Voting and results at
http://www.lp.org/poll/are-you-optimistic-about-the-obama-administration
Posted to IPR by Paulie
41 Comments
Comments are closed.
June 5, 2026
Your Premier Source on Third Parties and Independent Candidates Since 2008
Voting and results at
http://www.lp.org/poll/are-you-optimistic-about-the-obama-administration
Posted to IPR by Paulie
Comments are closed.
http://delawarelibertarian.blogspot.com/2009/01/devils-and-details.html
derkel // Jan 22, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Obama also rolled back Executive Power.
“Obama rescinded Bush’s 2001 executive order allowing former presidents, vice presidents, and their heirs to claim executive privilege in determining which of their records get released to the public. Even better, he’s requiring the signature of both his White House counsel and the attorney general before he can classify a document under executive privilege.”
Doing all the right things so far. What that means when it comes to the economy who knows.
IIRC, in 1981 Ronald Reagan also issued executive orders rescinding executive orders going back to Truman/Eisenhower authorizing the Federal takeover of schools, homes, farms, supermarkets, factories, highways and the rounding up of non-compliant citizens in the event of an undescribed national emergency.
These executive orders were some of the John Birch Society’s biggest fears, and well known to them.
The Reagan administration then quietly put these or similar executive orders back on the books. The administration could then say with a straight face that these abominations had been rescinded.
I would not be surprised if Obama did something similar. Just call me cynical.
PEACE
Eric Dondero // Jan 23, 2009 at 12:15 am
Yupper, and Pol Pot wasn’t a Leftist either. Neither was Stalin. They were just good ole’ civil libertarians.
Well Eric, THAT would explain your “Libertarians for Bush”, “Libertarians for Leiberman” and “Libertarians for McCain” campaigns!
🙂
PEACE
The Boston Tea Party of Kansas says bring them to our back yard, yes. There is no criminal and there is no crime for which we should abandon liberty.
Besides, Kansans have never had difficulty convicting criminals where the evidence was beyond a reasonable doubt.
Only lick-spittle cowards want to give up freedom for a little imagined safety.
Steve, shutting down Auschwitz or Treblinka would have been a great blessing. The longest road begins with a single step.
http://bostontea.us/node/570
Press Release
Contact: Jim Davidson 785-393-1393
[email protected]
http://www.bostontea.us
For Immediate Release
KANSAS SHOULD WELCOME “TERRORISTS”
Boston Tea Party of Kansas Says Send G’tmo Detainees
Lawrence, KS – 23 January 2009 – Today Boston Tea Party of Kansas chair Jim Davidson called on President Barack Obama’s commission to promptly resolve the fate of all Guantanamo detainees. “Please close the prison as promptly as possible. Feel free to send anyone to federal detention facilities in Kansas. We’re safer with due process of law than having star chamber courts and secret prisons.”
Davidson went on to say, “Kansans should welcome having criminals, including the worst terrorists, in federal prison in Kansas, if the alternative is to have no Bill of Rights. The rule of law means due process of law, and that means protecting the accused no matter how heinous the crime they are accused of. We cannot waver in our defense of liberty, ever.”
Many Guantanamo detainees cannot be deported to their countries of origin where they are not welcome, or where they were foreigners to begin with. One of the possible alternatives for detainees is the federal penitentiary at Leavenworth.
The shameful history of the prison at Guantanamo includes the Bush Administration refusing to charge prisoners with any crime, failing to adhere to international standards for treatment of prisoners of war including partisan combatants, torturing of prisoners, and other crimes against humanity. Transferring these people to Kansas would more likely afford them access to due process, including legal counsel, trial by jury, habeas corpus, and other essential liberties.
“Kansas should be proud of having no history of torturing suspects, nor denying due process of law. Kansans have never had difficulty convicting criminals when the evidence is beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no crime, and there is no criminal, for which we should abandon our liberties. These detainees have waited long enough to
have their uncertain situation resolved. To needlessly delay this resolution would itself be a crime,” Davidson concluded.
——–
The Boston Tea Party is a libertarian political party founded in 2006. Its platform calls for a smaller government at all levels and on all issues. In October 2008 the party adopted in convention the national program of the Campaign for Liberty.
# end #
W shut down Abu Graib. Shutting down Gitmo means more and I applaud it, but I just wonder if it aint just cosmetic, and if there’s substance to the rhetoric. Will he shine light on black sites?
