Archive for the ‘New York State’ Category

Express Yourself, New York

September 10, 2012 2 comments

Conventional wisdom says a vote for a third party candidate is a wasted vote.  The Free Agent posits that in New York this November, the only way your vote will count is if it’s cast for a third party candidate.

The Free Agent probably shouldn’t say this, spokesmodel that she is for the Manhattan Libertarian Party, but this November, New York will cast its 29 electoral votes for Mister Obama.  The city of New York in particular absolutely adores him.  Gothamites will pay forty thousand dollars just to watch the man chew groceries.  The poor, immigrants, lower middle class, middle middle class, young people, old people, they not only love Mister Obama, but they are thoroughly conditioned to believe they are incapable of renting an apartment, seeing a doctor, or selecting a beverage without a politician’s guidance and a lawyer’s business card.  Mister Obama will carry New York.  If you vote for him, your vote is wasted.

If you don’t want Mister Obama to renew his lease on the Executive Mansion, you might be tempted to vote Republican, but a vote for Mister Romney says nothing.  Are you demanding X% or X+10% growth in the defense budget?  If you favor the repeal of Pee-Pee Ca-Ca, with no replacement, Mister Romney has promised he will replace it, presumably with the not-uncoincidentally named Romneycare.   Do you want an end to federal attacks on legal marijuana producers?  Would you have the USA Patriot Act repealed?  Would you like to see business and state as separate as church and same?  Your vote for Mister Romney communicates none of that.  Your vote is wasted.

The Free Agent suggests New Yorkers choose one of two candidates whose votes will actually communicate your desires (if anyone bothers to count votes in New York, which they don’t always do).  A vote for Socialist Party USA’s Stewart Alexander loudly proclaims Mister Obama has not been aggressive enough in demolishing the constitutional limits to federal power, while a vote for Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson  says you want the federal leviathan poked back into its constitutional cage.

You know The Free Agent will urge you to vote for Governor Gary Johnson, a candidate she has supported both with her limited resources and her shoe leather.  A vote for Mister Johnson could not be more unequivocal—your vote says you demand an immediate end to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (or did every single soldier return home by last Christmas as the current Commander-in-Chief promised?) as well as the devastating war the US has been fighting against its own citizens dubbed by Richard Nixon, the ‘War on Drugs’.   Your vote will acknowledge that a third of the federal budget must be cut, and accept that many lives will be disrupted, but that living on borrowed money is passing unearned consumption of today onto non-consenting taxpayers of the future.  Voting for Mister Johnson communicates that you jealously defend your rights and the rights of others, and want the natural consequence of those rights—peace and prosperity.

Still, The Free Agent would rather you vote for the Socialist than either of the major party candidates.  If what you want to say is that all humans are part of one collective, that we should all reap the same rewards regardless of our ability to pay for them, if you favor “putting workers and consumers in control of the economy” and—to be fair—repealing the USA Patriot Act—if you consider Mister Obama a traitor to the march of history for failing to create a political health-care monopoly, say it with a vote for Mister Alexander.

Can’t bring yourself to vote for either a Libertarian or a Socialist?  You still don’t have to vote for a Republicrat.  Tick or write in ‘None of the Above’, and your silence will speak volumes.


Three Westchester Republicans to Run as Libertarians

August 29, 2011 Leave a comment
Westchester County Republicans Howard Arden, Matthew Rice and Kerry Lutz filed sufficient petition signatures with the Board of Elections to appear on the November ballot as Libertarian candidates in the Town of North Castle. Arden, a long-time Armonk resident, community volunteer and county businessman, is running for Town Supervisor. Rice and Lutz, both practicing attorneys, are seeking membership on the Town Council.
Critical of the many benefits local councilmembers receive, they each have vowed not to accept taxpayer-supported healthcare and retirement benefits for the part-time jobs.
New York Libertarian Party Chairman Mark Axinn stated, “The Libertarian Party is delighted to welcome both Republicans and Democrats who recognize that the two major parties stand for big government benefits at taxpayer expense. Only the Libertarian Party seeks smaller government and more freedom for all citizens.”

Additionally, Rochester Libertarians Drew Beeman, Max Kessler and Chris Edes are running for seats on the Monroe County Legislature.
“Now the people of Monroe County have the choice to get the government out of their wallets and out of their lives,” said Beeman.
The Libertarian Party is the nation’s third largest political party, standing for minimum government and maximum freedom.

Paula Gloria and Joe Barton on marijuana laws: Off with its head.

