Bob Barr's Insult to Ron Paul Is Not A Surprise

Bob Barr's "no-show" at Ron Paul's major press announcement today this morning has been terribly conspicuous to many Ron Paul supporters who were there at the press conference. This latest snafu has sent shockwaves to the online news sites and the entire libertarian blogosphere all over the World Wide Web. Everyone who had been waiting for Barr to show up along with Paul, Green Party presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney, Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader, and Constitution Party presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin.

Former Libertarian Party Vice Chair Chuck Moulton, a staunch Barr supporter, commented on his candidate's absence on the Independent Political Report. He noted:

Bob Barr continues to find ways to slap the Ron Paul movement in the face and embarrass the LP. Clearly he is in D.C. and at the national press club, since he has his own event there in 15 minutes. It is inconceivable to me that he would be a no show.

Interestingly enough this isn't the first time Barr has pulled a stunt like this. This past July, he was supposed to attend a Ron Paul R3VOLution March, but instead stood up Paul and his supporters by opting to attend Las Vegas' Freedom Festival, where he reportedly was "always accompanied by handlers" to keep away libertarians who would persistently question him on his statist, Big Government stands.

According to blogger CLS (who was also at the event) at his Classically Liberal blog, Marc Victor, a classical liberal attorney and occasional talk radio show host who was publicly at odds with Barr's anti-freedom positions, also attended the festival, in which he used an opportunity to try and question Barr on his anti-libertarian views. Upon describing the entire situation, CLS, in great detail, wrote:

Marc says that when he brought up Barr’s anti-libertarian position on drugs that Barr glared at him and then gave one of his handlers a signal. Barr is always accompanied by handlers whose job is to keep libertarians away from their presidential candidate so they can’t ask him questions about his Big Government positions. A rather large woman, working for Barr then pushed her way between them in order to push Victor off to the sidelines. Barr then turned tail and ran in the opposite direction.

Even libertarian land developer Treg Loyden received the same treatment from Barr's goons when he attempted the same thing. According to CLS:

Another libertarian I know, land developer Treg Loyden was later witnessed by me having a conversation with Wayne Root, the LP’s unlibertarian vice presidential candidate. I called Treg up this evening to ask what that was about. He told me and also pointed me to something he wrote about the experience.

Treg first attempted to speak to Bob Barr, a man Treg now sees as Little Napoleon. Treg too had tried to ask Barr about his anti-libertarian position on the war on drugs. And like Marc Victor, Treg got the same treatment. First, he told Barr that his position on drugs was not acceptable and then waited for Barr to respond. Barr looked at him silently and simply refused to say anything. Barr instead turned away from Treg and started talking to a conservative.

But that doesn't end there. Even Don Rassmussen, who is involved with the Campaign for Liberty organization (CFL), was "deeply disappointed" with Barr standing up Ron Paul. He wrote the following at a Ron Paul forum:

The following reflect my personal feelings and is not endorsed by Dr. Paul or Campaign for Liberty.

I am deeply disappointed by Bob Barr's decision not to participate in today's press conference just as I have been disappointed with the Barr campaign throughout this election cycle.

The idea that he was busy is absurd. I am sitting in the National Press Club right now waiting for his hastily called press conference to begin. This is the same building where Dr. Paul's presser just ended. Barr committed to participate, but had his campaign manager call us minutes before it started to tell us that Bob thinks "it just isn't worth it." I look forward to hearing him explain how breaking a promise to Congressman Paul constitutes a wise campaign strategy.

It is my great hope that the alternative parties will present the American people with quality candidates that offer a real option. Clearly the Libertarian Party has failed to do so. Bob Barr has repeatedly broken his promises to Dr. Paul, showed up uninvited at C4L events, and made statement contrary to Dr. Paul's beliefs while still claiming the mantle of heir to the R3VOLution.

Hopefully, the LP will find a way to reject this candidate without rejecting the idea of engagement in practical politics.

Bob Barr National Field Director Mike Ferguson went on the attack against Ron Paul and his supporters on his Myspace blog by ludicrously claiming that Paul displayed "a complete lack of leadership" and "has, again, blown a tremendous opportunity to lead and advance the agenda of the Constitution, and individual liberty." It's also interesting to note that, in the hours after his Myspace blog was leaked out and published on IPR and other related blogs, Ferguson quietly and swiftly removed his offensive Myspace blog post.

The original blog post hosted on Ferguson's Myspace account stated the following:

From Bob Barr 2008 National Field Director Mike Ferguson:

Earlier today, Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) held a press conference in Washington, D.C. where he said…well, nothing…

He invited Libertarian Party Presidential nominee Bob Barr and independent Presidential candidate Ralph Nader along with the nominees of two small, minor political parties to stand behind him as he encouraged Americans to vote for anyone other than Sens. Barak Obama and John McCain.

Ron Paul wasted the press corps’ time with this press conference. It accomplished nothing and displayed a complete lack of leadership on Paul’s part.

Of the four invitees, only Bob Barr had the sense to skip the event. He held his own press conference, also in Washington, D.C., later in the day.

Among the things in Ron Paul’s statement was a reference to the “principled non-voter”, claiming they are sending a message and should start a “League of Non Voters” to impact the nation and government.

So, in other words, Paul stated that people should not vote for Obama or McCain and should vote for a third party nominee…unless they really don’t want to.

