February 09, 2010

Video: Deal still pursuing Obama's birth certificate

Loren Collins sends along a video of a local birther (who has tried to indict President Barack Obama in a common law grand jury) that approached Rep. Nathan Deal, a candidate for governor, at the Georgia Christian Alliance held the Faith, Family and Freedom Kickoff and asked him about the president's citizenship

Deal says that the doesn't "shy away from hard questions" like Obama's birth certificate. What conspiracy theorist doesn't think they are asking "hard questions"? Jim Garrison was asking hard questions when he unsuccessfully tried Clay Shaw for the assassination of John F. Kennedy. The 9/11 Truthers believe they are asking "hard questions." The one common theme is they all rely on conjecture and half-truths and no amount of evidence is enough for them.

He adds that the president can clear this up by telling him where he can direct his constituents, who Deal blames for his crusade, where they can go "to see authentic documentation, that he says is authentic, to satisfy their curiosity."

Obama's birth certificate has been online since June 2008. It has been independently examined and determined to be legitimate. Since there is a legitimate copy online, why hasn't Deal directed his "constituents" (and I doubt he is referring to the citizens of Georgia's Ninth Congressional District at this point) there to view it for themselves. Is Nathan Deal calling this copy a fake?

Here is the video:

February 08, 2010

More discussion on Shafer's ballot access proposal

Over at Beyond the Trestle, Martin has weighed in on my post about the proposed ballot access legislation. We both agree that Georgia's ballot access are out of date and need to be reformed to allow easier access for third parties and independents to offer Georgians more choices at the ballot.

Sen. David Shafer and I have discussed this issue off and on for the last three years, but as far as I know, no one was given a head's up that this was going to be introduced.

Martin assumes that I would support the 45% threshold for a candidate to win an election. I don't, but it's fair assumption to make. When legislation was introduced in 2007 to go back to the 45%, I wrote against it because I believe it is incumbent protection. It's really not too much to ask that our representatives win a majority. It gives a sense of legitimacy to their victory.

Martin says, "If we pass this and don't rescind the other, get ready for extra innings in just about every significant election." Not really won't be all that different from how elections are now. The only way that would be an issue is if more third parties were able to obtain a ballot line, which would still require signatures from 1% of registered voters, and only the Libertarian Party has been able to accomplish that.

I like the 50% plus one standard that we have now. I am however, an advocate of Instant Runoff Voting, which would avoid costly runoffs that are generally met by an uninterested public.

Tebow ad non-controversy

As much as I dislike Tim Tebow, and it has everything to do with him playing for the Florida Gators, the uproar over Focus on the Family buying an ad during the Super Bowl was hilariously blown out of proportion.

What is wrong with this ad?

Birther gets time at Tea Party Convention

Did anyone catch any of the National Tea Party Convention on C-SPAN this weekend? I wasn't going to watch any of it, but as I was switching through the channels in my office on Friday evening, the name of one of the speakers caught my eye, it was Joseph Farah.

If you're not familiar with Joseph Farah, he is founder of World Net Daily, an ultra-conservative website that promotes the kooky conspiracy theory surrounding Barack Obama's birth certificate.

He spoke while the attendees of the convention dined, spending about 10 minutes, according to Dave Weigel, talking about Obama's birth certificate. He also spent some time talking about religious morality. What these two things have to do with the Tea Party movement, I don't know. Thankfully, Andrew Breitbart called him out on bringing up the nutty topic.

The focus of the Tea Party movement was supposed to be targeted. It was supposed to be about free markets, cutting taxes and spending. That's it. Not about personal crusades or promoting one party over the other.

Humorously, Farah closed his speech warning attendees, "Don't let some politician or demagogue hijack this movement."

I'd say it's a bit too late for that.

Barr takes on DNA database expansion proposal

A few weeks ago, I posted on a proposal that would expand Georgia's DNA database that was introduced by State Rep. Rob Teilhet (D-Smyrna). The proposal would require anyone arrested of a felony to submit a DNA sample.