August 2, 2011 1 comment

Apparently the cops had no warrant when they busted down Joe Barton’s door.  Of course Libertarians would be outraged. But Joe Barton and Paula Gloria aren’t really Libertarians – at least not the big L type.  Most people aren’t as radical as Libertarians on Marijuana laws right?  Well perhaps you haven’t been far enough down the Rabbit Hole.

Note: Paula Gloria and Joe Barton will be the guest speakers at the Manhattan Libertarian Monthly Meeting, Next Monday August 8th, 2011.  The meeting is free and all are welcome to attend.  More Info here.

Here are some excerpts from my recent conversation with Paula and Joe.

Q: Please introduce yourself and tell us why Libertarians should be interested in your talk on Monday.

Paula:  I’m actually not informed enough about Libertarian positions. I can make some comments about medical marijuana. We are for freeing all the prisoners. We are for upholding the Constitution. We are for due process. To have a grand jury indictment you should have a victim of a crime.  Somebody should be able to say they have been hurt.  We are the People.  We are sovereign. We can do anything we want as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else or prevent anyone else from exercising their rights.

Q: Can you give us a little background and tell us what the title of your talk means?

Paula: I’m the host of a show called “Farther Down The Rabbit Hole” which comes out daily at 12 noon on the community affairs channel on Manhattan Neighborhood Network.  It goes to about 600,000 households. Four years ago I started posting some of the shows on YouTube and because of that I was able to get a lot of feedback from people. Blogging is a really exciting way to develop our understanding and become good members of society and in particular I started to learn about the power of our Constitution and the importance of our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

On Monday we will talk about “How to stand up vs run into machine gun fire”.  The importance of standing up versus walking into machine-gun fire means if you’re trying to do something that’s very difficult to do and you have opposition like a police state you want to make sure you have the best power behind you. We feel we have the Constitution behind us and if people understand the Constitution and understand the importance of God-given inalienable rights, that power can transform machine-gun fire. It can convince people who are trying to fight you, that they really should be with you. We are all Americans. We may have different ways of exercising our rights which is how it was meant t be as long as they don’t hurt other people.

Joe:  We believe we are becoming a police state. But rather than confront the police we prefer that people start taking their grievances to the courts and stand on constitutional issues. We are into supporting anybody who is standing up and protecting and defending the Constitution in court.

Paula: We support all marijuana reforms whose priority is to free the non-violent prisoners. We believe that the so-called marijuana laws are not even constitutional and if people understood how to argue in court they would win and the courts would do the right thing and uphold people’s inalienable rights.

Joe : the Constitution guarantees us the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness and according to the Constitution only a crime that has a victim is really a criminal offense. Our legislators have gotten so out of hand, they’ve made so many laws that our prisons are full right now of citizens convicted of crimes with no victim. We need to wake people up and liberate our country. We need to take back the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and stop filling our prisons with nonviolent people who were convicted of victimless crimes. How can you have a crime when there’s no victim?

Q:  What about court cases that support the federal government’s right to interfere in medical marijuana states?

Joe : Every person who goes to court should take a stand, and  more people should support the people going to court. Go to court with them. Give publicity to anybody who is really taking a stand.  As far as the rulings, what we need to do is have enough people wake up and speak up and even start writing to the Supreme Court.  If a nationwide letter campaign was written by the American people, which the Libertarian party could probably get behind, get everybody to write letters to the Supreme Court saying “We are We The People and you work for us. You are giving away our rights. You are selling out to big business. You took an oath to defend and protect the Constitution and we expect you to do that.  You aren’t doing that when you protect government and corporations against the people.”

Paula: We fear that the medical marijuana laws are actually going increase regulation and if you increase regulation you have more government. We want less government and to free the prisoners.  Half a million people are in jail now unconstitutionally. A felony is a very serious, horrible thing. The founding fathers understood that it would be an extreme case that you arrest somebody and that you would put somebody in prison, so when you start looking at false arrest and imprisonment you begin to see what’s happened is an atrophying of the Constitution. Special interests have raided the country. If people don’t understand their rights they can’t stand up for them in a timely way. You have to call the court’s attention to the fraud. Until you call fraud to the core court’s attention the court is not obliged to do anything. Once people understand their powers and our constitutional principles they can stand up and say  “hey you judges, you swore and oath to protect our rights, you work for us, protect our rights”.

Q: Would you comment on Federal interference in medical marijuana states?

