We support Bob Barr for president because . . .

Secure the Borders

• The current platform of the Libertarian Party paints a bright and accurate picture regarding the issue of immigration: "Our borders are currently neither open, closed, nor secure. This situation restricts the labor pool, encouraging employers to hire undocumented workers, while leaving those workers neither subject to nor protected by the law. A completely open border allows foreign criminals, carriers of communicable diseases, terrorists and other potential threats to enter the country unchecked. Pandering politicians guarantee access to public services for undocumented aliens, to the detriment of those who would enter to work productively, and increasing the burden on taxpayers."
• Resolving this issue will be a challenge for America as it means that we must be aggressive in securing our borders while at the same time, vigilantly fighting the nanny state that seeks to coddle even those capable of providing for their own personal prosperity.
• Until all governments are willing to take a unified front to confront this problem, it is the duty of the federal government to secure our borders from criminals, terrorists and those seeking to take advantage of the American taxpayer.

Restoring National Defense

• For far too long and at the cost of American blood and treasure, our great military has been too willingly and quickly used for purposes other than national defense. Our fighting men and women deserve better and the integrity of our nation must be restored.
• Our National Defense policy must renew a commitment to non-intervention. We are not the world's police force and our long, yet recently tarnished, tradition of respecting the sovereignty of other nations is necessary, not from only a moral standpoint, but to regain the respect of the world as a principled and peaceful nation.
• The proper use of force is clear. If attacked, the aggressor will experience firsthand the skillful wrath of the American fighting man. However, invading or initiating force against another nation based upon perceived threats and speculative intelligence is simply un-American. We are better than the policy of pre-emptive warfare.

Maximize Individual Liberty & Restore the Constitution

• The United States was created for the purpose of securing the liberties of its people. The colonists fled oppressive old world governments. The nation’s founders drafted the Constitution to sharply limit the federal government’s powers. The horrors perpetrated by the many collectivist tyrannies of the 20th Century demonstrate that the danger of government, any government, violating individual liberty is greater today than when America was founded.
• Unfortunately, in recent years government at all levels has shown growing disrespect for the Constitution, particularly the Fourth Amendment that protects citizens from unlawful searches and seizures. The sustained government attack on the sanctity of the rights of the individual, including their right to be secure in their privacy and property, has created a moral and Constitutional crisis. America’s elected officials at all levels must renew their respect for the law and work to protect the rights of individuals.
• The place to start is restoring the writ of Habeas Corpus, which protects against unlawful detention, and thus stands at the core of individual liberty. Article 1 of the Constitution provides that this right shall not be suspended without clear and necessary cause, such as during an invasion. In passing the Military Commissions Act of 2006, Congress, pushed by President George W. Bush, effectively ended this protection within America. The Constitutional protections of Habeas Corpus should not be sacrificed so easily.
• Finally, an increasingly intrusive Nanny State is watching over our nation, meddling in the lives of its citizens. New measures, often rushed through legislatures and regulatory agencies with little consideration or thought, seek to control ever more aspects of people's lives. Government limits individual actions and choices, from the way in which we educate our children to the food that we eat, from the type of light bulbs that illuminate our living rooms to the benefits that we receive for working. It is time to again trust individuals to make their own decisions. At the core of libertarianism is a trust in and respect for the personal choices of every individual. All Americans should be free to decide what is best for themselves and their families. At the same time, they must bear personal responsibility for the consequences of the decisions that they make, whether those decisions prove to be good or bad.

Big Government and Big Spending — The Root of all Problems.

• Government spending at all levels is out of control. Most Americans understand the problem of “earmarks,” commonly used by pork-minded congressmen to buy votes. But while earmarks are an outrageous abuse of the taxpayer’s money, they account for a very small percentage of federal spending. Over the past decade, total government spending (state, local and federal) has increased from $2.9 trillion to an astonishing $5.1 trillion in 2008. The $3.1 trillion federal budget submitted by President Bush for next year was greater than the combined 1998 spending of the federal government, all 50 states and over 87,000 local governments.
• The federal government must take the lead in making significant cuts in spending. Focusing on earmarks risks distracting attention from the broader problem of a government wildly wasting the money of hard-working Americans. Tens of billions of dollars in corporate welfare — essentially aid to dependent corporations — should be eliminated. Largesse for middle- and upper-income Americans, particularly so-called “entitlement” programs, must be cut. Billions in so-called defense spending, which protects America’s populous, prosperous allies rather than Americans, must be eliminated.
• Cutting spending would allow America to implement real tax reform. The best approach would be to adopt a national sales tax, replacing the Internal Revenue Service and all federal income taxes as well as payroll taxes. The Fair Tax is an example of a well-researched alternative to the current oppressive system of taxation. Our goal should be to reduce both the tax burden on Americans and the intrusion in their lives resulting from IRS enforcement of the income tax.
• It is not enough to eliminate the income tax. We also must repeal the 16th amendment, which authorizes Congress to levy an income tax. Without doing so, there would be an ever-present danger that a future Congress would attempt to bring back the income tax on top of the Fair Tax or any other alternative to the income tax.

