The rights of individuals have been put in the back burner in today’s political world. For example, to prevent terrorism, the government has imposed security measures and enforced racial profiling on individuals. I have traveled on many domestic and international flights in the past few years and have been subject to such security measures.

In fact, I was awaiting the arrival of a family member from a Northwest flight coming in from Amsterdam (a couple days after Christmas) when the irrational restrictions on individual freedoms became ever so obvious. A Nigerian man who felt sick in the plane and used the restroom multiple times was detained because a few days earlier another Nigerian mad tried to set off an explosive on the same flight heading into Detroit. The poor man just felt ill, and the government poured in Department of Homeland Security employees, sniffing dogs, police and ambulances. What a waste of resources and a horrible inconvenience! I waited at the airport for nearly five hours. I would expect the government to be able to handle security threat in ways that do not impose so severely on individual freedoms in this day and age.

In today’s political atmosphere, issues besides terrorism, including government bailouts and universal health care, are also infringing upon the rights of individuals. The U.S. government has swept into the everyday lives of Americans in a big way. Americans facing foreclosure are being offered government assistance and extra money for energy efficient utilities. Instead of encouraging an independent populous, the government at federal, state and local levels, is encouraging dependency.

Government bailout of the auto companies in Detroit is an example of exactly this. Now, Detroiters are turning to the government for more money to improve railways to Chicago and increase jobs. The government should promote the rights and abilities of individuals to improve their lives and those of their community. Universal health care is another bill being pushed by today’s Democrats to involve government to control an essential part of people’s existence i.e. their health care needs.

An individual deserves the right to decide their own health care plans. A competitive, privatized health care industry with few governmental regulations is the way to go. When it comes to government involvement, less is always better. Unfortunately, individuals freedoms are slowly disappearing and the United States is becoming more like Communist China by the day.

As a libertarian, I feel that there is much to be done for America, particularly with regard to the central banking industry and the corporate welfare that we have been promoting with all of the big-bank bailouts. It is alarming to think that as a country we will accept the fact that we could let our government spend more than $100 billion to save companies that are using practices that do not work. This simply has taught the banks that they are too big to fail and that they can never do wrong and will always be propped up.

What does this tell them about how they should conduct their business? It tells them that they don’t need to change any policy and can participate in any business that reaps the fastest short term benefits imaginable. Companies that function on a short term profit model will always fail if they are not going to be considering what kind of incentives exist for the employees. The incentives need to be for rewarding long term growth options and not simply what looks the best for one year’s balance sheet.

If it weren’t alarming enough that we are subsidizing one set of the economy, we are currently planning on taxing another side of the economy by imposing artificial cap and trade incentives to actually not produce anything! A cap and trade law designed to limit carbon emissions to attempt to address the “global warming” that is being plastered across newspapers and media to distract from the serious issues affecting our economy. If there is in fact a global warming problem, companies will be jumping at the opportunity to create a solution as soon as it becomes economical for them to do so; not based on punishing them for their industry but rewarding them for their creativity in solving a problem.

The reason why there aren’t any companies at the moment addressing this issue is that it has not been sufficiently proven to be an economical detriment to our society yet the sentiment is that something must be done and it will be our industries that take the hit while our over-seas competition gets the advantage of unimpeded production. Lastly, the issue of the drug war that is costing our country billions in prosecution has done nothing but create criminals out of people that are doing something that has no victims except themselves. While many of the problems with drugs are societal involving addiction and poverty, the violence that is associated with the illegal trade would be quickly nullified if we were to legalize drugs.

As a stepping stone, the simple legalization of marijuana, a non addictive substance with less harmful side effects than alcohol, and free up millions in resources that could be used to reduce tax burdens on small businesses and actually create taxable industry within the united states by licensing marijuana growers, distributors, and retailers.

“Tonight’s speech was a reminder that, for decades, the policies of Republicans and Democrats alike have failed. Libertarians are asking people to take matters into their own hands. Instead of just complaining, we’re encouraging ordinary Americans to step up and run for Congress on the Libertarian Party ballot line.

