Hey, guess what, they ARE for raising taxes

By Clifford F. Thies

During the election of 2008, I actually listened to Obama’s stump speech. Like a taxi cab driver, I put the meter down when he started talking and ran a running total of the cost of his promises. Free or reduced cost medical care, help with college tuition, affordable housing, new initiatives in Africa and elsewhere, climate change, on and on and on, 1 trillion dollars, 2 trillion dollars, 3 trillions dollars, etc. and etc., all to be paid for with a small increase in taxes on "the rich,” even while most people would be getting “a middle-class tax cut.”

The numbers never added up.

Now, in the face of the country’s second year of trillion dollar deficits, the Democrats are talking tax increases, starting with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, as well as every other tax break with an expiration date, higher income and payroll taxes, higher taxes on business (that will merely get built into the prices of the goods and services they sell), increased fees, and – the really big one – a national sales tax of something like 20 percent.

It’s not that Democrats “want” to raise taxes. It’s that the deficits are “unsustainable.” And, besides, it’s all Bush’s fault. The deficits, the bailouts, the cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the whole financial mess, it all began under Bush.

During the first seven years of the Bush administration, the ratio of debt-to-GDP remained constant. The addition to the debt was, thus, sustainable forever. To be sure, this is a retreat line from the traditional definition of a balanced budget, but it is a valid concept.

The budget would have met the traditional definition if not for the wars in Afganistan and Iraq. In real time, I supported the former and opposed the latter. But, what are Democrats raying? That 9-11 was Bush’s fault?

Because such things happen, fiscal policy should be calibrated so that, over the long haul, taking war years and peace years into account (as well as taking recession years and recovery years into account), there should be no upward trend of the ratio of debt-to-GDP.

Socialist policies delay Recovery; You'd think we would have learned that from FDR's Time

With regard to deficits associated with the crash of 2008 and following, some degree of deficit spending during a recession is good, in accordance with the principle I just expressed. The way the federal budget operates, tax revenues constitute an enormous “automatic stablizer.” During recessions, tax collections fall much more than GDP, and during recovery, they increase much more. Unemployment benefits are another automatic stabilizer. Payments increase during recessions and collections increase during recoveries.

BUT ... where is the recovery? Socialist policies forestall recovery. Indeed, raising taxes from already high levels make deficits worse because of what are called supply-side effects.

The ginormous stimulus packages and several extensions of unemployment insurance have thrown fiscal policy completely out of whack. While saying this started under Bush (as though the Congress was not Demoncratic at the time) may serve some partisan purpose. But, I am unconstrained by partisanship. Socialism under Herbert Hoover was bad, as well as under FDR. And, socialism under Bush was bad, as well as under Obama.

With regard to the even more ginormous but hidden debt implicit in our entitlement programs, I thought we had agreed not to concern ourselves about that? The time to have done something was under Clinton. And, we did something. Clinton appointed a commission, and it produced three minority reports, one for complete privatization (a la Chile), another for a government-managed private investment board (a la Singapore), and a third for funding the investment board only with U.S. Treasury securities, none of which was enacted. Instead, the pathetic U.S. Congress merely approved sending out an annual report detailing how much S.S. participatants "contributed" into the system.

Bush made partial privatation of S.S. a campaign issue in 2000 in order to get my vote, but, you know the old saying, fool me once shame on you. Now, with no viable way to save the U.S. from eventual default on its entitlement programs, there's a certain Janis Joplin-like freedom.

Nobody should care about the deficit. It's just re-arranging the chairs on the deck of the Titanic. And, nobody should agree to a tax increase. It just encourages the bastards.

From The Right Guy

By Jim Lagnese, Libertarian Republican Asst. Editor

In a turn of events, a sheriff's deputy was shot yesterday. Report from KTAR and the AP:

PHOENIX - A veteran sheriff's deputy was shot and wounded Friday after encountering a group of suspected illegal immigrants who apparently had been hauling bales of marijuana along a major smuggling corridor in the Arizona desert- a violent episode that comes amid a heated national debate over immigration.

I wonder if "Humble Libertarian" Wes Messamore thinks these are just hippie farmers? While LR Publisher Eric Dondero and AZ Libertarian candidate for Governor Bruce Olsen want to legalize marijuana, it's not the harmless trade they say it is, or purely attributed to "hippie farmers" that Wes attributes it to. I would also submit that an AK-47 is not a zip gun either.

This underscores the seriousness of the illegal alien problems in Arizona and elsewhere in this country. Not all of them are coming here carrying posies and daffodils, just wanting to cut your lawn or wet nurse your kids.

While I think that the drug war has criminalized a lot of people, too many, that were just users, will legalization really bring peace? Will these drug traffickers become legitimate businessmen overnight? Who regulates the industry? If the government does, then they get to pick winners and losers just like car companies and banks. How does that work from a libertarian perspective?

Obviously the drug problem and illegal alien problem are not one in the same. Solving each one requires different measures, but the two become intertwined due to the mechanism of trafficking both humans and drugs.

