyptian protesters? Two reasons. First, Iran is already anti-western and virulently anti-Israel, no need to support regime change there. Egypt under Mubarak, however, was nominally an ally of the United States and had maintained peace with Israel for over thirty years. That was a regime that could go, no problem. In fact, his policy in the Middle East is best explained by his support for radical Islam represented by the Muslim Brotherhood and other fundamentalist groups. That is why he has no problem pulling the plug on "secular" Arab leaders like Mubarak or Assad of Syria. So the "Obama Doctrine" is to basically ignore nations undergoing transformations from one anti-Semitic, anti-Western regime to another and support the transformation from secular, nominally pro-western, pro-Israel regimes to jihadist ones. The reason Obama has been so inconsistent on Libya is because while it falls into the former category, Khaddafy is a friend of his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, and a major supply of oil for the European nations that pressure us through the United Nations. He would rather stay out of it but was compelled to intervene by outside forces and is trying to make the best of it.

This "doctrine" is very bad for two reasons. One, although I don’t think we need to be supporting brutal dictators, particularly with taxpayer money, I don’t think we should be encouraging their ouster if they are likely to be replaced by radical Muslims who are going to be open in their support for anti-western terrorism. An Assad or Mubarak or even a Khaddafy may not like the West or America and may quietly support terrorism but their over-riding priority is maintaining their own power and they know, as Khaddafi found out in the Reagan years, they can go too far and put their very lives in danger. If, however, a group like the Muslim Brotherhood or the Revolutionary Party in Iran take power, their rhetoric will escalate in their religious fervor and they may not care about what they do. Martyrdom, after all, is their highest goal. On a national level, that is a thousand times worse than an Al Qaeda, as we have seen with Iran. Nations run by people who strap bombs to the chests of children have no concept of Mutually Assured Destruction. There is no negotiation with such regimes, none of the traditional means of applying pressure will provide deterrence. Killing the infidels, even if it means their own destruction, is an acceptable exchange for them.

While the ascendency of radical Islam to positions of power in several nations in the Middle East will certainly be a concern for our security and well being, the real threat is to the nation of Israel, whose very existence is put at risk. There has not been a major war between Israel and her neighbors since 1973. Between the peace with Egypt and a practical truce with her other neighbors, the situation has been one of relative peace, Palestinian suicide bombers excepted. If, however, the secular leaders of Egypt, Syria and even Jordan are replaced by radicals who join with Hamas in Gaza in the belief that waging jihad against Israel is the highest religious duty, Israel’s position becomes much less secure. Add to that our apparently official policy of backing off our support for Israel in favor of the very radicals that desire her destruction and Israel’s very existence is threatened. If Israel can no longer count on us and her enemies know that, they will be emboldened like never before.

I don’t think most people understand the ramifications of what the President is doing. His Marxism is leading to the weakening of America. He is accelerating the transfer of our wealth to other nations through his energy policy, impoverishing the citizens whose best interests he is supposed to represent. But he thinks we, as Americans, deserve to lose what be believes are our "ill gotten gains." Domestically, he is doing this three ways. First, through the energy policy mentioned above. Second, by placing us under loads and loads of debt by expanding government and rewarding his friends through the internal transfer of wealth. Finally, by destroying the dollar he is exasperating out trade deficit and undermining the very foundation of our economy. In foreign policy his anti-colonial, anti-Semitic ideology supported by his "Muslim faith" is making changes in the world that will have ramifications long after he is gone. He is supporting the ascent of radical, jihadist Islam across the Middle East and North Africa. Not just as a small cadre of terrorist groups within those nation states but as rulers of nation states themselves! Do we know what the world will look like when Taliban like governments rule nations from Iran to Morocco? If jihad is a threat when supported primarily by two nations, Saudi Arabia and Iran, imagine the mortal threat it will be when actively supported by the entire region. Outside the Middle East he is supporting the ascension of China, a repressive, communist regime. He is destroying our relations with our traditional allies, allies like Great Britain and Israel who share our fundamental values. Finally, he is subverting our very sovereignty as a nation to international organizations like the United Nations.

What makes such destructive policy catastrophic is the fact that the things he is doing cannot, in most cases, be reversed. Sure, we could repeal Obamacare and save some money in the future but the treasuries have been sold, the money is gone, the debt accumulated. If the dollar is destroyed, it is gone and even if it isn’t destroyed, it will take years to recover any of its value. Once domestic energy production is eliminated through regulation and tax policy, it will take years to get that back even if those regulations and policies are eliminated. We have seen this in the Gulf of Mexico. Once the moratorium of drilling was enacted, the drilling rigs moved elsewhere, companies are not going to wait around and lose money in the hopes that two or six years from now a more amenable administration will take power. Once the Muslim Brotherhood or some other group of Muslim radicals-Al Qaeda in Libya perhaps-is in control of some country, that’s it. We have condemned an entire nation to an oppression likely to be much worse that what was there before. We will have placed the nation of Israel, the only nation in the region where a liberal democracy protects the rights of its people, where beheadings and stonings don’t happen, where Jew and Arab live together, in a position where they and their enemies know they no longer have our support, a situation as grave as they faced in 1948. If we allow Israel to be destroyed, there is no going back. The flow of wealth and technology we have transferred to China cannot be reversed.

