FROM THE EDITOR: Libertarian Republican was fortunate to have the opportunity to interview Dan Quinn, Communications Director, Texas Freedom Network on the recent Textbook controversy concerning the Texas Board of Education. We appreciate Mr. Quinn taking the time to answer these important questions that greatly affect liberals, conservatives and libertarians.

LIBERTARIAN REPUBLICAN: Mr. Quinn, Texas Board of Education members are disputing your assertion that Jefferson was removed from history textbooks. Gail Lowe and Cynthia Duncan have said in national interveiws that what actually happened is that discussion of TJ was moved from the Enlightenment period to the American Revolution. Do you care to dispute that fact?

DAN QUINN: We haven't asserted that the board removed Jefferson from history books. From our live-blogging of the meeting on March 11:

TFNInsider.org

9:27 – The board is taking up remaining amendments on the high school world history course

9:30 – Board member Cynthia Dunbar wants to change a standard having students study the impact of Enlightenment ideas on political revolutions from 1750 to the present. She wants to drop the reference to Enlightenment ideas (replacing with “the writings of”) and to Thomas Jefferson. She adds Thomas Aquinas and others. Jefferson ’s ideas, she argues, were based on other political philosophers listed in the standards. We don’t buy her argument at all. Board member Bob Craig of Lubbock points out that the curriculum writers clearly wanted to students to study Enlightenment ideas and Jefferson . Could Dunbar’s problem be that Jefferson was a Deist? The board approves the amendment, taking Thomas Jefferson OUT of the world history standards

9:40 – We’re just picking ourselves up off the floor. The board’s far-right faction has spent months now proclaiming the importance of emphasizing America ’s exceptionalism in social studies classrooms. But today they voted to remove one of the greatest of America ’s Founders, Thomas Jefferson, from a standard about the influence of great political philosophers on political revolutions from 1750 to today

9:45 – Here’s the amendment Dunbar changed: “explain the impact of Enlightenment ideas from John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Voltaire, Charles de Montesquieu, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Thomas Jefferson on political revolutions from 1750 to the present.” Here’s Dunbar ’s replacement standard, which passed: “explain the impact of the writings of John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Voltaire, Charles de Montesquieu, Jean Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and Sir William Blackstone.” Not only does Dunbar ’s amendment completely change the thrust of the standard. It also appalling drops one of the most influential political philosophers in American history — Thomas Jefferson.

From our March 12 press release:

TFN.org

"Even as board members continued to demand that students learn about "American exceptionalism," the board stripped Thomas Jefferson from a world history standard about the influence of Enlightenment thinkers on political revolutions from the 1700s to today. In Jefferson 's place, the board's religious conservatives succeeded in inserting Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin. They also removed the reference to "Enlightenment ideas" in the standard, requiring that students should simply learn about the influence of the "writings" of various thinkers (including Calvin and Aquinas)."

We repeated that paragraph in a March 13 blog post summarizing the worst changes the board made:

TFNinsider.org

And if you check our other blog entries, you will note that we have been careful to explain that Jefferson was deleted from that world history standard, not from the "history books."

LIBERTARIAN REPUBLICAN: Mr. Quinn, as you probably know, Thomas Jefferson is a great hero to libertarians. Initially, we libertarians were quite concerned that conservatives were reported to have removed him from history textbooks. In fact, many of us were outraged. But after learning the truth of the matter, our outrage turned to liberal bloggers who initially mis-reported the story. Could you clarify for us the origination of reports that Jefferson had been removed from history textbooks? Did TPM and other liberal bloggers just miscontrue the facts, or were they purposely trying to split libertarians from conservatives by spinning the news?

