Libertarian's issue: personal privacy

Former U.S. Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia, now running for
president on the Libertarian ticket, told a Portland crowd
Sunday that he got into the race to offer an option for
those who want less government intrusion in their lives.

"There is absolutely no reason for them to feel bound
to the artificial constraints of the two-party system,"
Barr said. "Those are their only two choices: big
government and really big government."

Barr, who served four terms in Congress as a Republican,
switched parties after becoming disenchanted with what he
called the high-spending ways and increasingly Big Brother
policies of the Bush administration.

He spoke to about 150 people at an annual conference of The
Atlas Society, a Washington, D.C.-based group that promotes
Ayn Rand's libertarian principles.

Rand, the author of "The Fountainhead" and
"Atlas Shrugged," founded a philosophical movement
called "objectivism," which focuses on individual
rights and achievements as the cornerstone of a great
society. Barr said he agrees entirely with that outlook.

He would put far more emphasis on personal privacy if he
were to win the presidency, Barr said. He has become more
and more concerned about the erosion of individual rights
and growing power of the government to intrude.

"Privacy is the essence of civilization," Barr
said.

He recalled his alarm while sitting on the House Judiciary
Committee in the late 1990s and hearing about the rapid
growth of government programs aimed at tapping into personal
data.

Among the developments he cited were police agencies
establishing DNA databases, electronic ID chips being placed
in U.S. passports, helicopter surveillance in some big
cities, surveillance cameras including two-way sound
monitoring and communication systems in automobiles enabling
eavesdropping.

Most recently, he noted a program that allows federal agents
to monitor phone calls, e-mail and other communications if
one party is outside the country.

"It became apparent to many of us that something was
dreadfully wrong," Barr said. "There seemed to be
little if any accountability."

Barr has become an intriguing factor in the presidential
race between Democrat Barack Obama of Illinois and
Republican John McCain of Arizona. Barr, the author of the
federal Defense of Marriage Act, and a leader in the
impeachment effort against former President Clinton, has
conservative credentials that many Republicans say McCain
lacks.

Some political analysts say he could have the same effect on
McCain's candidacy that Ralph Nader had on Democrats
when he ran as a third-party candidate.

On a Fox TV news show Sunday, Barr was asked that question
directly. He responded emphatically that he does not
consider himself a "spoiler."

"If Sen. Obama wins on Nov. 4 and Sen. McCain and I
lose, it will be because he presented a vision and a
platform and a candidacy to the American people that
resonated with a plurality of the voters."

Harry Esteve: 503-221-8226; harryesteve@news.oregonian.com
www.oregonlive.com/politics

I admit that reason is a small and feeble flame, a flickering torch by stumblers carried in the starless night, -- blown and flared by passion's storm, -- and yet, it is the only light. Extinguish that, and nought remains.- - Robert Green Ingersoll

OCR software

Dominic Lawson: Meet the new Obama, master of the U-turn

Some of those most captivated by the Democrat candidate are now feeling distinctly queasy

Tuesday, 1 July 2008

"I find comfort in the fact that the longer I'm in politics the less nourishing popularity becomes, that a striving for rank and fame seems to betray a poverty of ambition, and that I am answerable mainly to the steady gaze of my own conscience."

Thus spake Barack Obama. These words appear at the conclusion of the chapter entitled "Politics" in Obama's 2006 book The Audacity of Hope. They also sum up much of what we now know about Obama: a man of stunning articulacy, but also stunning self-regard.

Both characteristics have been indispensable in powering the first-term Illinois senator to the very brink of the presidency. Now, however, some of those who were most captivated by Obama's perorations about his unflinching conscience are feeling distinctly queasy: in the brief weeks since forcing Hillary Clinton to concede, he has made them wonder what, actually, distinguishes his politics from those of the Clintons at their most ruthlessly pragmatic.

Within days of the end of the primary campaign, Obama pledged to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee that he would ensure that Jerusalem would remain "the undivided capital of Israel". Even George Bush had never made such a commitment, so Obama's remarks were criticised not just by the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, but by the State Department itself, as prejudging complex negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. Obama, however, had achieved his domestic objective – he could no longer be labelled by the Republicans as "anti-Israel".

