On Wednesday, I had a meeting with Pennsylvania State Education Association (PSEA) Political Action Committee (www.psea.org). They invited me to be interviewed for a possible endorsement. I was hoping to record the interview for my podcast. Sadly, I made the mistake of asking if I could record the interview, and they said no. Maybe I should have not asked and recorded the interview secretly, but that seemed rather impolite, so I asked. I should have brought a reporter with me to help shine some light on these roaches. Although Libertarians would not be surprised by the interview, hearing their agenda from their own mouths was still disturbing. Here are some of my notes.
The PSEA has over 180,000 "members" in Pennsylvania. I use quotations because membership dues are not optional. Conscripts is probably a more accurate term. Government teachers, admins, support staff, school nurses etc are required to "join."
I let them know that in addition to answering their questions, I had some questions for them as well. I said "If you want my help when I'm elected, I'll need to know where you stand." Although about 10 of their board members were there, only one or two would respond to my questions.
I started by explaining my motives for running for office and detailed my personal pledge to strictly comply with the constitution, the Clean Sweep candidate declaration and the oath of office. This put the largest PSEA member to sleep, but the others seemed to understand what I was saying.
They asked me what I would like PSEA to do for me. I mentioned that I had heard that Ed Rendell had just received a sizable contribution ($235,000, his largest this reporting period) and that I would be happy to receive a similar contribution. I let them know that my commitment to improving education in Pennsylvania was at least as great as Ed's. They said state rep candidates usually receive $0 to $1,500 each.
After a few routine questions, they began to figure out that I was not going to help them expand their power, and that I was in fact, an ally of their worst enemy, the parents.
The ring leader took offense at the term "government school" preferring the term "public school." I explained that the Friends School is also open to the public. Funny that leaders of the STATE education association would take offense at the word government. I guess even whores prefer the term "lady of the evening."
I asked them to support my plan to remove the compulsory nature government schooling. This seamed to horrify them. The ring leader informed me that the Pennsylvania constitution guarantees a free (and presumably mandatory) education. When I read her the actual wording: (The General Assembly shall provide for the maintenance and support of a thorough and efficient system of public education to serve the needs of the Commonwealth.), the ring leader got very defensive and ended any discussion of the constitution. I tried to bring it back up by asking "Don't state employees have an obligation to perform their duties within the confines of our highest law?"
They expressed their concern about accountability proposals. They reject ALL merit based pay proposals. When I mentioned how I have always been paid according to my production, one lady snapped "We don't make widgets!" Evidently, our saintly government school workers and their legislative lap-dogs are beyond reproach, but parents must be thoroughly scrutinized. They informed me that they are internally evaluated. I asked how much their salary would be reduced for an unsatisfactory evaluation. The answer was zero, of course.
Later, I asked them point blank: "Who is the ultimate authority when it comes to my child's education?" They confirmed that the state is the ultimate authority, as parents just can't be trusted. They confirmed that criminal penalties were appropriate for a parent who refused to comply with government education policy. They were all ready to tell me their horror stories of bad parenting. I sensed a strong loathing whenever the subject of parents was discussed.
They really creeped me out when the topic of nursery school came up. I noted how many high quality, choices of nursery schools were available in my area, many of which are very affordable. They informed me that now that Rendell has delivered full day government kindergarten, nursery school will be their next conquest.
I gave the attendees a copy of my campaign brochure and also a copy of Jacob G. Hornberger's essay "The Separation of Education and State" (http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0601aa.asp).
Before leaving, I asked them "Can I have your endorsement?"
I won't hold my breath.
Friday, June 23, 2006
Thursday, May 25, 2006
Friday, May 19, 2006
Libertarian Meets Signature Requirement for November Ballot in a Single Day
Lower Providence Twp. - In another aftershock of the anti-incumbent earthquake, PA Clean Sweeper James Babb, the endorsed Libertarian challenger for State Representative in district 157, has collected the necessary signatures to be on the ballot.