I can say exactly the same thing about President Obama’s speech tonight that I said about George W. Bush’s State of the Union speech in January 2008: ‘Tonight’s State of the Union address went much as expected. Instead of calling for a more limited role of the federal government in American society, the President laid out plans that would only increase the government’s intervention into the realm of economics, health care, education and foreign policy.

I am weary of the President’s unspoken premise that only government–indeed, only the federal government–can accomplish good in our society.

President Obama seems to be totally blind to the concept that government can cause problems rather than solve them. His speech was filled with ‘More’: more handouts, more spending, more programs, more bailouts, more regulations. We Libertarians want less government, not more.

Not to be outmatched by the Democrats, the Republican Party conveyed its lack of seriousness in addressing this nation’s government spending problems by having Bob McDonnell, Virginia Governor for eleven (11) days, deliver its rebuttal to the President. If they were really serious about addressing the dire fiscal circumstances of this nation, they would have had Paul Ryan, a six-term congressman from Wisconsin, who has proposed the most serious plan of anyone in the two older parties to keep us from going off a fiscal cliff.

Last week, Alan Auerbach, Professor of Economics and Law at UC Berkeley and US government fiscal policy expert, said that the Democratic and Republican parties are in a ‘death embrace’ with their government spending. The only political party that is rationally and forthrightly addressing the need to cut government spending and end our culture of ever expanding entitlements is the Libertarian Party.

As Americans lose hope in Obama, we Libertarians are warning voters against running back to the Republicans who got us into such big messes in the first place. Republicans started the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Republicans made the false intellectual case for bailing out banks and car companies. Republicans argued that deficits don’t matter. Republicans gave us the giant Medicare expansion bill.

The President’s suggestion of a ’spending freeze’ was especially ludicrous and insulting to the intelligence of Americans. The amounts involved are minuscule, and Congress won’t accept them anyway. Will Obama sign the spending bills that ignore his ‘freeze’? You bet he will. Instead, the President should demand across-the-board cuts in all areas, including entitlements.

The President talked a lot about jobs. Unfortunately, the policies he supports are responsible for most of the unemployment we see today. High taxes, minimum wage laws, hiring regulations, firing regulations, mandatory unemployment benefits, and other government interference make it much more difficult for businesses to hire and keep employees. As expected, the President’s prescription is to increase the dosage of this government poison.

While our nation is declining dangerously right now, a turnaround could be straightforward and simple with steps like these: 1. Bring our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan; 2. Stop rewarding failed companies with bailouts; 3. Cut taxes and spending and let the free market work.

Finally, on the matter of political rhetoric, I call upon the two older parties to stop spoon feeding politics to the American people as if we are a bunch of overgrown children. These are difficult times that call for more than rhetorical flourish or positioning a group of diverse people around a politician. Older party politicians need to be specific about their proposed policies, as Libertarians are.

And, I know I’m probably just wasting electrons, but can’t we go back to the days in which the President sent a copy of his speech to Congress and left it at that. The speech last night took 1/7000th of an entire year. I think the vast majority of the American people would agree that we have better ways to spend our time.”

William Redpath has served as the Chairman of the Libertarian Party since 2006. For more information, or to arrange an interview, call LP Executive Director Wes Benedict at 202-333-0008 ext. 222.

The LP is America’s third-largest political party, founded in 1971. The Libertarian Party stands for free markets and civil liberties.

Let’s take a look at the state of Maine. A state that had 128,000 citizens that were uninsured in 2003. At the time, Governor John Baldacci (D) signed into law a state-wide health care plan to combat the situation. By the time 2009 arrived, it would cover all of Maine’s citizens. The system would help keep control of hospitals and physicians to hold down insurance premiums. It was sold as a way to provide everyone insurance as well as save business and patients money. To top it off, it was stated that there would be no increase in taxes.

Well after five years of the program, not only has the program not save any money, but it has also cost the taxpayers of Maine $155 million and is still rising. Here’s how the program was supposed to work. There were to be two government programs that would cover the uninsured. The legislature greatly expanded MaineCare, the state’s Medicaid program. Today Maine families with incomes of up to $44,000 a year are eligible; 22% of the population is now in Medicaid, roughly twice the national average.

