Our rights do not originate with government, but they are to be "secured" by government.
Formerly: Libertarian Party of Citrus county

Friday, March 26, 2010

Our Government is Racist

What is a Racist? According to Dictionary.com a racist is a person who has a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

Most of the questions on the 2010 census short form concern race. If the government doesn’t as an institution believe that differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, or doesn’t want to provide favor based upon race, or doesn’t want to develop congressional voting districts based on race, why does it need racial data.

I believe it makes no difference whether someone is black, white, brown, red or pink with yellow pokadots, nor is it any of the government's business asking questions like that anymore than it would be for an employer in the private sector.

Therefore these questions must be considered:
  • What is the purpose of asking every citizen about race?
  • What does it have to do with congressional apportionment?
  • Should citizens support racist government policy?

    The constitutional mandate for doing the census is to determine congressional representation in the House of Representatives, period. Since that is the reason for the census, the only logical conclusion is that the government needs racial data to create congressional districts to either promote or hinder representation based on race. This is a racist policy and a racist use of census data. I cannot in good conscious support racist policy, laws, or actions, so have not provided any data concerning the race of those who live in my household, and urge you to do the same. If you must enter a race I urge you to select other and write in “American” or “Human” or “Homo Sapiens”.

    Martin Luther King Jr. had a dream, so do the American people, why doesn't our government share that dream?
  • Thursday, March 25, 2010

    A Beginning or and End?

    "That's what I will do in bringing all parties together, not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together, and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are." ~ President, B. H. Obama

    Speaker Nancy Pelosi promised that this Democratic Congress would be: "The most honest, the most open and the most ethical Congress in history." ~ Speaker of the House, N. Pelosi

    In light of how Obamacare was passed, the 13 State attorney generals who have filed suit against Obamacare on constitutional grounds, and the 39 states that have passed or proposed legislation exempting their citizens from mandated Obamacare, can anybody explain to me how Obama, Pelosi can be trusted to ever tell the truth?

    Obama said that because of the passing of Obamacare that immediately children would not be denied coverage because of preexisting conditions. We soon found out that that is a lie, and that they can be denied just like adults until 2014. Even in victory he cannot tell the truth.

    According to the polls a super majority (over 60%) of the people opposed Obamacare. Not oppose health care reform, but Obamacare, because it does nothing to curb healthcare costs, and only serves to put the government in control of the single largest and fastest growing segment of our economy, and does nothing to “reform” healthcare. Obama and crew have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that regardless of the will of the people that they will say or do anything to gain more control and power. The Federal Government now runs itself based on lies, fraud, bribes, and deceit.

    The socialist policies of G.W. Bush lost the support that the Republican Party had of conservatives and libertarians. Under Republican control, the legislature adopted anti-competition, anti-free market, anti-liberty policies. They spent and acted exactly like liberals. By Putting up the anti-free speech pro-establishment socialist, J. McCain, as presidential candidate the Republicans insured that they would lose the last election.

    Unfortunately (maybe fortunately) the majority of people in this country who just want the rule of law, and to be left alone to succeed or fail on their own, have finally woke up. The Tea Party movements, the anger expressed in Town Hall meetings, the huge number of demonstrators against more socialism, are all evidence. The government and socialists in both the Democrat and Republican parties vastly underestimates the resolve and anger of the people. For decades the people, have tried to ignore the government, as long as taxes were reasonable, and they didn’t mess too much with the economy, and left us alone, we tried to work and live without need or support of the government. The government has made it clear, it will not leave us alone, it will not honor the contract (the Constitution) that we established with it. On Tuesday, March 23rd, 2010, the Federal Government of the United States, declared war on liberty, you are no longer free to choose how to live your life, you are no longer free to choose what is best for yourself and your family. You are not even free to use your accumulated wealth, to prolong or improve your life in old age. Obama’s solution is that rather than get the operation that will improve your life, is to take a pain pill, and remain drugged up and out of touch till you die, that the government, not you, will determine what is best. Obamacare is the current highpoint of Marxism/Socialism in America.