Allow me to set the good Doctor straight: “principled non voters” count the same, and have the same impact on America, as lazy, apathetic citizens who simply do not care enough to get involved and vote. There is no difference between the wannabe political philosopher who refuses to cast a vote “out of principle” and the lazy citizen who chooses to remain ignorant of the issues, the candidates and his or her government.

Keep in mind that some of Paul’s followers have placed his name on the Presidential ballot in two states (Louisiana and Montana). Paul could have kept his name off the ballot in those states by simply requesting that he not be listed as a candidate in the general election, but in an effort in ego, he chose to allow his name to go on the ballot in direct competition with the other candidates he claims to encourage people to consider voting for.

Ron Paul has, again, blown a tremendous opportunity to lead and advance the agenda of the Constitution, and individual liberty. Since he launched his Presidential Exploratory Committee almost two years ago, Ron Paul has repeatedly said this campaign is not about the man (him) but about the message (liberty and the Constitution).

Really, Dr. Paul? Your actions belie your words.

If he were truly serious about this being “about the message” and not the man, he would be making sure that the message is resonating far and wide through and during the Presidential campaign.

The Libertarian Party begged him to accept its nomination and continue his campaign through Election Day. He declined.

The Libertarian Party then nominated the only credible pro-freedom candidate in the Presidential race, former Congressman Bob Barr, but Paul refused to support him, saying he is working for freedom within the Republican Party.

Backing Barr would have taken courage on Paul’s part. Instead, today he took a cop-out course of action by encouraging a nondescript “vote third party” message that would water down the impact of the freedom vote. If Americans are serious about sending a message that demands the restoration of our civil liberties, an end to the war in Iraq, a foreign policy that makes sense and solid, realistic economic policies then there is only one option to vote for on November 4th – Bob Barr.

Ron Paul knows that. Instead, he encouraged watering down the vote while maximizing his marketing base for the Campaign for Liberty, his book sales, etc.

After Rep. Paul collected millions in donations from Libertarians, independents and Republicans during his campaign, he has since:

1) Sold his followers a book

2) Had people travel to (or donate to) a march on Washington D.C. that ultimately proved to be too small to even get noticed, much less have any sort of impact

3) Launched the “Campaign for Liberty” and hit up his followers, again, for donations to this organization that has made no noticeable effort to support liberty-minded candidates

4) Sold thousands of tickets to the “Rally for the Republic” in Minnesota, where he then sold t-shirts, more books, vendor booth space, advertising in the programs and a host of other things.

Ron Paul is now in the Ron Paul business – and business is lucrative.

As painful as it is to state the obvious: this campaign by the man is no longer about the message, it is about the money – lots of it. Other than in his pocket and in the pocket of his paid staff, where is all the money going?

No one seems to know for sure.

In a time of economic recession, Paul has found a way to keep going back to the financial well of his followers, creating yet another challenge for candidates who are still running for office at all levels and are unable to raise the funds needed to effectively spread the message of liberty and the Constitution.

I was among the first to donate to Dr. Paul’s Exploratory committee and I also donated to his Presidential campaign. Once he dropped out of the race, though, I did the responsible thing and got behind the only remaining credible candidate, Bob Barr, who is capable of injecting the message Ron Paul claims to want to spread through Election Day and beyond.

America still needs to hear that message and only Bob Barr is capable of taking the message further down the field. Unfortunately, it is obvious that Ron Paul is more interested in making money off the message than helping spread it through someone else. Maybe he is worried that Bob Barr will publish a book and compete for customers.

Thousands of Americans rushed to join Ron Paul’s campaign, myself included. For us, it has always been about the message. We were thrilled to have someone serve as spokesman for the cause of liberty and back a candidate who could leverage his position as a major-party candidate to spread our message to millions through the campaign.

That is why we donated millions of dollars collectively.

Since ending his Presidential campaign, though, Ron Paul has gone from being the hope for America to being a major obstacle to the message of freedom and the Constitution.

By contrast, Bob Barr showed that he is not just talking about and rallying for the message of freedom, he is doing something about the need to put liberty and Constitutional issues front and center in the Presidential campaign.

The Barr campaign continues to pick up steam in the national media and in the polls. People are listening and we cannot miss this opportunity to maximize our reach. The message is still getting out – because of Bob Barr.

Dr. Paul, where is the leadership from you? We certainly did not see any today in Washington, D.C.

Do Paul’s loyal followers, I ask one simple question: Are you serious about continuing to spread the message of Liberty for America?

If so, prove it. Go to www.bobbarr2008.com and sign up for our email updates. Then, look for a MeetUp group in your area – if there isn’t one already, start one. Also, make a donation to the campaign. In any event, get involved in the Barr campaign because this campaign is actually about the message.

Now, since the post was removed, a new post was put in its place, and it now reads the following:

September 10, 2008 - Wednesday

Where did THAT blog go???
Category: News and Politics


Wow...what a day. A blog that typically gets about 25 views per day received over 4,000 in a matter of hours.

The Bob Barr campaign has asked that I remove my blog posting from earlier today, so I have.

That post was written by me and reflected MY views - it was not intended to represent the Barr campaign.

So, feel free to continue to send the email replies, in support or in opposition.

Are we really that surprised that this happened? And, for some interesting reason, didn't we kinda, sorta expect this to happen in the first place?

