February 22, 2004

Illegal Immigration

The issue of immigration policy is one that has snuck up on me in terms of my view of its importance. I think it's probably fair to say that as late as maybe 1998 or later, I didn't have a thought-out position on the issues surrounding immigration policy. I guess I just hadn't thought much about it-- and I can't tell you when it was that I started thinking more about it, and forming my views.

It probably just slowly ratcheted up into my consciousness. I think maybe reading some of the firm stances at the Future for Freedom Foundation helped bring it into my view to be thought about. Perhaps moving back out to California helped too, even though I'm up in Northern California (where the so-called "invasion" is not the big issue that it is in SoCal). And, as I ponder it now, I guess it was probably 9/11-- or, more properly, post-9/11 --that pushed the issue into my face enough that I had to decide where I stand, and stand there. I'm sure I'm not alone in that respect.

However, if the "conventional wisdom" is to be believed, my figuring out where I stand does not match with many of the others who have done the same since 9/11. By which I mean that there seems to have been a major upsurge in anti-immigration (and anti-immigrant) sentiment since that sad day two and a half years ago. And my own reflection has led me firmly to the other side of that view.

I'm not going to go on at length about the issue right now, and there's a good chance that I might be pretty quiet about it for the rest of the election season-- in part because I am getting involved with a certain 2004 presidential campaign that I mentioned recently. (More about that coming soon.) As a result I'm going to be less focused on campaigning for my ideas for a while, and more focused on campaigning for his. And his and mine aren't the same when it comes to this issue. Which doesn't mean I'll be promoting things I don't believe, it just (in this case) means that I might not ramp up my depth of effort and support on that issue in the near term. I hadn't been planning on doing so at any set time anyway-- as I said, my strong stance on it has kind of crept up on me over the years.

But between November 3, 2004 and November 4, 2008, there is going to be a serious amount of some seriously impassioned-- nay, vehement --support for open immigration coming from this particular corner of the globe. I can feel it welling up every time I open my mouth about the issue.

Which brings me to what I came here to post. A Leonard Thompson posted a comment recently at E-Actions for Freedom, where I had posted an action item urging folks to oppose the CLEAR Act (an act which effectively deputizes the nation's local police to make them immigration agents). He's for the CLEAR Act, and against the "invasion" of you-know-whats. I wrote him a quick note in response, and I wanted to share the dialogue with you. Here it is.

(If you see his comment as double-posted on the original page, that's the software's fault, not Leonard's.)


From: Leonard G.Thompson

Comments:

I support the Clear Act. I think it is an idea who's time has come.
We are flooded and invaded by illegal immigration. It must be stopped.

I will urge my Representative to SUPPORT it.

My response:

Hi Leonard,

Thanks for posting your comments (even though obviously I disagree with you).

I'm glad that the generation of Americans who were in power before your ancestors immigrated here didn't feel the way you did, or otherwise you wouldn't have been here to enter into this national discussion. I'm not glad about your xenophobia and greed, but I am still glad that you were allowed to become an American. If folks of your mindset had won the day decades or centuries ago, you might not have been lucky enough to have arrived where you have.

Meanwhile, my ancestors were among the very first batch of illegal immigrants in this country-- on the Mayflower. And I can only imagine what the world would be like now if the Plymouth PD had been waiting on the shore back then to arrest them and deport them back to England.

Be Well, Be Free,

Lance Brown
Freedom Activist

UPDATE: Leonard and I continued our correspondence, and though I'm not going to waste your time by posting the details of that waste of time, I will post the new quote that has been added to the "What people are saying about Lance Brown for President" section. It's by your friend and mine, Leonard Thompson. Here you go:

"I like the USA the way it is. Don't you screw it up! You are doing your best. Have a A for misguided effort. ...
"I think you definitely are anti American and are working to ruin this country. I hope the FBI and CIA are watching you."
-- Len Thompson

Posted by Lance Brown || Link to this entry | Post a comment (1 so far)

February 21, 2004

Good Campaign 2004 sites

The New York Times: Times on the Trail
NYT reporters posting inside insights from within the various campaigns.

