RichmondLiberty.org

Please defeat Governor Kaine's anti-smoking amendment regarding restaurants.

I am not a smoker, and have no interest in this bill other than the deprivation and erosion of my liberties as someone fortunate enough to have been in the freedom of America and Virginia. I believe that this bill is an attempt to further and advance the cause of socialism in Virginia by depriving individuals of their liberty through the encroachment and expansion of nannyistic big brother governmentism.

I am appalled at the Governor's claim that one restaurant owner asked him to ban smoking in restaurants, but refused to reveal the source of his conversation. Not only is that cowardly, but I am not sure that I believe or trust someone who has gone back on his word publicly in the past. What happened to sunshine and open government instead of secretive hearsay?

I am further appalled that he would excuse his bill as a defensive health measure of non-smoking (not all) employees at the expense of untold millions of restaurant visits. I guess he believes in minority rules.

The next thing you know, the government will be outlawing pate` , transfat, and helmetless motorcycle riders.

WizeMaxie
Henrico

Posted by WizeMaxie at 12:15 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Or "The worst thing you could do is to do nothing."

http://www.richmondtimesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD/MGArticle/RTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1173350470397

Posted by Robert Russo at 01:48 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

http://www.richmondtimesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD/MGArticle/RTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1173350466257

http://www.smokefreevanow.org/

I'd like to note that I strongly dislike cigarettes and second-hand smoke, but will aggressively defend the rights of any smoker. Which is worse, being told what you can and can't do in public places, or taxpayer-bought airtime used to convince us we want this?

Posted by Robert Russo at 01:41 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

by Robert Russo

There are rules of the road that don’t appear on any DMV forms or legal memos. One is that everyone who gets behind the wheel is at risk, complete safety is an illusion. Another is that everyone commits some kind of traffic infringement, and if a light turns red while I’m driving under it I’m relieved that either no one saw it, or no one considers it a big deal. I don’t stop to think I might get a call at home that evening from someone who took a photo of me running a red light.

But the rules of the road are changing. Instead of helping motorists avoid trouble, traffic signals will be looking for it. More signs of support for red light cameras are appearing all over the state, both official and unofficial, as this measure allotted to local communities last month is inevitable to begin in the capital city. Public surveillance of streets began in countries like Britain, the once-seat of imperialism, where overpopulation and a decline of the objecting spirit have led to a muted prescribed lifestyle. With NYC, Atlanta, Chicago and Philadelphia among the major cities that have already adopted this ordnance, it will not be long before the entire country follows suit.

When the first signs of approval from the House came through on February 5 the Washington Post described it as "a victory for safety advocates".* I find it amazing that a small number of good-intentioned, perhaps naive citizens believe this was their doing, when in fact it is a victory for revenue. City planners caring only for the boom of their own burg plot growth endlessly as they just did in Hanover (a county of great natural beauty which will now be parceled out to prepare for the next 20 years)**, then just as innocently the State passes not a decree, but a matter of principle that communities can decide for themselves how to make the increased bustling safer. Once a local board has this consent who wouldn’t use it? All they care about is safety and revenue. No one wants to stand out by objecting.

The intersection on my block is notorious for high-impact wrecks, many of them undoubtedly caused by the running of red lights, however these would be significantly decreased if there was a simple turn light installed. The daily congestion on Rt. 10 as it approaches I-95 in Chester could be relieved both ways by just removing the stop lights at Old Stage Rd. There must be innumerable solutions in every precinct through simple planning measures and diligence, beginning with the need for smarter lights themselves (not those that stay green for 5 minutes when there are no incoming cars). Cameras are easier than diligence and more profitable than accountability.

Whenever rules are enforced by the collection of funds it is inevitable that that revenue will become the bulk of planned income. The amount Richmond could glean from this is astronomical. Traffic violations are dependable enough to be a guarantee of it. Almost no one would be exempt, sparking a boom of traffic cases and jobs for police, clerks and judges. Traffic court will become a community center for all debtors to get in line, or the process will be streamlined so we can all pay without trial. If safety were the only concern, speed violations could be solved by giving each automobile a unique code and after a set number of infractions a cop could pop the hood and adjust the governor on the engine with his key.

Growth and overpopulation feeds the spread of imperialism by setting a stage to cut corners on our rights. Planners in every profession think they are so smart by making their jobs easier, thinking the world will be better if there is more of one product or service (i.e. city franchises), and treating the life that connects all of these things as something we’ve put aside just as they have. It’s hard to tell a cop or city official why the law shouldn’t be absolute. All we can do is choose new leadership. By the time the Bush administration is over what good would a moderate "Third Way" democrat like the Clintons do? The 1984 olympic commercial used to mock Hillary last week was made at a time when people still cared to avoid 1984!*** The development of Hanover County defies massive public objections. Gov. Kaine’s campaign to ban all smoking in restaurants defies massive public objections.**** Our representatives are making these decisions without us. These issues are not related as far as they are concerned, along with affected citizens and even opponents. We Libertarians are the true third way. For information on how to prepare for red light camera issues go to http://www.motorists.org/issues/enforce/index.html.

* http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/05/AR2007020501391.html
**http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD/MGArticle/RTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1173350470397
***http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h3G-lMZxjo
****http://www.smokefreevanow.org/

Question of the Week: Aside from our own reasons for wanting the President impeached, is congress' continuing defiance of him the mostly likely harbinger for a true shakeup, or can we affect the next election without it? Send your thoughts to henrico@richmondliberty.org.

If you have topics of interest to Libertarians please let us know. We welcome your input!

Posted by Robert Russo at 12:57 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Carol Lancaster, an associate professor of politics and the director of the Mortara Center for International Studies, thinks she is becomming a Libertarian:

"Ages ago, when I was an undergrad at Georgetown, I was a content, optimistic liberal. Yes, there were lots of terrible problems in the world, but I thought governments could and should help solve them. Libertarians were anarchists in camouflage, for whom governments were the problem, not the solution. The less government, they felt, the better...