I'm just as disgusted as any other libertarian and liberty-minded individual about this affair. But, really, I knew something like this would happen, given Barr's hostile attitude towards Paul and the Campaign for Liberty coalition. After all, Barr did recently slam Ron and alienate so many Paul supporters by taking half-statist positions on the Drug War, the War in Iraq, gay marriage, etc. After all, Barr is the one who keeps changing his positions as often as he changes his line of suits and ties.

But this is all a moot point, to be honest. What's done is done. The damage inflicted by Barr and his cronies to the Libertarian Party and the subsequent throwing Ron under a bus are strong indicators that the Barr campaign has never been interested in expressing the message, even especially "opening up the debates" as Barr contended early on in his campaign.

We are, after all, talking about the same Bob Barr who, of all people, claimed:

1. That he regretted portions of the Patriot Act after he supported them, but since has shown no interest in repealing that law, despite his claims to the contrary;


2. That he would repeal the DOMA law (he did say this early on), but then subsequently say that he would only repeal a portion of it;


3. That he didn't support the federal War on Drugs but only supported drug prohibition at the state levels (more of that states' rights claptrap, because the Constitution didn't go so far enough to protect liberty and individuals have rights), but then I think he was merely saying this to buy votes and supports the entire federal program completely;


4. That he was against the bail out of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae because they are "bail outs from hell," yet Barr was the one who initially embraced the bail-outs in his campaign (a point that was conveniently swept under the rug and thus forgotten by the Barr campaign and his sycophants);


5. That Jessie Helms, the former Democrat-turned-GOP senator who croaked on the 4th of July weekend, was, for the most, a great guy and it was too bad that he passed away;
and

6. That Ron Paul would make a great VP candidate on his ticket, which took place hours after he took the political equivalent of a crap on Paul and his supporters.

Oh, and let's not forget: one of Bob Barr's staffers even fired a volley of potshots at Ron the day this entire circus with Bob Barr's political "screw-you" to Ron Paul got off the ground. If that's not a greater insult, I don't know what is.

This is, undoubtedly, the fault of the delegates who, at the Libertarian National Convention in Denver this year, gave their political crown to Barr, all on the hopes that a "credible candidate" was needed to save the Party from the likes of Dr. Mary Ruwart whom they branded a kiddie porn lover. Their mindset was: "We can't have a pedophilia-loving candidate for President to have this ticket, so we'll give it to a candidate who's credible, who's been a congressman, and -- screw it -- who's not even a libertarian. Sorry, Mary -- you lose." Oh, and let's not forget the backroom deal that Barr made with Wayne Allyn Root: "If you support me, I'll make you get a lot of support as a presidential candidate in 2012 and I won't run against you." That was a deal closer right there for Root, and he went with it.

The Party nominated a man to be on its ticket by saying "We know he's not a true-blue libertarian, but who cares? We want more votes than ever, more media exposure than ever, and be taken more seriously than we would be if we had a Ruwart or a Kubby on the ticket." By doing that, they rejected the very core philosophy of an ideological party that has deteriorated into a political mess of epidemic proportions. Besides, the delegates, the campaign and LP supporters, and the membership have made their beds; now they have to lie in them.

Moreover, imagine the PR mess that Barr's campaign has created for the Party and its supporter and member bases. The LP's PR spin machine is in full operation as I write this, but that's not a surprise. This is a political train wreck waiting to happen, and that train has gone off the tracks and flipped over the ground. It's in shambles. There's nothing that the campaign and the Party can do to repair this, but even if they do, it'll be too late for them: the voters will reject them because they know intellectual dishonesty better than the Party and its cronies.

The Party can impose a damage-control operation all it wants, but its days are numbered. That is for definite certain.

Ron Paul to Voters: "Reject Two Party System"

Ron Paul, who is supposed to be giving a major announcement to the media today at 10 a.m., is urging voters to throw their votes to any one of the third party candidates, not Obama and McCain.

My prediction was right on: this is exciting news to date. Take that, Obama and McCain, for both of your socialist and fascist agendas!!

Ron Paul to Make Major Announcement

Ron Paul, according to online news reports, is scheduled to give a press conference to make a huge announcement. According to Market Watch, this media event is supposed to occur at the Ball Room at the National Press Club at 10 in the morning tomorrow.

While I'm not entirely certain of what this big announcement is all about, I predict that Ron will officially call for voters to throw their votes to any one of the third party candidates in a calculated yet sincere effort to get back at the Republicans who rejected him at their boring downsized convention in St. Paul, Minnesota. Thankfully, he had his Campaign for Liberty convention in Minneapolis, so all was not lost.

Not Business As Usual

Former Republican Senator Fred Thompson of Tennessee waxed ecstatic about Sarah Palin at tonight's first night of the Republican National Convention in Minneapolis, Minnesota. In his speech on the convention floor, Thompson praised Palin because she hails from a "small town" and supports "small town values."

In his long-winded speech, he blurted:

[Palin] is from a small town, with small town values, but that's not good enough for those folks who are attacking her and her family.

Then he said the following:

Some Washington pundits and media big shots are in a frenzy over the selection of a woman who has actually governed rather than just talked a good game on the Sunday talk shows and hit the Washington cocktail circuit. Well, give me a tough Alaskan governor who has taken on the political establishment in the largest state in the union -- and won -- over the beltway business-as-usual crowd any day of the week.

