Monthly Archives: April, 2014

Reduce the Pay of Congress

A new ad from Craig Bowden, running out of Utah’s 1st Congressional District addressing the need to reduce the salary, perks, and entitlements members of Congress receive.

 

Libertarian Party of Utah Convention

1463922_631034293628398_713283183_nFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

APRIL 26, 2014

(Salt Lake City) — The Libertarian Party of Utah met today in Draper to approve and nominate its slate of candidates for the November, 2014 General Election. The nominated candidates are:

Federal Candidates:
Craig Bowden – US House 1
Jim L Vein – US House 4

Utah Constitutional Office Candidates:
W. Andrew McCullough – Attorney General

Utah Senate:
Dwight Steffner – State Senate 18
Brent Zimmerman – State Senate 22

Utah House:
Roger S. Condie – State House 7
Megan Clegg – State House 23
Chelsea Travis – State House 35
Rainer Huck – State House 40
Bret Black – State House 44
Lee Anne Walker – State House 46
Barry Evan Short – State House 72

Utah State Libertarian Party Chairman Courtney White was pleased by the results, stating, “I’m excited about the slate of candidates we nominated today. Each of them brings something special to the table, and all are dedicated to protecting the liberty of their constituents.”

The Libertarian Party of Utah supports a government limited in scope to protecting and preserving the innate rights of all individuals against all concentrations of power, be it governmental or corporate power over the individual, and which respects the earnings of every Utahn by controlling government spending. In that light, the party is pleased to note that it has selected its candidates without resorting to an expensive primary election conducted at public expense, unlike some other parties.

For information contact:
Courtney White (mail@utahlp.org) (801-245-0827)
www.UtahLP.org
https://www.facebook.com/lputah

The Militia Argument

2nd-Amendment-800x594I would like to go ahead and quell a little bit of argument about what a militia is to those who seek to disarm American citizens by stating the right only applies to militias.

Full Definition of MILITIA

1
a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2
: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

(Source: Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary)

Please note that “the whole body of able-bodies male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service.” If you have ever had a draft card, this makes you eligible to have a gun under their militia excuse. But lets take things a step further.

Let’s look at an excerpt of Federalist Papers #29

“if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.”

So the founding fathers recognized that any who stand ready to defend their own rights and their fellow citizens. It also recognizes that it is a counter to a standing army should there ever be one (as we have now) if that army was to be used against the people.

Perspective on Bundy Ranch

article-2603026-1D0F67D100000578-703_634x411Many of us have formulated opinions on the case of the Bureau of Land Management and their handling of the Bundy case in Clark County, Nevada.  I’d like to share my perspective.  I will not be going into the past between the two, only the current situation that has rocked a nation.

My first observation was the fact that his cattle were being seized.  I’m sorry, but you cannot take another man’s property without due process of the law.  Had there been a legitimate warrant, the local sheriff would have been the one serving the papers, not a federal agency.

My second observation is that if this was really about turtles (as this is why the cattle are supposedly prohibited from grazing), then why was there heavy equipment assisting in the capture of the “trespassing” cows.  I’m sorry, but a backhoe is going to do far more damage to a habitat than a cow eating some brush.

Third, the video seen around the world shows a clearly oppressive group of “law enforcement” agents.  Who throws down a 56 year old woman, then tazers the person trying to assist her three times?  If this isn’t brutality, I’m not sure what is.  Not to mention the show of force with snipers, K9s, and as President Obama calls them, weapons of war.  Why does the BLM have access and need for such?  Clearly not to manage land.

The fourth observation would be the fact that over 3 million dollars were spent on this operation, which failed due to patriots responding to help the Bundy family, over a 1.3 million dollar debt.  That was your money wasted on this.  It shows the brilliance of our federal government: let’s spend almost 3 times what we need to collect, only, we won’t end up succeeding because people showed up to defend liberty.  I’m sorry, but this is how the federal government is. Maybe we need to let the illegals on the Southern Border start grazing down there and call them cows…maybe something will finally be done to seal the border.

The last observation I will make is this: there is only one 1st amendment zone.  It begins right after the Mexican border and ends at the Canadian one.  There is no way any federal agent is in the right by attempting to corral citizens.  We get to speak anywhere in this nation, as enshrined in our Constitution.

Those are some of the things I noticed, and frankly I only have one thing left to say:

PATRIOTS: 1 FEDS: 0

Force is Not the Answer

ft_main1For a long time, the United States Government has been using force in order to ensure it can fund its various departments.  They literally use threats of jail, fines, and use law enforcement (in other words a gun) to ensure you are compliant on taxes.  I find this to be extremely wrong and morally unjustified.

The excuse I seem to hear the most often is that there is a “social contract” to take care of the less fortunate.  That it is good because some people wouldn’t help anyone out if it weren’t mandatory.  My question to present to them is this: how did the United States fund anything, even when it tried staying within the enumerated powers granted in the Constitution, until the early 1900s when the Income Tax was first established and made permanent?

I believe that you should be able to keep 100% of what you make.  You are the one who puts in the hard work, yet, even at the lowest, you still need to pay 10% of your wage as soon as you go over $435.00 on a two week paycheck.  So if you only make $770.00 a month, you have to give up a tenth of your earnings.

I have a solution, and that solution is the Fair Tax system.  Through the Fair Tax, you keep every dime you make.  No one takes anything from you.  There is no threat of jail or fines if you don’t file a paper on time. There are no armed agents ready to put a lien on your property.  You have your money free and clear.

The tax applies to the final point of purchase of an item.  So you only pay taxes on the money you spend.  If you choose to be frugal, you will save more of your hard earnings for things like retirement, emergencies, etc.  You have the control of how much you’ll pay at any given time.

This also would allow for the rich to still pay more, because naturally, as you make more money, you buy more things.  You spend more.  You get the more expensive items.  You can afford it.

I find the Fair Tax to be the best approach, and removes the threats of the IRS from your life.  This is something everyone could get behind, regardless of your ideology or political party.  Give the power back to the people.