Bob Barr has weighed in on the legislation, HB 1033, and finds some serious constitutional flaws:

A person arrested for an alleged offense has not yet been proved to have done anything wrong. He’s had no day in court, no chance to defend himself, and been afforded no opportunity to challenge the charges against him. Arrest in our state as in many others, can rest on a foundation no stronger than a fellow citizen’s opinion; perhaps one bearing a grudge. All those important, time-honored and constitutionally-based limits on government-coerced evidence are undercut by forced collection of a person’s most private information at the start of the process rather than at the end.

While Rep. Teilhet obviously has read the current law in Georgia regarding collection of DNA samples from felons (since his proposal refers to the existing statute), perhaps others who might support his bill are not yet familiar with the already-extensive database of DNA information maintained by Georgia. For example, anybody convicted of a serious offense of a sexual nature, as well as anyone incarcerated for a felony or those on probation for serious offenses, is already required to give their DNA to the state.

Teilhet, like other DNA-database advocates, attempts to sooth his critics by claiming the legislation he pushes provides adequate protection against improper use or dissemination of the DNA information, and for removing the information if a person is not later convicted. Closer examination of the current law and of Teilhet’s proposed expansion of it, however, shows clearly the “protections” are inadequate. Information collected now or under Teilhet’s legislation would be available to virtually any law enforcement or prosecution agency requesting it. And, removing the information from the database if the person is later exonerated depends solely on the person himself having the knowledge and resources to seek such remedy, rather than being the responsibility of the government itself to correct its mistake.

HB 1033 is a constitutional wolf in sheep’s clothing and should not become law.

Teilhet's bill should be killed and voters should remember his assaults on basic constitutional protections in November.

February 07, 2010

Super Bowl Sunday

Super Bowl XLIV between the Indianapolis Colts and New Orleans Saints kicks off at 6:30pm.

This should be a good game between two great passing games. Expect a lot of scoring. Neither team has an amazing defense, but each has qualities (the Colts have a great defensive line, but the Saints have a good secondary and solid linebackers).

The Colts are the favorite, but...Geaux Saints!

Ballot access bill proposed in the Georgia General Assembly

For those of you who don't know, Georgia has some of the most restrictive ballot access laws in the United States. According to Ballot Access News, the laws were passed in 1943 to keep the Communist Party off the ballot.

According to Georgia Code (§ 21-2-170), in order to get on the ballot a candidate must turn in petitions equaling 5 percent of the registered voters from the district he plans to run in. If a candidate plans to run statewide, he must get signatures from 1 percent of registered voters in the state. It's something most people aren't even aware of and when asked to sign many react by saying, "This is America, you shouldn't have to do this."

The 1 percent rule also applies to parties attempting to get their candidates name on the ballot, and if they do get a line on the ballot, they are still not a "party" as defined by Georgia law, they are a "political body" and they receive 1 percent of the registered vote in any statewide race to maintain that status. In order to receive an automatic ballot line for all candidate and party status, a candidate for governor or president must receive 20 percent of the popular vote in a general election.

The Libertarian Party is the only third party that has been able to obtain political body status in Georgia. The Constitution Party and Green Party have little to no presence in the state.

If you're running statewide, you'll need roughly 53,000 signatures (going by figures from 11/08). If you're running for Congress, and I'll use the Third Congressional District for this example, you'll need roughly 24,000 signatures. Keep in mind that each of these signatures must be validated by the Georgia Secretary of State's office, so you need a buffer of several thousand signatures, just in case they toss out signatures.

It's quite a tedious task, which is why you don't see anyone running for Congress as a third party candidate in Georgia. In fact, no third party or independent candidate has run for Congress in Georgia since 1964 (excluding special elections). It's also why only well-funded (Ross Perot) or well-known (Pat Buchanan) independent candidates have been able to qualify for president in our state.

