Third Party gains ground in NY-23rd House election

Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman has received the endorsement of former Presidential candidate Fred Thompson (R-TN) and the conservative group Club for Growth. With my personal disdain for social conservatism aside this is certainly big for third parties. If a third party can gain a seat in a national election, it will certainly be a shot to the current two-party oligarchy occupying Washington.

The Conservative Party of New York was formed because of the view of the state Republican Party that they were too liberal and to be a counter to the Liberal Party of New York.

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&docID=news-000003212009

Downsize DC supports nixing the Patriot Act

Downsize DC a nonpartisan small government advocacy group has come out today in support the Justice Act. What the Justice Act entails is to put safeguards to prevent the Government from abusing the Patriot Act against it's own citizens. The Justice Act was introduced by Democratic Senator Russ Feingold who some remember is one of the few who came out against the PATRIOT Act when it wasn't politically popular. Downsize DC has stated that they support the complete destruction of the PATRIOT Act but baby steps like this are better than nothing.

A link to Downsize DC's campaign is support of the Justice Act is found here

https://secure.downsizedc.org/etp/campaigns/117

How does Cash for Clunkers help the economy?

If someone wishes to buy a new car, then by all mean let them but why should the Federal Government get involved? In a time where Americans are losing their jobs by the day, isn't the Federal Government encouraging bad behavior? Buying a car isn't like buying a pair of sneakers, it takes a lot of research and financial planning. It's easy to go to the dealership and sign either the lease or loan, the hard part is to pay for it. I don't know how it is in other states but in New York if you take out a loan to buy a car (either from the dealership or a car loan from the bank) you are required to get full insurance coverage (collision, liability, etc). Of course the price tag on your insurance varies by the vehicle, your personal driving record and possibly other life factors. As I stated before if one can ride the waves of the financial burden that is involved with a vehicle purchase by all means help out your local dealership. The problem is that Federal Government is encouraging people to drown themselves in debt at a time where we should be saving and cutting unnecessary costs.

Encouraging debt burdens isn't the only thing that the Feds have created with this program. They are also creating more waste, with the destruction of the vehicles. Majority of vehicle owners have felt the bullet of expensive repair jobs with my personal favorite being parts you can only get from the dealership instead at your local Napa. In the CARS program, dealerships are required to destroy the engine although some are refusing either on principal or for profit reasons. The old adage "One person's trash is another person's treasure" comes into play here. Recent market trends have said that used cars sell better than new cars. Why? because it's much cheaper to buy a used vehicle and keep it running as opposed to a new vehicle. If you don't have a lot of money and need a vehicle, going to Bob's used car emporium is much for cost effective than Johnson's Ford. By destroying the "clunker" the Federal Government effectively destroys a potential ride for someone who doesn't have that much money and/or a trove of engine parts that junk yards can salvage and sell at a cheap price as opposed to going to a dealership. Supporters say that the whole vehicle isn't destroyed, just the engine which is true but how often do people need doors, bumpers and other body parts as opposed to say a water pump or a fan belt?

So now we have the Federal Government encouraging debt allocation and eliminating vehicles for low income people. What was the objective of this program again? To get people to have more fuel efficient vehicles? The clowns that run Washington need to realize that this is a unrealistic goal. In rural areas having a tiny little Toyota isn't going to do anyone good when there is dangerous amounts of snow on the ground. People (myself included) buy trucks, jeeps and SUVs for a reason, not to be hip like the Yuppies in New York City. Those in Washington need to realize that the more they try to fiddle with the economy the more they make it worse.

Why such anger towards Lou Dobbs?

Fellow Libertarians might be wondering why I would be defending Lou Dobbs on anything. Since his economic protectionist views run very counter to our own. Among the mainstream media Dobbs is one of the few guys that makes any kind of sense on most issues.


That's why I was kind of surprised among all the hate Dobbs got from liberals when he continued the "birther" saga. For the record I believe Obama is a natural born United States citizen. The funniest parts about the attacks on Dobbs is that he was this right wing extremist. One of the first things he points out is that he believes that Obama is a natural born citizen! Would a right wing extremist support gay marriage, separation of church and state, the minimum wage, and abortion? My guess would be no. Even with stances on those issues most conservatives don't call him a liberal, they typically refer to him as a independent or a populist. The only time I have seen conservatives actually a line themselves with Dobbs is with illegal immigration.

Has this onslaught on Dobbs changed his views on the issues I've stated? Probably not since Dobbs is more rational that most in the media, especially when you compare him to Keith Olbermann. If Dobbs ever let liberals off easy in the past you can bet that he certainly won't now.

Social Collectivism is still alive and well

As everyone knows Sonia Sotomayor is now a Supreme Court Justice. Right on cue liberals cheered while conservatives and libertarians jeered. This was of course expected with a Democratic majority in congress and as far as the ideological makeup goes there wasn't much change. With the single exception being that Sotomayor sides with the police more than Souter ever did.