Really? Isn't she the same governor who:

• Opposes abortions, even if a raped mother seeks to abort her unborn child simply


• Opposes the legalization of marijuana, even for medicinal purposes (she tried it once but hated it)


• Supports creationism in the public schools and claims that she won't use a religious litmus test on political candidates running for the school board


• Refuses to marketize the ferry system after she correctly and courageously wouldn't provide state funds to complete the outrageous not-so-completed Bridge to Nowhere in her home state of Alaska


• Went after the oil companies by slapping a windfall profits tax on them (not a conservative position by any stretch of the imagination)

And

• Wanted to dole out $100-a-month tax-supported energy debit cards for customers who were overcharged by the energy companies

Watch the following video about Thompson's comments, and you'll see what I mean:

The Pregnancy of Sarah Palin's Daughter Bristol

Apparently Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin's daughter Bristol is with child...out of wedlock.

This may not bode well for many conservatives who still have their doubts about McCain, even though they have praised the Alaskan governor for her populist half-fiscal conservative, mostly social conservative policies.

Here's more on the story:

Sarah Palin today came face-to-face with the hard reality of the media examination she will undergo as John McCain's running mate when she was forced to confirm that her unmarried school-age daughter was pregnant.

The revelation immediately renewed questions about the extent to which Palin, Alaska's governor, and relatively unknown before McCain announced her as his vice-presidential choice on Friday, had been vetted.

Other disclosures today included that her husband, Todd, was arrested for alleged drunk driving 20 years ago and, more recently, she hired a lawyer to represent her in a state ethics probe.

The investigation is over when she dismissed the public safety commissioner, Walt Monegan, after he refused to fire her brother-in-law, a state trooper, who divorced Palin's sister.

Palin, the vice-presidential candidate and new star of the Republican party, was in St Paul, Minnesota, today to rally Republican convention delegates after being dispatched by McCain last night. The Republicans are trying to salvage their convention, which has been disrupted by media attention switching to Hurricane Gustav. All convention activities were cancelled for Monday except for essential business.

Palin, soon after her arrival, was caught up in questions about her private life. In response, the McCain campaign team issued a statement on her behalf stating that her 17-year-old unmarried daughter, Bristol, is five months pregnant. Palin, who campaigns on a Christian, anti-abortion ticket, said Bristol and her partner planned to marry: 'We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents.'

The fact that her daughter is to marry and have the baby blunted negative reaction among the party's social conservatives worried about sex before marriage. The news could even help consolidate the image of Palin and her family as typical of the average American home.

The emergence of details about Palin's life, partly after reporters landed at her home town, Wasilla, in Alaska, raised concerns about whether the usual vetting had been dispensed with due to McCain's impulsive choice.

McCain's team insisted today he had known about the pregnancy, the drunk driving charge and the ethics probe before offering Palin the job.

The man who carried out the vetting, Arthur Culvahouse, told Associated Press that all the potential problems uncovered in interviews with Palin had now been made public. 'I think so. Yes. I think so. Correct,' he said, insisting there had been a 'full and comprehensive' vetting.

But it emerged that McCain sent a fresh team to Alaska after he made the announcement on Friday, a move that raised questions about how thorough the initial vetting had been.

On the pregnancy, a McCain spokesman, Steve Schmidt, said the senator's view was that this was 'a private family matter'. He added: 'Life happens,'
Mark Salter, a McCain adviser, said the pregnancy had been announced to rebut rumours from internet bloggers that Palin's son, Trig, born in April with Down's syndrome, was a child of Bristol's. 'An American family,' Salter said.

The appointment of Palin is intended to mark a change in strategy by McCain. Having concluded it was not enough to challenge Barack Obama over his lack of foreign experience and to push his own narrative as a Vietnam war hero, he has been hoping to appeal to the working class and lower middle class, and believes Palin has the right credentials for attracting blue-collar workers.

With the absence from the convention of McCain and the US president, George Bush - who had been scheduled to make a prime-time speech last night at the convention but went instead to Texas to be on hand for the Hurricane Gustav emergency centre - Palin, Laura Bush and McCain's wife, Cindy, led the push to raise delegates' spirits.

The president's wife, who appealed from the podium for help for hurricane victims rather than make a politically-tinged speech, acknowledged delegates' frustration over the cancelled first day of the four-day convention. 'I know they're disappointed they're not going to get to have the programme tonight, but everyone understands it, everyone is thinking about everybody all across the Gulf coast,' she told CBS television.

All but two hours of the conference were cancelled today. A cocktail party planned for tonight, named Spirits of Minneapolis, was renamed Spirits of the Gulf Coast, with a fundraiser present to help bring in cash for the the American Red Cross hurricane effort.

The Republicans are hoping to resume normal business today . As long as they can manage to have three full days of prime-time viewing, finishing as planned on Thursday night, they believe they can secure enough media attention to judge the convention a success.

While Hurricane Gustav reminded the public of the failure of Bush to deal with the devastation of New Orleans by Hurricane Katrina in 2005, McCain's campaign team sought to turn the storm to their advantage. The cancellation of the first day of the convention sent out a message that McCain cared, contrasting with Bush's seeming indifference straight after Hurricane Katrina.

McCain said on ABC News that he was frustrated at the loss of part of the convention but added: 'This is just one of those moments in history where you have to put America first.'

