I rarely get a chance to show you the kind of discrimination third party candidates face. The following came to my attention. There are three candidates in the race. I was never contacted about this. I really should be angry, but there you are. It is a fixed game, but it is the only game in town. Click the link to see what I mean.
I received the following letter and I feel it deserves a public answer.
As a member of the Center for Moral Clarity, a national Christian grassroots organization, I am convinced that a leader’s worldview is the most important thing a follower can know about him or her. To that end, I want to ask you some of the same questions that were asked at the recent presidential forum:
? 1) At what point does a baby get human rights?
? 2) How do you define marriage?
? 3) Does evil exist?
? 4) If evil exists, what should we do to counter it?
? 5) Should all citizens have the right to publicly profess and observe their religious faith?
I look forward to learning your responses to these questions.
Sincerely,
Alan Armfield
I. At what point does a baby get human rights?
The flip answer is when it becomes a human being. In truth, I am not God and do not know the answer. Being a lawyer by trade, I look to religious and legal history to guide me.
Our law is clear that a baby gets human rights when the fetus has sufficiently developed to begin to exercise voluntary muscle control. This has been the position of the church for over a thousand years that at this point there could be no question that developing tissue had become a fully human. I believe that position is well settled cannon and temporal law.
Being well settled law, it is safe to use this point as a guide post.
Other positions are matters of faith, and I am loathe to adopt a legal position based upon the imposition of religious values. It is not the purpose of government to act as an arbiter of matters of faith, and to adopt a legal position contrary to our history would be doing just that.
II. How do you define marriage?
Personally I believe that marriage is a relationship between a man, a woman, and God. But then I am old fashioned in my views. Others, supported by many clergy, believe that it is a relationship between two people and God. I am not brave enough to claim that I get to speak for God, and I certainly am smart enough to know that if God blesses a homosexual relationship, it would be terribly presumptious of me to question it.
III. Does Evil Exist?
Yes!
IV. If evil exists, what should we do to counter it?
This question indicates a failure to understand the nature of evil, or alternatively presumes that bad conduct is the same as evil. It is not. Just because someone opposes us or uses force against us, or retreats to their animal nature in dealing with us doess not make their actions evil; stupid, childish, inconvenient perhaps but not evil.
In the face of true evil, we have only the refuge of the Lord. Men can not counter evil. Men can live within the light and mercy of God and offer an alternative to a life dominated by evil.
Men can become the vessels to carry the love of God in the world. It is the love of God that counters evil. It is the light of God that gives evil no place to live.
V. Should all citizens have the right to publicly profess and observe their religious faith?
The answer to this question is yes and no. All citizens should have the right to publicly profess their religious faith. But, some profess faith in evil and others would commit hurtful acts in the name of their faith. I am pretty much over toleration for those who sacrifice their babies to Bel, or murder innocents in dark alleys for Kali.
Well the democrats have finally shown their colors. Barak Obama wants Joe Biden for his vice president. I will tell you the truth, that confused the very devil out of me. Barak, “I am change”, chosing Mr. Washington insider, who is too liberal for his own party? What is that all about.
I asked my friends on another list, six hundred plus lawyers. The only huge cheer for the choice came from an unabashed progressive (we don’t say liberal any more it is too pejorative). They were excited because Biden is anti-war, pro-regulation, pro-big government, and so green (or is that ludite) that he can’t stand still for fear of being harvested. Their analysis made it clear. Joe Biden represents the glorious past of the Democratic Party, a return to the halcyon days of the first black president Jimmy Carter. Biden became a senator in the Carter era. He has faithfully supported Carteresque programs his entire life. He shares the political view points of Mr. Obama being the one of the top five progressives (we don’t say liberal any more it is too pejorative) in the Senate.
