Another Independent Candidate Will Be On Kentucky's Ballot, This Time It's Ken Moellman For Treasurer.

Libertarian candidate gets on ballot for state treasurer
By Jack Brammer

FRANKFORT – Ken Moellman of Pendleton County has been certified by the secretary of state’s office to get his name on the Nov. 8 ballot as a Libertarian candidate for state treasurer.

Moellman, who works in information technology for a Cincinnati company, submitted more than 8,100 signatures of registered voters to get on the ballot. He needed 5,000 to qualify.

He said 7,844 of the signatures he submitted were certified Wednesday.

“We’ve worked hard to get this task completed,” Moellman said. “I thank all of my supporters for their help in this effort, and look forward to actually focusing on campaigning from this point forward.”

Moellman said he will attend Saturday’s Fancy Farm political picnic in Graves County, though organizers have not invited him to speak at the event.

Moellman faces Democratic incumbent L.J. “Todd” Hollenbach and Republican K.C. Crosbie of Lexington in the fall election.

Personal Liberty, Government Power Are Not Contradictory.

Personal liberty, government power are not contradictory
By Brian Cooney

All Americans agree liberty is one of our nation's fundamental values, perhaps the most fundamental of all.

It was the battle cry of the American Revolution. The Declaration of Independence called it an "unalienable right," and the goal of the Constitution was to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."

But what does "liberty" mean here? It is sometimes used interchangeably with the more general term "freedom" because '"liberty" refers to freedom under, and secured by, government.

Liberty can seem paradoxical. As Texas Rep. Ron Paul loves to remind us, "all government action is inherently coercive." How can we be free under coercion?

Many people see the apparent contradiction between liberty and government as real. Yet they recognize we need the internal and external security only a government can provide.

So libertarians such as Paul accept the state as a necessary evil. But they want to keep it as small as possible by limiting its functions to what is necessary to defend individual liberty in a free-market society.

Paul is a consistent libertarian. He would shrink government by reducing not only social programs but also the hundreds of billions of dollars we spend "maintaining an American empire of more than 700 military bases in more than 120 foreign countries."

His radical views are unlikely to get him the Republican nomination for president.

The mainstream Republican Party today flirts with libertarianism, carefully peeking at the public to see how far it can go. It ignores the costs of our military empire, but it attacks social programs by demonizing government as oppressive and meddlesome. The Tea Party paints President Barack Obama as a latter-day King George III, an enemy of all true patriots.

There is a deep and dangerous incoherence in this libertarian vision.

American colonists revolted against the arbitrary power of a British government which they had not elected and which was unaccountable to them. The GOP is trying to weaken our elected government and maximize the power of an unelected corporate elite that is unaccountable to us.

Republicans try to depict the private sector as the domain of liberty. Yet they fight to shield the wealthy from taxation even though the richest 1 percent have more wealth than the bottom 90 percent.

This great inequality in wealth translates into great inequality in power. It creates an unelected ruling class that funds the campaigns of politicians who will serve their interests. This is a private sector that subverts liberty.

Robert Nozick, a prominent libertarian philosopher, popularized the image of a night-watchman state. Its sole function would be to make sure no one harms the institutions it guards, allowing people to go about their business freely and productively.

We can see the silliness of this image by applying it to the reality of our society. Would anyone want a night watchman armed with the most powerful weapons on the planet, capable of killing or imprisoning us at will?

Even if Paul had his way and American imperial power came to an end, we would still need a sizeable and very powerful military to defend us. The more we strip our government of every function but external and internal defense, the closer we get to a night-watchman monster.

In fact, there is no contradiction between liberty and the coercive power of government. They are complementary.

There are certain very important goals that a society can achieve only by collective action. In addition to security, these include such things as the infrastructure of the world's largest economy, and basic scientific research of the sort that gave us the internet and will launch nanotechnology.

The coercive power of our democratic government is nothing else than our capacity to achieve those collective goals chosen by us through our representatives within the limits of our constitution.

Government is (or should be) us.

For instance, if we decide, through Congress, that extending Medicare to everyone is the best way to provide affordable health care to all Americans, this would be an exercise of liberty, not (as Republicans claim) an assault against it.

Our nation is like a voluntary association that adopts certain rules to achieve its goals. If a member finds new rules intolerable, she can quit. We're not slaves. We can always emigrate.

Brian Cooney is emeritus professor of philosophy at Centre College.

Read more: http://www.kentucky.com/2011/05/31/1758282/personal-liberty-government-power.html#ixzz1NxSlF3qq

Ron Paul Announces GOP Presidential Campaign. Watch Video.

