With apologies to Rev. Niemoller

The tactics being used by Smoke Free Indy and their City-County Council Stooges (Yes, I said Stooges for in my opinion that is exactly what they are.) remind me of the poem by Martin Neimoller. I will not go into it in detail here, as I have already quoted it on numerous occasions. The bottom line for me is that details, in a very succinct and credible fashion, the attacks upon our personal freedoms.

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?

The Forgotten Man - A Smoking Ban Story

Let us consider the case of a cigar store owner. No food is served. No alcohol is available. The only products are cigars and tobacco products and accessories. Since no alcohol is served it doesn't qualify for status as "Specialty Tobacco Bar".

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?

A Call to Arms - Proposed Smoking Ban Extension

The City-County Council is going to begin considering a total smoking ban in Marion Co. removing the current exemptions for Bars, Tobacco Shops and Private Clubs.

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.

Government Health Care Reform - A Potential Outcome

Will this be the future?

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.

Mr. Obama’s Cross of Carbon

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.

Cap And Trade or Bait and Switch - I told you so

I first posted this back in March, no one listened until it was too late to do anything.

The Obama budget includes a provision for auctioning off "carbon pollution permits". This can only result in higher energy costs for all American consumers as the vast majority of our nation's electricity is derived from the combustion of fossil fuels. Most of the expected 646 billion dollars that is anticipated to be raised over the next ten years by this measure would be reflected in a $400 tax cut per individual or $800 per couple. The rest would be given to wind and solar power research. The pollution permits are part of a program termed "Cap and Trade".

Here's what's going to happen.

1. Coal and oil burning utilities will be forced to buy these permits to remain in operation.
2. The limited nature of the permits will result in speculation.
3. The cost to obtain a permit will be significant,
4. The utilities will pass the expense on to the consumers.
5. The "Tax Break" may or may not be sufficient for most Americans to cover the increased costs of electricity.
6. As energy prices grow the government will reap more revenue in the form of taxes on the energy sold.

The results: The government wins, speculators win, the energy companies may break even and the American taxpayers will suffer.

Never mind the fact that no one has demonstrated conclusively that "global warming" is the result of human industrial activity as opposed to a natural cycle occurring over thousands of years.

I guess it's just all part of change we can believe in.

(Don't take my word for it, check out the followinfg link http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/636.pdf )

The Case for Libertarianism – Part Two “The Big Tent”

Over the past eight years our Republican brothers and sisters have managed, at the national level, to alienate a considerable percentage of their constituency. In an effort to rebuild their party after the "meltdown" of 2008, there has been considerable discussion surrounding the need to rebuild the "Big Tent."

The "Big Tent" refers to the attempt of a political party to be inclusive of many different viewpoints, something with which the Republican Party has always struggled. The stance they have taken on issues such as abortion, and gay marriage, to name but a few, have pushed many away. Now the emphasis to remake the party has become almost an obsession, the "Big Tent" is falling down and must be repaired.

Does the Libertarian Party need to also expand its tent? How do we fair on these "wedge" issues? Our National platform states:

1.4 Abortion - Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

1.3 Personal Relationships - Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the rights of individuals by government, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships.

This last issue is particularly illustrative of the general attitude Libertarians hold regarding that which is often been termed, for lack of a better phrase, "Gay Rights". Within the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, there are the Log Cabin Republicans and the Stonewall Democrats, who seek to further acceptance of their views and opinions within the framework of their two respective parties, albeit with little or no success. The Libertarian Party does have the Outright Libertarians and this excerpt from their FAQ explains the relationship between the Libertarian Party and their organization:

Does Outright's positions on "gay issues" differ from the Libertarian Party?

In substance, no. Currently, every one of our positions are consistent with libertarian principle and the Libertarian Party Platform (Neither Log Cabin Republicans nor even Stonewall Democrats can say this). However, we and the LP do sometimes disagree on the approach.