Pennsylvania election law requires third-party and independent candidates to collect 466 signatures from district voters to qualify for the ballot in district 157. Although 55% larger than the major party signature requirements for their primaries, Babb's requirement was easily met in a single day at the polls Tuesday. The Babb for Pennsylvania volunteer team completed the task months before the August 1st deadline. Registered Republicans and Democrats who showed up to vote in their primaries gladly filled page after page with their signatures.
"Now voters in our district will have a true choice in the fall." said Babb. "Many voters in our district are concerned about the never ending tax hikes and runaway spending authorized by incumbent Carole Rubley. I look forward to debating these issues at the earliest opportunity. I want to know why she keeps taking more and more of our hard-earned money."
Babb's platform includes a pledge to personally read all legislation that he votes for, and cite the exact clause in the Pennsylvania constitution that authorizes any new law he supports. He also pledges to pursue the repeal of all existing laws not explicitly authorized by the constitution. He advocates common sense, free-market solutions instead of expanded government power.
More information about the campaign can be found at www.JamesBabb.com.
Contact:
Ken Krawchuk, Babb for Pennsylvania Media Relations
215-881-9696
Media@JamesBabb.com
or
James Babb
610-539-8825
Jim@JamesBabb.com
Pennsylvania election law requires third-party and independent candidates to collect 466 signatures from district voters to qualify for the ballot in district 157. Although 55% larger than the major party signature requirements for their primaries, Babb's requirement was easily met in a single day at the polls Tuesday. The Babb for Pennsylvania volunteer team completed the task months before the August 1st deadline. Registered Republicans and Democrats who showed up to vote in their primaries gladly filled page after page with their signatures.
"Now voters in our district will have a true choice in the fall." said Babb. "Many voters in our district are concerned about the never ending tax hikes and runaway spending authorized by incumbent Carole Rubley. I look forward to debating these issues at the earliest opportunity. I want to know why she keeps taking more and more of our hard-earned money."
Babb's platform includes a pledge to personally read all legislation that he votes for, and cite the exact clause in the Pennsylvania constitution that authorizes any new law he supports. He also pledges to pursue the repeal of all existing laws not explicitly authorized by the constitution. He advocates common sense, free-market solutions instead of expanded government power.
More information about the campaign can be found at www.JamesBabb.com.
Contact:
Ken Krawchuk, Babb for Pennsylvania Media Relations
215-881-9696
Media@JamesBabb.com
or
James Babb
610-539-8825
Jim@JamesBabb.com
Saturday, April 29, 2006
It’s not Marriage They Want to Protect
Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania (LPPa)
3915 Union Deposit Road #223
Harrisburg, PA 17109
1-800-774-4487
www.lppa.org
For Immediate Release:
Date: 04/28/2006
For more information contact:
Doug Leard (Media Relations) or Chuck Moulton (Chair) at 1-800-R-RIGHTS
Pennsylvania Marriage Protection Amendment
It’s not Marriage They Want to Protect
Harrisburg, PA – Over 80 members of Pennsylvania’s House have co-sponsored a proposed constitutional amendment defining “marriage” as a union between one man and one woman in H.B. 2381, the Pennsylvania Constitutional Marriage Protection Amendment.
“Is marriage a basic human right, or a privilege defined and granted by government?” asked James Babb, Libertarian candidate for Representative in the General Assembly, District 157. “Evidently no part of our lives is immune from interference by the state legislature. What will be the next religious ceremony for government regulation? Baptisms? Bar Mitzvahs? Confirmations?”
“It’s not about protecting marriage, but protecting something else” offered Tom Martin, Libertarian candidate for U.S. Senate. “Lowering taxes and regulations help married couples, their families and their employers by letting them keep more of their money. Instead of simply reducing government spending and taxes, incumbent politicians both in Pennsylvania and Washington promote constitutional regulations on marriage. They want to protect something, but it’s not marriage. This amendment changes the subject to protect their do-nothing record of addressing high taxes and their outrageous spending programs.”
