Johnson said he’d cut the military’s budget and end Obama’s interventionism. It wasn’t until he got started on legalizing marijuana that the crowd (figuratively) lit up. A steady stream of applause followed Johnson’s declarations after that.

“I support gay marriage equality. I support repealing the PATRIOT Act. I would have vetoed the Department of Homeland Security, because I think it’s redundant. I would’ve never established the department of—the TSA agency. I think we should end the practices of torture. Period. I can understand the complexities in the following, but I think we should end the practices of detainment without being charged. There is nothing I want to see the government come in and fix with the Internet.”

Johnson also made a point throughout the evening of highlighting the differences between himself and Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), who sought and received Johnson’s endorsement in 2008.

“I don’t think that Ron Paul is going to win the Republican nomination. For the most part, we are talking about the same message, but we do have differences. And when he drops out, or finds an end to the Republican primary, I don’t see this agenda moving forward,” Johnson said.

“And I think it’s important to point out differences between myself and Ron Paul. I don’t support building a fence across the border, I do support gay marriage equality, I do believe in a strong national defense. I do believe in our alliance with Israel, for example. And I think military alliances are key to reducing military spending by 43 percent and still provide for a strong national defense. And I believe in a woman’s right to choose.”

The crowd went nuts over that last one.

Nate Nelson at United Liberty adds:

Johnson could pose problems for both Obama and the eventual Republican nominee. On the one hand, Johnson built a very solid fiscal and economic record as Governor of New Mexico — which could appeal to Paul supporters and other Republicans as well as right-leaning independents who may feel disaffected if Romney, Gingrich, or Santorum wins the GOP nomination. On the other hand, there are some remarkable differences between Johnson and Paul that could help him succeed in appealing to the more left-leaning so-called “liberaltarians” and even some non-libertarian progressive Democrats and independents whom Paul has so far failed to win over.

It’s unlikely in the extreme that Johnson will win the presidential election. The electoral game is too rigged against third parties and, besides, the Libertarian Party’s dysfunctional nomination process will officially put him into the general election campaign far too late for him to assemble the kind of grassroots movement he’d need to win. But Johnson could well be a problem for both major parties. He could be competitive in his home state and throughout the Southwest, which could make the race for some pivotal swing states even more interesting than usual. In other words, he could play the role of spoiler in the upcoming general election even better than Ralph Nader did in 2000, and it should scare the pants off both Republicans and Democrats that it’s still unclear whose campaign he could spoil.

ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero also drew the Nader comparison:

“Do you run the risk, in other words, of being a Ralph Nader, given the fact that you have so much more coincidence with the president’s agenda than with Mr. Romney or Mr. Gingrich?”

Meanwhile, Johnson has an article in the conservative Washington Times newspaper spelling out his plan for spending cuts and a national sales tax plan known by its proponents as the FairTax. Excerpt:

Here I present a simple but drastic economic plan to foster a boom in America.

First, we need to get rid of the income tax. When our first great Supreme Court justice, John Marshall, equated the power to tax and the power to destroy, he was predicting what’s happening to our country right now. Giant, slow corporations spend their money on lobbying because tax avoidance is where their profit is. General Electric earned $14.2 billion in 2010 and paid zero taxes on it. Why? Because it has the lobbyists to get subsidies and tax breaks.

But those mom-and-pop stores? The tech startups? The nimble new corporations with new ideas and new visions for our economy? They pay as much as 35 cents on every dollar they earn. When the company pays its employees, the government taxes that money again. We need to stop taxing work, savings and investment. I advocate removing all income taxes, all capital-gains taxes, and replacing them with a consumption tax, kind of a national sales tax called the Fair-tax.

We also need to get rid of payroll taxes. Look at it from the perspective of employers for a moment. When they want to hire someone, it costs more than just the wage they’re paying. They have to pay payroll taxes, including for Social Security and Medicare. That cost is about 10 percent of the wages they pay an employee. Remove that burden, and employers will be able to hire 10 percent more people. With an unemployment rate of 10 percent, why wouldn’t we jump at this chance? The Fair-tax replaces employment and payroll taxes.

[...]