Joe: the Democrats and Republicans, all they do is pass power back and forth and the people keep losing more and more rights. Over the years Libertarians have asked me to help support them and the Green party asked me to support them. But one of my problems with all the politicians is the Republicans and Democrats are power mad and the Libertarians and the Greens really have no balls. They’re afraid to really go out on the edge. If the Libertarian party really wants to do something it’s got to get much more in touch with the people and much more radical. I don’t mean wild radical. I mean radical as far as taking on the Democrats and Republicans and really bringing the issues up. Don’t half step. Come out and say it.

Paula: You have the Constitution behind you there’s a great case,  Shuttlesworth v Birmingham  . If the state turns a liberty into a privilege, a citizen can engage in the right with impunity. One of the charges against Joe was growing marijuana without a license. A lot of people might say this is New York there is no license for growing marijuana.  But our concern is, and we cite case law again, Murdoch v Penn  , where the First Amendment right was upheld. The Supreme Court determined the state cannot convert a liberty into a privilege, license it and attach a fee to it.  So Joe in arguing his case, is not saying give me a license. He is saying you don’t need a license to grow marijuana.  And anybody has a right, in this case the right to grow marijuana under the right of a freedom of the pursuit of happiness.  You can read all of our arguments.  So these statutes that are not constitutional – the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.  But the citizen has to know how to stand up in a timely way in court and not be tricked out of giving up his rights.  Mostly when the courts uphold special interests over We the People, they do it through trickery and getting you in different jurisdictions.

In the case of the medical marijuana laws life might be given to somebody, a medical patient who otherwise without marijuana wouldn’t have life. But what about a law where you are taking the marijuana away from people who are illegally busted in order to provide that medicine? On one hand you’re saying it’s a crime (to have marijuana) and on the other hand government is confiscating marijuana with the intent to sell it to medical marijuana patients, which is stealing from growers so the government can profit. If government can distribute or license pharmaceutical companies government is stealing from the people for pharmaceutical profits and when they license pharmaceutical companies they incarcerate We the People for not having licenses.  This is arbitrary, regulation against the people in favor of big business by gathering what supposed to be criminal to give it away to patients.  Not give it away – I’m sure governments will have a big fee attached to it.

Q: Joe, what’s the status of your case?

Joe: there are two court cases. In the first one they came in with a knock warrant but they busted down my door anyway! The police trespassed on two occasions. After coming up a half mile driveway posted with many no trespassing signs, they came up on my porch and were looking in my window and sniffing at my door to try to smell marijuana so that they could get a warrant which is illegal.  That case is on appeal right now.  Then they came back again three years later.  The police officer met my son on the porch said he smelled marijuana again and forced his way into the house without a warrant. We are going to court right now on that.  When my son stepped out on the porch he told the cop you need a warrant but the cop forced his way in any way.  They had us there for two hours out in the car in the winter with no coats on.  Then they brought us to the police station for eight hours while they went and got a warrant to try to make good on coming in without a warrant, which under our Constitution is illegal.

Q: Do you see anything improving or any progress on the anti-prohibition movement?

Joe:  The American people are so squeezed and the politicians have sold us out to big business and corporations. Look how many people are losing their homes while we bailed out the banks. We give billions of dollars to the banks while people are evicted, American citizens, from their homes.  I see within the next year to two years you’re going to see the American people rise up like they never rose up before.  Unless the Libertarian party really comes out and takes a real stand and is very active they are going to be left behind.

Paula:  Let me read this from Norton v Shelby County .

“While acts of a de facto incumbent of an office lawfully created by law and existing are often held to be binding from reasons of public policy, the acts of a person assuming to fill and perform the duties of an office which does not exist de jure can have no validity whatever in law.  An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed”

When my husband was talking about being radical the actual term is being constitutional. In a way the Constitution is a very radical document if you look in world history.  Can we be great enough today so we can maintain it? That’s what I’m saying.  When I read the case law that’s the Supreme Court in legal contemplation.  It’s not the spin factor or hype, it is what our country is founded on.

Joe:  When you talk about legalization,  the government will legalize drugs and then they will say well you can’t get it on the street. The medical thing is a phony thing.  The people will push for medical marijuana and the government will say you can’t consistently deliver the dosage. Then they will license it to pharmaceutical companies and anybody growing on their own will still be illegal and growing without a license and we will still have the prison state. So we want repeal of an unconstitutional law. Let it go back to what it was like before the law ever existed where anybody could grow it and it wasn’t regulated. Look at what is happening in Canada.  Canada has medical marijuana but the medical marijuana patients we have talked to say the marijuana they get from the government is crap and doesn’t  work in relation to their illnesses and they still have to go out on the street and buy so called “illegal” marijuana which works. If the marijuana laws were repealed the free market would produce the best quality.