For example: The LP takes a hard line on Hate Crimes Legislation, as legalized discrimination against the victims of some violent crimes in favor of others. Outright opposes Hate Crimes Legislation but understands, sometimes first hand, why it is so popular and seeks to show GLBT people that the legislation is not only discriminatory but flawed even when it actually includes us! The LP's approach is often hard hitting and direct to the central issue. Outright's approach is more understanding, we are more willing to explain the failings of government solutions and to show how some things that look good for us on the surface may actually work against us. But one thing to keep in mind: the national LP has never taken a negative stance on the inclusion of GLBT individuals in any legislation that secures equal rights for GLBT people, whether marriage, military service, taxation, etc.

So I ask again, does the Libertarian Party need to expand its tent? No. In fact we don't even need a tent. There is room enough under the sun for all who cherish Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

The Case for Libertarianism – Part One “The Wasted Vote Syndrome”

In my many conversations with non-Libertarians I have often heard voters state that they would support Libertarian Candidates but are afraid of "wasting their vote". This is one of the great myths surrounding Libertarian Candidates.

What is a "wasted vote"?

Some would say that a "wasted vote" is a vote not cast. Based on current voting trends, this certainly makes a great deal of sense.

Another "wasted vote" is that vote which is cast solely out of habit. It is not unusual to hear a voter say, "My Great-Grandfather always voted for Party X, my grandfather and my father always vote for Party X, therefore, I'm voting for Party X." It reminds me of the phrase "Those who fail to learn from the mistakes of the past are destined to repeat them." So I ask, if your great-grandfather was a horse thief, and your grandfather and father are horse thieves, should I trust you to look after my horse?

Others might argue that a "wasted vote" is a vote for a candidate that has absolutely no chance of being elected, i.e. a Libertarian or other minor party or independent candidate. By voting for one of the two major parties they feel that their vote might actually make a difference. For many of these voters they feel that even though each candidate is far from ideal, one is a little less onerous than the other. The problem here is quite obvious; the lesser of two evils is still EVIL! What does it matter if we have tax and spend elected officials as opposed to borrow and spend elected officials in charge? Either way, our nation's economic health is placed in jeopardy. Let's not even begin on the threats to our precious rights and the rule of law. Evil is Evil.

All it takes is the courage of your convictions, the desire to stand up and vote for the candidate who cares more for this nation, its Constitution and its people instead of building a career on the taxpayer's dime or maintaining the "Statist-Quo", a candidate who is principled, a candidate who belongs to the only Party of Principle, a Libertarian.

 

 

 

What Would Jefferson Do? Part Two

I am appalled at the current situation off the Somali coast. The U.S. Navy, the most powerful navy in the world, is by all accounts sitting on its collective ass and allowing a handful of CRIMINALS to dictate policy.

This is intolerable.

Is there not one man of courage and vision in the Administration or Pentagon who truly sees the situation?

Thomas Jefferson did when he was President. Rather than give in to the Barbary Pirates as every other nation had done, he sent in the Navy and the Marines, thus was born the a tradition of non-appeasement that we should damn well remember in these trying times. We should long remember the heroes from that war: First Lieutenant Stephen Decatur USN, and First Lieutenant Presley O'Bannon USMC.Each of whom has a current U.S. Navy ship named in their honor. It would be most fitting if the destroyer U.S.S. O'Bannon and the guided missile cruiser U.S.S. Decatur were sent to these troubled waters.

What Would Jefferson Do? Part One

April 13th marks the 266th anniversary of the birth of Thomas Jefferson, who was among many things, the third President of the United States, the author of the Declaration of Independence and one of the founders of the Democratic-Republican Party.

Today's modern Democratic Party celebrates Jefferson as one of their founders, therefore it is appropriate to examine the political philosophy of Jefferson and contrast it with the current policies and beliefs of today's Party.