    Maybe the Russian Strategists that suggested the US will breakup into smaller nations was right, and what we are seeing it the beginning of the end of what was once the freest most prosperous and successful nation in the world. Even Pravda notes American capitalism gone with a whimper. If we see signs that the Federal government is trying to squelch opposing viewpoints by adding regulations to internet and/or radio, or signs that they are trying register and/or limit firearm sales to citizens (probably through UN treaties not US laws), or break their promises and increase taxes on the middle class, we may unfortunately see the start of the destruction of this once great country.

    The Federal government both Democrat and Republican, have rejected liberty if favor of Statism and is willing to use force to make each and every one of us capitulate. Maybe the States lawsuits will prevail and the constitution up held, and these remedies for all liberty minded people should be sought and perused with vigor. But if (when) the tyranny that the Federal Government now exerts on the people is not stopped through normal legal channels, we must remember that We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

    Tuesday, March 23, 2010

    Libertarian Party must Change to be a Success

    At the beginning of this year I said I would temporarily change my voter registration to insure Rubio won the Republican nomination over Christ. READ HERE Christ is a RHINO, big government republican who must lose. Hopefully with his support of the socialist health care bill, the Democrat senatorial candidate Meek, has sealed his own doom.

    The most principled candidate is political new comer Alex Snitker, is the Libertarian candidate. When Rubio's voting record and actions come to light, Snitker may well be a viable candidate.

    If you have been following any part of the Tea Party Movement you will note that its foundations are libertarian, not conservative, and not leftist. The Tea Party movement has better articulated the philosophy and principles of the Libertarian Party, better than the LP either nationally or the state LP has. Quite literally the Tea Party has stolen the LP's thunder. (There is an exception which I’ll get to later)

    Why? Because the LP has in the past acted more like a political social club, not a serious political party.

    I’ve long been a registered Libertarian, but like most good libertarians, I voted for whoever had the most libertarian platform, and just wanted the government to leave me alone. Well it is obvious to me, and as the Tea Party movement has shown, millions of Americans, that we can no longer do nothing and must get involved, the government no longer supports individual liberty and is actively working to control our lives. Last year from a post card sent out I showed up at a LP organizational meeting here in Citrus County. I left the meeting as treasurer of the newly formed Libertarian Party of Citrus County, and started this blog. I’m now the Vice-Chair of LP Citrus, our Chairman, Greg Lennon is now not only the chair of our little county affiliate, but is now Secretary for the Libertarian Party of Florida (LPF). Once actually part of the LPF we discovered that the party has libertarian zealots but was not professionally run. Rather than a grass roots organization it was a top down group of people who neither listened to nor supported its affiliates. Note I said was not is, this is rapidly changing, and I believe that the LPF will become a major player in the future if the changes started come to fruition.

    To be successful changes in the LP are necessary. The LPF is making strides to rectify this. They are slow in coming as some the "Old Guard" of the LPF doesn't like change or like being challenged. Too bad for the “Old Guard”, for the LPF to be successful it cannot do business as usual. That methodology has proven to be a failure. The same can be said for the National Libertarian Party. Changes have to be made for it to become successful.

    To start with, it has to become more public and not just a niche party, with vocal zealots but no real chance of winning. The most vocal and popularly known Libertarian, is Bob Barr, with Ron Paul (Republican) also noted as a libertarian, and once ran on the Libertarian ticket, neither of whom are in leadership of the Libertarian Party. Can you even name the Chairman of the LP?

    Nationally the next most known libertarian is Wayne Root, the 2008 Vice-Presidential running mate of Bob Bar. What the Libertarian Party needs is a Leader not an administrator, this leader must be publicly visible and needs to be the Chief Salesman & Spokesman for the Libertarian Party brand. I believe that Wayne Root with his face often seen on Fox News, as a syndicated Talk Show Host, and often fill in host for more famous talkers, would be an ideal leader to help change the LP and make it a real viable alternative to the our current leadership. Lucky for us he as announced his intention to run for the Chair fo the LP. Here is part of what he had to say in his March 15th, announcement;
    Our party has a great message, yet we have not achieved the level of success that Liberty deserves. What we have lacked is a positive, dynamic, passionate, high-energy communicator. Just as Reagan brought that to the GOP; and Obama brought to the Democratic Party; and Sarah Palin has now brought to the Tea Party movement.