At the same time, I have proposed cutting the federal budget by 43 percent to bring it into balance. It can be done. It requires the will and ability to ignore and even fight the special interests that have a vested interest in more and more government spending. Our system is corrupted by special-interest campaign contributions. Crony capitalism permeates our government. The result is that, as the Congressional Budget Office reported this week, the deficit for 2012 will once again exceed $1 trillion.

The Washinton Times article incorrectly says that “Gary Johnson is the Libertarian Party nominee for president….”

Johnson’s plan stands in contrast to candidates such as Lee Wrights and RJ Harris, who are also seeking the Libertarian presidential nomination and have different proposals on taxes and spending. Wrights has his own plan for cutting spending and a couple of articles laying out his criticism of the FairTax (TM) plan, while Harris says

Fellow citizens, if you elect me as President I will exempt you from personal taxes by ending the IRS and allowing nothing to take its place. Then I will end the federal welfare system and the benefits will come from having stopped the government from stealing what you earn along with your ability to be as thrifty or as beneficent as you choose.

Finally, Johnson’s campaign has put out a message contrasting their candidate with two other past Libertarian presidential nominees other than Ron Paul (1988) – Bob Barr (2008) and Michael Badnarik (2004), and also by implication with Harry Browne (1996/2000).

George Phillies reports:

In a widely-circulated message “Paid for by Gary Johnson 2012″ a writer identified as Andrew Ferguson wrote in part:

“Flash back to the last election cycle. No, go back two, to 2004, when the LP, still reeling from Harry Browne’s machinations, nominated a complete unknown as its presidential candidate. The list of “missed opportunities by the Libertarian Party” is a long and tragicomic one, but surely the choice of Michael Badnarik must be at or near the top: in an election evenly split between the military-statist Bush and the eco-statist Gore, the LP could’ve had a healthy cut of the excluded middle – but Badnarik’s was not the name to draw those voters.”

(The letter writer seems to have been unaware that Kerry was the Democratic nominee who ran against Badnarik in 2004, and that Al Gore ran against Harry Browne in 2000, with Bush being the Republican nominee both times. Back to the letter:)

“In 2008, with that swing-and-a-miss behind them, the LP whiffed with the opposite approach, nominating a big name who was a, shall we say, imperfect fit with party ideals. I’m not one to deny the place of pragmatism in politics, but the man who authored the Defense of Marriage Amendment and fervently prosecuted the Drug War was a strange choice for the supposed party of freedom. No matter how hard he pushed his Road to Damascus narrative, a large chunk of the LP base (namely, donors and state and local party poobahs) was never going to buy into his campaign.”

“As a result, Bob Barr’s failure was utterly predictable – the rift in the party in 2008 was clear for all to see – but more to the point, just as utterly inevitable. In Barack Obama, the Democrats found a candidate who could reach out to the same undecideds the LP tries to make its own – those looking to cast a vote in dissent, anything so long as it has nothing to do with the party in power. Empty as we now know (or always knew) his promises of “Hope” and “Change” to be, they were nonetheless effective in closing off any change the Libertarians had of playing a role in the last cycle.”

(I believe that the writer meant chance, not change, in the last part of the preceding sentence. Back to the letter:)

“All of which is to say, the LP screwed up by getting its candidates backward – if anything, the off-the-ranch Republican with name recognition would have fared much better in 2004, serving as an alternative to two unpalatable statists. Meanwhile, 2008 would have been the time to run an outsider, someone who could elucidate a libertarian point of view, in the rare moments he (or she – vide Mary Ruwart) was called upon to do so.”

If one believes that the problem is out-of-control government trampling our Bill of Rights, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes the problem is the lack of Christian morals among our civil magistrates, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes the problem is the slaughtering of over 50 million innocent unborn babies, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes that the problem is honesty and integrity in the White House, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes that the problem is out-of-control federal spending, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes the problem is the United States catering to the evil machinations of the Security Council of the United Nations, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes the problem is more and more outsourcing of America’s manufacturing jobs and products, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes that the problem is ever-burgeoning deficit spending, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes the problem is the banksters at the Federal Reserve, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes the problem is illegal immigration, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes the United States gives away far too much foreign aid, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution.

Newt Gingrich? Really?

Baldwin goes on to further detail his case against Gingrich, as well as Santorum and Romney, and to elaborate on why he supports Ron Paul.