Let us begin with Jefferson's thoughts regarding a central, national bank. Jefferson was a staunch anti-Federalist and strongly opposed the First Bank of the United States. Ironically, it was a Democrat, Woodrow Wilson, who gave us the Federal Reserve System which is in essence a central, national bank. It is not my intention to debate the issues surrounding the Fed and the current banking and credit situation, but to simply state Jefferson's position. A position shared by the other man celebrated as one of the founders of the modern Democratic Party, Andrew Jackson whose opposition to the Second Bank of the United States is legendary.

In Jefferson's own words we have, "The incorporation of a bank and the powers assumed [by legislation doing so] have not, in my opinion, been delegated to the United States by the Constitution. They are not among the powers specially enumerated."

Jefferson was also a champion of States' Rights. He believed that the federal government must not violate the rights of the states. The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 (written secretly by Jefferson and Madison) proclaim these principles. These resolutions provided that the federal government had no right to exercise powers not specifically delegated to it (Strict Constructionism. Should the federal government assume such powers, its acts under them would be void. Thus, it was the right of the states to decide as to the constitutionality of such laws passed by Congress. Again, it is not my intent to debate the wisdom of these resolutions, whose principles would eventually lead to the "Nullification Crisis" during the terms of Jackson and later the Secession of South Carolina in 1861, but to demonstrate the principles Jefferson believed. In his own words, "I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people. [X Amendment] To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition."

Jefferson believed that Republicanism is the best form of government and representative democracy is needed to prevent the tyranny of the majority, and that, "democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." Can the same be said of the current Democratic Party?

[To be continued...]

Cap and Trade or Bait and Switch?

The Obama budget includes a provision for auctioning off "carbon pollution permits". This can only result in higher energy costs for all American consumers as the vast majority of our nation's electricity is derived from the combustion of fossil fuels. Most of the expected 646 billion dollars that is anticipated to be raised over the next ten years by this measure would be reflected in a $400 tax cut per individual or $800 per couple. The rest would be given to wind and solar power research. The pollution permits are part of a program termed "Cap and Trade".

Here's what's going to happen.

1. Coal and oil burning utilities will be forced to buy these permits to remain in operation.
2. The limited nature of the permits will result in speculation.
3. The cost to obtain a permit will be significant,
4. The utilities will pass the expense on to the consumers.
5. The "Tax Break" may or may not be sufficient for most Americans to cover the increased costs of electricity.
6. As energy prices grow the government will reap more revenue in the form of taxes on the energy sold.

The results: The government wins, speculators win, the energy companies may break even and the American taxpayers will suffer.

Never mind the fact that no one has demonstrated conclusively that "global warming" is the result of human industrial activity as opposed to a natural cycle occurring over thousands of years.

I guess it's just all part of change we can believe in.

(Don't take my word for it, check out the followinfg link http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/636.pdf )

No Wonder We're in Trouble

Last Wednesday I heard Glenn Beck mention that on a recent episode of Jeopardy! the three contestants were stumped by the following clue:

Category: NIGHTLY NEWS WORDS (for 1000)

A Marxist stage before communism, this is government control over the economy; I thought it meant friendliness.

The correct response: What is Socialism?

It's true, none of the contestants rang in. The episode aired Tuesday Feb 17, 2009. No wonder we've got trouble.

This is also one of the reasons I never watch the show anymore. If these contestants had been my opponents back when I was a two-day champ in March 2006, I'd still be on there today.

Where There's Smoke, There's Ire

In 1998 I awoke one morning and decided that I would stop smoking. I went out and purchased my first nicotine patches and my last pack of cigarettes. Over the course of the next 12 weeks I successively ended my use of cigarettes. That was 11 years ago and I have no desire to take up that habit again, although I do enjoy an occasional cigar whether it be on the golf course, sitting on my patio or at a cigar bar or similar establishment.

As a former cigarette smoker I was ecstatic when Marion county’s first smoking ban went into place. I liked the idea of being able to go into a restaurant of my choice and not have to breathe in cigarette smoke. Now upon further reflection, while still appreciative of the result of the ordinance, I have trouble reconciling it to my views on the role of government in a free market. Ideally, market forces would determine whether or not a particular restaurant or bar allows smoking.