LPPa Media Relations Chair, Doug Leard made a final observation, “With so many co-sponsors, what common principle drives social conservatives toward bigger state government and liberals toward a church-state alliance? Political self-preservation. Incumbent politicians desperately want us to forget the pay-grab during this election season and are treacherously using marriage as a distraction. Don’t be fooled and don’t ever forget the pay-grab.”
The Libertarian Party is the third largest political party in the United States with over 600 officials serving in office throughout the nation. Please visit www.LP.org or www.LPPA.org for more information on the Libertarian Party.
3915 Union Deposit Road #223
Harrisburg, PA 17109
1-800-774-4487
www.lppa.org
For Immediate Release:
Date: 04/28/2006
For more information contact:
Doug Leard (Media Relations) or Chuck Moulton (Chair) at 1-800-R-RIGHTS
Pennsylvania Marriage Protection Amendment
It’s not Marriage They Want to Protect
Harrisburg, PA – Over 80 members of Pennsylvania’s House have co-sponsored a proposed constitutional amendment defining “marriage” as a union between one man and one woman in H.B. 2381, the Pennsylvania Constitutional Marriage Protection Amendment.
“Is marriage a basic human right, or a privilege defined and granted by government?” asked James Babb, Libertarian candidate for Representative in the General Assembly, District 157. “Evidently no part of our lives is immune from interference by the state legislature. What will be the next religious ceremony for government regulation? Baptisms? Bar Mitzvahs? Confirmations?”
“It’s not about protecting marriage, but protecting something else” offered Tom Martin, Libertarian candidate for U.S. Senate. “Lowering taxes and regulations help married couples, their families and their employers by letting them keep more of their money. Instead of simply reducing government spending and taxes, incumbent politicians both in Pennsylvania and Washington promote constitutional regulations on marriage. They want to protect something, but it’s not marriage. This amendment changes the subject to protect their do-nothing record of addressing high taxes and their outrageous spending programs.”
LPPa Media Relations Chair, Doug Leard made a final observation, “With so many co-sponsors, what common principle drives social conservatives toward bigger state government and liberals toward a church-state alliance? Political self-preservation. Incumbent politicians desperately want us to forget the pay-grab during this election season and are treacherously using marriage as a distraction. Don’t be fooled and don’t ever forget the pay-grab.”
The Libertarian Party is the third largest political party in the United States with over 600 officials serving in office throughout the nation. Please visit www.LP.org or www.LPPA.org for more information on the Libertarian Party.
Monday, April 17, 2006
The Separation of Charity and State
by Jacob G. Hornberger, Posted April 17, 2006
Read the rest…
The primary function of the federal government these days is to help out others with federal welfare assistance. The assistance is dispensed in a variety of ways — directly, in the form of a money payment (Social Security); indirectly, by helping people with payments to third parties (Medicare and Medicaid); subsidies to government entities and private organizations (grants to public schools or corporate welfare); and in-kind benefits, such as housing or food. After the recent Hurricane Katrina disaster, federal officials even went so far as to disburse bank debit cards to hurricane victims.
Federal welfare assistance to Americans has become such an ingrained part of our lives that most Americans hardly give it a second thought. While “waste, fraud, and abuse” have become a standard part of the welfare-state lexicon, the answer for many is simply, “The system needs reform.”
Yet when recommended reforms are instituted, “waste, fraud, and abuse” inevitably rear their ugly heads again, which then generates the call for new reforms, perpetuating an endless cycle of problems and reforms.
All this fiddling avoids the central issue: Why not separate charity and the state, in the same manner our ancestors separated church and state? Why not get government totally out of the charity business? I’m suggesting that we do much more than simply repeal all welfare-state programs. I’m suggesting that we go further and elevate our vision to the same level as that of our American ancestors when they separated church and state. I’m suggesting the following amendment to the Constitution: “The federal government shall not provide any subsidy, grant, welfare, aid, loan, or other special privilege to anyone.”