Ron Paul, Father Of Rand Paul, Readies 2012 Presidential Run With A New Liberty PAC. Read More Here.

February 9, 2011

Dear Osi,

I have spent the last several months speaking to supporters and activists all across the country.

I've thought and prayed. I've sought the counsel of my wife, Carol, my children, my extended family, and my most trusted advisors.

As I look to my political future, there are several intriguing options I could pursue, and I need to gauge the existing financial support to back those options.

Our campaign did remarkable things in 2008, at first on a bare-bones budget, and much later, with the overwhelming support that launched our REVOLUTION.

The 2008 campaign helped launch Campaign for Liberty and the Tea Party movement, while laying the groundwork for the successful candidacies of pro-liberty candidates like Justin Amash, Mike Lee, and my son, Senator Rand Paul.

In fact, this current Congress includes more Liberty-leaning members than ever before.

And on the state level, the successes have been even greater.

Last year in New Hampshire alone, no less than 25 Liberty candidates won election to the New Hampshire State House or Senate, including longtime supporter Jim Forsyth winning a State Senate race, and other strong supporters like Andrew Manuse, Keith Murphy, Daniel and Carol McGuire, Jon Maltz, Cameron DeJong, Jenn Coffey, Norman Tregenza, and many more winning House seats.

In Iowa, three candidates endorsed by Liberty PAC went on to shock the establishment and win, including State Representatives Glen Massie and Kim Pearson and State Senator Kent Sorenson.

And across the country, folks like Drew Ivers, A.J. Spiker, and David Fischer in Iowa are ascending to positions of power in their local and state GOP Committees.

With special elections possible around the country and state elections to be held this year in New Jersey, Kentucky, and Virginia, I am confident you and I will see even more successes.

In fact, just last month, longtime supporter Kerry Roberts won the Republican nomination for a special election this March for a State Senate seat in Tennessee.

Now, I believe the time could well be right for our REVOLUTION to take its next step.

Our pro-Liberty movement could grow by leaps and bounds if we take the right steps.

I don't think even I expected what has happened since we launched our fight in 2007.

Back then, no one had yet heard of the "Tea Party," because these groups didn't really exist. Yet, our supporters organized a record-setting $6 million dollar, one-day fundraising Moneybomb that sent shock waves through the political establishment.

That Moneybomb was held on December 16, 2007 - the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party.

It has long been said that the Boston Tea Party launched the American Revolution.

Well, in 2007, the REVOLUTION launched the "Tea Party"!

Now, I believe the time is right to take that next step to bring our message to even more waiting Americans. To take the fight to those who would steal our Liberty, our country.

To prove that America is ready for leaders who will take seriously their oath to protect and defend the Constitution.

This is why I write to you today to ask for your support for my political action committee, Liberty PAC.

Money sent to Liberty PAC will allow me the flexibility I need to test the waters and determine the next best step as I continue to fight for what you and I hold so dear.

Liberty PAC funds will allow me to travel, speak out, hire staff, and fund mail, phones, emails, and banner, TV, and radio ads to contact, educate, and persuade our fellow Americans. And, it will provide me with flexibility no other vehicle can.

You see, I believe we're truly at a crossroads in our nation's history. And there's no way you and I can let our federal government continue down the path it's on.

I spoke about these issues in 2008, just as I have throughout my entire career in the Liberty movement.

And in the past few years, our government has made it abundantly clear that our views are right.

I spoke about an out of control FED - well, you and I saw what happened with the bailouts and the doubling of our money supply.

I warned of our out of control government, with its 500 billion dollar deficits. Even I never imagined it would TRIPLE in just two years.

It is now truly on a path that will cause the very destruction of our economy, our currency, and our way of life, if you and I don't act today.

Did you know our federal government now spends $53,000 PER SECOND?

And even after our sky-high taxes and the Federal Reserve's constant printing of money, our politicians still can't pay for it all.

Their solution? Well, they don't have one.

They're no longer even TRYING!

And they're driving us deeper in debt by the day, along with our kids and our grandkids.

The federal budget deficit is now over 1.5 trillion dollars per year. That was the ENTIRE BUDGET just 20 years ago.

Thanks to the same old tax and spend politicians - BIG GOVERNMENT POLITICIANS OF BOTH PARTIES - you and I have accumulated over $14 TRILLION in debt - not counting future entitlement spending that's already "locked in."

The interest alone is over 33 billion dollars a month!

But instead of cutting spending, our politicians are constantly calling for more, more, more.

Like you, I understand that all the madness we're witnessing right now in Washington isn't just an attack on our economy.