This kind of logic scares me. I will admit that the reason that America forgave Bill Clinton is that they think Hillary is a witch on roller skates, but looking to the Clinton era would have made sense. Hillary is not a numbskull, and their motto was “its the economy, stupid!” There are worse eras to emulate. But Carter, heaven help us. The gas crisis was not high price, it was no gas available at any price. Our foreign policy was so anemic that the Iranians seized our diplomats and held them a year incarcerated. Carter could not even mount a rescue, something Ross Perot did personally. Mortgage rates hit 20%, and it got to the point where it looked a lot like we would have Weimar inflation. The times were bad, but the president was a vanilla oreo with a chocolate center. Perhaps Mr. Obama is nostalgic. That at least is a logical explanation.
However, I fear that the true explanation is that the choice of Biden as Vice-presidential running mate shows that Mr. Obama intends to drag america into a type of nanny state socialism which will bring back the worst of the Carter days. Mr. Obama you have shown your hand and I have only one thing to say to you, “its the economy, stupid!”
Somewhere out in the electrosphere is a church, in Ohio (I think), that has encouraged people to ask me that question. It is a fair question, but not fair to ask me. My position on same sex marriage is tainted by the fact that I am by profession a divorce attorney. I happen to be good at it. That fact makes me a bit odd to begin with.
You need to understand some things. I am an old fundy christian, and I think that marriage is a three party agreement between two individuals and The Deity. Because of my own sexual orientation, I just can not see the attraction of a same sex relationship. In the last fifty nine years, I have never run into a guy I thought was cute or sexy. I do not deny that it could not happen but historically the odds are against it. So, in my mind, marriage is between a man a woman and The Deity.
Historically, the regulation of marriage was a matter of state policy to prevent miscegenation. As a society, we have rejected that belief. The state is then without any continued justification to control marriage within its boundaries other than the need of the state to compete with the church in the realm of morality. I, for one, do not want the state to be the arbiter of morality.
I want the state to get out of the marriage business entirely. I want to see marriage become a matter of contract and religious blessing. This is how it is done in many areas of the world, and I think it is better if the parties have to enter into written agreements regarding the acquisition of property, the welfare of the children, and what effect the duration of the marriage will have on any entitlement to continue to share income before the relationship starts.
Under our present system it is easy to get married and hard to get divorced. It should be hard to get married and easy to get divorced. It would cut out my income but I could get into the marital agreement business and be happy.
So, what does all this mean? It means that I support same sex marriage but only from personal avarice. Same sex marriage gives me more potential clients. Same sex couples tend not to have children, and not having children they tend to acquire more property, which frankly means more money to pay attorneys. Same sex couples are people like everyone else, and there will be a high proportion of silly vindictiveness in their divorces just like opposite sex couples. It is a potential cash cow for lawyers.
But, we must protect marriage you say. I leave that up to the church. I can not imagine belonging to a church that would sanction same sex marriages, but I am old fashioned like that. Equally, who am I to say what your church may or may not do? What I am sure of is that marriage is an agreement involving two individuals and their God. I do not want the state defining what relationship any man, or woman can or can not have with God. In my eyes, it is not the state’s place to interfere with the will of God, or compete with God in blessing marriages.
Posted 8/22/2008 DRB
Well the madman of the savannah is at it again.
I am an attorney. As such I receive an electronic publication from the Missouri Bar called Esquire.
In Friday’s issue ( 8-15-2008 ) they were bragging about the ABA pushing a type of modified Missouri Plan judicial selection system for the Federal Bench. It is a bad Idea!
The Missouri Plan is touted as a sacred cow of judicial reform, and to speak out against it makes one a heretic. I guess my lifetime supply of scarlet “H’s” will be arriving soon. If you do not know, the Missouri Plan applies only to Jackson, Clay, Platte, St. Louis City and St. Louis County courts, The Courts of Appeal and the Supreme Court. Five Counties total, just 40% of the trial bench. Under the plan Judges are chosen by a commission who gives three names to the Governor from which to choose. In all other counties judges run for office like any other politician and the people choose.
The supporters of the plan brag that only two judges operating under the plan have been replaced. It is the worst kind of spin. In counties where judges are elected, about 3% of the judges are replaced each election cycle. This might be due to retirement, style considerations, sociological changes, or just moon phases but that is the norm. Under the plan appointment has proved to be for life.