This is a direct result of the fact that we have placed entirely too much power in the hands of one man. Historians call this the development of the "imperial presidency" and it has been going on for over a century. Over time, the executive branch through its growing bureaucracy, the rise of the power of the Federal Reserve, an assumption of police powers through one crisis after another, has become, for all intents and purposes, an elected dictatorship. We may hope that the person we choose to lead our nation and, in may respects, the world, respects our history, institutions and traditions of freedom and limited government. Today we have a man in that office who sees our history as one set of oppressions after another, holds our traditions in contempt and believes in using the levers of power to destroy cherished institutions. For over two hundred years this great nation has been the example of what free men can accomplish. For the last hundred we have been in a position to lead the world, economically and militarily. We have not been perfect and sometimes made mistakes but the world was a better place because America led. We are starting to get a taste of what the world would look like when America no longer leads, its not pretty. Presently we choose not to but in the future we may not be able to.

The question is this. Will historians look back on the Obama presidency as a great transformative event, one that saw the decline of America and the genesis of a new Dark Age? It has become obvious that it is no longer simply our nation that is at risk. This generation of "we the people" have a burden at this time, in this moment, that will have ramifications for the world; not just for years but decades, perhaps centuries. We can no longer use the slow, timid approach, attempting to right the ship through incremental measures. We need bold action, bold policies. We need our representatives to shut down Obama’s ability to destroy by taking back their power, our power. We are supposed to have a government with checks and balances. It is time we used them. And if the weak-kneed Republicans won’t, "we the people" must.

"There are extraordinary situations which

require extraordinary interposition.

An exasperated people who feel they possess power

are not easily restrained within limits strictly regular."

Thomas Jefferson

Mike Calpino

National Health Insurance

"National Health Insurance means combining the efficiency of the Postal Service with the compassion of the I.R.S. … and the cost accounting of the Pentagon." 

Louis Sullivan/Connie Horner quoted by Novak in Forbes

Who's in charge?



Mike Calpino

 This week we, the United States, committed ourselves to another war. We began enforcing a ‘no fly’ zone in an effort to help the rebellion, led primarily by terrorists, against a brutal dictator. And why have we decided to become engaged in this conflict? Because the United Nations said so.


Once upon a time we were a sovereign nation who would only commit blood and treasure when it was in our best interest. We adhered to a law, called the constitution, that said that only the representatives of the people, the congress, could make that commitment, and it could only be paid for if that body approved and could convince the people to buy bonds or pay taxes to support it. Not any more. Now we have a president who has no clue what to do until the United Nations, an unelected, anti-American body, tells him that it would be a good idea to put our brave men and women in harm’s way and expend billions of dollars of the Fed’s freshly printed dollars. Really? When did "we the people" choose to give up our national sovereignty and allow the United Nations determine where and how our military and tax dollars are used? I don’t remember that vote, do you?
There are two things wrong with our latest "intervention" that concern me. One is the above mentioned subservience to the United Nations. That is an organization we should have pulled out of a long time ago. In fact, it was set up in a way to put us at a disadvantage in any attempt gain support for any action we may believe is in our best interest. It is a waste of our money and everyone else’s. It is corrupt from top to bottom, it is comprised primarily of dictators and thugs and even our supposed ‘friends’ only vote with us half the time. It puts countries like Libya and Iran on the Human Rights Council and its blue helmeted soldiers often engage in the same atrocious activities they are supposed to prevent. We may complain about the stupidity and corruption in our government but the UN takes it to a whole new level. Knowing that most nations see the UN simply as a tool to bleed us of billions of dollars, humiliate us and keep us from acting in our best interests through supposed ‘international' condemnation, the last governmental body we should be taking direction from is the United Nations. I’d withdrawal from that worthless organization, pull the plug on all funding, give them six months to move out of New York and use that building for something useful, rent it out to some greedy capitalists, perhaps.

Fed and Inflation

by Congressman Ron Paul



Congressman Ron Paul

 Last week, the subcommittee which I chair held a hearing on monetary policy and rising prices. Whether we consider food, gasoline, or clothing, the cost of living is increasing significantly. True inflation is defined as an increase in the money supply. All other things being equal, an increase in the money supply leads to a rise in prices. Inflation’s destructive effects have ruined societies from the Roman Empire to Weimar Germany to modern-day Zimbabwe.


Blame for the most recent round of price increases has been laid at the feet of the Federal Reserve's program of credit expansion for the past three years. The current program, known as QE2, sought to purchase a total of $900 billion in US Treasury debt over a period of 8 months. Roughly $110 billion of newly created money is flooding into commodity markets each month.

The price of cotton is up more than 170% over the past year, oil is up over 40%, and many categories of food staples are seeing double-digit price growth. This means that food, clothing, and gasoline will become increasingly expensive over the coming year. American families, many of whom already live paycheck to paycheck, increasingly will be forced by these rising prices into unwilling tradeoffs: purchasing ground beef rather than steak, drinking water rather than milk, and choosing canned vegetables over fresh in order to keep food on the table and pay the heating bill. Frugality can be a good thing, but only when it is by choice and not forced upon the citizenry by the Fed's ruinous monetary policy.
While the Fed takes credit for the increase in the stock markets, it claims no responsibility for the increases in food and commodity prices. Most economists fail to understand that inflation is at its root a monetary phenomenon. There may be other factors that contribute to price increases, such as famine, flooding, or global unrest, but those effects are transient. Consistently citing only these factors, while never acknowledging the effects of monetary policy, is a cop-out.

The unelected policymakers at the Fed are also the last to feel the effects of inflation. In fact, they benefit from it, as does the government as a whole. Those who receive this new money first, such as government employees, contractors, and bankers are able to use it before price increases occur, while those further down the totem pole suffer price increases before they see any wage increases. By continually reducing the purchasing power of the dollar, the Fed's monetary policy also punishes savings and thrift. After all, why save rapidly depreciating dollars?