DAN QUINN: If others have misreported what happened, you'll have to talk with them. But keep in mind that other bloggers were not at the meeting and in many cases were relying on possibly imprecise reports from elsewhere -- much as conservative bloggers were reacting to false reports last year that Christmas had been taken out of social studies textbooks in Texas . Sadly, some people are permitting Lowe and Dunbar to distract them with a red herring. This isn't a contest about how many times Jefferson is listed in the standards, whether those references are in American history or elsewhere. The question is why board members don’t want students to learn that Jefferson, who argued (among other things) that a "wall of separation between church and state" as essential to freedom, was an influential Enlightenment thinker who inspired people around the world struggling for freedom. Moreover, why did the board change the thrust of the standard altogether by removing even the reference to the Enlightenment and replacing Jefferson with Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and William Blackstone? We have been monitoring this board for 15 years, and the answers to those questions are certainly no mystery to us. This board is controlled by a faction that is hostile to the separation of church and state. In fact, during the same meeting they rejected a proposed standard that would have required students to “examine the reasons the Founding Fathers protected religious freedom in America by barring government from promoting or disfavoring any particular religion over all others.” The board knew that removing other references to Jefferson would be politically impossible. But removing him from a standard about the influence of his ideas on people struggling for freedom around the world, they thought, would be easier. Moreover, it doesn't surprise us in the least that this board would want to water down the influence of Enlightenment thinking on political revolutions from the 1700s to the present. Enlightenment philosophies run counter to their own worldview.

LIBERTARIAN REPUBLICAN: As you're probably aware, a great many libertarians are Darwinists, even Social Darwinists, and are not comfortable with some of the more extreme elements of the Religious Right. We are concerned that some religious conservatives might seek to give parity to Darwinism with theories based on a Creationist view. However, given the misreporting of the Jefferson story, and the misinformation put out by liberal groups based mainly in Austin , how should libertarians trust such reports in the future?

DAN QUINN: As in all things in life, choose your sources carefully, and be particularly wary of politicians spinning wildly in an attempt to justify the indefensible. I note that you mention Talking Points Memo specifically. This is what TPM reported:

TPMMuckracker.talkingpointsmemo.com

“According to TFN: ‘the board stripped Thomas Jefferson from a world history standard about the influence of Enlightenment thinkers on political revolutions from the 1700s to today. In Jefferson 's place, the board's religious conservatives succeeded in inserting Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin. They also removed the reference to 'Enlightenment ideas' in the standard, requiring that students should simply learn about the influence of the 'writings' of various thinkers (including Calvin and Aquinas).”

You didn’t mention Huffington Post, but they reported essentially the same thing, linking back to our blog:

HuffingtonPost.com

Part of the problem here is that Lowe, Dunbar and their supporters want everyone to believe that the bulk of the reporting on what they did has been inaccurate. In fact, much of it hasn’t been. But it serves them to suggest that the reporting has been inaccurate because then bloggers will challenge their critics for supposedly being untruthful. On this point, I highly recommend the following piece:

http://www.texastribune.org

In short, trusting what you hear from these state board members is perilous.

Regarding science, this board did, in fact, insert creationist/"intelligent design" arguments into our science standards last year in an attempt to challenge the validity of evolutionary theory. One such argument has students study whether the fossil record supports evolutionary theory. The other has students study the complexity of the cell to decide whether natural selection could account for changes in the development and diversity of life. Both are textbook creationist/"intelligent design" arguments ("gaps in the fossil record," "irreducible complexity").

LIBERTARIAN REPUBLICAN: Thank you very much for your time Mr. Quinn.

Howard Fineman of NewsWeek offers a stunning assessment of Democrats chances for Congress: After surveying the latest polls on Health Care, Fineman finds that the Dems may be in for spectacular losses in November.

From NewsWeek "The numbers don't lie":

On the day the president signed into law the "fix-it" addendum to the massive health-care measure, two new polls show just how fearful and skeptical Americans are about the entire enterprise. If the numbers stay where they are—and it's not clear why they will change much between now and November—then the Democrats really are in danger of colossal losses at the polls.

The first week of salesmanship by the Democrats and the president hasn't done any good. According to the new Rasmussen poll, only 41 percent of Americans think the law is "good for the country," compared with 50 percent who see it as "bad for the country." Last week the ratio was 41–49 percent. Sixty percent think the measure is "likely to increase the deficit"—also a figure unchanged from last week.

In Gallup's new poll... Americans think the law will harm the U.S. economy (44–34 percent), the overall quality of health care in the U.S. (55–29 percent), and the federal balance sheet (61–23 percent).

Fineman also quotes an un-named Democratic Senator who called the bill "political folly."

(H/t Memeo)

Republicans who defend SS risk losing votes to Libertarian, Tea Party

From Eric Dondero:

While mainline Republicans are defending Medicare and Social Security, a growing number of disaffected Tea Party Patriots and Libertarians are saying "hold on a minute!" We actually do want to abolish the program, or at the very least privatize it through a gradualist approach.