Liberal groups and supporters cheered because they feel that they have a lock on the Hispanic vote. Buchanan-type conservatives try to revamp the case for use of the Southern Strategy and other right-populist themes in order to take back Washington. In both cases, both are wrong. For awhile both conservatives and liberals have forgotten the words of Dr. Martin Luther King:

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

When did character translate to group? Last time I checked people where individuals not groups, what my neighbor does to his body does not affect me. Why is it assumed by liberals that putting Sotomayor on the top court will automatically translate to votes? Why do a small group of conservatives think that Sotomayor's personal views are the views of every Hispanic in the country? It's not just the Sotomayor appointment it's also illegal immigration and affirmative action among other issues. The illegal immigration debate has brought out alot of racial and social collectivist thought out and it's pathetic. Sometimes one can't tell if it's debate or just ridiculous name calling and race baiting. It seems that the individual is lost on the partisans and for them it's easier to group people together and scream at their opponent.

In my opinion collectivism is a taught and natural behavior at the same time. Sometimes people naturally won't associate with others that are not like them. Look at High School for a nice example of that. In the taught aspect, those who teach collectivism may use crime statistics, voting data, religion, race and other trait that a person belongs to (typically through no fault of his or her own) in order to paint said group a certain way. Can social collectivism be overcome? Yes it can. Will it happen anytime soon? Probably not.

Obama's first true Middle East test: Iran

So far Obama hasn't done anything yet that warrants any type of positive praise from me until now. With Iran in the mist of chaos and possible revolution, Obama has done the smartest thing a US President has done in regards to a foreign country in a very long time: staying out of their business. Time and time again our meddling in affairs of other nations has done nothing but to fuel hatred for our country and our people.Obama in rare form is showing that he supports freedom for other nations by letting their own people handle their own affairs not using our military to do it for them.

Of course the Neoconservatives cannot have that. Neoconservatives hate national leaders that preach nonintervention in their foreign policy. They prefer leaders who supporting bombing nations that won't bend to our whims. The underlining fact that they forget or choose to ignore is that the Iranian people are very nationalist and hate when others mess in their domestic problems. The last revolution that Iran had shows that Iranians don't want outsiders messing with their politics. The articles claiming Obama is supporting the Iranian regime are coming out in droves and there is no end in sight. it shows you that Neoconservativism isn't dead, nor did it receive a fatal blow when Bush left office. When Obama picked Hillary as his Secretary of State, I already started to think that Bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran might come true. Interesting enough Hillary has been rather quite and out of the spotlight as of late.

Do I believe Obama is fully committed to nonintervention? No but Iran is a damm good start

Libertarians must take a stand on illegal immigration

While I didn't seem to think that the illegal immigration debate wouldn't come up till after Sotomayor was nominated or not it seems that Obama is intent in doing some serious multitasking. Libertarians for the most part are divided on this issue but this division will come back to bite us if we don't put up a common front.

As most of us know the illegal immigration debate is divided into the following groups:

1. Grant amnesty, keep immigration flowing

2. No amnesty, restrict immigration 2a. no immigrants period 2b. no immigration from non-white countries

3. No amnesty, keep immigration flowing but eliminate the red tape

Conservatives who fall in the second category are attempting to paint Libertarians as apart of the open borders left. I saw a video from the Cato Institute that had Jim Harper discussing on how our immigration policy should be structured and the Fox News anchor tried to pin him in the same league is Nancy Pelosi. Interesting enough Sarah Palin said before the election that she didn't believe in mass deportation of illegal immigrants but that barely made a peep among conservative voices.

The stereotype that Libertarians don't believe in the rule of law has been used like a billy club by conservatives especially on this issue. We have to get the message out there that we support a third option in the illegal immigration debate. Contrary to what the left and right tell say more people would support the third option than the first or second. It's not like we don't have a voice in the media who supports the third option. Lou Dobbs of CNN is on tape saying that he is very pro-legal immigration but is against amnesty, he is someone we can work with despite being an economic protectionist.

During the height of the swine flu "scare" the national party issued a statement for Obama to close the border with Mexico until the "scare" had passed. I didn't think much of it until I got an email from the local libertarian group that the national party was supporting xenophobia. I had emailed them back supporting national's decision to do that because at the time it was a national security issue, never got a response back by the way. I can understand why some Libertarians would see this move xenophobic since xenophobia and bigotry is very anti-liberty but we also should remember that complaining about bigots only gives them legitimacy. Sadly the left has yet to learn this lesson. Yes there is no denying the fact that racist and/or anti-immigrant groups (neo-nazis, kkk, coalition of conservative citizens, minutemen, etc) have used the illegal immigration debate as a cover to spread their bigotry. There is no denying of this fact but in addition to acknowledging them keeping the issue open only makes their cause stronger. If and when illegal immigration is solved the correct way these groups won't have anything to stand on (for the time being) and will self expose their true colors when they no longer have a banner to hide behind.

The illegal immigration issue is another great chance for us to inject our influence into the Republicans and/or the Democrats. We cannot let the ultra nationalist Paleoconservatives, other anti-legal immigrant groups and the pro-amnesty left win this fight. We must stand for liberty and the rule of law.