Liberty on the Rocks™ Denver

David K. Williams, Jr. | February 2, 2010

On the most recent episode of 24 (the second greatest drama in television history after The Shield), an undercover agent, Renee Walker, is making a deal to buy some weapons grade plutonium from a former KGB official. Apparently, this plutonium is a necessary and hard to get ingredient for nuclear weapons. It is not cheap.

Category: 24, Jack Bauer, KGB, Renee Walker, The Shield | Comments Off
Tags:

ari | February 2, 2010

The following article originally was published February 1 by Grand Junction’s Free Press.

At least Dan Maes answered the questions

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

Recently the Supreme Court struck down part of the McCain-Feingold censorship law in the case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The decision is tragic because the Court only partially restored the First Amendment, and apparently four of the justices cannot comprehend the simple phrase, “Congress shall make no law…”

Leftist critics of the ruling argue that, while a lone individual might have some rights to free speech, individuals do not have the right to freely associate to express themselves. Further, these critics claim, you have no firm right to spend your own money on expression.

To grasp the left’s hypocrisy on finances, just ask a critic of the ruling whether the right to get an abortion would be preserved if women and clinics were forbidden from spending money on abortions. (Eugene Volokh raised this point.)

Regarding this case the left is perfectly consistent with its Marxist roots. Marx wrote, “The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.”

In simpler terms, you are just too stupid to independently evaluate a film or ad funded by a corporation. You need the benevolent nannies of the left to help you think straight.

Unfortunately, some people do everything they can to prove Marx right. They thoughtlessly buy junk just because the idiot box or their friends tell them to. They never read great books or otherwise develop their reasoning skills. They vote for candidates based on appearance, smooth talk, and hysterical smear campaigns against the other guy.

However, trying to save people from their own stupidity only entrenches stupidity. People cannot choose wisely if they lack the capacity to choose badly. In terms of free speech, people must be free to say and believe stupid things, if we wish to preserve the right and ability to say and believe profundities.

The law properly guards against fraudulent speech. You can’t legally tell someone a used car has only ten thousand miles on it when it actually has a hundred thousand. Nor can you make up lies about a candidate. Established law already addresses such matters.

Aside from libel, however, people should be free to say whatever they want about candidates (using their own resources), whenever they want, and with whomever they want. That is precisely what the First Amendment is all about.

We can’t blame bad government on advertisements. After all, smear campaigns work only if voters fail to critically judge them. It is you, the individual voter, who must carefully evaluate claims, do some background research, and seek the broader context. If you fail to do so, censorship laws will not save the republic but will only further erode its foundation.

Let us make 2010 the year when candidates articulate their views on the issues and voters decide accordingly. Let us make this election about ideas, principles, and policies, not hair dye, cowboy hats, and vocal timbre.

It is in this spirit that we introduced our Candidate Survey, found at http://tinyurl.com/cosurvey10. Unfortunately, as of our deadline, we had heard from only two candidates running for governor or U.S. Senate. Dan Maes, the Republican challenger to Scott McInnis, said he’d answer the survey and followed through on his word. We also heard from independent candidate Rich Hand. You can find their responses linked from the original survey.

Though we originally contacted all the major-party candidates (or their representatives) for those offices by January 13, our initial correspondence did not make it to the right parties in the case of McInnis and Democratic top gun John Hickenlooper. While representatives of both candidates have now confirmed receipt of the survey, they have not committed to answering it. We encourage readers to ask these candidates to answer the survey.

Maes is the underdog, and we disagree with a number of his views. Generally, though, we are impressed by his responsiveness, straight talk, sincerity, and hard work.

Maes is a pretty solid fiscal conservative. He thinks the state should cut taxes and permit the traditional energy industry to thrive (thereby also increasing the tax flow from energy). He is too unfriendly to immigrants in our view. Disappointingly, he said campaign censorship laws should be “maintained,” and he thinks flag desecration should be Constitutionally outlawed.

Most disturbing is Maes endorsement of the “personhood” measure, which if fully implemented would outlaw nearly all abortions, outlaw common forms of birth control, restrict fertility treatments, and subject women to severe legal interference.

Maes also punted on several questions. For example, we asked, “Should abortion be legal in cases of rape or incest?” Maes answered, “It already is.” Cute. Perhaps Maes would care to answer the question next time: what does he think the law should say?

At least Maes answered (most of) the questions. That’s a start.

Category: Campaign 2010, Dan Maes, Free Press, free speech | Comments Off
Tags:

ari | February 2, 2010

John Finger is a Libertarian candidate for U.S. Senate from Colorado. Questions are shown in bold.

SUMMARY

In a Twitter-length reply (140 characters maximum), please state why you are running for political office.

