What can the Obama administration for libertarians

This morning during my drive into work I started to think about what issues libertarians should push for the Obama administration and the Democrat controlled congress to enact. The one issue I think that could be good for the country and popular with many Democrats is an end to the war on Drugs.

Money spent fighting the War on Drugs could be put into drug rehabilitation programs and harm reduction programs. This would do many things including:

1. Reduce the prison population
2. Improve healthcare
3. Reduce spending on the failed War on Drugs
   

He not only flip-flops, he lies

Not only is Obama flip-flopping all over the place, but apparently he can't (or doesn't want) to remember what bills he voted on.

In his "Country I Love" television ad, Obama says that he "extended healthcare for wounded troops that had been neglected" and cited Public Law 110-181 as proof of this.

The problem? Obama didn't bother to show up and vote for Public Law 110-181.

How is Obama like a fish out of water

He's flip flopping all over the place.

In a Washington Post Op-Ed piece, Charles Krauthhammer points out the follow changes Obama has made since "winning" the democratic nomination.

1. The Flag Pin. Obama had said he didn't wear a flag pin because after September 11th it had become "became a substitute for, I think, true patriotism." Obama is now wearing a flag pin. I gues he needs to substitute something for his lack of true patriotism now.
2. Guns. When the Supreme Court came down in favor of Heller, and declared that the Second Admendment is an individual right, Obama declared that he agreed with the Supreme Court decision. However, he is previously on record as having stated that the D.C. gun ban is constitutional. Additionally, Obama is probably the most anti-gun politician out there next to Carolyn McCarthy and Mike Bloomberg.
3. NAFTA. Told the Canadians, his anti-trade rhetoric was just populist posturing.
4. Warrentless Wiretaps. Obama now will vote in favor of the new FISA bill.
5. Campaign Finance Reform. Changed opinion on public financing when he released that he needed to abandon public financing to maximize how much money he could take in.
6. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Talks would no longer be unconditional. How long until there will be no talks?
7. Iraq. No longer unconditional fixed 16-month timetable. He now states "we've got to make sure that our troops are safe and that Iraq is stable." and that "when I go to Iraq . . . I'll have more information and will continue to refine my policies." How long until reality meets Mr. Obama and he realizes that you can't have a fixed timetable.

Obama is a slick orator. Obama is charismatic. Unfortunately these thing don't help you be a good leader.

One Third of United States is Predujected

A poll by the Washington Post and ABC News indicate that racial bias is alive and well in the United States. As part of the poll they categorized the population with a "racial sensitivity index". The bottom group (which consisted of one third of the total population) in the racial sensitivity index had a 2 to 1 preference for John McCain.

This is a sad commentary on ourselves. Race, in and of itself, should have nothing to do with deciding who to vote for. I don't like Obama, but not because of race, rather because he has very little experience, no foreign policy position to speak of, believes that only parts of the bill of rights should apply to the people and will greatly expand government.

On his blog Lew Rockwell says:

McCain seems to despise the Constitution and America's founding traditions, for one thing.

But is this really true? Granted McCain isn't as pro-liberty as Ron Paul, but then again who is? Out of the candidates that stand a chance of winning the election, McCain is most likely to support the Constitution, what you think Obama is going to respect the bill of rights?

It is about who you dislike the most

Apparently this election cycle is not about which candidate will do the best job, but rather which candidate you don't want to see win. Case in point, Hillary supporters for John McCain. Apparently, there are a number of Clinton supporters who so dislike Obama, that they would rather see a Republican win. Likewise, there is often much talk in the media about right winger's who would rather see a Democrat than vote for that "Aisle Crosser" John McCain.

Personally, I'd rather see McCain win than Obama, because I think Obama will increase the size of the Federal Government greatly, McCain not as much. I guess for me, it is also who I dislike the most.

What is wrong with Obama

My Brother recently asked me to help him decide which Presidential candidate he should support. He didn't want me to tell him positive things about the candidates, but rather wanted me to give him a list of 10 things that are wrong with a candidate. I listed a number of problems I felt the candidates had, and continued to think about this for a while.

Well I just found Apocalypse 2008: Obama. This blog has a number issues with Obama, in particular:

1. Associates:
• Rev. Wright
• Tony Rezko
• Hatem El-Hady (former head of a Hamas connected organization)
• Bill Ayres
2. Weak on terrorism, Hamas would like Obama elected
3. Weak on foreign policy

plus many other reasons. Definitely worth a look.

Gun ban in Seattle

Over at The High Road they are reporting that Mayor Greg Nickels of Seattle has issued an executive order baning guns in the city.

Previous on December 23, 2007, Mayor Nickels office released a press statement that:

the City of Seattle [...], with funding from the Joyce Foundation

With funding from the Joyce Foundation, very interesting. First of all, why is a private organization funding a city event? Secondly, the Joyce Foundation want to end gun violence, by ending the right for american citizens to keep and bear arms.

According to the Joyce Foundation's mission statement they are focused on issues related to the area around the great lakes, so what are they doing in Seattle? And who exactly is the Joyce Foundation. Well among some of the groups they support include the Violence Policy Center, one of the most anti-gun groups in Washington, D.C. (and interestingly enough, the holder of Federal Firearms License in the District of Columbia). And who do you think was on the board of the Joyce Foundation? None other than Mr. Change himself, Barack Obama.

I guess if you want to see more total gun bans, in blatant disregard of the Second Amendment, then Obama's your man.

Well it could be worse

Over at the Jed Report, in response to a post of use of the N-word on McCain's site and antisemitism on Obama's site, debrazza said:

You should try looking up "Aunt Jemima" on the McCain website. That is a blatantly racist smear.

Well. all I can say is at least they didn't say macaca.

Hillary as a Supreme Court Justice?

At dinner last night a Washington D.C. insider reported to me rumors of behind the scenes deal between Obama and Clinton. Supposedly, Hillary agreed to endorse Obama, if he promised to nominate her for the Supreme Court. Found a page supporting this idea over at buzzflash. I could only imagine how much this combination of Obama in the whitehouse and Clinton on the Court would set back liberty in country.

What if the First Admendment was treated like the Second

I saw an amusing analogy using what Obama is proposing regarding the second and applying it to the first amendment.

It would include:

1. Free speech, would require a permit, with education requirements, before a person may criticize the government.
2. Imprisoning anyone who "falsely accuses a government official of misconduct"
3. Outlawing "speech that offends anyone without reasonable cause

Extending the analogy I would add:

1. Permitting a person to only criticize the government once a month.
2. Requiring any written speech to be stamped with a unique identifier which identifies the speaker.
3. Banning the poor from having free speech.
4. Banning criticizing the government within 5 miles of schools
5. Banning of hiding documents on your person which are critical of the government.
6. And banning free speech to individuals 21 years old or older.