The Libertarian Party, which originated the Tea Party protests in 2008, has long advocated abolishment of Social Security.

From the LP Platform:

Retirement planning is the responsibility of the individual, not the government. We favor replacing the current government-sponsored Social Security system with a private voluntary system. The proper source of help for the poor is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.

On Monday night, 2008 Libertarian Vice-Presidential candidate, and potential 2012 LP Presidential standardbearer Wayne Root appeared on Larry King. He was joined by local St. Louis Tea Party leader Dana Loesch, who has increasingly become a media spokesman for the nationwide Tea Party movement.

Partial transcript from YouTube video:

KING: We had to pay Social Security. That was a socialist concept. Republicans voted against it at the time.

LOESCH: Oh, I agree. Yeah.

KING: Would anyone turn away Social Security now? Would you do away with it?

LOESCH: I would, yeah.

KING: Would you do away with it?

LOESCH: Yes.

KING: Would you do away with it Wayne?

ROOT: Well, I'd certainly like to. At best I'd do away with it, cause I could find better ways to save and invest my own $15,000 a year... If you put it up for a vote today a majority would want to keep it, but they'd certainly want to privatize a small portion of it... I think I can do better with my $15,000 a year, and I'd like it to be mine. It's mine.

Mainline Republicans who continue to defend failed government entitlement programs risk losing votes to Libertarian Party candidates in 2010. A loss of 3 to 4% in a close Congressional race for instance, to a Libertarian candidate who is advocating privatization, could prove disastrous to many GOP campaigns.

Voters!
You must step back and look at the big picture.
You must look at the actions and not the words of our current one party political system.
The big picture is that both the Republicans and Democrats mean to grow government and control your lives in ways that were unimaginable even 20 years ago.  They are now [...]

NEW VIDEO FROM THE NRSC

"The sky will open. The light will come down. Celestial choirs will be singing..." -- fmr. Obama critic, turned supporter

Judge Andrew Napalitano discusses why the Federal government cannot direct State-raised tax dollars, and why this is a power grab by the Federal government.
This video was embedded using the YouTuber plugin by Roy Tanck. Adobe Flash Player is required to view the video.

SPECIAL GUEST EDITORIAL

by Mike Zeldis, fmr. State Treasurer, Libertarian Party of California

I have been a Libertarian for over 30 years and many years ago was the CA Libertarian Party Treasurer.

I am also a big supporter of Palin for reasons to be explained below.

These are very dangerous times for America. Obama is an extremely dangerous person for all those who believe in America and the principles on which it was founded.

It is my opinion that Obama is a front for George Soros who wants to establish a one-world government dominated by left wing socialist thinkers and policies. You can check the Net to find the Soros-Obama links including moveon.org.

Please view these videos at the link of EU proceedings.

It seems to me that Soros is using Obama to try and take away America's sovereignty. He is trying to do this by having Obama explode the deficit which as we know will lead to hyper inflation and the crash of the U.S. dollar. Remember how Soros made hundreds of millions if not billions as a direct result of his destruction of the British pound. At that point Obama and his administration will push for America to give up the U.S. dollar and accept a one-world currency which could initially be the Euro. Soros tried this with Great Britain but so far has not succeeded. The next step would be to replace the U.S. Constitution, not that the Democrats or even Republicans adhere to it, with the EU Constitution as the governing law in the U.S.

Based upon what I have observed Palin is the one person, if she gets elected as POTUS in 2012 who could stop this if it hasn't happened by then. Soros/Obama will stop at nothing to win the 2012 election.

As Stalin wrote. It is not the votes that count but who counts the vote that matter. See the recent election in Iran for the latest example of this law.

To that end Soros has set in place an Attorney's General program, which can be Googled, whose goal is to get as many of his people elected to the State Attorneys General position as is possible. In addition news has already surfaced that auditors of the 2010 IT Census program have found all kinds of irregularities in the program. Some of which could very well be used to gerrymander the 2010 and 2012 election results in favor of the Soros/Obama agenda. In addition there has been a bill introduced in Congress to give all U.S. felons, almost all of which are Democrats and number about four million the right to vote. Then there is the Obama's illegal immigration agenda which would add more millions to the Democrat voter rolls.

These are indeed very perilous times for Americans who value their freedom and it is only going to get worse.

