Latest Headlines

Indiana’s 5th District Republican Primary – Brose McVey Should Scare You

The Republican Primary is coming up and there are some interesting candidates in the field who desire to unseat long-serving 5th District Congressman Dan Burton. Certainly, many would say he has served far too long, has a tarnished image and maybe isn’t the kind of leader they would like to see.
Those people may have some points; but, at the end of the day Burton’s voting record is far better than most other members of Congress and he often gets credited with having a pretty decent staff. Perhaps there is room for improvement; but, for those who are looking for another option, there MAY be a good choice in that race but Brose McVey does not appear to be it.
Here are the main things that have led me to have concerns about McVey’s candidacy:
Strike I:
I had the opportunity to meet Brose McVey at a Washington Township GOP Club Meeting and asked him about his stance on restructuring the tax code from one based on income to one based more on consumption like The FairTax would do I was told that he (Brose) was concerned that the government might not have enough power to tax in that circumstance so he would support keeping some kind of income taxes while ALSO empowering the Federal Government to levy sales taxes. Seriously? Grant the government an additional power of taxation?
The presumption here is that there would be some way to prevent the combination of these from being just as, or more, oppressive as the current system. Think about that, granting the government a power to tax your purchases without ensuring that its power to tax your income was taken away. Brose feels his idea is better than the one some Ivy League economists and $20 million in research developed leading to the sales to tax reform advocates of millions of books? I believe a sarcastic Dr. Evil, “Riiiiigggghhhhttt…..” is appropriate here.
When pressed, his concern is for the government’s ability to forcibly extract revenue regardless of economic conditions with no consideration for ensuring that people have a right to their property and the fruits of their labors. So in essence, although he might not see it this way, he believes government has a “first claim” on what you trade your life for (wages after all are exchanging the best hours of the best years of your life in exchange for money). We need politicians who are on the side of the people not government.
Strike II:
A friend of mine is at a Carmel, Indiana business gathering and Brose McVey is there shaking hands and campaigning. My friend, who is in the real estate business, is engaged in a serious conversation when McVey interjects himself into their space and discussion to introduce himself while shoving his campaign card at my friend. I’m told the card was immediately handed back with the admonition of, “Hey, I’m having a conversation here buddy!”
My friend was incensed and felt that it was rude and arrogant to not wait until an appropriate stopping point in his conversation to have a business card and handshake shoved at him.
Strike III:
Apparently, Brose supports the idea of a Constitutional Convention. He actually wants each state to pluck political appointees out of their partisan ranks and send them somewhere to open up, alter and re-write our Constitution? (we have a process for this – it’s called “amendments” and at least a few of them like the 16th, 17th, 18th and 23rd were really bad ideas)
He posted this on a social networking site for professionals:”It’s time for a Constitutional Convention, called by THE STATES. Balanced Budget Amendment, Term Limits, reaffirmation of limits on federal” [the message ended there but presume he meant “power”?]
Now, as a member of and participant in numerous political discussion and e-mail groups I can tell you that a lot of people in the conservative and libertarian political community are terrified by that idea. No one believes that very many wise men of great pro-liberty conviction like Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, George Mason or James Madison would be sent to alter our founding documents in appropriate ways. Anyone appropriately plugged in to the pro-liberty movement in any number of libertarian or conservative forums would have already been privy to and able to engage in the arguments for and against this over the past year or two.
A Constitutional Convention does not mean that just people you agree with would be showing up to participate! In Indiana, with the Democrats in charge of the State House what kind of representative do you think would get selected to represent us at such a Convention? In fact, many believe we’d end up with the same kind of circus we currently see in Congress and it would result in something granting the federal government near unlimited power to do whatever it wants. Sure, there are a few things that could be changed in the document (see below*) but for the most part, the document itself is fine – it is the courts, bureaucrats and the politicians that are the problem.
I responded to Mr. McVey that opening up the Constitution to the current crop of big government Democrats and Republicans that stock our halls of government might not be the best idea. He responded with:
“The risk of opening this sacred document to the people is now much less that allowing the tireless march of Washington politicians to continue unchecked. I regret that we may disagree on this critical point, but you can bet that my position will remain firm.
Instead of engaging in a discussion, instead of asking questions about why or what the concerns are, how he perceives it would really be okay and that our rights would be safe, I got a rather arrogant, “…my position will remain firm.” Really? No new facts, no input from others, no discussion on the subject could possibly alter your position? We may give politicians grief when they do a John Kerry “flip flop” but I don’t know many people who believe the exact same things at 40 that they did at 20. Being open to new ideas, information, wisdom and debate is what shapes and hones our understandings.
The whole idea that a Constitutional Convention would end up with government more securely restrained than it was supposed to be in the original document is unbelievably naive. It’s kind of like folks who are increasingly calling for their state to secede from the Union. I understand where they are coming from; but, to assume that your state legislators and governor would suddenly put together some kind of libertarian government is also a little naive. Doesn’t mean it might not be a whole heck of a lot better than being under the thumb of the Feds (how could it not be better?) but don’t be deluded into thinking you’d get something you’re really probably not gonna.
So, on the whole, in Mr. McVey I see no firm grounding in any kind of ideology that concerns itself with protecting the natural rights of individuals or restoring the rule of law under our current Constitution. Even if his intentions are good, the lack of consideration for the impact, potential harm caused by or likely future abuse of some of the things he would seem to support is frightening. We’ve got enough know-it-all bozos in Washington with bad, short-sighted, misinformed or under-informed opinions – we don’t need more.
Oh, and on this you can bet that my position will remain firm. 😉

