The Libertarian Voice

Boycott The State Newspaper

2005-04-20T11:06:00.000-04:00

By Doug Kendall

(Originally posted on The Common Voice, March 17, 2005. Reprinted with kind permission.)

Columbia, SC - For the last three days (at least), a story having something to do with “New Urbanism,” the environment or conservation has been featured on the front page of The State newspaper, and it shows that the liberal enviro-wacko establishment is getting bolder.

“New Urbanism” is one of the terms used to describe the property rights-destroying concept of “smart growth”—but there’s nothing smart about it. The enviro-communists use “protecting the environment” as a cover for promoting this agenda.

Smart growth plans (also called 20/20 Plans, Town & Country plans, livable communities, sustainable development, smart communities, etc.) attempt to “design” the world in which you live, through strict zoning and land-use plans. Instead of you being able to decide how you will use your property, these communist-style plans—written by those who think they know, better than you, how you should manage your property—lay out the rules for land use, with the force of law behind them. In fact, most codes go so far as to deputize “enforcement officers” who are employed to keep an eye on how you use your land—and stop you, if you violate one of the codes.

Most plans go so far as to tell you how high your shrubs and fence can be (“community appearance”), what kinds of vegetation you can plant on your property, how many garage sales your family can have per year, how you can divide your property for your heirs, minimum land sizes before you can develop a piece of property, mandated hours of operation for golf clubs and lodges, and so much more.

These plans sound good, on the surface, to the clueless, but what most people don’t understand is the freedom that must be given up to achieve the results that the “planners” desire. They want you to live in the manner that they choose for you.

South Carolina didn’t have zoning regulations until after the 1976 United Nations conference in Rio de Janeiro, but the way local planners talk, you would think the world would come to an end without these regulations—and now these rules cover just about every corner of this country. How did we ever survive before the elites began to tell us how we could live, just 29 short years ago?

Speaking of the United Nations, all of these land-use plans are being implemented to further a UN program of land control (communism) and population control called “Agenda 21.” Don’t believe it? See it for yourself, straight from the source: http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/index.htm.

The State newspaper has always pushed liberal positions, but now that they’ve boldly begun to promote rights-destroying New Urbanism, I feel that it’s time to seriously begin fighting back, where it will hurt them the most—in the wallet.

If you truly believe in real freedom, why do you continue to pay for the socialist garbage in The State newspaper? If you haven’t canceled your subscription, what are you waiting for?

Copyright 2005 Doug Kendall. All Rights Reserved Worldwide. The views expressed in this article are the opinions of this author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of The Common Voice.

Tsunami Relief Effort Reminds Me of Divorced Parents

2005-01-04T17:02:00.000-05:00

By Doug Kendall
January 4, 2005

By now, I’m sure that everyone has heard about the recent, awful tsunami tragedy. As soon as the story hit the presses and newscasts, the US announced disaster relief in the amount of $35 million. Soon after, a UN official made comments about the US being “stingy”—comments he later retracted (maybe because he remembered the billions that the UN had milked from the oil-for-food program).

In an effort to prove that the US is not “stingy,” the White House announced that the amount of US aid would be increased by a factor of 10, to a total of $350 million—and that’s not even taking into account all of the private, corporate and charity donations.

At one point, the news reporters began delivering regular updates on which countries were giving the most money—and the more I listened, the more the whole situation began to remind me of competing, divorced parents.

Mother: “I’m taking Johnny to the Fair, this weekend.”

Father: “Well, I’m taking Johnny to the Beach, next weekend.”

Mother: “Well, I’m going to take Johnny on a cruise.”

Father: “Well, I’m going to buy Johnny a dirt bike!”

I’m sure you get the picture.

Is this about disaster relief, or is this some kind of contest to see who can look the best in the public eye? Personally, I feel it’s both.

On top of it all, Colin Powell stated that this aid was also going to be used to hopefully make us look better in the eyes of Muslims in that area. It seems there’s always an ulterior motive with our government.

I feel that it is imperative that we begin to cut the size and scope of government; return tax dollars to the taxpayers; and then leave the citizens to decide how they will use their money. History has shown that we are the most giving people in the world—and the current situation is more evidence of that—so there won’t be any shortage of money going to charity. On the contrary, when people have more money in their pockets they are more apt to give someone else a helping hand.

At any rate, world leaders should stop trying to turn the relief effort into some kind of competition, and stop using tragedies for political gain.

Copyright 2005 Doug Kendall. All Rights Reserved Worldwide. Reprinted with permission.

For the “Privilege” of Living in This Country

2004-12-21T13:32:00.000-05:00

By Doug Kendall

I hear liberals talk about how “people pay taxes for the privilege of living in this country”--and every time I hear a lefty say something like that, my head nearly explodes!

Did these leftists have something to do with the location of my birth? Last time I checked, that was a divine matter, not a government matter. These people act like they have some kind of direct line to God, in determining who will be born here, and what they will have to pay in order to remain.

Let’s say that I was born in this land during the early days of our country, in an area that had no established governmental authority. What privileges or rights would have to be granted to me, from some government, that I wouldn’t already have?

Let’s analyze the situation.

Without government interference, I would have the right to use a firearm to hunt, defend my property, my life, and the lives of my family. Communities would be able to voluntarily enter into private security (police) contracts and agreements, and the people would have complete oversight over the officers, to keep the police from getting out of hand.

Today, police corruption is running rampant, and the right to keep and bear arms is under constant attack. The FBI requires background checks on all retail firearm sales, and can deny a purchase for ridiculous reasons; few areas allow concealed-carry, and it requires training and fingerprinting in the areas that do allow it; firearm owners must qualify, and pay a fee, for a government license (permission) to have a gun; and some areas, in violation of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, outlaw private handgun possession altogether.

Without government interference, I would farm the land as I saw fit, to provide food for my family and myself. If I had any surpluses, I could negotiate and sell the extra food--according to the amount I need to make, and the price that the consumer is willing to pay for it--without government interference or regulation.

Today, I would have to pay high property taxes, jump through government hoops, and comply with all kinds of government regulations and restrictions, in order to maintain a farm and sell my goods. In fact, at some point, I would probably have to fight against local planners, the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Natural Resources, Forestry Service, Sierra Club, World Wildlife Fund, The Nature Conservancy, and more, just to maintain control and ownership of my land.

Without government interference, I would be able to raise and educate my children in ways that reflect my values and morals.

Today, family values and morals are constantly attacked and undermined; good parents are afraid to properly discipline their children for fear of Social Services getting involved; and people are forced to pay for a government-run school system that has actually caused a severe decline in the level of education that our children have been receiving, since it was first put into place.

Education unions, the ACLU, certain government officials, and many judges have been waging a war against teaching anything that makes reference to “God”--including the Declaration of Independence. In addition, through the UN’s UNESCO organization, our children are being indoctrinated with socialism/communism and earth worship.

Without government interference, I would be able to travel and roam, without any outside regulation other than mutual respect for private property rights.

Today, I am told that I have to have a driver’s license in order to travel (the courts have ruled otherwise), and I have to pay a fee to government in order to get it. In addition, I am watched with traffic cameras, stopped for checkpoints and searched, monitored on the Internet, and phone-tapped, even though I have not violated any law, and I’m not under suspicion of violating any law.

Without government, I would be able to roll and smoke any kind of cigarette or cigar I wanted, and be forced to live with the consequences of my actions and choices.

Today, smokers are under constant attack from laws limiting or banning smoking, even though smoking is an issue that should be left to smokers and property owners. Also, if you smoke the wrong kind of cigarette--even in private--you can be thrown in jail, and your property can be confiscated, even though no one else was injured, and no one else’s rights were violated.

Without government interference, I could live free, in any manner I chose, as long as I did not violate anyone else’s rights, and my neighbors would expect the same.

Today, every single type of lifestyle is under attack from some protest group, and law enforcement keeps tabs and databases on just about everyone, to make sure no one is violating any kind of law designed to regulate and control human behavior.

Without government interference, I would own and control my property, and be able to fully enjoy the use thereof.

Today, property is being stolen by government, in the name of the “public good,” and given to developers, in order to create new shopping malls, sports facilities, hotels, etc., for the purpose of rewarding campaign contributors and to increase the amount of taxes that the city or county will be able to collect. Also, assets are being seized from citizens merely for the suspicion of crime, even if no charges are filed and no one is convicted of any wrongdoing.

