The Constitutional Militant

A few days ago, I was asked about my position on a city ordinance that required home and business owners to repair city infrastructure abutting their property. I must admit that I was totally unaware of the ordinance. Upon reading the ordinance, I felt astonished that the city would act with such hostility towards the members of my community. One of my colleagues recommended that I attend a special meeting regarding this ordinance. Upon my discovery of the flagrant property rights violations contained within the measure, I could not refuse.

I have taken the liberty, as a matter of portraying simple fact, to post the ordinance on this site. I believe all that visit this site are more than capable of reading and comprehending the "language" contained in the ordinance. I have warned many, that with politicians you must watch what they do and ignore what they say. In this context, our city representatives have failed in their obligation to respect the rights and property of the citizens and attempted to transfer liability away from the city.

Furthermore, I would like to remind all persons that this is not a matter of preventing blight, abandonment or neglected properties. The issue at hand is who is responsible to repair or maintain city (public) owned property. What follows is the statement I read to the assembly.

» Read more

I was going to comment on the recent fiasco in Boston regarding the Police vs. LiteBrite advertising, however I found something more interesting. Recently, a poster at digg.com posed the following:

I often hear a libertarian ’s opinion on something and end up agreeing. However, I’m still clueless about a lot of libertarian positions, so I’ve posted 13 questions in the first comment. I’m posting this on Digg because it seems a lot of members lean libertarian. The link just takes you to Wikipedia. Thanks for helping me understand.

Then, the poster posed the following questions. I have provided my responses. Mind you, I do not claim to speak for all / any libertarians other than myself. I do, however, believe that my responses are reasonable. Please take the time to comment.

Here are my 13 questions about libertarian philosophy. I know that not all libertarians will agree on every issue, and that some questions might even divide libertarians. Also, I know some might seem pointed or hypothetical, but I’m looking for genuine responses. When replying, it could help to indicate whether or not you consider yourself a libertarian as well. Thanks for helping me understand.

1. Should the federal government protect the environment? Should there be national parks or endangered species laws?

» Read more

As a small business owner, I frequently receive solicitations from various groups. This particular solicitation, I felt deserved to be exposed for the edification of the public. The Republican Party is solely responsible for the sad state of my industry due to their support for increased regulations and their favoring large corporations over the small business owners. Portions of this conversation were actually recoded as I was awaiting a call from the appeals judge. I have changed the name of the caller to protect her identity. I hope you enjoy this as much as I enjoyed reciting it over the phone.

» Read more

I wanted to pen my thoughts on my recent experience with the Smither Campaign. I was reluctant to do so at any point until this time as I still am suffering from burnout. With the debate raging as to whether the LP can be successful at running candidate, I have decided once more to enter the fray and voice my opinion. I hope this will lead to a more educated discussion with regard to success versus failure in future endeavors.

I find it troubling that one of the founders of the party, Mr. Nolan, felt obliged to denigrate those in the party who work towards making the LP a relevant faction of the American Body Politic. I dislike the notion of being at odds with one of the founders of the political party which I belong, yet felt compelled to refute the position which he is promoting. We all know that there are elements within the libertarian movement who would relegate activities based solely upon spreading philosophy. Likewise, another faction would have us work solely on electoral success. I contend that it will take both in order to gain any success whatsoever.

What I find very puzzling about Mr. Nolan’s position is his apparent contradiction. Mr. Nolan proposed at the Ohio Libertarian Convention in June 2006 that the mission statement should read as such:

» Read more

I realize that I have been somewhat reticent for quite some time. Being involved in a Congressional race tends to capitalize much time and drains your energy. Now that the race is over, I hope to become more vocal on issues once more. Towards that end, I would like to share the speech that I prepared for a local Bill of Rights dinner which I attended this month. Though I did not deliver the entire speech at the event due to time constraints, I would like to make it available in its entirety. Enjoy.

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

» Read more

I received word from Portland that the convention flushed the vast majority of the platform over the weekend. Preliminary reports indicate that only four of the existing planks of the platform were retained. There were five planks, which were a combination and rewording of existing philosophy, that were added. Beyond that, if I understand correctly, the convention added ten planks that came out of the platform committee.

While no one outside the convention has yet to see what the new platform looks like, the squeals from the peanut gallery have begun. As I support reform or the platform, you may imagine my surprise, or lack thereof, to be labeled, castigated and ridiculed by the more radical. Here is but an example of the mindset that we must deal with.
As always, my sources are at the bottom.

» Read more

I have been somewhat reticent lately due to a myriad of personal issues. I suppose that my recent campaign and election would be the paramount reason for my absence. Ideally, I would find the time necessary to blog, campaign, fundraise and a whole host of other activities I am involved in. However, I remain resolute in maintaining my family as the priority in my life. As this activity (blogging) is perhaps the lowest on my list of priorities, it has suffered the most from my increased involvement in other areas.