*A few things in the Constitution that might be worth altering (by no means an exhaustive list):
The commerce clause could be more specifically defined to meaning only what was originally intended, “making regular the free trade between the states”. (research: 1942 Wickard vs. Filburn Supreme Court case)
We should just nuke the welfare clause out completely to avoid it being construed as an excuse to steal from one group of people on behalf of another. (significant usurpation especially the 1937 Steward Machine Company vs. Davis court decision)
The power to raise armies should be strictly limited to ensure only voluntary induction to the military (as anything else is involuntary servitude and presumes that you are the property of the government to dispose with as they see fit).
A requirement to use zero-based budgeting might not be a bad idea.
Penalties for government agents (elected or otherwise) who pass laws, regulations or act in ways that violate the natural rights of people should be in place – otherwise the document itself has no power over those who would ignore it. The document needs claws. Congress will pass unconstitutional laws and then let the courts sort it out. But, the courts are partisan so what’s the point?
Absolutely we would scratch the phrase, “A well regulated militia,” from the 2nd Amendment since the anti-self defense folks like to try and use that to disarm people.
Congress should be equally subject to all laws, regulations, restrictions and programs that get passed and never allowed to exclude themselves. (this has been previously proposed over the years as one possible 28th Amendment)
So, sure, there are some things that could be adjusted but the document really is not the problem. Politicians, judges and an apathetic population are really the problem when they have no respect for the natural rights of people and will interpret any document to mean whatever they want it to mean to serve their own agendas. Does anyone think if we have Constitutional Convention any of the above listed things are likely to make it through? Doubtful at best.
[note: article originally suggested Brose was an attorney, he is in act identified as a “businessman” on his web site and has an degree from Purdue’s School of Agriculture]