Read the rest…
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
Conservatism vs. Libertarianism
Conservatism vs. Libertarianism
by Jacob G. Hornberger, April 12, 2006
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0604c.asp
The Conservative:
I’m a conservative. I believe in individual liberty, free markets, private property, and limited government, except for:
1. Social Security;
2. Medicare;
3. Medicaid;
4. Welfare;
5. Drug laws;
6. Public schooling;
7. Federal grants;
8. Economic regulations;
9. Minimum-wage laws and price controls;
10. Federal Reserve System;
11. Paper money;
12. Income taxation and the IRS;
13. Trade restrictions;
14. Immigration controls;
15. Foreign aid;
16. Foreign wars of aggression;
17. Foreign occupations;
18. An overseas military empire;
19. A standing army and a military-industrial complex;
20. Infringements on civil liberties;
21. Military detentions and denial of due process and jury trials for citizens and non-citizens accused of crimes;
22. Torture and sex abuse of prisoners;
23. Secret kidnappings and “renditions” to brutal foreign regimes for purposes of torture;
24. Secret torture centers around the world;
25. Secret courts and secret judicial proceedings;
26. Warrantless wiretapping of citizens and non-citizens;
27. Violations of the Constitution and Bill of Rights for purposes of “national security”;
28. Out-of-control federal spending to pay for all this.
The Libertarian:
I’m a libertarian. I believe in individual liberty, free markets, private property, and limited government. Period. No exceptions.
Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. Send him email (jhornberger@fff.org).
by Jacob G. Hornberger, April 12, 2006
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0604c.asp
The Conservative:
I’m a conservative. I believe in individual liberty, free markets, private property, and limited government, except for:
1. Social Security;
2. Medicare;
3. Medicaid;
4. Welfare;
5. Drug laws;
6. Public schooling;
7. Federal grants;
8. Economic regulations;
9. Minimum-wage laws and price controls;
10. Federal Reserve System;
11. Paper money;
12. Income taxation and the IRS;
13. Trade restrictions;
14. Immigration controls;
15. Foreign aid;
16. Foreign wars of aggression;
17. Foreign occupations;
18. An overseas military empire;
19. A standing army and a military-industrial complex;
20. Infringements on civil liberties;
21. Military detentions and denial of due process and jury trials for citizens and non-citizens accused of crimes;
22. Torture and sex abuse of prisoners;
23. Secret kidnappings and “renditions” to brutal foreign regimes for purposes of torture;
24. Secret torture centers around the world;
25. Secret courts and secret judicial proceedings;
26. Warrantless wiretapping of citizens and non-citizens;
27. Violations of the Constitution and Bill of Rights for purposes of “national security”;
28. Out-of-control federal spending to pay for all this.
The Libertarian:
I’m a libertarian. I believe in individual liberty, free markets, private property, and limited government. Period. No exceptions.
Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. Send him email (jhornberger@fff.org).
Monday, April 10, 2006
Pennsylvania Libertarian Party denounces ruling on election law
Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania
3863 Union Deposit Road #223
Harrisburg, PA 17109
1-800-774-4487
www.lppa.org
For Immediate Release:
Date: 04/10/06
For more information contact:
Doug Leard (Media Relations) or Chuck Moulton (Chair) at 1-800-R-RIGHTS
Pennsylvania Libertarian Party denounces ruling on election law
Harrisburg, PA – The Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania (LPPA) must vehemently disagree with the ruling of U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III upholding the unequal election laws of the Commonwealth. As a result of the denial of a request for a preliminary injunction, minor party and independent candidates for statewide office must collect at least 67,070 valid signatures for their names to appear on the November ballot.
Major party candidates need no more than 2,000 signatures to appear on the primary election ballot and winners need nothing further to appear on the ballot in the general election. Minor party and independent candidates are precluded by law from participating in the primary election process.
