FYI - From the Matt Nye and the RLC.


-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"

Republican Liberty Caucus Announces Wayne Allyn Root as Chairman of National Campaign Committee and Advisory Board

        

The National Board of the Republican Liberty Caucus (RLC) has voted to name Wayne Allyn Root as Chairman of its National Campaign Committee, as well as Chairman of the RLC Advisory Board. Root, now back to his lifelong Republican roots, was the Libertarian Vice Presidential nominee in 2008, as well as an elected Board member of the Libertarian National Committee, and Chairman of the Libertarian National Campaign Committee.

One of America’s most vocal critics of the Obama administration, Root is a frequent radio and TV guest, political commentator, syndicated political columnist, and the author of the national bestselling books, “The Ultimate Obama Survival Guide” and “The Murder of the Middle Class.”

"We are very excited to have Wayne on board," said Matt Nye, RLC National Chairman. "Wayne is an extremely talented, charismatic and dynamic media personality; he's an outspoken advocate for liberty, but he is particularly fierce on economic freedom and the U.S. Constitution."

At the time Root joined the Libertarian Presidential ticket in 2008, the Bob Barr-Wayne Root presidential ticket was the 2nd most successful vote-getter in the party's history. Root says that experience showed him just how heavily the scales are tilted in favor of the two-party system.

"As the Libertarian Party’s vice presidential nominee, I called myself a 'REAGAN libertarian,' in honor of my heroes Ronald Reagan and his mentor Barry Goldwater," Root said. "I will forever be a libertarian leaning Republican-conservative, and I am grateful for my start in national politics with the Libertarian Party."

Root says the grassroots uprising in 2010 and 2014 has given him hope the Republican Party can be returned to its roots.

"Given the popularity of the Tea Party message it makes sense to work within the Republican Party to return the GOP to the ideology of Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater and Jack Kemp," Root said. "That is exactly the mission of the Republican Liberty Caucus, and I’m here to inject a dose of world-class energy and enthusiasm!"

RLC Chairman Matt Nye agrees, but says the Republicans apparently didn’t get the memo. He hopes high profile individuals like Root joining with grassroots organizations like the RLC will help them see the light.

"In spite of the clear message the grassroots sent with massive, record-setting landslides in both the 2010 and 2014 elections, GOP party leadership doesn't appear to have gotten the message," Nye said. "Republicans were given a clear mandate to stop Obama's agenda, but they've done nothing of substance to do so."

Root agrees. "We're stuck with leadership in both houses that is either spineless, incompetent or sympathetic to the president's big government agenda; that, or the GOP’s leaders have simply been bought off by lawyers, lobbyists, big corporate donations and the famous DC culture of corruption," Root said. "This is simply unacceptable. We are watching the greatest country, and the greatest middle class, in world history being systematically destroyed, and that is something I cannot stand by idly and watch."

In his best-selling books Root blames the partnership of big government, big media and big corporations.

"Republicans must stand firm, cut spending and debt, balance the budget, repeal Obamacare, audit and reform the Fed, re-establish the Gold Standard and roll back out-of control federal agencies like the EPA, IRS, and the NSA program spying on US citizens," Root said. "Most of all, Republican leaders must stand up and fight for capitalism and American Exceptionalism.”

Root says Republicans must offer a clear alternative.

"The GOP controls Congress, and Congress controls spending," Root said. "It's time the GOP withdraws from this president's agenda that is destroying capitalism, small business and America. If they can’t do that, then Americans have no reason to vote Republican."

Nye concurs.

"With Wayne's help, we at the RLC intend to hold their feet to the fire,” he said.

Root’s web site is www.ROOTforAmerica.com. His new business book, entitled “The Power of RELENTLESS!”  will be out August 10th. You can follow Wayne on Twitter here. 

    

About Matt Nye

Matt Nye is an innovative entrepreneur and political activist with 24 years of diversified experience in technology, telecommunications, finance, marketing and communications. Nye currently works as Regional Director for Verteks Consulting, a leading provider of voice and data networks for enterprise and government clients in Florida. In addition to his work at Verteks Consulting, Nye has taken on a number of leadership roles in local and national political organizations. He is the Founder and Immediate Past Chair of the Republican Liberty Caucus of Central East Florida (RLC), the Organizer of the Brevard Tea Parties and the National Chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus. As the Organizer of the Brevard Tea Party Nye is a frequently sought expert for local media on subjects like taxes, regulation, waste, fraud, abuse and transparency. In his capacity as National Chairman of the RLC he is frequently interviewed on issues pertaining to national party politics and the role the liberty movement plays in today's political landscape.