It seems to me that Palin is the only person that for the most part represents a true U.S.Constitutional position as envisioned by our founding fathers who could get elected in 2012 and have a chance of stopping and reversing this tyrannical destruction of the U.S that is being advanced by Soros/Obama.

Sarah Palin can save us from the Soros/Obama tyranny.

Editor's Note - Mike Zeldis is a regular reader of LR. He was deeply involved in the California Libertarian Party in the lates 1970s and 80s working closely with California LP Chair and 1984 Libertarian Presidential candidate David Bergland.

HOT RUMOR!!

Just breaking...

Todd Seavey (photo 2nd from left) of ToddSeavey.com "Conservatism for Punks," and the longtime science writer/editor for American Council on Science and Health, may be going to Fox News.

Libertarian Republican received a tantalizing notice that Seavey "may be going to work for the fairest cable news organization in all the land." Though, the name of the media outlet was ommited.

Seavey has worked with Fox in the past, mostly in defending the rights of cigarette smokers; John Stossel show from FoxBusinessNews.com. He is a longtime participant and speaker at libertrian events such as Americans for Limited Government, Sam Adams Alliance, Cato, Reason, and the Manhattan Libertarian Party.

He recently sent out an email notice for his regional tour promoting Ayn Rand's individualist treatise.

As journalists everywhere should be documenting, I am trekking to three campuses this year to give Ayn Rand's speech "Faith and Force: Destroyers of the Modern World" on the fiftieth anniversary of her delivery of it in these places (beginning with Yale and ending with Columbia). This Sunday (coincidentally Easter), April 4, 2010, at 11am, I will give the speech (followed by Q&A) on the steps of the library of Brooklyn College, facing the main green. Join me there or travel with me from Manhattan on the F train by rallying at precisely 10am that morning on the western steps of Bryant Park. Nothing can poszibley go wrong.

Editor's Note - our source assures us this is no April Fool's joke. Seavey indeed really is in line for a big promotion.

It may come as a surprise to newer Libertarians that in Indiana, the Secretary of State (SOS) race is the most important in the four year cycle.

Ayn Randist blogger Mary at BeJohnGalt.com highlights the irony of the timing of the Obama Administration's FBI raids against the Christian group Hutaree on the very same day that 37 Russian commuters were killed by Muslim terrorists in Moscow.

Background from The Detroit News:

At least seven people, including some from Michigan, have been arrested in raids by a FBI-led Joint Terrorism Task Force in Michigan, Ohio and Indiana as part of an investigation into an Adrian-based Christian militia group, a person familiar with the matter said.

On Sunday, a source close to the investigation in Washington, D.C. confirmed that FBI agents were conducting activities in Washtenaw and Lenawee counties over the weekend in connection to Hutaree, a Christian militia group. Detroit FBI Special Agent Sandra Berchtold told The Detroit News the federal warrants in the case are under court seal and declined further comment.

Hours later the news came from various major media sources, of the Terrorist Bombing in Moscow (via MSNBC):

MOSCOW - Two female suicide bombers blew themselves up on Moscow's subway system as it was jam-packed with rush-hour passengers Monday, killing at least 37 people, officials said.

Witnesses described panic at two stations, with commuters falling over each other in dense smoke and dust as they tried to escape the worst attack on the Russian capital in six years.

The head of Russia's main security agency said preliminary investigation places the blame on rebels from the restive Caucasus region that includes Chechnya... the bombs were filled with bolts and iron rods.

Mary co-editor at BeJohnGalt.com responds:

Upon seeing the headline about the FBI making raids on a terrorist group in Michigan, one would only assume that it would be Islamic terrorists being targeted. After all, Dearborn, MI has one of the largest Arab populations outside the Middle East and Muslims are always talking about jihad against the infidels. There are reports of Islamic military training camps in all areas of the United States. But, the raid was directed at a Christian militia...

Meanwhile two female suicide bombers killed 37 people at subway stops in Russia. The suicide bombers were from Chechnya. While the politically-correct article doesn’t mention it, guess what religion the people of Chechnya are?

Editor's Note - We are adding BeJohnGalt.com, a pro-defense free market site, to our Blog Roll.

From Eric Dondero:

The Las Vegas Review-Journal covered the Tea Party protest in Searchlight over the weekend. The article - POLITICAL EYE: Tea Party dogma difficult to define, Even Sarah Palin stirs mixed feelings in the movement by Benjamin Spillman and Steve Tetraeult. Spillman and Tetraeult described the keynoter Sarah Palin as a "tool" to help the Republican Party win libertarian support.