--------------------------------------------
The Blogging of the President: 2004
Bloggers blogging about blogging about this year's presidential campaign, and what it all means.

--------------------------------------------
CJR Campaign Desk
The Columbia Journalism Review with incisive critique of the various coverage of coverage of 2004. A great resource for introspective campaign news junkies, but I find it wildly hypocritical that they crack down on media outlets for bias and not telling the full story and such, while neglecting to list presidential candidates outside of the TwoParty. It takes a special kind of blindness for a site with their mission to turn around and practice journalistic neglect and political table-tipping by pretending that the Libertarian and Green Party candidates don't exist.

I bet they'll put Ralph Nader up there soon enough. If they bother to do that, and still fail to add the major third party candidates, I'll have to seriously expect that there's a real bias behind the scenes there. (A bias toward the status quo, or big government, I suppose.) Especially since I nicely asked them to add the LP candidates, so they have no honest claim to ignorance of their existence.

Feel free to join in the chorus of requests, here.

--------------------------------------------
ABCNEWS.com : The Note
The Note has a daily rundown of the day's major national political events and appearances, followed by extensive insider political rambling, gossip, speculation, and wit. For political obsessives, by political obsessives.


Posted by Lance Brown || Link to this entry | Post a comment (0 so far)

February 19, 2004

Interview with 2004 Presidential Candidate Aaron Russo

This interview with presidential candidate Aaron Russo is good stuff. Deaniacs take note. Kucinichiacs too. And Perotians. And, yes, Naderites.

The only downside is that it doesn't have his picture and the context isn't set at the beginning (because it's an adjunct to this main article). I'm posting the whole thing for archival and e-mail forwarding purposes. (That means-- forward this!)

The Auburn Plainsman Online - Interview with Aaron Russo

Interview by David Mackey
Online Editor
February 19, 2004

Plainsman: Looking at your web site, a common theme of your remarks is that we need to return government to a role as a servant of the people, rather than a master. How do you think we got away from that, and how will you change it?
Russo: We got away from that by getting away from the American Constitution. Only by returning to the Constitution will government return to its proper role.

Plainsman: How do you see the government's role in our lives?

Russo: I see the government as a servant. Have you ever studied the Constitution? The government only has 17 delegated powers -- we're talking about the federal government.

The federal government's designated role is to protect the borders of America, national defense, coin money -- even coining money, which they're supposed to do, they don't do anymore, meaning now it's the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve is a private bank, it's not a federal agency.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See Also: Russo Rising: Libertarian candidate for president visits Auburn
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So what I want to do, as far as the United States, is return America back to the basic principles of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and get away from George W. Bush and Bill Clinton.

Plainsman: You advocate bringing the troops home from Iraq. What do we do next?

Russo: What do we do next? We don't do anything next.

Plainsman: Then how do you see America's role in the world?

Russo: Friendship with everybody, free trade with everybody, but as George Washington said, no entangling alliances. In other words, I don't think it's America's job to police the world. I don't think it's proper to send American's troops to Iraq for "shock and awe," destroying children, maiming children, killing people for no reason. Saddam Hussein never did anything to America, and we have no reason to be there.

There are many despots all around the world. America doesn't have any right to go into other countries and force a form of government on them. It's up to the people of the country to have self-determination as to what kind of government they want to live in.

America keeps talking about democracy, and America's not supposed to be a democracy. In a democracy, 51 percent of the people control 49 percent, and that's not freedom. In a constitutional republic, as America was designed to be, 99 percent of the people can't control 1 percent of the people. Everyone has their God-given rights as a human being. As long as you don't do violence, theft or fraud, you can do whatever you want with your life. It's your choice.

You own your life. I don't own you, you don't own me, I don't own these people out here. Each one of us owns our own life, we're private property for ourselves, so we're free to do with our life as we wish. That's the basic principles of libertarianism and the basic principles of the Constitution. The Constitution's a libertarian document.

Plainsman: You advocate abolishing the PATRIOT ACT. What can America do to prevent attacks like Sept. 11?