Ron Paul Breaks The Set with Abby Martin on the Illegal Syria War, Terror Blowback and the Tea Party H...

An outstanding interview and some GREAT food for thought from Dr. Paul and Abby Martin.


#LiveFree


#PushBack











-ADY"A Regular Guy On The Issues"

Ron Paul full "In Depth" interview C-SPAN 8/3/14 *HQ*

#LiveFree


-ADY"A Regular Guy On The Issues"

Don't Hurt People And Don't Take Their Stuff With Senator Rand Paul

FYI - From Matt Kibbe/Freedom Works Action.


#PushBack


#LibertarianRepublican


#ProgressiveLibertarian


#GOP


#LiveFree




-ADY"A Regular Guy On The Issues"

Abby Martin's Interview With Ben Swann: The GOP In Crisis!

FYI - From RT's Breaking The Set with Abby Martin and Ben Swann.






Some good food for thought for the GOP.  The Republican Party will not be successful on the national level again unless they become more socially tolerant.  They must embrace their libertarian wing.






#LiveFree






#LibertarianRepublican






#ProgressiveLibertarian

Amber Lyon's Peace, Love & Pepper Spray Interview With Abby Martin.

FYI - From RT/Breaking The Set/Abby Martin and Amber Lyon. A MUST watch!  Please pass on!

#PushBack

#ProgressiveLibertarian

#LiveFree

-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"

Gov. Gary Johnson on the NSA, Drones, and the Tea Party.

FYI - Gov. Gary Johnson on Russia Today TV.

#LiveFree

#PushBack

#LeftLibertarian

#ClassicLiberal

#ProgressiveLibertarian

-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"

Libertarians vs. The TeaParty!

Some VERY good food for thought!  I see this everyday!  Libertarians and the Left have more in common than many think.

#LiveFree

#PushBack

#LeftLibertarian

#ClassicLiberal

#ProgressiveLibertarian

-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"

A Conversation with Jon Huntsman - a REAL public servant

FYI - A GREAT conversation with former Governor and Ambassador, Jon Huntsman, Jr. - a REAL public servant, not a politician. 

This really is a must watch with some very good food for thought.

#LiveFree


-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"

Are We Rome?

FYI - Some VERY GOOD food for thought from Ben Powell and ReasonTV.

#LiveFree

#PushBack

#Classic Liberal

#LeftLibertarian

#ProgressiveLibertarian

-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"

FYI - From Michael Scheuer/Non-Intervention.com.

#LiveFree

#PushBack

#LeftLibertarian

#ProgressiveLibertarian

-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"

Use the Constitution to prevent war with Syria

By mike | Published: August 22, 2013

Syria is getting to be an old and boring story, but it still is a deadly come-hither trap in which America may yet be bloodily ensnared by its bipartisan interventionists.

By now the story is familiar. A government in Damascus that is officially recognized by all the Great Powers, the UN, and other major international organizations is attacked by domestic dissidents who are supported and militarily powered by al-Qaeda and other mujahedin, and funded by the Saudi, Emirati, and Qatari regimes. The “International Community,” as usual, sides with any set of miscreants that can utter the word “democracy” and thereby ensures the currently ongoing bloodbath in Syria. President Obama, his party, and the Republicans also side with al-Qaeda and the Islamists against Asaad in a piece of thinking that is perfectly logical when you accept that none of that crowd cares about preserving America’s security and financial viability, or about how many American lives they waste.

Now, we have fresh reports that the Asaad regime has used chemical weapons against areas belonging to the Syrian government’s Islamist enemies and that we have — perhaps? maybe ? probably? certainly? — crossed Obama’s much-vaunted red line for sending the U.S. military to teach Asaad a lesson about how to be a good citizen of the world, or at least to be more kind to Syrian citizens than Obama ever intends to be toward U.S. citizens.

Obama is, of course, consulting with his interventionist brains trust — starting with the towering intellects of Biden, Kerry, Brennan, and Susan Rice — and the president will certainly order those senile Republican champions of all war, all the time, McCain and Graham, to demand a U.S. military assault on Asaad’s government.

Amidst the developing momentum for the U.S. to enter another war that will strengthen al-Qaeda and its allies — like the one Obama fought in Libya and the anti-democratic one in Egypt he authorized this month — perhaps it is worth reviewing three salient and crystal clear facts:

–1st : The United States has no genuine national-security interests in Syria. If all Syrians turn up dead tomorrow morning it would have precisely no impact on security of the United States. Syrians share this characteristic with those living in most areas of the world outside North America, which is the main reason that America would fight very few wars if it ever begins to elect adults to the presidency and the Congress.