From LVRJ:

Former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin greets fans as she makes her way to the stage to speak at the Tea Party Express event billed as the "Showdown in Searchlight," held Saturday at an open-air desert site 2.3 miles north of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's hometown of Searchlight.

Some see the 2008 Republican vice presidential candidate as a unifying force and a woman who articulates the feelings of people angry and afraid of government under President Barack Obama.

Others see Palin as a tool for Republican politicians to win the support of the libertarian-leaning Tea Party movement.

Later in the piece the local Libertarian Party Chairman expresses dissapointment that Palin didn't back primary challenger J.D. Hayworth for the GOP nomination in nearby Arizona. Continuing:

Palin's Friday speech in Arizona endorsing her former presidential running mate, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., against self-proclaimed "consistent conservative" J.D. Hayworth tapped into Tea Party movement concerns. McCain's stances on immigration and other issues have prompted some to question his conservative credentials.

"It is disappointing but not surprising," said Liz Kerby, former chairwoman of the Nye County Libertarian Party, of Palin's support for McCain.

Actually, in many ways the reverse may be true. Palin may be a "Republican tool" of the libertarian movement.

Palin has had many Libertarian Party supporters over the years. Her first campaign manager in her runs for Mayor of Wasilla was identified by the Boston Globe (Oct. 2008), as a "Libertarian." In 2005, she attended two local Libertarian Party meetings in Anchorage (Wed. night supper club sponsored by LPA Sec. Rob Clift). And in 2006 the entire board of the Libertarian Party of Alaska endorsed her candidacy. Additionally, the LP candidate against her on the ballot Billy Toien, publicly backed her campaign the last three days of the race.

In 2007/08, all three co-founders of "Draft Sarah Palin for VP" were self-described "libertarians."

Photo hat tip The Examiner

From the Editor:

This was sent to us from our friends at Newsy.com in regards to our recent coverage of Palin's visit to Arizona. Informative and thought-provoking.

Please take a moment to participate in this week's LR poll (sidebar): Palin's endorsement of McCain - good move, or bad?

Says Republicans making stories up for political gain, just like Hitler and the Reichstag Fire

On the Mark Thompson show heard on Sirius/XM radio (transcript via Politico) controversial liberal Congressman Alan Grayson of Florida made the following remarks, regarding recent incidences of violence reported by Democrat congressmen as a result of the Health Care vote, and additional reports by the GOP:

MARK THOMPSON: Yeah, this is crazy. And they’re suggesting ... the Republicans are defending themselves by saying this is happening on both sides. This is not happening on both sides.

REP. GRAYSON: Well, I think that’s what they said about the burning of the Reichstag, if I recall correctly.

And what's being described as a "stray bullet" by Richmond Police, pierced the window of Cong. Cantor's congressional office early last week. In a press conference Cantor further revealed (via Plumline):

I received threatening emails. But I will not release them, because I believe such actions will only encourage more to be sent.

Other reports suggest the emails received were of an Anti-Semitic nature. Congressman Cantor is Jewish.

He has confirmed to Politico that:

he has received threats because he is Jewish.

Note - Congressman Cantor's district includes Richmond and surrounding areas. The Congressman also serves as Minority Whip in the House.

IMPORTANT UPDATE!!!

Our friends at JammieWearingFool and GatewayPundit are just now breaking this story...

A Muslim Man in Philadelphia is charged with threatening to Kill Rep. Eric Cantor and his family. The announcement just came from the US Attorney General's office.

A YouTube video from the suspect shows him saying, "You receive my bullets in your office. Remember they will be placed in your heads. You and your children..."

Libertarian columnist Vin Suprynowicz of the Las Vegas Review-Journal sardonically opined on Sunday, "Please don't call it State Socialism." He mentioned hearing his local Congresswoman on a radio interview interpreting the US Constitution as entirely open to interpretation.

From the LV Review-Journal, March 29:

We're told that for some reason we're not allowed to call the Obama-Reid-Pelosi agenda "socialism," "communism," "Marxism," "state socialism" "fascism," or anything else that might sound unpleasant...

Telling us we're not "allowed" to use an accurate label for something doesn't change what it is.