Unfortunately, those policymakers who exercise the most power over the economy are also the least likely to understand the effects of their policies. Chairman Bernanke and other members of the Federal Open Market Committee were convinced in mid-2008 that the economy would rebound and continue to grow through 2009, even though it was clear to many observers that we were in the midst of a severe economic crisis. Even Greenspan was known for downplaying the importance of the growing housing bubble just as it was reaching its zenith. It remains impossible for even the brilliant minds at the Fed to achieve both the depth and breadth of knowledge necessary to enact central economic planning without eventually bringing the country to economic ruin. Our witnesses delved deeply into these issues and explained this phenomenon in very logical, simple terms. The American people increasingly understand what is going on with our money. I only hope the Fed is listening.

A Step In Right Direction for Ballot Access

Good news for ballot access: Maryland Court of Appeals okays "imperfect signatures", meaning a doctor's signature would qualify on a petition.

Here is a link that gives a little detail.

And the Baltimore Sun covered it on their blog.

A small, respectful correction to the Baltimmore Sun is that the Maryland Libertarian Party turned in nearly 15,000 signatures.

Thoughts from Jefferson

"The care of every man's soul belongs to himself. But what if he neglect the care of it? Well what if he neglect the care of his health or his estate, which would more nearly relate to the state. Will the magistrate make a law that he not be poor or sick? Laws provide against injury from others; but not from ourselves. God himself will not save men against their wills."  

Thomas Jefferson

Religion

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." 

Thomas Jefferson (1781)

FDR on Unions

Buying Friends Creates More Enemies

by Ron Paul

Last week Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and I had the opportunity to raise some of my concerns regarding US foreign policy and the costs of our interventionism around the world.


Many observers claim that the recent overthrow of governments in northern Africa and the Middle East will result in more liberty for individuals across those regions. I sincerely hope this proves to be true, but history is replete with revolutions that began as a cry for freedom against oppressive governments but ended badly. There are no guarantees that Egyptians, Tunisians, or others will be better off after these heralded regime changes.



We do know, however, that these conflicts in Africa and the Middle East can be made worse if the U.S. government attempts to intervene and support certain candidates or factions. Such intervention would not further US interests or win us new friends, but in fact would undermine the legitimacy of any government that may emerge after the end of old regimes. Just as we would resent and reject any political force that came to power here with the sponsorship of a foreign government, Egyptians, Tunisians, Libyans, and others are not likely to take kindly to what they view as one US puppet being replaced by another US puppet. It is ironic, but the US government’s endless promotion of “democracy” overseas actually distorts and undermines democracy in targeted nations. The involvement of a foreign power often undermines true self-determination.


Radicals who understand this may use rising resentment and anti-Americanism as leverage to gain power, thus defeating the stated purpose of US involvement in the first place. I have never understood how the US government justifies subsidizing a newspaper or political party abroad in the name of promoting independence and pluralism. It makes no sense.



Unfortunately it seems to me that the administration has learned nothing from recent events in the Mediterranean region. Secretary Clinton emphasized several times at the committee hearing that “nothing is off the table” with regard to a US response to internal civil unrest in Libya. Since when is it our obligation to use political pressure or even military force to solve every problem overseas? Washington is currently buzzing with talk of “no-fly zones” and even a land invasion of Libya to aid rebel groups seeking to overthrow the Gadaffi regime. Some military leaders, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates, have rightly warned the more enthusiastic interventionists that such military operations can be enormously costly both financially and in lives.


The costs of trying to run the world are unsustainable, and we simply don’t have the money. Morally, it is inexcusable for the US to pick sides in such conflicts overseas, no matter how odious either side may be. Financially, it is no longer possible. The 2012 budget request from the administration for “international affairs,” which is code for “foreign aid,” is two and a half times larger than it was just nine years ago! As our economy shrinks at home, our obligations increase abroad. As our infrastructure crumbles at home, we continue to spend billions expanding infrastructure in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. If the interventionists have their way, no doubt we will be soon pay to reconstruct the infrastructure we destroy in a Libyan military operation. It does not take a genius to see that we are going broke, but Washington remains in denial and intent on business as usual. I fear that if we continue this way we may soon be out of business altogether.

Recession

"Due to the recession, there are now 15,000 fewer lawyers in the U.S. No one ever talks about the good things that come from a recession."

Jay Leno

Truth

"It is sobering to reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence." 

Charles A. Beard

Oil Prices

Truth

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible to live without breaking laws."  

Ayn Rand

Tyranny

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

C. S. Lewis

History

"[On ancient Athens]: In the end, more than freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all – security, comfort, and freedom. When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society but for society to give to them, when the freedom they wished for most was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free and was never free again."  

Edward Gibbon

No-Fly Won't Fly Constitutionally

by Ron Paul

Last week we once again heard numerous voices calling for intervention in Libya. Most say the US should establish a “no-fly” zone over Libya, pretending that it is a benign, virtually cost-free action, and the least we could do to assist those trying to oust the Gaddafi regime. Let us be clear about one thing: for the US to establish a “no fly” zone over all or part of Libya would constitute an act of war against Libya. Establishing any kind of military presence in the sovereign territory of Libya will require committing troops to engage in combat against the Libyan air force, as well as anti-aircraft systems. The administration has stated that nothing is off the table as they discuss US responses to the unrest. This sort of talk is alarming on so many levels. Does this mean a nuclear strike is on the table? Apparently so.

