Brett Bittner

A Libertarian’s Guide to Government Speak, aka Today’s NewSpeak

Thu, 06/17/2010 - 12:09pm | posted by Brett Bittner

Since words are the weapon of choice for many in the political world, it seems to me that having a guide to translate the “feel good” words used in so many discussions of and about politics. This is the beginning of one, and I encourage you to add your own suggestions in the comments.

New Book Reveals the Original Meaning of the Constitution

Wed, 06/02/2010 - 4:01pm | posted by Brett Bittner

Fresh from the Tenth Amendment Center:

Looking from the inside out. Recognized national expert on the framing and adoption of the United States Constitution reveals, in simple language, just what the Constitution was originally supposed to mean.

Professor Robert G. Natelson is a recognized national expert on the framing and adoption of the United States Constitution, and on several occasions he has been the first to uncover key background facts about the Constitution’s meaning.

“Some people - including the former law instructor who now serves as President of the United States - believe that it is impossible to reconstruct the Constitution’s original meaning. As this book demonstrates, that view is substantially incorrect.” - Robert G. Natelson on The Original Constitution.

If, like any legal document, the words of the Constitution mean today just what they meant the moment it was signed and ratified, it’s essential to understand just what those words meant at the time of the founding. The Original Constitution surveys in fairly easy language the legal meaning of the entire Constitution as of late 1791, just after adoption of the Bill of Rights.

The Constitution of the United States created a representative republic marked by federalism and the separation of powers. Yet numerous federal politicians and judges - led by the Supreme Court - have used the Constitution as a blank check to substitute their own views on hot-button issues across the political spectrum for perfectly constitutional laws enacted by We the People through our elected representatives.

Tenth Amendment Center Announces State Level Action Legislation Model To Combat ObamaCare

Mon, 04/19/2010 - 11:31am | posted by Brett Bittner

Nearly everyone in opposition to ObamaCare worked very hard to stop it before it made its way through both houses of Congress and to the President’s desk to be signed into law. Once President Obama signed the legislation into law, all of these wound up activists found themselves without an issue to focus on after a year of “debate” over healthcare reform. Some state officials took it upon themselves to file lawsuits over the newly signed law, while others sought to protect their constituents from the aspects they found to be Unconstitutional. Today, the Tenth Amendment Center provided another state-level action. From the press release:

“Now that Health Care reform has been signed into law, the question people ask most is “What do we do about it?” said Michael Boldin, founder of the Tenth Amendment Center. “The status quo response includes lobbying congress, marching on D.C. “voting the bums out,” suing in federal court, and more. But the last 100 years have proven that none of these really work, and government continues to grow year in and year out.”

“We recommend a different path, one advised by prominent founders such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison - nullification,” said Boldin. Nullification, according to the Center, is the rightful remedy to an unconstitutional act, as it considers the recently-signed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to be. When a state nullifies a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or non-effective, within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned.

NY Town of Binghamton To Erect “Cost Of War” Sign

Fri, 04/16/2010 - 1:47pm | posted by Brett Bittner

As most of the anti-war movement disappeared after the election of the “peace candidate,” Barack Obama, this story reminds me that there are some out there who still take issue with our interventionist foreign policy, especially the wars ongoing in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Huffington Post reports that the town of Binghamton is placing a sign on their city hall to remind citizens of their part of the cost of our ongoing conflicts.

Binghamton Mayor Matthew Ryan, a Democrat, says he hopes tallying the ongoing expense in a prominent place will help stimulate a debate on the nation’s spending priorities.
The mayor says the 4-foot-wide “cost of war” sign will display information about the cost to local, state and federal taxpayers. The $6,000 sign is being paid for by the Broome County Cost of War Project, a local peace activist group.

Not only are town officials right about continuing the debate of our nation’s financial commitments as we fight seemingly endless wars, followed by the requisite nation-building, but this town has secured funding for the signage without forcing the taxpayers to foot the bill.

The local news story:

1 comment

How Much Is Enough? Addressing The Fear Of Donating Money

Fri, 04/02/2010 - 4:28pm | posted by Brett Bittner

I have adapted this from something I wrote earlier this week to share here.

Recently, I “tweeted” what I found to be an interesting piece on Seth Godin’s blog about the fear of giving. As libertarians, we have a reputation of acting in our own self-interests. This is a reputation very much deserved, as it aligns with our beliefs with regard to individual liberty and personal responsibility, but it also accurately portrays our political giving. As individuals we act in our own self-interest, but as a group, we fail to adequately fund groups and candidates in line with our principles. The analogy used in that piece about giving was one that showed that in an emergency situation, one rarely considers the cost of action:

‘If you are walking by a pond and you see a child drowning, do you save her? What if it means ruining a very fancy pair of Italian shoes?’ Okay, if we assume the answer is yes, then why not spend the cost of those shoes to save 20 kids who are starving to death across town or the world? There’s really no difference. Or by, extension, invest in research or development that solves a problem forever… The issues are proximity and attention.

