Extending Unemployment Benefits; A Moral Question

Do you believe that it is moral and just for one person to be forcibly used to serve the purposes of another? And, if that person does not peaceably submit to being so used, do you believe that there should be the initiation of some kind of force against him?

I believe our nation’s problems are moral, not just economic. The above is a simple moral question and can be answered with a simple yes or no answer. If you ask this of virtually any politician, you won’t get a straight answer. The reason is simple; your politician cannot give a simple yes or no answer to that question because he is sly enough to know that either answer would be troublesome for his agenda.

Charlie Crist has shown that he is not only a wishy-washy, flip-flopping, disloyal politician, but a man of questionable moral character. Gov. Charlie Crist issued an executive order on Friday that will make nearly a quarter million Floridians who have been out of work for a long time eligible for additional benefits. Earlier in the week he had been unsure if he had the unilateral authority to make the change to existing laws without the legislature’s approval. House Speaker Larry Cretul, R-Ocala, said Thursday that lawmakers would probably try to address the issue when they return for a special session next month or in September. But on Friday U.S. Senate Candidate, Crist, said he had determined he had a “constitutional duty” to authorize the use of available federal funds.

I’ve read both the US and Florida constitutions, I can’t find a place where he has the authority much less “duty” to change the existing law.

Charlie Crist has loudly and clearly answered the question - Do you believe that it is moral and just for one person to be forcibly used to serve the purposes of another? His answer is a resounding Yes. Christ agrees with the principle that one American has a right to live at the expense of another American. Crist is typical of liberal, progressive, socialists in this country, like Obama, and George Bush before him; they have no moral foundations for their actions, and simply react in a method that they best think will preserve their power.

This is a very basic question of morality. If you accept the premise is that I am my private property and you are your private property, then the simple answer to the question is NO, it is not moral and just for one person to be forcibly used to serve the purposes of another. What's complex is what percentage of me belongs to someone else. If we accept the idea of self-ownership, then certain acts are readily revealed as moral or immoral. Acts such as rape and murder are immoral because they violate one's private property rights. Theft of the physical things that we own, such as cars, jewelry and money, also violates our ownership rights.

So we see that if a politician answers with No, it puts them in the uncomfortable position of having to come out against taking the earnings of one American to give to another in the forms of farm and business handouts, ObamaCare, unemployment benefits, food stamps and thousands of similar programs that account for more than two-thirds of the federal budget. Government spending on wealth redistribution, including charity, amounts to legalized theft. This is not an argument against paying taxes. Paying for the constitutionally mandated and enumerated functions of the federal government is a moral obligation we all have. Taking tax dollars from some Americans and giving them to other Americans for purposes other than those enumerated in the constitution is quite simply wrong and immoral.


Charlie has clearly shown that he has no moral basis for his political decisions. Do you want to elect as your nest US Senator a man who thinks that one American has a right to live at the expense of another American?

I’ve posted Alex Snitker on his FaceBook account, I’m eager to see how he answers the moral question: Do you believe that it is moral and just for one person to be forcibly used to serve the purposes of another? And, if that person does not peaceably submit to being so used, do you believe that there should be the initiation of some kind of force against him?

Response to "10th amendment victory!”

In response to my “10th amendment victory!” article I received the following letter. It was addressed to JJ McCurry, Chairman of the LPF. JJ did not write the short article, so it is not his opinion, but mine.. Below are both Zack’s letter and my response.

From: Zack ****** [mailto:********@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 7:24 AM
To: info@lpf.org
Subject: [From the LPF website] On DOMA and the 10th Amendment

Mr. McCurry,

As a young man becoming more involved in politics, my open and rational mind eventually led me to become very attracted with the Libertarian party's stances on many issues. As a Floridian, my desire to help like-minded state candidates led me to this website.

However, on the main page, you have an article entitled "10th amendment victory!" While I agree with the judges' ruling on the case that the issue should not be taken up by the federal government because of what the Constitution says, I do not think that even a state government should have the ability to dictate the definition of marriage through sheer, democratic fiat. My train of thought is in accordance with the Libertarian Party's platform, section 1.3.