In this case, I would like to make sure we actually follow the black letter of the law provided in the Constitution that explicitly grants Congress the sole authority to declare war. This week I will introduce a concurrent resolution in the House to remind my colleagues and the administration that Congress alone, not the president, decides when to go to war. It is alarming how casually the administration talks about initiating acts of war, as though Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution does not exist. Frankly, it is not up to the President whether or not we intervene in Libya, or set up “no-fly” zones, or send troops. At least, it is not if we follow the Constitution. Even by the loose standards of the War Powers Resolution, which cedes far too much power to the president, he would have no authority to engage in hostilities because we have not been attacked – not by Gaddafi, and not by the rebels. This is not our fight. If the administration wants to make it our fight, let them make their case before Congress and put it to a vote. I would strongly oppose such a measure, but that is the proper way to proceed.


Finally we need to consider the economic cost. We don’t have the money for more military interventions overseas. We don’t have the money for our current military interventions overseas. We have to rely on the Fed’s printing presses and our ability to borrow from China to fund these wars. That alone should put an end to any discussion about getting involved in Libya’s civil war.Constitutional questions aside, Congress also needs to consider the interests of the American people. Again, we have not been attacked. Whatever we may think about the Gaddafi regime, we must recognize that the current turmoil in Libya represents an attempted coup d’état in a foreign country. Neither the coup leaders nor the regime pose an imminent threat to the United States and therefore, as much as we abhor violence and loss of life, this is simply none of our business. How can we commit our men and women in uniform to a dangerous military operation in Libya when they swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution? We must also understand that our intervention will undermine the legitimacy of whatever government prevails in Libya. Especially if it is a bad government, it will be seen as our puppet and further radicalize people in the region against us. These are terrible reasons to put our soldiers’ lives at risk.

Truth

"America was born of revolt, flourished on dissent, became great through experimentation."  

Henry Steele Commager

A Message From Dr. Richard Davis

I read this week that the Dorchester GOP is organizing a fund-raising program for the Harriet Tubman Memorial. As a Libertarian I applaud and support this for several reasons.

1. It is a libertarian approach to do this with private, voluntary contributions from people who actually support the memorial, rather than asking for tax dollars taken from those who may or may not support the idea.
2. Whatever else it has or has not done since then, the GOP was the original party seeking the abolition of slavery and the emancipation of slaves in this country.
3. Harriet Tubman is a great role model for libertarians; she valued freedom for herself and others above her own safety, and was willing to break laws she knew to be unjust to achieve that freedom. Rather than seek redress from an unsympathetic government, she acted independently toward that freedom. While the law of the time viewed her activities as theft, which is against libertarian principle, it could only define them as theft by denying the humanity of those freed. I think libertarians would accept individual human freedom as superseding this view of theft. 
4. Both of the major political parties have their roots in the idea of human freedom, however much this seems forgotten today. I support the Libertarian party because it is trying to bring us back to these roots, and I support any effort that has that effect on either party or both.
5. Both major parties have such talent for partisan fundraising, I would like to see some of that talent used for more productive purpose, rather than adding to an already overwhelming national debt.
6. If Dorchester County wishes to claim the heritage of Harriet Tubman, then the people of the county should step up and make this memorial their own project. The county government is already terribly short of funds, but to be true to the legacy of Harriet Tubman, this ought to be a true grass-roots effort. I would not refuse contributions from freedom-lovers elsewhere, but this should be a project of and for Dorchester County from the start. 

I will be looking forward to supporting these activities as they develop.

Sincerely,

Richard J. Davis

Truth

"When all government, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the Center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated." 

Thomas Jefferson

To the Shores of Tripoli!

If we had listened to the interventionists, we would have been at war with Libya long ago.

by Matt Welch

It is reasonable to conclude that if John McCain had won the presidency, the United States military would be at this moment engaging in war with Libya, by enforcing a no-fly zone over the embattled country and probably arming the anti-Qadaffi rebels. After all, that's what the Arizona Senator has been advocating for the past two weeks.

But in fact an alternative-universe McCain presidency could have put us on war footing with Libya as early as January 2001, had he beaten George W. Bush in the Republican primaries back in the days of federal budget surpluses. After all, it was McCain during the 2000 campaign who was advocating pro-active regime change in Tripoli, asserting during one presidential debate that he would "revise our policies concerning these rogue states—Iraq, Libya, North Korea—those countries that continue to try to acquire weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them," and then "institute a policy that I call 'rogue state rollback.' I would arm, train, equip, both from without and from within, forces that would eventually overthrow the governments and install free and democratically-elected governments."

And as he made clear in his original speech unveiling this radical doctrine of pre-emptive pro-democracy war, President McCain would have backed these revolutionary operations with the full power of the U.S. military. "If you commit to supporting these forces, accept the seriousness of the obligation," he cautioned. "Don't abandon them to the mercies of tyrants whenever they meet with reversals as the administration did in the north of Iraq....The world's only superpower should never give its word insincerely. We should never make idle threats."

Read More Reason...

LP Chair: The problem in Wisconsin is not unions but government

For Immediate Release
Thursday, March 10, 2011

WASHINGTON - While Republicans and Democrats battle in Wisconsin over a bill to reduce the collective bargaining power of state employee unions as a means of balancing their budget, Libertarian Party Chair Mark Hinkle points out that the problem lies with government control of activities it has no business running.

Hinkle comments, "Libertarians are neither pro-union nor anti-union. We believe that the right of association and freedom of contract allows any group of people to choose to bargain collectively rather than individually. Naturally, we oppose violence and threats of such, but unions per se can play a major role in a free society. The problem is that the battle between the Wisconsin state government and state employees isn't even remotely a free market.

