NDAA causes controversy

By William R. Toler

You wouldn’t think something as innocent-sounding as the National Defense Authorization Act would pose such a threat to the people of the nation.

On first thought, it sounds like just funding the military….which is just what it is supposed to be. According to Wikipedia it is a “federal law that has been enacted for each of the past 49 years to specify the budget and expenditures of the United States Department of Defense.”

So, why then, has there been so much opposition among liberty activists?

There’s a dangerous provision that the Huffington Post calls the “worst thing since the Alien and Sedition Acts.” That provision allows for the arrest and indefinate detention of Americans seen as a threat by the military, thereby abolishing the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act which prohibits the military from domestic policing.

The act, which passed through the Senate 93-7, was signed by President Obama on New Years Eve…despite orignally saying he would veto the bill with that provision. However, he did include a signing statement saying:” I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists.”

Most of our state’s servants in Washington voted for the act including both Senators Richard Burr and Kay Hagan. NC Congressmen Mel Watt and Walter Jones were among the opposition in the House of Represenatives. If Jones, a staunch advocate for the miltary, is against it…there must be something wrong.

Golden Rule booed in S.C.

By William R. Toler

“[C]an’t believe the golden rule got booed in SC. wow.”

That was the status from a Facebook “friend” during the GOP debate Monday night in the Palmetto State.

The Golden Rule, treat others as you would like to be treated, was uttered by the media and establishment’s least favorite candidate, Texas Congressman Ron Paul. The audience, made up of apparently status quo, warhawk conservatives, promptly booed the libertarian-minded, predidential hopeful.

During a reubuttal to an answer by Rick Santorum, Paul said our nation should follow the Golden Rule in terms of foreign policy.

“If another country does to us as we do to others, we’re not going to like it very much. So I would say, maybe we ought to consider a Golden Rule in foreign policy. [Cue the boos] Don’t do to other nations what we don’t want them to do to us.”

I was a little surprised myself, considering Republicans, especially in the Bible Belt, teach and preach the Golden Rule.
|

Republicans rage in Iowa debate

By James White

Another Republican debate down.  If nothing else, this one was certainly entertaining.

Tim Pawlenty found his spine and attacked Michele Bachmann.  That kitty has claws, though, and she gave just as good as she got (and looked classier doing it!)  They fought over each other’s record.  Pawlenty pointed out that Bachmann had a zero success rate while she painted him as a liberal while he was governor of Minnesota.

Rick Santorum and Ron Paul sparred over basic conservative values.  Paul constantly blew Santorum’s mind, and it showed on Santorum’s face as he looked incredulously at his opponent.  Of course, Santorum almost made Congressman Paul have an aneurysm when he began talking about the need for more military action against Iran.

Newt Gingrich fought with no one on the stage, but instead directed his rage to the mainstream media and their “gotcha questions”.  Remember, when I say “mainstream media”, this is FOX News that is hosting this debate, and by “gotcha questions” I mean questions about his record.  But everyone knows that Gingrich has trouble keeping everything he says straight.

Abortion and bike helmets: A debate of personal responsibilty

By William R. Toler

I’ve often heard from conservatives that you can’t reason with liberals. Even when you use their own logic to try and make them see your point it seems…well…pointless.

The social networking site Facebook has become known for heated discussions of political topics, and I’ve had quite a few of my own. Monday night produced one such debate that could seem to prove, or at least give creedence to, the aforementioned gerneralization.

A former “Commie” cohort–who was a fierce defender of liberty during the sex column debacle at Craven Community College–had posted a video of a guy who had been ticketed for not riding in the provided bicycle lane. After being given the ticket, he shows video clips of himself staying in the bike lane crashing into obstacles…including a police cruiser. After reading a certain comment, my libertarian mind went to work with the personal responsiblity agrument.

Commenter: …but I would have given him a ticket for wreckless riding AND failure to wear a bike helmet.

Me: shouldn’t it be his choice as to whether or not he wants to wear a helmet. If he wants to take the personal responsibilty for his own actions that will not harm anyone…

New Hampshire Debate: Results skewed; candidate screwed

By William R. Toler

The winner of Monday night’s GOP debate hosted by CNN is, well, debatable.

CNN proclaimed former Mass. governor Mit Romney the victor. Most “experts” agree or say it was won by Minn. Congresswoman Michele Bachman. Audience applause and online polls suggest otherwise.

Although the Atlanta-based network is promoting Romney, its own online poll shows Rep. Ron Paul leading with 81 percent. Romney, Bachman and businessman Herman Cain are in a 3-way tie with five percent.

Another online poll was shut down after Paul supporters responded overwhelmingly. A poll at the Patriot Action Network website was taken down and the site blamed supporters for their blitz. That page has also been removed.

One columnist also commented that Paul won based on the applause. “I realize Paul’s supporters tend to be louder and more enthusiastic than other candidates’ and the amount of applause is hardly a scientific way to judge a debate. But to not even consider as a potential debate winner the person who was applauded more than twice as much as any other candidate strikes me as strange.”

Republican debate Round 1: And the winner is…

By James White

Last night was the first of many Republican debates, and it was worth mentioning for several reasons.

  Only five candidates showed for the event.  Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, and Gary Johnson were the ones that made the trip to Greenville, South Carolina, and most of these contenders aren’t really considered to be the “heavyweights” of the Republican party.  Most notable by their absences were Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Michelle Bachman (whose performance I was especially looking forward to!).  Another aspect of the contest was that it was hosted by Fox News, which I’m sure is a surprise to everyone that they hosted the first Republican debate.  The best feature of this debate was that it gave the opportunity for candidates to be heard that would otherwise be drowned out during other debates and news cycles. 

Libertarians protest exclusion

By William R. Toler

While Sen. Richard Burr and Secretary of State Elaine Marshall were inside the studios of University of North Carolina Television trading accusations, a small group of

Matt Drew holds a sign signaling his discontent-Photo Courtesy Michael Shanklin

 people stood outside signaling their discontent.

They weren’t just expressing disapproval against the two candidates. They were outraged because of the absence of the third: Libertarian candidate Dr. Michael Beitler.

The grassroots protest was orgainzed by Michael Shanklin, who sent out invitations on the social networking site Facebook. More than 20 people showed for the event holding various signs.

“We did this in just two and half days,” said Shanklin, political director for the Libertarian Party of North Carolina.

“The rally was to display our concern for the fact that candidates and their parties, even after completing rigorous ballot access requirements and completing the huge task getting on the ballot, still cannot get their message heard through the media channels,” Shanklin added. “It was a form of ostracism to show our disgust with the actions taken to limit speech and dialogue that the voters deserve to hear.”