In my humble opinion it is because judges under the plan do not face the crucible of contested elections. They can only be removed if 51% of the voters have come to detest them enough to vote for their removal. In counties where judges face contested elections they can lose their jobs if 51% of the public finds someone else a better fit for their needs. Additionally, in the plan counties, a judge who has managed to anger 51% of the voters does not result in a replacement acceptable to the voters but rather another person chosen in secret. So, the principal of the devil you know comes into play.
At its heart the Missouri Plan assumes that you are too stupid to choose who you trust to make decisions about your life. It is arrogant, condescending and anti-democratic to an extreme. It was a product of a fascist age and institutionalizes the centralization of power.
It is said that “nothing good comes from a bad beginning”! The Missouri Plan is premised upon a belief in the superiority of lawyers over regular people. I am a lawyer, and I think it is BUNK!
We the madman of the savannah is about to rant again.
I got a piece of literature from an outfit called Change-Congress.org whose fundamental goal is to have elections publicly financed. The claim is that people do not trust their politicians because of all the private money involved so we should force public financing. Sounds good, and it is pure bunk!
I called up their headquarters in San Francisco. I asked a simple question. How do you intend to handle financing for third party candidates? Will all candidates who qualify for the ballot get the same amount, or will the funds be distributes in proportion to the votes in the last election. They had no answer. Truth of the matter is that all the are seeking is to institutionalize the donkelphant party as a permanent political institution.
There is a cheaper solution. Repeal the decision in Arkansas Educational Television v. Forbes and take control from the electronic media over who gets covered. We used to call this equal time, and in truth the old equal time had its problems, but now we allow the media to prejudge which candidates are viable and cover only them. How many remember that Fred Thompson was the media’s white knight he got tons of radio and tv but was a media flash in the pan, while Ron Paul held out to the end.
The media cannot be allowed to anoint candidates.
It was John Lilburne who argued for universal suffrage because no man knew whom the Lord God would use to reveal the truth. It is the same for time in the market place. Each candidate that has qualified for the ballot should get a real chance to speak to the people in the electronic market place of ideas, and each man should have the right to buy more time if he and his friends can afford it.
Public election funding will keep ideas out of the public market place and let snippy bureaucrats determine what you can hear. Yeah brother, that would be real freedom, huh!
Welcome Friend. This post 8/6/08 begins my blogging career. On Monday I learned that Sam Graves (Republican) and Kay Barnes (Democrat) have arranged a series of debates regarding the race for the US Congressional seat for the Sixth District from Missouri. The last I looked, I am also running for congress from the Sixth District of Missouri, but you will not be seeing me at the debates.
I am the Libertarian Candidate, and the chances are that you have never heard of me.
You see, the big city papers and electronic media make it a point to ignore third party candidates, as do the two major political parties. I should be used to this. In 2004, our US Senate Candidate Kevin Tull participated in a debate at Springfield before the Missouri Press Association. He made the front page of the Springfield Leader, but the Kansas City Star did not report that he was even present.
This year is no different. Early in the year, I contacted the KC Star ombudsman about this problem. He kindly gave me the proper contacts for the editorial board. I know how they think about Libertarians and so I promised to leave my tinfoil hat, my black helicopter detector, and my collection of loose wing nuts at home if they would discuss the problem with me. Six months later and they have yet to respond. In 2004 the Star sent me a candidate survey. Like a good little naive politician, I filled it out to go in their voter guide. I even got them a nice photo (suitable to scare rats), but they did not include me in the voter guide although I was candidate for Missouri Attorney General at the time. So this year, I wrote the Star back and asked why I should believe they were going to include me in this years voters guide. To date they have yet to respond.