"Government monopolizes many services that could and should be provided in the voluntary sector by profit-making and/or non-profit organizations. This also gives them a 'monopsony' as virtually the only potential employer for workers in these fields. Once someone has trained to be a teacher or prison guard, they are essentially at the mercy of government for their employment in that field. Blaming them for wanting collective bargaining representation would be comparable to siding with the Polish government against the union Solidarity headed by Lech Walesa that freed Poland in 1989 from Soviet rule. The problem is with the employer: the government."

Hinkle considers the education budget to be the best example of a solution only Libertarians have offered:

"Far and away the largest part of the budget of the State of Wisconsin, once aid to local governments is allocated to underlying expenditures, is in the category of education. This is true of virtually all state and local governments, so it is the best example of how freedom can provide a solution. Unfortunately, government expenditures for education are driven by political considerations rather than the needs of the students. The result is outrageous costs that are not primarily for the most important ingredient in education: the teacher.

So How Are Democrats and Republicans Different?

Just how is the way Wisconsin Republicans have handled the political confrontation over worker rights different than the way Washington, DC Democrats handled last year's health care vote?

With apologies in advance to Ezra for taking some liberties with his column yesterday evening in theWashington Post:

What happened in Wisconsin [Washington DC] tonight [last March]
By Ezra Klein [Bob Laszewski]

Here's what just happened [last March] in Wisconsin [Washington, DC]: The rules of the state's [U.S.]Senate require a quorum [60 votes] for any measures that do [don't] spend money. That's how the absence of the Senate's Democrats [the election loss in Massachusetts] could stymie Gov. Scott Walker's [the Democrat's efforts] to block [pass] the proposed budget law [the new health care bill] -- it spent [parts didn't spend] money, and thus it needed a quorum [60 votes].


Read the Rest.....

Classic O'Rourke

"One of the annoying things about believing in free will and individual responsibility is the difficulty of finding somebody to blame your problems on. And when you do find somebody, it's remarkable how often his picture turns up on your driver's license." 

P.J. O'Rourke

Great Libertarian Quotes

"The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community."  

David D. Boaz (1997)

Thoughts from Jefferson

"I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend."

Thomas Jefferson

Muir Boda's Weekly Campaign Message: Government and Real Estate

Muir Boda
Candidate for Salisbury City Council

I wanted to take a moment and share my positions on a couple of issues that have been before the City Council recently. These have been on my website, www.boda4salisbury.com under the section “How Would I Vote” and I wanted people to be clear on where I stand on some of these issues. 

Since both of these issues deal with acquiring and selling properties, it goes with my general philosophy that governments typically should not be actively involved in the Real Estate market and when it is, the approach should be with extreme caution.  I certainly understand that we need to have Fire Departments, Police Departments, Public Works and basic office space for the general operations of our government.  Governments should not be in the business of property management or for a better term a landlord, because the results are usually disastrous, such as all of the empty, boarded up homes owned by the Wicomico County Housing Authority in this city, that is another topic for another day.

So here are two recent situations that were very controversial and my position on them.

Linens of the Week

I oppose the City of Salisbury acquiring this property for several reasons.

First, the unknown costs that are potentially associated with the cleanup is not a risk worth taking.  The hopes that grants will be available to help offset the cleanup costs, is not a guarantee as the $14 Trillion National Debt should be a big warning sign.

Second, he who makes the mess should be the one to pay for the cleanup.  Sticking the taxpayer with the bill and responsibility is unfair. 

Third, is the issue of disposition after the property has been cleaned up.  The government just handing it over for free, no matter who the organization is, is not the right thing to do.  I do believe Habitat for Humanity is a great organization and if they want the property they should acquire it on their own, not as pass through from the government after taxpayers have cleaned it up.

Don’t get me wrong, I think charity is a great thing, I just don’t believe government should be in the business of forcing taxpayers to donate properties to non-profits and churches, especially after taxpayer funds have been used to fix a property up.

Bottom line:  government should have no role in this property other than ensuring the environmental cleanup is done, the property is safe and that the transaction between private parties is free of fraud.

The Old Firehouse

Despite the controversy surrounding this issue I would have voted for the sale.

I believe Palmer Gillis’ intentions are honorable and that he did not attempt to deceive anyone.  There are strict requirements in this deal and everyone must understand that an educational component is required.  Failure to adhere to the requirements will result in the building being forfeited back to the city.

The other aspect of this issue is that renovation costs could be between $500,000 to $1,000,000.  There are very few who have the resources available to pull that off and Palmer is one of those few.  He has a proven track record here in Salisbury and I hope we can all give him a chance to accomplish something that we all will benefit from.

Muir Boda

Candidate for Salisbury City Council

Sunday School Lesson

Conan O'Brien

"Moammar Gadhafi is blaming Osama bin Laden for all of Libya's troubles. It's going to be awkward when these two guys meet in hell."

As Requested - The Libertarian Party's Position on Net Neutrality

A commenter requested the Libertarian Party's view on Net Neutrality. This is take from the LP's website.

Stop Internet Censorship


Politicians are trying to take away your right to read what you want, and to say what you want.

The Internet is making it possible for new voices to be heard -- the voices of people who simply could not afford to publish their ideas or display their artistic talents to a wide audience using older technologies. Established interests of both the left and the right fear new voices, and are trying to control what appears on the Internet through new laws and regulations.

America's Founders couldn't foresee the Internet, but they knew that government control of information was not only a violation of personal liberty -- it was a threat to their hopes for a nation based on the principles of self-government. So they gave us the First Amendment.