In the article, you understand that we live in a republic and are subject to the rule of law, not mob rule (democracy) yet you assert that as a "Christian Libertarian, I firmly believe that marriage should be protected." How can you reconcile that statement with actual Libertarian social thought? You have every right to be a Christian and, for example, go to church, as a homosexual has the right to solidify a relationship through marriage. If the bill was to be introduced here in Florida, you are implying you would support it, and because there are many Christians here, the bill would likely pass, and the rights and liberties of homosexual couples in Florida would be entirely infringed by the majority.

Any clarification on this issue would be great.

Thank you,

Zack ******* from Jacksonville

Here is my response to Zack.

---

Hi Zack,

Thank you for your reply. JJ didn’t write “10th Amendment Victory!” article, I did, my name is Tom Rhodes and I am editor of the LPF newsletter, Vice-Chair of the Libertarian Party of Citrus County, and editor of the lpcitrus.blogspot.com blog. Thank you for your response. I believe that your assertion that “a homosexual has the right to solidify a relationship through marriage” not logical if you believe that rights are unalienable, and not granted by government or society. Exactly where does this right come from? It is not based upon any traditional or natural right.

We live in a constitutional republic not a democracy; as such both the federal and state governments are limited by their constitutions. Please re-read the preamble to our constitution. You will note that the constitution is established to “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity” not just to secure those blessings for the current generation. Establishing in the first sentance of our constitution the protection of children. Both thousands of years of tradition and research have shown that the best environment to raise children and pass down family and societal values is through an intact family unit consisting of a married man and woman and their children. I agree with the national platform that “Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the rights of individuals by government”. I also agree that the Federal government is limited and “does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships.” Based on the writings of our founding fathers our rights are based on “natural” law, which are basically the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The pursuit of happiness (in some documents just termed property), is generally be considered a combination of life and liberty, meaning you have the right to the fruit of your labor (property), and the right to use and protect that property as you see fit so long as you don’t infringe upon the rights of another.

The special purpose of marriage for thousands of years has been to create a family to protect the upbringing of children, holding the woman and man who enter into this covenantal contract accountable to the family. A marriage is based on people agreeing to sacrifice their rights for the good of a family and progeny not to "solidify a loving relationship." Since you own your own body, and a spouse owns their own body, a marriage traditionally blurs this distinction to create a single entity, a family. Children are physically and emotionally part of that couples body, and traditionally treated somewhat like property until they reach the age where they can be considered an independent person, at such time their parents are no longer responsible for the actions of their child nor providing for the child’s welfare (this age has varied in societies over the ages but the principle has remained for thousands of years). As such parents are both responsible for the upbringing and at liberty to determine what values and property are passed on to their “posterity,” not the state. A states interest in marriage is both financial and moral; traditional marriage has proven to be the best way to secure the blessings of liberty for our posterity, and traditional families have proven to be more financially stable and hence less burden on the state, and a better source of taxes.

I disagree with the portion of section 1.3 of the LP platform which states that “marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws” are rights.

Marriage is not a right, it is a covenantal contract sanctioned by both the church and the state for the expressed protection of passing down both property and values to future generations. This has proven over thousands of years to be what’s best for society. There are individual cases where this is not the case, but overall nothing has proven better. We do not have to accept the perversion of the meaning of marriage because a very small group of society wants to force its values upon the rest of society. Consenting adults should be free to engage in any behaviors they wish so long as they don’t infringe upon the rights of another. This does not give them the right to force others to accept their behavior as normal, acceptable, desired, or moral. Nobody has the right to feel good about their behavior, nor to silence others who criticize their behavior, nor to restrict the rights of another for how they feel or what they say about a specific behavior. Hence Christians have no right to stop homosexuals from engaging in and enjoying whatever consensual acts they choose, and homosexuals have no right to silence Christians when they declare that homosexuality is an abomination, deviant, immoral and socially unacceptable. Marriage laws do not violate anybody’s rights; they do promote a behavior that has been considered desirable for thousands of years, through legal protection and tax incentives without punishing other behavior. But on U.S. constitutional grounds that authority is reserved to the states or the people, not the federal government.