Indiana’s 5th District Republican Primary – Brose McVey Should Scare You

The Republican Primary is coming up and there are some interesting candidates in the field who desire to unseat long-serving 5th District Congressman Dan Burton. Certainly, many would say he has served far too long, has a tarnished image and maybe isn’t the kind of leader they would like to see. Those people may have some points; but, at the end of the day Burton’s voting record is far better than most other members of Congress and he often gets credited with having a pretty decent staff. Perhaps there is room for improvement; but, for those who are looking for another option, there MAY be a good choice in that race but Brose McVey does not appear to be it.Here are the main things that have led me to have concerns about McVey’s candidacy:Strike I:I had the opportunity to meet Brose McVey at a Washington Township GOP Club Meeting and asked him about his stance on restructuring the tax code from one based on income to one based more on consumption like The FairTax would do I was told that he (Brose) was concerned that the government might not have enough power to tax in that circumstance so he would support keeping some kind of income taxes while ALSO empowering the Federal Government to levy sales taxes. Seriously? Grant the government an additional power of taxation?The presumption here is that there would be some way to prevent the combination of these from being just as, or more, oppressive as the current system. Think about that, granting the government a power to tax your purchases without ensuring that its power to tax your income was taken away. Brose feels his idea is better than the one some Ivy League economists and $20 million in research developed leading to the sales to tax reform advocates of millions of books? I believe a sarcastic Dr. Evil, “Riiiiigggghhhhttt…..” is appropriate here.When pressed, his concern is for the government’s ability to forcibly extract revenue regardless of economic conditions with no consideration for ensuring that people have a right to their property and the fruits of their labors. So in essence, although he might not see it this way, he believes government has a “first claim” on what you trade your life for (wages after all are exchanging the best hours of the best years of your life in exchange for money). We need politicians who are on the side of the people not government.Strike II:A friend of mine is at a Carmel, Indiana business gathering and Brose McVey is there shaking hands and campaigning. My friend, who is in the real estate business, is engaged in a serious conversation when McVey interjects himself into their space and discussion to introduce himself while shoving his campaign card at my friend. I’m told the card was immediately handed back with the admonition of, “Hey, I’m having a conversation here buddy!” My friend was incensed and felt that it was rude and arrogant to not wait until an appropriate stopping point in his conversation to have a business card and handshake shoved at him. Strike III:Apparently, Brose supports the idea of a Constitutional Convention. He actually wants each state to pluck political appointees out of their partisan ranks and send them somewhere to open up, alter and re-write our Constitution? (we have a process for this – it’s called “amendments” and at least a few of them like the 16th, 17th, 18th and 23rd were really bad ideas)He posted this on a social networking site for professionals:”It’s time for a Constitutional Convention, called by THE STATES. Balanced Budget Amendment, Term Limits, reaffirmation of limits on federal” [the message ended there but presume he meant “power”?]Now, as a member of and participant in numerous political discussion and e-mail groups I can tell you that a lot of people in the conservative and libertarian political community are terrified by that idea. No one believes that very many wise men of great pro-liberty conviction like Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, George Mason or James Madison would be sent to alter our founding documents in appropriate ways. Anyone appropriately plugged in to the pro-liberty movement in any number of libertarian or conservative forums would have already been privy to and able to engage in the arguments for and against this over the past year or two.A Constitutional Convention does not mean that just people you agree with would be showing up to participate! In Indiana, with the Democrats in charge of the State House what kind of representative do you think would get selected to represent us at such a Convention? In fact, many believe we’d end up with the same kind of circus we currently see in Congress and it would result in something granting the federal government near unlimited power to do whatever it wants. Sure, there are a few things that could be changed in the document (see below*) but for the most part, the document itself is fine – it is the courts, bureaucrats and the politicians that are the problem. I responded to Mr. McVey that opening up the Constitution to the current crop of big government Democrats and Republicans that stock our halls of government might not be the best idea. He responded with:”The risk of opening this sacred document to the people is now much less that allowing the tireless march of Washington politicians to continue unchecked. I regret that we may disagree on this critical point, but you can bet that my position will remain firm.“Instead of engaging in a discussion, instead of asking questions about why or what the concerns are, how he perceives it would really be okay and that our rights would be safe, I got a rather arrogant, “…my position will remain firm.” Really? No new facts, no input from others, no discussion on the subject could possibly alter your position? We may give politicians grief when they do a John Kerry “flip flop” but I don’t know many people who believe the exact same things at 40 that they did at 20. Being open to new ideas, information, wisdom and debate is what shapes and hones our understandings. The whole idea that a Constitutional Convention would end up with government more securely restrained than it was supposed to be in the original document is unbelievably naive. It’s kind of like folks who are increasingly calling for their state to secede from the Union. I understand where they are coming from; but, to assume that your state legislators and governor would suddenly put together some kind of libertarian government is also a little naive. Doesn’t mean it might not be a whole heck of a lot better than being under the thumb of the Feds (how could it not be better?) but don’t be deluded into thinking you’d get something you’re really probably not gonna. So, on the whole, in Mr. McVey I see no firm grounding in any kind of ideology that concerns itself with protecting the natural rights of individuals or restoring the rule of law under our current Constitution. Even if his intentions are good, the lack of consideration for the impact, potential harm caused by or likely future abuse of some of the things he would seem to support is frightening. We’ve got enough know-it-all bozos in Washington with bad, short-sighted, misinformed or under-informed opinions – we don’t need more. Oh, and on this you can bet that my position will remain firm. ;-)—*A few things in the Constitution that might be worth altering (by no means an exhaustive list):The commerce clause could be more specifically defined to meaning only what was originally intended, “making regular the free trade between the states”. (research: 1942 Wickard vs. Filburn Supreme Court case)We should just nuke the welfare clause out completely to avoid it being construed as an excuse to steal from one group of people on behalf of another. (significant usurpation especially the 1937 Steward Machine Company vs. Davis court decision)The power to raise armies should be strictly limited to ensure only voluntary induction to the military (as anything else is involuntary servitude and presumes that you are the property of the government to dispose with as they see fit). A requirement to use zero-based budgeting might not be a bad idea.Penalties for government agents (elected or otherwise) who pass laws, regulations or act in ways that violate the natural rights of people should be in place – otherwise the document itself has no power over those who would ignore it. The document needs claws. Congress will pass unconstitutional laws and then let the courts sort it out. But, the courts are partisan so what’s the point?Absolutely we would scratch the phrase, “A well regulated militia,” from the 2nd Amendment since the anti-self defense folks like to try and use that to disarm people.Congress should be equally subject to all laws, regulations, restrictions and programs that get passed and never allowed to exclude themselves. (this has been previously proposed over the years as one possible 28th Amendment)So, sure, there are some things that could be adjusted but the document really is not the problem. Politicians, judges and an apathetic population are really the problem when they have no respect for the natural rights of people and will interpret any document to mean whatever they want it to mean to serve their own agendas. Does anyone think if we have Constitutional Convention any of the above listed things are likely to make it through? Doubtful at best.[note: article originally suggested Brose was an attorney, he is in act identified as a “businessman” on his web site and has an degree from Purdue’s School of Agriculture]

