It really saddens me that some issues have become "democrat vs. republican". Some things are simply bad legislation. They are written poorly. When "both sides" lie it is a sad state of desperation and becomes a we vs. them issue.
Being a Libertarian, I sometimes shake my head in wonder at the see-saw mentalities. I see people saying "I don't like that, I'm going donkey; I don't like that I'm going back to elephant." Sad. So sad.
From the Libertarian Party of Ohio. Emphasis below is my own.
LPO FILES INJUNCTION IN CASE AGAINST SEC OF STATE HUSTED
18 August 2011
For immediate release:
Earlier this month, The Libertarian Party of Ohio (LPO) sued Ohio Secretary of State Husted in response to the passage of H.B. 194 that goes into effect on September 1, 2011. That bill puts unconstitutional barriers between non-Republican or Democrat candidates and ballot access. In support of that lawsuit, today the LPO has filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Expedited Proceedings and a Memorandum in Support. The motion itself asks that the court allow LPO candidates be allowed on the ballot and that the LPO remain a legal political party in order to protect the its First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to freedom of political speech and equal protection under the law. This lawsuit and today's motion demonstrate how H.B. 194 contains language already deemed by the Ohio Supreme Court to be unconstitutional based on its rulings in similar cases over the past few years.
“Limiting ballot access is something that we would expect from Third World dictators and despots, not freely elected officials in the State of Ohio,” said LPO Vice Chair Michael Johnston. “The LPO is certainly not as large as the Republican or Democrat parties, and they want to keep it that way by rigging the game. It's one thing to disagree with us on the issues—that's part of politics—but restricting ballot access through unconstitutional laws is not the American way.”
The main issue is what constitutes reasonable ballot access. The LPO believes that Ohio should use reasonable, attainable standards to determine who can and cannot be on a ballot. While there should be some minimal threshold to get a candidate on the ballot, we should err on the side of easier access rather than limiting it to a well funded and well connected few. Without fair and open access to the ballot, a few, powerful elites will control the means to get elected. We are already close to that point, which is what so much of the Tea Party movement is all about, and the disconnect between elected officials and the general public that people of all political persuasions are upset about.
The Memorandum supporting the Injunction, co-authored by attorneys Gary Sinawski and Mark R. Brown, concludes, "For the foregoing reasons, Defendant should be preliminarily enjoined from enforcing H.B. 194's changes to O.R.C. §§ 3501.01(E) and 3517.01(A)(1), and the LPO should remain qualified for Ohio's 2011 and 2012 election ballots. Defendant should be preliminarily ordered to take all necessary steps to insure that the LPO and its candidates have access to all relevant 2011 elections in Ohio, and have access to all relevant primary and general elections in 2012."
The LP is America's third-largest political party, founded in 1971. The Libertarian Party stands for free markets, civil liberties, and peace. In November of 2010, the Libertarian Party of Ohio fielded more than 45 candidates for office, including the first full slate of candidates for statewide executive office by any alternative party since the Great Depression.
---- 30 ----
The "-isms" may have changed names, but this doesn't seem too far off base, even today. Make mine freedom. I don't care what the donkeys and elephants are thinking. Just make mine freedom.
Taken directly from the Libertarian Party of Ohio web site in the hope of spreading the message.
Since the Libertarian Party of Ohio sued the state and won in 2006, Ohio has been without any legal means for a political party to obtain access to the ballot.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 27, 2011Contact: Wes Benedict, Executive DirectorSocialized healthcare is on the horizon. The DHS, NSA, TSA police state is expanding, the Drug War is still being pursued by an arrogant, ignorant government and Obama is expanding the war in Afghanistan! Frankly we have got bigger problems to pursue than blogging endlessly about where the President was born."Hopefully Americans will worry less about long-form birth certificates, and more about thousand-page spending bills." For more information, or to arrange an interview, call LP Executive Director Wes Benedict at 202-333-0008 ext. 222.The LP is America's third-largest political party, founded in 1971. The Libertarian Party stands for free markets, civil liberties, and peace. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party at our website.
###
P.S. If you have not already done so, please join the Libertarian Party. We are the only political party dedicated to free markets, civil liberties, and peace. You can also renew your membership. Or, you can make a contribution separate from membership.
Paid for by the Libertarian National Committee
2600 Virginia Ave, N.W. Suite 200, Washington D.C. 20037
Content not authorized by any candidate or candidate committee.
"Given the low level of competence among politicians, every American should become a Libertarian."
-- Charley Reese, Alameda Times-Star (California), June 17, 2003
Government at all levels is too large, too expensive, woefully inefficient, arrogant, intrusive, and downright dangerous. Democratic and Republican politicians have created the status quo and do not intend to change it.
From the Libertarian Party.
Press Release
For Immediate Release
Saturday, January 8, 2011Libertarian Party condemns shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords
WASHINGTON - Mark Hinkle, Chair of the Libertarian Party, issued a statement condemning the shooting of Congressional Representative Gabrielle Giffords, and others in Tucson, Arizona. According to reports, federal Judge John Roll and five others were killed in the shooting, and several others were seriously wounded.