Without government interference, I would be able to set up shop and run a business, at any time, for any reason, with the employees I choose, according to my desires and needs, through the use of my talents and resources. I would be able to keep the fruits of my labor, and I wouldn’t have to compete against government in the marketplace.

Today, entrepreneurs are forced to petition local governments for zoning changes (beg for government’s approval), and then they are forced to purchase licenses (pay for the government’s permission) before they can open. On top of it all, the corporate tax rate in the US is the second highest in the world; the government is competing against private businesses in many areas; labor unions are harming the economy; people who have chosen to take the initiative to better themselves are forced to pay for those who have not; and businesses are forced to abide by hiring quotas--even if it means having to pass-up the best person for the job.

Without government interference, I would be able, and encouraged, to publicly speak out against injustice and trespasses.

Today, protestors are herded into fenced-in areas, complete with razor wire, surrounded by riot police armed with body armor and assault weapons. They call these areas “Free Speech Zones.” The very government that says people should “respect and abide by the law,” is trampling the rights of citizens by ignoring the supreme law of the land: The United States Constitution.

Also, the Campaign Finance Reform Act restricts political speech and makes it easier for incumbents to get re-elected. Most importantly, no one would be able to simply label me an “enemy combatant” (justified or not) and deny me the right to counsel and a trial (if they are guilty, as you say they are, prove it, in a court of law).

I could go on, but I think you get the picture.

Are these the “privileges” for which I am being forced to pay? If so, you can keep them--and I want my money back, too.

Copyright 2004 Doug Kendall. All Rights Reserved Worldwide. Reprinted with permission

The Real Story Behind the Target and Salvation Army Situation

2004-12-13T23:05:00.000-05:00

By Doug Kendall
December 13, 2004

This year, Target has decided not to allow the Salvation Army to collect money outside of its stores. Because of that, the Salvation Army expects to lose out on an estimated $9 million in donations.

Many news outlets and talk radio shows have jumped all over this, fueling the public fire, condemning Target for not helping needy families. They are attempting to make Target look like this year’s Scrooge. What they don’t tell you is that Target donates millions of dollars to charitable organizations, each year, on their own.

From what I understand, Target has a “no soliciting” policy, but has allowed the Salvation Army to get around it, in the past. Target has now decided to strictly enforce the policy to eliminate the threat of discrimination lawsuits.

Allow me to enlighten you on the four angles of this story.

First, many people have complained about solicitors in the front of businesses, because some of them can be very pushy. A lot of people, like me, don’t care to have to deal with them. We simply want to go in to the store, take care of our business and go home, without being bothered. I give to charity, but not because some solicitor pushed me into doing it.

Some folks even avoid businesses that allow solicitors, because they aren’t strong enough to say “no.” They donate money they know they can’t afford to give, but they do it because they don’t want to seem selfish. When they get home, they get mad at themselves for not being stronger, and avoid going back to that business--and that costs the company money, in terms of repeat business.

Second, we have gotten to the point in this country where there is absolutely no respect for private property rights. All across the country, if you want to start a new business, make an improvement to your house, erect a fence, cut down a tree on your land, put a satellite dish on your roof, divide your land for your heirs, etc., you have to beg government for permission and get “public input,” before anything can be done.

Government has created an environment where the majority of people believe that they have some kind of right to get in the middle of someone else’s business, and tell that person what they can do with their property. All this talk of “democracy” (majority rule) has falsely led people to believe that government is in place to enforce the will of the majority upon the minority--and nothing could be further from the truth.

It’s the same thing with the Target situation.

The folks who are attempting to demonize Target are the same kind of people who feel that others should be forced to follow the will of the majority, and they’re frustrated because (thankfully) there is nothing they can do to make Target reverse its decision.

Third, it’s ironic that the same laws that were pushed by liberals, to supposedly protect certain groups and classes of people from discrimination, seem to be the cause of the Salvation Army losing out on $9 million dollars: If Target allows the Salvation Army to solicit outside of their stores, they would have to allow all of the other solicitors who want to do the same thing, or they could face a lawsuit.

That’s like saying that if I invite one of my neighbors to my house, I have to invite all of them or be dragged in to court. That’s just plain crazy, but that’s exactly what our businesses face, these days. What happened to being able to choose who you will allow to set foot on your land?

The liberals don’t respect the rights of the company, so they have begun using the tactics of boycotting and public outcry to try and stop the corporation from cutting ties to the Salvation Army, and many conservatives are also boycotting the retail chain, saying that it just isn’t “right” to stop the charity from collecting money. Both of these groups refuse to recognize Target’s private property rights.

Fourth, because of all the publicity that this story has generated, if Target gives in to public pressure and allows the Salvation Army to solicit donations, and then excludes anyone else, the company will be hit with a discrimination lawsuit which will hurt them, financially—and you know that the ultra-leftists are hoping for the chance to sock it to another corporation.

Either way you look at it, it’s a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” type of situation.

Those people who are whining about Target’s policy should be complaining, instead, about the laws on the books that create situations like this, instead of hammering businesses that are just trying to protect themselves.

Copyright Doug Kendall 2004. All Rights Reserved worldwide.

Democracy Proponents Got What They Wanted, and Now They’re Furious About It

2004-12-01T16:07:00.000-05:00

"Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives, as they have been violent in their deaths." -- James Madison

The leftists who continually cry out for democracy got their wish, in November. George Bush received a little over half of the popular vote (50.9%, according to Wikipedia), yet many of the democracy proponents are having fits of frenzy and anger over it, and some of them are even threatening to leave the country. Why? Because their candidate didn’t win.

You see, that’s the thing about popular votes; the majority always supports democracy (majority rule, mobocracy)--until they become the minority.

Because the leftists are now the minority, they will now be forced to accept (and pay for) government policies, activities and programs that they do not support. Does that sound like freedom, to you? According to Thomas Jefferson, it’s not: “To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”

Bush now says he has a “mandate” and “political capital” to spend, because of the election results, and the leftists are furious. They have no right to complain, though, because, if the shoe were on the other foot, they would be forcing their views and “mandates” on everyone, as well.

Oh, the hypocrisy!

Article IV, Section 4, of the United States Constitution states, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of government….” Notice that it did not say anything about democracy.

I could simply say that democracy is unconstitutional, and that would be enough, but I want to make sure that people understand the true nature of democracy, and why it should not be tolerated.

Our Founding Fathers knew of the dangers of democracy, and that is why they established our Constitutional Republic, complete with a Bill of Rights. When you recite the Pledge of Allegiance, you pledge to the Republic, not the democracy, for which it stands.

People who favor democracy think that the majority, using the power of government, has the right to force laws on people, to regulate them, steal from them, and rule them. What these people fail to understand is that our government was never meant to have that kind of power.

And, before anyone gets the crazy idea that the Constitution’s “general welfare” clause has anything to do with redistribution of wealth, read this quote from Jefferson: "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but only those specifically enumerated." Those “specifically enumerated” powers do not include turning government into a modern-day Robin Hood.

To, once again, quote Jefferson: “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others.” In other words, government can get involved only when someone has violated another person’s rights. It’s the concept of rightful liberty.

In our Constitutional Republic, people would not be able to use the power of government to enact such rules and regulations on the population. Our type of Republic was founded to guarantee that both the majority and the minority would be protected.

Our President continues to support democracy (he is fond of using the idiotic “freedom and democracy” phrase), and, by doing so, undermines the very Constitution he took an oath to uphold and protect--and don’t get me started on his support of the USA PATRIOT Act and other proposed police-state legislation. For this reason, I would support his immediate removal from office. Anyone who promotes and supports democracy cannot be counted on to protect the Bill of Rights and individual liberty.

Freedom and democracy cannot co-exist. You can have one or the other, but not both, at the same time.

How can our government leaders send our military hopping around the globe, threatening and blowing up other countries in the name of “freedom,” if we can’t guarantee freedom at home?

It’s time to stand up and take our Republic back from those who would undermine our liberty and self-ownership.

Copyright 2004 Doug Kendall. All Rights Reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Most of our Problems Solved by Asking Two Simple Questions

2004-11-17T21:47:00.000-05:00

In situations involving zoning, immigration, gambling, billboards, marijuana, beer sales on Sunday, painting a house a certain color, whether or not the grass or shrubs have been trimmed, censorship, and countless other issues, both government and private citizens should ask two simple questions: 1) “To whom does the property belong?” and 2) “Does the use violate anyone else’s rights?”