Ask yourself, does the state or do parents own children? Is the state or are parents responsible for children? Marriage laws place a moral and legal obligation on parents to children. Child custody and adoption are an extension of property rights, and nobody has the right to any specific property that they don’t own, conditions of acquiring property are subject to the whims of the current owner. Both child custody and adoption are contractual agreements for one party to assume the responsibility and benefits of rearing a child as if they were that child’s natural parents. There is no natural, moral, or traditional right to have a child you didn’t create yourself. Therefore whomever has the custodial rights to a child can and should have the right to determine the contractual obligations and conditions of transferring that custodial right.

I agree that immigration should have no limits, but practicality it must remain limited and controlled so long as there is a welfare state, the libertarian idea of open borders is both foolish and unwise without first ending all state sponsored charity (this includes social security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, unemployment benefits, etc.) Until state charity is ended, a secure border and limited immigration policy is a must or our country and liberties will be destroyed.

Military service is not a right, it is a contract; all those who choose to enter the military do so voluntarily, and as such agree to all the limitations and contractual obligations in exchange for the training and pay received. Since nobody is forced to join, free people are at liberty to join or not join and accept the terms of the contract. There is no right to be in the military and not meet your contractual obligations because you don’t like the terms of the contract. You are free not to join if you don’t like the terms, just as you are free not to accept a job that requires you to wear a chicken suit and pass out flyers if you don’t like those terms. Our military has proven that an all volunteer force is superior to any conscripted force; as such no leaders in our military want anything to do with the draft.

I believe the portion of LP Platform 1.3 which considers marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service as “rights” is mis-guided and not founded on either true libertarian principles nor natural law, nor the foundational documents and writings of this country, it is not logical for us to “create” these as rights any more than it is logical to “create” a right to a good job, or a right to health care. Unlike the Republican and Democrat parties the LP is clearly open to all liberty loving individuals; as such atheists, anarchists, and many extremists have found a home in the LP. They are all welcome, but so are Christians and traditional lovers of liberty. There are some in the LP who do not like nor accept Christians and their ideology, they fail to realize that it is Christianity and Christian ideology that are the basis for libertarian thought. Only ignorance of history, theology, and philosophy can lead a person to the idea that libertarian ideology is not based on solid Christian doctrine and principles. Please read http://tinyurl.com/25wmsoy.

Regards
Tom Rhodes

Protecting Florida Sugar Industry Hurts Us All

Protectionist Laws for Florida’s Sugar Industry cost us both dollars and health. In the Journal of Clinical Investigation (May 2009), researchers at the University of California, reported that the widespread use of fructose may be directly responsible for some of the ongoing increase in rates of childhood diabetes and obesity. The protectionist laws for Florida’s Sugar industry (and those subsidies for corn growers in the mid west), have made fructose (corn syrup) a more economical sweetener than glucose (table sugar). The UC study showed that consuming fructose-sweetened, instead of glucose-sweetened, beverages increases abdominal fat and decreases insulin sensitivity in overweight/obese people. Worse yet the participants in the study who consumed fructose-sweetened food showed an increase of fat cells around major organs including their hearts and livers, and also underwent metabolic changes that are precursors to heart disease and diabetes.

Noted economist, Walter Williams, currently the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., in response to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius quote, "The U.S. government plans to increase funding to battle obesity and views healthcare reform as an opportunity to encourage better eating habits," professor Williams said, “Rather than spending money and attacking the food industry, the secretary and others concerned with the health of Americans ought to go after the U.S. Congress.”

Ever watch the TV commercial for Corn Syrup? The one where they ask what’s wrong with using high fructose corn syrup, implying that there is nothing wrong with it and it’s as safe and secure a sweetener as table sugar. Kimber Stanhope researcher at UC Davis found that "This is the first evidence we have that fructose increases diabetes and heart disease independently from causing simple weight gain. We didn't see any of these changes in the people eating glucose." Confirming this, Dr. Gerald Shulman and fellow researchers at Yale University School of Medicine have found that diets with significant high-fructose corn syrup lead to elevated risks of high triglycerides, fat buildup in the liver and insulin resistance.

The corn industry point to studies that show there is no difference between corn syrup and sugar. But we can easily trace the increase in the use of corn syrup and the increase in obesity, diabetes, and other health problems associated with high triglycerides. Concerning the Princeton study released in February of this year, researcher Nichole M. Avena says "Our findings lend support to the theory that the excessive consumption of high-fructose corn syrup found in many beverages may be an important factor in the obesity epidemic." The corn industry disputes these finding, but in the 40 years since the introduction of high-fructose corn syrup as a cost-effective sweetener in the American diet, rates of obesity in the U.S. have skyrocketed, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 1970, around 15 percent of the U.S. population met the definition for obesity; today, roughly one-third of the American adults are considered obese, the CDC reported.

Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM) and the Florida Sugar Growers have given millions of dollars to politicians. The result is artificially high sugar prices and artificially low corn syrup prices. The cost of sugar is 25% to 35% less in Mexico than in the U.S.A. That with cheaper labor has resulted in US candy manufacturers moving to Mexico. But it’s not just the cost of labor that made them move. Life Saver’s candy, a namesake American product, is now made in Canada where labor costs are similar but they save $10million dollars per year.

Protectionism for Florida sugar and subsidies for Midwest corn are adding to the pockets of the corporations who have bought off your representative with political patronage. The results are predictable, you paying more for sugar, use more of a subsidized product, and worse yet, the use of artificially less expensive corn syrup in place of good old table sugar has resulted in measurable health problems. Walter Williams is correct we should be going after congress and the Florida legislature whose excessive rules and regulations hurt Floridians and all Americans.

$260 Million Florida Tax Dollars Wasted

The News-Press has reported that “Florida taxpayers and donors have committed $1.6 billion over the past decade to lure research firms - about $800,000 for every employee the companies will eventually hire.”

Those are good paying jobs at around $55K per year, so basically we the people of the state of Florida have paid for all the salaries for over a decade of each employee of the research firms we have tried to entice to come to Florida. Of course most of these jobs are not for local Floridians, but for people we will import into the state to fill the jobs.

This is stupidity and a primary example of too much government. Florida has attracted eight laboratories since 2003 with eight- and nine-figure incentives. These institutions, which recently became operational, have hired 883 of the 2,033 people they have pledged to employ over the next decade, according to their reports to the state. The government is trying to “manufacture” research clusters. The history of such clusters is dubious at best.

Vivek Wadhwa, a Duke University researcher who studies trends in technology enterprises, says most successful clusters grow naturally, not through government direction. "Nearly all such clusters worldwide have failed," Wadhwa said. "It takes years for this to become obvious and, by then, political leaders have moved on and real estate developers have reaped their bounties."

We do have a prime example of a “Cluster” in Florida that has naturally occurred and is very profitable. It happened not with donations by the Florida taxpayers but with limited government. It’s called Orlando Tourism, Disney, Universal, Sea World, I-Drive, and stretches down the I-4 corridor to Bush Gardens in Tampa. This is a prime example of a cluster that grew naturally, hired thousands of people, and didn’t cost the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars per job.

Cluster building is corporate welfare, and a waste of taxpayer money. Models for chasing business away and attracting business exist in the USA. California is hemorrhaging business they are moving away as fast as they can pack up. Texas is growing even in this bad economy. The difference is the size of government. In Texas they work actively at keeping government small, and allowing business to thrive or perish on their own. In California, they tax and regulate and subsidize business to death.

We don’t need to bribe business with tax dollars to get them to come to Florida, we need to create a long term environment where they are not so burdened that other places look better. Wasting tax dollars on business bribes (subsidies and incentives), makes all the citizens of Florida poorer, and provides incentives for graft and political favoritism. We especially need to not waste tax dollars trying to artificially create a technology cluster. Consider the actions of the California government, it didn’t create Silicon Valley. Silicon Valley naturally arouse from the people of that area, attracting the best and brightest minds in technology. Seeing profits and money poor in, the government took action which has resulted in Silicon Valley’s death. Additional government regulations, taxes, and laws have resulted in such huge decreases in profitability for all industries in that area they have and are moving off shore and to other states.

Biotech clusters like the research triangle at Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill resulted from the natural growth around universities, medical schools, and supporting corporations moving to where people and environment are conducive to growth. Florida’s latest effort is the proposed $260 million state and local cash incentive for Maine-based Jackson Laboratory to come to eastern Collier County. There is no university/medical school/engineering environment in Collier County like there is around FAU or UCF. Jackson Lab plans to hire up to 244 people over the next decade. Mike Hyde, Jackson Lab vice president for advancement, estimated that about a third of total employees may be hired from the state or region. Does anybody besides me see the stupidity in spending $260 million tax dollars to get 81 Floridian jobs? We could give those 81 local people $321,000 a year for 10 years or we could give 500 people over $50K per year for 10 years.

Suppose you buy into the idea that those 244 jobs will create a trickledown effect and benefit the economy of Collier County and Florida in excess of the $260,000,000 tax dollar investment. That the temporary construction jobs, and auxiliary spending will be a good investment of Florida tax dollars. That doesn’t make Jackson Laboratory a good investment. Jackson Laboratory Florida will study human disease, the effect of the human genome on such diseases and how to develop “personalized” medical treatments and diagnoses based on these factors. “Personalized” medical treatments and diagnoses is very expensive, in a free market those who could afford Cadillac insurance, would be able to afford such treatment. With the passage of Obama Care, and the recess appointment of Dr. Donald Berwick, we are about to enter into European style socialism. “Obama made the recess appointment because a public confirmation hearing in the Senate would have made Berwick -- who has openly advocated the redistribution of wealth as part of a health care plan -- “unconfirmable,” said Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.).

In a June 2009 interview with Biotechnology Healthcare, Dr. Donald Berwick said: “We can make a sensible social decision and say, 'Well, at this point, to have access to a particular additional benefit [new drug or medical intervention] is so expensive that our taxpayers have better use for those funds.' We make those decisions all the time. The decision is not whether or not we will ration care--the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open."

Like Britain health care will be managed (rationed) based upon the worth of a person to society. Do you think that expensive “personalized” medical treatments and diagnoses of Jackson Laboratory will fit into Obamacare? If Collier County is such a good place to build a biotech lab, then Jackson Laboratory would do it without huge cash incentives. The research in Collier will largely be computer analysis of genetic information, according to lab officials. With current technology, this type of work is not necessarily location specific, the question to ask is without the cash incentives would Jackson Laboratory be expanding and doing this work collier county? Investing $260Million of cash incentives, without even stock ownership, in a company whose product may not be viable because of promised government rationing, seems to be a very stupid use of Florida tax dollars.

Why should the people of Florida subsidize Jackson Laboratory, to create a “cluster”, when virtually all such clusters worldwide have failed, and the passed and promised regulations of Obamacare will severely curtail the use of Jackson Laboratories services?

Obamanomics vs. Reaganomics

18 months after Ronald Reagan instituted an economic program now called "Reaganomics", the US economy was kick started into what became 20 years of unprecedented U.S. economic growth, prosperity, and wealth creation. Democrat president Bill Clinton extended Reaganomics, "It's the Economy Stupid" was his campaign mantra; his economic policies were in line with those of President JFK not FDR. At the end of Reaganomics under Bill Clinton the government was in surplus, working on reducing the federal debt, and welfare roles were being reduced. Reaganomics was a huge success.


18 months after B. Obama instated economic policies now called Obamanomics, rather than keeping unemployment below 8% as promised we hover at 10%, welfare rolls are expanding, and business is holding on to record cash reserves rather than expanding. Obamanomics is a spectacular failure, creating the potential for a $22 trillion dollars of public debt by 2020 that will take generations to repay.


Nonfinancial companies are sitting on $1.8 trillion in cash, 25% more than at the beginning of the recession. Major firms are reporting impressive earnings. Money continues to flow into firms' coffers, yet the good news from big business isn't translating into American jobs. If corporations are sitting on so much money, why aren't they hiring more workers? The answer is Obamanomics. Credit has dried up, so corporations must maintain higher cash reserves. Regulations have made hiring new workers more expensive and less secure. Promised tax increases also make expanding in the USA counterproductive. Too much government has made it practically impossible for small business to start, expand, or remain competitive. Why would any small business expand past 50 employees in today’s business climate? The crushing government regulations make entering into a new business, or expanding an existing business into new markets, unprofitable. Big business has a duty to its shareholders, and as such with more government must protect its assets and financial stability, which make contraction not expansion the best course of actions under Obamanomics.


Ronald Reagan, the “Great Orator,” was noted for his memorable and timeless sound bites, like “government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem” and "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I'm from the government and I'm here to help.’" Obama’s sound bites are equally memorable but obviously anti-American and socialist, like; “the problem with our constitution is that it doesn't allow the federal government to take "bold steps" in changing the US” and "My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you'll join me as we try to change it" and “I think when you spread the wealth around it's good for everybody.”