On the radio this week I heard Congresscritter Titus asked whether she's concerned about state lawsuits challenging the new federal mandate that everyone will have to buy "suitable" health insurance. "Oh, no," she said, "The Constitution has been interpreted all kinds of ways, so I'm not concerned about that."

This from a woman -- a supposedly well-educated college professor -- who swore a solemn oath to "protect and defend the Constitution" 14 months ago.

At least four Republican candidates have filed to run against Rep. Titus, including Constitutionalist and retired Air Force Col. Ed Bridges and Tea Party Patriot Dr. Joe Heck.

Tight Congressional races may now swing to the GOP

From Eric Dondero:

Obama won Florida with 50.9% of the vote in 2008. His popularity in the State has plummeted since.

A new poll by Mason-Dixon (via TampaBay.com) shows ObamaCare's popularity now at 34% with 54% opposed. And more specifically:

Seniors disfavor the bill by a 65-25 percent margin, while independents oppose the law 62-34.

And the news is just as bad for Obama himself:

It shows that Floridians have a more negative than positive view of Obama by a margin of 15 percentage points. And they oppose his so-called "cap-and-trade" global warming legislation as well.

The news is having a great affect on Democrat elected officials in the State. Senator Bill Nelson, considered a relatively centrist Democrat, now stands at 34% popularity. What's more for his race in 2012 he's way behind likely GOP challengers.

Since his 2006 re-election, Nelson's popularity has nose-dived 18 percentage points, the poll shows... The poll shows Nelson would lose to Republicans in theoretical match-ups against former Gov. Jeb Bush, Gov. Charlie Crist and current U.S. Senate opponent Marco Rubio.

Jeb Bush (R) 50%
Bill Nelson (D-inc) 35%

Charlie Crist (R) 47%
Bill Nelson (D-inc) 37%

The pollster Brad Corker commented:

"If Bill Nelson's getting hurt by this, you can imagine what damage there is to other Democrats across the country..."

And yet another poll by Mason-Dixon shows expected Democrat candidate for Senate against either Rubio or Crist, getting clobbered in the general. Rubio would beat Kendrick Meek comfortably44% to 29%. Crist over Meek by an astounding 50% to 26%.

In the aftermath of the 2008 elections, Democrats were giddy at the prospects of turning reliably Republican Red Florida into a leaning Blue State. Those hopes have seemed to diminish, and quite dramatically. All of which could have a huge impact on tight congressional races in 2010, such as Allen West in Broward County against incumbent Democrat Rep. Ron Klein, along with potential GOP challengers to controversial Dem Rep. Alan Grayson in Central Florida, and to blue dogger Rep. Allen Boyd of Tallahassee who voted for the Health Care act.

That's a potential pick up of 3, 4, maybe even 5 Congressional seats for the GOP out of Florida. And heading into 2012, with a Romney, Palin, or even Jeb Bush on the ticket, there's now an increasing certainty that Florida will be solidly in the GOP column.

Health Care Repeal Act on top of the Agenda

by Eric Dondero

The Republican Libety Caucus was founded in Tallahassee, Florida in June of 1990. The Florida RLC is the oldest of all of the groups' chapters. In many ways it was the FL RLC that launched the nationwide Republican Liberty movement. It took than many years, and a great deal of hard work to gain influence in state politics. But they have now arrived to the point that top elected officials in Tallahasee virtually roll out the red carpet for the yearly visit of Libertarian Republicans.

Lt. Governor Jeff Kottcamp of the Melbourne area, has long identified himself as a "free marketeer" GOPer. The Palm Beach Post even labeled him "libertarian." It was Kottcamp who served as host for visiting RLCers last weekend.

Longtime RLCer Phil Blumel who was actually there at the founding of the organization in 1990, reports:

About 35 RLCers from around the state attended this week the 2010 Liberty Days at the Capitol, the RLC's annual grassroots lobbying trek to Tallahassee, in the midst of the national battle against ObamaCare.

The timing was perfect. The RLC's first event was a hearing before the House Healthcare Regulation Policy Committee, in which Rep. Scott Plakon - sponsor of the Healthcare Freedom Act - made his case for protecting Floridians from the individual mandates included in the national bill. His bill (HJR 37) to do that passed the committee 10-3 amid cheers from the RLCers present.

