Election Day Voting

[jjd]

On election day, I'm voting for Michael Badnarik for president. His platform, the Libertarian party, is by far the closest to my beliefs. Below is a sampling of his views. Neither of the two "main" candidates even come close to supporting things I believe in. I hope more people start to realize that a third party vote IS NOT A WASTED VOTE, whether it is for an independent, Green Party, etc. The only wasted vote is one that isn't cast. It's YOUR VOTE; you only waste it if you don't use it! Please don't listen to all of the crap from Republicans and Democrats about how a vote for a third party candidate is a waste. I think it is SHAMEFUL for these parties to be encouraging candidates to drop out of the race. If they (the major parties) can't field a candidate that's worth a shit, don't expect the rest of us to vote for him just because that's the best they could do. Please just get out and vote - if it's a major party candidate that you think is best, vote for him. If it's a 3rd party candidate, vote for him. Nothing will ever change if we don't start truly voting our minds!

 

 

Some stuff from Badnarik's site:

War in Iraq:

 

The War in Iraq is a failure, and the U.S. government should never have waged it. As your president, one of my first tasks will be to begin the orderly process of bringing our troops home as quickly as can safely be accomplished.

 

More and more Americans are coming to oppose the war, the war hawks and high government officials are beginning to distance themselves from the president, and the U.S. seems more willing than ever to pull out of Iraq.

 

But this is not enough. We need to learn how this disaster happened, so we can prevent future disasters from happening.

 

First, allow me to dispel a myth. People in the Middle East do not hate us for our freedom. They do not hate us for our lifestyle. They hate us because we have spent many years attempting to force them to emulate our lifestyle.

 

The U.S. government has meddled in the affairs of the Middle East far too long, always with horrendous results. It overthrew the democratically elected leader of Iran and replaced him with the Shah. After making Iranians the enemies of Americans, the U.S. government gave weapons, intelligence and money to Iran's mortal adversary, Saddam Hussein. The U.S. government also helped Libyan Col. Qaddafi come to power, propped up the Saudi monarchy and the Egyptian regime, and gave assistance to Osama bin Laden.

 

Most Americans have forgotten these events. But the people of the Middle East will always remember.

 

It was because of American troops in Saudi Arabia, lethal sanctions on Iraq, support for states in serious violation of International Law, and siding with Israel in its dispute with the Palestinians to the tune of more than $3 billion per year in taxpayers' funds that terrorist leaders were able to recruit those individuals who caused 3,000 Americans to pay the ultimate price on September 11, 2001.

 

The proper response would have been to present the evidence as to who committed the heinous act both to Congress and to the people, and have Congress authorize the president to track down the individuals actually responsible, doing everything possible to avoid inflicting harm on innocents.

 

A Libertarian president would not have sent the military trampling about the world, racking up a death count in the thousands, wasting tax money on destroying and re-building infrastructure, creating more enemies, and doing the kinds of things that led to 9/11 in the first place.

 

We cannot undo history, unfortunately.

 

The U.S. government has never succeeded in establishing freedom and democracy in any of its foreign adventures in the last fifty years. Freedom and democracy are blessings any people must establish for themselves.

 

Here at home, war leads to a decline in civil liberties, higher taxes, and wartime economic measures that blur the line between business and state, allowing politically favored corporations to profit at the expense of taxpayers.

 

Libertarians understand the importance of adhering to the Constitution, because it is designed to limit the power of the state here and abroad. And we especially understand the danger of war, which expands the power of the government far beyond its constitutional limits.

 

The founders of this country knew that war should not be initiated at the president's whim, and so the constitutional authority to wage war rests with Congress.

 

James Madison, father of the Constitution, said, "If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." He also said, "No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare..."

 

In short, a libertarian foreign policy is one of national defense, and not international offense. It would protect our country, not police the world.

 

 

 

Coerced military conscription also known as the draft is perhaps the single most anti-freedom action governments regularly take against their own citizens. The draft, represses indiscriminately by directly stealing not only the "treasure" of our citizens, but also by taking years of their precious time and in many cases their lives. The draft has been justifiably resisted throughout American history because it is inherently unfair, unjustifiable, and un-republican.

 

If a free America were ever subjected to attack, most Americans would be more than willing to defend themselves, their homes, and their families against the foreign aggressors. The very fact that too few Americans are volunteering to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan illustrates that too few Americans view the actions being taken by our government as integral to the preservation of our freedoms. This is simply the free market working.

 

Of course, some draft advocates would claim that the only reason America needs a draft is because we don't pay our military personnel adequately. Regardless of what the market rate would be in a "free market" for military personnel probably closer to what the private security forces in Iraq are making than what America's military men and women are making the draft would only lead to more military adventurism abroad. After all, the draft is nothing more than the government stealing services from its citizens because it does not want to pay a market rate for them.

 

Even more disturbing than the draft is the fact that some in Congress would like to expand the draft beyond military service to also include "national service." You see, for many of our leaders, bringing back the draft has less to do with providing needed soldiers for combat—America has hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in peaceful nations from Japan to Germany—than it does expanding the size and power of government.

 

As Congressman Ron Paul has said, "To many politicians the American government is America and patriotism means working for the benefit of the state." Thus, on a crude level, the draft appeals to patriotic fervor. This, according to Congressman Paul, is why the idea of compulsory national service, whether in the form of military conscription or make-work programs like AmeriCorps, still sells on Capitol Hill. Conscription is wrongly associated with patriotism, when it really represents collectivism and involuntary servitude.

