A good idea, for a change.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
I first heard about the Enumerated Powers Act on the Neal Boortz radio show, and it's amazing this thing doesn't get more attraction in the press.
Then again... it isn't amazing. It's to be expected.
The Enumerated Powers Act is simplicity itself: Require Congress to specify the source of authority under the United States Constitution for the enactment of laws, and for other purposes. In other words, if Congressman Numbnuts wants to put forth a bill that would give government the power to, say, require all American households to have their rolls of toilet paper dispense from one direction, he/she would have to cite the Constitutional authority to regulate toiletry deployment in private residences.
Don't laugh... I'm surprised we don't have a Department of Preventing People from Running with Scissors. Give 'em time, it'll get that silly.
It's right there in the 10th Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
May be too much to handle for the likes of Ted Kennedy or [insert big-government "Republican" of your choice], as it would take power away from these types. And we can't do that, can we?
Yes... we should.
Labels: 2008 election, Enumerated Powers Act, Libertarian, liberty, Tenth Amendment
Post to freedomSLUT
posted by The Libertarian Guy (tm) @ 9:34 AM,
|
links to this post
Going too far in the immigration debate
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
From the Boortz Nealz Nuze section, comes this bit of savagery:
It was an assignment for history class--to make a protest sign for or against an issue, and Melanie said she chose illegal immigration. Her sign read, "If you love our nation, stop illegal immigration." Somehow, Melanie said the sign got passed around lunch and angered a group of Latino students.
"I didn't know any of these people," she said. One young, she claimed, jumped on her back and he put her in a choke hold. "We have brick walls in the middle school and he slammed my face on the bricks."
Melanie said a group of boys also threatened to rape and kill her. Eventually, the boys let her go and when she went for help, she was ordered back to class, and told she could not call her parents, she said.
Beyond words. "Barbaric" doesn't even come close here.
Labels: immigration
Post to freedomSLUT
posted by The Libertarian Guy (tm) @ 9:29 AM,
|
links to this post
Bob Barr running in '08. Now what?
Saturday, April 05, 2008
Over at my other blog, I posted a treatise about Bob Barr's announcement of running for the big cushy Presidential chair-occupation sweepstakes.
While I'm glad to see another non-RepubliCrat toss his/her hat in the ring, I'm going to have to wonder what this will do to the recent announcement of Mary Ruwart for President. Given Barr's ham-fisted past re: the War on {some} Drugs, it would be a tough sell for yers truly to pull the metaphorical lever for him. (No, that's not the only issue at play, but it is a big one.)
Read my take on Ruwart's announcement here.
Keep the faith, people, and remember: Have a government-approved day!
Labels: 2008 election, Bob Barr, Libertarian Party, Ruwart
Post to freedomSLUT
posted by The Libertarian Guy (tm) @ 7:03 PM,
|
links to this post
Ruwart for President? Sounds good to me.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Cross-posted hat tip from my other blog inspired by this entry from Kn@ppster:
"Libertarians have been waiting for a candidate who can change the tone of American politics," says campaign manager R. Lee Wrights. "Dr. Ruwart is that kind of candidate. She's a unifier and a motivator who can communicate our message of freedom and be heard."
Snippet from Dr. Ruwart's press release. Website here.
Go, Mary, go. Glad to have you in the lineup.
Labels: 2008 election, Libertarian Party, Ruwart
Post to freedomSLUT
posted by The Libertarian Guy (tm) @ 10:47 AM,
|
links to this post
Why the Drug War cannot be won, continued
Friday, March 21, 2008
From our friends at Reason Online:
This week the New Hampshire House of Representatives approved a bill that would make possessing a quarter ounce or less of marijuana, currently a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail and a $2,000 fine, a violation with a maximum penalty of a $200 fine. In addition to calling the current penalties disproportionate, legislators who supported the bill said they didn't think young people should be saddled with a criminal record that bars them from federal college aid and hurts their employment prospects simply for smoking pot.
Manchester Mayor Frank Guinta, by contrast, thinks you should lose your job simply for supporting lighter pot penalties. He has called upon state Rep. David Scannell (D-Hillsborough), who voted for the decriminalization bill, to resign from his job as spokesman for the Manchester School District:
He's the face of the district. He interacts with kids on a daily basis, and he is taking a position to decriminalize marijuana. That is counter to logic, in my view....
We have drug policies that the district is responsible for adhering to, and the person who is responsible for public relations is taking a completely counter view. I think that is going to impact [his] credibility with parents and students.
Rest at link above.
Now, note a comment by what appears to be a grizzled Drug War veteran here:
Good for Guinta. Give him credit for putting his neck out agaisnt this jerk. Its amazing how many pot heads are out there, stoned and driving around in a stupor. And lets not forget that the Free state movement is behind this. They are gaining more and more control over our state goverment.
- dave, Manchester
Yikes. Do some people still think this is the template for drug control?
Kudos to Representative Scannell, who proves that even a Democrat can have a good idea now and then. It's not about promoting drug use, it's about priorities.
In my opinion, if anyone sells anything to a child... throw the book at the perpetrator. Hell, write new books and throw those as well. Prosecute with extreme prejudice. But when it comes to adults... hands off. This is a states' rights issue, plain and simple.
Thanks for reading, and have a government-approved day.
Labels: drug war, Federalism, Libertarian, liberty, local government, statism
Post to freedomSLUT
posted by The Libertarian Guy (tm) @ 7:29 AM,
|
links to this post
Not very democratic, is it?