Our system is broken. Both Democrats and Republicans are hell-bent on maintaining their own power, for their own purposes, regardless of the consequences. Members of both parties take an oath to defend the Constitution, then ignore the Constitution until they take the same oath again. Just look at the money which is doled out for cronyism and for projects which don’t work. I will use whatever means necessary to stop our march toward socialism, get our economy going again, and not leave our children in a quagmire of debt.

[That's 528 characters!]

ECONOMIC ISSUES

* Should the federal or state government spend money in an attempt to “stimulate” the economy? If so, on what sorts of projects?

No. Government should cut taxes; it works every time.

* Should tax dollars be directed toward energy projects, tourism, or any other form of business subsidies?

No.

* (State-Level Candidates:) Should the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights be kept completely intact? If not, how should it be altered?

N/A

* (State-Level Candidates:) Should Amendment 23 be repealed, maintained, or modified?

N/A

* (State-Level Candidates:) Should any particular state taxes or fees (such as the state corporate income tax or the subjects of the tax-cutting initiatives) be repealed or reduced? Should any be added or increased?

N/A

* Should state or federal spending (depending on which office you seek) be higher or lower than it is currently?

It should be much lower; we should not be spending money on things unless they are specified in the Constitution or are a logical extension thereof.

* Should the state or federal minimum wage (depending on which office you seek) be repealed, maintained, or increased?

The federal minimum wage should be repealed, and I would introduce legislation accordingly. The states should make minimum wage decisions for themselves.

* Should college education be subsidized by tax dollars?

Not with federal money. The states should decide this for themselves.

* Should antitrust law or its enforcement be changed?

Not easy to answer; government should oversee true competition and enforce the law when competitiveness is compromised.

* (Federal-level candidates:) Should Sarbanes-Oxley be repealed?

Yes. It doesn’t catch any crooks and adds an unnecessary, enormous burden to business, hurting its competitiveness.

(my question:) Should Glass-Steagall become law again? Yes; this would prevent banks from using depositor dollars to speculate, lose money, and be bailed out once again by the taxpayers.

SOCIAL AND CHURCH/STATE ISSUES

What do you believe is meant by the “separation of church and state,” and do you endorse it?

It means what the 1st Amendment says, that Congress shall make no law establishing an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. We as elected officials would have to respect each of those lines in the sand. Of course I believe it; it’s part of our Constitution.

* Should religious institutions receive tax dollars for providing welfare or other faith-based services?

No. And the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships should be disbanded.

* Should the teaching of creationism or Intelligent Design be subsidized by tax dollars?

No education should be subsidized by federal tax dollars; in fact, the Department of Education should be eliminated.

* Should tax-funded schools establish a period of permitted or required prayer?

This should be up to the states to address.

* Should government officials promote religiously oriented displays and comments on government property and at government events?

Not at the federal level.

* Do you support gay marriage?

This should be decided by the states, not by the federal government. This is a 10th Amendment matter, as are several of the next questions. I’ll use “states rights” and “10th Amendment” interchangeably in many of the following questions.

* If you answered no to the question above, do you support domestic partnerships, civil unions, or comparable legal recognition of gay couples?

This is again a matter of states’ rights.

* Should gay couples be allowed to adopt children by the same standards as heterosexual couples?

States’ rights again.

* Should government never, always, or sometimes mandate parental notification and consent before a minor may legally obtain an abortion, and, if sometimes, under what conditions?

States’ rights again.

* Should government mandate waiting periods or ultrasounds before a woman may legally obtain an abortion?

States’ rights again.

* Do you endorse the “personhood” measure that may appear on the 2010 ballot?

I’d want to see the wording before answering this question.

* Should abortion be legal in cases of fetal deformity?

10th Amendment. Right now, all of our opinions in the matter of abortion are irrelevant, as the U.S. Supreme Court has usurped the states’ rights to decide such matters.

* Should abortion be legal in cases of rape or incest?

10th Amendment.

* Should abortion be legal in cases of risk to the woman’s life, as determined by the health professional selected by that woman?

10th Amendment.

* Should elective abortion be legal?

10th Amendment.

* If you believe that abortion should be legally restricted, what criminal penalties do you advocate for a woman and her doctor for obtaining or facilitating an illegal abortion?

10th Amendment.

(my question): Should Roe v. Wade be overturned? Yes. The Supreme Court has no right to determine abortion matters. It is not within the court’s purview. The court should let the states make their own laws. If one state then decides to be pro-life, while the next is pro-choice, while the next has exceptions, that’s fine. That’s how our system of federalism is supposed to work. But until that time comes, all of our abortion opinions are irrelevant.

* Would execution ever be an appropriate penalty for obtaining or facilitating illegal abortions?

10th Amendment.

* Should types of birth control be legal that may prevent a fertilized egg or zygote from implanting in the uterus?