The government says that people who grow or are selling marijuana are dealing drugs and they are criminals yet the government wants to license pharmaceutical corporations to deal the very same drugs which gives corporations rights and takes them away from the people and even on the statutory level violates anti-trust laws.  The government protects corporate interests by violating the rights of the people which is clearly unconstitutional.

A flesh and blood human being with inalienable rights always trumps a corporation in court if the violated party stands up to become the belligerent claimant.  We don’t trust the government to do what is best for medical patients or the people who grow marijuana.  Here is an example, the mafia used to run numbers the government called them criminals and said they were immoral lock them up put them in jail.  Then once the number runners were out of business the government started lotto saying that the profits would go to better schools.  Here is how that turned out when you bet with the mafia if they said they would pay a hundred dollars they paid a hundred dollars.  Now that the government is running numbers if they say you are going to win a million dollars they then tax it and they don’t pay a million dollars.  As far as the lottery money going to schools our schools are worse now then ever before in spite of billions of dollars taken in by the government from lotto. Where has the money gone?  We should have the best equipped schools in the world.  Government created criminals out of the mafia who honored the rules of the game yet government pays half what they claim and the money doesn’t go to schools.  Who is scamming who?



Related Legal Documents:

Memorandum of  Law



Please join us Monday August 8th for Paula’s and Joe’s talk with the Manhattan LP.  The meeting is free.  All are welcome.  More info here.

Don’t Cry for Me, Albany

June 22, 2011 Leave a comment

Charismatic, populist leader, pretty blonde first lady, intractable financial crisis masked by a cavalcade of cash, before it happened to Andrew Cuomo and Sandra Lee here in New York, it happened in Argentina.

Following the suicidal Falkland Islands invasion, reform of Argentina’s long cycle of borrowing and hyper-inflation seemed assured by the late 90s.  With the peso convertible to the US dollar, Argentines had the confidence to save and invest, knowing their proceeds couldn’t disappear on the government printing press.  The economy had enjoyed steady growth through most of the 90s, with promise of more.

So why did Argentina need loans from the International Monetary Fund?  When The Free Agent borrows money, it is either for investment, such as her modest cottage, or to solve a short-term liquidity problem, such as she infrequently experiences at her cash-only show-tunes piano bar.  While she questions whether any government expenditure since the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 can properly be called investment, the Argentine government had not mended its ways at all.  Like a deadbeat who reforms his credit rating in order to score and default on a new and bigger loan, Argentina’s prosperity was a smokescreen.  Borrowed funds disappeared into familiar sink holes—government salaries and pensions, and subsidies to the provinces.  Debt and currency crises in other emerging markets in the late 90s motivated the IMF to mask Argentina’s looming default by issuing a new loan even when it was clear it could not pay the interest on its existing debt.

As a scorched-earth bonus, because debts had to be repaid in dollars but Argentines were paid in pesos, the previously functional banking system was hollowed out as the government desperately tried to satiate its lenders.  (As a general rule, The Free Agent grabs her wallet when politicians start talking currency restrictions.)

On December 23, 2001, Argentina defaulted on private foreign lenders, and a revolving door was installed on Casa Rosada, the presidential palace.  The convertibility system was ended two weeks later, by June, the peso was trading at 26 cents.  In 1999, 10% of Argentines were indigent, by the end of 2002, 28% were.

Like the rural provinces in Argentina, US local governments have become addicted to handouts from the capitals above them.  When local property tax revenue falls short, when homeowners short sell or abandon properties, for example, they appeal to state coffers.  When states, long on pensions and other entitlements, fall short on sales and income tax (and in 2009, all but 6 did) they look to Washington.  Like Buenos Aires, when Washington can’t make payroll, it has to two options—ask buddy nations like China and Saudi Arabia for a tenner till payday, or fire up the printing press.

Such is the complexity of New York’s finances that a supposed budget hawk like Mister Cuomo can nobly tilt at windmills, “Albany must give up its insistence on pleasing the special interests rather than serving the people.”, while supporting expansion of New York City’s ludicrous rent control laws.  His idea for dousing the explosion in Medicaid spending will sound as familiar as Evita’s great torch song: improve delivery while cutting costs.  (When Wal-Mart does that, New York’s reaction . . .well, that is perhaps for another column.)