Check This Out

Well, it’s been another long hiatus. But, check it out: new site design! Hope you like it.

As for content – I don’t have anything of my own to post, but I’d like to invite you to read this post over at Oftwominds. I’m a fan of this blog as the author, Charles Hughes Smith, posts on a variety of subjects from economics/finance, self-help/survival, social evolution, food/health, etc. This particular post provides a detailed look at the economy and the way forward. He’s a short-/mid-term dollar bull while bearish on the overall economy. It’s chock-full of links to some of his own articles as well as a few other blogs.

Check This Out

Well, it’s been another long hiatus. But, check it out: new site design! Hope you like it.

As for content – I don’t have anything of my own to post, but I’d like to invite you to read this post over at Oftwominds. I’m a fan of this blog as the author, Charles Hughes Smith, posts on a variety of subjects from economics/finance, self-help/survival, social evolution, food/health, etc. This particular post provides a detailed look at the economy and the way forward. He’s a short-/mid-term dollar bull while bearish on the overall economy. It’s chock-full of links to some of his own articles as well as a few other blogs.

Libertarians: who are we?

The following question was recently asked by Mark W. Rutherford, Candidate for Libertarian Party National Vice-Chairman…

“Are we a Supper Club or a Political Party?”

I want the LP to be a Political Party; as do others, like Mark and Rebecca, and Root.

There are those, however, who seem satisfied to remain a national Supper Club.
 
So I put the question to you: What do you want?

Minimal improvement in 2010 for Hoosiers Beverage Choices

An update from our friends at Hoosiers for Beverage Choices…

http://www.beveragechoices.com/

As you may be aware, the 2010 Session of the Indiana General Assembly drew to a close last Friday. Unfortunately, the legislature ignored the voices of the more than 50,000 Hoosiers who support the modernization of Indiana’s alcoholic beverage laws to allow for Sunday carryout alcohol sales and cold beer sales at Indiana’s drug, grocery and convenience stores. Your legislators failed to pass these common-sense changes into law.

That’s not to say that lawmakers did not take up some alcoholic beverage issues this year. The legislature did pass Senate Bill 75, which allows for Sunday carryout sales at microbreweries and also extends the hours that bars and restaurants can be open on Sundays to 3:00 am Monday morning (current law cuts off sales at 12:30 am).

The inconsistencies and unfairness in Indiana’s alcohol laws get worse every year!

Hoosiers can purchase alcohol on Sundays at bars, restaurants and microbreweries, but they still can’t shop at their local drug, grocery or convenience store. Even though opponents of this common-sense change express concern over drunk driving, a concern we all share, they convinced your legislators to extend the time that bars and restaurants can serve on Sundays from 12:30 am to 3:00 am Monday morning.

The powerful package liquor store lobby was able to protect the monopoly on cold beer sales in Indiana given to them by your legislators for another year. Hoosiers will continue to pay a “cold beer tax” because of the artificial monopoly enjoyed by package liquor store owners at a time when drug, grocery and convenience store owners are doing every they can to help struggling Hoosier families deal with a very challenging economy.

Even though we are disappointed with the outcome of this legislative session, we know that these changes take time, and we are optimistic about our prospects for success during the 2011 legislative session. First, it will be a “long” legislative session, allowing for more issues to be addressed by the General Assembly. In addition, lawmakers must also pass the state’s budget next year, and as state revenues continue to fall, we believe that the additional $10 million or more generated from Sunday sales will be recognized as part of a common sense solution to budget shortfalls.