Let’s take illegal immigration, for example. I know a lot of people who feel that we should have “open borders,” and I know a lot of people who feel that we should open our borders to legal immigration, only. I fall into the latter category, and I’ll explain why.

When people from other countries cross over into our country, they set foot on property that does not belong to them. So, the question should be asked, “To whom does the property belong?” If the property owner did not give the alien permission to come on to his property, the trespasser has violated the owner’s rights (question 2) and should be held accountable for that. (Note: Illegal immigration is a national defense concern, so this would also fall under jurisdiction of the federal government, according to the Constitution.)

Concerning gambling, the property (money being gambled) was earned through a couple weeks of honest work. Does the gambler violate anyone else’s rights by placing bets on a few hands of poker, or by dropping a few coins into a slot machine or video poker machine? The answer is no, so why are other people so intent on stopping him from using his money as he sees fit—and why is it that governments will outlaw video poker, in some areas, and then institute state-run monopolies on gambling (SC Education Lottery)?

Many local governments have enacted zoning/smart growth regulations and land-use plans that dictate what people can and cannot do with their own property. Landowners must now go before their local government and beg for permission to make improvements, build new businesses or churches, cut down a few trees, paint their houses certain colors, put in tall fences, put in new driveways, divide their land for their heirs, etc. On top of it all, governments will allow other people in the community to stand up and tell government officials “He shouldn’t be allowed to do that.”

Again, we should ask, “Who does the property belong to?” Does it belong to the government? No? Do the uses violate anyone else’s rights? No? Then why should the owner have to beg government, or get some kind of a blessing from the community, to be able to use his land as he chooses?

Even though I absolutely abhor drug use, let’s take on the issue of pot smoking.

Who does the property (the marijuana, and the body inhaling it) belong to? Do they belong to the government? No? Does the person violate anyone else’s rights while he’s smoking it on his own couch, in his own house, on his own time, having paid for all of it with his own money that he worked hard to earn? No? Then why should the non-violent smoker be thrown in jail, and have his property confiscated, simply over a joint? (And why should that smoker take up space in a jail cell that could have been used to house a rapist, murderer, thief, or child molester?)

Regarding censorship, let me begin by saying that, contrary to popular belief, the government does not own the airwaves, and neither does the public; government simply—and wrongfully—usurped power over the airwaves. Even so, government has set itself up to rule over the airwaves and fine broadcasters for content, even though the Constitution clearly states, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press….”

When it comes to broadcast content, who owns the property (content, and broadcasting equipment)? Does the government? No? Does the broadcasting of the content violate anyone else’s rights? Before anyone steps out of line and shows their ignorance, the answer is an emphatic NO.

Broadcasting content does not violate a single person’s rights, because no one was born with a right to have only watered-down and censored programming beamed to their television. As I’ve said before, if you don’t like certain programs, you have the right to turn the channel or turn off the TV, but don’t try and screw things up for the rest of us. Doing so violates my rights and the rights of the broadcasters.

One of the biggest problems in America is that there is no longer any respect for private property rights. We have become a nation of agenda-driven, majority-rule, busybody authoritarians who feel it is necessary to dictate how people may live—a far cry from our founding principles.

Until we get socialist/Marxist teachings out of our government-run schools, stop government from forcing and legislating morality (a forced behavior cannot be considered moral), begin to support the libertarian philosophy of self-ownership, and educate people on the fact that freedom absolutely cannot exist within a democracy, the situation will only get worse—until, one day, we reach the point of no return.

America, Land of the Free*!

(* Certain restrictions apply. See government for details.)

Copyright 2004 Doug Kendall. All Rights Reserved. Reprinted with permission.

The Education Chicken Littles (Part I)

2004-11-15T14:53:00.000-05:00

Andy Brack, of the SC Statehouse Report, recently wrote an article opposing school choice. Since Andy is a died-in-the-wool liberal, I expected nothing less than a “Chicken Little” type of story (“The sky is falling!”), and that’s exactly what I got.

Within the first two paragraphs, he contradicts himself. First, he calls Governor Sanford’s “Put Parents In Charge” Act a “voucher” plan, and then, in the next paragraph, he correctly states that the plan gives “tax credits” to parents who choose to send their children to private schools--yet, he continues to use the “voucher” terminology throughout the rest of the article. “Vouchers” and “tax credits” are two different things.

Under the PPIC Act, parents would be able to receive up to nearly $4000 worth of tax credits on their income tax returns. People like Andy Brack, and news (*COUGH*) outlets like The State newspaper, give the impression that those who support these tax credits are anti-school--which is simply ridiculous.

Andy Brack even goes so far as to say that if the PPIC Act is passed, “…South Carolina would guarantee that it would remain at the bottom of the nation's education list.” That is nothing more than liberal, doom-and-gloom propaganda.

Andy’s article says that “Cecil Cahoon of the S.C. Education Association notes that almost half of South Carolina's taxpayers earn $15,000 or less per year. What low-income parent is going to be able to cut a $4,000 or $10,000 tuition check up front and wait for months to be able to get the tax credit on the following year's tax return?”

First of all, what are the ages of those in that $15,000-or-less group? How many of them are college/high school kids working part-time/weekend jobs for spending money? How many of those in the group actually have children in school? When you begin to ask those kinds of questions, it’s easy to see how figures can be skewed to support a particular point of view--especially when those figures come from the SC Education Association, a group who has a vested interest in protecting government-run education.

Second, I haven’t come across one single school that requires payment-in-full, upfront. Every private school I have researched has a monthly payment plan, so paying for a private education is a lot easier than Andy’s article makes it out to be.

As for school funding, let’s look at the figures:

The PPIC Act would give a credit of nearly $4000, which is near the average cost of a year’s worth of private school education. The cost of educating a child in the government-run school system averages out to around $8000 – $10,000 per year, per child ($12,000 if you live in Inez' directly-controlled Allendale County).

Now, let’s say that the government-run school system is comprised of 30 students. At $8000 per student, it will cost $240,000 to educate those students, for one year.

If 5 students leave the system to go to a private institution, the cost to educate the remaining students will drop to $200,000. But because the parents only got a $4000 per student tax break--only half of the per-student cost in a government-run school--there is still $4000 left in the system for the remaining students to benefit from, for a total of $220,000 (an increase of $800 per student). The PPIC Act would actually facilitate an increase in dollars per student, each time a student leaves to go to a private school.

How can an increase in dollars per student be a bad thing? After all, this is about the well being of our children, right?

Educrats and liberal Chicken Littles conveniently ignore those figures. They are more concerned with a possible (needed) cut in administrators and other social programs--and that’s the main reason why they are opposing any kind of tax credits.

The education unions know that a decrease in the size of bureaucracy means a decrease in power, and less money being funneled to the Democratic Party. On top of that, they miss out on opportunities to indoctrinate and dumb-down future generations of socialists who will depend on government handouts--and they also stand to lose future Democratic votes.

Several states (Florida, Maine, Vermont, Wisconsin) have benefitted from school choice plans, and the government-run systems didn't collapse, because of it. In fact, the government-run system had no choice but to improve--and improve, they did--and the children are better off, because of the competition.

It is disgraceful to see liberals using our children as pawns in a game for more power, money and influence. It has to be stopped--NOW.

Communism Has Officially Taken Over in Richland County, SC

2004-11-10T13:20:00.000-05:00

After fighting against Richland County Council, for nearly 6 years, Council completely disregarded the will of the People and unanimously passed a "Land Development Code," as members of the Sierra Club and the League of Women Voters gleefully supported it. In fact, Dale Isham, President of the SC Sierra Club, once remarked that his organization felt that the proposed code "didn't go far enough" in restricting what people could do with their own land, but it was a "good first step."

If you live in, or plan to develop land within, an unincorporated area of Richland County, this code will dictate exactly what you can and cannot do with your property, and will also mandate certain requirements before you can even begin to use your land--and it's all being done in the name of environmental conservation and open space preservation (yeah, right).

Because of the actions of Richland County Council, last night, the compliance costs have just increased for those who have a dream of someday developing a new business or building a new home. If you fall a few dollars short of being able to realize your dream, be sure to call the council members and thank them for screwing you.

For instance, under the new code, a home-based salon business will only be allowed to have four (4) workstations, and will not be able to sell styling products out of the business, unless those products (shampoo, hairspray, hair coloring, etc.) are manufactured within that business.