Paul, who was the 1988 Presidential candidate of the Libertarian Party, is seeking the Republican presidential nomination this year, as he did in 2008. Baldwin actively supported Paul in 2008 and is doing so again this year, and in return Ron Paul endorsed Baldwin in the 2008 general election.

Meanwhile, 2008 Libertarian presidential nominee Bob Barr, who famously backed out of Ron Paul’s joint appearance with Baldwin, independent Ralph Nader and Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney because he would not appear on stage with “people like Cynthia McKinney,” has endorsed Newt Gingrich.

Recent Barr columns include The bizarro world of Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum (published yesterday), and several previous columns expressing his support for Gingrich.

Barr, Gingrich and McKinney all represented Georgia in Congress.

More of Baldwin’s article here.

In addition to looking at a straight head to head between Obama and Romney, PPP also tested a three way contest with the two of them and Gary Johnson running as a Libertarian.  In that scenario Obama’s lead over Romney expands to 4 points at 45-41, with Johnson taking 8% of the vote. Johnson takes 9% of the Republican vote compared to only 4% of Democrats and his presence results in Romney’s advantage with independents being cut in half from 20 points to only 10.

I doubt Gary Johnson will end up getting 8% of the vote in North Carolina come this fall.  But the numbers do show that Republican voters are more likely to seek out a third party option than Democrats are, and that could really make a difference in a closely divided state whose outcome  doesn’t seem likely to be decided by more than 2 or 3 points either way.

Full results here. In 2008 Libertarian nominee Bob Barr received 0.6% in the polls, one of his stronger states that year. Barr visited the state several times in that campaign, and had polled as high as 6% in another PPP poll from 2008. Minor party candidates tend to under-perform results from polls when election day arrives.

The Libertarian Party of North Carolina has been one of the stronger state affiliates in recent years. In 2010 radio host Mike Beitler polled as high as 10% in his race for US Senate, although he has since joined the Republican Party and is running for Secretary of State in North Carolina. In 2008 its candidates for Governor and Senate, Michael Munger and Chris Cole, polled at 6% two months before election day.  Munger, a former chair of the Political Science department of Duke University, is speculated to run again in 2012.

Congress has been in a constitutionally feisty mood lately. Shortly before taking off for its traditional Christmas recess, for example, it passed the annual defense authorization bill, which included a troubling provision that apparently permits the U.S. military to indefinitely detain anyone — including American citizens — it suspects of having even remote ties to any group it has determined to be linked to terrorism.

Now, in what would be another serious blow to our liberties, which are supposed to be protected against government intrusion, some members of Congress are pushing legislation that would greatly impede our freedom to communicate over the Internet. The inaptly named “Stop Online Privacy Act” (SOPA) would supposedly protect intellectual property rights, but in effect would dramatically enhance the power of the federal government to block websites it suspects infringe intellectual property rights or simply promote the distribution of copyrighted content.

While Bob Barr’s byline biography notes his time in the House of Representatives, it does not mention his presidential candidacy with the Libertarian Party.

Among the state and local officials announcing they are endorsing Newt Gingrich today are:

Georgia Congressmen Austin Scott, Lynn Westmoreland, Tom Price, Jack Kingston and Phil Gingrey. Former Georgia Congressmen Mac Collins and Bob Barr.

Many other names follow–in fact the list is quite extensive. One of Newt Gingrich’s primary opponents is former Libertarian Party presidential nominee Ron Paul, who ran for President as a Libertarian in 1988, but is now running as a Republican.

This week, one after another, four prominent, national conservative groups issued a rare series of public warnings to a private citizen considering a run for Congress.

Don’t do it, they told Bob Barr. We will bury you.

The first organization was the most important – the anti-tax Club for Growth, whose members are a deep source of Republican campaign contributions. Then came Concerned Women, a Beverly LaHaye group, followed by Eagle Forum led by Phyllis Schlafly.

On Friday, the influential Family Research Council joined the pack.

Each group – or, officially, their political action committees – endorsed U.S. Rep. Tom Graves, the tea party favorite and Republican incumbent who replaced Nathan Deal, now governor, in Washington.

But each one also gave specific mention to Barr, the former congressman and 2008 Libertarian candidate for president. Once a favorite of the conservative movement, who helped lead the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, the four groups denounced Barr as a traitor to the cause. Gay marriage topped their lists.