State Sen. David Shafer (R-Duluth) has proposed legislation, SB 359, would give political bodies, such as the Libertarian Party, a ballot line for statewide and down ticket races (local and legislative) provided they can maintain the 1 percent of registered voters requirement for statewide races.

The legislation would also allow for political bodies to endorse a major party candidate running for public office. This is known as electoral fusion. Several states use a form of it, the most well known being New York. For example, the Conservative Party in the state has endorsed Republican Party candidates often. Shafer's bill would allow basically the same thing.

It's a step in the right direction. I hope the state legislature and Secretary of State Brian Kemp get behind this bill as a fairer means of ballot access.

February 06, 2010

Go Forth And Drink!

I write my first post in months (years?) to warn you that you only have an hour and a half left to buy alcohol for the big game! Go forth and liquor up!

Isakson questioned about his statist voting record

Check this out. This guy slams Sen. Johnny Isakson for his statist voting record but for coming home for re-election and talking about free markets and individual liberty. He is right to question Isakson. He voted to expand government and increase spending throughout his career. The questioner had me until he asked to admit that his "true political philosophy is Marxist-Leninism." That's just a bit over the top.

Of course, Isakson side-steps the question entirely.

February 05, 2010

When free trade and corporatism collide

You may remember my post from last week about consumers paying $2.5 billion in tariffs on imported sugar, which is part of the cost of protectionist policies.

CNBC recently had a free trader and someone from a special interest group to discuss the issue. Take notice how the guy representing farm interest immediately ties getting rid of these tariffs to importing oil and getting rid of the US sugar industry. He just doesn't believe in competition:





H/T: Club for Growth

Perdue wants to change state government

News broke today that Gov. Sonny Perdue (DR?) would like for some state constitutional officers to be appointed:

Gov. Sonny Perdue is proposing that four state constitutional officers now elected by the public should instead be appointed by the governor.

The four are state school superintendent, agriculture commissioner, labor commissioner and insurance commissioner.

The change would require two-thirds approval in each house of the Legislature, and would have to be ratified by the state's voters.

The governor elected in 2014 would be the first to appoint people to the four positions. Appointments would require confirmation by the Senate.

The constitutional amendment is in the works already for this. This is one those proposals that you'd have to read the details before going along with it. You also have wonder why he is waiting to do this in his last year in office. Seems odd.

If they're going to change up state government, let's pass HR 563, which would allow a governor to serve only one 6 year term.

February 04, 2010

Big 5 GOP Debate Live-Blog

Clayton, Icarus and myself are at The Beacon's Big 5 gubernatorial debate. Live-blogging begins soon. You can watch online here.

No involuntary microchip implants in Georgia

The State Senate, having solved all other pressing issues facing Georgia, has passed legislation sponsored Chip Pearson that would protect individuals from having a microchip implanted on their person. No, really, they seriously took this up today:

State senators are moving to protect Georgians from being implanted with a microchip without their permission.

The Senate voted 47-2 on Thursday to approve a bill banning the practice without consent. Doing so would be a misdemeanor considered assault and battery.

Even with permission, implantation could only be performed by a doctor. Anyone who has a microchip implanted without their permission would be entitled to sue for damages.

Sen. Chip Pearson, who sponsored the bill, says it's a proactive measure aimed at anticipating technological advances that may infringe on people's rights. Sen. Vincent Fort, one of the two senators who opposed the bill, says it's a "solution in search of a problem" and a waste of time during the state's budget crisis.

It would be funny if it weren't so sad. I can't buy beer on Sunday, but at least I won't have to worry about the Mark of the Beast. Thank you, Georgia General Assembly!

I cannot tell you how many times I've heard legislators say that they think there are so many other pressing issues that a particular bill isn't worth taking up. So, what about this? Is this actually a pressing issue facing Georgians? Is the federal government, led by the Kenyan-born Barack Hussein Obama, forcing us to have microchips implanted now?