One becomes more conservative over time as one observes the limitations of governments and the human beings who populate them. Even with the best intentions, governments are inefficient, bumbling, heavy-handed and sometimes corrupt. Nearly 15 years in public service taught me one important lesson: Most of what goes wrong with government policies is a result of incompetence or bad luck, and not carefully crafted conspiracy or mendacity. So maybe government isn't always part of the solution; sometimes it can be part of the problem, even if it doesn't mean to be...."

Full Story at:

http://www.thehoya.com/viewpoint/032707/view4.cfm

Posted by Leonard Harris at 10:09 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Ever wonder why taxes are so high in NYC? Thought it was just a bunch of crazy or corrupt politicians? Well it turns out at least part of the budge is was used to send police all over the world to spy on potential attendees of the 2004 Republican National Convention. Or maybe it was just a cover for some NYC police to have a taxpayer funded vacation?

"For at least a year before the 2004 Republican National Convention, teams of undercover New York City police officers traveled to cities across the country, Canada and Europe to conduct covert observations of people who planned to protest at the convention, according to police records and interviews."

Full Story at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/25/nyregion/25infiltrate.html/partner/rssnyt?_r=1&oref=slogin

Of course the really sad thing is that Virginia is considered a low tax state b/c other states spend money things like this. Tax freedom day in Virginia is is Apr 24 which means over 30% of our income is taken away by taxes. Raise taxes some more and we can send our police on a world tour too.

Posted by Leonard Harris at 01:31 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Residents of Missoula County (Montana) voted in a referendum intended to advise county law-enforcement types to treat marijuana offenses as low-profile. The referendum would not have changed any laws, but was advisory only. After voters approved it, county commissioners overturned it by a 2-to-1 vote. They were swayed by the argument of the county attorney, who had a "gut feeling" that Missoula's electorate had misinterpreted the ballot language.

File this under "The government feels free to ignore the will of its citizens."

Full Story at:
http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/24/197258

Posted by Leonard Harris at 11:37 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

[Editor's Note: I found this amusing. Others may not.]

Posted by Leonard Harris at 11:34 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

From Gunowners of America:

The Democrats are back in power and their anti-gun wing is trying to
make up for lost time as far as gun control legislation is concerned.
There are a number of bills that have been introduced already, but
GOA will be there to meet every challenge.

Right now, we need your help in beating back a reintroduction of the
so-called "assault weapons ban," the infamous bill that outlawed
many types of firearms based primarily on cosmetics, misinformation
and scare tactics.

The bill is HR 1022, and last month it was introduced by the Queen of
Gun Control, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY). Its 30 cosponsors
comprise a list of the usual anti-gun suspects -- so we need to make
sure that no pro-gun congressmen are duped into signing their names
onto this anti-gun piece of trash.

McCarthy entitled her bill the Assault Weapons Ban and Law
Enforcement Protection Act of 2007, knowing these firearms aren't
"assault weapons" and knowing the bill she is reintroducing does
nothing to prevent violent crime -- since the guns in question have
seldom been used in crime.

McCarthy's bill would reinstate all of the now defunct provisions
related to semi-automatic firearms and large capacity magazines. The
manufacture and/or importation of many firearms would be prohibited.
This would be paired with a strong ban on the possession or transfer
of detachable magazines having moderate or larger capacities.

Truth be told, HR 1022 is the old ban on steroids. Fourteen more
guns are listed by name than in the '94 ban, and only one
"dangerous"
feature, such as a pistol grip, is needed to make a "nice"
gun into a "bad" gun. The old ban required two "dangerous"
features, such as a pistol grip and a folding stock. This distinction
effectively expands the scope of the bill to ban a far broader variety
of firearms.

Since the U.S. Department of Justice has already documented that the
previous "assault weapons" ban did absolutely nothing to stop
violent crime, it is clear that HR 1022 is simply a direct attack on the 2nd
Amendment rights of gun owners...

You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Representative a
pre-written e-mail message. And, you can call your Representative
toll-free at 1-877-762-8762.

---- Pre-written letter to your Representative ----

Dear Representative:

I'm sure you are aware that Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) has
reintroduced, in the form of HR 1022, the Clinton semi-auto gun ban
that sunset a couple of years ago. The Justice Department reported
that the ban's impact on gun violence was small at best, and too
small to be statistically valid.

By contrast, states adopting concealed carry laws had significant
decreases in violent crime while states and cities maintaining strict
gun control laws continued to have the nation's highest rates of
violent crime.

I agree with Gun Owners of America that the only people affected by
the so-called "assault weapons ban" of 1994 were law-abiding gun
owners, manufacturers and importers. Clearly, this bill is nothing
less than an infringement on the rights of gun owners. And we won't
stand for it.

The supporters of HR 1022 will be identified as anti-gun Congressmen
and, hopefully, targeted for defeat at the next election. As your
constituent, I urge you to oppose this or any other gun grabbing bill
in the 110th Congress.

Sincerely,

Posted by Leonard Harris at 10:12 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

From the Virginia Property Rights Coalition:

Dear Coalitionists,

I just learned that representatives of redevelopment housing authorities and local governments, who failed to stop Kelo protection in the General Assembly ARE USING A NEW TACTIC WITH THE GOVERNOR.

They are painting the picture that these bills only passed because Republicans are a majority in the General Assembly; when the facts show this is and should be a TRUE BI-PARTISAN ISSUE.

All one has to do, is look at the polls after Kelo (see attachment above) to know public outrage was almost universal. Reaction was so strong because well cared for, non-blighted property was taken from people who had done nothing wrong and made available to a private developer for a redevelopment. project. All Americans felt vulnerable after this ruling and there was good reason .