–2nd: Unless America is attacked first, no U.S. president has the constitutional authority to take America to war without a formal declaration of war by Congress. Asaad surely is not going to stage an amphibious invasion of America, although a month-long visit from Syria’s Republican Guard could do nothing but good for the now-occupied Political/Hollywood summer-vacation cesspools in the Hamptons and Martha’s Vineyard. Therefore, the Senate and House leaders ought to tell Ol’ Red-Line Barack that there will be dollars and American lives for a Syrian war only if (a) he formally asks for a declaration of war and (b) the Congress believes his justification for a war and votes in favor of taking 330 million Americans into an unnecessary war against the Syrian Superpower.

–3rd : Today’s status quo in Syria benefits U.S. national-security interests without Washington having to take any action at all:

–a.) The Syrian army, Lebanese Hizaballah guerrillas, and Iran’s soldiers are killing large numbers of America’s enemies among al-Qaeda, its allies, and their supporters. Iran and Syria also are spending themselves further into bankruptcy.

–b.) At the same time, Al-Qaeda and its allies — America’s enemies — are killing large numbers of the Syrian army, Lebanese Hizballah guerrillas, and Iran’s soldiers, all of whom Washington describes as America’s true-blue enemies.

–c.) And much of this mayhem is being at least partially facilitated by the money and expensive equipment being sent to each side by other of America’s enemies — Russia, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE, for example.

For all of these realistic, common sense, beneficial-to-America, and — dare I say? — America First reasons, as well as for the even more important constitutional reasons cited above, Senate and House leaders ought to lay down the constitutional law — that is, no Congressional declaration, no war — to the supposed constitutional lawyer Obama and thereby make him obey the law for the first time in his presidency.

Left Libertarian vs. Right Libertarian

FYI - Some very good food for thought from Skyler J. Collins/www.Everything-Voluntary.com.

#LiveFree

#PushBack

#LeftLibertarian

#ProgressiveLibertarian

#ClassicLiberal

-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"


Left Libertarian, Right Libertarian



"One Voluntaryist's Perspective" is an original column appearing most Mondays at Everything-Voluntary.com, by the founder and editor Skyler J. Collins. Archived columns can be found here. OVP-only RSS feed available here.

You may have heard about the political philosophy known is "left libertarianism." This philosophy mostly agrees with all of the political left's (progressives, Democrats) complaints and goals about our society, but differs in that its solutions are based on libertarian principles. In other words, "leftist ends, libertarian means." I sympathize much with left libertarianism. I also, however, sympathize much with what we could call "right libertarianism," or "rightist ends, libertarian means." Let's talk about both.

Left Libertarianism

Leftist complaints about society include income inequality, wage slavery, capitalistic exploitation, environmental degradation, and institutional racism. Each of these, I believe, are real problems. In my opinion, statist economic regulation and property exploitation either created or have enhanced these problems. For example, high costs of owning a business (required licensing and other regulations) reduce the options that poor people have in the market. Because business is to some degree prohibitive, poor people are thus left working for somebody else. Instead of braiding hair for cash at home, one without much else by way of skills must work at, say, Walmart, because permission to braid hair for pay is only granted to those who have received a certain amount of schooling (cha-ching) and outfitted their house with handicap access and safety equipment (cha-ching).

And so it goes with every other leftist complaint about modern society. It is well within the walls of reason to expect each of those problems to be reduced or disappear entirely in a free society, hence many libertarians identify with leftists on problems, but have the understanding that only libertarian, or free market, solutions will fix them.

Right Libertarianism

So what can we say about rightists and their gripes? It is my understanding that the political right (conservatives, Republicans) want to, among other things, eradicate abortion, promote religion and virtuous living, secure gun rights, and protect capital. Though how I define "virtuous" is probably a bit different than your typical rightist, each of these, likewise, are desirable to me. I, too, want to eradicate abortion, vice, gun control, and the pilfering of privately-held capital by government. But once again, the solutions to each of these problems can be found in the elimination of the state, and other voluntaryist measures.

If the welfare state didn't create dependency and broken homes, and public schooling didn't separate children from their parents, methinks teen pregnancy, and therefore abortion, would be far less of a problem. Also, if the welfare state didn't exist, religion and mutual aid would play a bigger role in aiding the less fortunate in our society. Stronger communal bonds between rich and poor would be fostered. As everyone would have responsibility for their own safety, gun rights would be well protected. And more, though private capital would have to compete on a level playing field with worker co-ops and other socialistic business practices, it would be protected from legal thievery. As it stands, private capital is either stolen by the state or used to line the pockets of lobbyists as a means to securing political advantages over competitors. Those don't seem like ideal uses of business resources.