Obamanomics failure is the result of inexperienced elitist intellectuals implementing utopian socialist ideology notwithstanding of the fact that those ideas have repeatedly proven harmful to society whenever and wherever implemented. The rise of the USA, most powerful nation in history, a nation which has no empiric goals, routinely rebuilds those it defeats in war, and provides the most charity to the entire world, was conceived and based on the idea that government exists at the consent of the people, and has few distinct limited powers leaving the vast majority of power with the people not the government. The failure of Obamanomics and the resultant economic chaos is historically repeatable and exactly what occurs whenever any government uses its power to usurp the power from the people.


Obamanomics is the implementation of socialist/Keynesian based economic policies which have always proven to lead to significant economic turmoil and downturn, and more government power over the people. It is painful to watch the desperate actions of the Obama administration ameliorate their demonstrably failed policies in light of the indisputable proof of Reaganomics over Obamanomics.

10th Amendment Victory!

U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro ruled that the Defense Against Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional, because the federal government was impermissibly intruding on family law, "a quintessential area of state concern." He wrote that the definition of marriage has long been viewed as a power "reserved to the states" by the 10th Amendment because it is "not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States."

As a Christian Libertarian, I firmly believe that marriage should be protected, but either we live under the rule of law and the limits to federal powers as described in the Constitution of the United States are the law of the land, or we believe that the federal government has no limits and can do whatever it chooses. We live in a Federal Republic which has few and limited powers. As much as I agree with the ideas and principles of the DOMA, to be valid it must be a constitutional amendment. Judge Tauro was correct in ruling that congress does not have that authority.

Using the logic that we have equal protection under the law, again Tauro was correct in ruling the feds must accept each states definition of marriage, not some overarching federal standard. The DOMA act only protected those states that agreed with the federal government, therefore id did not offer equal protection for all States, much less for all people.

Hopefully we'll see more rulings invalidating the huge number of federal laws that are clearly not among the enumerated powers that we the people have granted to the federal government.

Hymn to the Welfare State

"Hymn to the Welfare State"
prepared by "Democrats for Better Government," Rio Grande Valley, Texas, 1964.

Government is my shepherd,

Therfor I need not work

It alloweth me to lie down on a good job.

It leadeth me beside still factories;

It destroyeth my initiative.

It leadeth me in the path of a parasite for politics sake.

Yea, though I walk through the valley of laziness and deficit-spending,

I will fear no evil, the Government is with me.

It prepareth economic Utopia for me, appropriating earnings of my own grandchildren.

It filleth my head with false security;

My cup runneth over.

Surely the Government should care foe me all the days of my life!

So I shall dwell in a fool's paradise forever.

---

Editor's Note: We should have listened to them 46 years ago, they were right.

SCOTUS Nominee Kagan, Declares Declaration of Independence Null and Void

Kagan Denies the Declaration of Independence

Nominee for SCOTUS Justice, Elena Kagan, may have disqualified herself from serving on the U.S. Supreme Court with her statement under oath that conflict directly with the founding documents of the USA.

This exchange happened during her confirmation hearings between her and Senator Coburn:

Coburn: Do you believe it is a fundamental, pre-existing right to have an arm to defend yourself?

Kagan: Senator Coburn, I very much appreciate how deeply important the right to bear arms is to millions and millions of Americans. And I accept Heller, which made clear that the Second Amendment conferred that right upon individuals, and not simply collectively.

Coburn: I'm asking you, Elena Kagan, do you personally believe there is a fundamental right in this area? Do you agree with Blackstone [in] the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defense? He didn't say that was a constitutional right. He said that's a natural right. And what I'm asking you is, do you agree with that?

Kagan: Senator Coburn, to be honest with you, I don't have a view of what are natural rights, independent of the Constitution. And my job as a justice will be to enforce and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States.

Coburn: So you wouldn't embrace what the Declaration of Independence says, that we have certain God-given, inalienable rights that aren't given in the Constitution that are ours, ours alone, and that a government doesn't give those to us?