As I have said before, with illegals, make the penalty for hiring them so extraordinary that no one will want to take the chance and enforce it. Can you imagine the penalties on Tyson Foods alone? We could pay off the deficit.

As far as the drug trade goes, that is another issue. It is my opinion that there will always be addicts. You can get them to switch or trade their addictions, but they always will be addicts. Where should the effort go? Would the money spent to put users in prison be better spent on rehabbing them? Studies show that only 3-4% are successful in the first go around. May be 10-12% on the second. It can take at least 3-4 go arounds through rehab before people get it. And even then, what is the substitute? Hopefully something a little safer.

The drug war has been a failure. Part of it is because we are dealing with supporting countries that are poor and drugs are money. Part of it is the culture they come from accepts a much higher level of criminal activity and immoral behavior. JMO. They accept criminals as legitimate authority, so coming here illegally is not even a traffic ticket to them.

If we wanted to win the war on drugs, we could. We have the military and technological know how to remove it off the map, may be permanently. The consequences of doing so are equally as troubling. Nature abhors a vacuum. What will take the place economically and politically of the drug lords and that culture? Coffee doesn't make as much money as cocaine, pot and heroin, and the history of Central and South America is such that most legitimate business are controlled by local oligarchs and international companies. They do not have the opportunities we have here for the little guy to start a business and to be successful. Part of it is their culture and the US bears some responsibility for supporting these multinational corps an oligarchs who have in many cases feigned being democratic, and we have seen the results. As much as I eschew socialism, I can see why a lot of these people run towards it.

What's the solution? Very simplistically, the regular folk in those countries need to be able to create opportunities for themselves, there. It requires a cultural and political shift in the countries they live in, and how they get there is beyond the scope of this post. I will say running to people like Chavez, Morales, or even Fernandez de Kirchner is in the wrong direction. May be the solution is mass immigration into these countries by people whose ideals are more aligned with free market thinking. How do they get there(The locals to a democratic and free market society)? What do you think?

Thank you for reading this blog.

From Eric Dondero:

Vijay Kumar is a slightly unique candidate for Congress. He is a proud Immigrant to the United States. He was born in Hyderabad, India in 1954. Fittingly, he describes his parents and upbringing in India as "conservative."

He emigrated to the United States, because "he felt uplifted by the values and possibilities inherent in the American way of life." And he has lived up to those ideals, of hard work, entrepreneurialism, and running his own small business for more than 25 years in the Nasvhille, Tennessee area.

He's been quite active in TN Republican politics volunteering for numerous local campaigns. Now Kumar is run for Congress himself.

He may have the unique distinction of being the first politician in America who has been referred to as a "Geert Wilders Republican." The obvious reference is to the dynamic Dutch libertarian politician, famous throughout Western Europe for standing up to the rise of Radical Islam.

From an interview with Ruthfully Yours; The Right News, Front and Center, Interviewer Ali Syna:

SYNA: You are running for the United States Congress from the 5th Congressional District of the state of Tennessee. Obviously, as a conservative you are concerned about the deficit, the takeover of industry by the government, health care and other issues that concern every patriotic American. However, you have said that stopping the Islamization of America is your priority. I know only of one politician with a similar platform: Geert Wilders, the founder of Freedom Party in Holland.

KUMAR: The reason I believe that the Islamization of America should be the primary concern of Americans is that Islamic imperialism poses an existential threat to the United States, and, really, to all mankind.

America was conceived as a free constitutional republic that is of the people, by the people, and for the people. Islam was conceived as a totalitarian theocracy that is of Islam, by Islam, and for Islam. The Quran is the antithesis of the United States Constitution. They are polar opposites. They are diametrically opposed. I don’t say that as some Hegelian abstraction: I mean that these two documents are ideological opposites of each other in their most basic purposes and goals.

The purpose of our Constitution is to secure and guarantee to all people the greatest possible freedom. The purpose of Islam is for all people to submit to Islam, and only Islam—not just spiritually, but politically and secularly, in every aspect of law and life.

These two purposes could not possibly be in greater opposition.

Learn more about his candidacy at Kumarforcongress.com

From Eric Dondero:

As polls continuously show the chance of Republicans regaining the House Good to Very Good, light murmerings are beginning to emerge, who will take the House leadership positions for Speaker, Majority Leader, and key Committee Chairmanships.

But how will the emerging House GOP "Liberty Caucus" vote for leadership? The question is particularly pertinent considering that a large number of libertarian Republicans are expected to win congressional seats this year.

One GOP Congressional candidate, B.J. Lawson, endorsed by the Republican Liberty Caucus and a self-identified "libertarian Republican," has the answer.

From an Interview with Carolina Politics On-line:

6. Who is your choice for the next Speaker of the U.S. House?

Ron Paul (TX), Walter Jones (NC), Paul Ryan (WI), Jeff Flake (AZ) or Tom McClintock (CA) (roughly in order of seniority) would all be excellent House Speakers.