Final Thoughts

Both the Left and the Right have many honorable goals (and some not so honorable). Where they falter is in their means. Creating a free society is the only way that their goals can actually be reached. Using politics is a double-edged sword. Making progress in one area invariably means regressing in others, either on the left or the right. If I am a left-libertarian because I am a libertarian that sympathizes with leftist ideals, then I am also a right-libertarian. Many of the Rights' goals are no less honorable or desirable than the Lefts'. I'll take whatever will lead to greater peace, prosperity, and happiness for all, but I'll take them under the banner of liberty

Help Greg Palast protect Voting Rights!

HELP Greg Palast expose the truth. Watch the trailer for Billionaires & Ballot Bandits (read the book too), support the Palast Investigative Fund, then CALL YOUR CONGRESSMAN AND SENATORS!!!

#LiveFree

#PushBack

#LeftLibertarian

#ProgressiveLibertarian

-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"

Billionaires & Ballot Bandits Movie Trailer:

Click HERE

The Libertarian Party on Restoring the Fourth Amendment

FYI - From The Libertarian National Committee/Libertarian Party (www.LP.org).

#LiveFree

#PushBack

#LeftLibertarian

#ProgressiveLibertarian

-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"

Libertarian Democrat: When NY Produced Giants for Liberty!

As a former Democrat turned Left/Progressive Libertarian, I found this article to be an excellent, educational read!  PLEASE pass it along to your friends and family!

FYI - From Lawrence W. Reed and The Freeman Magazine/The Foundation for Economic Education (FEE).

#LiveFree

#PushBack

#LeftLibertarian


-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"

•                 

 

OUR ECONOMIC PAST

Libertarian Democrat

When New York Produced Giants for Liberty

JULY 23, 2013 by LAWRENCE W. REED

The idea pervades the bill that severe penalties will secure enforcement; but all experience shows that undue severity of laws defeats their execution … [N]o law can be sustained which goes beyond public feeling and sentiment. All experience shows that temperance, like other virtues, is not produced by lawmakers, but by the influences of education, morality and religion. Men may be persuaded—they cannot be compelled—to adopt habits of temperance.
—Horatio Seymour, 1854

This essay is about a long-forgotten New Yorker who served in his state’s legislature and twice as governor, then nearly became President of the United States. Much respected, even beloved by many in his day, his name was Horatio Seymour. He deserves to be dusted off and appreciated now, almost 130 years since his death. But first, some context.

The Democratic Party in the state of New York these days is about as “liberal” (in the twentieth-century, American sense of the term) as it gets. On economic issues in particular, it is reliably statist, meaning it rarely deviates from the “more government is the answer” mentality, no matter how strongly logic or evidence point elsewhere. But not so long ago, New York’s Democrats were largely of the opposite persuasion. They were often what we now would call “classical liberals,” ardent skeptics of the concentration of power. Classical liberals really believed in liberty; today’s liberals really don’t.

Local and national Democratic Party organizations today host “Jefferson-Jackson Day” dinners in honor of two of the party’s early representatives. If Thomas Jefferson or Andrew Jackson could stop in for a drink, it’s not likely that either one of them would recognize their party after all these years. Arguably, they’d be horrified enough to resign their memberships. My guess is that Jackson would become an Independent while Jefferson would bolt for the Libertarians.

New York City in the 1830s was the birthplace of the Locofocos, the most principled libertarians the Democratic Party ever produced. Their opposition to subsidies, high tariffs, special favors, fiat money, and interventionist government helped keep the state and national party on the right side of liberty until the silver-tongued currency crank William Jennings Bryan came along in 1896.

Martin Van Buren, Jackson’s successor, was a New York Democrat. Economist and historian Jeffrey Rogers Hummel argues that Van Buren may be the most libertarian of all the American presidents.
In the 1840s and 1850s, Democrats fought the Whigs, who stood for a Hamiltonian big government that would dispense privilege and corporate welfare, jack up tariffs, and centralize banking. When the Republicans picked up the mantle of the Whigs in the late 1850s, Democrats opposed them for the same reasons. With the exception of Horace Greeley, the most pro-liberty presidential candidates in the thirty years after the Civil War were the Democratic nominees who didn’t win (Seymour, Tilden, and Hancock). The only Democrat to actually capture the White House between 1865 and 1912—Grover Cleveland, born in New Jersey but a New Yorker most of his life and governor of the state—was arguably one of the very best and most pro-liberty presidents of the 44 we’ve had.

New York was home also to eight-term congressman Bourke Cockran, who emerged in the 1890s as one of the staunchest and most eloquent defenders of Jeffersonian liberty Americans ever sent to Washington from anywhere.