Then, on 19 June, Obama declared that he would opt out of the regulated public campaign financing system, becoming the first presidential candidate since Richard Nixon to choose to raise unlimited private funds, instead. The reason is obvious: he is now raising vastly more than the Republican John McCain, who is committed to taking public funds. The trouble is that Obama had pledged, in writing, that he would remain within the public system, if his opponent did so.

As I say, it's an understandable volte-face: but equally understandable is the reaction of McCain's spokesman: "What's becoming clear in this campaign is that for Senator Obama the most important issue in the election is the political fortunes of Senator Obama. He has demonstrated that there really is no position he holds that isn't subject to change depending on how he calculates it will affect his political fortunes."

Well, he would say that, wouldn't he? Except that now some Democrats are saying the same thing, after Obama reneged on another promise, over a matter of genuine constitutional substance. During the long-drawn-out Democrat primary campaign, Obama had constantly reiterated his opposition to President Bush's plans to give retroactive immunity from prosecution to telecommunications companies who assist the government with warrantless wiretaps. This measure was passionately opposed by many Democrats as a clear infringement of the fourth amendment to the Constitution. Last week, Obama reversed his long-held position. Again, the political motivation is clear enough.

One of the few areas in which McCain has a significant poll lead over Obama is that described as "the war against terror". Doubtless, had Obama not performed this sinuous U-turn, then the Republicans would have used his opposition to Bush's legislation as a way of driving home the point. The unresolved issue, however, is this: did Barack Obama really believe the measure was unconstitutional when he opposed it? And if so, is everything negotiable?

Most recently of all, Obama, who up until now had openly backed the strict handgun ban in Washington DC, last week declared his support for a 5 to 4 Supreme Court ruling which overturned the restrictions. Even though his own hometown mayor, Chicago's Richard Daley, and the Los Angeles police chief William Bratton, both criticised the ruling, Obama flip-flopped once more, saying that the judgment "reinforces that if we act responsibly we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe."

Once again, Obama's 180-degree turn is eminently understandable, from an electoral point of view. There are more than 280 million privately owned firearms in the United States and almost half of American households own at least one such weapon. That was why John Kerry, during the last US presidential election, invited the cameras to film him (looking slightly ridiculous) shooting ducks. For Barack Obama, this had become a particular point of weakness, after his unfortunate taped remarks to a dinner of sophisticated San Francisco Democrats about "bitter" Americans who "cling to guns or religion ... as a way to explain their frustrations."

On the other hand, last week Barack Obama also took issue with a different judgment by the Supreme Court, which had struck down the State of Louisiana's law authorising the death penalty for the rape of a child. Obama, who as Illinois senator had opposed the death penalty for gang murders, now explained that he believes Louisiana's death penalty for a crime short of murder "is at least potentially applicable and does not violate our constitution".

It is fascinating, in the light of this particular manoeuvre, to turn again to The Audacity of Hope, and in particular the passage in which Obama describes as "frighteningly cold-hearted" Bill Clinton's decision to "allow the execution of a mentally retarded death row inmate to go forward on the eve of an important primary."

Those in the Democrat party who supported Hillary Clinton's campaign seem to be taking a certain bleak pleasure in Obama's recent triangulations – or rather headlong plunge into Republican territory. One such is the New York Times columnist Paul Krugman who put the knife in most elegantly: "Progressive activists during the Democratic primary... convinced themselves that Obama was a transformational figure behind a centrist facade. They may have had it backward."

Those who actually supported Obama during this process now divide neatly, if unevenly, into two groups. The first, smaller, group is full of buyer's remorse. The blogosphere is hissing like a catherine wheel with their anger with Obama, obviously, but above all with themselves. The second, much bigger group, continues to buy Obama's story. They argue that everything and anything is justified if it helps to get a Democrat back in the White House; some of them add that "of course" Obama doesn't believe any of the things he is now saying to woo the "redneck states" and that once in the White House he will revert to his "true beliefs".

To this group we must address a simple question. How do you know what Obama really believes in, other than his own destiny – and, of course, his conscience?

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/dominic-lawson/dominic...

The low-budget and under-appreciated Luke Wilson film "Idiocracy" is the story of an average guy who is frozen in a military experiment and wakes up hundreds of years later. Due to lowest common denominator culture and breeding, when the soldier wakes up, the world has been transformed into a nightmare of idiots, and the President of the United States is a monosyllabic professional wrestler type.

Callum, you hit it on the head. Obama stands for Socialism, but his followers like the slogans and have no idea of the harm he will do to America.