It's an attack on our liberties.

As we all know, when government grows, freedom shrinks.

That fact was well understood by our Founding Fathers. But today, it seems politicians in BOTH political parties believe government is the solution to all our problems.

Well, I STRONGLY disagree.

I believe we need to return to the principles embedded in the United States Constitution.

As I like to say, freedom really does work.

That's why I want to continue to work to:

• Stop the spread of socialist, big government health care;

• Stop the growth of government spending, restrictive regulations, and involvement in our lives;

• Audit the Federal Reserve, which I believe will serve as an important first step toward finally ending the Fed once and for all;

• Cut taxes, because we have to starve the beast that is the federal government;

• Ensure the federal government returns to its constitutional principles by eliminating departments and agencies that are not authorized by the Constitution;

• Ensure a new, more humble, constitutional foreign policy for our nation. We cannot be the world's policeman. We should not engage in "Nation Building." We cannot afford trillion dollar international boondoggles that cost us our lives, our fortunes, and our freedom;

• Repeal Big Government schemes like the so-called "PATRIOT" Act.

Of course, that won't be all. But, as I hope you'll agree, that's a good start.

If you do agree, and you're willing to fight alongside me the way you've fought in the past, then I ask you to please complete your PLEDGE OF SUPPORT today.

With your signed pledge - along with tens of thousands of others from folks just like you - my campaign can show the political experts and media just how popular the freedom message is.

I can hardly tell you how important that would be - especially at this crucial time.

And if you can help our efforts get off the ground with a contribution, I'd certainly appreciate it.

Please click here to donate and sign the pledge online.

The good news is there's something happening right now all over the country. There has never been a better time for our message to get through or a better opportunity to spread the message of Liberty.

We saw it all across the country in 2010. Folks are waking up, and things are turning around.

And it's due in large part to your hard work in 2008 and the years that have followed.

People are simply ready for the message of freedom.

So Osi, in addition to your PLEDGE OF SUPPORT, I'm counting on your financial assistance to help me get my pro-freedom message out.

Of course, $5,000 per person ($10,000 per married couple) is the maximum contribution legal under federal law.

But whatever you can do - $500, $250, $100, $50, or $35 - will help tremendously.

And, since sound money and exposing the secretive Federal Reserve is central to all I do in both education and politics, I will happily send a copy of my book End the Fed to anyone who contributes over $100.

This book is a great tool to share with family, friends, and neighbors as we continue to build the foundation for our national efforts.

The REVOLUTION we started is at a crucial stage. Your support today will determine if you and I can move it forward and what the next step should be in 2012.

For Liberty,



Ron Paul


P.S. If you believe, like I do, that we need to stop overspending and government growth by returning to constitutional principles, please complete the PLEDGE OF SUPPORT, and make a contribution of $500, $250, $100, $50, or $35 TODAY! Thank you.

Breaking News: As Expected, Rand Paul Will Announce That Senate "Exploration" Has Morphed Into Candidacy.

Rand Paul Moves Forward


Fellow Citizens,

Rand Paul, Bowling Green Eye Surgeon and son of former Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, today announces he is officially in the race for the US Senate representing Kentucky. Dr. Paul will now transition his exploratory committee to a full election committee.

Dr. Paul has been respectful of incumbent Senator Bunning's courage in opposing the bank bailout. Dr. Paul waited for Senator Bunning's difficult decision not to run for re-election before entering the race.

"I think the main thing that motivates me to run for office is the debt fueled by Washington's out of control spending. I think we're drowning in a sea of debt, as a country. The deficit this year will be 13% of the GNP. This is a historic high. The danger is going to be inflation within a year or two, and prices may rise rapidly."
Dr. Paul's commitment to fiscal responsibility is nothing new. For the past fifteen years, Dr. Paul has been the chairman of the Kentucky Taxpayers United, a group that monitors and rates the State Legislature on spending issues.

Rand Paul's entry into this race will nationalize the Kentucky US Senate campaign. This can be witnessed by his television and radio appearances scheduled in New York City on August 6th and 7th -- finally giving hope of representation to liberty-minded and fiscally conservative Kentuckians.

Rand Paul's official campaign website is www.randpaul2010.com.

In Liberty,

Christopher Hightower
Rand Paul for US Senate Exploratory Committee
Campaign Coordinator
E. chris@randpaul2010.com

Update:

Oh, watch the announcement video:

New York Times Editorial: Continuity Of The Wrong Kind.