Can you name one home-based salon that manufactures its own styling products? What does that have to do with conservation? How much money will those restrictions remove from that business's income? Will it cost a few jobs? Surely, it will.

The code will also limit garage sales to two (2) per year. What does that have to do with open space preservation?

Other draconian property controls include: Limiting the hours that a country/golf club can operate; prohibiting a satellite dish on a home if it can be seen from the road; minimum required lot sizes before development can take place; requirements for new churches; restricting how you can divide your land for your heirs; mandating green setbacks; mandating that owners of Bed & Breakfast businesses must live on the property, and prohibiting those businesses from serving breakfast to anyone other than those actually staying in the inn;; and much, much more.

The few zoning requirements that I mentioned have absolutely NOTHING to do with environmentalism; these requirements are simply a power-grab, being part of a larger agenda--and it's happening all over the country. Property owners are quickly losing their rights, and if something isn't done, quickly, the United States of America (U.S.A.) is going to become the United Soviet States of America (U.S.S.A.). (For more information, see the very first article that was posted on this site.)

Don't simply take my word for all of this. Visit www.richlandonline.com/town/LandDevelopmentCode102704.pdf and take a look at the code, with your own eyes.

Some people say, "That kind of thing couldn't happen, here, in America!" Well, I hate to disappoint you, but it already has. I've watched veterans walk out of these meetings, crying, saying, "I went and fought communism in foreign lands, only to return to find it here."

If you live in Richland County, I urge you to contact your council members and let them know that you will not tolerate dictators and the destruction of property rights.

Pearce - 803-783-8792
Scott - 803-353-8812
Brill - 803-788-8516
Livingston - 803-765-1192, 803-738-7655
McEachern - 803-786-8304, 803-735-1808
Corley - 803-932-2203, 803-734-3139
Mizzell - 803-776-8788
Smith - 803-254-0542
Tillis - 803-754-8896
Tuten - 803-754-3822

May God help us all.

America: The Failed Freedom Experiment

2004-11-04T15:15:00.000-05:00

Military Training Manual, 1928:

DEMOCRACY : A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meetings or other forms of direct expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic, negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice and impulse without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy. (TM 200025, 118120)

REPUBLIC : Authority is derived through the election of public officials best fitted to represent them. Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences. A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass. Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment and progress. (TM 200025, 120121)

Now that the elections are over, I’ve had time to sit back and contemplate the state of our union, and I am not happy with the direction in which we are heading.

I feel that any US president who mentions the word “democracy” should be removed from office, immediately, because he obviously has no clue about liberty or the Constitution of the United States--a document he swears to protect and uphold. How can he protect it and uphold it, if he doesn’t know what it says?

Article IV, Section 4, of the Constitution states: “The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a Republican Form of Government….” Therefore, any president who encourages people to think that this government is a democracy, or pursues instituting a democracy, is undermining our Constitution and founding principles, and should not be allowed to continue in office.

George W. Bush often speaks of “freedom and democracy,” and it shows just how ignorant--or crafty--he really is. Either he is clueless about the Constitution, or he is deliberately attempting to change the mindset of the nation. I believe the latter is true.

The Founders knew the dangers of democracy (mob rule), and took deliberate steps to try and prevent democracy from taking hold in this country. Benjamin Franklin said that democracy was like two wolves and a lamb voting on what’s for dinner.

When 51% of the population can control the other 49% of the population, that isn’t freedom. It is democracy, though, and it goes against everything that US citizens claim to hold dear.

People in this country constantly talk about how they love freedom, and they even support a war in another country, partly because they believe in the idea of bringing “freedom and liberation” to other lands, but I have come to the conclusion that people don’t really want freedom. They say they do, but when it comes down to actually putting it into action, they actually fight against it.

In the “Land of the Free,” you won’t go for long without hearing someone say, “There ought to be a law against that,” or “He shouldn’t be allowed to do that!” In a country that supposedly values freedom, we have people say that people shouldn’t be allowed to make their own choices, even if those activities involve 1) no one else, 2) no minors, or 3) involve only those who choose to be involved.

The United States is no longer a society of citizens who understand what our Founders went through in order to guarantee freedom for us and future generations. In fact, our government-run schools often water-down and rewrite history, teaching our children that a love of national sovereignty is a bad thing!

This nation has gone from having a population of fighters for freedom, to a population of fighters of freedom. We have gone from libertarians to authoritarians, and revolutionaries to regulators. There isn’t one area of human life that isn’t now taxed and/or regulated, and, somehow, this is acceptable. These days, I either get sick or angry, every time I hear some clueless idiot talk about the “freedom we have here in America.”

We need more true Civics courses in schools, instead of the communistic New Civics. We also need to more teaching of true American History, instead of modern, rewritten New History. In order for future generations to understand what our early settlers went through to gain their freedom and independence, they have to get a good education that is strong on history-—something they aren’t currently getting.

This country is quickly going down the tubes toward communism, and every person who says, "There ought to be a law,” is helping to speed up the process. If you are one of those authoritarians, thanks for contributing.

If Americans were serious about restoring our Constitutional Republic, and returning this country to its founding principles, they wouldn’t be casting their votes for fascists (Bush) or communists (Kerry), but that’s exactly what happened.

Every vote for one of those two sent a message to them, loud and clear, that said that no matter what they do, and no matter how many unconstitutional areas they venture into, there will always be people out there who will vote for them. What incentive do they have to change the way they do business? Why can’t people see this?

In South Carolina, an overwhelming majority of State House members ran unopposed, this year--90, altogether. These legislators laugh when voters say they’ll vote them out of office, because there is no competition or alternative. Don’t you folks get it, yet?

Get involved. Run for office. Show up for council meetings--and sign up to speak. Don’t simply let these people get away with run-away government. If you believe in freedom, stand up for it!

If you believe we need more laws and regulations, at least own up to it; I’ll respect you more for being honest. Just don’t come around here and talk about how much you value freedom and liberation.

UPDATE - Tall Tales of Safer Roads and Property Tax Relief

2004-10-28T14:27:00.000-04:00

John Wrisley, local talk radio legend, makes some excellent points that I missed in my first article about the proposed 1-cent local option sales tax (LOST). He writes his latest article from a November 3rd perspective:

"Why did businesses spend so heavily to push the tax through? A local sales tax applied against property taxes would save SCANA Corporation about one-million dollars! BellSouth would benefit to the tune of about a half-million dollars. Other big property owners would receive large tax credits, and many of the big commercial interests are not obliged to pay sales taxes on the supplies they buy to produce their product! Newspapers and broadcasters don't even collect a sales tax on the product they sell, and the property tax rollback credits will be be shipped off to the owners outside the county. In many cases, outside the state. Exporting capital is hardly a benefit to the state, but the point was never discussed."

Get the complete article, "How the LOST Was Won," on John's personal Web site, at this address: http://www.wrisley.com/viewpoint2.htm.

Tall Tales of Safer Roads and Property Tax Relief

2004-10-26T11:23:00.000-04:00

The two questions on SC ballots, concerning minibottles and property tax relief, disturb me.

Regarding the minibottle issue, those who favor amending the Constitution to allow free-pour of alcolholic drinks say that we should "move South Carolina into the 21st century," and they argue that the move would help make our highways safer.

Charleston's Post & Courier reports, "Critics long have contended that South Carolina's use of minibottles plays a large role in the state's poor driving record." They argue that since free-pour would probably cut back on the amount of alcohol, per drink, our roadways will see a decreased number of drunk drivers.

That would be true if everyone set a drink limit for themselves, but the reality of the situation is that most people who fall into the risky category don't limit themselves to X number of drinks; they drink until they get drunk--and if it takes a couple of extra drinks to do it, that's not going to stop them.

So much for the safer roads argument.

The hospitality association that has been running radio ads against doing away with minibottles is made up of those who directly benefit from minibottle sales and distribution. Even so, they make an excellent, valid point.

The problem with the proposal to drop the minibottle mandate is that the legislature has no alternative plan in place. Some representatives have tried to assure us that there is indeed a plan, but has anyone seen it, or even heard of it?

As the ad says, will we trust the Legislature to do the right thing, with unrestricted power? My answer? NO!

The Legislature did the same thing with the state lottery (put it on the ballot for approval, before there was a plan in place), and now there is a lot of mismanagement, misspent money and a monopoly on ALL lottery and raffle operations in the state.

