Bob Barr, DOMA and the LP's Big Tent

There are many members of Libertarian Party who don't hold to all of the positions in their platform, particularly on the issues of abortion and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Bob Barr, their 2008 presidential candidate, voted for the Patriot Act and the 2002 Authorization to use force in Iraq. Though he has changed his mind about these two issues, falling in line with LP platform (sort of). But the former Republican congressman is still at least nominally pro-life which goes directly against it. But what I recently found out that was most stunning of all is that Bob Barr actually authored DOMA! That's really weird to me that they would specifically say that they are against a particular piece of legislation and then nominate the author of that legislation to be their presidential candidate. That's even more incredible than the fact that Bill Clinton signed it into law. What strange bedfellows!

Many LPers think that they will be perceived as so much more "libertarian" by saying that DOMA is big government. They are just trying to make themselves look like they are better than the Democrats when it comes to "civil rights". They think that DOMA will lead to federal agents pulling down couple's pants to make sure that there is only one of each gender. (Its been thirteen years and it hasn't happened yet.) Come on, guys, it's about state's rights, not an expansion of federal power or "victimless crime" legislation.

David Macko for Congress

No, this is not a picture of Ben Stein. This is David Macko, candidate for Congress in Ohio’s 14th district. Macko is a Russian Orthodox Christian, and is (or was, personal communication) the chairman of the Ohio chapter of Libertarians for Life. I don’t know why he is not listed among the candidates on either the national LP site or the Ohio LP site. But here he is listed as Libertarian. I wonder why.

He supports the Sanctity of Life Act . “Abortion is against Christian principles and L/libertarian principles properly understood…I believe that abortion is murder but punishment for that crime should be administered by the states,” he says. “Use of embryonic stem cells is the moral equivalent of cannibalism,” he says.

Macko believes that 14th amendment was improperly ratified because southern states were not included in the voting even though they had been readmitted to union, their votes for 13th amendment were counted, and Abraham Lincoln maintained that their secession was not legitimate in the first place. Although this amendment grants the right to “life, liberty, and property” and “equal protection under the law”, Macko believes that this amendment is heavy-handed and points out that this is the very amendment which the Supreme Court used to justify their authority to impose Roe v Wade. He argues that repealing it would be an admission that it is legitimate and passing a law through Congress to invalidate the 14th (and all ruling based on it) would set a bad precedent that would open the door for legitimate amendments to be repealed without the necessary approval of 2/3 of the state legislatures. The solution is to resubmit legislation to ratify the 14th. Quite interesting, wouldn’t you say?

http://www.mackoforcongress.com/webpage/7

He believes that real marriage is between a man and a woman, but would “vote to repeal all federal laws which discriminate against homosexuals, except where it would compromise our national defense,” and would not deny homosexuals the right to ordinary, voluntary contracts. He would not include sexual orientation or gender identity in federal anti-discrimination laws.

He supports the Liberty Amendment which would sell all unconstitutionally held federal businesses and lands and end the personal income, gift and death taxes. He would also get rid of the Federal Reserve and replace it with a sound, commodity-based monetary system. He also supports the RTBA (Read the Bills Act) as well as an amendment to the Constitution which would state: “Neither Congress nor the states shall hinder, impede or otherwise limit commerce among the states.”

“I support … a two to three percent tariff as the only tax which is necessary for the legitimate functions of the federal government, to protect the lives, liberty and property of citizens from foreigners, operate federal courts and make sure that federal elections are honest,” he says. He opposes the U.S. involvement in WTO, the FTAA, NAFTA, the North American Union and “other underhanded deals”. He supports the Bricker Amendment to end anti-sovereignty trade deals and other ill-advised treaties. He supports ending all foreign aid as it is both costly and unconstitutional.

Macko supports the limited, sound use of our military. “We should bring all of our troops home safely now from Iraq, Afghanistan, Germany, Japan, South Korea and everywhere else in the world and put them on the southern border where they are needed,” he says. He goes on to say, “We invaded Iraq in less than 90 days. We can safely get out likewise…Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Gates and the rest of them should be tried as war criminals for lying us into the Iraq war, murdering hundreds of thousands, bankrupting this country and making us hated.”

“I oppose the USA PATRIOT Act, the Military Commissions Act, the John Warner ‘Defense’ Act, the Real ID Act and all of the police state measures which the Bush and also the Clinton administrations scared the Congress into supporting,” he says.

Macko opposes the draft, the Selective Service System, and any other forms of compulsive "national service" by reason of the Thirteenth Amendment.

He believes that all federal campaign laws are a violation of the Constitution and supports instant run off voting.