10th Amendment.

* Should fertility treatments be legal that may result in the freezing or destruction of a fertilized egg or zygote?

10th Amendment.

* Should research involving the use of embryonic stem cells be legal?

10th Amendment.

* Should abortions or embryonic stem cell research be subsidized by tax dollars?

No.

IMMIGRATION

* (Federal-level candidates:) Should the U.S. expand a legal guest-worker program or legal immigration, and, if so, by how much?

I couldn’t answer this question adequately, as there are too many variables. But we have no adequate system for catching guest workers who overstay their welcomes, thus allowing them to stay in the country indefinitely.

* (State-Level Candidates:) Should Colorado government force employers to verify with the federal government the legal status of potential employees, and, if so, what penalties should apply for failure to do so?

N/A

* Should federal or state tax-funded benefits (depending on which office you seek), including K-12 education, be extended only to U.S. citizens, to legal immigrants and guest workers, or to everyone in the U.S. including illegal immigrants?

U.S. citizens and legal immigrants who actually contribute to the system should be entitled to benefit from it. Illegal immigrants should be removed from the country. Let people apply through proper means to get and stay here.

PROPERTY RIGHTS

* What restrictions, if any, should be placed on the use of eminent domain?

The Fifth Amendment addresses this issue adequately: “…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” But the Supreme Court has ruled that private property can be taken for private use, pleasing governments which want more tax revenue but undermining our right to private property. This flaunts the Constitution and should never be allowed. As a side note, Pfizer never developed the property which was the subject of this case. It just sits there; the City of New London, CT doesn’t get developed property taxes from anyone. It’s poetic justice.

* Do you endorse the use of eminent domain in the case of the Pinon Canyon military expansion? Do you support the military expansion if it does not involve eminent domain?

No. Do you support the military expansion if it does not involve eminent domain? Yes. I’m an Army veteran but don’t see why such a huge expansion is necessary using eminent domain. The Army has such a vast maneuvering area at Fort Carson. If it needs more space, it shouldn’t use eminent domain to get it.

* Should the Endangered Species Act be altered or differently enforced?

This act shouldn’t even be law. The states should determine what species is endangered and what is not.

* (State-Level Candidates:) Should the smoking ban be maintained, expanded, or repealed? Should it apply to on-stage performances?

N/A

BILL OF RIGHTS

* Should McCain-Feingold and state campaign finance restrictions be repealed, maintained, or expanded?

The Supreme Court made this question moot.

* Should the federal government control what radio or television stations may broadcast?

No. Most of these issues can be decided at the state level. Where broadcasts are interstate, federal courts should employ a choice of state laws when deciding conflicts.

* Should the FTC’s rules regarding blogger endorsements be rescinded?

Yes. The federal government has no business here.

* Should students with licenses be legally permitted to carry concealed handguns on the property of tax-subsidized colleges?

Yes. The 2nd Amendment allows this.

* Should additional restrictions be added (or repealed) on gun ownership? Please specify.

Felons and those clinically certified to be mentally unstable should be prohibited from gun ownership. There should be no restriction on other adults.

* Do you believe that desecration of the U.S. flag should be outlawed by Constitutional amendment?

No. As much as it hurts to see, it’s a 1st Amendment right.

* Do you believe that pornography or obscene materials involving consenting adults should be legally restricted?

Anything between consenting adults intrastate should be subject to state laws. Anything between consenting adults across state lines or international borders should be allowed. Anything exploiting children across state lines or international borders should be banned.

OTHER

* Should state or federal laws (depending on which office you seek) pertaining to marijuana be altered, and, if so, how?

Federal laws governing all drugs, both illegal and prescription, should be repealed. In interstate commerce cases, the federal courts would employ a choice of state laws. The states should make their own drug laws. History offers an important lesson: when Prohibition was lifted, gangs lost revenue, government gained badly-needed revenue, business picked up, and crime dropped precipitously. We should do the same thing with drugs.

* (State-Level Candidates:) Should rules pertaining to petitioners be altered, and, if so, how?

N/A

* If there is any important issue that you believe we have missed, please state what it is and state your position on it.

(my question): What’s the best way to kick-start the economy? Get the government out of the way. Lower all taxes, both corporate and individual. Repeal federal drug laws and the minimum wage. Subject Congress to the same rules as it applies to the rest of us. Partially privatize Social Security and Medicare. Make charitable contributions an unlimited deduction on your tax form. No more bailouts; nobody is too big to fail. Offer significant tax breaks to companies which make renewable energy efficient and affordable to the masses. And start listening to Ron Paul & Glenn Beck. More of this at www.fingerfavorsfreedom.com. It was www.raisethefinger.com, but the complaints outnumbered the laughs when we used it!

Category: Campaign 2010 | Comments Off
Tags: