Dec 11th, 2008
Says only hope for the long-term viability of automakers is bankruptcy and restructuring
The nation's largest third-party is calling for Congress to strike down a measure backed by the White House that would risk at least $15 billion of taxpayer dollars to bail-out the American automotive industry.

"It's insanity," says Libertarian Party spokesperson Andrew Davis. "It's insane that we keep going back to the taxpayers to bail-out struggling corporations who, for lack of good management and sound business practices, have become unprofitable. Who in Congress is standing up for the taxpayers? Where are the Republicans, who claim they stand for the free market? Where are the Democrats, who claim they oppose corporate welfare?"

The current plan seeks to initially give Detroit automakers a $15 billion, taxpayer-backed loan with a deadline of March 31 to develop a plan for profitability. If, by the deadline, automakers fail to reach what the White House has established as "viability," the loans would be recalled—something Davis says is "already written in the stars."

"We all know what's going to happen, and it's not going to be the outcome proponents of the bailout want us all to believe," says Davis. "Automakers will get $15 billion of taxpayer money, and when April rolls around, they'll be asking for more time and more money. There are absolutely no provisions in the bailout bill that require any type of change to management, union contracts or company structure before receiving taxpayer money. All taxpayers have is a promise that the same CEOs who put their companies in this mess will get it right the second time."

"Or, the third time, if you're talking about Chrysler," Davis adds.

"The end goal of any restructuring should be removing the management that led companies into this pitfall," says Davis. "This should be done by the companies—not the government. The Libertarian Party favors letting these companies file Chapter 11, instead of risking taxpayer dollars for promises of reform. It will be tough in the short-term, but better for the long-term stability of our economy."

Dec 8th, 2008

The following resolution was passed by the Libertarian National Committee on Dec. 7, 2008 at its quarterly board meeting:

RESOLUTION CONDEMNING DOMESTIC DEPLOYMENT OF THE U.S. MILITARY

WHEREAS, the domestic deployment of 20,000 uniformed military personnel planned by the United States government undermines the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which forbids the use of the military for domestic policing; and,

WHEREAS, such a deployment is an alarming example of the increasing militarization of our society; and,

WHEREAS, the increasing use of active duty military personnel, has led, and will lead, to the abuse of American civil liberties, such as violations of the Fourth Amendment; and,

WHEREAS, a state's National Guard – not active duty members of Army combat units – is the appropriate authority to handle local emergencies and disasters should they arise; and,

WHEREAS, the use of the 3rd Infantry Division 1st Brigade Combat Team during a time of war puts further tension on an already strained U.S. military

THEREFORE, be it resolved, the Libertarian National Committee and its undersigned members hereby condemn the plans of the federal government to deploy 20,000 active duty members of the U.S. military to serve, for whatever reason, domestically in the United States. Furthermore, the Libertarian National Committee calls for the immediate abandonment of these plans, and instead suggests that should an emergency response team comprised of members other than local emergency responders (fire, police, HAZMAT) be developed and trained, it consist of members of the National Guard – not active duty personnel of the United States military.

The Libertarian National Committee calls for the citizens of the United States to oppose this militarization of our society, and its encroachment on American civil liberties, to their local, state and federal representatives.

Dec 8th, 2008
by Andrew Davis

On Dec. 7, 2009, the Libertarian Party of New York (LPNY) State Committee passed a resolution supporting a lawsuit seeking to end corporate welfare via the New York State Constitution.

"The LPNY endorses the Stop The Pork Lawsuit filed by Jim Ostrowski to enforce the prohibition in the State Constitution against grants or loans of state money to corporations," states the resolution.

"This type of lawsuit could become infectious throughout the country. It sets the precedent for politicians who claim to adhere to the letter of the law at our ultimate financial determent, " says LPNY Chair Eric Sundwall

This lawsuit was presented by attorney James Ostrowski on Dec. 3 in Albany, NY on behalf of a group of concerned individuals.

Dec 8th, 2008
by Pete Eyre

Spurred to act by an outbreak of cholera, political and religious leaders last week called for Robert Mugabe to be ousted from Zimbabwe. To make this happen, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, winner of a Nobel Peace Prize, said that African nations should use force if necessary.

Since coming to power three decades ago, Mugabe has wrecked what was once a beacon of prosperity on the African continent. By seizing privately-held land and other property and implementing disastrous policies, Mugabe and his band of thugs lined their pockets while they indirectly and directly caused the deaths of their countrymen. His brutal regime so lowered the standard of living in Zimbabwe that according to some estimates, a full 1/4 of the population have emigrated to other countries.

Mugabe obtained wealth by using the force of government, or what A.J. Nock referred to as the “political means” (differentiated from the “economic means” in which wealth creation is obtained through voluntary interactions). His actions, and those of countless of other heads of states such as Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, remind us just how bad unrestrained government can be – how easy it is for an individual to repress millions through an office cloaked in the legitimacy of government.

It’s great that world leaders are now calling for Mugabe’s removal in part due to the recent bout of cholera (for which the government is accused of underestimating), but it’s unfortunate that it has taken this long. And it’s also unfortunate that the common denominator in all these situations – the concentration of political power in one position – has yet to be recognized by many. If it were, and steps were taken to lessen the scope of power granted to one individual, there’d be a lot less Mugabe’s in the world. Not necessarily because there would be less evil men, but because such actions would lessen their ability to inflict harm on others.

from bureaucrash.com

Dec 8th, 2008
As a political party, we run candidates every November that wish to be elected to office in order to push public policy in a Libertarian direction. However, there is more to the Libertarian Party than just running candidates for office. We are also one of the leading advocacy groups for libertarian policy in the United States. That is why our press releases, party communications, blog entries and party officials are constantly talking about the Libertarian response to current issues.

Many times, we lead the way on key issues that other organizations have not yet jumped on.

This is how we represent you, and what your donations fund.

Here are a few examples:

Bailouts, Bailouts, and More Bailouts

Soon after the first news of potential bailouts was announced, the Libertarian Party took the lead against the use of trillions of dollars of taxpayer money to prop-up corporations who have made bad lending decisions. It was the Libertarian Party who called for, from the very beginning, the protection of taxpayers from these plans, and to let the market work itself out.

While others were debating whether to let the government intervene in the economy, the Libertarian Party said "NO!" to more regulation and more government power.

Soon, others began standing behind us.

The Libertarian Party has now signed-on to a coalition letter from the National Taxpayers Union calling for transparency in the bailouts. Though it appears the government still plans to use your money to bailout Wall Street, Detroit, and who knows who else…we are at least on the front lines to ensure that money is not wasted even further.

20,000 Uniformed Troops in Your Back Yard

In 1878, the Posse Comitatus Act passed that forbid the use of the US military in domestic law enforcement. Now, 130 years later, the federal government has announced plans to deploy 20,000 troops for duty inside the United States!

Who is standing up to this? It's not the Republicans, and it's not the Democrats. It's the Libertarian Party.

We have taken the lead on fighting this by issuing strong statements against the use of the military as peacekeepers inside our own borders. Both Bob Barr, the 2008 Libertarian Party presidential nominee, and Bill Redpath, the Libertarian Party's national chairman, have strongly expressed our concern and contempt for what Bill calls "evidence of a disturbing trend of militarism in today's society."

Until the book closes on this issue, the Libertarian Party will be fighting for your Constitutional rights, even if no other political party will do the same.

Operation ELECT-US

When one election is over, the next one has already begun. Operation ELECT-US is a initiative developed by the Libertarian Party to recruit as many candidates as possible for winnable local offices in 2009.

It is said that all politics are local, and that is why the Libertarian Party works hard to elect Libertarians to local office. From smoking bans to fast food bans, many of these issues of liberty are fought in council chambers of cities across America.

This is where Libertarians need to be.

Our focus on the local level is the reason why we have more than two hundred Libertarians serving in office right now. The more Libertarians we have running means more Libertarians are elected to office, which then increases the exposure of the Libertarian Party.

Electing Libertarians is how the Libertarian Party is serving you.


What Can Gold Do For You?

Now, we ask that you stand up for us.

Together, we can return America back to the vision of our Founding Fathers—a country where government is restrained, and individuals are free.

Dec 8th, 2008
The Libertarian Party Says: "No!"
The “Big Three” are back on the Hill, and this time the question is whether they can make a strong enough case in order to receive billions of dollars in taxpayer-backed loans to save their companies from bankruptcy.

Despite all the trappings of a truly repentant lot of CEOs who just got a bad shake (this trip, they substituted their private jets for hybrid cars), there is no case that they can make that will be strong enough to justify even $1 being used to prop-up their failed companies.