Sunday, February 24, 2008
From Politico:
Ralph Nader announced on NBC's "Meet the Press" that he'll run as a third-party, anti-corporate candidate for president this fall, which would be likely to drain votes from the Democratic nominee and provide a huge boon to Republicans.
Democrats say they will work behind the scenes — and use court challenges, if necessary — to try to thwart his access to ballots. ...
Italics added for emphasis. Read on:
Democrats and bloggers are already reacting with fury, fearing a rerun of 2000, when Nader drained crucial votes from Al Gore.
"'Loathe' isn't a strong enough word," said a senior adviser to the Clinton campaign.
The immediate question for Democrats is whether they'll be as ruthless as they were in 2004 in throwing procedural obstacles in the way of Nader's access to the ballot in key states.
Nader has a pending lawsuit against the Democratic National Committee on the issue and recently told Politico that he would make ballot access a central cause of a presidential campaign, which he restated on television Sunday morning. ...
Wonder if the Republicans will try these kinds of tricks on Libertarian candidates...
Labels: 2008 election, Ralph Nader
Post to freedomSLUT
posted by The Libertarian Guy (tm) @ 4:13 PM,
|
links to this post
Libertarian loyalty and the Ron Paul vote
Saturday, February 09, 2008
Someone asked me if, as a Libertarian, would I consider voting for Ron Paul.
My answer was "Well, I did vote for him."
The puzzled stranger - who had noticed my Libertarian bumper sticker - and I spent a minute in the parking lot, discussing party loyalty and the "wasted vote" concept. (Okay, it took a few minutes.)
My short'n'sweet answer was this:
I voted for Ron Paul in the primary, which was the first time in over a decade that I have selected a Republican ballot in a primary - to be forthright, I have never selected a Democrat ballot.
However, come November... unless Paul is not on the GOP ticket, and it's likely he won't be - I will be supporting the Libertarian presidential candidate, as well as the others for the no-less-important other political races.
The stranger mused for a moment, then said "Y'know, that makes sense, especially given the 'choices' on the other ballots".
Though the stranger declined one of my party business cards, there were pleasantries exchanged, and I sensed that even though this person would never likely join my party, at least there was a bit of the kindred spirit in their soul. The kind of spark that says too much government is a bad thing, and that the words "individualism" and "private sector" and "profit" and "personal responsibility" - and, of course, "liberty" - are not outmoded concepts or impolite utterances.
Godspeed, stranger.
Labels: 2008 election, Libertarian, liberty, Ron Paul
Post to freedomSLUT
posted by The Libertarian Guy (tm) @ 9:11 PM,
|
links to this post
Why Ron Paul should stay in the race
Friday, February 08, 2008
Just some quick notes on this for now, as the story is still not over...
With Romney pulling out, the only other Republican candidates besides McCain are Huckabee and Ron Paul.
Time will tell - pretty soon, really - how long Huckabee can stay in the race. Likely, he'll either get the veep nod, or some kind of dangled goodie on a string like a cabinet post. So, I don't see Huck staying in for the long haul.
But if Paul doesn't pull out as well... what happens? Brokered convention?
Good. If I were Ron Paul, that's exactly what I would do... jam a stick in the bicycle spokes. Trip it up, make the Republicans sweat it out.
My colleague Tom Knapp has another idea... that Paul might leap over and be the Libertarian Party candidate. You can read his latest post here.
Now, I wouldn't mind if Paul did just that... but then again, wouldn't it be fun to make McCain work for it, instead of having it handed to him?
Labels: 2008 election, Libertarian, Republican, Ron Paul
Post to freedomSLUT
posted by The Libertarian Guy (tm) @ 11:30 PM,
|
links to this post
Giants win! But who loses?
Monday, February 04, 2008
Voters lose, when political candidates try to use the outcome of sports events to schmooze for power...
Clinton Revels in Giant Win
10 hours ago
ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) — Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton became a super fan of the New York Giants Sunday, reveling in their upset of the New England Patriots — and even seeing an omen for her own political future.
"Super Bowl, Super Tuesday, we've got one down, let's get the other," said Clinton.
What's this "we" crap, Senator? Were you on Giants' starting lineup last night?
At least we weren't treated to a repeat of this bit of collectivist drivel from Ted Kennedy again...
'At a time when our entire country is banding together and facing down individualism, the Patriots set a wonderful example, showing us all what is possible when we work together, believe in each other, and sacrifice for the greater good."
Italics added to emphasize how dangerous Ted Kennedy is, with or without a steering wheel in his hands.
Tomorrow is "Super Tuesday". Don't forget to vote, and don't forget to think about who the dangerous candidates are... they usually have either a D or an R before their names. (Ron Paul excluded.)
Labels: 2008 election, liberty, Super Bowl
Post to freedomSLUT
posted by The Libertarian Guy (tm) @ 9:42 AM,
|
links to this post
The slippery slope into the mouth of Big Brother
Sunday, January 20, 2008
This S 1959 nonsense has to be one of the most blatant attacks on our liberties since George Orwell wrote the handbook called 1984.
Of what possible interest is it of our government to sift through every single piece of e-mail or other internet transaction? Terrorists - foreign or homegrown - aren't going to be sending e-mails to each other with blatant "let's blow shit up" words... if they did, they'd be pretty damned stupid.
The old argument of "if you're not guilty, you have nothing to worry about" was old and tired a long time ago, and with H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (sponsored by Democrat Jane Harman), every single American should be outraged.
Wake up, America. There's a good way to fight terrorism, but this isn't it.
Labels: Constitution, snooping, terrorism
Post to freedomSLUT
posted by The Libertarian Guy (tm) @ 5:24 PM,
|
links to this post