McClintock is a freshman. Being in his second term may be a bit too soon for such a vaunted position. However, Jeff Flake, now heading into his 4th term, has sufficient seniority and even made a brief play for a leadership position in '09 immediately following the elections.

Ron Paul could prove to be a divisive figure among GOP ranks because of his foreign policy views. He is unlikely to garner enough support to win anything outside of Banking Committee Chairman. However, if Republicans fail to gain a convincing majority, say, a 218 to 217 slender lead, Democrats who are sometimes favorable to Paul, could make a play to gain him the Speakership.

Stranger things have happened in the world of politics. Look at the Texas House Speakership battle in 2009, when moderate Democrats rallied behind the "more reasonable" Joe Straus, ironically often referred to as a "libertarian Republican." Straus had an upset win over strident conservative and longtime incument Speaker Rep. Tom Craddick.

Is this the face of a Radical Militant possible Homegrown Terrorist?

by R.S. McCain

Catherine Bleish is a 26-year-old libertarian who was a Ron Paul delegate to the 2008 Republican National Convention. She is a leader of the Liberty Restoration Project which, among other things, opposes the federal “War on Drugs” and denounces the Patriot Act as “an assault against the civil liberties of Americans.”

Perhaps you disagree with those views, but is Bleish dangerous?

The Southern Poverty Law Center seems to think so. In a special report called “Meet the ‘Patriots’” issued last week, the SPLC named Bleish as one of 35 people “at the heart of the resurgent movement.” The report — which also names WorldNetDaily publisher Joseph Farah and Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media — describes the movement thus:

“In the last year and a half, militias and the larger antigovernment ‘Patriot’ movement have exploded, accompanied by the rapid expansion of other sectors of the radical right. … [T]he so-called Patriots [are] people who generally believe that the federal government is an evil entity that is engaged in a secret conspiracy to impose martial law, herd those who resist into concentration camps, and force the United States into a socialistic ‘New World Order.’”

Quoting Goldwater - "Extremism in the Defense of Liberty" - may now get you on a List

The SPLC’s scary references to militias and conspiracies and a “resurgent movement” very much echo Bill Clinton’s recent conflation of the tea party with Timothy McVeigh and, like Clinton, the Montgomery, Ala.-based organization singled out Rep. Michelle Bachmann, calling her an “enabler” of the Patriot movement. Also labeled “enablers” by the SPLC were Glenn Beck and Andrew Napolitano of Fox News, as well as Ron Paul, the Texas congressman whose quixotic 2008 presidential campaign helped turn Bleish into a full-time political activist.

A graduate of the University of Missouri who majored in communications, Bleish says she has postponed her graduate studies — she aims to get a master’s degree in political science — to become involved in a variety of libertarian projects. She participated in the July 2008 “Revolution March” of Paul supporters in Washington, D.C., and attended a May 2009 conference in Jekyll Island, Ga., that also included several others named in the SPLC “Patriot” report. The SPLC says that “seminal” meeting — organized by libertarian activist Bob Schulz — “helped lay the groundwork for the resurgence of the [Patriot] movement.”

Bleish says she’s not sure why the SPLC — which typically monitors hate groups like the KKK and the Aryan Nations — is now targeting libertarians like herself.

“They’re indirectly associating people who aren’t violent and aren’t racist with violence and racism, and that’s unfortunate,” Bleish said in a telephone interview.

If Bleish is considered a “conspiracy theorist,” that’s probably because of her group “Operation: De-Fuse,” which depicts the Department of Homeland Security as part of a “police/surveillance state” that is “militarizing and federalizing our police forces.”

Bleish and others say that this isn’t conspiracy theory, but conspiracy reality. The name of Operation: De-Fuse is a reference the DHS “fusion centers” such as the Missouri Information Analysis Center, which issued a controversial 2009 report identifying Ron Paul supporters and pro-life activists (as well as fans of Rambo movies and Tom Clancy novels) as potential terrorists.

“Militia members most commonly associate with 3rd party political groups,” the MIAC report said. “It is not uncommon for militia members to display Constitutional Party, Campaign for Liberty or Libertarian material.”

If DHS is identifying third-party political movements as threats, is it irrational for supporters of those movements to consider the DHS a threat?

Editor's Note - Stacy McCain is a longtime friend of the Libertarian Party, and a self-described "Libertarian-Republican." His blog is The Other McCain. Photo above of Barry Goldwater, Jr. son of legendary Barry Goldwater.

Simply prevent the Force and Coercion

by Eric Dondero

Out of Europe comes a unique proposal to solve the growing cultural problem of Muslim women wearing full-length burqas in public. The predicament for libertarians has long been, how do you protect individual rights, but at the same time preserve a culture of tolerance? Forcing women to wear a covering from head-to-toe, and worse, even a full-facial covering over their eyes, is wholly oppressive and runs completely counter to the West's traditions of openess and women's rights.

Belgium is considering a Burqa Ban, and ironically it's a libertarian-leaning Party who is leading the charge.