These “billion-dollar beggars” deserve to go home empty-handed.

Detroit auto manufacturers have failed to keep up with trends in the automotive industry, locked themselves into destructive union contracts and demonstrated a complete lack of initiative in automotive innovations that make their products enticing to consumers.

Why are taxpayers being forced to reward this mismanagement?

Bad business decisions—not economic downturn—are the reasons these CEOs find themselves in their current plight. A bailout would only subsidize these bad decisions and offer no incentive to dump the individuals responsible for this mess in the first place. Bailouts do absolutely nothing to encourage reform.

Just look at Chrysler, who asked for their first bailout only three decades ago.

Taxpayers should not be responsible for the American automotive industry, which trail its foreign competitors in almost every category, and has allowed itself to be strong-armed into destructive union contracts.

The United Auto Workers union may be willing to play ball right now (its more of a matter of self-preservation that any true sign of goodwill), and CEOs may be promising to make changes, but the truth is that these reforms and concessions will only be around until the auto industry gets back on its feet. Then, it’s back to their old tricks until the Big Three come crawling again to Washington a few decades down the road looking for another “fix” of corporate welfare.

It may seem counter-intuitive to take such a bold move as saying “No!” to the bailouts (bold, as in Congress actually listening to the 61 percent of Americans who oppose the bailouts for Detroit) during the current economic slump, but short-term anguish is worth it to prevent the long-term suffering that will come from a bailout.
So, to answer the original question: No, the Big Three have failed to make a strong enough case for a bailout. They were doomed, in principle, from the very beginning.

Dec 5th, 2008
Had Warned of Such Domestic Military Involvement Since 1993 Waco Tragedy
Former Georgia Congressman Bob Barr says government plans to deploy 20,000 uniformed soldiers inside the United States "ignores all the tragic lessons we have learned from using the U.S. military in domestic crises."

"When combat troops are used for domestic law enforcement, rights are inevitably violated and tragedies occur, such as when the military was improperly activated to assist in the tragedy at Waco, Texas in 1993. This domestic use of the military resulted in the loss of some 80 men, women and children," says Barr, the Libertarian Party's 2008 presidential nominee. "The government's plan to deploy initially 20,000 uniformed military personnel inside the United States goes against everything we have learned about using soldiers as police officers. Not only do these plans appear to be a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act—which forbids the use of the military in law enforcement on non-federal property—but it also opens up the American public to dangerous Constitutional violations."

Barr says his concerns are greatly heightened by the conclusion reached by the current Bush Administration in a classified 2001 Department of Justice memo. The memo stated that the Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures, does not apply to the U.S. military when it engages in “domestic” operations.

"When the military operates in the United States, as the federal government now intends it to do, it does so without respect or deference to the Constitution," says Barr. "The federal government plans to render every American citizen defenseless against government abuse during any crisis situation—be it a flood, hurricane, or other natural disaster—where U.S. military personnel will be used to supplement local law enforcement."

"We do not need to militarize Mayberry," says Barr.

"I fought against this type of gross expansion of government authority while I was in Congress," says Barr. "I called for a full investigation of the Waco Siege when it became clear that government used excessive force in their raid, which cost the lives of many innocent Americans. The 'culture of militarism' in the federal government turned Waco into an American tragedy. Should this trend of militarism be allowed to continue, it will only be a matter of time before we have another avoidable tragedy on our hands."

Libertarian Party National Chairman William Redpath released a similar statement on Tuesday of this week, saying the government's plans represented "evidence of a disturbing trend of militarism in today's society."

Bob Barr represented the 7th District of Georgia in the U. S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003. Congressman Barr was the 2008 Libertarian Party Nominee for President, receiving the second-highest vote totals for a presidential candidate in the history of the Libertarian Party.

Dec 3rd, 2008
I've added a lot of Ebooks available for download on the page here. Authors include Frederic Bastiat, Dr. Mary Ruwart, and Thomas Jefferson among others.

Dec 2nd, 2008
Says Americans Will Be More Vulnerable To Rigths Violations

Libertarian Party National Chairman William Redpath calls a plan by the federal government to deploy 20,000 uniformed soldiers inside the United States "further evidence of a disturbing trend of militarism in today's society."