Continuity of the Wrong Kind

Published: February 10, 2009

The Obama administration failed — miserably — the first test of its commitment to ditching the extravagant legal claims used by the Bush administration to try to impose blanket secrecy on anti-terrorism policies and avoid accountability for serial abuses of the law.

On Monday, a Justice Department lawyer dispatched by the new attorney general, Eric Holder, appeared before a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco. The case before them involves serious allegations of torture by five victims of President Bush’s extraordinary rendition program. The five were seized and transported to American facilities abroad or to countries known for torturing prisoners.

Incredibly, the federal lawyer advanced the same expansive state-secrets argument that was pressed by Mr. Bush’s lawyers to get a trial court to dismiss the case without any evidence being presented. It was as if last month’s inauguration had never occurred.

Voters have good reason to feel betrayed if they took Mr. Obama seriously on the campaign trail when he criticized the Bush administration’s tactic of stretching the state-secrets privilege to get lawsuits tossed out of court. Even judges on the panel seemed surprised by the administration’s decision to go forward instead of requesting a delay to reconsider the government’s position and, perhaps, file new briefs.

The argument is that the very subject matter of the suit is a state secret so sensitive that it cannot be discussed in court, and it is no more persuasive now than it was when the Bush team pioneered it. For one thing, there is ample public information available about the C.I.A.’s rendition, detention and coercive interrogation programs. The fact that some of the evidence might be legitimately excluded on national security grounds need not preclude the case from being tried, and allowing the judge to make that determination. More fundamentally, the Obama administration should not be invoking state secrets to cover up charges of rendition and torture.

President Obama has taken some important steps to repair Mr. Bush’s damaging legacy — issuing executive orders to prohibit torture, shut secret prisons overseas and direct closure of the detention camp at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. It would have been good if he and Mr. Holder had shown the same determination in that federal court, rather than defending the indefensible.

"Theodore Roosevelt Was No Conservative".

Theodore Roosevelt Was No Conservative
There's a reason he left the GOP to lead the Progressive Party.
By RONALD J. PESTRITTO

We know that Barack Obama and his allies identify themselves as "progressives," and that they aim to implement the big-government liberalism that originated in America's Progressive Era and was consummated in the New Deal. What remains a mystery is why some conservatives want to claim this progressive identity as their own -- particularly as it was manifested by Theodore Roosevelt.

The fact that conservative politicians such as John McCain and writers like William Kristol and Karl Rove are attracted to our 26th president is strange because, if we want to understand where in the American political tradition the idea of unlimited, redistributive government came from, we need look no further than to Roosevelt and others who shared his outlook.

Progressives of both parties, including Roosevelt, were the original big-government liberals. They understood full well that the greatest obstacle to their schemes of social justice and equality of material condition was the U.S. Constitution as it was originally written and understood: as creating a national government of limited, enumerated powers that was dedicated to securing the individual natural rights of its citizens, especially liberty of contract and private property.

It was the Republican TR, who insisted in his 1910 speech on the "New Nationalism" that there was a "general right of the community to regulate" the earning of income and use of private property "to whatever degree the public welfare may require it." He was at one here with Democrat Woodrow Wilson, who had in 1885 condemned Americans' respect for their Constitution as "blind worship," and suggested that his countrymen dedicate themselves to the Declaration of Independence by leaving out its "preface" -- i.e., the part of it that establishes the protection of equal natural rights as the permanent task of government.

In his "Autobiography," Roosevelt wrote that he "declined to adopt the view that what was imperatively necessary for the nation could not be done by the President unless he could find some specific authorization to do it." The national government, in TR's view, was not one of enumerated powers but of general powers, and the purpose of the Constitution was merely to state the narrow exceptions to that rule.

This is a view of government directly opposed by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 84. Hamilton explains there that the fundamental difference between a republican constitution and a monarchic one is that the latter reserves some liberty for the people by stating specific exceptions to the assumed general power of the crown, whereas the former assumes from the beginning that the power of the people is the general rule, and the power of the government the exception.

TR turns this on its head. In his New Nationalism speech he noted how, in aiming to use state power to bring about economic equality, the government should permit a man to earn and keep his property "only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community." The government itself of course would determine what represented a benefit to the community, and whether society would be better off if an individual's wealth was transferred to somebody else.

We can see the triumph of this outlook in progressive income taxation, which TR trumpeted in his speech (along with progressive estate taxes). We may also see this theory in action when a government seizes private property through eminent domain, transferring it to others in order to generate higher tax revenues -- a practice blessed by the Supreme Court in its notorious Kelo v. New London decision of 2005.