The article also cites Bill Crane as a strategist in the pre-campaign phase. He says polling in the district is “pretty favorable” towards Barr. The article cites Bob Barr’s run for President as a Libertarian as an issue that will probably play a central role in the campaign should Barr run.

Ask the average citizen if he thinks his emails and Facebook messages to friends and family members are protected from government snooping, and he’d likely answer, “Sure, the government would have to obtain a warrant before it could go snooping into my personal communications, the same as it must have a good reason to open my physical mail, right?”

Wrong.

Even though far more messages are sent electronically than are sent by “snail mail” (much to the chagrin of the U.S. Postal Service), that snail mail enjoys far more protection from government’s prying eyes than an email or personal Facebook message. This is an anomaly that I and many others — including Facebook, Google and other companies and privacy groups — are working to change through federal legislation. But it’s tough to get members of Congress to pay attention.

The problem is that the degree to which the government can demand access to a person’s “electronic communications” (which include emails, Facebook messages and all other communications sent by phone or computer) is governed by a law that was enacted when the World Wide Web was still in its infancy. The law is the 1980s-era Electronic Communications Privacy Act (“ECPA”), and despite the fact that the law (which was signed by President Reagan in 1986) was intended to provide a high degree of protection for electronic communications, it is woefully outdated and inadequate.

Unfortunately, this administration, like its predecessors, favors the current situation, precisely because it makes it so easy for law enforcement to access those private communications without having to secure a warrant, as normally would be required by the Fourth Amendment.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/28/think-your-emails-are-private-think-again/

In a rare victory for personal privacy rights, legislation prohibiting police from accessing information on a cell phone without a warrant recently became law in the Golden State.

The law stems from a case decided earlier this year by the California Supreme Court involving the 2007 arrest of Gregory Diaz, who was caught trying to sell drugs to an informant. After Diaz’s arrest, police went through his cell phone and found text messages alluding to potential drug sales, evidence that was used at his trial.

In January, the California high court held that Fourth Amendment protections, which requires police to obtain a warrant in order to search a suspect’s property, did not apply in Diaz’s case, because the cell phone was “immediately associated” with him and was “fair game in terms of being evidence of a crime or instrumentality of a crime or whatever the theory might be.”

The decision essentially removed any lawful impediment to California police officers perusing a person’s cell phone, so long as the person was placed under arrest. The arrestee’s personal cell phone was subject to search notwithstanding that the arrest had nothing to do with the suspect’s cell phone.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/07/a-rare-victory-for-personal-privacy-rights/

In radio ads and literature, “OnStar” is portrayed by its parent company, General Motors, as a benign service, the only purpose of which is to enable elderly folks, mothers with children and lost drivers in general to quickly access emergency and locator services by communicating with friendly voices that are always willing and able to help. There is, however, a darker side to OnStar, as recently altered GM policies revealed.

GM announced in its most recent “terms and conditions” for the OnStar subscription service that the company would retain information collected from vehicles and make it available to third parties — even after subscribers canceled the service.

This latest intrusion really should not come as a surprise. Concerns had been expressed for years that OnStar and similar services could put personal privacy at risk, as law enforcement agencies continue to expand their powers in the post-9/11 world. The FBI specifically has been attempting to access OnStar as a pre-positioned vehicle-listening device since at least 2003.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/28/onstars-dark-side/

This week, America celebrated Constitution Week, which commemorates the decision on September 17th, 1787 to report out of the Congress and (11 days later) submit the draft Constitution to the states for ratification. This magnificent document, which became the blueprint for creating a functioning United States of America, was ratified by nine states (the minimum number required for adoption) the following June.

It is within this single document that the true meaning of “American exceptionalism” is to be found.

The term “American exceptionalism” has been bandied about with frequency since September 11, 2001. Often, the term is employed in conjunction with references to America’s military might, especially in the context of the invasion of Iraq in 2003. To other pundits, the term invokes visions of God’s hand in creating and preserving our nation. To still others, American exceptionalism is personified by the capitalism that permitted American businesses and manufacturers to bring American products — from earth-moving machines and automobiles to chocolate bars and soft drinks — to the most remote corners of the globe.