Then the state created a “public option” (where have you heard that lately?) known as DirigoChoice. The plan would compete with private plans such as Blue Cross. To get lower income Mainers to enroll, it offered taxpayer-subsidized premiums. (again, this sounds familiar) The plan’s original funding source was $50 million of federal stimulus money the state got in 2003. Over the years, the plan was to be “funded by the savings in the health-care system.”

During the peak of the program in 2006, only about 15,000 people had enrolled in the DirigoChoice program. That number has now dropped to below 10,000, according to Maine’s own reporting. About two-thirds of those who enrolled already had insurance, which they dropped in favor of the subsidized public option. So instead of the 128,000 that were uninsured, the actual number is only 3,400.

Most of what is in Maine’s health care program is actually in the Obama-care bill. So why bother with trying to have a national health care program when they can’t even get it to work on a small scale? If Obama and his friends are so into this bill, then may I suggest that we do a test on the actual program on the state level. Sort of like a “try it before you buy it” program. Try it in California for five years and let’s see how successful it is at that point. If it can survive without a constant need of federal stimulus money, then I say we go ahead with it on a national level.

I know it will never work. One because that it has already been tried in Maine as well as Massachusetts and Tennessee and each time it failed. Currently in Maine, a healthy single male at the age of thirty, pays a monthly premium of $762 while a citizen in the same condition in New Hampshire only pays $222.

This bill (HR3200) needs to be stopped and the discussion of health care reform needs to be re-focused to look at tort reform. A major part of health care costs come from malpractice insurance that the doctors need to have to protect themselves from from major law-suits. The lawyers have pushed the price of health care up from the class-action suits to individual cases. As for class-action suits, no one benefits from this type of practice other than the lawyers. Lawyers will pocket millions of dollars while the people who are affected by the situation only get a few dollars each as compensation.

Will Universal Health Care really work here in America? The answer is no. If you don’t believe it, then you need to go look for the information like I did.

He said:

The four key GOP Senators who need to hear from us (try phone lines, try FAXes, try the email addresses we have listed) are: Senator Olympia Snowe (Maine), Senator Susan Collins (Maine), Senator George Voinovich (Ohio), and Senator Arlen Specter (Pennsylvania). All the contact information you need to reach these offices ASAP.

Stop The “Stimulus”

The page is a database of phone numbers, fax numbers, and emails for each Senator. They suggest you contact the two Senators from your state and then work through the rest of the list as well. In terms of effectiveness, phone calls and faxes are most important, followed by emails.

For those who didn’t see this coming…WAKE UP!

He’s just getting ready to run for his second term. He now knows (most likely someone told him) that if he raises taxes, this will be his only term. With any luck, no matter what he does, this will be his only term. I do expect him to ruin this economy (or at least the budget/deficit) in just two years. Unfortunately, it will take years after he’s removed from office before we can get a handle on the damage he will inflict on this great country.

It’s been awhile since Joanne or I have posted here and do plan to be back to posting on a regular basis again. Happy New Year to all of our readers.

Below is a link that we should look at if we want to get sick (well, I should say sicker) of the politics that go on in Washington. I found it through All American Blogger, A site that I read through my RSS feed. I also follow the man on Twitter.

The information was put together by TIME.com. I say that it’s a must read post. Click here to see list

The interview — conducted by Chicago Public Radio in 2001, while Obama was an Illinois state senator and a law professor at the University of Chicago — delves into whether the civil rights movement should have gone further than it did, so that when “dispossessed peoples” appealed to the high court on the right to sit at the lunch counter, they should have also appealed for the right to have someone else pay for the meal.

In the interview, Obama said the civil rights movement was victorious in some regards, but failed to create a “redistributive change” in its appeals to the Supreme Court, led at the time by Chief Justice Earl Warren. He suggested that such change should occur at the state legislature level, since the courts did not interpret the U.S. Constitution to permit such change.

The 2001 interview evokes recent questioning by Joe “The Plumber” Wurzelbacher, the Ohio man who asked Obama about his proposal to raise taxes on people making more than $250,000. Obama told Wurzelbacher he wants to hike taxes on the wealthy so that the government can spread the wealth.