I will say it again: in this country, culturally, black is cool (no matter what the black person is doing), white is evil (no matter what the white person stands for), and we are in for quite a ride in the USA. If the media are to be believed, McCain, the expereinced patriot, does not stand a chance. 50% of white voters will vote Obama to demonstrate how not-racist they are, and 98% of black voters will vote for Obama because African Americans organize themselves against everyone else based on their skin color, rather than the content of their character or their beliefs.

It will be interesting to see what happens to the "the government is against us, screwing us" hate speech by Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakan, and AL Sharpton, when Hussein Obama is running the show.

The world has gone mad.

Scott DeSalvo

www.desalvolaw.com
FREE Injury Case and Claim Report and CD

Obama has literally won the Democratic nomination by saying no more than "change", "now is the time!" etc. And the fact that he may actually win the US election shows the shallowness of a huge great number of voters.

Also, I think I'd be grateful for the EFA if American political ads were to be the norm down here. It's simply a mission of getting some 5 year old to whinge and complain about some issue he couldn't start to grasp, and voila -you've won the election.

"Socialism may be dead, but its corpse is still rotting up the place." -Ayn Rand

Hapless at popular hyperboles,

They follow what a demagogue foresees.

http://theeleutherian.blogspot.com

I think this ... http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/06/04/mccain-calls-on-obama-to-join-in-series-of-town-hall-meetings/ is quite a good idea.

McCain wants to debate Obama in a series of unmoderated debates with questions from the audience.

He also wants them to travel together, as Barry Goldwater and President Kennedy were intending to do (until Oswald decided it wasn't such a good idea and put a stop to it)...hopefully this will show Obama up as having no ideas at all when 'unscripted', and enable some questions of anti-Americanism and communism to be asked so McCain can get stuck into him!

Elitism, forever!

for the dirt to start flying. By all accounts there is a lot of dung out there and methinks someone's face is going to get a lot darker.

"Have you seen the man speak???"

I know that you MTV generation youngsters can only "see" that his lips are moving, but we more intelligent ones actually "hear" the evil bile Obama is spouting.

Have you seen the man speak??? If there's one thing american politics has taught us it's that early figures mean nothing. Obama will be the Reagan of the Democrats.

The reason I say it will be a McCain landslide are some of the numbers at this stage of the game.

Extremist left wing socialist states, such as Connecticut show a statistical tie, Taxachusetts has Obama's lead barely in double figures, Pennsylvania is a tie, McCain leading in Michigan and Ohio, McCain only slightly behind in New Jersey, Washington state has Obama at only 51%

The point being, Obama vs McCain has been hyped to death for weeks yet Obama is 'soft' in strong Democrat areas; and making absolutely no impact in the South; little impact in key states like Wisconsin and Missouri...and you would be very concerned if you were Obama, but crowing if you were McCain....and all this before Obama gets clobbered with his Anti-Americanism and Communist past.

Also, as we know, Obama is a polarising figure whereas McCain is not.

John McCain is a chap many people disagree with but he is difficult to dislike, quite a nice chap, and appeals to 'independent' voters. Also, the group of people least likely to support Obama, and most likely to support McCain are independent voters...another worry for Obama.

Elitism, forever!

... to be the party-pooper here, but you McCain landsliders just haven't grasped how dumbed down the voters have become, thanks in large part to the education system and the MTV headbanging caterwauling culture. Osama Obama's empty rhetoric is perfect for contemporary moronic youth. America is just teeming with fuckwits, and they all have the vote. Don't say you weren't warned!!

Reading the comments in the Times from democrats in response to Hillary's defeat, I just realised that the majority is not going to vote for a left-wing "higher taxes" candidate during an economic recession.

In fact, if the present economic conditions worsen, it will be almost impossible for McCain to lose - reagardless how many errors, blunders or scandals he makes on the campaign trail.

Landslide McCain. Not just wishful thinking either.

... is my pick. There's an epidemic of stupidity among Americans, especially the first-time voters for whom Obama is "cool"—the only word these imbeciles know. And of course, Obama by a landslide = Osama by a landslide. Galt help the world.

Obama by a landslide ...ha ha...most amusing...you should read my thread about how history appears to be repeating Democrat candidate-wise (and Republican candidate-wise, come to think of it) ..for an indication of how well he will do in November. 

Elitism, forever!