“The Libertarian Party condemns the shooting of Representative Gabrielle Giffords and others today. We are saddened by the loss of life, the suffering of those who survived the shooting, and the grief and sorrow of their family and friends.
“This shooting was wrong, and is the kind of abhorrent political violence that threatens our freedoms.
"The Libertarian Party opposes the initiation of force and violence whether it is politically motivated or for other reasons. To become a member of the Libertarian Party, people are required to sign a statement certifying that they oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.
“Regardless of the motives and other circumstances surrounding the killing, the Libertarian Party maintains its steadfast defense of the Second Amendment and the uncompromising right to gun ownership. In a free society, citizens should be free to arm and protect themselves, their families, and their property. Sadly, because of restrictions placed on responsible gun owners by all levels of government, many people avoid carrying weapons that could be used to stop mass shootings.
“Our condolences go out to the victims and their families. We wish them a speedy and full recovery.”
The shootings in Tuscon are a tragedy. However, I don't understand how anyone thinks that gun control laws will keep individuals like Jared Loughner from doing what he did. I don't understand how anyone thinks that what he read by certain politicians should result in the politician themselves being arrested.
Gun control laws won't keep disturbed individuals or criminals (are they same?) from illegally acquiring 30 round clips or deadly weapons. If ten rounds is the limit -- and this person had 30 -- how did the law stop him from getting them?
I also support the 2nd Amendment to our Constitutition. I am also grieving for the injuries and loss of lives, including that of nine-year-old Christina Taylor Green. I pray that Gabrielle Giffords is able to make a full and speedy recovery.
I used to be a Kennedy-style "liberal." Then I wised up. Now I'm a libertarian.
But what does that mean?
When I asked people on the street, half had no clue.
We know that conservatives want government to conserve traditional values. They say they're for limited government, but they're pro-drug war, pro-immigration restriction and anti-abortion, and they often support "nation-building."
And so-called liberals? They tend to be anti-gun and pro-choice on abortion. They favor big, powerful government -- they say -- to make life kinder for people.
By contrast, libertarians want government to leave people alone -- in both the economic and personal spheres. Leave us free to pursue our hopes and dreams, as long as we don't hurt anybody else.
Ironically, that used to be called "liberal," which has the same root as "liberty." Several hundred years ago, liberalism was a reaction against the stifling rules imposed by aristocracy and established religion.
I wish I could call myself "liberal" now. But the word has been turned on its head. It now means health police, high taxes, speech codes and so forth.
So I can't call myself a "liberal." I'm stuck with "libertarian." If you have a better word, please let me know.
When I first explained libertarianism to my wife, she said: "That's cruel! What about the poor and the weak? Let them starve?"
I recently asked some prominent libertarians that question, including Jeffrey Miron, who teaches economics at Harvard.
"It might in some cases be a little cruel," Miron said. "But it means you're not taking from people who've worked hard to earn their income (in order) to give it to people who have not worked hard."
But isn't it wrong for people to suffer in a rich country?
"The number of people who will suffer is likely to be very small. Private charity ... will provide support for the vast majority who would be poor in the absence of some kind of support. When government does it, it creates an air of entitlement that leads to more demand for redistribution, till everyone becomes a ward of the state."
Besides, says Wendy McElroy, the founder of ifeminists.com, "government aid doesn't enrich the poor. Government makes them dependent. And the biggest hindrance to the poor ... right now is the government. Government should get out of the way. It should allow people to open cottage industries without making them jump through hoops and licenses and taxing them to death. It should open up public lands and do a 20th-century equivalent of 40 acres and a mule. It should get out of the way of people and let them achieve and rise."
David Boaz, executive vice president of the Cato Institute, took the discussion to a deeper level.
"Instead of asking, 'What should we do about people who are poor in a rich country?' The first question is, 'Why is this a rich country?' ...
"Five hundred years ago, there weren't rich countries in the world. There are rich countries now because part of the world is following basically libertarian rules: private property, free markets, individualism."
Boaz makes an important distinction between equality and absolute living standards.
"The most important way that people get out of poverty is economic growth that free markets allow. The second-most important way -- maybe it's the first -- is family. There are lots of income transfers within families. Third would be self-help and mutual-aid organizations. This was very big before the rise of the welfare state."
This is an important but unappreciated point: Before the New Deal, people of modest means banded together to help themselves. These organizations were crowded out when government co-opted their insurance functions, which included inexpensive medical care.
Boaz indicts the welfare state for the untold harm it's done in the name of the poor.
"What we find is a system that traps people into dependency. ... You should be asking advocates of that system, 'Why don't you care about the poor?'"
I agree. It appears that when government sets out to solve a problem, not only does it violate our freedom, it also accomplishes the opposite of what it set out to do.
I'm just a singer, songwriter, safety educator, public information officer, new media enthusiast, dad, husband, and fan of many things online.
