Brian Lambert, a retired United States Navy veteran, has launched his Libertarian Party bid for Florida’s 14th Congressional District, where he is challenging Democratic U.S. Rep. Kathy Castor on a platform of limited government, fiscal responsibility, and individual liberty.
Lambert kicked off his bid in a statement shared directly with Independent Political Report on July 22, introducing himself as a 20-year Navy veteran, father of three, and longtime resident of Tampa Bay. He says he is running on the principles of “Life, Liberty, and Voice” and seeks to return political power to voters and away from career politicians.
“For twenty years, I served under an oath to support and defend the Constitution,” Lambert said in the announcement. “That oath has no expiration. I’m running for Congress because our children deserve better than the debt, division, and unchecked government power Washington is preparing to hand them.”
On his campaign website, Lambert has put forward a legislative agenda touching on a dozen topics, including support for balancing the federal budget, defending constitutional carry and national reciprocity for gun rights, and protecting medical and educational freedom. If elected, he says he would evaluate legislation by asking whether it is constitutional with the mantra that “if the answer is no, it shouldn’t become law.”
As a veteran, Lambert also says the country has an obligation to ensure that those who served receive proper care and access to the benefits they earned after leaving the military. While he describes his own experience with the Department of Veterans Affairs as generally positive, he argues that the department’s bureaucracy still leaves too many veterans struggling to access care. His campaign calls for more accountability within the department, as well as stronger mental health services, expanded community care, and broader treatment options for veterans, including holistic, herbal, and alternative therapies.
One of the more notable planks in Lambert’s platform, given the Libertarian Party’s national platform, is his support for securing the border. The national party’s free trade and migration plank says individuals should not be “unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries” and defends “the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders” as essential to economic freedom.
Lambert, on his website, instead calls immigration enforcement one responsibility of a constitutional government and says Congress should be held accountable for addressing the border. To that end, he wants consistent enforcement across all of the country’s points of entry and adequate resources supplied to border communities. He calls himself a supporter legal immigration and says he would oppose policies that incentivize people to bypass the existing immigration system.
“A nation has both the right and the responsibility to know who is entering its territory,” he states on his website. “That responsibility does not end at the southern border—it includes every border, every port, and every lawful point of entry.”
Lambert is unopposed for the Libertarian nomination and is recognized by the Florida Division of Elections as being qualified for the general election ballot. He will challenge Castor, the district’s incumbent and only qualified Democrat in the race, as well as the Republican nominee. The same state list shows that eight Republicans have qualified for the seat, with their primary set for August 18.
It is ridiculous to equate trade with migration/immigration. There are big differences between products and people.
I recommend the following essay by Hans-Hermann Hoppe.
https://mises.org/journal-libertarian-studies/case-free-trade-and-restricted-immigration
Note that left-Libertarians at the 2016 Libertarian National Convention, the same convention body which told us that Bill Weld, a member of the globalist CFR (or Council on Foreign Relations), is a Libertarian and should be the Vice Presidential nominee for the party, changed the Libertarian Party’s immigration platform plank. The previous plank said something to the effect of that while the state exists it should keep out foreign migrants who pose a threat to life, liberty and property.
The current plank actually contradicts another planl about property rights. Exclusivity to property is an essential element to property rights. Exclusivity to property is for the use of some person or people but not for the use of everyone. If there is no exclusivity to property there is no property rights and if there is no property rights there is no libertarianism.
This concept does in fact hold true for taxpayer funded property/commons/infrastructure/programs as they are for the use of citizens. Non-citizens have no right to any of these things as they are engageed in a privilege as a guest, which means they can use these things only under specific regulations, no different than when a guest enters a gated community or an apartment or condominium association complex. So if a non-citizen enters the country illegally or otherwise violates the terms for their entry to the country, which under the US Constitution, “Define and Punish offenses against the Law of Nations” phrase is an offense, the punishment for such a offense is expulsion from the country, which is no different than when security guards eject a trespasser from a gated community or an apartment or condominium association complex.
If anyone thinks that it is a legitimate libertarian position to allow unlimited numbers of foreign migrants to enter the country with no restrictions and to never kick any of them out no matter what they do, I would ask if you apply this same concept to American Indian reservations. American Indian tribal governments regulate who can come on their reservations. They may have a casino or a gas station or a gift shop that is open to the public to stop to engage in commerce, but even with these they reserve the right to kick out unruly guests, and they restrict access from non-tribe members to the rest of their reservations. Non-tribe members have to get permission from the tribal government to visit places in restricted access areas. American Indian tribal governments can evict trespassers. So I ask to those who think that open borders and unlimited unrestricted immigration is a legitimate libertarian position, do you apply this to Native American Indian reservations?
A Libertarian but wants the government to spend more money on the one thing that will directly benefit him (the VA).
Best wishes for electoral success to Brian Lambert! May the sun shine on him!