Daniel Bacquelaine, a member of the Reformist Movement party, argued in the weeks before a government crisis in Belgium took everyone’s attention off the law he had proposed. “It is necessary that the law forbids the wearing of clothes that totally mask and enclose an individual. Wearing the burqa in public is not compatible with an open, liberal, tolerant society.”

The Reformist Movement party is “liberal” in the European sense, meaning pro-business, laissez-faire, somewhat libertarian. But Bacquelaine’s position doesn’t belong to the left or right in Europe; in fact the burqa ban has united Belgian politics like no other issue. Majorities from the Green Party to the far right, from the Francophone south to the Flemish-speaking north, agree with Bacquelaine that people can and should be fined for covering their face.

Belgium Parliament Member sparks the Debate

Bacquelaine gets it almost right. In fact, it's distressing how close he's come to the solution. He expresses the problem in brillantly libertarian terms. But misses the libertarian solution by a hair.

Rather, the solution was provided by a caller to a BBC program which was discussing the Belgium Burqa Ban.

From the BBC Talk Show episode, "Are Muslims under the atttack?":

"If that’s the case, instead of making the law against a particular item of clothing, why not make the law against anyone compelling women to wear, or not wear, whatever it is they choose?"

Quite brillant, as the Brits would say.

Rather than banning personal clothing and appearance, why not ban the act of forcing another individual to wear a certain type of clothing, or dress in a certain manner in public.

Obviously, the target of the law would be Muslim immigrant men from the Middle East who force their wives to wear the burqa and the hijab.

But in practice it could apply to anyone, for example, a Skinhead boyfriend forcing his girlfriend to wear NeoFascist attire to a protest or rally.

Such a law could find acceptance from all points of the political spectrum.

Columnist Michael Scott Moore of Miller-McCune, Smart Journalism writes simply:

The logic is hard to refute; less enforceable laws have been passed in Western societies.

Photo Belgium Member of Parliament Daniel Bacquelaine.

Major Campaign Gaffe' by UK Prime Minister

Gordon Brown made a campaign stop to a middle-class neighborhood near Manchester Piccadilly, to meet with constituents.

According to the BBC:

Gillian Duffy, 65, had challenged him on issues including immigration.

As he got into his car, he was still wearing a broadcast microphone and was heard to say "that was a disaster".

Duffy also challenged him on welfare and government spending, saying at one point "it's crap," referring to how long people are permitted to stay on the government dole.

Continuing from the BBC:

As he went to get into his car, Mr Brown told her: "Very nice to meet you, very nice to meet you."

But off camera, and not realising he still had a Sky News microphone pinned to his shirt, he was heard to tell an aide: "That was a disaster - they should never have put me with that woman. Whose idea was that? It's just ridiculous..."

Asked what she had said, he is heard to reply: "Ugh everything! She's just a sort of bigoted woman that said she used to be Labour. I mean it's just ridiculous. I don't know why Sue brought her up towards me."

Brown has since spent the entire afternoon apologizing profusely, to Ms. Duffy, her family, and in statements to the media. But the Manchester retiree and proud grandmother, was not having anything of it. Continuing:

"I'm very upset. He's an educated person. Why has he come out with words like that?

"He's supposed to be leading the country and he's calling an ordinary woman who's come up and asked questions that most people would ask him... It's going to be tax, tax, tax for another 20 years to get out of this national debt, and he's calling me a bigot."

Post Immigration Bill signing bounce

Poll from Public Policy Polling last week (via Hedgehog):

GOVERNOR – ARIZONA (PPP)
Terry Goddard (D) 47%
Jan Brewer (R-inc) 44%

Poll from Rasmussen released last night:

GOVERNOR - ARIZONA (RASMUSSEN)
Jan Brewer (R-inc) 48%
Terry Goddard (D) 40%

Comments Rasmussen:

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely voters in the state shows that 56% now approve of the way Brewer is performing her role as governor. Two weeks ago, just 40% offered their approval.

Brewer's opposition to ObamaCare also helping

Continuing:

This is the second big issue in two months to boost Brewer’s prospects for being elected to her own full-term in office. In March, Brewer trailed Goddard by nine percentage points. Then, after passage of the federal health care law, Goddard refused to file a lawsuit against the federal government challenging the constitutionality of the law. Brewer found a way around that objection, and Arizona joined other states in the legal challenge. After that, Brewer’s numbers improved to a slight advantage over Goddard.

Arizona's actions completely Constitutional

by JB Williams

The term “naturalization” appears in the US Constitution, under Article I – Section VIII – Clause IV – which assigns the federal government via the Legislative Branch, the power – “To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization;” – a legal means and method by which immigrants can gain access to U.S. citizenship via an organized and controlled naturalization process.

In Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 [1976] the US Supreme Court issued a ruling stating that the power of the federal government to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization implies the federal power to regulate immigration.

As we know, federal immigration and naturalization laws exist in the United States, providing immigrants a legal means and method by which to become a citizen of the United States. Entering the U.S. without the expressed permission of the U.S. has at all times in modern history, been a “crime.” This crime has at all times had specific penalties attached, under both federal and state laws.

The INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) exists for the sole purpose of helping immigrants enter the U.S. legally. ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) exists for the sole purpose of enforcing U.S. immigration, naturalization and customs laws.

Without secure borders and the right to control our borders, the United States cannot be a “sovereign nation.” All sovereign nations have geographical borders and the right to control who enters the nation, by what means, and penalize those who enter illegally.

Immigrants need to respect our Laws

I believe most “illegal immigrants” to be decent, hard working people, simply seeking the many benefits of life in the land of milk and honey. Had they entered our country legally, most would be quite welcome here, as many of them make better American citizens than some legal citizens.

Personally, I’d support keeping all twenty-million illegal Mexicans if we could deport twenty-million whiny Democratic Socialists like Obama, Pelosi and Reid in exchange. Can I get someone to second this motion - please?

But that’s not the options before us as a nation. I wish it were… Our options are to enforce or forget our borders. There is no in-between… We don’t let bank robbers go just because we didn’t get around to arresting them until their tenth bank robbery. They will be held accountable for all ten robberies.

Feds and INS ignoring their responsibilities

In recent years, federal enforcement of existing laws has been half-hearted at best. INS and ICE do indeed search for, capture, detain and deport people who enter the U.S. illegally. However, they have not done so consistently, effectively or with any vigor.

As a result, we now find that our nation has a severe illegal immigrant problem with an estimated twenty-million “undocumented immigrants” living and working in the U.S. illegally. This means that we have an estimated twenty-million “criminal invaders” living among us

States Rights and Responsibilities

What are the states supposed to do when the federal government fails? Go down with the ship?

Arizona is a border state with a unique stake in the matter of illegal immigration. They have waited for decades for the federal government to enforce federal immigration laws and the federal government clearly has no intention of doing so. In fact, the federal government intends to challenge Arizona’s right to secure their own southern border, asserting that illegal immigration is some type of new civil right.

Since Mexican President Calderón has already issued a travel warning to citizens of Mexico, I’d day that the new Arizona law is already working, before even going into effect. That was its purpose, right? To put Mexico on notice that its citizens could no longer flood across the Arizona border - trafficking drugs, murder and mayhem into the United States, as if illegal activity is some kind of bizarre civil right in America…

Illegal Immigration breaking State Budgets

The problems related to illegal immigration once only affected border states. The State of California is bankrupt mostly due to the largest population of illegal immigrants in the nation and the high cost of caring for those illegals on the taxpayer’s dime. If it weren’t for federal funding and loans, California would already be a third world country in complete anarchy, most likely fenced off from the rest of the nation.

Today, illegal immigration is bankrupting states across the country, including non-border states like Georgia, which has already announced that it will follow Arizona’s lead on illegal immigration reform. I’m sure other states will follow suit over the coming days and weeks.

The simple fact is - the federal government has failed horrifically in the matter of illegal immigration and the states do not have to sit on their hands and pay the price of that failure. They have the power, the right and a responsibility to their legal citizens, to address the problem.

At the end of the day, if the states fail to do what the federal government should but won’t do, then the people will have the right to do it themselves. I don’t think that’s how we want to resolve this problem… do you?

by Denise Clark

We've heard the stories. Muslim women (usually of Middle Eastern descent) being killed for disgracing their family "honor". The reasons for these "honor killings" have ranged from befriending boys (the nerve!) to being too westernized, and the number of women around the globe falling victim to this neanderthal mentality continues to increase.

In order to avoid the possible death penalty for not remaining a virgin until marriage, the BBC is reporting that many women are keeping their sex lives a secret and opting for a procedure known as 'hymenoplasty', a procedure where the hymen is reconnected to restore virginity and ensure blood being spilled on the marital sheets. The cost of the procedure is approximately 2,000 Euros and is done by Dr. Marc Abecassis, an Arab doctor practicing in Paris.

Dr. Abecassis has performed the procedure in some cases because a woman needs a certificate of virginity to marry. His average patient for the procedure is approximately 25 years old and from any social background. He adds:

"She can be in danger because sometimes it's a matter of traditions and family," says Dr Abecassis. "I believe we as doctors have no right to decide for her or judge her."

Thank Heaven that there are Arab men out there who have recognized the rights of women in that culture to live their lives without judgment. He's most likely in the minority. Noor, a young professional from Damascus, has another opinion.

"I know girls who went through this restoration and they were caught out on their wedding night by their husbands," he says. "They realised they weren't virgins. Even if society accepts such a thing, I would still refuse to marry her."

Those women are better off because of your opinion, pal. You're doing them a favor by choosing not to marry them, you troglodyte.

What is it going to take for the world to acknowledge a whole underclass of women who live in fear of their lives because of a mentality that pre-dates the dinosaurs? How many more women have to attempt or commit suicide because they feel that it's their only way out of being tortured to death in the name of "honor"? And how many more women have to live with the fear that they may be found out?

Until the world starts to speak out for these women who defy custom and Sharia Law, look for the numbers to increase.

Denise's blog is the Right Stuff.