The most disturbing factor in this decision was the indication by the Judge that the current requirement reflects a legitimate interest of the Commonwealth. According to LPPA Western Vice-Chair Michael J. Robertson, "The legitimate function of the Commonwealth should be to secure the right of the citizens to choose their elected officials, not unfairly limit their choices."
Article I Section 5 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth clearly states that all elections shall be free and equal. The inequality of current election law was highlighted most succinctly by Libertarian candidate for United States Senate, Tom Martin, when he asked, "If there was a football game between the Pittsburgh Steelers and the Philadelphia Eagles, would it be considered fair if the Steelers needed 67 yards to get a first down and the Eagles only needed two yards?".
The LPPA holds the position that voters in the Commonwealth deserve choices on the ballot for their representatives in government. In recent elections, there have been many cases where only a single name appears on the ballot in the general election. There is a least one previous court case demonstrating that additional signatures are not needed for a qualified party's nominees. In reflecting on the decision, Richard Winger, publisher of Ballot Access News and a leading expert nationally on ballot access legal issues, noted "Judge Jones was not as thoughtful as he could have been."
If there are to be requirements for candidates’ names to appear on the ballot, then the laws must be more equitable. The LPPA asks Pennsylvanians to contact their representatives and demand that they reconsider current election laws and adopt the Voters' Choice Act, as written by the Pennsylvania Ballot Access Coalition (www.paballotaccess.org). This will bring election laws in line with the constitutional requirement.
The Libertarian Party is the third largest political party in the United States with over 600 officials serving in office throughout the nation. Please visit www.LP.org or www.LPPA.org for more information on the Libertarian Party.
3863 Union Deposit Road #223
Harrisburg, PA 17109
1-800-774-4487
www.lppa.org
For Immediate Release:
Date: 04/10/06
For more information contact:
Doug Leard (Media Relations) or Chuck Moulton (Chair) at 1-800-R-RIGHTS
Pennsylvania Libertarian Party denounces ruling on election law
Harrisburg, PA – The Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania (LPPA) must vehemently disagree with the ruling of U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III upholding the unequal election laws of the Commonwealth. As a result of the denial of a request for a preliminary injunction, minor party and independent candidates for statewide office must collect at least 67,070 valid signatures for their names to appear on the November ballot.
Major party candidates need no more than 2,000 signatures to appear on the primary election ballot and winners need nothing further to appear on the ballot in the general election. Minor party and independent candidates are precluded by law from participating in the primary election process.
The most disturbing factor in this decision was the indication by the Judge that the current requirement reflects a legitimate interest of the Commonwealth. According to LPPA Western Vice-Chair Michael J. Robertson, "The legitimate function of the Commonwealth should be to secure the right of the citizens to choose their elected officials, not unfairly limit their choices."
Article I Section 5 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth clearly states that all elections shall be free and equal. The inequality of current election law was highlighted most succinctly by Libertarian candidate for United States Senate, Tom Martin, when he asked, "If there was a football game between the Pittsburgh Steelers and the Philadelphia Eagles, would it be considered fair if the Steelers needed 67 yards to get a first down and the Eagles only needed two yards?".
The LPPA holds the position that voters in the Commonwealth deserve choices on the ballot for their representatives in government. In recent elections, there have been many cases where only a single name appears on the ballot in the general election. There is a least one previous court case demonstrating that additional signatures are not needed for a qualified party's nominees. In reflecting on the decision, Richard Winger, publisher of Ballot Access News and a leading expert nationally on ballot access legal issues, noted "Judge Jones was not as thoughtful as he could have been."
If there are to be requirements for candidates’ names to appear on the ballot, then the laws must be more equitable. The LPPA asks Pennsylvanians to contact their representatives and demand that they reconsider current election laws and adopt the Voters' Choice Act, as written by the Pennsylvania Ballot Access Coalition (www.paballotaccess.org). This will bring election laws in line with the constitutional requirement.
The Libertarian Party is the third largest political party in the United States with over 600 officials serving in office throughout the nation. Please visit www.LP.org or www.LPPA.org for more information on the Libertarian Party.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