Kagan: Senator Coburn, I believe that the Constitution is an extraordinary document, and I'm not saying I do not believe that there are rights pre-existing the Constitution and the laws. But my job as a justice is to enforce the Constitution and the laws.

Coburn: Well, I understand that. I'm not talking about as a justice. I'm talking about Elena Kagan. What do you believe? Are there inalienable rights for us? Do you believe that?

Kagan: Senator Coburn, I think that the question of what I believe as to what people's rights are outside the Constitution and the laws, that you should not want me to act in any way on the basis of such a belief.

Coburn: I would want you to always act on the basis of the belief of what our Declaration of Independence says.

Kagan: I think you should want me to act on the basis of law. And that is what I have upheld to do, if I'm fortunate enough to be confirmed, is to act on the basis of law, which is the Constitution and the statutes of the United States.

Kagan in her own words said she will not uphold the principles of the Declaration of Independence. In signing the Declaration of Independence, for the first time in history, the people reduced government from master to servant. Government was proclaimed to derive its powers only from the consent of the governed. Kagan is claiming that the law and government is master over the people. She said that the law supersedes unalienable rights. SCOTUS Nominee Kagan has determined that the Declaration of Independence Null and Void for the citizens of the United States of America.

The Declaration of Independence proclaims that life and liberty are the unalienable gifts of God, natural rights, which no person or government can rightfully take away. It affirms that the purpose of government is to secure our God-given unalienable individual rights. The Constitution is definition of how our government is instituted based on the purpose set forth in the DOI.

The idea that there are no natural or unalienable rights, only the law is tantamount to declaring that the government determines right not the people. Clearly Kagan is not qualified to sit as justice to the SCOTUS.

Tax Dollars Used to Promote Abortion

The current liberal control of the federal government, knows no bounds in its hypocrisy. The people and congress have repeatedly said that federal dollars cannot be used for abortion, but now Federal dollars are being used to change the terms of debate and promote abortion in the USA. Managing editor of NPR, David Sweeney, recently issued a memorandum to staff ordering them to use only the politically correct designations for the contending sides in the debate: abortion rights advocates is the approved way of referring to those who favor liberalized abortion; abortion rights opponents is the only way NPR will refer, from now on, to pro-lifers.

The Libertarian Party is generally considered a pro-infanticide (pro-abortion) group. It has a huge number of atheists and pro-abortion proponents. As a Christian Libertarian I believe that abortion is better termed infanticide and wrong; that the LP Platform position on abortion is misguided and wrong, but I also believe it most honestly reflects the true position of the American people. The LP Platform position on abortion reads: 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.

In no case should the government ever be promoting abortion. The official radio station of the US government National Public Radio in general should be eliminated. If it can survive on private donation from both corporations and citizens, or sell commercials to support its work it should be allowed to exist as it is. Spending tax dollars on it is wrong. It is and should be recognized as a federal propaganda organ not a real news source. NPR has been hostile to conservatives and traditional values and has a history of accepting and promoting opinions as facts, and of demonizing anybody who doesn’t accept the leftist line.

What is most objectionable is that NPR uses public tax money to spread pro-infanticide bias. Not only that but they have decided that “pro-life” terminology will no longer be used. Calling people, who believe that of all the rights, the right to life is sacred, anti-abortion rather than pro-life is propaganda of the Soviet style, designed to change an argument by controlling the language. “Pro-Life” is the positive view of human rights. The acceptance of the idea that all people have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, is not anti-anything. Americans want to protect, and do protect, the right to life. We should extend that protection to millions of genetically distinct living people who through no action of their own are denied their right to life simply because of their developmental age.

The government should not be allowed to have a leftist propaganda arm like NPR. NPR should be allowed to exist and have whatever obvious and shameless bias it chooses. It should however, like the NY Times, Newsweek, Fox News, or any other “news source” be allowed to make it or go the way of the Detroit News, Clearwater Sun, and a thousand other news sources that no longer exist because the people didn’t support them. The next time we have a Congress that listens, let’s demand that NPR do it on their own dime.

Alex Snitker, LP Candidate for US Senate at Citrus County Forum

Alexander Snitker, Libertarian Candidate for the U.S. Senate from Florida, addresses audience at candidate forum in Citrus County Florida on June 22nd, 2010. Q&A included.