In addition, they destroyed the $1 BILLION dollar video poker industry (and put many people in the unemployment lines), with tales of video poker taking food out of kids mouths and such, only to implement a state-run gambling monopoly: The South Carolina Education Lottery. Now, they want to use the same kind of tactics with the entertainment & hospitality industries? I don't think so.

I believe that bars and restaurants should be allowed to choose how they will serve their drinks (minibottle or free-pour), but handing over undefined power to the Legislature along with the change isn't the way to go about it.

The only two choices we are given is 1) Keep things the way they are, or 2) Again, put blind faith in government to do the right thing for these small business owners. Yeah, right. Both options are completely unacceptable.

On top of it all, you know that if the ultra-liberal The State newspaper is supporting the proposal, there's something fishy going on.

As for the property tax relief proposal, I have just one question: Do South Carolinians only have short-term memories? How many times have we been promised property tax relief, only to see those promises dashed on the rocks of government necessity?

This new proposal is just a diversionary tactic: Government officials want you to believe that you are actually going to receive some amount of relief, while they implement a new tax to create a new revenue stream, and still continue to HOLD YOUR PROPERTY HOSTAGE. And if you really think you're going to get any "relief" from this new tax, just wait until reassessment comes around again--that, and I have some beach-front property in Arizona that I'd like to sell to you.

Any time you hear government officials or citizen proponents of a measure say something about people paying their "fair share," you know you are dealing with liberals--and that is exactly what is printed in the full-page ads that have been appearing in local publications, in support of this new tax.

The S.T.O.P. organization's proposal (www.stoptax.org) is a MUCH better way of getting property tax relief. Under this plan, the sales tax would go up by 3 cents, but ALL property taxes (car, land, boat, etc.) would be completely ELIMINATED. No more begging government for relief, because there would be no property tax at all--and a Constitutional amendment would help make sure that property taxes never come back.

As long as you are forced to pay a lease payment to government every year, just to keep your property, YOU DO NOT OWN IT. If someone else has the power to take it away from you, because you do not pay them, what rights do you have? What is it about this that people do not seem to understand? The Founders were very vocal about the fact that you could not separate liberty and private property.

We have a chance to defeat the un-American practice of taxing property, by supporting the S.T.O.P. plan. Don't continue to buy into the false assumption that you will get any relief. As long as the government still holds your property hostage, to pay for all of their unconstitutional and wasteful spending, there can be no true relief.

South Carolinians should firmly OPPOSE these measures, until our government officials offer us better options.

"Every Vote Matters, Every Vote Counts," But Will Every Vote Be Counted?

2004-10-20T09:54:00.000-04:00

As a former Information Systems Professional for an international corporation, I am very concerned about the initiative to institute electronic voting machines in elections across the nation.

We hear that everything will be secure, because the machines won't be connected to the Internet, and information is going to be stored in three separate databases, etc. That's all well and good, but that's not what scares me.

To get to the heart of this potential nightmare, people have to remember one thing: What you see displayed on a computer screen is not always what's tabulated or recorded on the hard drive. Computers do only what they are programmed to do, and nothing more--and that could include deceiving the user.

If someone wanted to compromise an election, that person could easily, and secretly, enter code into the operating system of pre-certified electronic voting machines that would steal votes from one candidate and give them to another candidate--or they could simply cause all votes on a measure to be reversed.

Here are a few of the many stories of horror and concern coming in from all across the country:

* Bev Harris of blackboxvoting.org: "An Orange County, California, election computer made a 100 percent error during the April 1998 school bond referendum. The Registrar of Voters Office initially announced that the bond issue had lost by a wide margin; in fact, it was supported by a majority of the ballots cast. The error was attributed to a programmer’s reversing the 'yes' and 'no' answers in the software used to count the votes." (Note that this happened with machines from the same manufacturer of South Carolina's new machines: ES&S.)

* Detroit Free Press: The main problem, according to Avi Rubin, a professor at the Johns Hopkins University Information Security Institute in Baltimore, is that "there's no way for election officials to be sure that electronic machines are free of codes designed to manipulate results. Companies are reluctant to share their 'source code,' the proprietary software that controls voting and tabulating results, so their software can be checked independently."

* In the 2002 Clay County, Kansas, commissioner primary, voting machines said Jerry Mayo lost the race, with only 48 percent of the vote. A hand recount revealed that Mayo had actually won by a landslide, receiving 76 percent of the vote.

* Hartford Advocate: "...Diebold's machines are said to be easily hacked. According to one software engineer, 'The security of a Diebold voting machine is inexcusable. It's not at all complicated. All you have to do is open Windows Explorer, locate the Diebold folder, double-click the Microsoft Access file and read, and modify, access to all votes recorded on that machine.' Most conveniently, Diebold's machines leave no paper trail. And attempts to examine or audit the machines have been thwarted by Diebold's contract language in the states where the machines are used ('proprietary trade secret'). As a friend of mine put it, 'Help America vote? I think America is voting just fine. It's the accurate and honest counting of votes that is in dire need of help.'"

* Wired News: There have been instances where Diebold machines have been "patched" with software fixes, after the machines had been certified by election commissions, and that "opens the possibility for anyone -- from Diebold employees to local election officials -- to install malicious code on a machine that could alter election results and then delete itself to avoid detection."

* The State newspaper: Election officials in Arkansas and Louisiana are "serving time in jail for accepting bribes from Election Systems & Software, the same company that won South Carolina’s bid, and the same company that our state Election Commission director once worked for as a subcontractor."

* BlackBoxVoting.org: Released two memos allegedly sent to the secretaries of state in Texas and Ohio by a former technician at e-voting machine maker Hart Intercivic, outlining claims that the company faked tests, falsifed results and exaggerated the security of its voting machines.

* Wired News: "An influential employee of voting machine maker Diebold Election Systems left the company recently to take a job as elections manager for a California county. Deborah Seiler, a sales representative for the beleaguered voting company, was hired a week ago and started Monday in Solano County, northeast of San Francisco in California's wine country. The position puts her second in command of elections in the county, under the registrar of voters. The move raises eyebrows because Seiler played a role in a recent scandal involving Diebold and the county. As the Diebold sales rep, Seiler sold Solano County nearly 1,200 touch-screen machines that were not federally tested or state certified."

* The Post & Courier: "The State Election Commission's plan to make your vote count is to use to use our state's $46.5 million federal Help America Vote Act grant to create a statewide computer network to record and count votes. The system must work perfectly all the time, because there will be no voter-verified paper ballot to recount. Since the voters won't get to verify their votes, this system will continue to lose votes."

Some people seem to think that a computer couldn't possibly mess up on something as simple as adding 2 + 2. Normally, a computer would not make a mistake with that calculation--that is, unless someone programs that computer to always respond with an answer of "5." Again, computers only do what they are programmed to do.

To make sure that all votes not only count, but are actually counted, a few measures should be implemented:

ALL political parties, candidates, and voters receive a separate paper copy of each vote that is cast. In other words, each party has a box where a copy of each vote is placed; each candidate has a similar box; and the voter walks out of the polling place with a personal copy of their vote. That way, if there is any question as to how the voting went, the boxes of voting slips can be counted by each and every group involved, and compared with the others.

You demand a receipt when you pay your taxes, or purchase something from a department store, so why should a vote receipt be any less important? Some of our socialist congressmen can ask an outside organization to come in and monitor our elections, but a paper receipt is too much to ask for? I don't think so.

I would urge you to contact our (SC) state officials and demand more accountability. The number to the SC Election Commission is 803-734-9060.

Remember the words of Joseph Stalin: "It's not who votes that counts. It's who counts the votes."

Where are the Liberals with their "Fairness," and the Conservatives with their "Compassion"?

2004-10-13T10:00:00.000-04:00

Disenfranchise: deprive of voting rights

The Arizona Libertarian Party filed suit to stop the third presidential debate, saying that the Republicans and Democrats are "using our money to come to Arizona and communicate their ideas," David Euchner, counsel for the plaintiff, complained. "They're coming into our house - the Arizona taxpayers - and asking us to pay the bill." That bill is estimated to be about $2.5 million.

Lawyers for the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) argued that they are nonpartisan and "independent of any political party," yet the CPD was founded by the Republican National Committee and the Democratic National Committee, to promote their candidates. They even go so far as to set ground rules (Memoranda of Understanding), such as podium height, the types of questions that can be asked, the type of audience allowed inside, the temperature of the room, etc.