The Libertarian Party carries on today in the tradition of the Founders:

•The Libertarian Party didn't wait for the Internet to become popular to stand up for principle: The LP has always supported freedom of speech and the press, and has had language specifically supporting freedom of online communication in its Platform since 1991.

•The Libertarian Party joined with thousands of concerned Internet users in "turning its web pages black" in protest of President Clinton's signing the unconstitutional "Communications Decency Act" in 1995.

•The Libertarian Party continues to speak out today against the attempts by Democrats and Republicans to find loop-holes in the First Amendment, so they can turn the Internet into a government-controlled medium.

In-Depth Political Analysis

Conan O'Brien

"New Hampshire is debating a bill to classify some airport screenings as sexual assault. California is debating a bill that would classify those same screenings as 'doing what you need to do to get the part.'"

For My Facebook Friends....



Jimmy Fallon

"Facebook has decided to ban a new app that sends you an e-mail when your crush becomes single. So you'll just have to find out if they're single the old-fashioned way: by clicking on their Facebook profile 30 or 40 times a day."

My Apologies....

My apologies for not posting much. I have been a little busy lately running for City Council in Salisbury, Maryland.

Muir

City Council Approves Policy Change in Capacity Fee Payments



Muir Boda

 
One of the issues that has been an obstacle for businesses coming to Salisbury is the issue of capacity fees. Specifically the fact that businesses were required to pay in full and up front. It appears this issue has been resolved with the option of a payment plan.


Public Works Director Theresa Gardner recently proposed this change after listening to the business community and particularly one business owner who is bringing a brewery to Salisbury. I applaud Director Gardner, Mayor Jim Ireton and the City Council for making the change in policy that will most certainly help with economic development in Salisbury.

Mayor Ireton and City Administrator John Pick also commented on the issue of updating our municipal code. Mayor Ireton requested all department heads look at the code that pertained to their department and see where we could make improvements. The comment was made that the department heads did such a thorough job that it may take some time to put everything together “in bite size chunks” as Mr. Pick put it.

It will be interesting to see what ideas and suggestions have come up in this process. It is most likely that the new City Council will address most of these over the next couple of years. I hope to be a part of that discussion.

For now, this is a good change in policy based on common sense and the willingness of City officials to listen to the business community and make a change. This is a good thing.

Muir Boda
Candidate for Salisbury City Council
http://www.boda4salisbury.com/

In-Depth Political Analysis

"Nancy Pelosi described Justin Bieber as 'adorable but also substantial,' while Justin Bieber described Nancy Pelosi as 'court ordered to maintain a distance of 300 feet at all times.'"

–

Jimmy Fallon

In-Depth Political Analysis

"Vice presidents love technology: Joe Biden with the trains, Al Gore with the Internet, and Dick Cheney with the electric torture clamps."

–

Craig Ferguson

Coercion and Evil

By Mike Calpino

Coercion and evil are two things most of us believe are negative, things that should not be part of our lives as free individuals. Yet the insidious nature of the corruption of the American experiment has allowed us to turn a blind eye to our oppression, compelling us to focus on insignificant choices in entertainment and distraction while the chains that bind us grow thicker and heavier. Our nation was founded on the premise that the individual; his life, liberty and property, was supreme, that a man was the master of his fate unencumbered by the advantages or disadvantages of birth, that the fruits of his labor belonged to himself alone, that his freedom of action was limited only by the prohibition of violating the natural rights of another. The Constitution was a compact of individuals, "We the people." In our constitutional republic the individual is sovereign and is the source of all government authority, he is supreme even over the constitution itself, subject only to the natural law of the Creator. The Constitution defines the authority voluntarily relinquished to public servants who are constrained by the law. The legal authority of the government to use physical force to compel obedience or punish wrongdoing is strictly limited to specifically defined areas and can only be utilized after due process.

Today that ideal is upside down. We have allowed the system to be turned on its head so the individual is now at the bottom; a serf, a subject, a slave to a system in which an elite cartel of interests utilize the power of government to consolidate and expand their power and wealth. We, our children and our grandchildren exist to serve the needs of the state as opposed to the state existing only to serve our specifically defined wishes. Through "public" education and media the ruling class has convinced us that democracy exists. However, if our choices consist only of two parties which, despite their rhetoric, pursuing the same basic goals and policies, serve only to enslave us to an ever expanding government and whose real power has diminished as that of the ever expanding bureaucracy has grown, can we really say we live in a system substantially different than that of the one party autocratic rule we have been taught to deride around the world?

Coercion is defined as the use of force to compel or restrain. It is the use of force, or the threat to use force, to make us do something we would not freely choose to do. When a mugger accosts you on the street with a gun, he is threatening to use deadly force to compel you to give him something valuable, the products of your labor, that you otherwise would not relinquish. That is an example of coercion we can all understand. A thief stealing your property or even your life is wrong, no one questions that. Yet when the government uses the threat of force, fine or imprisonment, to coerce us to relinquish our property for purposes not in our contract or to give it to someone else, we meekly submit to the injustice. When the government uses the threat of force through an army of bureaucrats in its multitude of agencies to target businesses who create products or provide services they don’t approve of or are politically incorrect at the moment, we accept it as the government working in our best interest even as it eliminates our freedom to choose what we believe is best for us. When the government approves dangerous drugs or withholds experimental treatments from desperate people, no one protests. When the government threatens parents with fines or imprisonment if they don’t send their children to the government indoctrination centers we call public schools and hold the power over our very homes if we refuse to pay for such a horrendous failure of a system, we timidly surrender. When, through the draft or "selective service," the government asserts a claim on our very lives, we hardly whimper. Certainly the government does not yet have the resources to prosecute every minor infraction but by selectively targeting those who dare to raise their heads above the herd, they can keep the rest of us living in fear. In other countries where a small group uses force to target highly visible people or organizations in order to bring about a political result or shape public opinion we call it terrorism. Yet individuals and business in this country live in fear of the IRS, the EPA, the FDA, OSHA and a host of other government agencies and their supporters and we accept it as normal!