On crime, he says, “Drug laws, prostitution laws, gun laws and all other victimless ‘crime’ laws should be repealed and prisons should be used for criminals.” He would abolish the ATF and FDA. He opposes the National Minimum Age Drinking Act.

He favors the elimination of the Department of Education and supports vouchers, but says they should be phased out with the income tax. Tax credits are better than vouchers.

He opposes the funding of Child Services. (He calls them kidnappers.) He opposes the Violence Against Women Acts of 1994 and 2005.

On energy, he says that global warming is a “nonmanmade natural cycle” and that we have a 200 year supply of oil reserves on Gull Island, Alaska.

He believes that the right to bear arms is a God-given right and is “the last barrier preventing the establishment of a police state”.

Macko believes that healthcare should not be tied to either employment or government and that this is the real cause of rising healthcare costs. He would eliminate both Medicare and Medicaid. “If the American people allow the government to take over health care completely, you will be regulated from morning until night in your eating habits and other behavior, just like livestock.” He believes that Social Security should be phased out gradually.

He believes in the principle of jury nullification. This concept, while almost entirely unheard of in modern America, is an essential feature of the Republic and has made us what we are today. "The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy." - John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court 1789.

A vote for Macko is a vote for sound libertarian principles. Click here to contribute.

Baldwin, Barr, or None of the Above

I took a couple weeks off of blogging because of a statement made by another contributor to this blog (Sam) which seemed to question whether or not I was a real Christian. I wrote a brief response to this, and I still don't know quite how to further respond to this except to say that I hope that he will take back this statement. But even if he doesn't, I have decided to resume contributing to this blog. I appreciate very much the response of the other contributor (GregJaye) to what was said. In my last post, I had discussed the original statement which you two found so objectionable about McCain being even worse than Nader and McKinney (as if it really mattered). I ended with a statement that I would discuss the merits and drawbacks of supporting either Chuck Baldwin or Bob Barr.

As far as Chuck Baldwin is concerned, I am reluctant to endorse him because he did not follow through with a promise made about bringing up the issue of the Nevada Independent Party disaffiliation at a National Committee Meeting of the Constitution Party. Even though he eventually voted yes on it, it was done reluctantly and he chose a running mate (Darrell Castle) who voted no on the NIP disaffiliation. This shows that when push comes to shove, he gives in to political pressures. The glorification of the Confederacy doesn’t help either. But if he would just say that he was wrong to break his promise, admit that his choice of a running mate was bad, and say that his disgust for Abraham Lincoln’s overbearing tactics clouded his judgment about a nation with a racist Constitution, I could vote for him. Voting for someone who would live up to Baldwin's ideology if elected would be a no-brainer for me.

I have heard that Bob Barr paid for an abortion, but also that he denies this accusation (made by Larry Flint of all people). (If anyone reading this can shed more light on this issue, please comment). I saw a survey sheet in which Barr indicated that he believed that abortion should be legal in cases of rape and incest. This was dated eight years ago. I have also heard (from the Free-Choicers) that Barr is cozy with neoconfederates. I would be willing to vote for him if he were to repent of paying for the abortion (if he really did it) and renounce the position he took in 2000. He has changed a lot of his positions since 2000 (e.g. the Patriot Act, the war), but he makes no mention of the abortion issue on his website--so I assume that this issue is not that important to him. (But click here and scroll to the bottom.) His running mate, Wayne Allyn Root, is also less than appealing, but I don’t know if he was Barr’s choice or if he was chosen according to the Libertarian Party rules. (The top fund-raiser is the one who gets the nomination in the LP. Root came in second, I think.)

Republicrat Alternatives, part 4

I am a Ron Paul supporter, but I am looking for other alternative candidates to support because, though he is still running, has no chance of winning the GOP nomination and will not be running for President as an independent or third-party candidate. I agree with most of what the Libertarian Party platform says, except on the issue of abortion. I am uncompromisingly pro-life. So when I read that LP candidate Daniel Imperato is calling for Roe v. Wade to be overturned, I was very eager to read what else he had to say.

Unlike flip-flopping John McCain, Imperato has said that all abortions should be illegal and is calling for a constitutional amendment to ban abortion, saying that this is the only way to protect the unborn. He has moved past pro-aborts Michael Jingozian and Bob Jackson into second place in the running for the LP nomination. I really hope he beats the top LP fundraiser Wayne Allyn Root, who says, “I support gay rights and civil unions,” and “Let's get the federal government out of a woman's right to choose what to do with their own body- this will prevent the death of innocent women at the hands of butchers in back-alleys.” To read more about pro-life Libertarians, click here.