The hurricane diverted media attention from the Republican convention, with almost all of the anchor journalists from the main networks having flown out to New Orleans.McCain is hoping he can get back media attention for Palin's speech tomorrow and his own on Thursday. Rick Davis, a McCain adviser, said decisions would be taken on a day-to-day basis.

McCain's Pick for Woman VP Not As Libertarian As Her Sycophants and She Make Her Out to Be

This latest hubbub over McCain's pick of Republican Alaska Governor Sarah Palin for Vice President has certainly made the entire 2008 race somewhat more interesting, in light of the fact that it's more of a response to Obama's pick of Biden as his running mate.

Palin has been deemed by many conservative and libertarian Republicans to possess an identical maverick streak that many see coming from McCain. As a pro-lifer, she claims to be in favor of "free market capitalism," hunts, and fishes. But, despite the fact that "libertarians" like Eric Dondero Rittberg branding Palin a "libertarian Republican," the woman governor of Alaska isn't as libertarian as her sycophants and she make her out to be.

For example, Palin, just prior to her election to the governorship in late 2006, campaigned on education, public safety, and public transportation, making them cornerstones of her administration. Interestingly enough, on her gubernatorial website, in the issues section of her website under the issue "Gasline," you will find the following disclaimer:

I am a conservative Republican, a firm believer in free market capitalism. A free market system allows all parties to compete, which ensures the best and most competitive project emerges, and ensures a fair, democratic process.

Let's re-read the first half of the first sentence again:

I am a conservative Republican...

She's not a libertarian folks. She's a "conservative Republican." She's a pro-war, pro-tyranny, and anti-freedom vice presidential pick. There's nothing consistently libertarian about her.

How is this, you ask? Let's take a good look at her short gubernatorial record:

1. While she pushed for an ethics bill (strongly libertarian, but futile as well) and jettisoning some pork bills that called for further wasteful spending of tax dollars at the state level but were supported by her fellow Republican colleagues, she did refuse to use state tax dollars to provide funding for the Alaskan Bridge to Nowhere (that would have connected one of the state's islands to another for the purpose of providing access to one of its airports). While the $398 million bridge was abandoned and Palin did the right thing by not authorizing state tax monies to finance it, she did not even consider the option of marketizing (a true alternative to "privatizing") the ferry system to the private sector so that the market could provide better access to the airport without the government contracting it to private enterprise or even subsidizing it or both. How is that libertarian?


2. While she rightfully opposed her fellow Republican United States Secretary of the Interior Dick Kempthorne's decision to place the state's polar bears on the Endangered Species list, she used taxpayer monies in the form of a lawsuit to stop the naming. How is that libertarian?


3. While Palin publicly supported drilling in the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), she did support and help pass a windfall profit tax on oil company profits and formed a sub-cabinet full of government advisors to "address" global warming (now called "climate change") and "reduce" CO2 emissions in the state. How is that libertarian?


4. She pushed for a state tax-funded $100-a-month energy debit cards for Alaskans in reponse to high gas and energy prices and proposed state tax-funded grants to electrical utilities in order for them to pare down their customers' monthly rates. How is that libertarian?


5. She supports imposing creationism alongside with evolution in the public "government" schools, even though she said that she wouldn't use religion as a "litmus test" to select any public candidate for appointment to any government school board. She never mentions getting the government out of the schools. So how is this libertarian?


6. She opposes legalizing marijuana, even for medicinal use, despite the fact that she tried it once and never liked it. How is that libertarian?


7. Finally, she opposes gay marriage, which means she supports keeping the government in the marriage business (when it should be out of it once and for all). How is her position on that libertarian?

While there are plenty of other anti-libertarian views that she holds, she may be slightly better than, say, Senator Joe Biden, because she holds some libertarian views, but that's not saying much in the grand scheme of things. Overall, she's not libertarian, and any "libertarian Republican" who thinks that she is a libertarian and is qualified for public office needs to have his/her head looked at.

When The Couch Patrol Arrives

There are the big tyrants (presidents, prime ministers, dictators, legislators, court justices ...Joe Arpaio) and then there are the small, local tyrants, the ones who often go house to house to make sure that you don't have the wrong kind of swimming pool (or a pool without fences...THINK OF THE CHILDREN!); that you have not installed anything without the permission of the local government; or even that you are not using your property in the way they want it to be used.

In the troublemaking town of Keene, NH, a resident was fined for a code violation: a couch on the yard used for birdwatching. The busybody/bureaucrat was caught on camera as the left the citation notice. A moment of hilariousness ensues when the city official repeatedly recommends voting as a means to solve problems (Yeah right!).

Driving with Air Fresheners is Suspicious

It would appear, according to US vs Branch (US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 8/20/2008), that the cops have been given more powers:

A federal appellate court ruled last week that police can delay a routine traffic stop as long as necessary to conduct a search for drugs. In its decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld the validity of a thirty-minute traffic stop in Maryland because the arresting officer claimed the nervous driver had an air freshener hanging from his rear-view mirror and had previously been spotted driving in a run-down neighborhood.

"First, the presence of several air fresheners -- commonly used to mask the smell of narcotics -- hanging in the Mercedes," Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III wrote to explain the source of probable cause. "The prior traffic stop of the Mercedes in a drug-trafficking area, Branch's evident nervousness, the presence of air fresheners, and the fact that Branch was driving a car not registered to him. These factors, in combination, could form the basis for a 'reasonable suspicion' of narcotics trafficking."