I make not apologies for my involvement in the Libertarian Reform movement. Nor will I apologize for being a constitutionalist. Being such allows me to utilize a broad brush in my criticism of our elected leaders. From my initial involvement with the LP, it became painfully clear that many in the party, for some reason, seek exclusivity and dogmatic purity as opposed to adopting a rational approach of providing practical policy solutions. I have watched the LP for over 20 years in electoral politics. Practicing the policy of purges and Puritanism will only result in the marginalization of the libertarian movement and our nation will slip further down the slope to despotism.

Today, I read two articles in Rational Review(1), which requires that I respond. These articles provide a shining example of the two apparent camps within the libertarian movement. I will allow you to make up your own mind regarding the validity of either position. I hope you come to realize, as I did long ago, which path must be taken in order to combat the march towards statism in our lifetime. I will provide links to the articles below. I did not feel the need to critique the latter article by Mr. Kalafut, as his position is very near my own. Mr. Hancock’s article, on the other hand, exhibits the attitude within the libertarian movement, which has and will continue to result in abysmal failure. Therefore, with your indulgence, I will slice and dice this piece of literary “bath tissue,” for I grow weary of the notion that people like me are simply not “libertarian enough.”

» Read more

Sometimes the level of intestinal fortitude must be elevated when watching our elected leaders address the nation. As the President spoke, last night was no exception. The issue of illegal immigration is one that strikes an emotional, though well intended, response from everyone in our society. It is difficult to formulate a realistic approach when such intentions outweigh logic. History dictates that nations who fail to control their borders cease to exist. Likewise, a society, which refuses to enforce its laws, will collapse. Neither the open border advocates nor those who would build a wall around our nation seem to be inclined to take a hard, realistic look at the subject. They demonstrate a propensity of allowing their emotions to dictate their positions. Additionally, one would be hard pressed to believe that the government would actually act in the best interest of its citizens as opposed to its corporate sponsors.

Last night, our president pontificated once more, the preferred path chosen by the ruling elite. At the core is whether the corporate moguls will have a source of cheap, unrestricted labor from which to exploit. Some have even suggested that it is a “conspiracy” to destroy the middle class. Whatever the motivation, when inflation becomes synonymous with a living wage, we all lose.

Where the Libertarian Party seems to fail in its policy formulation is not realizing it has bundled separate issues into one plank. Border Security is a separate issue from Immigration, which is likewise separate from Naturalization. Though they are inexorably interwoven, they must be addressed separately in order to clarify the positions. Understanding this fact, and formulating rational policies can and will lead to support on this issue. We must, therefore, retool the message while remaining consistent with libertarian ideals, protect sovereignty and promote liberty abroad.

» Read more

Sometimes in our haste to confront adversity, we lose sight of the fact that we struggle for the same cause. This came to my realization over the past couple of weeks as a series of events unfolded. In the context of my attempt to bring the Libertarian Party into the mainstream political view, I clearly belong to the “reform” camp. If someone had told me in the summer of 2004, that I would be heavily involved in politics, I would have laughed, handed them another Shiner, and suggested they seek professional help.

When I reluctantly entered into the power structure of the Party back in 2004, it was the result of a request from a member of the State Party Executive Committee, and as a result of certain events that opened my eyes to the dire need of my becoming involved. I had been asked to attend a committee meeting in a neighboring county. To my dismay, the meeting devolved into a debating match between those who held fast to a rigid libertarian philosophy and those who floated somewhere within the libertarian quadrant of the Nolan chart. All who sat at the table were Libertarians. However, differing views were as abundant as the participants in attendance. The candidate had been selected. The convention was over. Yet here these folks were, arguing about philosophy instead of discussing how they were going to get out the vote.

» Read more

When one discusses the concept of libertarianism with others, it is always important to remember what our priorities are as citizens of the United States of America. All elected officials and military personnel take an oath upon entering service to the citizens of our states and nation. As we likewise intend on serving our countrymen, one must not lose sight of what our obligations are, and would be, if and when we are chosen to serve in such a capacity. Our first priority is to protect and defend the constitution of the United States of America, and the individual states if applicable. Keeping that in mind, some seem to find libertarianism unpalatable. I understand, at least in this context, how and why people misconstrue the intent of libertarians and specifically members of the Libertarian Party. Indeed, the National LP platform can seem quite hostile to the concepts of sovereignty and self-preservation as a nation.

On this occasion, let us take but one item from our platform and discuss how this has been used against the movement, and our candidates, when we are trying to broaden our membership and support. I know that some will try and claim that "people don’t read the platform." Well, I can testify that the notion of our platform not being read is a pure fiction. Our political adversaries often read the platform, and they continually utilize the platform to discredit our candidates. Therefore, I will attempt, at least on this issue, to correct some misconceptions concerning libertarians in general.

» Read more