Housing authorities in Virginia were already involved in taking non-blighted property. This legislation simply says "NO," you can not take a person's property unless it is blighted. In Virginia this legislation is not necessary to prevent Kelo from happening it is necessary to stop abuses that are already occurring in Virginia under the banner of redevelopment. (will provide examples of abuses if requested)

Those of you who are Democrats please remind the Governor that ALL VIRGINIANS support this legislation because it provides "real Kelo protection" and if you have a friend or relative who is a also a Democrat please ask them to help. This goes of Republicans as well. Let your Democratic friends know what is happening in Richmond. Below is the needed.

Call or e-mail: preferably do both
Ask Governor Kaine to please sign the three identical bills,

HB2954, SB781, and SB 1296, with no changes

Phone: (804) 786-2211
Fax: (804) 371-6351
E-mail: http://www.governor.virginia.gov/AboutTheGovernor/contactGovernor.cfm
Click



Don't let the Governor weaken this legislation to appease redevelopment housing and local governments. If he does Kelo will continue.

Thanks for your help. I really do wish politics were more honest and issue focused.

Nancy

Nancy McCord, President
Virginia Property Rights Coalition

Posted by Leonard Harris at 10:09 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The Patrick Henry Supper Club Presents:

Joe Blackburn

Joe was born in Lynchburg, Va. in 1948. Moved to Henrico at age 8 and was raised here and have lived here for the last 50 years. Went to Tuckahoe Elementary, graduated St Christopher's in 67, Hampton- Sydney College 71 and TC Williams law school [U of R] in 1974. Been a general practioner last 33 years. Former Chairman 3rd district disciplinary Bar committee, for mer Chairman Henrico republican committee 02-04. Married happily for 33 years and father of two grown children, both of whom were taught and understand individual responsibility.

Joe is running against one of Virginia's Least Wanted, Sen. Stosch. The Republican Primary is June 6, 2007.

As usual the PHSC meets at:
Eastern Buffet
7586 W. Broad St.
Richmond, VA 23294
(in Merchants Walk Shopping Center)

6:00pm Dinner 7:00pm main event.

Posted by Leonard Harris at 10:02 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

THE political event of the year, the one, the only, the Shad Planking, is April 18, 2007. Come join in the Sign Wars! Hear politicians lie out of both sides of their mouth! And get drunk with a thousand other politicos!

Ok don't do that last one, but do come join the fun. The Wakefield Ruritan Club is again sponsoring the Shad Planking, Lt. Governor Bill Bolling is the main speaker this year. It will be held at the Wakefield Sportsmen's Club in an outdoor picnic-like setting, with lots of food (fortunately they do have more than Shad) and beverages.

Tickets can be purchased from the Wakefield Ruritan Club, P.O. Box 148, Wakefield, VA 23888. Tickets ordered before April 1 are $18; after April 1, they are $20. You can also order them from the Virginia Diner at 1-888-VA-DINER.

More info at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6006-2005Apr20.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shad_Planking

Photo Highlights from previous events:
http://www.richmondliberty.org/events/photos/20060419shad/
http://www.richmondliberty.org/events/photos/20050420/

Posted by Leonard Harris at 09:40 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

From GrassrootsFreedom.com

The U.S. House of Representatives may mark-up the lobbying reform bill any day now. The unconstitutional grassroots provisions may yet be added to the House legislation when that happens.

Now is a very good time to contact your United States representative and tell him or her that the lobbying reform legislation must not include any grassroots provisions.

Please forward this email to friends, family and colleagues and urge them to do the same.

Congress must not silence grassroots critics. If you haven’t signed our petition, go to
GrassrootsFreedom.com.

The Washington Examiner ran this piece explaining why all of the justifications offered for the grassroots legislation are not only insufficient to overcome the First Amendment prohibition against the legislation, but the justifications themselves are false. Click to:
http://www.examiner.com/a-628493~Mark_Fitzgibbons__Case_for_grassroots_lobbying_legislation_is_false.html

Thank you.

Mark Fitzgibbons
GrassrootsFreedom.com

P.S. There are only a handful of Washington insiders who are pushing the grassroots legislation. What they are saying about the legislation is demonstrably false, and meant to deceive the public. We prove all that at GrassrootsFreedom.com.

9625 Surveyor Court, Suite 400
Manassas, VA 20110

Posted by Leonard Harris at 02:12 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

According to this Washington Post article, the FBI says that it doesn't have to comply with even the unconstitutional provisions of the Patriot Act when asking for phone records. Apparently that whole due process thing doesn't include them. Funny thing is, they've apparently already been doing it for years.

More info at:
http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/20/2050226
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/19/AR2007031901775.html

Posted by Leonard Harris at 07:28 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/gun-owners-taunt-big-city-mayor/20070319141309990002?ncid=NWS00010000000001

Posted by Robert Russo at 08:27 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

by Robert Russo

Being employed in the museum trade I have sometimes had the privilege to design exhibits and meet true professionals who have given their lives to studying the past (a job no one does for profit or political advancement), so it is their opinion I wonder most about when there is news of a museum in Tallahassee, FL displaying the rebel flag hanging from a gallows entitled "the proper way to hang a confederate flag". The Mary Brogan Museum of Art and Science has refused to take down this defacement of the flag despite public outrage, saying its purpose is to "promote dialogue and conversation". Robert Hurst of the Sons of Confederate Veterans replies "There are some people who have great talent, and they rely on that talent to be successful. There are others who don't have great talent, and they have to rely on a gimmick.".*

It's a fair bet if this happened in Richmond it would be taken down, as our own Museum of the Confederacy is choosing to drop the name of the very subject it exhibits. This "comfortizing" of history follows in the footsteps of creationists cutting references to evolution, Native Americans objecting to the display of personal items, and of course atheists removing any signs of religion. I'm reminded of a Doonesbury strip in which the George W. Bush presidential library will house a "belief tank" ("like a think tank only without the doubt").**

The sciences have been reduced to political tools manipulated for the hateful purposes people have against each other. As interest in science and the arts diminishes a provider is forced to ally itself with something that sells. Without purpose there is no study, so the question is who gets to decide what that purpose will be? Science is political. I myself have called mainstream scientists a monopoly, but when it comes to funding they are small prey for the true priorities of society.