First of all, the state should not be prosecuting anyone for drug crimes. Then there's that word again: "reasonable." Should the government itself determine whether its own actions and policies are reasonable? According to Hans-Hermann Hoppe, "a state is an institution that decides who is right and wrong in conflicts involving itself" and thus, at least (but not limited to) in the case of victimless crimes, the state is both prosecutor and judge. It's not difficult to realize that this is a conflict of interest. State justice is an oxymoron; it is not a neutral third party.

Along Stephan's line of reasoning, the problem with state justice (or rather, non-justice) is the state. Reforms can only do so much. I <3 libertarian anarchy!

McCain Now Ahead of Obama

It appears that, after choosing Biden to be his running mate, Obama lags behind McCain in a newly-released survey while the Democrats are partying at their tax-funded, government-subsidized national convention in Denver. According to a new Gallup poll released to the public, there is a 46 percent lead for McCain over Obama's 44 percent showing.

It seems that, based on Obama's poor choice in selecting Biden as his VP, it's going to be a close race. In reality, it's neck and neck. Obama's popularity is beginning to lose momentum, and his true colors are starting to show in the public's eyes. So the public may very well choose McCain over him, as he is slightly better than Obama on some issues (but then that's not saying much anyway).

Here's the entire report on the survey's findings for any LLR reader's convenience:

Gallup Poll Shows John McCain Lead, No Obama Bounce With Joe Biden Pick

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
August 26, 2008

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A New Gallup poll shows pro-abortion presidential candidate Barack Obama received no bounce from choosing pro-abortion Senator Joe Biden as his running mate. In fact, John McCain now holds a lead in the survey for the first time in August as Democrats are in Denver for their national convention.

The daily Gallup tracking poll from August 23 to 25, the first three-day period falling entirely after Obama's Saturday morning vice presidential announcement, shows 46% of national registered voters backing McCain and 44 percent supporting Obama.

This is the first time since Obama clinched the Democratic nomination in early June that McCain has held any kind of advantage over Obama in Gallup Poll Daily tracking.

In fact, the poll shows Obama losing a 46-44 percent advantage over McCain immediately before he picked Biden as his running mate.

That Obama lost support nationally instead of getting a bounce from his selection is contrary to historical trends that show a small bounce following a vice-presidential announcement.

Gallup notes a four percentage point bounce for John Kerry in 2004 after selecting John Edwards, a 5-point bounce for Al Gore in 2000, and a 3-point bounce for George W. Bush in 2000.

Meanwhile, a Rasmussen Reports poll also found little post-Biden bounce for Obama as both he and McCain receive 44 percent apiece in the poll. With 'leaners' added to the mix, the candidates are tied at 46 percent.

However, with voters leaning towards one candidate included, Obama had a 1-2 percentage point lead in the days leading up to the Biden pick and a 2-4 percentage point lead without including leaning voters.

The Rasmussen poll also finds the Biden pick failed to unite Democrats behind his candidacy as just 78 percent of Democrats back Obama while 85 percent of Republicans are behind McCain.

'Obama's support has declined in each of the last three individual nights of polling,' Rasmussen notes. 'This may be either statistical noise or a reaction to the selection of Biden.'

McCain is viewed favorably by 57 percent of Americans while 53 percent view Obama positively.

A third national poll, conducted by CNN, finds the race tied at 47 percent each.

Biden's pro-abortion track record in the Senate mirrors Obama's.

He received a pro-life voting record of 0 percent from the National Right to Life Committee for 2007-2008.

Before that, Biden compiled records of 0 percent, 16 percent, 0 percent, and 22 percent with the pro-life group in previous Congressional sessions. His support for a ban on partial-birth abortions represented one of the only times he voted with the pro-life side -- with Biden voting repeatedly to force taxpayers to fund abortions at home and abroad.

Ted Kennedy's "Season of Hope"

At tonight's Democratic National Convention in Denver, Senator Ted Kennedy, whose ailing health has been making waves on the TV networks, appeared at the podium, giving a rather lengthy speech about how Obama will "close the book on the old politics" of race and gender and "group against group not just for the few." During his speech, he kept talking about "new hope" for the United States and that we are entering in "a season of hope."

This is what he said in part:

For me this is a season of hope -- new hope for a justice and fair prosperity for the many, and not just for the few -- new hope.

To me, this mention of a "season of hope" is governmentese for "let's expand the state the Democratic way and not John McCain and the GOP's way." I don't know about you, but that's how I see this latest state lovefest and what it truly stands for.

The Naive Support of the State to Protect Intellectual Property

To expect the welfare-warfare state--which taxes, regulates, murders, invades, bombs, hampers, conscripts, lies, imprisons, steals, and invades--which impoverishes us and hampers the economy, which penalizes innocent behavior and wastes trillions of dollars--which imposes antitrust, tort, FDA regulations and penalties on companies--to expect this agency to "create" legitimate property rights or to add "wealth" to the economy--and by setting up a state-run bureaucracy to grant monopolies to "applicants," under the oversight of the bunch of federal "judges"--is naive and confused beyond belief. It is certainly not a libertarian view.