 

Ronald Reagan said it best: "The most fundamental objection to draft registration is moral." He understood that conscription assumes our nation's young people belong to the state. Yet America was founded on the opposite principle; that the state exists to serve the individual. The notion of involuntary servitude, in whatever form, is simply incompatible with a free society.

 

 

Civil Liberties:

 

The erosion of our civil liberties since 9/11 does not represent a new phenomenon. It represents an acceleration of long-existing trends. As president, my goal will be to to reverse those trends and to restore, respect and enforce the Bill of Rights.

 

In crafting the Bill of Rights, the framers were careful to acknowledge implicitly and explicitly two key truths:

 

The first is that government does not grant rights it acknowledges them. They exist independently of government. They're part of who and what we are. And, as Jefferson noted in the Declaration of Independence, the only legitimate function of government is to secure them.

 

The second is that government is a servant to whom we delegate powers, not a master who dispenses privileges. The Constitution carefully enumerates the powers we, the people, delegate to our government and it specifically denies that government any powers not so delegated. Our rights lie beyond the pale of that delegation. They are sacrosanct. Any government which infringes upon them is engaged in an intolerable usurpation.

 

The history of our nation is the story of a government constantly attempting to outgrow the Constitutional box we put it in and of a people struggling to stuff it back into that box. Sadly, government has grown so far beyond its Constitutional bounds that we can barely see the box any more.

 

How did that happen? A little at a time. There's always someone who would have us trade a little liberty for a little security a "reasonable gun control" law here, a "War on Drugs" there ... before you know it, it all adds up. What it adds up to is the USA PATRIOT Act, the FBI spying on library patrons and hundreds, maybe even thousands of prisoners held without charge, counsel or even public acknowledgement that they've been "detained."

 

How do we fix it? By being just as uncompromising in our defense of liberty as our enemies are in their attacks upon it. Let us take our cue from Barry Goldwater: "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

 

As your president, I will act in accordance with my oath to the Constitution of the United States all of it, with special emphasis on the Bill of Rights. I will veto legislation which in any way infringes upon those rights. I will shut down any agency or activity in the executive branch which has, as its mission, the infringement of those rights. And I will direct the Attorney General and the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division to aggressively prosecute, under USC Title 18, Sections 241 and 242, any government employee who violates those rights.

 

 

 

Of all the infringements upon our Constitutionally protected rights, the most egregious in living memory may be the post-9/11 "detention" of individuals American and non-American in secrecy and without charges or access to counsel.

 

As someone who values all our rights, I do not make this statement lightly. Consider, however, the nature of the crime (and yes, it is a crime).

 

Under normal circumstances, if one's rights are violated, one may petition the government for redress of grievances, go to court to obtain satisfaction, or take some other action to regain the expression of the rights which were infringed upon.

 

People like Joseph Padilla, Yaser Hamdi and the hundreds maybe even thousands of individuals illegally detained by the federal government, both at home and abroad, have no such recourse. In many cases, the government doesn't even admit that it has them in custody. If they are tried, it may be by "military tribunal" a kangaroo court from which there is no appeal and in which they may be denied the right to confront their accusers or to examine the evidence against them.

 

This is not how we do things in America. We do not kidnap people. We do not hold prisoners without charge or justification. And we do not operate or condone the equivalent of Charles the First's "Star Chamber" secret courts with arbitrary and capricious proceedings and standards of evidence.

 

Among the complaints our Founding Fathers cited in their Declaration of Independence as justification for throwing off the British government, we find the following:

 

"For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury ... For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences ... For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government ..."

 

Those same framers enshrined the rights that George III violated in the Constitution they created to replace his rule. They were right to do so, and their example must be followed.

 

In the case of "enemy combatants" and other "detainees," the choice is quite simple: They may be held as prisoners of war, with all the protections afforded them by the Geneva Convention (a treaty ratified by the Senate pursuant to its Constitutional Authority), or they may be held as accused criminals with all the protections afforded them by the Constitution. There are no other lawful alternatives.

 

As your president, I will act swiftly to have all "detainees" properly classified.

 

Those charged with crimes will receive access to counsel, speedy public trial by jury, the right to confront their accusers, to examine the evidence against them and to produce evidence and witnesses in their own defense.

 

Those held as prisoners of war will, if a state of war obtains, be treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention until such time as the war ends and they can be repatriated to their countries of origin.

 

Those who do not answer to either description will be freed, indemnified and offered the sincere apologies due them.

 

 

www.badnarik.org

 

It's time for America to start being America again.

[Skeezix]

I read every word of that.

[Dru]

in this article:

 

http://www.jamestown.org/publications_details.php?volume_id=397&&issue_id=2907

 

one potential outcome of the iraq conflict is predicted as a new American isolationism. Sounds like Badnarik would bring that about. No doubt the Arabs, Chinese and Europeans would welcome it.

[Blake]

right on JJD, I have WAY more respect for libertarians than I do for most republicans.

[Skeezix]

Libertarians walk on the don't walk light.

[slothrop]

The guy is right on for the most part. I can see the Libertarians becoming a major force in politics and it'd be great to give "third" parties more chance to make a difference.

[JoshK]

In an election like this, it's a wasted vote. Believe what you want, but that is certainly my opinion.

[graupel]

Libertarians won't make one whit of difference unless they get in office.

 

And if voting for a third party candidate results in the worse choice of the remaining candidates getting into office, your vote went for the opposition.