I've spoken before of my young friend who likes snakes, knives and guns, all because in his world what matters is impressing your peers. Every living thing seems to evolve toward this posturing. Dominant animals in the wild develop excessive traits and behavior to fight and entice each other instead of survival skills. Writers and actors say "it's not what you know, it's who you know", and young people furthering their knowledge only grow to learn the ever-growing importance of face. It is no wonder then that the thirst for knowledge has been replaced by a lust to control the information. There is no moral majority as there once was, not that we libs don’t object to that concept, but people of all creeds and opinions are capable of getting along if there is simply good will. If you don’t like something, don’t look at it. The major cities of the south will divide between those that encourage controversy and those that fear it, and not for any good reason like the city’s political leaning or the population of one group over another, just the question of whose attitude will be the next sensation. I read this story at http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/confederate-flag-exhibit-ignites-uproar/20070317223509990002?ncid=NWS00010000000001.

*http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/confederate-flag-exhibit-ignites-uproar/20070317223509990002?ncid=NWS00010000000001
**http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20070128

Question of the Week: Do you believe it is more unifying to display all cultures so they are represented equally, or to remove culture from public view so it represents no one? Send your opinions to henrico@richmondliberty.org.

If you have topics of interest to Libertarians please let us know. We welcome your input!

Posted by Robert Russo at 01:13 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

They hid another 3% tax increase in water & sewer rates. This will not even be discussed while everyone focuses on the real estate rate. So the tax increase is even higher, but just called something else.

Everyone also forgets that the new construction adds to the tax base. New construction approved by the supervisors,
which increases the demand for the very services that they claim necessary to raise taxes over.

WizeMaxie
Henrico

Posted by WizeMaxie at 09:43 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

From: WizeMaxie
To: RTD_Letters
Subject: "Chcichester will not seek re-election" RTD March 13, 2007 p.1

There you go again. You referred to Se. John H.Chichester, R-Northumberland as the "leader of the moderate bloc
of Republican senators, " "a lightning rod for conservative Republicans." and " With Democrats and centrist Republicans as allies." 1984 must be here.

My daddy always taught me that those who wanted to increase taxes and effect a transfer of wealth from private to public pockets, especially in light of a recent $1.4 billion tax increase and a recent $700 million budget surplus was anything but a moderate or centrist position. He would call those who pursue this form of Socialism as liberals or radicals. Those who oppose the above were called moderates, not conservatives.

If there is a disagreement in a non-opinion reporting piece about the use of adjectives or labels, one should refrain from using them. I would point out in the same issue of the newspaper Michael Hardy writes an article on page B.1 titled "Vehicle-tax plan dies." While discussing the politics of the General Assembly session and its relationship with the Governor, not once are the above biased adjectives used. Kudos to Mr. Hardy.

During the recent forum on political reporting sponsored by the newspaper, the above complaint was voiced by at least three individuals, but your ears were deaf. This reminds me of double-speak (think) as enunciated by George Orwell. If the media repeats or misrepresents an idea often enough, the public will eventually accept and believe the misrepresentation as fact. It is probably already too late.

Posted by WizeMaxie at 09:30 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

by Matt Siegel

Stupidity here:

http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/trejbal/wb/108160

My response to this stupidity follows:

God bless our freedom of speech and the journalists who protect it.
Shame on those people who would vilify a crusader like Christian
Trejbal, fighting to maintain transparency in government, and protecting
us from those in our community who are all too ready to do us harm.

My sincere hope is that you will continue to publish databases of public
information, like the criminal records of all our local elected
officials. Now that would be something worth reading. Better yet, how
about posting the criminal records of all the employees of the Roanoke
Times? It's public information, and we should know that about you.

I'm sure such an astute journalistic crusader Like Mr. Trejbal would
have no problem publishing his own address and phone number, criminal
record, tax returns, social security number, stock and real estate
holdings, for all of us to see. If you're not doing anything wrong,
then what are you hiding? I mean, if he is to be tasked with the
selfless responsibility of informing the public, then let's keep the
public informed.

Tell me what school his kids attend. I'm not a child molester. Look it
up. I'm not on the list. If his kids go to public schools, I have a
right to know that. I'm paying for their education. It's public
information. And if they go to private schools, this tells me a bit
more about the social and economic status of Mr. Trejbal, which informs
his politics, and ultimately, his journalism.

But after pissing off almost four-thousand local gun owners, I could
understand why Mr. Trejbal might not want to give out information about
himself or his family. People who are public figures have to place a
special value on their privacy. That's just common sense.

What's also common sense is publishing lists of all Muslims in the
area. About 0% of terrorism is committed by licensed gun owners, but
99.9% of terrorism is committed by Muslims. So, wouldn't it benefit me
to know who and where the Muslims are? I have a right to know, and it
is public information. It's called census data. It's not like anyone
would want to harm these people. No, we just want to know who they are.

But seriously, let's get down to business; Homosexuals. We need to
publish a list of homosexuals, because I don't want them making my kids
gay. Now the government doesn't keep a list of faggots, but people
infected with HIV/AIDS are tracked by the Health Department. I don't
want to get HIV, so I have a right to know who these people are so I
don't interact with them in any way. It would also be a good idea to
burn their houses down so the disease doesn't spread. It's for our own
protection.

Also, I didn't see the name of my cheating ex-wife on that list of gun
owners, so I know it's safe to get drunk, go over there, and give her
the beating she so desperately deserves. In addition, when I need to go
out and kill some Muslims, in self-defense of course, I see from your
list that my neighbor has guns. I'll just go over there and steal a few
when he's at work. I didn't buy them, so there won't be any legal
record of the sale, and my name won't turn up anywhere. I find all this
freedom of information quite empowering!