A New York Sun article reports:

* The lawyers for the CPD attempted to convince the judge that the people were getting an "emormous public benefit" for a small amount of money.

* An Arizona assistant attorney general who represented the school at yesterday's hearing, Carrie Brennan, said the debate would result in a bonanza of good publicity for the school, the city of Tempe, and the state. "This is the biggest event in Arizona politics since Barry Goldwater ran in 1964," Ms. Brennan told the court. "It has an educational purpose."

* Judge Gaines even went so far as to suggest that any debate involving the presidential candidates, even just two of them, could strengthen civic ideals.

* The commission's general counsel, Lewis Loss, said via a speakerphone link from Washington that Kerry and Bush would likely drop out of the debate if Michael Badnarik was allowed to participate.

I have a big problem with those points--all except the last one. I don't blame Kerry and Bush for wanting to run for the hills, to keep from having to debate Mr. Badnarik, because they wouldn't stand a chance against a true Constitutionalist like Michael.

First of all, $2.5 million is not pocket change, and taxpayer money should not be used to discriminate against a candidate who has a mathematical chance of winning. If the candidate is on enough ballots which total enough electoral votes for a win, that candidate should be included in all debates--especially when taxpayer money is involved.

Second, the RepubliCrats have put ballot access laws on the books, all across the country, to keep competition out. When a candidate gets the required number of signatures in a state to gain ballot access--typically tens of thousands--it shows that the candidate has a lot of support. If he has that kind of support, the taxpayers should not have to settle for only the R & D candidates--especially since both major parties have used millions of taxpayer dollars to fund their primaries. (Note: The Libertarian Party has never used taxpayer money to fund its operations.)

Third, the judge talked about strengthening civic ideals. Just what ideals are we talking about, here? Whose ideals? Certainly not mine!

Both major parties support the war in Iraq, illegal immigration (national security), the un-American PATRIOT Act, increased federal spending, more social programs (including Bush's new plan to test everyone's mental health), destruction of privacy and property rights, globalization and the communist United Nations (Kerry wants more "international community" involvement in our affairs, and Laura Bush signed us back into the educational (indoctrinational) wing of the UN: UNESCO--an organization that Ronald Reagan had the good sense to remove us from, back in 1984)...I could go on and on. So, again, tell me what ideals we are talking about, here, and why those ideals should be the only ones that get media coverage.

Anytime a candidate is excluded from the mainstream media, it does a disservice to voters. We hear a lot of talk about "fair" elections and everyone getting a chance to participate, yet the RepubliCrats are able to keep a viable candidate for president out of the debates without any kind of backlash. What is wrong with this picture?

Where are the liberals, with their constant preaching of "fairness"? They can fight, protest and boycott in order to get a woman into men's professional golf tournaments, and liberal US congressmen can ask an outside group to monitor our elections (treason), but they can't fight for "fair" representation at something as important as presidential debates?

Where are the conservatives, with their "compassion" and always claiming to want to do what's "right"? Where is the compassion in limiting choices that voters are allowed to see? How can they find anything "right" in that?

Allow me to clear it all up for you. These two sides only do what's "fair" or "right" when it benefits them to do so.

Hypocrite: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion

Only Libertarians Follow the Rules, so Only Libertarians Should be on the Ballots in November

2004-10-07T09:58:00.000-04:00

BREAKING NEWS!

As reported by Carolina Morning News:

"If an obscure state election law were strictly followed, there would be only one party on the ballot for Nov. 2's general election - the Libertarians.

The Democrats and Republicans should have registered with the local clerk of court, according to a little-known state law, and because they haven't, the Jasper County Libertarian Party should be the only player on the ballot. Or, so says county party Chairman Michael Edward Jones.

Jones says in a letter to county Board of Elections members that his is the only party to "file paperwork with the clerk of court ... thus it follows that, in partisan elections, only Libertarians may be listed on the ballot."

Believe it or not, this is true, Garry Baum, the state Election Commission's chief public information and training officer, said Wednesday."

Read the complete story, here:

http://www.lowcountrynow.com/stories/100704/LOCliberterian.shtml

LIBERTARIANS TO FILE FOR INJUNCTION TO STOP THIRD BUSH/KERRY DEBATE

2004-10-06T14:19:00.000-04:00

(News from the Badnarik campaign:)

Phoenix - The state shouldn't be making donations to political candidates, say Arizona Libertarians -- and they're going to court to stop Arizona State University from donating up to $2 million to presidential candidates George W. Bush and John F. Kerry.

At issue: The presidential debate scheduled to take place in Tempe on October 13th.

"It's a clear case of misusing state funds," says David Euchner, attorney for the Arizona LP. "Arizona recognizes three political parties. A debate which included all three of those parties would be a legitimate expenditure on education and public information. A debate including only two of the three candidates is a partisan campaign commercial -- and an illegal donation to partisan political associations."

Barry Hess is the Vice Chair of the AZLP, and is currently in Pennsylvania with Libertarian presidential candidate Michael Badnarik assisting with preparations for Badnarik's upcoming debates. Hess provided additional explanation by telephone, "It is so outrageous because the Republicans and the Democrats clearly violate their own Finance Reform Act, which in this case operates against all parties except the Republicans and the Democrats. Additionally, this use of these particular funds is in clear violation of the Arizona Constitution."

The suit, in which AZLP and its treasurer, Warren Severin, are listed as plaintiffs, will seek an injunction or restraining order against the use of state funds for the debate.

Doug Kendall Endorsed by Americans for Constitutional Enforcement

2004-10-06T13:36:00.000-04:00

(Update from the Kendall Campaign:)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

10-06-04

Contact: Committee to Elect Doug Kendall
803-731-5454
KendallForSCHouse@earthlink.net

Doug Kendall Endorsed by Americans for Constitutional Enforcement

Richard Abraham and Steve Trask, Directors of Americans for Constitutional Enforcement, delivered their endorsement, stating, "The Directors of Americans for Constitutional Enforcement endorse Doug Kendall as a House Representative for South Carolina. Mr. Kendall gives new life to government which has been seriously lacking with most Candidates running for public office.”

“We believe Doug Kendall, if elected, will take his oath of office, ‘to protect the Constitution’ very seriously,” the Directors added. “We also believe he knows the Constitution thoroughly where most elected officials haven't the slightest idea of what this document consists of. We urge voters in South Carolina to support Doug Kendall at the polls."

“In this day and age, when the Constitution is being shredded, trampled and disregarded, it’s wonderful to be recognized and endorsed for my efforts to support and protect that sacred document,” said Doug Kendall. “Education is vital to the preservation of liberty, so I will continue to do everything in my power to educate citizens about limited, constitutional government.”

For more information, visit www.DougKendall.net.

You "Owe" Your Country

2004-10-01T11:48:00.000-04:00

Both liberals and conservatives feel that citizens “owe” something, and should “give something back,” to society or government--or both. The liberals push for more redistribution of wealth (welfare and forced economic equity), and conservatives push for reinstitution of a military draft (involuntary servitude)—and both of them are pushing for more required community service (again, involuntary servitude). Either way, according to them, you “owe” something to a society/country that has “allowed” you to prosper.

People were here before governments, and the people created governments. Due to apathy or agenda, people have allowed government to prosper--not the other way around. Should the created now become master of the creator?

The theory of “giving something back” would imply that I had been given something, in the first place. I worked hard to earn my pay, and to pay for the things I have--all while government stood, and continues to stand, in the way of my freedom to contract, start a business, travel, accumulate wealth, enjoy the fruits of my labor, use my property as I see fit, and trade freely with others. So, remind me, again, what is it that I “owe,” or need to “give back,” to government?

The “social justice” argument, and the argument that those who have wealth have a “responsibility” to give something to the public, is used by liberals to make people jealous of those who have worked to improve their station in life--and make the successful person feel guilty for ever trying to rise above the rest. Instead of being angry that someone else has become successful, these people should be glad that they live in a country where they, too, have the opportunity to do the very same thing, if they choose to put forth the effort.

If people continue to be led into the emotional trap of supporting “social justice” and “giving something back,” we may come to a day where hard work and innovation returns no benefit for the individual. Maybe, then, the socialists will be happy.

Doug Kendall Endorsed by Gun Owners of America

2004-10-01T11:42:00.000-04:00

(News from the Kendall campaign:)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

09-30-04

Contact: Committee to Elect Doug Kendall

803-731-5454

KendallForSCHouse@earthlink.net

Doug Kendall Endorsed by Gun Owners of America

COLUMBIA, SC – Doug Kendall, candidate for State House (District 69), has received an endorsement from one of the leading gun rights groups in the nation: Gun Owners of America.