In 1990, fifteen years after New York City’s bailout, public debt was $14.4 billion.  In 2000, before debt reform was enacted, it was $37 billion.  A peep inside New York’s public debt can today shows obligations of $60.4 billion.  (Five years ago, it was $48.5 billion, almost exactly the amount of Argentina’s IMF loans when it defaulted.)

Without paging through, to use  an  arcane reference, phone-book-sized state budgets, The Free Agent will posit the single most important similarity between New York (ville et department), Argentina, and Washington.  Unlike The FA, or you, or any private person or corporation, they have the ability to borrow money with no responsibility for paying it back.  Forget about the debt ceiling, The Free Agent proposes a tiny adjustment to the way governments borrow money: that any non-capital borrowing must be repaid within the elected term of the borrower.  Politicians get rewarded by kicking the debt can down the road, pleasing voters today and shifting the burden onto public schoolchildren whose rudimentary math skills they hope prevent them from appreciating the iniquity.  The Free Agent would like taxpayers to lend money less like Fannie Mae and more like the local Italian Brotherhood.

Election day is tomorrow

November 1, 2010 1 comment

Election day is tomorrow and we have more and more evidence that our message of  “stop wasting money “ is resonating with the voters.  Warren Redlich  polled 7% in a recent Rochester Business Journal poll.  Though you can never count on polls it is reason for optimism. Our opponents have noticed and they are running scared.  So much so that they have gone negative with a number of incredible lies and misrepresentations.  This is exactly why we need new faces, new ideas  and an end to the dirty-business as usual in Albany. Despite the desperate actions of our opponents our campaign is staying focused on a positive message of fiscal responsibility, honesty and plain old common sense.

We have every reason to be optimistic that we will achieve our short-run goal of 50,000 votes and automatic ballot status. However, WE MUST NOT BE COMPLACENT.   We have been surprised and disappointed so many times in the past.  Every one of us needs to double down and do everything we can to seize this opportunity.  We will have no one else to blame if we let this historic opportunity slip away. Every one of us can help make history in the next 36 hours.

Here are some things you can do right now:

  • Email your friends and explain why it’s critical to their future that Warren Redlich gets at least 50,000 votes and automatic ballot status for the Libertarian Party.
  • Send your friends Warren’s campaign videos. There are links below.
  • Sign up for Warren’s Facebook group
  • Call talk shows and tell them you support Warren Redlich’s campaign because we need new choices and an end to business as usual in Albany.

Here is what you can do tomorrow:

  • Vote for Warren Redlich and all the Libertarians on Row H
  • Print out some of  Warren’s flyers  and hand them out at the polls. Be sure to cooperate with the polling place officials and stay the legal distance (100 feet) from the poll entrance.

50,000 people will make history tomorrow. Will you be one of them?

Panzella Stands Up for New Yorkers and States Rights

October 29, 2010 1 comment

STATEN ISLAND, NY, October 25, 2010  Danny Panzella, independent Libertarian candidate for the 63rd Assembly District, issued a formal challenge to his opponent, Democrat Michael Cusick, to join him in supporting a state sovereignty measure.

Speaking to groups of Staten Island residents this week, Mr. Panzella has been discussing the need for New York State to invoke its Tenth Amendment rights through a binding measure approved by both houses. The State Senate earlier this year introduced a similar resolution, which has been sent to the finance committee.

State sovereignty is arguably the single most important tenet of American government, yet hardly anyone ever talks about it. The Tenth Amendment is key to our Bill of Rights, and the liberty of the people. Unfortunately it has also been the most ignored part of our constitution for well over a century.”

 said Mr.Panzella, 33, of Manor Heights.

The Tenth Amendment instructs that  the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.  This means simply that the federal government is limited to only the powers granted under the United States Constitution. And in reality, there aren’t many. The state constitution echoes this sovereign sentiment in its civil rights law.

“New Yorkers are absolutely besieged by a two-front war in defense of liberty, and it’s right here at home. We find ourselves under the crushing weight of the Albany establishment’s mounting debt and insane borrow and spend schemes. The additional burden of a fiscally irresponsible federal government makes it doubly dangerous as we hurtle toward insolvency on both fronts.”

 Mr. Panzella said.
While our U.S Senators and Congresspersons fail to represent the constitutional interests of the people of New York, it is the sacred and urgent responsibility of every state legislator to speak out. In fact, all members of our state legislature have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, as well as the Constitution of New York State. I will uphold that oath to both the letter and spirit when I am elected, and will push for my assembly colleagues to follow suit.
Asked about the current sovereignty measure in the state senate, Mr. Panzella explained that the resolution does not go far enough in his opinion.