State Chair Sam Goldstein offers his observations of the recent State Convention of the Libertarian Party of Indiana, highlighting elements of the event that made it among the most successful the organization has ever staged.
Sam referenced radio ads produced for the Mike Wherry campaign for Secretary of State during the convention. A 30-second ad is [...]

Trampling on Americans' Rights to Peaceful Protest

Obama visited Quincy, Illinois yesterday for a campaign visit for local Democrats, including endangered Democrat Congressman Phil Hare.

Local Tea Party activists turned out to protest recently enacted Health Care and Over-taxation. The local Democrat Mayor of Quincy called out the SWAT Team to block the protesters, even though Tea Partiers stayed on the other side of the seat. Peaceful Tea Partiers broke out into patriotic songs, including God Bless America.

The Libertarian Party of Indiana held its annual convention in Indianapolis this past weekend, April 23, 24 and 25. The Libertarian Party of Indiana selected its candidates for federal and state seats. Being Indiana’s only third-party, the LPIN does not participate in the primary system. It holds nominating conventions to elect candidates.
The convention selected Mike [...]

This is Wes Messamore writing again, and I am thrilled to unveil LibertarianRepublican.net- the second generation to Eric Dondero's classic website. Sleek, smooth, clean, professional, and easy to navigate, with your help LibertarianRepublican.net is well-positioned to take the conservative, libertarian-leaning, and overall-political blogosphere by storm!

Eric and the team here are committed to providing you with ever-expanding, ever-improving, cutting-edge independent journalism, and he decided it was about time to seamlessly transition into a website that was up to the task.

Promote

Please help us promote the new site and share LibertarianRepublican.net with just one or two friends or co-workers- people you know will be interested in the information this site has to offer. If you're a blogger, please grab a badge from the sidebar to the right and place it on your page. It doesn't have to be permanent, just one week or even a couple days would help our cause out incredibly much!

Subscribe

Last of all, if you haven't already, please put your e-mail address in the field above and to the right, then hit "Subscribe." This will deliver LibertarianRepublican.net straight to your inbox every evening with summaries and links to all the articles from that day.

Are you willing to stand with Eric?

If every person reading this takes just one of the actions above, it will help LibertarianRepublican.net spread virally! So pick your favorite one and go for it! Shoot out a quick email to a couple friends, grab a badge for your blog for just a week, or subscribe to Eric's e-mail updates.

Thanks so very much!
Wes Messamore
Web Developer, brander, blogging consultant

PS: I've been talking with Eric, and he has some extremely great content planned for the rest of this week, which is incredible, considering how much other work he's doing right now to advance the movement for liberty.

---

Wesley Messamore is available for hire to optimize, brand, and market your blog better. Email him here. Also: check out one of his other successes: LeftCoastRebel.com

by Clifford F. Thies

Last year, the Obama administration was claiming credit for “slowing down the rate of job loss.” This year, it is striving for “a soft landing.” This is not a good metaphor. It creates the image of an economy whose descent has reached terminal velocity, like a skydiver whose parachute has failed, who – upon reaching terminal velocity – attempts to survive impact by achieving a soft landing.

In other metaphors that were attempted last year, we were looking for a “V”-shaped recovery as opposed to a “U”-shaped one. In a “V”-shaped recovery, the economy falls hard, and then recovers sharply. The last time we had a “V”-shaped recovery was when Ronald Reagan was President. That recovery resulted in Reagan’s landside re-election in 1984. In a “U”-shaped recovery, the economy lingers in recession for a while before beginning to recover. But, in 2009, we got neither a “V”-shaped nor a “U”-shaped recovery. Instead, we got an “L”-shaped economy. Now, with softening demand and the risk of inflation, we face the prospect of a “W”-shaped economy, sometimes characterized as a “double-dip” recession.

Also in 2009, Congress passed the trillion dollar “stimulus package” requested by the administration. This was one of a series of trillion dollar deals, including bail-outs for government agencies and private-sector financial institutions, for those behind on their mortgages and their student loans, cash for clunkers, leave no public school teacher behind, the umpteenth extension of unemployment benefits, etc., etc. These trillion dollar deals were supposed to prevent the unemployment rate from reaching 8 percent (oh my!). And, instead of the unemployment rate reaching 8 percent (oh my!), it reached 10 percent.

The “stimulus package,” I suppose, was not supposed to work like Viagra: you know, relatively quickly. Instead, it’s supposed to work like Cialis: “when the moment is right.”

Thus, the search for the right metaphor continues. Richard Nixon dealt with “inflation psychology.” Gerald Ford with “stagflation.” Jimmy Carter, “malaise.” What metaphor will characterize the economic woes of the current administration? How about the “Giant Slalom Economy,” where the economy weaves back and forth while on a downhill slide? Or, the “Chinese Water Torture Economy,” where the steady trickle of bad news turns everybody so fatalistically pessimistic that nobody is willing to invest in a new or expanding business? Or, the “Down is Up Economy,” where, after a while, double-digit unemployment becomes normal. With a “Down is Up Economy,” President Obama could be viewed as a Great President, like Franklin D. Roosevelt who demonstrated leadership during an eight-year period, from 1933 to 1941, when the unemployment rate continued above 10 percent.