Read more…

In this column last week, I raised the alarm about the “E-Verify” program proposed to be implemented as part of the Legal Workforce Act (HR 2164) under consideration to be fast-tracked by House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-TX). Now, even before the legislation has passed the House, it has morphed into something far broader and more troubling than its initial permutation. It truly must be rejected.

Originally, the most troubling aspect of this legislation — supposed to protect the American economy against illegal immigrants being employed by U.S. businesses — was its requirement that businesses run names of job applicants through the government-run E-Verify database to ensure new hires are legally authorized to work in the United States. Although its supporters said that the bill was not a “National ID,” it clearly incorporated the potential to become just that. It even included a mandate that the government sign off on any persons hired by companies.

Read more…

Bob Barr @ Daily Caller:
Time to move the Postal Service from the Flintstones to UPS

For years, the United States Postal Service (USPS), a dinosaur in the Digital Age, has been hemorrhaging financially because of its inability to respond to market forces. And now members of Congress have found themselves in a position where they cannot simply punt the agency’s problems further down the road. But they probably will do just that.

The USPS is staring at a budget deficit of more than $9 billion and may not be able to make a $5.5 billion payment now due for the exceptionally generous health care benefits it is committed to pay its retirees, thanks largely to union pressure.

According to The New York Times, Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe warns that the USPS will default unless Congress gives the USPS greater flexibility to deal with the crisis, which may include “eliminating Saturday mail delivery, closing up to 3,700 postal locations and laying off 120,000 workers.”

Read more

Bob Barr at CNN:

Ruling to execute Troy Davis violates core principles

Only the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles stood between life and death for Troy Anthony Davis, and the core principles of American jurisprudence should have been the board’s guide. But the board ignored those principles in denying Davis clemency.

Davis was convicted in 1991 of the 1989 murder of Savannah police officer Mark MacPhail. But the trial included no physical evidence to support his conviction. The prosecution produced no murder weapon, no DNA evidence and no surveillance tapes.

He was sentenced to death on the basis of nine so-called eyewitnesses, who testified in the trial. Seven of those witnesses, however, have since recanted or materially changed their stories. The jury, for instance, relied on two people who did not witness the crime but who testified that Davis had confessed to the shooting. Since then, both have said they were lying.

Read more…

Bob Barr writes in the Daily Caller:

New York City’s rabidly anti-Second Amendment mayor, Michael Bloomberg, is once again pushing for ill-conceived gun laws in the wake of an abnormally violent Labor Day weekend.

According to The New York Post, 46 people were shot over the course of two days in several incidents. Bloomberg, who has long held anti-gun views and in 2006 co-founded the lobby group “Mayors Against Illegal Guns,” immediately and predictably cried out for more gun control. This tired refrain of pushing for more restrictions on private ownership of firearms every time there is a spike in violent crime in the Big Apple rings hollow coming from the chief execute of the city with some of the most restrictive gun laws in the free world.

Read more…

The definition of “overreaching” in the next edition of the Merriam-Webster Dictionary could be a single sentence — “Over•reaching: see June 3, 2011 indictment of former presidential candidate and United States Senator John Edwards for alleged campaign finance violations.”

Every current and future candidate for federal office ought to file an amicus brief in behalf of Edwards. If the federal government succeeds in securing a conviction of Edwards in this case, the precedent will have been set for future administrations to employ federal campaign finance laws to reach and criminalize virtually any monies used by a candidate’s supporter(s) that even indirectly have the effect of protecting the “image” of the candidate.

Read the rest of the article here.

Comments on the above article also at Ballot Access News.

Bob Barr was the 2008 nominee for President of the Libertarian Party.

Embracing statists and nationalists quietly within the party is one thing; making them front and center as a leading voice of recruitment and policy means that these types of unprincipled non-libertarian perspectives become the LP in the minds of everyone.

The whole “open letter” is published at Freedom’s Phoenix.

Kwiatkowski, whose military career included work at the Pentagon and with the National Security Agency, became a public figure after writing about what she deemed the “corruption of intelligence” to justify the 2003 US invasion of Iraq. She was briefly a candidate for the Libertarian Party’s 2008 vice-presidential nomination and has been a recurring name in discussion of the 2012 nomination.

What the one hand giveth, the other taketh away — words to live by for the Republican majority at the Georgia legislature; which, it seems, just cannot bear to see the power and control of state government lessened.

