Friday, March 4, 2011
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Granted, they did suggest that such disscussion could be taken to group disscussion folders. This reminds me of how the Republican mainstream dealt with Dr Paul and his supporters at their last National Convention. (A site for them to gather was provided several blocks from the Convention Hall in a parking lot.)
The most offensive, in my opinion, portion of the letter is extracted below along with the reply I sent in response.
"In the same vain, discussions of 3rd party movement & recruitment need to also be moved to the Message Board for discussion. The IndianaDOL & the Indiana Tea Party understand the historical importance & urgency of regaining control of both branches of Congress (both state & federal) in this 2010 election cycle, & we can not encourage the development of 3rd party movements with no realizable opportunity of impact, except to split the conservative vote. Members are welcome to debate the 3rd party perspective, but take that discussion to the Message Board, establish your topic & debate it with those who chose to join. "
As a committed member of such a "3rd Party movement", the Libertarian Party, and the Vice-Chair of its Marion Co. affiliate, I take extreme umbrage at this suggestion. This only confirms what I've felt all along, that the Indiana Defenders of Liberty are not that interested in seeing that true Defenders of Liberty, Libertarians, have a voice in their petty little movement. The "Indiana Defenders of Liberty" is nothing but a shill for the Republican establishment.
What does it matter if we elect Liberal Progressives (Democrats) or Conservative Progressives (Republicans), the overall result will be diminished personal Liberty. The point is some form of Progressive politician will be elected.
As to those Republicans who truly do believe in the natural rights of man as espoused by Locke and Jefferson, why are you not Libertarians? Why do you not have the total strength of your convictions? It takes courage to stand apart from the crowd and follow your heart. The men of Concord and Lexington did it even though it cost some their lives, and I thank Almighty God every day that they did.
I think we are now seeing the Tea Party Movement for what is has become. It is not the Tea Party of the Sons of Liberty, but that of the Mad Hatter and it's later than you think.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
First they banned smoking in restaurants, because it was "For the Children".
Then they banned smoking in bars and taverns, because it was for the employees.
Then they banned it in Cigar Shops and Specialty Tobacco Bars, to protect non-smokers.
Then they banned smoking everywhere, and said it was for our own good.
Finally, when tobacco was banned, they came for alcohol, soft drinks, sugar, trans-fats, guns...
At what point do we say enough? Are we as a community, a state and a nation willing to let someone else dictate to us what we can and can not enjoy? Who gets to determine this? Elected officials who represent the special interest groups and not the people? What good is Liberty if we allow it to be slowly legislated away?
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Let us also assume that this establishment is owned by a retiree and he is the sole employee. No one else works there. He started this store because of his love of cigars. The store is open 6-8 hours/day. He has become something of an expert and customers often seek out his advice, much in the way a wine enthusiast may seek the opinion of a sommelier.
Under the expanded ban he will not be allowed to sample a new cigar in his own store in order to provide advice for his customers.
Who is being harmed and needs to be protected by the expanded ban?
Does he not have the right run his business to best of his ability?
Monday, October 5, 2009
Regardless of whether or not you’re a smoker, this issue is a classic case of the nanny state trying to remove an individual’s freedom to make his or her own choice. That’s what it distills down to, choice.
If a bar or tavern allows smoking I can choose to patronize that establishment or not. The question becomes one of, am I willing to put up with a couple of hours of second hand smoke to gain some other desirable benefit such as a great band, really good food, attractive members of the opposite sex (or the same sex if that’s applicable), or is the presence of smokers enough to deter my patronage. The choice is mine, not the government’s.
Two dates to keep in mind:
Oct 5, 2009 (today) The City-County Council takes up the issue for the first time; 7:00 PM City-County Building
Oct 7, 2009 (Wednesday) Libertarian After Hours; 5:00 PM-?, The Beer Garden at the Rathskeller. Strategy, among other things, will be discussed.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
They "reformed" the health insurance companies and I applauded for they were all greedy bastards.
They "reformed" the pharmacuetical companies and I applauded for they were also more interested in profits than people.
They "reformed" the Hospitals and I cheered because they overcharged for everything.
They "reformed" the physicians and I was happy for they were only in it for the money.
Then I became ill.
I waited six months to see a specialist.
I had to wait three months to have a CT Scan and MRI.
I found out that a drug company had been working on a treatment for my condition but had to abandon it as they had no more money for research.
I died because the government health plan decided the cost to benefit ratio for the surgery I needed was too great for some one my age.
I was only 49.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
In 1896 the Democratic Party Convention was electrified by William Jennings Bryan's "Cross of Gold" speech which advocated the addition of a silver standard to the gold standard then in use. His plea for "bimetallism" struck a resonant chord at the convention and defined Bryan as the leading economic populist as he famously compared the use of the gold standard as the basis for the monetary exchange rate to "the crucifixion of mankind upon a Cross of Gold".
Fast forward 113 years and we see a nation about to be sacrificed to the theory that global warming is the result of human activity. Global Warming is just that, a theory. It has not been proved and there is just as much evidence available to disprove it. This cause has been taken up by the Progressives who appeal, not to logic, reason and fact, but to emotion. This is the main strategy of Progressives ignore the facts of an issue and focus on raw emotion, paint your opponents as having sinister ulterior motives while you are concerned about saving polar bears and other fuzzy creatures. Never mind that, if we were to believe the most vocal proponents of Global Warming, anything we do now will be too late. Other predictions, such as the total disappearance of the polar ice cap by 2008, made by these same super-alarmists have failed to bear fruit as well.
So, without knowing whether Global Warming is real and is the result of mankind's industry, our government at the urging of our newly elected President is in the process of enacting the most sweeping restrictions (Cap and Trade) on human enterprise ever conceived, the cost of which will be borne by every citizen of this nation in the form of higher energy prices, potential fuel shortages, and increased inflation in general. Let the individual citizen decide whether to "Go Green" or not, do not legislate it.
To paraphrase Mr. Bryan:
Having behind us the producing masses of this nation and the world, supported by the commercial interests, the laboring interests and the toilers everywhere, we will answer their demand for a carbon emissions standard by saying to them: You shall not press down upon the brow of the people this crown of thorns, you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of carbon.