State AGs Miss Target with Health Care Lawsuit says the Tenth Amendment Center

Thu, 03/25/2010 - 2:14pm | posted by Brett Bittner

I received this press release yesterday from the Tenth Amendment Center, and I think that it gives calls attention to the long-forgotten ideas of nullification and interposition with regard to ObamaCare:

“Prominent founders such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison warned us that if the federal government ever became the sole and exclusive arbiter of its own powers, those powers would continue to grow, regardless of elections, courts, separation of powers or other much-vaunted checks and balances in our system,” said Michael Boldin, founder of the Tenth Amendment Center.

Nullification, according to the Center, is the rightful remedy to an unconstitutional act, as it considers the recently-signed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to be. When a state nullifies a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or non-effective, within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned.

Today, the Tenth Amendment Center announced a different strategy for activists and state government. “We are pleased to announce model nullification legislation that is crafted to specifically address the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act on a state level,” Boldin said. “We encourage grassroots activists and state legislators alike to work to get this bill passed in their home states.”

Did Joseph Stack Prove the MIAC Report Right?

Fri, 02/19/2010 - 3:12pm | posted by Brett Bittner

No doubt you heard about Andrew Joseph Stack flying his Piper Cherokee into an office building where about 200 IRS employees worked in northwest Austin, Texas. In addition to the intentional plane crash, he apparently set his home ablaze and possibly booby-trapped his car with a bomb. His suicide note/manifesto was briefly posted here, before the webhosting company took the site offline “due to the sensitive nature of the events.”

You may recall a report issued by the Missouri Information Analysis Center last winter that equated support of many “extreme” views common in libertarian thought, including resistance to the current tax levels and system, with domestic terrorism. It’s obvious from the note left by Stack that he is no fan of the government, specifically calling out the IRS and FAA, as well as Congress’ manipulation of the tax code. It will likely be a few small correlations between Stack’s manifesto, his actions, and the MIAC report that generate more government scrutiny of those who oppose the continued growth of the federal government.

Bayh’s Retirement Not Hurting Democrats As Much As Most Think It Will

Tue, 02/16/2010 - 4:53pm | posted by Brett Bittner

After absorbing the news from every outlet on earth yesterday, even our own editor’s take, on the “surprise” retirement of Indiana Democrat Evan Bayh, I have to say that analysts are not considering all the “good” that can come from his retirement from the U.S. Senate. It seems that everyone predicts a Republican to pick up his seat in November. Lately, I have been among the few to see some things that ebb against the accepted flow in analyzing races and situations. This is another such ebb.

I think the reason that Bayh waited until Presidents’ Day to announce his retirement was to prevent someone relatively unknown, like Tamyra d’Ippolito, from garnering the nomination without a primary election AND without their seal of approval by collecting the requisite signatures necessary to get on the primary ballot. The Democrats have an opportunity to select a candidate, since it seems that d’Ippolito did not achieve the 4500 signatures necessary to get on the ballot. If she had, that is the WORST CASE SCENARIO for Democrats. By waiting, Bayh almost assured that the state Democrat Party could spend time vetting, choosing and fundraising for someone “moderate” enough to win the state, but “progressive” enough to fully support the agenda of the party for the next six years. While d’Ippolito likely fills out the latter, there is no chance she can accommodate the former.

Poll: Gay Soldiers Serving Openly OK, Homosexuals Not… HUH?!?

Fri, 02/12/2010 - 4:50pm | posted by Brett Bittner

As I await the Snowpocalypse to descend upon my small part of the Deep South, I come across this entry about a New York Times/CBS News poll that shows overwhelming support for repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” The poll seemed innocent enough, asking participants a few questions about gays in the military and open service. In a test, those polling used different terminology for both halves of the respondents. One half were asked their opinion on permitting “gay men and lesbians” to serve, further asking about whether they should be allowed to serve openly, while the other half were asked were questioned about permitting “homosexuals” to serve, and whether that service should be allowed when they are open about their sexual orientation. The results are most certainly interesting:

The wording of the question proved to make a difference. Seven in 10 respondents said they favor allowing “gay men and lesbians” to serve in the military, including nearly 6 in 10 who said they should be allowed to serve openly. But support was somewhat lower among those who were asked about allowing “homosexuals” to serve, with 59 percent in favor, including 44 percent who support allowing them to serve openly.
Democrats in the poll seemed particularly swayed by the wording. Seventy-nine percent of Democrats said they support permitting gay men and lesbians to serve openly. Fewer Democrats however, just 43 percent, said they were in favor of allowing homosexuals to serve openly. Republicans and independents varied less between the two terms.

Where Did Pia Varma Come From?

Sun, 02/07/2010 - 1:58pm | posted by Brett Bittner

Out of nowhere, my attention was called to the campaign launch video of a candidate in Pennsylvania’s 1st Congressional district. Admittedly, outside of our interview of Jake Towne, the sitting Senators, and Pat Toomey’s campaign to unseat Arlen Specter, I am not very involved in Pennsylvania’s political activities.

This video was a refreshing surprise when I cam across it last night. I immediately shared it among some friends, requested an interview for our Liberty Candidate Series of podcasts, and started delving into her campaign page. I like what I see here, and I do not just mean her appearance… Her unique approach to writing issue statements and the truth-telling rarity of her videos (there is another one on her YouTube channel, if you are interested) is really a breath of fresh air.