But something happened to the Democratic Party in the years between Cleveland and the next Democratic president, Woodrow Wilson—my personal choice for the worst of all presidents. That sad turn of events is a story for another day. Allow me now to return to my primary subject, Horatio Seymour.

Seymour wrote those words at the top of this essay. They were part of his 1854 veto of one of the earliest alcohol prohibition measures that made it to a governor’s desk. If the wisdom of that veto message had been heeded 65 years later, America would have been spared the imbecility of Prohibition. So, too, it could have saved us from compounding that destructive error with a futile, expensive, and tyrannical War on Drugs in more recent decades. His view on Prohibition was indicative of his general perspective on the role of government in our lives. He was no friend of the meddlesome nanny state.

Seymour was born in 1810 in Onondaga County, New York, early in the presidency of another Jeffersonian Democrat (from Virginia), James Madison. At the age of 23, he went to Albany, where he labored for six years as military secretary to the state’s Democratic governor, William L. Marcy. There, he gained detailed knowledge of the state’s politics. In 1841 he won election to the New York State Assembly and served simultaneously as mayor of Utica from 1842 to 1843. He was elected speaker of the assembly in 1845, then governor of the state in 1852. His veto of the Prohibition bill cost him in his reelection bid, which he lost by a mere 309 votes statewide.

FEE’s senior historian, Dr. Burton Folsom (author of The Myth of the Robber Barons, New Deal or Raw Deal, and other great works) reminds me that Seymour wasn’t as solid on economic issues as New York’s Locofocos: “Seymour was from Utica, and because that town was right on the Erie Canal, he favored state-funded construction of the Erie Canal.  He also favored (though with less enthusiasm) the state funding of the eight branch canals, all of which lost money.” Indeed, Seymour should have seen the logical inconsistency of canal subsidies and small government, but such are the blemishes of politics, which is why when we grade its practitioners, we have to do so “on the curve” or most would flunk. I still see greatness in Seymour on other counts.

The country drifted inexorably toward sectional conflict for the rest of the 1850s. Out of office but an influential former governor of the most populous state, Seymour made headlines whenever he spoke. Prominent party leaders promoted him for the presidential nomination in 1856 and 1860 but he declined to run. He opposed slavery but was reluctant to go to war over either it or the question of secession. When war came in 1861, he staked out a definitive position on the Lincoln administration’s suppression of civil liberties and questionable constitutional ventures such as suspension of habeas corpus:  “Government is not strengthened by the exercise of doubtful powers, but by a wise and energetic exertion of those which are incontestable. The former course never fails to produce discord, suspicion and distrust, while the latter inspires respect and confidence.”

As the war groaned on, Seymour chastised Lincoln and the Republicans for imprisoning (without trial) thousands of dissenters who questioned the war or its conduct. He demanded to know why citizens of the North had to be warred upon by their own government. “Liberty is born in war,” he declared. “It does not die in war! I denounce the doctrine that Civil War in the South takes away from the loyal North the benefits of one principle of civil liberty!”

Defending civil liberties in the midst of a major war was a courageous stand in the 1860s. Even among the large and vocal cadre of Lincoln apologists today, it’s not kosher to bring up the seamy side of our 16th President’s policies. But in the day, some very patriotic Americans like Seymour raised serious questions that deserve attention now as they did then.

In 1862, Seymour was again elected governor of New York and was embroiled the very next year in a vigorous battle with the Lincoln administration over the military draft. He strongly opposed it as unconstitutional. He refused to pay the state’s foreign creditors in paper greenbacks, insisting instead on payment in the medium specified in the terms of the debt—gold. Defeated narrowly for reelection in 1864, Seymour resumed his prominent role as a respected elder statesman and spokesman for Democratic principles. He might have taken the presidential nomination away from George McClellan in 1864 but, as in the past, he declined many demands that he be a candidate.

With no strong Democratic contender for the presidential nomination in 1868, Seymour’s name bubbled to the top again. I’ve written elsewhere about Republican James A. Garfield as the most reluctant man ever to be elected President of the United States. Horatio Seymour is easily the most reluctant man ever to be nominated and not get elected, though he came close. Leading up to the Democratic Party convention in 1868, he declared numerous times that he would not be a candidate.

He even accepted the role as permanent chairman of the convention because the very position would make it impossible to also be a candidate, but after 21 deadlocked ballots the conventioneers violated party rules and nominated Seymour anyway. He ran against Republican Ulysses S. Grant out of a sense of obligation to his party, not any lust for the job. Democrats made Francis P. Blair of Missouri his vice presidential running mate.

