The feud goes on...
http://www.timesdispatch.com/cva/ric/news.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2007-09-24-0153.html
http://www.timesdispatch.com/cva/ric/news.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2007-09-24-0127.html
Question of the Week: The thought of a corrupt school board being pushed around is music, but now Times-Dispatch columnist Michael Williams is calling Mayor Wilder a "dictator", "Emperor Palpatine" and an "autocrat" for abusing his execute privileges.* The last thing we need is the school board getting sympathy for being the helpless underdog it has never been. Who should libertarians side with in this battle? Send your opinions to russo@richmondliberty.org.
*http://www.timesdispatch.com/cva/ric/news.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2007-09-24-0127.html
by Robert Russo
When any humanitarian goal is empowered it makes news because it destroys politics. Compassion is the anti-politic. It is fiscally irresponsible. Benevolence melts one's own security and constituency. An enviromentalist would have Capitol Square cleared and turned into a park, their goal to return native flora and fauna to that address for the first time in 200 years. A libertarian majority would start giving taxes back to the people, and a local church has been inspired to do something similar.
Last Sunday at Unity Christ Church of Bon Air, after the collection of tithes and offerings was taken in, the velvet collection bags were recirculated amongst the congregation and the money returned to them in the amount of $10 apiece (children included), to hit the day's message home that the church owes its members a tithe as much as they owe the church.* This astonishes me personally having gotten used to the bureaucracy of church boards. Their intentions are pure but they are responsible for a business and therefore subscribe to the common goals of business. Building projects expand and new facilities break ground like universities, instead of relinquishing that power by dividing into smaller churches.
Unity Christ Church is located on Buford Rd. in Bon Air. Non-denominational services are held in a former residence with an extensive meditation garden, with emphasis on reflection and affirmation much like a wellness seminar. I have not seen less religious ordnance, imagery or acknowlegement of things like sin in any other place of worship. (I am told the message was once more metaphysical than religious and more seminar-like before they had a fulltime pastor.) This might explain why they are small enough that the board would rather say thank you than set higher business objectives.
Taxes and tithing are the same concept with one exception. A church is deserving because it belongs to God, but is government almighty or does it belong to us? Taxation is a form of ownership, of tribute (and potentially slavery). Giving it back is an homage to those really in charge, and to freedom. You can learn more about Unity Christ Church at www.unitybonair.com. This story is at http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/search.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2007-09-17-0131.html.
*http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/search.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2007-09-17-0131.html
If you have responses to this article send them to russo@richmondliberty.org and they will be posted. If you have topics of interest to libertarians please let us know. We welcome your input!
Sept 15 saw the 2007 Glen Allen Day. This event organized by the Glen Allen Ruritan Club is the largest community festival in Henrico. The LP of Henrico has had a presence at the event for the last three years. This year with two candidates running for Board of Supervisors (Matt Martin and George Marchenko), the LP of Henrico saw its largest turnout for the event. In addition to having this great turnout, this was also the first year that the LP of Henrico did not have to get money from the LPVA to fund the booth.
The event featured the traditional parade down Mountain Rd as well as a number of exhibitors and many activities for children. This year there was also a car show (apologies from your photographer, our camera ran out of memory before getting to the car show). Libertarians had an entry in the parade and an exhibit booth.
Big thanks to everyone who participated.
Jeremy Ashton + Ethan + Riley
Louis Gifford
Steven Latimer
George Marchenko
Matt Martin
John & Sarah Mullin + children
Robert Russo
Jon Walker
Steve Winner (owner of the cool wheels)
More about Glen Allen Day:
http://www.glenallenruritan.org/GAD.htm
Photo Highlights:
http://www.richmondliberty.org/gallery/2007glenallenday/
by Robert Russo
The Fauquier Times-Democrat reports the Libertarian Party of Fauquier County is officially pursuing a candidate for Sen. John Warner's seat in 2008, when the 80-year-old senator plans to retire. This chapter is less than three months old but its plan has been in the works for many months and was the main reason behind its founding in Warrenton.* There are many contenders for this high-profile seat right now including former Gov. Mark Warner who lost to John in the so-called Warner Bros. campaign of 1996.**
The Non-Aggression Principle
It is great to have a new county board in the LPVA family. Local news reporting this announcement is explaining what libertarians are and what we stand for, so let's take a look at the Fauquier chapter in particular and send them some hits. Their primary message is the Non-Aggression Principle, which forms a preamble to their bylaws. No other local affiliate site in Virginia emphasizes the principle to this extent or outwardly states it in their bylaws that I can find, although other wording is used to convey the same ideas and there are bylaws in other states which state it plainly. It is a political statement within the party which can be interpreted in a number of good ways.
