Poll: Government Threat to Rights

For the first time since I remember, the American people get it:

Fifty-six percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Friday say they think the federal government’s become so large and powerful that it poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens. Forty-four percent of those polled disagree.

The survey indicates a partisan divide on the question: only 37 percent of Democrats, 63 percent of Independents and nearly 7 in 10 Republicans say the federal government poses a threat to the rights of Americans.

Now, if they will only start voting differently because of it.

Technorati Tags: , ,

Raising Sin Taxes

The government needs money and “health advocates” are advocating adding yet another $1 per pack tax on cigarettes. While the billions in tax revenue would be welcome to cash strapped states, I am firmly opposed to “sin taxes” in general.

Legislative power should not be used to punish legal behavior. If you want to make people stop smoking, make it illegal. Don’t try to tax it out of existence. The poorest of our citizens bear the brunt of the additional taxes, and rather than dedicating the money to health programs it goes into the general pool where it is wasted by our politicians.

Remember, next comes raising taxes on beer, then hamburgers and milkshakes, then whatever else our liberal tree-hugging, granola-crunching, “I-know-what’s-best-for-you” surrender monkeys decides we should stop doing (“for our own good”, of course).

Sin taxes. Blech.

Technorati Tags:

Tea Party Should Avoid GOP

Even though I consider myself a Libertarian, I don’t always agree with CATO. But they are 100% correct when they say Tea Partiers Shouldn’t Date the GOP:

The quality that gives the Tea Party movement its legitimacy is that it is so fundamentally illegitimate: outside the establishment, bereft of representation on K Street, and without an identifiable face to speak for it on Meet the Press. This is a movement that sprang deep from within the viscera of America, not from some political poll or focus group.

It is not Republican; it is not even conservative. It has no interest in debating the merits of No Child Left Behind, abstinence-only sex education or George W. Bush’s rationale for going to Iraq. Replacing a “spend and borrow” Democrat with a “spend and borrow” Republican is not the goal of the Tea Party movement.

This movement is simply saying: “We are fine without you, Washington. Now for the love of God, go attend a reception somewhere, and stop making health care and entrepreneurship more expensive than they already are.”

Machiavelli once said a republic stays healthy by returning to its first principles from time to time. The Tea Party movement is trying to get our nation back to its first principles to prevent our decline.


I stopped giving to the GOP when they had control of the House, Senate, and White House and started acting like Democrats. Road to nowhere, stalling on reducing capital gains taxes, Bush supporting Arlen Specter instead of endorsing Pat Toomey, and so on. I swore then that the Republican Party would never get another penny. And they haven’t.

I highly recommend giving to the Club for Growth. Every penny of your money will go to politicians that support limited government and lower taxes, no matter what their party is.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , ,

The Decision of a Lifetime

As I look at the array of available candidates left in the smoking ruins of the 2008 presidential primaries, several things occur to me. First, I understand the Left being jerked to the left by the MoveOn.org and George Soros crowd. I really do. It makes sense. The socialists have taken control of the liberal movement.

But what the hell is jerking MY party to the left?

Why is it that there is not a single candidate that represents anything even close to what I believe?

Where was I when Reaganism died?

With "Bye, Bye Miss American Pie" playing softly in my head (now with new meaning — think about it), I return to the question I have been struggling with since Fred Thompson left the race: who do I support now?

Given that Huckabee and Giuliani seem to be lost causes (not that I could support either one, anyway), and given that I do not consider doing nothing a viable option, I am left with seven choices.

I could support Mitt Romney, the man that went to Michigan and made promises no one could possibly keep in order to woo Detroit voters. The man whose campaign spread a lie in order to suppress support of Thompson during the crucial Iowa caucus. The man that has flip-flopped on at least 15 issues, including my beloved Second Amendment.

I could support John McCain, war hero and experienced Senator. Of course, Ann Coulter properly points out that McCain’s "Straight Talk Express" takes a very crooked path as he "enthusiastically (promotes) amnesty for illegal aliens, Social Security credit for illegal aliens, criminal trials for terrorists, stem-cell research on human embryos, crackpot global warming legislation and free speech-crushing campaign-finance laws." Not to mention his repeated opposition to the Bush tax cuts, waterboarding terrorists and drilling in the ANWR. And Ann completely left out McCain’s poor record on gun rights and that he is a danger to the Second Amendment.