” It’s a great start, no question. I salute Senator Nozzolio and our own Senator Lanza. But we must do more than simply resolve to defend the Constitution, we need to craft legislation with real teeth. “

The candidate also reminded his audience not to interpret his stance as a partisan position, saying that this is not about left versus right, but right versus wrong.
We have seen federal administrations and congressional majorities from both major parties routinely circumvent the Constitution. This is done through parliamentary maneuvers, presidential directives, executive orders, and federal mandates. Can’t get it through congress? Simply issue an edict to some federal agency. And that’s the real danger here. Unelected bureaucrats and czars making major policy decisions without the checks and balances afforded by Congress.

Now it must fall to the state legislature to provide that oversight and approval. We are the last line of defense against what has become an oppressive, overreaching federal government. We need to have the ability, by law, to nullify or repeal those unfunded programs, unfair restrictions, and job-killing regulations, ones that the people of New York clearly do not want, and for which we cannot pay or we will all pay dearly with catastrophic consequences for our families’ futures.

Redlich and the Rest in Saturday WSJ: Where’s the Beef?

October 16, 2010 Leave a comment

Of course, it is great news that the Wall Street Journal covered the alternative candidates on the eve of the NY State Governor’s Race debate.  I applaud the Journal and Erica Orden  for recognizing that New Yorkers are capable of processing information beyond the dumbed-down  drivel  that comes from most of the political class mainstream media.   Apparently Orden and WSJ understand why the voters are running screaming from the incumbent parties that got us into this mess.  That’s a big step toward a real dialog on the issues.  I only wish there was enough space to address some of the actual issues that separate the alternative candidates from the incumbent parties and from each other.

So let’s  do that here.

The dumbed down version of the political spectrum would have us divide the candidates along a left-right, liberal-conservative line.  The left side of that line includes Green, Working Families, Democrat and  Freedom Party Candidates.  The right side includes Conservative, Taxpayer and Republican Parties.   The left is usually associated with more social freedom but less economic freedom.  The right is usually associated with more economic freedom and less personal freedom.  The problem is that today’s incumbent Republicans and Democrats both support more war, more welfare ( corporate and personal) and more limits on personal freedom via laws like REAL ID, the PATRIOT ACT.  In short the incumbent parties are both for more big government when that big government works for them and against those other people.

I left out the Independence, Libertarian and Anti-prohibition parties.

 I have to put the Anti-prohibition Party on the left because they support legalizing marijuana, prostitution and gambling – great ideas in support of more social freedom,  but  they support extraordinary taxes on those activities – a bad idea that reduces economic freedom and funds more and more bigger government.   Much as I applaud the APP’s refreshing positions on victimless crimes , unfortunately, the APP is for the most part, a single issue party without any history or much to say about dozens of other important issues.  It’s also interesting that Kristin Davis the APP’s candidate for Governor also opposes the Ground Zero Mosque.  It’s hard to understand how Davis can see the issue of victimless crimes so clearly and completely miss the point on issues of economic and religious freedom.

The Independence Party sits squarely in the middle exhibiting no actual discernable principles of any kind.

But what about the Libertarians?   Libertarians are a diverse crowd but for the most part they are fiscal conservatives who support lower taxes, lower government spending, less regulation and generally more economic freedom.  But the Libertarians don’t really fit in on the right because we also support more personal freedom and typically left positions.  We support Civil Rights and we oppose  war , corporate welfare, the PATRIOT Act and REAL ID Act, and laws against victimless crimes such as the Drug War.

So how do we vote for a future for New York with religious and social freedom, a sane policy for victimless crimes and an economic climate conducive to job and income growth?

 You reject the Democrats and Republicans immediately because they are the ones who got us into this mess. Hoping it will be different this time is really deluded.  

Thinking people will reject the Left if they ever hope to retire or if they have children or even a basic sense of fairness.  The Left has nice dreams but no way to pay for them.  Putting your economic future in the hands of corrupt politicians is truly irrational. We should have learned that lesson in the last 100 years or so.

So what remains is the obvious choice.  You can choose to vote for personal freedom and economic freedom.  You can choose to vote against war, against the drug-war, against corporate welfare and against intolerance based on religion, race and gender-identify.  At the same time you can vote for a healthy economy where free people benefit from their own hard work and where there are jobs for those willing to work and honest business is something we admire again.  You could vote Libertarian.