It sounds like a pledge against violence, a condemnation of our movement's less diplomatic past (or its perception as such in the public mind) from violent protests and threats by libertarians or claimants, making it good PR to show the public we are a normal party; that they are pacifist libertarians, even "progressive" libertarians in favor of the Reform Caucus. The public doesn't know that the Non-Aggression Axiom is actually a name given to our core belief "Everyone has the right to absolute freedom so long as it doesn't infringe on the freedom of others.". (Aggression in this case refers to infringement and intrusion such as taxes, zoning and confiscation.) So to libertarians this is a statement of purity, even leftism and affection for the "old platform". A newcomer to the party might interpret their explanation of this principle to mean a combination of both: As libertarians we see taxation and government intrusion as violence and therefore refuse to be violent ourselves by the same measure.
I personally have always thought that we need "complete" representation by talented individuals who feel both the passion of the extremist and the wisdom of the moderate to present our views in a way all people can respect, not by cutting out the consequentialist or "robin hood" libertarians to make us look more presentable. The political quagmire our nation has become at least necessitates aggressive words and political strategies. Our displeasure is universal, our trust in the democratic process itself shaken. Who among us would not give imperialism and oppression a crushing blow if it were in our power? It's hard to be pacifists when we've been knowingly forced into this dilemma.
I don't know if rural counties have a history of protestation that requires a disclaimer or if proud southern libertarians are in the majority, but this site is brilliantly written from both perspectives. It is a proclamation of freedom and responsibility. Most people concede that aggression is acceptable in defense, and after a point the only defense of one's rights is offense. Kudos to the Fauquier board at www.fauquierlp.org. This story can be read at http://www.zwire.com/site/tab2.cfm?newsid=18809269&BRD=2553&PAG=461&dept_id=506066&rfi=6. Excellent articles on the Non-Aggression Principle are at http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block26.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle.
*http://www.zwire.com/site/tab2.cfm?newsid=18809269&BRD=2553&PAG=461&dept_id=506066&rfi=6
**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Warner#Future_possibilities_and_announced_retirement
Question of the Week: Right now the LP is both a social/protest movement and a competing political party. Assuming these two will never split, how can practical political movers and hardcore purists deal with each other in a single policy that unites us? Is there such thing as a righteous, successful political party? Send your opinions to russo@richmondliberty.org.
If you have topics of interest to libertarians please let us know. We welcome your input!
It's wrong to manipulate taxes to promote lifestyles and political goals. The agreement between government and the citizen that taxation represents has been broken. Congress is saying to each other "I don't smoke, you don't smoke, let's forget the public and represent ourselves".
http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/search.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2007-09-11-0146.html
This time the question is not if but which confederate flag will be hung at the state capitol, which at least sparks a healthy debate among historians and die-hard southern sympathizers alike. The traditional battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia has been scrapped for the more historically accurate Second National Flag which has a white field. If we're striving for historic appropriateness however one should recall this flag was rejected for looking too much like a flag of surrender, and quickly replaced by one with a wide red bar on the right. As one writer put it, the rebel flag is a reminder of "confederate nationalism".* The revised flag would be a symbol not of dead history but that the confederacy is alive and well, the battle flag even more so (although with the battle flag some history is lost, not because it wasn't a national symbol at the time, but because it has become associated with things in the modern age that were not it's original purpose).