I believe Mitt will tell voters anything they want to hear, and will take his own liberal path when elected. With McCain, at least I know what I’m getting. The trouble is, apart from the continued prosecution of the War on Islamofascism, I don’t like much of it.

I could support Ron Paul, a man who absolutely will not prosecute the War on Islamofascism. So no, I won’t vote for him. Besides, as the Club for Growth said, the man is a purist to a fault (literally).

And so I come to choices 4 through 6: Hillary, Edwards or Obama. That’s right, I could cross party lines in the primary and vote Democrat.

On the night of the Iowa caucus, I listened to the speeches of Edwards, Hillary and Obama. I will tell you now that Edwards’ and Hillary’s speeches scared me to the point that I decided right then and there that if either one of them is elected then I’m joining a militia to prepare for the coming disintegration of the Union. In fact, if I can’t find a militia then I’m going to start one. Buy a few hundred acres of Tennessee wilderness and go practice war and survival.

Obama’s speech was scary, but not to the point where I fear for the survival of my offspring. I can see me crossing the line to vote for him.

One major problem: I want to support someone in a local race (Bill Giannini for county Tax Assessor!) and voting in the Democrat primary would make that impossible. I have a larger impact in local races, so the Democrat options are out (until November, that is).

My seventh and final option is to vote for Fred Thompson in the primary (he is still on the Tennessee ballot) and Libertarian in the fall. I could easily get behind Wayne Allyn Root. These would be pure protest votes, a message to the collective GOP that they no longer represent me. [Besides, I saw Root speak at the Conservative Leadership Conference and absolutely loved him. His speech is on YouTube and also his campaign site.]

You often hear people say that they didn’t leave the party, the party left them. I used to feel that way. But now I feel that I didn’t leave the party, the party has run screaming past trying to be "moderate" to a total abandonment of all that makes it a force for good in this dangerous world.

And so I am decided. Fred Thompson in the primary. Then a few months to think about it with a probable vote for Wayne Allyn Root (current frontrunner in the Libertarian race) in the fall.

Update: The Fourth Horseman writes via email:

The only real issue I see between McCain and Clinton is Iraq, and I don’t think there will be that much difference in the result once Clinton stops running to the left, i.e. after she has the nomination.  I am almost to the point of "let them have it for four years" and then let’s see if we can’t have a candidate who can get it right. That might be better than letting McCain "work" with the Dems to pass "bi-partisan" socialist legislation.

To which Advised by Wolves responds:

Agreed. . . Either a McCain or a Clinton Presidency will be a failure. Let the “D” get the blame.

My problem with that is the fact that it would be Clinton with a Democrat (of the Pelosi flavor) congress working together — a dangerous combination that could very well do irreparable harm to our flavor of freedom. Besides, with the press solidly on Hillary’s side, the fact that the presidency is a failure won’t come out for another 20 years. Just look at how many people still think Bill will be thought of kindly by history.

Still, their positions lend credence to my support of the Libertarian option.

Libertarians: Lost on the Fringe

Being Neolibertarian myself, I have a strong affinity for the Libertarian ideals and hold several local Libertarians in high regard.

But Right Wing Nation has several examples of why the Libertarian party continues to be considered a fringe party, teetering on being placed into the “whack job” category.

Posted November 30th, 2006 Filed in Libertarian

So Long, Harry Browne, and Thanks for the Fight

HarryBrowne.gifHarry Browne, who twice ran for U.S. president on the Libertarian ticket, has passed at the age of 72:

Browne died Wednesday at his home in Franklin, Tenn. He had suffered from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis — Lou Gehrig’s disease — for some time, a publicist said.

Browne led the Libertarian Party ticket in 1996 and 2000, collecting 485,798 votes the first time he ran for president and 384,431 the second, the party said in a release.

He was a well-known motivational speaker and the author of 12 books, including “How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World,” “Why Government Doesn’t Work” and “The Great Libertarian Offer.” He also founded DownsizeDC.org, a group aimed at reducing the size of government, a basic tenet of the Libertarian Party.


Continue Reading »

Posted March 2nd, 2006 Filed in Libertarian