In closing, people who own guns legally are just ticking time bombs
waiting to explode. Why else would they own guns? Publishing a list of
them is a great idea. Even if they have never even been accused of
something, clearly they are guilty. I sincerely hope that when the
backlash from Mr. Trejbal's article hits home, he doesn't find himself
on that list of gun owners.

But just think, if something bad ever happens to Mr. Trejbal, he has
already published a list of the usual suspects the police can round up
anytime anything bad happens to anyone. And chances are, one of them
will be guilty.

Now that's investigative journalism at it's best!

Love you guys.

Sincerely,
Matt Siegel

Posted by Leonard Harris at 10:24 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The Fraudulent Case for the Grassroots Legislation
By Mark Fitzgibbons, GrassrootsFreedom.com[i]

The grassroots legislation, simply stated, is unconstitutional. It is nothing more than some with vested financial and political interests trying to violate the First Amendment rights of others.

Proponents have tried to overcome this fact by making justifications. A review of those justifications demonstrates that they are in fact not only insufficient to overcome the First Amendment barrier against this legislation, but the justifications themselves are false.

Fraud is “an intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing or surrender a legal right.”

Unlike the core political speech sought to be protected by opponents of the grassroots legislation, fraud is not protected speech.

Proponents of the grassroots legislation have offered four false, principal justifications for their unconstitutional legislation.

False Justification Number 1. It’s an attempt to regulate Astroturf.

This is clearly false because the legislation does not even try to define Astroturf. It only defines and regulates grassroots lobbying. So within its scope, the legislation necessarily includes something other than what people call Astroturf.

And what is Astroturf? Just from this experience, I’ve seen about a dozen definitions, more like innuendo, but targeted at speech with which the proponents of the legislation disagree, or have vested interests in suppressing.

One witness at the March 1 hearing on lobbying reform legislation before the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, dramatically summed up her justification for trying to violate the First Amendment rights of others by saying she had just three words:

Harry and Louise

What about Harry and Tonto, or Thelma and Louise?

Or Harry and Nancy?

Harry and Louise was a television commercial using actors. The use of actors to make political points has been around since Aristophanes of ancient Greece, at least.

But what if Harry and Louise were discussing puppy adoption legislation, and the commercial was underwritten by The Humane Society . . . or Eukanuba?

No, this advocate of the grassroots legislation was clearly targeting the content and message of that commercial. Those are the same motives used hundreds of years ago to censor political theatre and other forms of political speech. Maybe the object of that commercial was actually lousy legislation.

In any political debate, one side necessarily must be saying what is perceived as untrue by the other side or the other sides. If what one side believes to be “untrue” political arguments become a basis for regulating political speech, then all speakers, ranging from the news media to bloggers, are in jeopardy of having their speech subject to the prior restraint of registration and reporting, or censorship caused by post hoc civil and criminal penalties. And certainly, the speech of politicians must be deemed to be “untrue” by the other side.

Citizens take political action based on many reasons, and based on competing ideas from multiple sources. The corporate news media play a big role in “influencing” public opinion, reaction and action on legislation. Much of what they report is inaccurate or slanted. Why not regulate them?

Attempts to regulate even this thing people call Astroturf are no more than an attempt to regulate communications to the general public that influence public opinion. That is core political speech protected by the First Amendment.

Proponents have the burden of proof that their regulation is targeted at some harm or conduct that may be regulated, and that burden is “well nigh insurmountable.”[ii]

False Justification Number 2 The grassroots legislation is targeted at money in politics, and disclosure is for the benefit of the public.

To paraphrase the aforementioned advocate of the grassroots legislation, and the great constitutional case made at the March 1 hearing, I have just three words to say: No way, folks.

To begin with, ALL of the legislative proposals would include exemptions (I call them big, fat legislative loopholes) for communications to “shareholders, officers, employees and members.”

That translates to corporations, labor unions and large, wealthy membership organizations such as AARP.

The people who insist on these exemptions are the very same ones who have tried to make the name Halliburton and other corporations synonymous with greed and corruption. Yet Halliburton and Fortune 500 companies would be able spend literally hundreds of millions of dollars mobilizing untold millions of corporate shareholders, officers and employees, all people with vested financial interests in legislation, yet not report a dime.

Curious anyone?

Many corporate PACs have “member” corporations. These PACs could make large political contributions, then mobilize dozens or hundreds of “member” corporations on issues, which in turn could mobilize millions of shareholders, etc., yet not report any of these “grassroots” expenditures.

Even for communications to the general public, proponents have already set in place ways not to report under their proposals.

After defeat of the grassroots provisions in the Senate, one recent proposal being circulated would require registration of only retained communication agents, called grassroots lobbying firms, but not employed ones. Such agents are simply defined by a dollar expenditure amount. These retained agents would include fundraisers for nonprofits whose identity is already “disclosed” under fundraising solicitation laws.

These retained agents do not engage in any lobbying whatsoever, but use their expertise to enable their clients to communicate to the general public. Yet they would need to register the same as K Street lobbyists who engage in clandestine, face-to-face contacts with Members of Congress and others who make policy in Washington.

Organizations funded stealthily in the millions of dollars by foundations created by George Soros and others can afford to, and often do, hire as employees high paid communications or fundraising experts on staff.

Those organizations using employees to communicate, but funded by George Soros and foundations with distinct political slants, would therefore not report expenditures on the same issues in competition with small to mid-size associations and nonprofits that rely entirely on voluntary, low-dollar grassroots citizen contributions, but who retain fundraising or other agents to communicate.

And the grassroots legislation would not require disclosure of the billionaires and foundations actually funding these organizations themselves. So the grassroots legislation targets populist causes supported and funded by citizens, yet exempts what the proponents themselves call “Astroturf.”