Evil is "having bad natural qualities", something that causes harm, sorrow, distress or calamity. At what point did we stop looking at government as did Thomas Paine? "Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." Or George Washington who said, "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire a troublesome servant and a fearfulsome master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." Yet it is before the altar of government we kneel in supplication. Through our inattention and inaction we have allowed it to become irresponsible and intolerable. We have forgotten who we are as free men and women. We have ceased to be the informed and educated people we once were. We have allowed ourselves to be bought off with other people’s money. We have deluded ourselves into believing we can use government for our own benefit. We have become isolated and distracted. We have been conditioned to tolerate the gravest injustices and the theft of our property, our lives and our souls. The greater the evil has grown, the more blind we have become and the more difficult it is to confront.

Confront it we must, if we and our posterity are to live free of oppression and tyranny. Our national government, though its unbridled quest for power, has spent too much to buy us off and whose oppression of those who cannot be bought off is becoming all to obvious. It has caused harm, sorrow and distress to our culture, our families and to the very fabric of our lives. Calamity is soon to follow. It is time to wake up and recognize the power of the individual. It is time we rose up and declared our sovereignty in the face of oppression. It is time we stopped playing the game of the tyrants and enforced the original rules. Our time is now. No less than the time of the revolution, "the times that tried men’s souls" when the enemies of freedom seemed overwhelming, today is the day when true patriots must be willing to pledge their lives, fortunes and sacred honor, to make the sacrifices necessary so the next generation can enjoy the fruits of liberty, free from the terrorism of our current oppressors.

Our 30-Year Mistake

by Ron Paul

The events in Egypt of late have captured the attention of the world, as many thousands of Egyptians take to the streets both in opposition to and in favor of the current regime. We watch from a distance hoping that events do not spiral further into violence, which will destroy lives and threaten the livelihoods of average Egyptians caught up in the political turmoil.

I hope that Egyptians are able to work toward a more free and just society. Unfortunately, much of the blame for the unrest in Egypt and the resulting instability in the region rests with US foreign policy over the past several decades. The US government has sent more than $60 billion to the Egyptian regime since the Camp David Accords in 1978 to purchase stability, including more security for the state of Israel. We see now the folly of our interventionist foreign policy: not only has that stability fallen to pieces with the current unrest, but the years of propping up the corrupt regime in Egypt has led the people to increase their resentment of both America and Israel! We are both worse off for decades of intervention into Egypt’s internal affairs. I wish I could say that we have learned our lesson and will no longer attempt to purchase – or rent – friends in the Middle East, but I am afraid that is being too optimistic. Already we see evidence that while the US historically propped up the Egyptian regime, we also provided assistance to groups opposed to the regime.

So we have lost the credibility to claim today that we support the self-determination of the Egyptian people. Our double-dealing has not endeared us to Egyptians who now seek to reclaim their independence and national dignity.

“Diplomacy” via foreign aid transfer payments only makes us less safe at home and less trusted overseas. But the overriding reality is that we simply cannot afford to continue a policy of buying friends. We face an ongoing and potentially deepening recession at home – so how can we justify to the unemployed and underemployed in the United States the incredible cost of maintaining a global empire? Moral arguments aside, we must stop sending hundreds of billions of dollars to foreign governments when our own economy is in shambles.

American media and talking heads repeatedly pose the same loaded questions: Should the administration encourage the Egyptian president to remain or to resign? Should the US ensure Mohamed ElBaradei or current vice president Omar Suleiman succeeds current president Mubarak? The best answer to these questions is that we should just do nothing, as Eisenhower did in 1956. We should leave Egypt for Egyptians to figure out. Some may claim that this is isolationism. Nothing could be further from the truth. We should enthusiastically engage in trade and allow travel between countries, but we should stay out of their internal affairs. We are in fact more isolated from Egypt now than ever, because the regime we propped up appears to be falling. We have isolated ourselves from the Egyptian people by propping up their government, as we isolate ourselves from Tunisians, Israelis, and other recipients of our foreign aid. Their resentment of our interventionist policies makes us less safe, because we lose our authority to conduct meaningful diplomacy when unpopular regimes fall overseas. We also radicalize those who resented our support for past regimes.

Let us hope for a more prosperous and peaceful era for the Egyptians, and let us learn the lessons of our thirty-year Egyptian mistake.

In-Depth Political Analysis

"Egyptian President Mubarak’s son Gamal will not run for President. Why would he? An unpopular President is removed from office and his inexperienced son is voted in? That could never happen."

–Jimmy Fallon

Libertarians: Tea Party betrayed by tiny Republican budget cuts

WASHINGTON - According to The Hill, House Republicans have just announced that they will seek appropriations for the rest of 2011 that are $32 billion below current spending levels.

LP Chair Mark Hinkle commented, "The Tea Party supporters have been betrayed. These cuts are so small, you need a microscope to find them."

Hinkle continued, "The Congressional Budget Office just told us that federal spending was expected to be about $3.7 trillion this year. After the Republican cuts, it will still be about $3.7 trillion. The Republican cuts are so tiny, they disappear in the rounding error.