Unlike John McCain, Imperato supports a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman, which is another stark departure from the LP platform. He is against sexual orientation based anti-disciminatory laws. McCain, on the other hand, talks out of both sides of his mouth, saying that he is against same-sex civil unions and then saying that he isn’t (in the same interview), and saying same-sex couples should have power of attorney.

Imperato wants to remind Americans that the Bill of Rights was based upon the inalienable rights that were endowed by our Creator. "The fact is that our nation was built on Judeo Christian principles for the people. There is a tremendous movement in our country to get away from our Judeo Christian heritage and principles that is destroying this country. Our nation is one that was built on freedom, justice, democracy and liberty. Without our heritage and our principles, American does not have its strength," stated Imperato.

He went on to say, "The fact of the matter is that, the Ten Commandments only promotes good and not evil. We should not be wasting taxpayer money to remove these items, or to protest these items. Displaying the Ten Commandments, or printing "In God We Trust" on money, does not cause anyone any harm."

His links page includes not only Christian organizations, such as The Christian Coalition, The American Family Association, Campus Crusade for Christ, and family.org, but also Islamic Society of North America and Your Arms to Israel.

On the one hand, Imperato indicated that the government should stay out of education, employment, environment, energy, gun, and health issues. “We the people need to take over,” he wrote. But he is in favor of a national online educational system (no government involvement?) and taxing drugs approved by the FDA and putting the money back into the healthcare system.

He is in favor of eliminating unlimited tax-deductible contributions under 501(c)(3) except to the Social Security Charitable Fund. This would, he believes, help to save Social Security or we can get rid of it so that people can manage their own funds.

He also indicated that all international aid granted by the United States should eventually be eliminated but would still economically support the transitional government in Somalia for the time being. He would decrease legal immigration, but supports a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants and a guest worker program. He said, “I propose joint manufacturing programs, expansion of labor unions and organized labor into Latin America. This will help the people, teach the people, and organize the people, to compete around the world for a Better Americas.”

He said he is hoping for Michael Bloomberg’s endorsement and suggests possibly chosing him as a running mate. (Why?)

He says that he supports the National Election Reform Platform (NERP) which includes uniform ballot access, loosen third party ballot restrictions, universal voter registration, election day holiday, equal media access/debate inclusion, instant runoff voting (IRV), secure voting machines, public campaign financing, direct popular vote election of the president, and DC congressional representation. He says that third parties should set aside some of their ideological differences.
Imperato has called for increased trade, better labor relations, attention to health care concerns and energy efficiency. He is calling for end to bad oil deals and supports the use of alternative fuels to lower our dependence on foreign oil, but does not advocate total energy dependence, because this would make Saudi oil more available to nations like China. Like fellow LP candidate Michael Jingozian, I have seen Imperato’s name on lists of Green Party candidates.

Imperato is a member of the Knights of Malta which allegedly played a role in the founding of the Council on Foreign Relations. (Is there anyone running for President except Ron Paul who isn’t connected with this insidious organization?)

On the war on terror, Imperato says:

“Because of our shifted focus to Iraq, those [terrorist] groups are operating with efficiency and turning the balance of power away from democracy in the region…With the US so engaged in the region now, we need to combine forces with Iran, the Saudis and Afghans to finally go after the terror camps operating in the Pakistani mountains.”

Imperato believes that a possible solution to the problem of terrorism is to call for a cease-fire in Iraq and offer to personally negotiate with Bin Laden. In January of 2006 Imperato said, “I believe that in a democracy under the word of God, our leadership owes the right to Bin Laden to at least hear what his proposal is.”

He believes that the U.S. is entitled to Iraqi oil reserves as compensation for expenses incurred as a result of our military involvement in Iraq.

In conclusion, this guy is weird (and a boring speaker, from what I hear). I don’t like that he is willing to unite with anybody just for the sake of defeating the Repugnants and Democrackpots and he doesn’t seem to be the strict constitutionalist that Ron Paul is. NERP is a bad idea. But given a choice between him, Hillary, Obama, and McCain, I would vote for Imperato in a heartbeat.

Republicrat Alternatives, part 2

If you are thinking of voting for McCain, Hillary, or Obama, stop and think first. Do any of these candidates really represent your values? Have you looked at their voting records? For example, Hillary voted for the war in Iraq in the beginning and only changed her position when war became unpopular. McCain personally sued the Wisconsin Right to Life for communicating with their members directly during an election.