“Trent Hill said something hilarious to me the other day in a private email.
He actually said that he wasn’t a “Leftist.” ”
Correct.
Anyone who has any sort of knowledge of political philosophy understand im not leftist. Eric contends that anyone who criticizes the war is a leftist. I named William Buckley, George Will, Ron Paul, Walter Jones, and Pat Buchanan–and asked him if they were all leftists too.
I strive for smaller government at every level, across the board. That isnt leftist no matter how you try to contrive it Eric.
“Hey Trent Hill, are you anxious to have Khalid Sheikh Muhammed in your backyard?”
Im anxious to see ANY terrorist suspect, guilty or innocent, get a fair trial. I don’t want to see innocents imprisoned for years for no good reason. And those who ARE guilty deserve a trial and punishment–so that we can know their names, their crimes, and feel safe knowing they have been caught and are behind bars for committing a crime (as opposed to, just looking like someone who might committ a crime).
“Ready for a few Radical Muslim terrorists at your local Prison facility? ”
Gladly. If they are innocent, they’ll be set free and i’m not scared at all of them. If they’re guilty, they’ll be imprisoned and have the crap kicked out of them by fellow inmates.
“Or, are you more of the mind, just to let them out on the Streets, and maybe have the Taxpayers pay for their Lawyers?”
If they’re innocent they ought to be let out of the streets (actually, they’re all non-citizens, so they’d be deported). They’ll likely pay for their own lawyers, but if they accept a taxpayer funded one and goto prison–that’d be cheaper than running Guantanamo.
I’m glad to hear that Gitmo is closing, however, I do NOT think that this is cause for great celebration because I do not expect the Obama administration to be a net gain for liberty, I expect it to be a net loss for liberty.
Eric,
You are very good at spitting out talking points that throw out every single one of our principles for a perceived sense of safety. Unfortunately the talking points at just that.
Our prisons are currently filled with the most disgusting criminals in the world. I think these detainees in a military detention center will be covered.
Yes, I support basic human rights for every innocent person. Which people are until they are convicted in a court of law. That is how our system works.
Trent Hill said something hilarious to me the other day in a private email.
He actually said that he wasn’t a “Leftist.”
Yupper, and Pol Pot wasn’t a Leftist either. Neither was Stalin. They were just good ole’ civil libertarians.
Hey Trent Hill, are you anxious to have Khalid Sheikh Muhammed in your backyard?
Where is it that you live?
Ready for a few Radical Muslim terrorists at your local Prison facility?
Or, are you more of the mind, just to let them out on the Streets, and maybe have the Taxpayers pay for their Lawyers?
Closing of Gitmo. Great. Now we’ll have Khalid Sheik Muhammed in a jail cell in New Jersey or Kansas, right in our own backyards.
Lovely.
Civil Rights for Terrorists. Oh goody.
PC: What I am most concerned with is the likelihood there is not enough time left to create a more peaceful society before big government reaches critical mass and has a meltdown.
Me: I share your concern, although my gut tells me we avoid the apocalypse somehow or other.
Walking around with “The End is Near” sandwich boards seems contra-indicated, but I defend the rights of others to do so.
Personally, I’d like to see a lot of Libertarian Obamas, inclusive yet committed to nonviolence and UNdoing violence. Wounds from violence take time to heal. Sometimes, triage is necessary. But, for me, sanctimony doesn’t work. Nor, of course, do government “solutions,” but I suggest to my L brethren that undoing involves dislocation.
in order to loosen or untie any knots, I’d suggest we need larger numbers of people advocating for steps of relative liberation.
As an adherent of diversity of tactics (unfortunately, a term that has gotten a bad rap from its use by non-property rights anarchists to justify looting), I agree.
I tend to see any time that anyone spends trying to convince someone to support less government than they already do as a good thing. In other words, I think we need different people advocating for both anarchy and minarchy, and different flavors of both, as well as different strategies for achieving them.
What I am most concerned with is the likelihood there is not enough time left to create a more peaceful society before big government reaches critical mass and has a meltdown.
Strategically, I don’t like the odds of convincing a ever-growing cadre of absolutist liberators because there are too many gray areas and people are “conservative” in the sense they don’t like “radical” change. Vast majorities, I suggest, are gradualistic and relativistic by nature. Changing that tendency, if ever, is for another day.
I don’t like the odds of doing it as a sole tactic, to the exclusion of others.