Some conservatives today are misled by the battle between TR and Wilson in the 1912 presidential election. But Wilson implemented most of TR's program once he took office in 1913, including a progressive income tax and the establishment of several regulatory agencies, such as the Federal Trade Commission.

Others are misled by TR's crusade against an activist judiciary. But unlike our courts today, the judiciary during the Progressive era properly struck down legislation that violated our bedrock rights to liberty of contract and private property. TR hated the judiciary precisely for standing up for the Constitution; this is certainly no reason for conservatives today to latch on to his antijudicial rhetoric.

Many who respect individual liberty and the free market believe that the electoral tide has turned, and that an era of big government is inevitable. But recall that John McCain gained traction in the closing days of his campaign only when he attacked Mr. Obama's desire to "spread the wealth" through higher tax rates on the upper-income earners. His attack clearly resonated among the public. But it came too late, and truth be told, his heart wasn't really in it.

Looking ahead, conservatives hardly need to look back to progressives for inspiration. If there is a desire to "conserve" or restore something about our political tradition that has been lost with the rise of modern liberalism, how about the American founding as a model? It is with the founders that we can find the patriotic promotion of America as an exceptionally great nation -- a notion that attracts some conservatives to TR.

The difference is that, with the founders as a model, we get the idea of American greatness, but without the progressives' assault on the very enduring principles that justify America's claim to greatness in the first place.

Mr. Pestritto is the Shipley Professor of the American Constitution at Hillsdale College and a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute. Among his books are "Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism" (Rowman & Littlefield, 2005).

As I Predicted Here, Sonny Landham "Get's Axed" By Libertarian Party.

Although the official word is that the Libertarian party and Landham agreed to ""amicably go their separate ways", as reported by Joe Gerth on the Arena, -- *WINK* -- excuse me if I beg to differ.

My sources tell me that Sonny Landham was asked to drop out of the race by the party and he agreed to do so, if the party will REFUND him his filing fee.

I joked that at this point, the Libertarian party will be glad to refund DOUBLE the amount.

LOL.

Is The Libertarian Party Itching To Dump Senate Candidate Sonny Landham? It Sure Sounds Like It, And We'll SOON Find Out.

Yes, we will, as Sonny Landham is accused of rants against Arabs and Muslims.

Read more, and wait until Monday or Tuesday for more info.

This could prove to be interesting.

Back To Kentucky, Libertarians Continue To Flex Political Muscle As A New Candidate Emerges In The 3Rd Congressional District Race.

Here is a post from the H-L:

Libertarian Party candidate Edward Martin of Louisville qualified to put his name on the November 4 ballot in the 3rd congressional district.

Martin submitted more than 400 signatures to the Secretary of State's office Tuesday, according to his filing papers.

Martin is listed as president of a Mt. Washington-based die supply company, Marco Die Supplies Inc.

He will face Republican Anne Northup, who held the congressional seat in Jefferson County from 1996 to 2006, and Democratic U.S. Rep. John Yarmuth, who defeated Northup in the election two years ago.

The Libertarian Party also has put up a candidate for U.S. Senate, Sonny Landham, a former actor. Landham is still in the process of collecting more than 500 signatures necessary to get on the ballot as a statewide candidate.

More Fancy Farm News: Libertarians Are NOT At "Liberty" To Be "Fancy" At The "Farm".

Read more from our KYKurmdgeon.

Here are excerpts, from (Todd Hayden, the chairman of the picnic):

Mr. [Bob] Barr (Libertarian Party Presidential candidate) and Mr. [Sonny] Landham and whoever wants to is invited to the picnic to speak to whomever they like, they just may not be able to do it from the political platform if the political chairman already has a full schedule.

"The Fancy Farm Picnic is a fund raiser for the St. Jerome Church. Politicians found it a good place to campaign starting many years ago and it has grown over the years. The picnic still remains 1st and formost a fund raiser. It IS NOT an event that is put on for politicians, but to accommodate them we have made it part of our schedule and because of news coverage we do get some exposure from it. What people need to understand is that this event is put on by a bunch of volunteering parishoners trying to do some stewardship by donating time to their church."

Libertarian Presidential Candidate, Bob Barr, Could Be John McCain's Ralph Nader, And "Bar" The GOP From The White House!

The Libertarian Party has chosen former Republican Party Congressman from Georgia, Bob Barr, as its 2008 Presidential candidate.

Read more here, particularly where he stands on issues.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the Congressman is going to be to John McCain, as Ralph Nader was to Al Gore in 2000, and siphon off votes from John McCain, and most likely deny the Senator the White House, while handing the same to another Senator from Illinois.