Gah, just please go home.

GOP gubernatorial debate tonight in Alpharetta

This evening, I'll be attending a debate sponsored by The Beacon between five of the GOP candidates for governorat the Metropolitan Club in Alpharetta.

The five candidates attending are:

Jeff Chapman and Ray McBerry were not extended invitations due to failing to meet criteria set by the editorial board of The Beacon, a Republican-slanted weekly paper. Using the January disclosures as a guide, The Beacon required a campaign to have raised $250,000 to participate.

Supporters of some candidates are no doubt upset, and while I don't necessarily agree with The Beacon since I believe it is in the public's interest to hear all candidates, they certainly have a right to exclude anyone they want. After all, they are a private entity.

Buzz, Clayton and myself will be live-blogging for Peach Pundit. I'll try to get that cross-posted here. You will be able to stream the debate online as well. Look for all that later today.

Stop freaking out about the Citizens United ruling

Many so-called "progressives" are beside themselves about the Supreme Court's decision in the Citizens United case, even going as far as wanting to change the First Amendment. President Barack Obama has contributed to the misinformation about case by giving factually incorrect information about what the ruling means during the State of the Union address.

Nick Gillespie sets the record straight:

Deficits and debt mean higher interest rates

Why are deficits and debt bad for the economy?:

In a nutshell, interest rates are significantly influenced by the national debt. That’s because when the government is borrowing lots of money, it puts upward pressure on all interest rates. This includes mortgage rates, refinance rates, credit card rates, auto loan rates, savings rates, money market rates, and certificate of deposit rates.

So if interest rates are affected by the national debt, why are interest rates so low when the national debt is at a record level? It’s a good question. The answer lies in the fact that the Fed is keeping interest rates artificially low right now in order to stimulate the economy. Once the economy recovers, however, the Fed will have no choice but to raise interest rates.

So how does that affect you? It depends on whether you are borrowing money or investing money. If you are borrowing money, now is the time to lock in to a low mortgage rate or auto loan rate. On the other hand, if you are investing money, be careful about locking into a long term investment such as a certificate of deposit at today’s low rates.

All this debt we are accumulating now is going be a big problem later on, which is a point I made often during the last year of George W. Bush's presidency. It's a point the CBO raised when the stimulus bill was pushed, and eventually passed, early last year in the first month of Barack Obama's administration. What the end result? Many of the same problems we're having now.

February 03, 2010

Saxby Chambliss is wrong on "don't ask, don't tell"

As you may know, there is a debate taking place over the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which allows gays to serve in the military provided they keep their sexual orientation to themselves. During his State of the Union address to Congress, President Barack Obama called for the repeal of the law (it may be the only thing he said that I agreed with), which is supported by the Joint Chiefs of the armed forces and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates (who was originally appointed by President George W. Bush).

It's not a secret that I'm not a fan of Sen. Saxby Chambliss. The man is a fiscal fraud that has never met pork he didn't like and he voted for every bloated budget during the six years the Republican Party maintained control of Congress. Unfortunately, he has chose to demagogue the issue during a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Chambliss says that if "don't ask, don't tell" is repealed that it'll open the door to "alcohol use, adultery, fraternization and body art" in the military. He added, "the presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would very likely create an unacceptable risk to those high standards."

Really, Senator? Why should we treat these individuals, who just happen to be gay, any different from any other soldier. Why not let them serve openly if they are willing to put their lives on the line for their country? A 2006 poll of Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans overwhelmingly shows that they are comfortable serving with fellow soldiers that are openly gay. So why should they have to serve in secrecy?

H/T: Below the Beltway


About JasonPye.com

Welcome to my website. The purpose of this blog is to talk about local, state and national news from a libertarian perspective.

To learn more about the author and see some frequently asked questions, please click here.

- E-mail: jason@jasonpye.com
- AIM: jasonpyedotcom





Powered by
Movable Type 3.2