If a “Down is Up Economy” seems far-fetched, simply recall the “Up is Down Economy” of 2006. Back then, the Democrats were calling an economy with only 5 percent unemployment and with no inflation, “the worst economy since the Great Depression.” That year, the Democrats took over the Congress and two years later the White House as well.

Dr. Thies is the Eldon R. Lindsay Chair of Free Enterprise & Professor of Economics and Finance, Shenandoah University, Virginia

MOVEMENT NEWS

Independent Political Report first broke the news...

The Libertarian Party will hold its National Convention in St. Louis in late May. Wayne Root is a candidate for the Party's Chairmanship.

Statement by Dr. John Hospers from (IPR):

In these precarious times, with the future of freedom, liberty and America herself hanging in the balance by the barest of threads held in the hands of self-serving enemies and traitors of this nation – I hear the voice of hope, and that of a patriot in the person of Wayne Allyn Root.

My steady support for Mr. Root’s political positions and ambitions are reinforced each time I hear him speak or read his commentaries, editorials and writings. Root’s words ring with truth, reflecting the values of libertarianism the political philosophy, as well as the well-defined original Libertarian Party principles, of which I am proud to say I helped craft long ago.

Hospers went on to comment about Root's views on National Defense:

A prime reason I’m confident in Root as compared to others seeking the office is because Root is a consistent, telegenic presence on the airwaves – where he clearly states principles with which I strongly agree. While others profess views in the name of libertarianism that ring of anarchy and other radical positions that would be suicidal for America at this time, Root is practical in his thinking. He’s not one of those who practice ‘ostrich’ politics by sticking his head in the ground on issues involving our national security in the face of dire threats from abroad.

Hospers then goes on to give a warning of sorts to the Libertarian Party membership. Continuing:

I fear the LP is running out of time. The irrational want to keep the party small so they may appear to be ‘big fish’. Between now and 2012, the LP can gain power. People want smaller government and those governing they know they can trust.

This is why I urge all right-thinking LP members to join me in giving the strongest support possible to Wayne Allyn Root, a high profile, dynamic, pragmatic voice for economic and personal freedom so desperately needed by the LP and USA.

Note - Dr. Hospers was the first Libertarian Party presidential candidate appearing with running mate Toni Nathan on two state ballots in 1972, Washington and Colorado, and as a write-in in New York, California and a number of other states. The Hospers/Nathan ticket received 1 Electoral vote. He is Professor Emeritus, USC School of Philosophy, and makes his home in Southern California.

From Eric Dondero:

The next British Prime Minister could very well be a Conservative who has an affinity for libertarian values.

The UK Guardian has a lengthy profile piece of Conservative Party standardbearer, and frontrunner to be the next Prime Minister, David Cameron. Deep in the piece there's a reference to a recent Cameron quote.

"I am an instinctive libertarian who abhors state prohibitions and tends to be sceptical of most government action," Cameron wrote in a diary for the Guardian.

And this related news from the Daily Telegraph via Freedom Association:

David Cameron today has attempted to promote the libertarian ideal of individualism in the education system by empowering the public to set up schools. Cameron spoke out against the growing state bureaucracy in the education sector.

"Mr Cameron said the idea that the bureaucrats knew what was best was "rubbish".

He added: "We should be trusting local parents and we should be breaking open the state monopoly and saying if you want to set up a great new school, if you want to provide great state education 'come on in'."

London Mayor Boris Johnson (photo with Cameron), a self-described "libertarian" is a close friend to Cameron. Johnson is regarded as the unofficial leader of the Tory's libertarian wing.

Tea Party founder Eric Odom a "confused Libertarian-Republican"

by Eric Dondero

How nice that the student newspaper of one of the most liberal college campuses in America, is now out to protect the integrity of the Republican Party from the "evil" Tea Partiers.

Excerpt from Nafees A. Syed, Harvard Crimson, "Runaway Party
Tea Parties pose a revolutionary danger to the GOP":

most of the “Tea Party patriots” are staunch Republicans. However, the Republican Party would do well to steer clear of this extreme, disordered group.

What is sometimes called the “Taxed Enough Already” Party poses the danger of offering a slightly more libertarian alternative to the Republican Party. The Tea Partiers delve into strange territory with their discussions on the constitutionality of government, among other things. Their oft-regarded founder, Eric Odom, is a confused Libertarian-Republican, and his party followers seem to be the same. He has re-joined the Republican Party, it seems, only because it is currently the best avenue for the Tea Party’s cause; the Tea Parties are hardly a loyal branch or even ally for the Republicans.

Odom (photo at a recent Tea Party rally) is a former member of the Libertarian Party of Illinois. He has also been active with the Sam Adams Alliance and Americans for Limited Government.

Challenge good moderate Republicans in GOP primaries? How dare they!

Syed goes on to express shock! that Odom would dare challenge entrenched Republicans in party primaries.