According to reports from the Washington Post, the federal government seeks to establish an emergency response team built on the Army's 3rd Infantry Division's 1st Brigade Combat Team, which just returned from more than a year in Iraq.

"This is not the proper role of active-duty soldiers, who have been trained and seasoned in combat," says Redpath. "When you have active-duty soldiers being substituted for National Guardsmen, you're opening yourselves up to potential violations of civil liberties during their operations. American soldiers, the finest instruments of war in the world, do not need to be patrolling the streets of American towns after hurricanes or floods. That is not their purpose as soldiers."

"We've seen countless examples in modern history of how an atmosphere of militarism during a time of crisis can lead to an excessive use of force and widespread violations of even basic Constitutional protections," Redpath continues. "Inserting trained combat troops into these situations is an invitation for disaster."

"If there needs to be an emergency response team that can assist and supplement local emergency responders, it should be comprised of National Guardsmen—not active-duty soldiers," says Redpath. "The use of active-duty soldiers instead of National Guardsmen puts undue tension on an already strained military during a time of war."

Dec 1st, 2008
Today's "Monday Message" is primarily one for President-Elect Barack Obama. Though the Bush administration, which has undoubtedly been one of the worst in American history, will be leaving office on Jan. 20, there is little room for celebration as Obama looks to take over as commander-in-chief.

Obama's attitude towards wealth, the marketplace and economics is reason enough to worry about his administration in this extremely fragile economy. But, there are other areas where Obama must tread with care if he wishes to follow the Constitution and foster an environment of liberty that has been lacking these last eight years.

Therefore, the Libertarian Party wishes Obama the best of luck, and offers him the following suggestions for his presidency in the following areas:

Civil Liberties:
This is one area where we thought Obama could bring real change to the table following the Bush administration, which held the protection of civil liberties about as high as they regarded things like the flu and traffic jams. However, when Obama's feet were put to the fire, Obama sold out and capitulated to the enemies of freedom during the reauthorization of the Amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

It's not unjustified to be skeptical of Obama when it comes to upholding civil liberties.

If Obama looks to separate himself from the Bush administration, he should—and must—work to undue the legislation of the last eight years that have left Americans incredibly vulnerable to government surveillance and spying. We must have our liberty restored and the despotic surveillance tactics of the "War on Terror" abolished.

Secondly, Obama must not use the Department of Justice as a tool to bend and break the law as he sees fit, as the Bush administration frequently did. The DOJ has much work to do to rebuild its reputation with the American public, and it can start with the Obama administration.

Economic Freedom:
The necessity to defend and protect the marketplace from regulation and interference by the government is key to the long-term prosperity of the nation. This point cannot be stressed enough.

The Bush administration believed it had a right and duty to get involved in the economy when they thought it wasn't working to their standards. Instead of letting the market work out its problems, Bush got involved and turned a bad situation into a worse one.

Obama should take a hands-off approach to the economy, stepping in only to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. Any attempt to "redistribute" the wealth through regulation or taxation should be avoided at all costs. If this is attempted, it will have dire consequences for the economy.

Social Freedom:
Usually you don't have to jump on Democrats about protecting social freedom, but as of late, Democrats have increasingly become more heavy-handed when it comes to personal choice in people's lives.

The "global warming" hysteria and push for more regulation of Americans' diets has put Democrats in the same corner as those who seek to institute moral standards through government regulation.

Obama must buck this new trend by Democrats and work to protect individual choice—even if it seems like the government needs to help people make these decisions. Obama can also take this opportunity to reform national laws that make victimless crimes a federal matter.

The War:
This has to be one of the most obvious areas for improvement, yet one are that Democrats have consistently failed in since regaining control of Congress in 2006.

The power to end the war in Iraq is now in the hands of Obama. He also has a power to finally end what we began in Afghanistan long before we began military action in Iraq. What he must do is avoid moving troops from one theater to the other instead of simply bringing the troops home.

It is time for Obama and Democrats to follow through with earlier promises.

If Obama takes all of these suggestions, we will have one of the best presidencies in American history. If he takes none, then we will surely see times far darker than those under the Bush administration.

In all likelihood, we will see improvements over the Bush administration in some areas, and setbacks in others. This is why it is paramount that the Libertarian Party be a strong, shining beacon of liberty for all Americans looking for true change from the last eight years.

Live free,

Andrew Davis
Director Of Communications
Libertarian Party