*http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/search.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2007-07-29-0112.html
by Robert Russo
It was announced last Thursday that terrorist Osama bin Laden would be "addressing the American people" in a new video to commemorate the sixth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.* My first thought was who is allowing him this open mike? You or I would not be able to address the nation on any issue unless we ourselves bombed someone. Shortly afterward it was declared U.S. officials "began dismissing the tape as propaganda".** How are they dismissing it? Isn't exposure the sole success of propaganda? Are they passing it on to us and then privately disconcerning over it? Then al Qaeda's "media production company" al Sahab posted the video in which bin Laden's beard has been trimmed and dyed, and he criticizes "the burden of interest-related debts, insane taxes and real estate mortgages; global warming and its woes; and the abject poverty and tragic hunger in Africa.".*** So the man who before the Iraq war was considered obsolete, no longer effectually running al Qaeda, growing thin and grey in a cave somewhere, is now eternally youthful and on the pulse of modern social issues, speaking libertarian-like platforms which our own presidential candidates won't say. Who is this person to address us, some kind of world candidate exempt from the democratic process, high cost of airtime and justice itself?
In the movie Sneakers Ben Kingsley says "It's not about who's got the most bullets, it's about who controls the information. What we see and hear, how we work, what we think, it's all about the information.".**** Our country controls the world language and media (some would say it's the only thing we control nowadays), but the media controls our country. Every leader, elected or appointed, is oblivious to the political might and influence of the media because it is so great they don't dare provoke the sword that will end their career in minutes. Stranger still is when our public officials are deaf and dumb to the effects of the information they pass along, as if they are innocently relating the facts in a world where everyone abides by the journalist's code. The "intelligence community" recently publicized their doubts about Iraqi prime minister al Maliki.***** What purpose does it serve for us to discredit him?
Our government knows the price of influence so well every statement is choreographed, and yet elsewhere this knowledge slips irresponsibly through their fingers. Whenever there is a new development in Iraq we get the news from foreign sources first because they still believe in direct journalism and an obligation to share it, whereas American intelligence is so afraid of liability an event hasn't occurred yet until it passes the gauntlet of confirmation. We could condemn China for not building the world's largest dam to American specs, but it won't keep Americans from buying Chinese products made from hydroelectric power. Every news agency fears misstating the facts, but what determines those facts is the presumed American judgment, and that thrives on shock value. Bin Laden is a "shock jock". The president calls him impotent but he has the one thing all politicians need, publicity. The 9/11 attacks might as well have involved a huge banner and floodlights for the marketing tool it has become.
We've all been in conversations where an offensive or stupid remark was quoted making you wonder "why was that worth repeating"? We need fearless leadership that cares nothing about ratings so it can put the press in its place. When the White House press corps enters for a new term they should be told "This is my house and here are the rules…", "That subject is not relevant for this forum", instead of the endless complacency and wordplay of the press secretary. We need leadership that refuses to play the game of statements and counterstatements, immune to what people say unless it is through the established channels of open-door policy. Leadership must at some point deal with reality and tell it like it is; if maintaining publicity is the only qualifier they are parrots no better than bin Laden. One day when the nation is starved for truth, cold turkey will become publicity and a libertarian will rise. This video has not yet been released in full but can be seen at http://news.aol.com/story/_a/bin-laden-jeers-at-us-government/20070906175609990001.
*http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/09/06/binladen.video.ap/index.html?iref=newssearch
**http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/09/06/binladen.video/index.html?iref=newssearch
***http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/07/binladen.tape/index.html?iref=newssearch
****http://armchairgeneralist.typepad.com/my_weblog/film/index.html
*****http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/23/nie/index.html?iref=newssearch
Question of the Week: Negative influence and spam fill our eyes and ears daily from TV, radio and the internet. Do we need leadership that will engage in this fight using positive propanganda and PR to restore our peaceful way of life? Or is this censorship and as libertarians we must promote a free market, even when it comes to our own PR? Send your opinions to russo@richmondliberty.org.