See also Regret: The Glory of State Law, where I wrote:

Now libertarian proponents of state legal systems are for some reason optimistic about the ability of state legislature and courts to promulgate just laws. Objectivist attorney Murray Franck , for example, wrote:

Just as the common law evolved to recognize "trespass by barbecue smoke," it would have evolved to recognize property in the airwaves and in intellectual creations. But even if it could be established somehow that the common law would never have recognized intellectual property rights, this would not be an argument against such rights. The common law often requires legislation to correct it (for example, in recognizing the rights of women). Indeed it is a myth that the common law evolves to reflect, and that legislation always is in conflict with, the requirements of human nature. The same minds that employ induction and deduction to decide a particular case, making common law, can employ those methods to legislate universal laws.

Hayek also believed that case-law might need occasional "correction" by the legislature (see my Legislation and the Discovery of Law in a Free Society, p. 171). Both Franck and Hayek here express confidence that it is possible for the state--via its courts and legislatures--to issue "just" law. Well, I don't know about that. Here we have a "bad" judicial interpretation of a "bad" legislated statute. Oh, well, I guess they can at least "regret" it.

Gay Magazine Skeptical of Bob Barr's Claims

Washington Blade, a gay and lesbian magazine which champions gay rights, has published a piece on Bob Barr's alleged about-face on his support for the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) bill when he was still in Congress. Furthermore, it even mentions Barr's recent pledge to repeal only a part of the law -- specifically, the part where he says the federal government should get out of the marriage protection business. Of course, that means that he supports the morally-and-politically-bankrupt conservative view of states' rights (that is, states having rights over the individual) as opposed to taking all levels of government out of the entire game once and for all.

Here's a part of the article that should be of interest to pro-liberty groups:

'Barr and his campaign staff declined to answer follow-up questions about the legal chaos that could follow if the part of DOMA that bans federal recognition of gay marriages was repealed, with the rest of the law still intact. … "The response from the campaign staff is we won’t answer hypothetical questions," said Barr’s campaign manager, Russell Verney.'

Obama Picks Joe Biden as His Running Mate

It's now official: statist Democratic candidate Barack Obama picks statist Senator Joe Biden to be his VP.

Here's the official press report which confirms this:

Obama picks Biden for veep

Aug 23 12:53 AM US/Eastern
By LIZ SIDOTI and NEDRA PICKLER
Associated Press Writers

WASHINGTON (AP) - Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware is Barack Obama's pick as vice presidential running mate, The Associated Press has learned.
Biden, 65, is a veteran of more than three decades in the Senate, and one of his party's leading experts on foreign policy, an area in which polls indicate Obama needs help in his race against Republican rival John McCain.

The official who spoke did so on condition of anonymity, saying they did not want to pre-empt a text-message announcement the Obama campaign promised for Saturday morning.

MIA For The Weekend Because It's My Fiancee's Birthday

I will be MIA for the weekend until either Monday afternoon or Monday night (or possibly Tuesday) because it's my fiancee Beckie's birthday. She will be turning 25. Although not a pure libertarian, she has libertarian-minded views and is pleased that her fiance and loving honey will be there to celebrate her birthday with her.

Please, if you can and like, send some kind pro-liberty birthday messages to her. I know she will love and appreciate them.

See you guys until either Monday or Tuesday, whichever comes first.

Two College Presidents Rescind Their Support for Petition to Lower Drinking Age

Two of 125 college and university presidents who have come out advocating a nationwide petition that calls for reconsidering the legal drinking age are withdrawing their support for it.

Check out the New York Times piece on this:

August 22, 2008
2 Withdraw From Petition to Rethink Drinking Age
By SHAILA DEWAN

ATLANTA — Two college presidents, both in Georgia, have withdrawn their names from a petition to reconsider the legal drinking age after it drew blistering criticism this week from Mothers Against Drunk Driving, safety experts, transportation officials and politicians.

But 15 more from across the country have signed on, the organizers said Thursday.

All told, 123 presidents from colleges including Dartmouth, Duke, Ohio State and Tufts are supporting the petition, which says that raising the drinking age to 21 has fostered a culture of clandestine binge drinking and that students’ use of fake identification has eroded their respect for the law.

'Twenty-one is not working,' the statement reads.

But critics have accused the presidents of misleading the public, shirking their responsibility to enforce the law and trying to dodge the problem of student drinking.

The Governors Highway Safety Association has promised to hold at its national meeting next month 'a workshop to help highway safety agencies counter any effort in their states to lower the drinking age.'

Kendall Blanchard, the president of Georgia Southwestern State University in Americus, said he had pulled his name off the list in part because critics had misunderstood the petition’s intent. 'It was clear to me that they didn’t see this as a dialogue; they saw this as some kind of effort on our part to turn our schools into party schools,' he said.

The other president who withdrew from the petition was Robert M. Franklin of Morehouse College in Atlanta.

Many critics said they objected to the suggestion that studies did not conclusively show a benefit to raising the drinking age, particularly the reduction of alcohol-related traffic deaths among young drivers.

'Why would you take the one thing that has been tried in the last 30 years that has been shown to be most successful and throw that out the window and say, "I have a better idea?" ' said Alexander C. Wagenaar, an epidemiologist at the College of Medicine at the University of Florida.

But college presidents say they are fighting a losing battle with binge drinking and alcohol poisoning.