"Even with these cuts, the federal deficit will be over $1.4 trillion this year.

"It doesn't help that Congressional Republicans voted for more unemployment spending and ethanol subsidies last December, or that they want to keep increasing military spending. And they haven't come up with any serious cuts to entitlements.

"I think the Tea Party supporters were expecting real cuts, not this nonsense. We tried to warn Tea Party supporters last year that the Republicans were just trying to fool them again. It looks like we were right.

"Oh, I'm sure we'll hear Republicans say they're just getting started, and more cuts are coming...just not yet. But I hope the Tea Party supporters and other fiscal conservatives wake up and smell the deficits. Our children are going to drown in debt, and the Republicans aren't going to save them. Republicans are part of the problem, not the solution.

"Tea Party supporters and other fiscal conservatives should support Libertarians, not Republicans. Libertarians would make dramatic cuts in spending, and if angry Republicans and Democrats threatened to shut down the government instead, Libertarians would say 'Fine.'"

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, civil liberties, and peace. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party at our website.

Jon Stewart's Warning to Egypt

"Alright, Hosni. Now you've gone too far. Hands off Anderson Cooper. There is not to be a silvery wisp out of place on that man's glorious head."

–

Jon Stewart

In-Depth Political Analysis

"A spokesperson for Sen. John McCain said he won't meet Snooki this week even though she was in D.C. Do you really need to announce that you're not meeting with Snooki? That's like Obama going, 'Welcome to the State of the Union. I'd just like to let everyone know that I will not be having brunch with Amber from 'Teen Mom' tomorrow.'"

–Jimmy Fallon

How The Media Blew It Again- The Lessons We Should be Learning From Egyptian Crisis

By Wayne Allyn Root, Former Libertarian Vice Presidential Nominee and Chairman, Libertarian National Congressional Committee

The media has done it again. As usual, they’ve presented the wrong message to the American people about the Egyptian crisis and it’s not just because of the liberal bias of the U.S. media. It’s also because both the left and right have only one agenda: Sensationalizing the story to raise ratings. Their interest is creating the story that sells best, facts come second.

The media has chosen to sell the storyline told by the rioters and anarchists in the streets. They have chosen to interview only one side, those participating in these protests. But is that representative of the true storyline? Is there another side to the story? Of course there is.

I just got off the phone with a longtime friend- a successful Egyptian business leader. He believes that several hundred thousand people in the streets do not represent the 80 million citizens of Egypt. They represent anarchists, communists, and Islamic extremists- all with an agenda and axe to grind. He says if you polled the people of Egypt today, the majority would support Mubarak. He says that the backbone of Egypt- the business owners, small business community, and middle class still support Mubarak and the military. They are horrified by the mobs in the street and are shocked at Obama’s tepid response to the riots and the one-sided portrayal of the situation by the U.S. media.

In-Depth Political Analysis

"Vice President Joe Biden has suggested to people out of work to just 'hang in there.' What a difference two years makes: Remember 'hope and change'? Now it's 'hang in there.'"
Jay Leno

Political Lessons

"I don't know much about politics over there (in Egypt), but I heard they broke into their national museum and destroyed some mummies. The one thing I do know is that disturbing 2,000-year-old mummies is a terrible idea. If there's one thing Brendan Fraser has taught us, it's that."

Jimmy Kimmel

For My Facebook Friends.....

"The Egyptian protesters are using Facebook to get away from the police, but the police are using Farmville to build fences to keep the protesters in."

–Jay Leno

Great American Quotes

"One of the annoying things about believing in free will and individual responsibility is the difficulty of finding somebody to blame your problems on. And when you do find somebody, it's remarkable how often his picture turns up on your driver's license."

P.J. O'Rourke

Crime is Down, Calls for Service Up



Muir Boda

 As Mayor Ireton has pointed out, Part One crime is down in Salisbury and that is a good thing. Especially given the fact we had an interim Police Chief for most of the year in Ivan Barkley, who did an excellent job stepping up to the plate. What is interesting is the fact that calls for service were up 9.8% in 2010.


So far in January of 2011 SPD has over 3,500 calls for service and that is trending down from last January, which saw 4,600 calls for service. There are several things to take into consideration when crunching all these numbers. It does not include when someone files charges at the commissioners office. It does not include arrests made by other agencies in the city, including Salisbury University Police, whose 2010 statistics are not yet available.

When analyzing the gradual rise in crime over the past 10 years, we must not be satisfied until we can make drastic reductions. The current level of criminal activity is unacceptable and looking at SPD’s 10 year comparison will tell that story.

What we must understand is that we are talking about people’s lives, not numbers. Many are living in fear from what they see, hear and experience and that lingers much longer than the drop in crime rates. It will take time to change those perceptions and feelings. Working together, not against each other is the key.

Many of us are looking forward to what Mayor Ireton will put forth in the next phase of Safe Streets. If elected, I pledge to work with Mayor Ireton on his initiatives. We may not always agree on the details but we do agree that we want our Police Department to have the tools and direction they require as they combat crime in our city.

In the end, we all want Salisbury to be a better place to live, work and play for our family, friends and our future generations.


Muir Boda
Candidate for Salisbury City Council
http://www.boda4salisbury.com/

Authority: Muir Boda for Salisbury, Deborah Anderson, Treasurer

In-Depth Political Analysis

"John McCain and John Kerry naturally paired off as their other colleagues grew tired of their yearly tradition of reciting their own state of the union address under their breath."

–

Jon Stewart