This new ordinance is a blatant violation of both 1st Amendment and property rights. What is the City Council’s logic for removing this freedom from their fellow Dallas residents? They say that stores with what they deem to be too many signs “display no sense of order”. God forbid that not every store look identitical! What ever happened to the American value of individualism? I don’t know how you feel about this but I can’t stand the idea that government has the right to force me to comply with what they deem to be “in order”. I hope that Dallas businesses will refuse to comply with this ordinance and take their case to the courts.

Does a city council of one of the largest cities in America have nothing better to do than invade the private property of its residents and force them to alter their property to their pleasure? I cannot think of a clearer example of a victimless crime than advertising on the front of YOUR OWN store. This statute of the city council clearly implies that you do not fully own your own property but that rather the city council has a gerater level of ownership over your property than you do.

For more information on this ludicruous statute click here.

If you want more information about the summit or if you want to register for it click here.

To read a more thorough account of what happened click here to visit the LPDC’s new website.

While this law is ridiculous, there is a clear logic behind it. The reason for laws like these are so that professional groups can create virtual monopolies in their fields. License requirements reduce competition and often place harsh and unnecessary burdens on thousands of practitioners in their respective fields. Licenses are a form of labor welfare, these groups use government to grant them a commercial advantage. License requirements whether they be for PI’s or hair dressers create massive distortions in the free market. Distortions such as these reduce the efficiency of the economy and create higher unemployment levels. I suggest that the Texas legislature allow the market to determine who is qualified to repair computers rather than pander to special interest groups and create absurd and irrelevant requirements that serve no constructive purpose.

For more information click here.

I want to briefly discuss how the 2nd Amendment is reflected in the current presidential election. There is no question that Obama has no respect for the 2nd amendment as he clearly stated that he supported D.C.’s gun ban. What most people don’t realize is that McCain is no friend of the 2nd Amendment either. Click here to watch a brief video clip in which McCain says the NRA should have no place in the Republican Party. McCain has also been critical of gun shows as well as crafting the McCain-Feingold campaign contribution law which severally restricted the influence of the NRA by attacking free speech. I have to give Sen. Obama credit for at least being honest about his beliefs. Sen. McCain on the other hand has tried to pander to gun owners by padding his views. Rep. Bob Barr on the other hand has always been a consistentt and honest defender of the 2nd Amendment. You can read what Rep. Bob Barr had to say about the D.C. v. Heller Supreme Court ruling here: http://www.bobbarr2008.com/press/press-releases/39/barr-applauds-supreme-court-for-defending-first-amendment-by-rejecting-mccain-campaign-finance-restriction/

You can rest assured that a vote for a Libertarian candidate here in Texas is a vote for an honest defender of the 2nd Amendment. We don’t pander to anyone when it comes to advocating for your personal freedom.

Imagine how much more Americans would give if they didn’t have to pay such high taxes. Funding for existing non-profits would skyrocket.  With contributions to non-profits you also gain the freedom of chosing the causes that matter the most to you. Wouldn’t you rather choose which social cause to further rather than have your money be spent on corporate welfare or subsidizing artists that society has agreed are terrible through the NEA? Letting people donate more of their own money to causes they personally value through organizations that are far more effective than governments seems to me to be not only a smart move but also a compassionate one.

Click here for the Washington Post article.

I would like for one of the Republican mouth pieces to explain to me how giving people a fair trial threatens our nation’s security. Are bombs and terrorist attacks suddenly going to spread across the country because a few hundred men will be given lawyers and an audience at their trials? Are we afraid that the world will see that we extend to foreigners the same rights we claim for ourselves? I personally have much more faith in our civil courts than in our military courts. Can we honestly expect our soldiers to be unbiased in their treatment of our prisoners of war? I fully support the Supreme Court’s decision. One of the pillars of liberty is openness. If we are to be free in a nation of laws it is vital that we have an open judicial process. I think this ruling sends a bold message to the world that we are not hypocrites and that we wholeheartedly believe in the values set forth in our Constitution.

Click here to listen to the story.