This is the second of a series of posts in which I will examine third party and independent candidates who I might possibly vote for. Last week, I wrote a piece on Chuck Baldwin, who is vying for the nomination to the Constitution Party. This week I will write about the positions of Michael Jingozian, who is trying for the top spot on the Libertarian Party ticket. I decided that I can’t vote for Mr. Jingozian because I later discovered his apparent position on a particular issue indicated below. I was only going to write about candidates who I might vote for in this series, but since I had already wrote most of this article, I decided to go ahead and post it.

Jingozian spouts some of the usual LP rhetoric. Get the government out of our private lives. Legalize marijuana and prostitution. Stop prosecuting victimless crimes. Get rid of the Patriot Act. Balance the budget by getting rid of corporate subsides, the Department of Homeland Security, Department of Education, and the Energy Department. End censorship and dishonesty in the media. (Good luck on that one.)

The LP opposes the sanctity of life for the unborn and I would assume the Mr. Jingozian does not deviate from the party because he says he would, “Ensure Reproductive Rights of Women.” (What a polite way of saying that you are bigoted against the unborn!) This is why I definitely cannot support him if he becomes the LP nominee. I am not going to vote for a candidate just because he is a novel candidate. Like most of the other LPs, Jingozian invites Ron Paul supporters to join him, but he just doesn’t have the same moral fiber or intelligence as RP.

Jingozian claims that there are already plans in the works for inserting microchips into Driver’s Licenses which would allow the government to track your location and would be susceptible to hackers. If this is so, I agree that it should be stopped.

This is the usual kind of LP stuff. What might surprise you about Michael is that, though he has been a member of the LP since 1980, his name has also appeared on lists of 2008 Green Party candidates and even mentions the GP on his campaign leaflet. Another reason why I would be reluctant to vote for him is that this is a probable indication that he has overbearing environmentalist leanings.

Jingozian is calling on Congress to prosecute the Bush Administration for War Crimes. If you think that President Bush and Dick Cheney should be impeached for these crimes and also for violating our civil liberties, consider signing a petition. You can find several on the internet. I found this one put out by the “Aggressive Progressives” (they have nothing to do with Jingozian). This is interesting because their objections to Bush are that he is being too aggressive and his policies are in violation of longstanding law (which is progressivism). I wrote some additional reasons for impeachment here, and you can write them into the petition to be included in the letter that will be sent to your congressman and senators.

Here is a link to a page that has Jingozian’s videos on it. Here is his official website.

More on Ron Paul’s Positions Marriage

Since today is Valentine's Day, I decided to continue my discussion on Ron Paul's position on marriage.

Suppose two men were to put on tuxedos and have a ceremony in which they pledged themselves to each other. Ron Paul would not throw these two men in jail for this. They could call themselves “married” or “united” or whatever they would want. However, RP would not be in favor of issuing them marriage licenses or recognition of the relationship as a marriage in a court of law. He would not be in favor of encouraging sodomy, but would not be in favor of banning it either. (My source for this information is a video which can be obtained on his website.)

Having said this, one must keep in mind that RP is a strong believer in states’ rights. The federal courts, in his opinion, should have nothing to say in the matter. He opposed the Lawrence v Texas decision which struck down a Texas law banning sodomy.

When asked about “don’t ask don’t tell”, RP articulated his position on this quite well. He said that, in this country, it is unfortunate that people have begun to think that their rights come from being apart of a certain group. The real reason that you have your rights is that you are a person, not because you are gay, black, or a woman. RP went on to say that when homosexual behavior in military becomes disruptive, we need to deal with it. He also said that when heterosexual behavior in the military becomes disruptive, we need to deal with this also. (I think, for this reason, women and homosexuals should not be allowed in the military at all, but I don’t know what RP thinks about this.)

The most interesting position RP takes is that the government should not define marriage. His reasoning is that, only God should define it. If some judge were to misinterpret the law and construe a homosexual relationship as being a marriage, that judge would be an activist judge. The dictionary definition should be used and we shouldn’t have to redefine it into law. If we give government the power to redefine it, then we are saying that we have the right to say marriage is whatever we want it to be. This sets a bad precedent, in RP’s opinion. I’m not sure I agree, but I would like to learn more about this argument. This isn’t the first person that I have heard this from. (Michael Peroutka was.)

The Libertarian Party platform says that the Defense of Marriage Act defines marriage and therefore it should be repealed. But RP would disagree with this since he supported DOMA. The LP platform goes on to imply that basically every law there is that contains the concept of marriage or distinguishes gender should be abolished. While I agree that marriage should be a basically private covenant with which the government should rarely interfere and that 99% laws concerning marriage are unnecessary and manipulative, the LP platform clearly throws out the baby with the bath. We need to keep the traditional Biblical principles of marriage in our laws and get rid of the rest.