    The success and media coverage of the Tea Party movement is fantastic. I applaud what they have accomplished. But they've stolen our thunder. We were there long before the Tea Parties pointing to the size and corruption of government; out of control spending; unsustainable deficits; bloated government employee compensation and pensions; the cost of wars; and taxation without representation. We knew it...we called it...yet we're being left behind.

    We must take advantage of this taxpayer revolt... and the coming citizen revolution. I believe the future is bright for the LP, but we must act now, or get left behind.

    We need an LNC Chairman who can represent the Libertarian Party with vigor in the national media...give speeches across this great country to audiences looking for freedom...sell the Libertarian Party to American voters...raise money from not only Libertarian Party members, but from libertarian-leaning voters...convert mainstream voters like Republicans, conservatives, independents, Tea Party activists, and blue dog Democrats to the Libertarian Party (as voters AND contributors)...and appear on national TV to debate as EQUALS with the RNC and DNC Chairmen.

    I want to be that person, there to serve you and the freedom movement!

    ~ Wayne Root


    Wayne Root for National Libertarian Chair!

    Saturday, March 20, 2010

    Obamacare Is Not Constitutional

    In past articles I’ve asked “how is forcing a person to purchase health insurance constitutional?” I’m hardly unique in asking this question. When House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer was asked where in the Constitution Congress was granted the power to mandate that a person must buy a health insurance he replied, “Well, in promoting the general welfare the Constitution obviously gives broad authority to Congress to effect that end. The end that we’re trying to effect is to make health care affordable, so I think clearly this is within our constitutional responsibility.”

    I’ve heard others say very similar things. Let’s take a look at Article 1, Section 8 of the US constitution which defines the powers of congress, and where the “general welfare” clause comes from. It starts:
    The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

    This is followed by the 17 enumerated powers which congress has, none of which include forcing people to purchase anything, nor providing charity. Go read the famous congressional letter/story by Col. Davey Crocket for details.

    The Tenth Amendment states:
    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.
    This supersedes Article I, Section 8, because it was ratified after the main body of the constitution was ratified. But more importantly look at the wording of both. Notice that first line of Article I, Section 8 DOES NOT say that Congress shall have the power to… provide for the… general welfare of the People. As noted throughout the entire constitution the United States, the States, and the People are all separate entities. Every time the phrase “United States” is used in the Constitution, it denotes the federal (or central) government.

    Congress does not have the power to create a law that requires citizens to purchase a specific product or service. None of its specific powers can be construed to granting it that power. In fact that power is specifically reserved to the States and the People. If congress manages to cheat its way to presenting Obama with a health care bill that requires all people to purchase health care insurance, that law will be declared unconstitutional. 37 states now have either laws or proposals for laws which affirm the right of the people not to have to purchase health care insurance (that’s enough to change the constitution).

    Larry Elder summed up the situation brilliantly saying, “Assisting the needy in health care is a "moral imperative" — not a constitutional right. The two are as different as a squirt gun and an Uzi.” His entire article ”Health Care — If Government Doesn't Do It, Who Will?” is worth your time to read.

    Wednesday, March 17, 2010

    Is it Science?

    The article "Climate Scientist to Fight Back at Skeptics," Washington Times March 5, 2010, by Stephen Dinan, describes a forthcoming campaign to attack the credibility of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) skeptics. According to this article one promoter said that the campaign needs to be "an outlandishly aggressively partisan approach. The article also says that "Climate scientists at the National Academy of Sciences say they are tired of 'being treated like political pawns' and need to fight back. …" Their strategy includes the formation of a NPO (non-profit organization) to use donations to run adds to criticize critics.

    AGW is the theory that man is causing global warming. Socialist leaning politicians are using this theory as a tool to try to control how, and where people live, and what activities they may choose to participate. Politicians are trying to use AGW as a means to control people. In the past 6 months the data used to promote AGW was shown to be manipulated, changed, and fabricated to promote AGW theory, not based on actual science. AGW proponents across the world have been exposed to lie about their data, and hide or destroy (lose) original data so that their conclusions cannot be evaluated by other scientists. AGW proponents have been show to actively attack and suppress peer review, and scientific study that doesn’t promote their preconceived ideas about AGW (go Google “climate gate” for yourself).

    Rather than fight skeptics of AGW with solid science, using the scientific method and sharing both raw data and methodologies with peers, the March 5th Washington Times article, reflects typical socialist methodology of attacking the critics not the message. This is a common logical fallacy called an ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument toward the person" or "argument against the person"), which is an argument which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise. Proponents of AGW, are not offering the data, methodologies, and models, as proof of AGW, they are attacking people who use solid scientific evidence to expose the non-scientific nature of AGW.

    E-mails obtained by the Washington Times quote Paul Ehrlich, Stanford professor and environmentalist, saying, "Most of our colleagues don't seem to grasp that we're not in a gentlepersons' debate, we're in a street fight against well-funded, merciless enemies who play by entirely different rules." AGW skeptics want to use the rules of the scientific method, not politics. AGW skeptics want to use the scientific method, actually analyze raw data, review methodologies, and use solid science to confirm or refute the science. AGW proponents want to “hide the decline”, use ad hominem attacks, collude to suppress any data they don’t like, and cut the funding and ability to do research to those who don’t agree with AGW theory.

    AGW skeptics say the science is solid and that the theory of anthropogenic global warming doesn’t hold up to critical analysis; they have exposed the poor scientific methods and models used by politicians and AGW proponents. The science is not only not settled, but more and more evidence shows that in spite of an increase man made global warming gasses since 1995, the earth has cooled.

    Questions about global warming we need to ask:
  • Why have proponents of AGW suppressed scientists and studies that don’t promote AGW?
  • Who benefits from the fear AGW generates?
  • Who funds pro-AGW studies, why, and do they benefit from certain results?
  • Why won’t AGW proponents release their raw data and methodologies to others? (a basic part of the scientific method)
  • Why are proponents of AGW actively working to attack critics instead of using the scientific method to prove their case?
  • Monday, March 15, 2010

    The Stuff of Legends

    What do Odysseus, Nixon, and Obama have in common?

    The American people have spoken clearly, via polls, ballots, rallies, direct meetings, emails, phone calls, and faxes. The signals to our legislators have been less than subtle. The American people want smaller government, the people DO NOT want Obamacare, and are not happy with what's going on in Washington.

    The Democrat leaders not only know this they have asked for their lesser Democrat counterparts to fall on their swords and sacrifice their political careers to pass Obamacare. They recognize their own hubris.

    Hubris being the excessive pride and ambition that usually leads to the downfall of a hero in classical tragedy. It would take Shakespeare to adequately tell of depth of hubris demonstrated by the current Democrat leadership.

    The arrogance of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid has lead them to believe that they are smarter, and more capable of living the lives of the American citizen than the people are themselves. They believe that only they know what's best. Obama infamously stated during last summer’s town hall meetings, that the constitution was a problem to his plans. They think that they are smarter than our founding fathers and that they should not have to work within the restrictions that the people of this country have put on them. They do not believe that they govern at the consent of the people but that they are elite rulers destined to lead the masses.

    The hubris of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid is bordering on legendary. Others with such legendary hubris, from Odysseus to Nixon have had the similar fates; they were “cursed” by their own words and deeds. They tell the people not to believe what they see and hear with their own eyes and ears, but to trust the words of their ruling Elite. The government has taken over a significant portion of health care, it’s called Medicare and Medicaid. History has shown that these government programs cost vastly more than projected, and are virtually bankrupt. We look at places where the “progressive” policies of Democrats have been put in place and see the results (Detroit is a prime example, once the fastest growing industrial profit center in the world and now a virtual ghost town compared to what it was).

    Obamacare is about power and control, the American people recognize this. The hubris of current Democrat leadership will be their downfall.

    Saturday, March 13, 2010

    Senator Barrasso: Why Won’t Congressional Democrats Permit Science Oversight Hearings? (PJM Exclusive)

    Senator Barrasso: Why Won’t Congressional Democrats Permit Science Oversight Hearings? (PJM Exclusive)

    Hard Questions

    Musing over which ideas to use for the next blog entry, all of the below questions are running through my rather cloudy grey matter. Rather than create an entire article on each, I gathered the ideas and in the Socratic Method put them to you as questions, about society and on liberty.

    For most of human history, men have been expected to take care of their families. 50+ years ago the overwhelming majority of American men saw themselves as providers. If a man impregnated a woman, he usually married her. A man went to work and provided for his children. A man didn’t want to take any handouts. This was the definition of a man. More than 40% of children in America today are born without fathers, why? More importantly why do women today tolerate and accept males who don’t act like men?

    Natural rights (also called moral rights or unalienable rights) are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity. Natural rights are thus necessarily universal, whereas legal rights are culturally and politically relative. Should we allow our government to enter into treaties with other nations that restrict our unalienable rights as affirmed in the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights?

    Should the government be able to ban the use of salt, in all food cooked or served at restaurants? What would be the constitutional basis for such a law?

    As an individual citizen, is it more American to believe that you have a personal responsibility to be personally accountable for your actions, and those of your family? Or is it more American to believe that you should wait for the giant collective to take care of you?

    Should be the requirement of the neighbor who eats fresh vegetables to pay for the costly therapy of the guy who lunches daily on Big Macs?

    Should the government be allowed to detain a person and confiscate any “dangerous” property, if they think the person might at some future time use it illegally?

    Should the health non-smoker have to pay for the lung cancer/heart treatments of a smoker?


    Should the average guy who worked hard in school, learned a trade, and works hard at providing for himself, be required to feed the family of a lazy man who dropped out of school and made bad decisions throughout his life?

    Wednesday, March 10, 2010

    CENSUS 2010

    Yesterday I received notice that my 2010 census from will arrive sometime next week, urging me to fill it out completely.

    I will fill out and submit my Census form but not completely. Why? Two reasons:

    First the government has a history of using Census Data for unconstitutional purposes. What Purposes you ask? Start with rounding up and imprisoning citizens and tracking specific citizens based on race, political, or religious reasons.

    Data from the 1940 Census was used to intern Japanese, Italian, and German Americans following the U.S.’s entry into the war, and to monitor and persecute others who escaped internment. In addition to providing geographic information to the War Department, the Census Bureau released the name, address, age, sex, citizenship status and occupation of Japanese Americans in the Washington, D.C., area to the Treasury Department in response to an unspecified threat against President Franklin Roosevelt in 1943.

    More recently, in 2002 and 2003, the Census Bureau turned over information it had collected about Arab-Americans to Homeland Security.

    So assurances that the data will be secure are demonstrably false.

    Second reason is I believe that all people are created equal, and as such should be treated equally under the law, and that all laws should apply equally to everybody regardless of race, sex, political affiliation, religion, national origin, etc. I cannot see any valid reason for the government to have racial or similar data unless it is to institute programs or other actions based on race. This seems bigoted and racist; I will not support my government in racist policies.

    So next week I will return my 2010 Census form with just the number of people living in my home, and no other data, I urge you to do the same. The result of this minor civil disobedience will most likely result in an agent of government knocking on my door this summer. This is an opportunity to exercise our civil rights.

    Contrary to what the Census Bureau tells you, you do not have to speak with a government agent unless you’ve been arrested, in which case you can evoke your 5th amendment rights and still not have to talk to the government. You have a right to privacy, to be left alone. The PRIVACY ACT OF 1974 (Public Law 93-579), empowers citizens to require full, written disclosure from a government official who seeks information.

    Thus, when a government agent like a census taker comes knocking on your door, you have the right to simply say, "Please go away." Unless the government officer places you under arrest (there must be probable cause, or an arrest warrant based on probable cause), the officer must obey your wishes. If however as a good citizen you wish to be helpful, do so, but on your own terms. When the Census agent comes to your door you may insist on complete disclosure as a precondition to speaking with any government official. BEFORE questioning begins, you should politely inform the government agent or agents that a prerequisite for your cooperation with "the government" is the agent’s cooperation with the citizen. Here is a handy dandy form based on the legal requirements all government agents must follow according to Public Law 93-579. Public Service Questionnaire

    If the government agent refuses to answer your questions, including their home address, etc., you can by law send them on their way without answering any of their questions. The questions I like that I’m sure the census worker will not be able to answer are: What other uses may be made of this information? and What other agencies may have access to this information? I seriously doubt the census worker will be able to provide all the uses the government has for the census data, and all the agencies besides the census bureau that have access to this information. If they refuse to answer your reasonable questions or answer them incompletely they are in violation of the law, not you.