Almost immediately, Republicans waved “the bloody shirt,” accusing Seymour and the Democrats of treason. The Democratic nominee was a “traitor” because he had once supported secession, though he took that position purely (and in the view of this author, correctly) because the Constitution neither addressed nor forbade it. Like it or not, the notion that secession was a right of any state was a widely held perspective in both the North and the South in the first half of the nineteenth century. The Republicans vilified it for reasons of power and politics, but it was not for many decades a “radical” or unsupportable view in America, even among Northern newspaper editors.

In his superb 1938 biography, Horatio Seymour of New York, Stewart Mitchell writes that Seymour was on solid ground in arousing opposition to Republican duplicity, by which I mean claiming to be defenders of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution while trampling on the rights upheld in both. “The fact was,” according to Stewart (quoting liberally from Seymour himself), “that within ten states of the Union any American citizen who dared to quote that declaration in his own defense ‘would be tried and punished by a military tribunal.’” Moreover, “If a citizen of the state where the ashes of Washington lay buried were to remind his rulers that ‘the military should ever be subordinate to the civil authority,’ he could be ‘dragged to prison’ even from the grave of the man who wrote the declaration.”

The Seymour-Blair platform assailed the party of Lincoln and Grant in certain if not grandiloquent terms, and largely from a pro-liberty perspective. It called for restoration of a sound, metallic currency and lower tariffs. It condemned the Republican Party thusly:

 

It has nullified there (in the ten states occupied by federal troops) the right of trial by jury; it has abolished habeas corpus, that most sacred writ of liberty; it has overthrown the freedom of speech and of the press; it has substituted arbitrary seizures and arrests, and military trials and secret star-chamber inquisitions, for the constitutional tribunals; it has disregarded in time of peace the right of the people to be free from searches and seizures; it has entered the post and telegraph offices, and even the private rooms of individuals, and seized their private papers and letters without any specific charge or notice of affidavit, as required by the organic law; it has converted the American capitol into a Bastille; it has established a system of spies and official espionage to which no constitutional monarchy of Europe would now dare to resort; it has abolished the right of appeal, on important constitutional questions, to the Supreme Judicial tribunal, and threatens to curtail, or destroy, its original jurisdiction, which is irrevocably vested by the Constitution; while the learned Chief Justice has been subjected to the most atrocious calumnies, merely because he would not prostitute his high office to the support of the false and partisan charges preferred against the President. Its corruption and extravagance have exceeded anything known in history, and by its frauds and monopolies it has nearly doubled the burden of the debt created by the war; it has stripped the President of his constitutional power of appointment, even of his own Cabinet. Under its repeated assaults the pillars of the government are rocking on their base, and should it succeed in November next and inaugurate its President, we will meet, as a subjected and conquered people, amid the ruins of liberty and the scattered fragments of the Constitution.

 

Grant easily won the election in the Electoral College, 214 to 80, but the popular vote was a different story. There the margin was less than six points, as Grant bested Seymour 52.7 percent to 47.3 percent. With Grant’s troops occupying most Southern states, controlling many polling stations and actively disenfranchising significant numbers of Southern whites whose votes would likely have gone Democratic, Seymour’s 47.3 percent seems all the more remarkable.

In his 1944 book about losing presidential contenders, They Also Ran, Irving Stone described Seymour as “one of the most intelligent, high-minded and able statesmen produced in America since the creators of the Constitution.” He argued that Seymour’s gentle character likely would have made him an excellent president, “the most logical figure in the country to bind the wounds of the war and wipe out the bitterness.” But alas, he didn’t get the chance.

Seymour never ran for office again after 1868 and turned down a guaranteed seat in the U.S. Senate, two more likely nominations for governor, and even two strong efforts to nominate him for the presidency in both 1876 and 1880. He may hold the record in American history for turning down more opportunities for high office than anyone else. His last political activity was to campaign for Grover Cleveland in 1884. He lived long enough to see Cleveland elected as the first Democrat since James Buchanan. Seymour died in February 1886 at the age of 75 and is buried in Forest Hill Cemetery in Utica, New York.

Horatio Seymour, a significant figure and friend of liberty in his day, is remembered by few and appreciated by even fewer. We should not treat the good men of our past this way.

The author wishes to thank Mr. John Chodes of New York, a longtime FEE supporter, for his tireless efforts to remind his state and nation of the important contributions of his fellow New Yorker, Horatio Seymour.       

 

ABOUT

LAWRENCE W. REED

Lawrence W. (“Larry”) Reed became president of FEE in 2008. Prior to that, he was a founder and president for twenty years of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Midland, Michigan. He also taught Economics full-time and chaired the Department of Economics at Northwood University in Michigan from 1977 to 1984.