'Many of our university presidents are doing as good a job as they can at enforcing the drinking age,' said John M. McCardell Jr., the former president of Middlebury College in Vermont and a leader of the petition effort, which began last month. 'They’re doing all the right things, and what is the result? Well, young people are moving beyond the view of the college officials and often beyond the boundaries of the college campuses, and campus officials have no authority there.'

S. Georgia Nugent, the president of Kenyon College in Ohio, who signed the petition, said, 'I think there’s a direct connection between this law and this pattern of secret, fast consumption of high-octane alcohol. It’s much more dangerous than the traditional great big, loud keg party because it happens quietly, out of view.'

Mr. McCardell is the founder of Choose Responsibility, an organization that advocates lowering the drinking age, but the petition drive, called the Amethyst Initiative after the gemstone that the Greeks believed would ward off intoxication, calls only for 'dispassionate public debate' of the issue. The drinking age has been 21 across the country since 1988.

In a written statement that Mr. McCardell called 'intimidation bordering on bullying,' Laura Dean-Mooney, the president of MADD, asked the public to call the signers and demand that they remove themselves from the list.

'As the mother of a daughter who is close to entering college, it is deeply disappointing to me that many of our education leaders would support an initiative without doing their homework on the underlying research and science,' Ms. Dean-Mooney said in the statement. 'Parents should think twice before sending their teens to these colleges or any others that have waved the white flag on under-age and binge drinking policies.'

College presidents should focus on changing the culture on campus, Ms. Dean-Mooney said. She cited efforts like requiring alcohol education, scheduling more Friday classes to cut down on Thursday night parties, fighting marketing efforts like drink specials and ladies’ nights near campuses and coordinating with local law enforcement agencies.

But students said they were not getting drunk in bars.

'From freshman year on, I hardly ever went out on the weekends without having four or five shots of vodka beforehand,' said Diane Bash, a senior at Ohio State University. 'You’ve got to preload before you get to a bar because you can’t drink once you go in. I definitely drink a lot less now that I’m 21, and so do all my friends.'

Despite such tales of excess, experts said there was little hard evidence that binge drinking became more prevalent after the drinking age was raised to 21. One of the most comprehensive studies shows that heavy drinking among college students, defined as five or more drinks in a row, peaked in 1984.

Other studies by Henry Wechsler, a retired professor at the Harvard School of Public Health, show that binge drinking remained steady, with about 44 percent of college students doing it, from 1993 to 2001.

The controversy shines a light on the culture gap between college students and their nonstudent peers, who drink less.

Chuck Hurley, the chief executive of MADD, acknowledged that widespread drinking on campus fostered a distinct set of problems. 'The drinking age is working far better in blue-collar America, or community college America, than in Ivy League America,' he said.

If parents who support the current drinking age limit don't like it when college presidents push for the lowering of the drinking age law, then they should call for ending the government's involvement in higher learning. They shouldn't send their kids to that environment where underage drinking is the cultural norm. But, of course, they want it both ways: they want the government to finance the colleges and universities that encourage an environment of drinking but don't want the drinking age lowered. They can't -- and shouldn't -- have it both ways. Either the drinking age should be lowered to a uniform age limit or be abolished and stop victimizing the college students who are on the government dole or repealing the government's financial aid for and involvement in higher learning. In other words, either they support privatizing the colleges and universities or they accept the fact that a much-lowered drinking age will promote more of an incentive for the youth to be responsible with their actions, including drinking.

Not that the government should be subsidizing the entire education industry. Not that these parents and other taxpayers should be forced to pay for the tuition and education of college students of all ages, including the Pell Grants, other federal grants, and subsidized and unsubsidized student loans. That entire boondoggle should be eliminated entirely and immediately or at least as soon as possible.

However, parents should be responsible for promoting responsible drinking by educating their youths on the effects of alcohol and drop the idea that an arbitrary age limit of 21 will avert more drinking and driving accidents at the age of 18 or that a lower drinking age will encourage more "binge drinking," meaning out-of-control irresponsible drinking. That's already happening under the current system, and yet the statist parents and government officials can't and won't see that. Besides, "age of consent," in governmentese, is an artificial moron construct. Although federal and state laws don't see it this way, real age of consent (meaning an individual youth's choice consenting to the activity and not some arbitrary edict setting the limit) not only includes sex, but it also includes smoking, drinking, watching an adult film, voting, and going off to fight a war in some faraway land.

Parents should even stop supporting the "childification" (infantilization) of these youths, who have been taken out of the hands of their own families and become warded to the state which has placed them under its control and enslaved them until they reach the magical age of 18. By the time they reach the age of 18, it's too late: that "child-like" mindset under which these young people labor has taken over completely and will be a permanent part of their lives. If anything, it's the parents who are at fault for allowing this to happen. They think that they are not responsible for teaching their kids about sex, drugs, alcohol, the importance of work ethics, and other paramount things that will become a crucial part of these youths' lives.

If only these parents had spines, stopped supporting groups like SADD and MADD, and pushed for control over their kids' lives, perhaps we wouldn't be in this mess. But that's wishful thinking. Parents and the government are the reason why the youth are binge drinking, having sex, using drugs, not working and learning work ethics before they're 18, and rebelling in a childish fashion because they are not allowed to understand responsibility that will be a paramount part for the rest of their lives.