So let’s talk about smoking bans and employee rights. If a person accepts a job at an establishment that allows smoking, such as a tavern, smoke shop or cigar bar, then that employee is accepting the risk that accompanies that job. In the case of smoke shops and cigar bars, there is an expectation that customers will be smoking in these establishments, after all that is the only reason these businesses exist, to sell tobacco products, allowing for their use on the premises is good business.

Do smoking and second-hand smoke pose serious health risks? Yes. There is ample evidence to support the connection between cancer, heart disease and a variety of other conditions. Will banning smoking in all enclosed public places prevent people from getting these diseases? No. Only a complete ban of the sale of tobacco products in the State of Indiana would have a truly significant effect on public health. However, it is doubtful that the State would be willing to forgo the tax revenues gained from their sale. Therefore, a simple smoking ban is in keeping with the lack of political courage that the legislature routinely exhibits. Until such time that the legislature is ready to take such a stand, they should let the market dictate policy.

Wanted - A Few Good Libertarians

The Libertarian Party of Marion County is in the process of expanding our grassroots organization. We are recruiting Libertarian minded men and women who think that the time for debate is over and that the time for action has come. As the new county Vice-Chairman, I am organizing a network of precinct, ward and township chairmen. These individuals will be responsible for attending neighborhood meetings and local business group meetings in your areas. Additionally, you will advise the Vice-Chairman of upcoming events (block parties, festivals and fairs) in your areas regarding the possibility of having a Libertarian presence there. You will also be responsible for explaining the basic tenets of Libertarianism to those wanting more information, and recruiting new members.

No experience is necessary, only a desire to see the local party grow and become a stronger presence in local politics.

A New Year, A New General Assembly, A New Congress, A New Administration

When I began this blog one of the first posts I wrote dealt with the dangers of citizen apathy. I began that post with the following poem:

First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Jew.

Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up, because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.

Variation on a poem attributed to Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)

Niemöller was a Protestant minister who, although an early supporter of National Socialism and Adolph Hitler, eventually became a strident opponent of Nazi policies. For his beliefs, he was imprisoned first in Sachsenhausen and then in Dachau concentration camps. In 1945 he was liberated by the American 5th Army. His poem is a lament on the inactivity of the German intellectuals, including himself, who did nothing to oppose the initial rise of the Nazi Party. It is a stark rebuke regarding the dangers of apathy.

This week will see the convening of the 111th US Congress and the 116th Indiana General Assembly. January 20th will mark the inauguration of President-Elect Obama.

Now is not the time for Indiana's citizens to assume that their civic duty ended at the ballot box. We elected these men and women. We must now hold them accountable to their words. We cannot assume that they will automatically fulfill the promises made on the campaign trail. We must hold them to every single pledge and position taken in the pursuit of their elected office. After all, this is the reason they were elected and the voters deserve to receive that which they paid for with their votes.

There are those that will argue that campaign rhetoric should not be taken seriously, that what is said in the heat of battle should have no bearing on policy, that this is the way the political game has always been played.

If politicians have no intention of following through on the promises and pledges they made to the voters of this state and this nation, then they are truely without honor. This includes every single position taken. If a legislative candidate put forth a plan which would increase the state income tax, even if only for a select group of Hoosier taxpayers, then it is that legislator's duty to follow through by introducing that legislation. If a legislator campaigned on a platform which included voting to keep the Property Tax caps from becoming part of the Constitution, then we should expect that when the vote comes up they will be true to their word.

These are extreme examples, meant to provoke thought, but the basic premise is sound.

As I stated earlier, we must hold our elected officials accountable. Our civic duty does not stop at the ballot box or the jury box. We must be vigilant. We must not be apathetic, and unlike Niemöller, we must speak up. Who will do so if we do not?