“as the radicals go, so do the moderates grudgingly follow in small steps…. ” (Spangler).
I think we need both radicals and moderates for the fight for freedom to be effective.
We need lots of other things as well – for just one of many possible examples, to prepare for the possible likelihood of a “road warrior world” scenario, it would be good to form militias that are not infused with racialism and theocracy – but again, I’m not sure there is adequate time left for that, either.
Obama also rolled back Executive Power.
“Obama rescinded Bush’s 2001 executive order allowing former presidents, vice presidents, and their heirs to claim executive privilege in determining which of their records get released to the public. Even better, he’s requiring the signature of both his White House counsel and the attorney general before he can classify a document under executive privilege.”
Doing all the right things so far. What that means when it comes to the economy who knows.
Im more pleased with Obama today than I ever was with Bush, I think.
While I cant think of one decent thing Bush did, I can think of one great thing Obama has already done–close Gitmo.
“Are you optimistic about socialism?”
Not in the US, I’m not. Though, as all these neo-liberal and Keynesian economic gimmicks fail to stop the economic collapse, I think we might see the growth of a new socialist movement in the US.
I’m not optomistic abt an Obama admin; but, I’m very happy to see the closure of Gitmo and the CIA’s secret foriegn prisons. And if Obama lifts the ban on federal dollars for stem cell research, I’ll be glad abt that. And if he revokes Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, I’ll be happy with that.
In fact; I think I may end up being happier with Obama (who I did not vote for) than the folks I know who believe Obama is the messiah.
Are you optimistic about socialism?
PC, in order to loosen or untie any knots, I’d suggest we need larger numbers of people advocating for steps of relative liberation.
Strategically, I don’t like the odds of convincing a ever-growing cadre of absolutist liberators because there are too many gray areas and people are “conservative” in the sense they don’t like “radical” change. Vast majorities, I suggest, are gradualistic and relativistic by nature. Changing that tendency, if ever, is for another day.
I’m not a nihilist, so no I don’t prefer to live in a Road Warrior world vs. what we have now.
Me neither. A road warrior world is clearly sub-optimal. But so is what happens to the body and brain cells of an addict going cold turkey. So is what happens to the body of a cancer patient on chemotherapy. Actually, of the two, addiction is probably the better analogy, since the patient tends to see the disease AS the cure – not something frequently true of cancer patients.
Mind you, I’m not saying cold turkey is the right approach here. In fact, there are certain drugs from which withdrawals can literally kill you if you go cold turkey: alcohol, in sufficiently advanced addiction, and if I remember correctly, benzodiazepenes and barbituates as well.
I believe we are living in a society which is addicted to coercion, particularly coercive government. Attempts at moderation (limited government) have not proven successful. I believe we need to achieve the functional equivalent of sobriety if are to survive long-term as a civilization, or even as a species, given the technology we have and/or are developing.
I don’t think that a coercion-based government is long term sustainable. The answer to problems always seems to be more government coercion, and the more government coercion in a society, the more problems it has. It is the functional equivalent for society of what a crack binge for me. A crash is likely to be coming, far more likely because coercive government overplays its hand in some horrific way than because those of us who advocate a non-coercion based society succeed in persuading enough people to abolish coercive government.
We can hope for a soft landing, and I do. If there is a way to achieve a non-coercion based society without going through a chaotic transition, I would love to see us take that path. I must admit that there are times when I lose my sense of optimism about it being possible.
I’d rather not play chicken. If I’m being choked, I’d prefer the stranglehold to lessen than tightened, especially when I see no short term prospects for being let go completely.
There are some possible short-term prospects of being let go completely. Unfortunately, the most likely ones seem to involve a collapse and a road-warrioresque transition. I tend to believe we would be better off with that in the long run, but clearly not in the short run.
Perhaps we can still manage to untie these knots, but they seem to be the kind that get tighter the more you try to loosen them.
mea culpa
Thanx for pointing that out!
PEACE
Steven,
This is from teh opening paragraph..
“directing the Central Intelligence Agency to shut what remains of its network of secret prisons ”
Unless I’m reading that wrong. I took it to mean he is shutting all the CIA secret prisons around the world.
Derkel-
I would love to be wrong. But I read the link twice, to be sure I wasn’t missing anything.
I see NO mention of (closing) the other CIA prisons around the world.
Still, it IS possible that I missed the reference.