With your continued support, we will continue our efforts to modernize and bring fairness to Indiana’s alcoholic beverage laws will continue this summer. We will keep you posted of our efforts and let you know how you can continue to support this campaign.

As always, thanks for your efforts on behalf of Hoosiers for Beverage Choices.

Sincerely,

Matt
Hoosiers for Beverage Choices
www.beveragechoices.com

Indiana’s HB 1065, the Gun in Your Glove Box and Property Rights

Every once in a while an issue comes up that pits some rights against others. HB 1065, which is legislation the Indiana State House passed and is now awaiting Governor Mitch Daniels’ signature is one of those pieces of legislation.
The bill essentially makes it illegal for a business/employer to have a policy against employees bringing firearms, locked in a glove box or otherwise stowed away, onto their property.
Now, at first blush libertarians like myself might hail this legislation as a massive blow in favor of people’s right to self defense. But, is this not also a massive blow against private property rights? Let’s examine further and without getting tied up in the emotions of the gun issue. We’ll also presume that we’re addressing things from a natural rights perspective within the confines of Constitutional government (not what passes for the authoritarian government systems we have today).
Let’s lay the ground rules first.
1. You have a right to your life, liberty and property.2. Nobody may deprive you of these rights without your permission.3. You have the right of voluntary association (you may not be forced to associate with people you do not desire to). Voluntary association and activity is always superior to that which is forced.4. Government is the negation of liberty and exercises all authority by threat of force or violence.5. Being on someone’s property without their permission is trespassing.6. The Constitution sets restrictions on what government may do.7. Any private property owner could set a policy that nobody is allowed to park on their property. Or that only American made cars are allowed or only blue cars or whatever else.
Let’s analyze the impact of HB 1065
Currently, an employer may set a policy that says that nobody is allowed to bring a firearm onto their private property, even if it is locked in the glove box of a car. Now, personally, I find this terribly offensive to anyone who has gone through the process and is licensed to carry a firearm or even more offensive to anyone that might be former military. BUT, if the private property owner sets this policy then:
1. It is not the government forcing one side or another to accept anything.
2. Voluntary associations are maintained (you may park elsewhere; petition the property owner for relief; do it anyway and keep your mouth [and glove box] shut; choose to no longer provide labor or professional services to a company, business or property owner that does not share your values)
3. The property owner’s sovereign control of their property so long as nobody’s rights are involuntarily violated is preserved (you volunteer to the restriction by continuing to park on their property or work there)
4. There is no Constitutional violation because government did not create this restriction, a private property owner did. Just like a private business owner might choose to fire somebody for saying something stupid, offensive or threatening – there is no “free speech” protection in the private sector.
If the government sets a law that requires property owners to allow this then:
1. Association is no longer voluntary. The private property owner must now accept your trespass against their wishes.
2. It reinforces the idea that the government, not property owners, is the final arbiter of what is permissible on your premises. (smoking ban advocates try and pretend that patrons are involuntarily deprived of their right to life by the cigar or cigarette smoke in bars, completely ignoring that people voluntarily walk in and expose themselves or voluntarily work there [SAME LOGIC APPLIES HERE – You believe in private property rights and voluntary association or you do not])
3. An employer might just add a line to their job applications – “Are you licensed to carry a firearm” and start denying employment based on the answer. If gun permit information is available as part of a background check that might also cause an employer pause if they are adamant in ensuring no firearms are on their property [note: payment for a permit to exercise a right is a ridiculous notion but, at least the General Assembly is working to protect that information by making it private via HB 1068]
4. Instead of somebody risking losing a job if discovered, the business owner is now a criminal if they attempt to retain control over their property.

So, while people may momentarily think they’ve won some kind a “take that you bozo employer I’ll bring my gun if’n I wanna” victory, just remember that property owners just got a big, “government is the final arbiter of what you must allow and you’ll shut up and take it” from big government sticking its nose where it doesn’t belong.
As for me personally, I strongly support the right of people to be prepared to defend themselves but I abhor the idea that government has to tell me what must be allowed on my property. Remember, the 2nd Amendment applies to government restrictions not to private property owners.