"It is our duty to step up and reassert the rights of Floridians, in this case protecting our citizen's rights and freedoms to make appropriate decisions as it relates to their own health care," said Plakon.
The next day, RLCers met with more legislators and aides, including Lt. Governor Jeff Kottkamp who met with both the RLCers as a group and privately with RLCFL Chair Will Pitts.

Several RLCers attended the press conference of Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum who announced his intention to be one of the nine or so state attorney generals to sue the federal government as soon as the ObamaCare bill was signed by the president.

"There are two basic principles here," McCollum said. "Number one that Congress has exceeded its powers in terms of its requiring the individual mandate that anybody has to buy a health care policy or suffer a penalty of some sort, a fine or a tax. And number two that it violates the 10th Amendment rights of the states in that it goes far beyond an unfunded mandate and literally would cost the State of Florida alone billions of dollars."

Note - Rep. Plakon is a frequent attendee of libertarian meetings, such as the Florida Liberty Summit sponsored by Campaign For Liberty.

Blumel commented on the success of the trip:

[Sovereignty and Health Care Act repeal] is the primary message the RLC sought to voice in Tallahassee this year and it was gratifying to hear many of our Republican leaders join in the chorus.

Join today! FLRLC.org

KENTUCKY SENATE RACE

Rand Paul: Believes in a Strong Defense, Opposes closing Guantanamo Bay, Believes Iran is a Serious Threat.

Trey Grayson: Looked forward to "working with Obama"

by Eric Dondero

Finally, a senior officer is speaking up about the fundamental question as to why Gays in the Military is an unworkable idea: Discrimination against straight males and femals in uniform.

From Military.com (via Memeo):

The Marine Corps' top officer said March 25 that even if the ban on openly-serving gays in the services is lifted, he would draw the line at forcing heterosexual Marines to bunk with gays on base.

"We want to continue [two-person rooms], but I would not ask our Marines to live with someone who is homosexual if we can possibly avoid it," Marine Commandant Gen. James Conway told Military.com during an exclusive interview at the Pentagon. "And to me that means we have to build BEQs [bachelor enlisted quarters] and have single rooms."

Conway's comments came the same day that Defense Secretary Robert Gates reprimanded the Army's Pacific commander for publicly exhorting servicemembers and civilians to write to Congress to oppose repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. Army Lt. Gen. Benjamin Mixon made his views known in a letter published in Stars and Stripes on March 8.

Conway then gets right to the crux of the matter:

"In this case, I would want to reserve the right of a Marine that thinks he or she wouldn't want to [share a room with a homosexual]. And again that's the overwhelming … number of people that say that they wouldn't like to do so." Conway said the Corps billets two-to-a-room -- unique today among the services -- because it believes it's good for unit cohesion. But if a gay Marine sharing a room with a straight one has the opposite effect, the Corps will adopt the single-room standard of the other services.

Gays in the Military advocates cannot escape the practicality issue of berthing spaces and cohabitation. Simply put, if a gay male has a right to bunk with a straight guy, shouldn't that straight male have the same right to share berthing spaces with a straight female?

Conway is correct in this regard. This is not an issue of exclusion. He even trumps their card. If some reasonable accomadation is found for separate berthing spaces that will eliminate reverse discrimination, he might go along with it.

Conway, quite cleverly, has now put the advocates in an uncomfortable position of defending discrimination and predjudice against straights.

CNN.com has posted this great article on their website that discusses in no uncertain terms the true cost of an employee to a business.  When all of the hidden costs of an employee are taken into account, the “loaded rate” (or wage) of an employee is in true dollars anywhere from 35-40% higher than that employee’s base salary.  These hidden costs will only rise in the future as businesses strain beneath the weight of growing government programs.  It is nice to see a major media outlet interview small business owners for a change to get the real straight talk on how these new programs will directly impact their bottom line.

The government practice of eminent domain, the forceful seizure of land by the government under the auspices of “highest and best use”, has been  the bane of many Libertarians and property rights activists over the last few decades.  Recently in Utah, however, we are seeing a newly emerging front in the debate.

Utah Governor Gary Herbert (R) has suggested recently that the state of Utah could seize Federally-owned land under the justification of eminent domain.  To most legal scholars, this seems to be a possible violation of McCulloch v. Maryland. What do you think?  Should a state’s right to apply eminent domain trump the federal government’s right?  Or vice versa?  Or should the whole practice of eminent domain go the way of the dinosaurs?