PEACE
Robert and derkel, I mostly agree with you guys. There’s more nuance to the situation we are in than a lot of people online would like to think (not just libertarians, I’m talking about in general).
Cannoli (which is the food of the gods, btw): But would that necessarily be a good thing? How long do we continue to express a preference for being choked slowly rather than quickly? Is there a point where we just want to get it over with, and let government expand to the point where it collapses as quickly as possible? I’m really not sure myself.
Me: I’m not a nihilist, so no I don’t prefer to live in a Road Warrior world vs. what we have now. I’d rather not play chicken. If I’m being choked, I’d prefer the stranglehold to lessen than tightened, especially when I see no short term prospects for being let go completely.
Steven,
The Gitmo Executive Order also closed secret CIA prisons around the world.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/us/politics/22gitmo.html
In only 3 days, Obama has already proven he is nothing close to Bush. Hopefully the Republicans can stop the spending bill and things won’t be all that bad right now.
The closing of Guantanamo was strictly a PR stunt. Imagine Hitler’s replacement merely closing Auschwitz or Treblinka, the most notorious camps. I haven’t heard of other CIA torture camps being closed. Probably because they aren’t as notorious.
What we are going to see with the Obama regime is George Bush on steroids. I’d put money on it.
PEACE
Virtual Galt asks
Will government be bigger after 4 years, or smaller?
Will taxes be higher after 4 years, or lower?
Will there be more or fewer Federal Register pages?
Robert Capozzi replies
Bigger, higher, more seem highly likely.
Outside chance, though, that government as a percentage of GDP could decline. Exiting Iraq can’t really be quantified, but it’d be a huge plus in my book.
We agree thus far…
I’d also look at RATES of change. Bush was on a real negative trajectory in this regard, Obama COULD change the rate of negative change, like Clinton (or, really, the Clinton years) did, kinda, sorta.
But would that necessarily be a good thing? How long do we continue to express a preference for being choked slowly rather than quickly? Is there a point where we just want to get it over with, and let government expand to the point where it collapses as quickly as possible? I’m really not sure myself.
Yes, I’m optimistic. Might as well give him a fair chance instead of being a partisan hack.
Obama has done good things in the first days of his administration. Closing Gitmo, freezing staffer pay, basically banning lobbyists, closing CIA prisons, etc.
I’m scared of what economic policies could emerge, but I am at least hopeful it will be as good as the Clinton years.
Robert, when it comes to protecting people’s rights, close isn’t good enough. Closing Gitmo is cute, but what about the other 15,000 people being held in U.S. secret prisons around the world. I doubt we will hear about them from Obama. He demonstrated in voting for the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 that he doesn’t give a damn about the rights and welfare of the American people. He will do just enough to keep the P.R. okay.
Bigger, higher, more seem highly likely.
Outside chance, though, that government as a percentage of GDP could decline. Exiting Iraq can’t really be quantified, but it’d be a huge plus in my book.
I’d also look at RATES of change. Bush was on a real negative trajectory in this regard, Obama COULD change the rate of negative change, like Clinton (or, really, the Clinton years) did, kinda, sorta.
Will government be bigger after 4 years, or smaller?
Will taxes be higher after 4 years, or lower?
Will there be more or fewer Federal Register pages?
I suspect everyone here knows the answers to these questions.
InDglass,
Last I checked, almost EVERYTHING is about being “close.” When we take a test, for ex., do people not pass with a grade of 70-100, or do only 100s pass?
That saying makes no sense, actually. If it does, please expand.
The future’s so bright, I gotta wear shades
http://pauliecannoli.wordpress.com/2008/11/09/obama-nation-the-futures-so-bright-i-gotta-wear-shades/
JFK, JFK, JFK: elect me to help you, then, “ask not what……..”
Wow, that is cool, Eric. A post from you that I actually care to see.
Last time I checked, almost only counts with horseshoes and hand grenades. Since Obama has made it clear he only intends to go as far as almost doing stuff (at best), I’ll say I am not optimistic.
Hey, check this out. Pretty cool.
Just driving in my Truck today, around noon time, and all of a sudden, Newsbreak, “Libertarian Party Chairman Bill Redpath had this to say about the incoming Obama administration…”
And Redpath came on and gave some comments about increased spending.
Good job Libertarian Party.
Oh, the station, KTRH – Houston, NewsTalk.
I voted maybe.
My reasoning: If we get out of Iraq and things recover from Bush’s low, maybe there’s some improvement.