Last Wednesday, for example, many Georgians had their eyes fixed on the Georgia General Assembly as the Senate debated and subsequently passed SB 10 – legislation that allows local communities to chose whether or not to allow Sunday sales of alcohol. The passage of SB 10 was hailed as a victory for personal liberty; which it was – a baby step, but a step in the right direction nonetheless.

Yet, darned if shortly after passage of the alcohol bill, the Senate moved on SB 80, sponsored by Sen. Joshua McKoon (R-Columbus) and backed by several of his Republican colleagues. This privacy-invasive, constitutionally-defective measure would authorize government agents to forcibly take a DNA sample from every person in Georgia who is arrested for a felony – not convicted,

Keep reading……

In a breathtaking statement delivered in an official court proceeding, the federal Department of Homeland Security (DHS) claims authority to strip search every airline passenger; and to begin such a practice without even soliciting comment from the public.

This outrageous statement recently was delivered to the American people by a DHS lawyer in arguments before the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which is considering a challenge to the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) nude body scanner devices. The suit was brought by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC).

Currently TSA, which is a component of DHS, claims authority to subject passengers to either an intrusive hand searches or to x-ray scans that reveal a nude image of the passengers’ bodies. Many, including this author and EPIC, consider such searches unconstitutional as violative of the the Fourth Amendment to our Constitution, which prohibits “unreasonable” …

Keep reading….

Recent activities conducted by various law enforcement agencies under the direction of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), illustrate once again that the agency has a decidedly tin ear when it comes to concern for how its actions upset and disrupt the travelling public, or how it is perceived by the American people. TSA seems now to have decided to start searching passengers after they disembark from public conveyances. And, such programs apparently are not in response to any particular threats or actual intelligence, but are merely conducted because . . . well, because they can be conducted.

If there’s one thing government is good at, it’s coming up with clever acronyms with which to label its activities. The granddaddy of all such efforts is the “USA PATRIOT Act,” short for the legislation’s real, tongue-twister of a name, the “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001.” …

Continue reading TSA’s “VIPER” program stumbles again…

When President Ronald Reagan ordered American F-111 fighter-bombers, assisted by F-18 and A-6E fighters, to strike at Libyan targets in April 1986, he did so based on strong and clear evidence that Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi’s government had directly ordered the bombing 10 days earlier of a night club in Berlin in which U.S. servicemen were killed. In other words, it was a surgical strike against government installations in a country linked directly to contemporaneous terrorist action against American personnel. It was a successful military operation, even though Qaddafi had been warned of the impending strike by one of his diplomatic supporters, and was able personally to escape the bombs by a matter of minutes.

Now, almost precisely a quarter century later, another American president apparently is contemplating military action of sorts against the very same foreign leader. This time, however, the reason for military action is far more vague — amorphous, even — and …

Continue reading Military action against Qaddafi rests on shaky ground….

Like the little girl said in the 1982 movie, Poltergeist, “They’re baaaaack.” In real life, it’s not the evil spirits emerging from haunted television sets that are returning, but the discredited national identification card program, known as “RealID.” This law was passed in 2005 by Republicans in the Congress and supported by President Bush in the White House. Following its launch and multi-year lead-in, however, RealID was widely condemned by privacy advocates from across the ideological spectrum, and by state governors and legislatures concerned with the size of the unfunded mandate it represented.

Facing such broad opposition, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) extended the time states would have to comply with the Act’s edicts designed to ensure that all state drivers’ licenses were alike, to May 11, 2011; just two months away. The Act requires, for example, that in order for a state-issued driver’s license to be considered valid identification for any …

Continue reading GOP resurrecting RealID bugaboo »

George Washington, our first and in the view of many, our best president, once said, “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” His prescient observation, delivered more than two centuries ago, aptly describes our present-day Transportation Security Administration (TSA).

For the last several months the TSA has been subjecting travelers to ever-increasing indignities, including naked body scanners and aggressive, police-type pat-downs, without any real regard or concern for the Fourth Amendment or our fundamental right to privacy. At the same time, the agency ignores long-standing requests by members of Congress – including Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), new chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee – to determine whether full-body scanners expose passengers to potentially harmful doses of radiation.

Predictably, TSA scoffs at such suggestions; declaring there have been no …

Continue reading TSA grows even more powerful »