This government-forced reporting by some, but not by others who actually outspend those who do report, would therefore have the effect of deceiving the public about how much is actually spent on public policy communications. And of course, the targets of news stories about spending will only be those who report, and not those who do not report.

Proponents who claim disclosure is for the public benefit therefore are deceiving the public about the grassroots legislation.

False Justification Number 3. Disclosure is not regulation.

For Members of Congress who even think of using this line, I have a put your money where your mouth is challenge.

Instead of filing your campaign reports with the Federal Election Commission, simply post them on the Internet. After an expensive and embarrassing administrative process with the FEC in which you will certainly pay fines, you will see that disclosure certainly IS regulation.

The New York Times and some other members of the news media have used this false justification as well. That same New York Times that argued in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals that its reporter, Judith Miller, who had clandestine contacts with government officials, could not be compelled to disclose her sources even in a criminal investigation. The New York Times and Judith Miller based their refusal to disclose in a criminal proceeding on the First Amendment, under a reporter’s privilege not found in the First Amendment.

But their argument is that government-forced disclosure of sources chills speech and press rights. The New York Times apparently believes it has greater First Amendment rights than mere citizen associations.

And I don’t have time to address the financial interests that The New York Times has in government-forced registration of, and disclosure by, its adversaries in the alternative media.

Also, since Members of Congress and staffers control policy, what about legislation that requires them to make public their banking records to ensure they are not accepting bribes, and warrantless searches of their homes and offices (especially their freezers)?

Unlike the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment does not begin with “Congress shall make no law . . .”

Certainly given what has happened in Congress, such legislation could be justified as “reasonable” searches and seizures.

While that certainly is disclosure that many citizens might support, the notion of such disclosure is offensive to the precepts of the Bill of Rights.

Therefore, disclosure is most assuredly regulation. And since this regulation is targeted directly at five First Amendment rights, not some harm or conduct that may be regulated, it is unconstitutional.

False Justification Number 4. This is a time, place and manner regulation.

At the March 1 hearing before the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, a new justification for violating the First Amendment through this legislation was offered. This one impressed me since someone actually consulted a law book.

Reasonable time, place and manner restrictions have been upheld to regulate certain conduct that is subject to usual police powers of the state.

Cox v. New Hampshire dealt with citizen marches. That’s traffic regulation.

Ward v. Rock Against Racism dealt with the volume of noise regulation of concerts held in Central Park.

But the grassroots legislation is not a reasonable regulation of some conduct subject to the police powers of the state. It is expressly directed at core political speech, and thus is prohibited by the First Amendment. False justification number 4 is just another crafty attempt to violate the First Amendment.

Loosely but accurately paraphrasing James Madison, the purposes of the First Amendment are to allow citizens to communicate and worship privately among themselves, and to individually or collectively express their will or discontent to their elected officials.

By that standard, the grassroots legislation is the most expansive intrusion on First Amendment rights ever considered since it abridges five First Amendment rights. The false justifications for this proposal are made by those with vested interests in violating the First Amendment rights of others. They are the ones deceiving and misleading the public to part with rights.

The First Amendment was written to prohibit Congress from engaging in such folly.

[i]Taken from remarks made at March 9, 2007 Cato-sponsored Capitol Hill briefing.

[ii]Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414, 425 (1988).


9625 Surveyor Court, suite 400
Manassas, VA 20110

Posted by Leonard Harris at 08:46 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

http://www.cato.org/view_ddispatch.php?viewdate=20070312#1

"A major anti-regulatory offensive culminates this week with a one-two punch thrown by Washington and Wall Street's most moneyed institutions, as the Treasury Department convenes a star-studded meeting [on Tuesday] and the nation's largest business lobby issues its own call to action a day later," reports The Washington Post. "Five years after debacles at Enron and WorldCom ushered in the Sarbanes-Oxley law and forced companies to spend more to detect fraud, the campaign to shake off government watchdogs again is in full swing."

In "Enron's Last Victim: American Markets," Cato chairman William Niskanen argues that corporate regulations have hurt businesses more than they have helped investor confidence: "Sarbanes-Oxley has seriously harmed American corporations and financial markets without increasing investor confidence. The section of the law requiring companies to perform internal audits has turned out to be far more costly than proponents projected, especially for smaller firms. These costs have led some small companies to go private, hardly a victory for public oversight, and some foreign firms to withdraw their stocks from American exchanges."

Posted by Leonard Harris at 08:46 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

by Jon Walker

An article in the Roanoke Times was passed onto me by someone who lives in Roanoke. The article is titled: Shedding light on concealed handguns by Christian Trejbal who claims:

"There are good reasons the records are open to public scrutiny. People might like to know if their neighbors carry. Parents might like to know if a member of the car pool has a pistol in the glove box. Employers might like to know if employees are bringing weapons to the office."

Actually, that's an invalid argument. The records, for the most part, require some effort to obtain, and thus are protected from casual access by the public at large. The conceal carry records were not readily available on-line since, after all, we're talking about people who are obeying the law and fortunately the task of putting everyone's total life onto the net is far from complete. In the article he claims to have no bias, but one may wonder when they read:

"This is not about being for or against guns. There are plenty of reasons people choose to carry weapons: fear of a violent ex-lover, concern about criminals or worry that the king of England might try to get into your house."

The "king of England" remark clearly, to a reasonable individual, demonstrates a bias against the rights of gun owners. Mr. Trejbal seems to believe that government is there to protect us. Unfortunately he, like many, forget that democracies are a contrivance of man and therefore are subject to change or dissolution at the whim of man. The fact that the United States has the second amendment is quite possibly the most powerful argument as to why we are still a democracy. He then blithely compares concealed handgun permit holders with sex offenders by saying:

"A state that eagerly puts sex offender data online complete with an interactive map could easily do the same with gun permits, but it does not."