Read more: http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/libertarian-democrat#ixzz2ZsZEcK4y

Gary Johnson : BRING LIBERTY TO LIGHT! Fight For Your Rights!

FYI - From Gov. Gary Johnson and Our America Initiative (http://www.OurAmericaInitiative.com)

#LiveFree

#PushBack

#LeftLibertarian

#ProgressiveLibertarian

-ADY"A Regular Guy On The Issues"

A MUST Watch! - Amber Lyon on the Joe Rogan Experience Podcast.

FYI - From Joe Rogan/The Joe Rogan Experience Podcast and Amber Lyon/AmberLyonLive.com.

This is a MUST watch!  Joe interviews Amber on his podcast - 10/04/2012.

#LiveFree

#PushBack

#LeftLibertarian


-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"

Ron Paul: Let Market Forces Solve Organ Transplant Crisis.

FYI - Some VERY GOOD food for thought from Congressman Ron Paul and the Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity (http://ronpaulinstitute.org/).
#LiveFree

#PushBack

#LeftLibertarian

#ProgressiveLibertarian

-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"

July 15, 2013

Let Market Forces Solve Organ Transplant Crisis   Ten-year old cystic fibrosis patient Sarah Murnaghan captured the nation’s attention when federal bureaucrats imposed a de facto death sentence on her by refusing to modify the rules governing organ transplants. The rules in question forbid children under 12 from receiving transplants of adult organs. Even though Sarah’s own physician said she was an excellent candidate to receive an adult organ transplant, government officials refused to even consider modifying their rules.   Fortunately, a federal judge intervened so Sarah received the lung transplant. But the welcome decision in this case does not change the need to end government control of organ donations and repeal the federal ban on compensating organ donors.   Supporters of the current system claim that organ donation is too important to be left to the marketplace. But this is nonsensical: if we trust the market to deliver food, shelter, and all other necessities, why should we not trust it to deliver healthcare—including organs?   It is also argued that it is “uncompassionate” or “immoral” to allow patients or insurance companies to provide compensation to donors. But one of the reasons the waiting lists for transplants is so long, with many Americans dying before receiving a transplant, is because of a shortage of organs. If organ donors, or their heirs, were compensated for donating, more people would have an incentive to become organ donors. Those who oppose allowing patients to purchase organs should ask themselves how compassionate is it to allow those people to die on the transplant waiting list who might otherwise have lived if they were able to obtain organs though private contracts.   Some are concerned that if organ donations were supplied via the market instead of through government regulation, those with lower incomes would be effectively denied access to donated organs. This ignores our current two-tier system for allocating organs, as the wealthy can travel overseas for transplants if they cannot receive a transplant in America. Allowing the free market to alleviate the shortage of organs and reduce the costs of medial procedures like transplants would benefit the middle class and the poor, not the wealthy.   The costs of obtaining organs would likely be covered by most health insurance plans, thus reducing the costs directly borne by individual patients. Furthermore, if current federal laws distorting the health care market are repealed, procedures such as transplants would be much more affordable. Expanded access to health savings accounts and flexible savings accounts, combined with generous individual tax deductions and credits, would also make it easier for people to afford health care procedures such as transplants.   There is also some hypocrisy in the argument against allowing market forces in organ transplants. Everyone else involved in organ transplantation procedures, including doctors, nurses, and even the hospital janitor, receives compensation. Not even the most extreme proponent of government-provided health care advocates forcing medical professionals to provide care without compensation. Hospitals and other private institutions provide compensation for blood and plasma donations, and men and women are compensated for donations to fertility clinics, so why not allow compensation for organ donation?   Sarah Murnaghan’s case shows the fallacy in thinking that a free-market system for organ donations is less moral or less effective than a government-controlled system. It is only the bureaucrats who put adherence to arbitrary rules ahead of the life of a ten-year old child. It is time for Congress to wake up and see that markets work better in all aspects of health care, including organ donation, just as they work better in providing all other goods and services.   Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Gov. Gary Johnson: This Independence Day Feels Different.

FYI - From Gov. Gary Johnson and OurAmericaInitiative.com.