More issues:

John Wunderlich said: Bob Barr is the likely nominee of the Libertarian Party. On Fox News today he talked about the three establishment candidates who are all big government supporters. He talked about how the Republican Party if it is not 180 degrees of of its historical traditions, it is 179 degree off. I do not believe we will have to worry about him working to bring about the NAU.

I saw him this morning also and was impressed.  Too bad the Libertarian candidates have no chance of winning.

Lady Jane said: I personally think the big three better watch out for the third party candidate this time around.  People are fed up.  They just might surprise them! 

Even though I don't have any hope of him winning, I may just mark my ballot for him.  McCain is becoming more and more unattractive to me as time goes on.  My fear of Obama as pres may keep me voting for the Repub, though.  I don't know, we just have miserable choices.

FireWing said:  ... Even though I don't have any hope of him winning, I may just mark my ballot for him.  ...

Our options of Billary, Osama and McShamnesty are so disappointing that this may be our only real choice, meaning that of a protest vote.  That way, at least, if the winning candidate among the previously named 3 gets a slim majority, he/she will be on notice that the support among the electorate is quite weak.  That may be enough to overcome what damage they might otherwise do if they get larger vote margins.

Lady Jane said:

I hope this helps out.  I think I'll check into his voting record while he was a member of the House  1995 - 2003.  After that people will know a bit more about him.

Meet Bob Barr 

Secure the Borders

• The current platform of the Libertarian Party paints a bright and accurate picture regarding the issue of immigration: "Our borders are currently neither open, closed, nor secure. This situation restricts the labor pool, encouraging employers to hire undocumented workers, while leaving those workers neither subject to nor protected by the law. A completely open border allows foreign criminals, carriers of communicable diseases, terrorists and other potential threats to enter the country unchecked. Pandering politicians guarantee access to public services for undocumented aliens, to the detriment of those who would enter to work productively, and increasing the burden on taxpayers."
• Resolving this issue will be a challenge for America as it means that we must be aggressive in securing our borders while at the same time, vigilantly fighting the nanny state that seeks to coddle even those capable of providing for their own personal prosperity.
• Until all governments are willing to take a unified front to confront this problem, it is the duty of the federal government to secure our borders from criminals, terrorists and those seeking to take advantage of the American taxpayer.

..............

 

The question is, although Barr SAYS he is for aggressively facing the illegal immigration problem, is he really going to take an approach that will succeed.  This was brought up when the "Paulists" were stating that their candidate would do this.  But when questioned and asked to provide proof in the form of quotes, they weren't able to do so.

Similarly, in the post provided on Barr's positions there is absolutely no mention of employer sanctions, as prescribed by IRCA 1986.  So are we going to get a definitive statement from Barr, or are we going to be told to "trust" him, because according to his other positions it will have to be "assumed" that he will aggressively support fining and/or jailing illegal alien criminal employers.  It is bad enough to be lied to by candidates that then become elected, but it is equally disgusting to get the "slick Willie" treatment by skirting the issue in such a way as to make people ASSUME that they will adhere to things when they are in office, only to learn later that they had no such intention.

I remember liking Barr at one time,  but he had problems with loyalty in his personal life similar to Newt and Rudy.

http://www.americanpolitics.com/012699Barr.html

Employers, Employers... said:

FireWing said:  ... Even though I don't have any hope of him winning, I may just mark my ballot for him.  ...

Our options of Billary, Osama and McShamnesty are so disappointing that this may be our only real choice, meaning that of a protest vote.  That way, at least, if the winning candidate among the previously named 3 gets a slim majority, he/she will be on notice that the support among the electorate is quite weak.  That may be enough to overcome what damage they might otherwise do if they get larger vote margins.

Sorry guys, but I don't see that happening!  Even if a "protest" vote narrows the winning margin, the winner will still have been elected, will change course to whatever their hidden agendas are (i.e., no matter what they say while running for office), and we will have at least four more years without recourse.

The next POTUS will be Obama, Clinton, or McCain -- PERIOD!

(CM) Jim from Texas said:

Employers, Employers... said:

FireWing said:  ... Even though I don't have any hope of him winning, I may just mark my ballot for him.  ...

Our options of Billary, Osama and McShamnesty are so disappointing that this may be our only real choice, meaning that of a protest vote.  That way, at least, if the winning candidate among the previously named 3 gets a slim majority, he/she will be on notice that the support among the electorate is quite weak.  That may be enough to overcome what damage they might otherwise do if they get larger vote margins.

 

Sorry guys, but I don't see that happening!  Even if a "protest" vote narrows the winning margin, the winner will still have been elected, will change course to whatever their hidden agendas are (i.e., no matter what they say while running for office), and we will have at least four more years without recourse.

The next POTUS will be Obama, Clinton, or McCain -- PERIOD!

msbobbie said:

I remember liking Barr at one time,  but he had problems with loyalty in his personal life similar to Newt and Rudy.

 

http://www.americanpolitics.com/012699Barr.html

 

 

MsBobbie,

Is he CFR or an otherwise tainted globalist?