Sadly he seems to forget that sex offenders are convicted criminals and there are some very weak arguments and strong laws that mandate that this information be posted on the internet. Fortunately for us, there are no such laws regarding lists of concealed carry holders who by definition are law abiding citizens. Mr. Trejbal seems to think such people need to be exposed. His seemingly obvious distrust towards a class of people makes me wonder who's next? Will he now write about people who buy liquor, vote, or even hate the letter M? Mr. Trejbal seems to demonstrated his ignorance and loathing for the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment, and those who obey the laws of the Commonwealth.

His story is thinly disguised as his quest to obtain, through the Freedom of Information Act, a list of all 135,789 concealed carry gun owners in the state. He then provides a link to a Roanoke Times form that lets you search, by locality and last name, for those with concealed carry permits. One might believe he could provide cover by arguing that he's doing a service by providing this information as-is to illustrate government's obvious lack of concern over what personal information is released. Again, this is a specious argument as no locality has placed this information onto the web, rather he has. The fault for this is his and the people who own Roanoke times web site.

Actually, one could contend that he did this to make gun owners duck and cover. However, in reality, I wonder if perhaps he's just opened himself and the Roanoke times up to a very large lawsuit should anyone be hurt or killed based on this information.

As far as being disturbing to anyone, the only things I found disturbing was:

1) There are only 135,789 concealed carry holders in the state.
2) His editor seems to think this is real reporting.
3) That the state police maintain such a dirty list (lots of misspellings).
4) That I was not initially disturbed knowing the state police maintains a master list.

I've corrected the last point, I'm not surprised by the second or third and am actively working to improve (upward) the numbers of the first point. Unfortunately, I suspect people are going to take offense to Mr Trejbal's tone more than the information he provides. His "quest for truth" has actually enlightened me and provided me with two really valuable things to act upon. The first is that we all need to be a little more concerned about anyone who maintains a master list of law abiding citizens and that for only $100 I can get a list of people who need to be approached by the Libertarian Party.

By the way, Leonard, you need to reapply for your permit, it expires in July.

News Article: http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/trejbal/wb/108160
Permit Database: http://www.roanoke.com/gunpermits/

Jon Walker
Chairman
Richmond Libertarian Party
www.RichmondLP.com

Posted by Leonard Harris at 08:42 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

by Robert Russo

Last night’s proposed budget for the 2008 fiscal year in Chesterfield includes a real estate tax cut of five cents, the largest in decades, putting the tax rate back below the assessment value of property. This follows last year's cut of three cents, and an additional seven is advised to keep up with the rising market value. According to the budget leadership each cent equates to $3 million in county revenue.* Henrico will follow suit with a three cent cut and an additional four recommended.

It's hard to be a libertarian around tax time, though not necessarily harder than anyone else. I can personally attest to the surprise of a higher tax bracket with the same amount of income to pay it. Republicans are traditionally the promisers of tax cuts although for different reasons than ours. How do you take part in this imminent discussion and be heard when you are opposed to taxation itself?

The difference is in how people view the ship of state. It can’t sail without maintenance, and you don’t try to maintain a wreck. (In most of the old European kingdoms a nation-building monarch raised in disorder precedes his establishment-breaking son raised in tyranny, and so on.) Republicans and Democrats are maintainers, who fail to understand we are not talking about starting a system without taxes, without government, industry, health care or schools. Why do the deciders in any field continue to perpetuate the extinct theory on which their business was based, like no taxation without representation, or banking is an honest deal between a borrower and lender?

It is within a massive, stagnant institution that can take it that Libertarians and anarchists make their stand. Our economy is the world’s wealthiest, our military is the world’s strongest, our culture is the world’s most flexible. If this is not the time and place for revolution then what is?

*http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD%2FMGArticle%2FRTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1173350176607&path=%21news&s=1045855934842

Question of the Week: What is the most proficient way to reduce taxes? Increase tax exemption, support Republican tax cuts, divert funds within the budget, increase private contributions, cut government spending, wait for market values to go up? Send your opinions to henrico@richmondliberty.org.

If you have topics of interest to Libertarians please let us know. We welcome your input!

Posted by Robert Russo at 04:26 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

SOUTHERN ARIZONA (SGT NEWS) - Political maverick and Texas House member Ron Paul formally announced his candidacy for the president of the United States this morning during the “Washington Journal” call-in program on C-SPAN.

Paul stands as one of the last remaining believers in strict enforcement of the Constitution and a limited federal government in Washington D.C. Paul ran unsuccessfully for the White House in 1988 under the Libertarian ticket, but now caucuses with the Republican Party. His political platform includes low taxes, individual liberties and a principled belief in the right to life.

(Full Story at: http://www.smallgovtimes.com/story/07mar12.paul.official/ )

Posted by Leonard Harris at 07:30 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The Henrico Citizen has a front page article on the Libertarian challengers in the Board of Supervisors race:

-----------------
Two Libertarian Party candidates – George Marchenko and Matthew T. Martin – have announced their plans to seek seats on the Board of Supervisors. Marchenko will challenge Tuckahoe District Supervisor Pat O'Bannon, and Martin will face Brookland District Supervisor Dick Glover...

Marchenko, a native of Atlanta who moved to Henrico in 2000 with his family, is a past president of the Henrico County Libertarian Party. He supports lowering county spending and taxing and said he would make education a priority.

"Governments are created for just one reason – to protect individuals' rights," he said. "They are not created to manage golf courses, to facilitate leaf removal and sponsor small business workshops. These services are best left to the private sector, and I support service privatization."

Marchenko, who owns Marchenko Enterprises Inc., a business and technology consulting firm, worked with a small group known as the Henrico Taxpayers union – created by Martin – in 2005 to lobby against the county's proposed meals tax, which ultimately failed by 151 votes.