Executive Director, Larry Pratt, stated, “ We appreciate your steadfast commitment to the Constitution, and in particular, to the Second Amendment which protects our individual right to keep and bear arms.”

“The old saying about only outlaws having guns, if guns are outlawed, has proven to be true,” said Doug Kendall. “England and Australia are two countries that have enacted laws that prohibit private gun ownership, and the crime rate has skyrocketed. On the other hand, areas that have allowed concealed carry have seen significant decreases in crime. I firmly support the 2nd Amendment, and the rights of citizens to be able to protect their lives, property, and the lives of their families.”

Doug Kendall went on to say, “Let’s not forget that tyrannical governments love gun control, and, if not for a well-armed citizenry, the United States would not be the same country that it is, today.”

For more information, visit www.DougKendall.netor www.gunowners.org.

Last Week to Register, if You Want to Vote in November!

2004-09-30T13:45:00.000-04:00

If you want to vote in the November elections, and you are not already registered, you must register THIS WEEK, to beat the deadline.

To make it easy, if you live in SC, you can visit this Web address: http://www.state.sc.us/scsec/vr/VR_Blank_Form.pdf. Print out a copy of the registration form, fill it out completely and then put it in the mail, ASAP.

"If you are like me and do take the time and effort to vote, you should put your X beside the candidate you think will be the best president, not the one most likely to beat the guy you dislike. The myth of the wasted third-party vote is just that – a myth. If there is a wasted vote, it is the one cast futilely against the candidate you dislike in an attempt to swing the national election." -- The Myth of the Wasted Vote, Charles L. Hooper

(Visit www.Badnarik.org and www.LP.org)

UPDATE - Crashing the Parties

2004-09-29T09:35:00.000-04:00

FOUR VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES TO DEBATE IN OHIO

Unscripted Debate Offers Voters a Rare Opportunity to Hear Issues Not Discussed in the Exclusive, Two-Party Controlled Debates

Ohio - A rare debate among four vice presidential candidates - from the Libertarian, Constitution and Green parties, as well as Ralph Nader's independent ticket - will take place on Tuesday, October 5, at the John Patrick Theatre at Baldwin Wallace College in Cleveland, Ohio, beginning at 7:00 p.m. Debate organizers say the debate between Richard Campagna, Chuck Baldwin, Patricia LaMarche and Peter Camejo will offer voters a stark contrast to the watered-down and scripted banter expected from the Edwards-Cheney debate taking place the same day in the same city.

The debate is unusual not only because so many diverse viewpoints will be represented, but also because of its format. All questions for the candidates will come from Baldwin College students. Following the hour and a half long debate, there will be an intermission and then the debate participants and audience will watch a live broadcast of the staged,exclusive "debate" between Edwards and Cheney. At approximately 10:30 p.m., following the conclusion of the Edwards-Cheney exchange, the four vice presidential candidates gathered at Baldwin Wallace College will offer their rebuttals.

The four vice presidential candidates have joined together in unprecedented solidarity to advance a common interest of democratizing the American political system and giving voters the choices that they demand and deserve. A recent Zogby poll found that over 40% of all Americans would like to see David Cobb, Michael Badnarik, Michael Peroutka and Ralph Nader participate in the televised presidential debates.

The Baldwin-Wallace Student Government is the sponsor of the vice presidential debate. "Baldwin Wallance students are proud to sponsor an event of this caliber which gives voters an opportunity to hear all voices - the essence of a true democracy. We're excited to share this experience with our students, local community and with the entire nation as well." said Chris Glassburn, Senator at Baldwin-Wallace.

Crashing the Parties

2004-09-27T11:25:00.000-04:00

(News from the Michael Badnarik presidential campaign:)

This week, third party politics are making an exciting national media splash with the debut of the PBS primetime special "Crashing The Parties 2004." The program challenges the conventional notion that third parties are "spoilers" with no constructive role in the process - showcasing the candidates" rebuttals to this argument and, of course, their political platforms.

Here are a few ways to participate in the action!

TUNE-IN TO "CRASHING THE PARTIES 2004"

Host a documentary screening house party and join PBS for a year on the third party and independent campaign trail.

Wednesday, September 29, 10:00-11:00 p.m. ET (check local PBS listings)

This special gives voters a behind-the-scenes look at third party campaigns and conventions in the 2004 presidential race, showcasing the serious political alternatives to the Democrats and Republicans. The one-hour program focuses on four major third party/independent bids: Libertarian Party (Michael Badnarik), Green Party (David Cobb), Constitution Party (Michael Peroutka) and Ralph Nader. In addition, other candidates' bids for their party's nomination are featured, such as Libertarians Gary Nolan and Aaron Russo.

In most markets, "Crashing" debuts the evening before the first Bush-Kerry debate - showing PBS viewers the candidates who were shut out of the presidential debates. In a few cities such as Boston, the third party documentary is the lead-in program for the Bush-Kerry showdown on Sept. 30.

WASHINGTON POST LIVE WEBCHAT ON 3rd PARTIES & INDEPENDENTS!

On Wednesday, Sept. 29, at 1 p.m., PBS filmmakers Peter Koziell and Darren Garnick will be participating in a live Web chat about the making of "Crashing The Parties 2004" sponsored by The Washington Post. Join in the conversation during your lunchbreak! For more information, visit: www.washingtonpost.com and scroll to the bottom of the page for the "Live On-Line" links. Questions can be submitted earlier that day.

Not Quite Perfect Elections in Iraq

2004-09-24T15:06:00.000-04:00

On Thursday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld mentioned that some areas of Iraq might be excluded from elections scheduled for January, if security could not be guaranteed.

Rumsfeld said, at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, "Let's say you tried to have an election and you could have it in three-quarters or four-fifths of the country. But in some places you couldn't because the violence was too great. Well, so be it. Nothing's perfect in life, so you have an election that's not quite perfect. Is it better than not having an election? You bet."

I have a few problems with that.

Didn't Iraq become a "sovereign nation," not long ago? If so, why is Donald Rumsfeld sticking his nose in Iraq's elections?

Also, would United States citizens allow any kind of "not quite perfect," partial-participation elections to take place? Heck no! After all, some of our (treasonous) Congress members have asked for outside monitoring of our own upcoming elections, because of complaints about the last presidential race.

We should demand the same fair elections in Iraq that we expect here in the US. Anything less is unacceptable.

Doug Kendall Endorsed by S.T.O.P. Tax Organization

2004-09-23T16:37:00.000-04:00

(News update from the Committee to Elect Doug Kendall:)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

09-15-04

Contact: Committee to Elect Doug Kendall
803-731-5454
KendallForSCHouse@earthlink.net

Doug Kendall Endorsed by S.T.O.P. Tax Organization

COLUMBIA, SC – Doug Kendall, candidate for State House (District 69), is endorsed by the “Stop Taxing Our Property” (S.T.O.P.) tax organization, for his stance on private property rights and lower taxes.

In delivering the endorsement, and stating that Doug Kendall was “our choice for House District #69,” David R. Whetsell, S.T.O.P. founder and spokesperson, said “We need more honest people like you who will work for the people and not for special interest groups.”

“I’m very honored to have the endorsement and support of the S.T.O.P. organization,” said Doug Kendall. “Our nation’s Founders were very vocal about property rights, and how property and liberty could not be separated. By eliminating property taxes in South Carolina, citizens will be able to truly own property for a change, instead of being forced to lease their own land from government each year, in the form of property taxes—and, with the S.T.O.P. plan, government would have a projected $300 million revenue surplus.”

Doug Kendall will be a part of this Saturday's Irmo Okra Strut parade, and will be helping out at the S.T.O.P. organization's booth.

Visit www.DougKendall.net and www.stoptax.org for more information.

The Push for Open, Honest & True Presidential Debates

2004-09-22T14:26:00.000-04:00

In 1987, a bi-partisan, non-profit, tax-exempt, front organization called the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) was created by the heads of the Democrat and Republican parties. The CPD makes it difficult for anyone but the two "major" party candidates to participate (or even attend), and they control every aspect of the debates as negotiated between the two major party candidates’ campaign teams. These negotiations go as far as determining podium height, camera angles, question and answer lengths, even the questions that can be asked, and candidate-to-candidate dialogue is prohibited. How do you debate someone if you can't even talk to them?