#LiveFree

#ProgressiveLibertarian

#LeftLibertarian

#PushBack

-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"

Friends, Hopefully, you have something enjoyable planned for Independence Day.  A parade to go to, a picnic or BBQ, some time with family and friends...or just a day to relax. The "4th" is a great summer holiday filled with tradition, as it should be.   But if you’re like me, this Independence Day feels a little different.   The news in recent weeks about the IRS using its force against certain targeted groups has reminded us that, absent vigilance on our parts, the government will abuse the power it has accumulated.  Likewise, as we learn more about the massive surveillance being conducted by the NSA and the FBI, a lot of Americans are today thinking and talking about the 4th Amendment and its intended protections against unreasonable searches.   In short, I believe these “revelations” are bringing long-overdue attention to the liberties the Founding Fathers worked so hard and sacrificed so much to provide and protect.  It is more than a little ironic that the Revolution was prompted, in part, by abusive tax policies and unreasonable searches -- on the part of “tyrants”. And it is worth reminding ourselves that America fought wars to preserve the same freedoms that our own government today seems intent on eroding. Regardless of our plans for this Independence Day, I hope they include remembering that the battle for freedom NEVER ends, and dedicating ourselves to restoring the liberty on which our great nation was founded.  That is the most patriotic thing we can do tomorrow -- and in all the days that follow. Best Wishes for a great Independence Day, and thank you for all you do to ensure that freedom, liberty and opportunity are the real American values! Thanks,   Gov. Gary Johnson Honorary Chairman     P.S.  The Our America Initiative is working hard to give Liberty a voice in the public square.  Your support is always appreciated. www.OurAmericaInitiative.com

About Governor Gary Johnson: A two-term governor of New Mexico from 1995-2003, Gary Johnson has been a consistent advocate for limited, efficient government and personal liberty. As the Libertarian candidate for President in 2012, he received more votes than any Libertarian candidate in history. An outspoken pro-Constitution libertarian, Johnson opposes American involvement in foreign conflicts with no clear U.S. interest. He opposes the failed multi-billion dollar war on drugs and demands greater transparency at the Federal Reserve. Johnson advocates cutting federal spending dramatically to achieve a balanced budget and make government live within its means without raising taxes. He believes real job creation and economic opportunity can be best achieved through smaller government and less regulation. The National Review rated Johnson as "#1" in job creation as governor. An avid skier and bicyclist, he has reached the highest peaks on five of the seven continents, including Mount Everest and, recently, Aconcagua in Argentina.   ​   OUR America Initiative seeks to broaden the parameters of the public policy debate in the national arena. We look to enlighten Americans about civil liberties, free enterprise, limited government, and the traditional American values of freedom and liberty. It is our aim to increase discussion and involvement regarding all-important issues of the day.     Our America Initiative      |       P.O. Box 1985, Salt Lake City, UT 84110       |       1.800.662.9601

Libertarian Party Applauds DOMA Strikedown.

FYI - From the Libertarian Party and www.LP.org.

-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"

News Release June 26, 2013   Libertarian Party applauds DOMA strikedown The Libertarian Party applauds the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision today to strike the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a federal law that discriminates against non-heterosexual marriages. The Libertarian Party has supported marriage equality since its founding in 1971. "The Republican Party has never supported marriage equality," said Laura Delhomme, 2013 Libertarian candidate for delegate in Virginia. "Democrats, despite their alleged support of civil liberties, only added a reference to same-sex marriage to their party platform in 2012 — when it became politically convenient." DOMA was pushed through by a GOP-led Congress and signed by a Democratic president. "This is a landmark victory for personal freedom," said Geoffrey J. Neale, chair of the Libertarian National Committee. "The Democrats and Republicans who have advanced, defended, and let stand government intrusion into the private contracts and choices of consenting adults will be remembered for their inhumanity on this issue." Ending DOMA means that the federal government will recognize the legal marriages of same-sex couples in states that recognize marriage equality. This is a good first step toward ending government discrimination that has affected millions of Americans. Libertarian candidates have long rallied for marriage equality. This year, Robert Sarvis, Libertarian Party of Virginia candidate for governor, along with Delhomme and several other candidates for legislature, have vowed to press for recognition of same-sex marriage in Virginia. Libertarian candidates in New Jersey, the only other state that is holding legislative races this year, are also calling for marriage equality. "Same-sex couples are denied the right to marry because the governor vetoed the marriage equality bill that would have guaranteed their civil rights," said Ken Kaplan, Libertarian for governor in New Jersey. "I will sign such a bill." The Libertarian Party platform states that "Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws." A recent poll from ABC News/Washington Post shows that 58 percent of Americans support marriage equality, a rapid change from just a decade ago, when only 39 percent supported it. Americans are coming around to the Libertarian view that big government does not belong in our lives, whether it’s our bedrooms or our wallets. Visit LP.org to share this release!   Please donate to the Libertarian Party, working to advance peace, individual rights, and American prosperity. Paid for by the Libertarian National Committee 2600 Virginia Ave, N.W. Suite 200, Washington D.C. 20037 Content not authorized by any candidate or candidate committee.