If you have topics of interest to Libertarians please let us know. We welcome your input!
by Robert Russo
Some video coverage of Tuesday night's Norfolk City Council meeting over the abuse of citizens by police in that city is now available at http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=131335&ran=238394, and audio at http://www.vcdl.org/Norfolk/NorfolkCityCouncil082907.mp3. VCDL says full video is pending. This hearing was attended by approximately 100 VCDL members who came in force to protest a history of rights abuses and manhandling of open carry gun owners by police in public places, many of them physical and humiliating confrontations in ignorance of state laws. There were also many non-gun owners reporting police neglect and brutality in general, standing almost unanimously when those supporting the complainants were asked to rise.* According to VCDL's coverage, the council members were scowling and silent for nearly the entire process and left the room "in a flash" the moment the speeches were over (with the exception of one known opponent who walked out as soon as the first speaker began).**
I have watched the responses to this story from both sides, every one of them subjective. Every news article in which someone with a gun on their hip was involved begins with that being the news (because wearing guns like cowboys isn't normal). The actual subject of the hearing, police abuse (including the threatening of kids for loitering on their own front porches, and arresting them on "disorderly conduct" for not providing their social security number)*, was omitted; you have to go to a VCDL member's blog to read about it. Likewise I'm sure anyone who has read VA-ALERT knows they are wholeheartedly, admittedly one-sided in their cause as well. (For example they would never report that European nations with severe gun restrictions have a much lower crime rate, they would dismiss it as not useful to the cause. Unfortunately the Norfolk resident who posted this info to the Virginian-Pilot begins by calling them "gun nuts", so whatever truth in that is lost.)*** Objectivity is hard to find in the gun debate.
One councilman admits "We made a mistake. It was unintentional.".*** So from their perspective this was a courtesy hearing for the victims of renegade/ignorant police misreading the law, albeit a courtesy with such reluctance that it seems to have pained the council to be present for it, their admission seems minimal considering the crimes, and if this weren't indisputably illegal there would probably be no response and no hearing. All because they don't like the fact that open carry is legal in this state. Virginia is split on many such issues and those rifts blind people from what is right in front of them. The future of a debate is irrelevant in respecting existing law.
Abuse comes from oversight, and therein lies the biggest problem. There just aren't enough carriers visible out there for most Virginians to even know they exist, especially those who come from other states. These arrests at shopping malls are treated like first-time incidents, as if this were the first generation of gun-carrying citizens. I myself first saw a friend carrying a handgun about five years ago, and although I wasn't offended, I thought "why does he have a gun?". It's the same reason homeschoolers have to educate the school board on its own education laws, and people who can't wear seatbelts have to lobby against checkpoints, and people who keep exotic pets are evicted. These minorities have always existed and just want to be left alone. Hunting is so commonplace that it's an issue in gubernatorial debates and the NRA moves political foothills, but handguns in public are not. Someone planning a county fair is just not going to consider it unless they are a gun owner themselves, and the burden is on them to tell cops not to panic. (If everyone owned a gun it would be the other way around.) Technology is shrinking our world, lifestyles of rural self-sufficiency and domestic dependency that were once separate are now colliding.
None of this is an excuse however for law enforcement professionals to be unaware. In a democracy the minority always loses, which is why laws can't hope to be omniscient and absolute. Lawmakers wouldn't have to consider so many avenues and niches if they just stopped trying to run everything. A more immediate solution is those who work hard to educate the public, which leads into my question of the week. This article has not yet posted to the VCDL archives, but you can read more by subscribing to VA-ALERT or an even better account at http://sailorcurt.blogspot.com/2007/08/norfolk-city-council-meeting.html.
* http://sailorcurt.blogspot.com/2007/08/norfolk-city-council-meeting.html
**http://www2.vcdl.org/cgi-bin/wspd_cgi.sh/vcdl/vaarchive.html
***http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=131335&ran=238394
Question of the Week: When high-stakes issues like the unlawful arrest of gun-owners occur, what kind of coverage do you prefer? Is objective assessment of both sides a breath of fresh air, or does it distract from the fact that people were hurt by these crimes and we need to fight this tooth and nail? Send your thoughts to russo@richmondliberty.org.
If you have topics of interest to Libertarians please let us know. We welcome your input!
This past Saturday (Aug 25) supporters of George Marchenko held a rally. More are planned before the election. Stay tuned for further details.
Photo Highlights:
http://www.richmondliberty.org/gallery/v/20070825marchenko/