In fact, Odom’s party is willing to contest the seats of current Republicans, including, it seems, Senator John S. McCain (R-Ariz.), the 2008 Republican presidential candidate and one of the most prominent and respected members of the Grand Old Party.

And she goes on to chide RNC Chairman Michael Steele for lending support to the Tea Party.

Because of the party’s hostility toward mainstream Republicans, it comes as a surprise to me that Republican Party Chairman Michael S. Steele has called himself a member along with prominent Republicans like Republican House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and former Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt L. Gingrich. Perhaps this is because the party is, at least, united with the Republican Party in their criticism of Congressional Democrats, big spending, and most importantly, President Obama.

Tea Party supporters actually call Barack Hussein Obama a "Socialist!"

Finally, Syed questions why anyone would consider Obama a "Socialist"?

Calling the president of the United States a socialist is the type of extreme language the Republican Party needs to disassociate itself from, and using similarly harsh language toward Republicans in office or the idea of government altogether is certainly not conducive to a GOP electoral victory this fall.

A skeptic might conclude that the ultra-liberal college media might have an ulterior motive; like, pushing the GOP to the squishy middle, so as to help the Party lose votes in November? Beware of liberals expressing concern for the GOP, and a longing for the days of a "responsible Republican Party."

Notably, Nafees A. Syed, is a junior at Harvard University majoring in government. She is an editorial editor at The Harvard Crimson as well as a senior editor and columnist for the Harvard-MIT journal on Islam and society, Ascent. She writes for the radical Muslim publication MuslimMatters.org. She is also an occasional contributor to liberal news network CNN.com. On Feb. 3, 2010, she wrote a column on CNN "Flying while Muslim," advocating that Muslim women should not have to remove their hijabs to comply with airport security measures. Syed is a hijab wearer. She is chairwoman of the pro-affirmative action quotas Harvard Institute of Politics Policy Group on Racial Profiling.

The Choice: Liberty vs. Serfdom

Josiah Schmidt of Rightosphere has an interview with Stephen Baily, candidate for US Congress - Colorado CD 2. He is running for the GOP nomination. If he's successful, in the fall, he'll face Democrat incumbent Rep. Jared Polis.

During the interview Baily first talked of his reasons for running, and evokes a Hayekian ideal, from "The Road to Serfdom":

At the national level, the election of Obama and strong majorities of progressive Democrats in Congress has created a direct and immediate threat to our liberties and the U.S. Constitution. I received great personal motivation from the numbers and principles of Tea Party and 9-12 participants who also value freedom and constitutionally-limited government.

At the level of our congressional district, we are represented by a progressive socialist — Jared Polis. The objectives that Mr. Polis seeks are detrimental to our country and our freedoms. The people of the 2nd Congressional District deserve a choice between Mr. Polis who will use the power of the government to initiate force against its citizens and someone who reserves governmental power for use in retaliation against those who initiate force and violate the rights of others. That is, a choice between Liberty and Serfdom.

Randian Hero fighting against the Statist Machine

Later in the interview he gives a lengthy list of free market economists and philosophers as his inspirations:

I am the only candidate in this race that understands that the proper and moral purpose of government is the protection of our individual rights as Thomas Jefferson stated in the Declaration of Independence. In support of moral government and our rights, I will work to restore constitutionally limited government, reduce government spending to functions that protect our rights, reduce taxes to the minimum necessary to support these government functions and eliminate the regulatory state...

I subsequently refined my political ideology through reading the works of Ayn Rand and free-market oriented and classic liberal academics such as Milton Friedman, von Mises, Hazlett, Ridpath, Reisman, Binswanger and Peikoff in the areas of economics, philosophy and politics. I subscribed to the Wall Street Journal while taking an economics class in my early 20’s and have been a continuous subscriber since.

Baily is a Veteran of the US Air Force and an Engineer.

Still an undeclared candidate, Dino Rossi has a double-digit lead over ultra-liberal Democrat incumbent Patty Murray.

This is a Democrat-held seat that is not identified as lean Republican, or even toss-up, by any political predicters.

From Survey USA (via Hedgehog):

US SENATE – WASHINGTON STATE (Survey USA)
Dino Rossi (R) 52%
Patty Murray (D-inc) 42%

Of particular interest to Libertarian Republicans, the poll also found that Dr. Art Coday is within 4 points of Murray.

Patty Murray (D-inc) 45%
Art Coday (R) 41%

Coday is a free marketeer health care reform advocate. His media coordinator for his campaign, is Steve Beren, libertarian-conservative former congressional candidate (Seattle against Jim McDermott), and a friend of Libertarian Republican blog.

Sean Trende of Real Clear Politics says the following:

The more I look over these numbers, the more I'm struck by how bad they are for Murray. She gets clobbered by Rossi, who has run two statewide elections in the last five years, losing by ten points.

But even if Rossi doesn't run, she's stuck at around 45% against the rest of the field... These are the type of candidates who should be pulling 30% against even an unpopular three-term Senator right now, not running neck-and-neck with her.