Martin previously sought office when he unsuccessfully challenged Virginia Delegate John O'Bannon (73rd District) in the 2005 election. Martin won 27 percent of the vote in that election.
----------------

Full Story

Posted by Leonard Harris at 09:50 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Want to voice your opinion?
There is an AOL "News" Poll at:
http://news.aol.com/dailypulse/030507/_a/rate-the-field/20070305105509990001?n

It even includes form LP Presidential Candidate, Ron Paul.

Posted by Leonard Harris at 07:31 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

by Robert Russo

Do you feel that what you do to keep bread on the table satisfies or hinders you as a Libertarian? Do you see free will blossom to allow a worker to do his job to his satisfaction, credit given where it's due and oversight monitored often enough to have faith in the institution as Republicans do, so that politics is about maintaining a good thing and representing people on the shoulders of these businesses? Or is the very thought of freedom a mandatory taboo, reserved for lunch hour if even that? How do you deal with this? When you are politically active is the workplace just one of those things excluded from the conversation, not impeachable like government but indomitable beyond any platform? Does it make you feel like someone who is only religious on Sundays? If our goal of defeating big government is achieved will your current profession be a part of your new lifestyle or will you still owe your soul to the company store? Would the privatization of citizenship even increase its hold, not because freedom doesn’t exist, but because you can’t afford it?

Thankfully you may be self-employed or contracted beyond the restrictions of most work environments, or you may have a job you truly enjoy that has nothing to do with politics. Otherwise the workplace is a battleground. The encouragement of friends, taking risks to do what is right, dealing with spoilers, we are called to represent humanity in a place where people in the prime of life spend most of their time, sweat and attention. And yet this arena appears on no political chart, its deciders and policies never up for grabs in election (in fact such things are often a trade secret except for rare articles and documentaries on "Richmond’s Most Powerful").* The major parties don’t compete over it, but we are Libertarians from the moment we awake in the morning until sundown. It’s true that a code of work ethics already exists, but we know it’s baloney. How many of us, in the supervision of others, in the interview process, in the basic requirements of our profession have to tell ourselves it isn’t?

Every one of us has horror stories to tell. Personally I have watched a long series of employers consistently hire the oldest applicants (most of them in retirement) who become the most difficult to work with, and promote people who are the most vocal and have the least discretion. I was talking to a man with Asperger’s Syndrome who has held 25 jobs in the past 15 years. Survival means being a loyal subject, expression equals demotion to a place even more survivalist. Even when a Libertarian does advance to a position of influence does it seem to you there are always further measures to prevent true leadership? Are there watchdogs set in place on the board or is it logistically impossible because of regulations, affiliate businesses or customers? Do you seem to have automatically less credence than your predecessors, or do subordinates now question your authority and show immaturity when you were always the obedient one? Do they quit over trifles as if they don’t need the money?

We are the only party, if any, that disagrees with the basic structure of the working world beyond fruitless personal complaints reserved for the home. We know the end result will be a company-state. We know the benefits of having just one corner in this market: authority relinquishing, accountability toward people instead of profit. I’ll never forget applying to a foundation known for turning down people with Masters degrees for summer internships, saying I was used to small private foundations and the reply "we are a private foundation". Big business is not a private enterprise, it is an institution riding on the coattails of privacy and abusing rights that belong to individuals. It is an opponent to all personal sentiments. The price we pay is time, a majority of our lives spent in a controlled environment where we are not citizens.

It is not government alone but all authority we must combat, and thankfully sometimes we are enabled. This could mean refusing to rat on a colleague, tweaking a client’s eligibility for insurance, or contacting a qualified applicant who was rejected. Perhaps one day we will have a workers union. http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD/HTMLPage/RTD_HTMLPage&c=HTMLPage&cid=1031784382107 is an excellent window into how Richmond truly operates and who pulls the strings.

*http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD/HTMLPage/RTD_HTMLPage&c=HTMLPage&cid=1031784382107

Question of the Week: Has a bad experience in the workplace ever made you feel like a Libertarian in a place where it shouldn't occur to you, either because you were set apart or because no one else seemed to have a higher calling? Send your experiences to henrico@richmondliberty.org.

If you have topics of interest to Libertarians please let us know. We welcome your input!

Posted by Robert Russo at 01:11 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

From George Marchenko:

On March 12, 1952 the Henrico County government passed ordinances creating three new taxes to help pay for school construction: a car tax, a $1 per head tax on each adult, and a business and professional license tax. It is worthwhile to note that the county lobbied the General Assembly to legalize a car tax and which was implemented without a public hearing. The car tax was then sold to the public as a temporary measure to partially fund new schools over the next 5 years.

50 years after their expected termination these taxes remain in place, have not been used to help fund school construction since the introduction of school construction bonds, and removed an estimated $560,000,000 from the local free market. But the real injustice is fifty years of County Board of Supervisors and County Manager knowledge that these taxes achieved their intended purpose over a generation ago and who themselves have done nothing.

With a collective 86 years of current Board member tenure (Kaechele 28 years, Glover 20, Donati 15, O'Bannon 12, Thornton 11) not a single Board member has uttered their support for the repeal of these outdated taxes. Yet Supervisors will fall all over themselves to get citizen’s support for new taxes like the meals tax in 2005. And like the car tax, the meals tax offered no commitment for direct taxpayer benefit and had no sunset provisions. Fortunately for Henrico citizens and businesses the tax was defeated.

Henrico County has found countless other ways to spend these taxes since 1957. And why not. No candidate has publicly called for their repeal until now. In this election year I urge this Board to repeal the annual car tax that their predecessors pledged to retire in 1957. And as a candidate for Henrico County Board of Supervisors this year, I am the only candidate [in the Tuckahoe district] who will insist that county government be held accountable to voters and citizens, repeal outdated taxes, and work to dis-assemble the grossly oversized establishment known as Henrico County government.

[Editor's Note: This sounds a lot like the BPOL tax, which was implemented to fund the War of 1812 and is still with us]

Posted by Leonard Harris at 07:33 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)