Indiana’s HB 1065, the Gun in Your Glove Box and Property Rights

Every once in a while an issue comes up that pits some rights against others. HB 1065, which is legislation the Indiana State House passed and is now awaiting Governor Mitch Daniels’ signature is one of those pieces of legislation. The bill essentially makes it illegal for a business/employer to have a policy against employees bringing firearms, locked in a glove box or otherwise stowed away, onto their property. Now, at first blush libertarians like myself might hail this legislation as a massive blow in favor of people’s right to self defense. But, is this not also a massive blow against private property rights? Let’s examine further and without getting tied up in the emotions of the gun issue. We’ll also presume that we’re addressing things from a natural rights perspective within the confines of Constitutional government (not what passes for the authoritarian government systems we have today).Let’s lay the ground rules first.1. You have a right to your life, liberty and property.2. Nobody may deprive you of these rights without your permission.3. You have the right of voluntary association (you may not be forced to associate with people you do not desire to). Voluntary association and activity is always superior to that which is forced.4. Government is the negation of liberty and exercises all authority by threat of force or violence.5. Being on someone’s property without their permission is trespassing.6. The Constitution sets restrictions on what government may do.7. Any private property owner could set a policy that nobody is allowed to park on their property. Or that only American made cars are allowed or only blue cars or whatever else.Let’s analyze the impact of HB 1065Currently, an employer may set a policy that says that nobody is allowed to bring a firearm onto their private property, even if it is locked in the glove box of a car. Now, personally, I find this terribly offensive to anyone who has gone through the process and is licensed to carry a firearm or even more offensive to anyone that might be former military. BUT, if the private property owner sets this policy then:1. It is not the government forcing one side or another to accept anything.2. Voluntary associations are maintained (you may park elsewhere; petition the property owner for relief; do it anyway and keep your mouth [and glove box] shut; choose to no longer provide labor or professional services to a company, business or property owner that does not share your values)3. The property owner’s sovereign control of their property so long as nobody’s rights are involuntarily violated is preserved (you volunteer to the restriction by continuing to park on their property or work there)4. There is no Constitutional violation because government did not create this restriction, a private property owner did. Just like a private business owner might choose to fire somebody for saying something stupid, offensive or threatening – there is no “free speech” protection in the private sector.If the government sets a law that requires property owners to allow this then:1. Association is no longer voluntary. The private property owner must now accept your trespass against their wishes. 2. It reinforces the idea that the government, not property owners, is the final arbiter of what is permissible on your premises. (smoking ban advocates try and pretend that patrons are involuntarily deprived of their right to life by the cigar or cigarette smoke in bars, completely ignoring that people voluntarily walk in and expose themselves or voluntarily work there [SAME LOGIC APPLIES HERE – You believe in private property rights and voluntary association or you do not])3. An employer might just add a line to their job applications – “Are you licensed to carry a firearm” and start denying employment based on the answer. If gun permit information is available as part of a background check that might also cause an employer pause if they are adamant in ensuring no firearms are on their property [note: payment for a permit to exercise a right is a ridiculous notion but, at least the General Assembly is working to protect that information by making it private via HB 1068]4. Instead of somebody risking losing a job if discovered, the business owner is now a criminal if they attempt to retain control over their property.So, while people may momentarily think they’ve won some kind a “take that you bozo employer I’ll bring my gun if’n I wanna” victory, just remember that property owners just got a big, “government is the final arbiter of what you must allow and you’ll shut up and take it” from big government sticking its nose where it doesn’t belong.As for me personally, I strongly support the right of people to be prepared to defend themselves but I abhor the idea that government has to tell me what must be allowed on my property. Remember, the 2nd Amendment applies to government restrictions not to private property owners.

The purpose of this Blog

It is my intent to use this blog to analyze my thoughts as a Libertarian in the State of Indiana. I will compose thoughts on my issues regarding the State of Indiana as well as issues regarding the United States of America. I will eventually attempt to offer a Podcast that complement my thoughts on these issues.

I look forward to you reading my writings, and hope you will contribute to my writings as well.

LPMC County Convention

The Annual County Convention for the Libertarian Party of Marion County (LPMC) has been set for Saturday, April 10 at 1:00pm!

LPMC County Convention: 1:00 pm at the historic Athenaeum Building (home of the Rathskeller), 401 E. Michigan St., Indianapolis, IN.

Please RSVP so we can have a head count: http://freehoosiers.ning.com/events/lpmc-county-convention

LPMC County Conventions are held once a year, for the purposes of: nominating candidates for public office, electing delegates from the LPMC to the state convention, making amendments to the by-laws and receiving an annual report of the LPMC’s financial condition.

Sumbit your LPMC Run-for-Office form online: http://indylp.org/run-for-office

For more information and the proposed agenda, visit the official website: http://www.indylp.org/node/73

Page 48 of 53« First...102030...4647484950...Last »