According to the OpenDebates organization, former President George Bush had this to say about the debates: "I'm trying to forget the whole damn experience of those debates. 'Cause I think it's too much show business and too much prompting, too much artificiality, and not really debates. They're rehearsed appearances." It's no wonder the debates have lost over 26 million viewers in the last eight years, and are now being called fully scripted bipartisan press conferences.

At the very least, the presidential debates should include every candidate that has a mathematical chance of winning. In the upcoming elections, those candidates are George W. Bush (Republican), John Kerry (Democrat) and Michael Badnarik (Libertarian), yet only two of the three are scheduled to be included in the debates.

In a recent poll, 67% of those polled said that they would like to see other candidates included in the debates. Therefore, I would encourage voters who want to see open, honest and true debates to sign the petition at www.opendebates.org.

In order to have a "fully informed electorate," voters must be presented with all of their options--not just the options that certain people in high places want voters to see. Anything less is an attempt to influence and direct public opinion.

The Environmental Communist Movement

2004-09-20T15:09:00.000-04:00

From Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary, the definition of “communism” is this: 1 a : a theory advocating elimination of private property b : a system in which goods are owned in common [by the public] and are available to all as needed.

There is a big difference between a traditional environmentalist and an environmental communist. I firmly believe in being a good steward of the environment, but some people and organizations are taking it to extremes, for their own agendas.

In July 1976, Assistant Secretary of Agriculture Rexford Tugwell predicted that the federal government in the future would control the use of all land—public and private.

Tugwell said, "We are preparing a land program, not merely for the benefit of those who hold title to it, but for the greater welfare of all the citizens of the country."

According to an article printed in the Utah Independent, July 22, 1976, The UN's Conference on Human Settlement met in Vancouver, British Columbia, and asked that land be managed as a public resource. It called for redistribution of land and a more equitable distribution of wealth—basically, plank #9 of the Communist Manifesto.

According to the article, the conference declared that, "Land, because of its unique nature and the crucial role it plays in human settlement, cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals, and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market.”

“Private land ownership also is a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, and, therefore, contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes.” (Emphasis mine.)

That was 1976.

Today, anyone who even moderately keeps up with news issues knows that private property rights in this country are under relentless, heavy assault.

The threat is coming from several different directions: local planners and zoning boards; conservation commissions; government abuse of eminent domain; land & wildlife preservation trusts; the Sierra Club; non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as Council on Governments; University Leaders for a Sustainable Future; neighborhood associations; Mikhail Gorbachev’s Green Cross International; the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); the Department of Health & Environmental Control (DHEC); the Department of Energy (DOE); the Department of Transportation (DOT); the Department of Natural Resources (DNR); the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); the communist United Nations (UN); and more. Environmental causes are being used by these organizations as justification for their attacks on private property rights.

There are several names for the land-controlling schemes these groups employ: smart growth; New Urbanism (which is now being taught to our college kids); International Baccalaureate (IB) programs; critical habitats; invasive/non-native species actions; Early Action Compacts (EACs); ozone scares; “dirty air” and “dirty water” sensationalism; land-use plans or codes; comprehensive plans; UN Biosphere Reserves and buffer zones; vision or visioning plans; town & country plans; 2020 plans; wildlife introduction programs; National Heritage Areas; Cultural & Biodiversity Plans; Preservation Areas; sustainable development (favored label of the UN); sustainable communities; livable communities/cities; and others.

In addition to all of the ways that government is trying to get control of our property, we are now faced with a new dilemma, when it comes to the early indoctrination of our children through the government-run educational system: The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)—the very organization that Ronald Reagan had the good sense to remove us from. But thanks to the Bush Administration, along with a 2003 personal visit from the First Lady, the US is a member nation, once again.

In cooperation with officials in our government-run, public education system, UNESCO is on a mission to implement sustainable development curriculum into every classroom in America, and around the world. To quote the UNESCO Web site: “26-08-2002 10:00 pm Paris/Johannesburg, August 27 - For sustainable development to become a reality, people everywhere must learn to think and act differently. This needs to happen not just in school, but all throughout their lives….” The goal is to get our children to believe that the greater good of the “world community” is more important than their individual rights—especially their property rights and the fruits of their labor.

The curriculum teaches that national sovereignty is a bad thing, and that a child should be more concerned with becoming a “global citizen”—also from the Communist Manifesto that states, “The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality.” One textbook even asks, “Will it happen in your lifetime?”

In 1993, the Head Honcho Communist himself, Mikhail Gorbachev, founded Green Cross International, devoted to worldwide environmentalism. Through GCI, his plan is to foster “a global value shift toward a sustainable and secure world.”

As Joyce Morrison, property rights authority and columnist for the Illinois Leader, recently stated, “Mikhail Gorbachev's Green Cross ranks at the top of the environmental green groups who are making certain your child's curriculum is filled with their material.”

Speaking of Green Cross, and according to GCI’s Web site, actors such as Pierce Brosnan, Woody Harrelson, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Julia Louis-Dreyfus, and corporate players such as Carly Fiorina (Hewlett-Packard) and Ted Turner (TBS, CNN, Atlanta Braves), have received individual “Millennium Awards” from GCI. TIME Magazine and US senators Sam Nunn and Richard Lugar have received the "Designing a Sustainable and Secure World" Award.

The enviro-communists are already brainwashing our children, but they use other doomsday techniques to get through to adults.

One of the tactics they use is to scare citizens with what they call “sprawl.” These people claim that unrestricted development is going to destroy us, so limitations must be set on what people can do with their property—which is also from the Communist Manifesto: Communist agendas “cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of private property….”

What I don’t understand is this: How is it that we have an emergency “sprawl” situation, when 95% of the surface area of this country is still open and undeveloped?

I’m sorry, but there is no crisis. Land-use planning is all about control—control of your life and your property.

According to current licensing records, approximately 500 people per month are moving out of the smart growth capital of the US—Portland, Oregon—to escape the forced traffic congestion, high property taxes, zoning regulations that pack them in like sardines, and the outrageous cost of housing.

A Reason magazine article stated, “’smart-growthers’ are engaged in the Big Lie. Proposals to slash road building, require denser construction, and punish private auto commuting will leave suburbanites with more traffic congestion and less chance for private green space. There are no ‘affordable homes with yards’ in the smart-growth utopia.” The article goes on to say that “’Smart growth’ means confining family life to dense cities with little privacy.”

Studies have shown that increased congestion and stop-and-go traffic increase automobile emissions, so how can the plan to cause more congestion (traffic calming) be helpful? It can’t. It’s just another part of the Big Lie that governments are using to grab land and restrict private property uses.

The study, "Smart Growth and Its Effects on Housing Markets: The New Segregation,” concluded that "smart growth" hurts low-income groups at disproportionately high rates. If Portland-style policies had been adopted nationally ten years ago: 1) 260,000 minority homeowners would not own their own homes today; 2) one million homeowners of all races would not own their own homes today; 3) the average home price would have increased by $10,000 in 2002 dollars; and 4) the average cost of renting a home or apartment would have increased six percent.

Further, the study found the Portland anti-sprawl restrictions did not achieve their environmental objectives, actually increasing suburbanization rates while failing to reduce vehicle miles traveled or congestion.

What does regulating barbershops, making sure your satellite dish can’t be seen from the road, dictating what colors you can paint your house, mandating height restrictions on your fence or shrubs, limiting the division of property for your heirs, limiting the number of weddings a church can perform per year, or limiting the number of garage sales a family can conduct have to do with open space and environmental conservation? Absolutely nothing. It is simply a power-grab, for a bigger agenda.

These smart growth plans are un-American, and they go against everything this country was founded upon. Destruction of property rights and pushing people in on top of one another is nothing more than communism, plain and simple, and it’s all being done under the guise of preservation, conservation and environmentalism.

John Adams said, "Property must be secured, or liberty cannot exist." You can’t get much clearer than that, and there’s nothing in that quote that states, or even implies, that we should give up our property rights for some “greater good.” There can be no greater good, if we lose our rights to manage our own property.

Thomas Jefferson stated, "The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property and in their management." In other words, I have a right to peacefully manage my property and myself as I see fit, and any interference in the free exercise thereof goes against the type of limited government our Founding Fathers chose to construct.

Smart growth has been proven to be a failure; it’s anti-American; and it is absolutely unacceptable to a free people. It must be opposed at every turn.