The real question in all this is what harm does it do for the voters to hear alternative view points? Libertarians are thought to be nut cases. Well, I may be a nut case, after all beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but if I am a nut case it is in the tradition of John Adams. I am a family lawyer representing East Jackson County folks with their problems, and like John Adams, I believe in not going to war unless it is unavoidable, I believe in a stable, solid currency, whose value is not subject to manipulation at political whim, I believe in free trade and minimal government regulation, and I believe in operating the government within the limits of the constitution.
The part I do not get is where my “RADICAL” beliefs disqualify me from a seat in the debates. Now traditionally, newspapers have been free from content control by the government, and I know that.
The Kansas City Star is free to take any position they want no matter how biased. They take advantage of their first amendment rights with a vengeance, but they are supposed to disclose their bias as a part of journalistic ethics. They do not disclose to you that they oppose limited constitutional government, nor do they disclose that they support centralization of power. It really is not that great a secret. It is why they are known as the Kansas City Red Star in many circles.
More troubling is the electronic media. They hide behind the case Arkansas Educational Television v. Forbes that says that they may determine the viability of the candidates and arbitrarily exclude those they think to be not viable. They then set standards in conflict with the laws of Missouri and defy the small candidates to sue them. Under Missouri law a political party is deemed to be established if it gets 2% or more of the vote in a state wide race. There are three established parties, the Republican, the Democrat and the Libertarian Parties. One would think that fundamental fairness would require coverage of the Libertarian position, and Libertarian participation in debates on radio or television. Those debates do not fall into the news exemption of the law, but no my friend, fundamental fairness is not half as important as misleading you as to your choices. So, this is one candidate that is not invited to the debates. Remember when you read or hear the coverage you are only getting the story they want you to hear.
The next time you listen to the song God Bless the USA and you hear the line “at least I know I am free” ask yourself am I really free if I am forced into ignorance by the media?
DAVE BROWNING – Libertarian
Barnes, Graves, & Security State Fascism
My friend Corrine asked me “what would you like to see happen in this election”.
The answer is relatively simple. I would like to see an end to Security State Fascism.
She, and many others I know, repeat its mantras as if they were true. The government is there to help you and it should fight terrorism, or give me health care, or make babies cuter, or make the trains run on time, or feed the poor, or house the wealthy, or provide a social safety net, or lower gas prices, or end global warming, or provide jobs, or make the trains run on time.
We just need to use the engine of government to do good and we will have heaven on earth.
But relying on government is relying on organs of power. And as much as one might want to deny it, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The founders understood that in their bones, and they were afraid of power. There is very little difference between a strong central government and keeping a bad junk yard dog. Depending on the situation both may be necessary, but they can not be allowed to get the upper hand. In my race, both Kay Barnes and Sam Graves think that they can use the power of government to reach their agenda with out being corrupted. They are deluded.
The price of looking to government to solve our problems is to give up our right to control our own lives. The theory of collectivist liberalism is morally and intellectually bankrupt. It is individual freedom and prosperity that improve life. At some point, the collectivists among us need to understand that the Berlin Wall fell, and that there will be no more instructions from Moscow. The communists were right that the state is the enemy of freedom, they were wrong in believing that centralizing power would cause it to fade away.
Putting an end to Security State Fascism is not really all that difficult. The first thing we must do is stop voting for the laundry. Politics is not a team sport and the uniform means a lot less than the person in it. In my race for instance, there is no doubt that both Barnes and Graves both believe in using the power of the government to achieve their own agenda.
There are people who want to see a return to a limited constitutional government in all parties. With Libertarians it is a passion, but there are RLC Republicans running, and in more conservative areas honest to god conservative democrats. You simply can not vote for your parents mistakes and hope that things will get better.
Next, find yourself candidates that understand monetary policy, and can explain in two syllable words why it is important to tie currency to hard assets. (Hint: it keeps the junk yard leashed up where it is safe.)
Then vote for them. Your savings will be safe, your children will breathe free air, and apple pie will taste better.
- main
on August 25, 2008 at 9:10 pm Leave a CommentTags: Analysis, Barnes, Commentary, Graves, Sixth District, State Fascism