Russo: America has bases in 130 countries around the world. We're the only country that has that. We spend more on defense than the next 25 countries combined.... We're the most imperialistic country in the world. We're the most aggressive country in the world. If we didn't do that, I don't think we would have been attacked on Sept. 11.

Now, if I were the president on Sept. 11, what I would have done is show the American people the proof and then gone after the people who did it. What George Bush did was, he never showed us the proof of what happened and he just told us it was Osama bin Laden. Then they went after Saddam Hussein, who did nothing to us. It's been a giant diversion. If there's going to be a war on terror, and it's going to last years and years and years like they say, then it seems the American people have a right to know what did happen on 9/11. Why is George Bush not telling us?

Plainsman: You talk about how America is supposed to be a republic rather than a democracy, where the majority can't impose their preferences on the minority. What are some examples you see in America today where the majority imposes their beliefs on the minority?

Russo: Look at the polls. People make decisions based on polls. It doesn't matter what the polls say. Fifty-one percent can't tell 49 percent what to do. If 51 percent say "Abortion should be illegal," they make it illegal. They use public opinion polls to determine the policy of the country. Policy is based on polls rather than the fact that you, as an individual, can do whatever you want to do.

It's your life. Let's say you have cancer, and the FDA says you have to have chemotherapy, radiation or surgery. That's nonsense. If I have cancer, I'll do whatever I want. For you to limit my choices, that's tyrannical.

Plainsman: Why are you running? Why do you believe you are the person to --

Russo: Because I don't know anybody else who'll do it. George Bush and John Kerry aren't going to change anything. You'll have the same policies in effect after the election. John Kerry voted for the PATRIOT ACT, he voted against the war, he voted against medical marijuana, the same three things George Bush did. What's going to change?

Whichever one wins, it doesn't matter because nothing's going to change. The only way to change things is to vote a third party in. But they tell you if you vote for a third party, you're wasting your vote, but it's just the opposite. With the two major parties, nothing's going to change, and so it's their fabrication, it's their propaganda so people won't vote for a third party. The two parties want to maintain control.

Plainsman: What is your vision for libertarianism in the future? It seems that most Americans have accepted a role for government in education, in health care, all these things you would take government out of. Do you think that opinion can be changed?

Russo: That's all very recent. I think since government's been involved in education, the education system's completely fallen apart. I remember Bill Clinton, in his State of the Union speech, he talked about "We have to have national testing standards." Congress stood up and applauded, "Yeah! National testing!" What a bunch of fools! If we have national testing standards, that means we have national teaching standards. It goes right along with it. The federal government's going to dictate what you learn in school. That's how they got the brownshirts in Germany.

The last thing you want is a central authority dictating what you learn in school. That's not what it's about. Every community may think different things are important to them. A rural community may think one thing, an urban community may think another. It's up to the parents and the local school people to decide what's best for school.

You should run public schools like a private school, run by the headmaster and the parents. If the federal government was in charge of the school system, they'd never learn the Constitution. They don't want them to learn the Constitution because they don't want them to know what their rights are. See, the Constitution doesn't give you your rights. The Constitution tells the government what their powers are. Once the people know what the Constitution says, then you know what the government's real powers are. They don't know that.

So the whole idea is to educate people to learn the Constitution, learn the Bill of Rights, learn what the Framers meant when they wrote what they wrote and why they wrote it. That's what's important. If you have the federal government teaching you and laying down the rules, it's a very bad situation.

Plainsman: You've had a decades-long career in entertainment, and you've worked with a lot of famous people and flamboyant characters. Do you see any similarities between the world of entertainment and the world of politics?

Russo: Somebody once asked me that question -- it's a good question -- and they said "What's the difference between politics and entertainment?" I said, "In politics, they stab you in the front," and that is the difference. In show business they stab you in the back. That's the big difference between the two. Other than that, it's a stage everybody plays on.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

Posted by Lance Brown || Link to this entry | Post a comment (1 so far)

February 15, 2004

Reading Assignments

I've got a number of articles that I've been wanting to highlight-- each good enough to deserve its own explorative entry. But then on the other hand, there's reality-- and in reality, I am not going to get around to giving each of these the special treatment they deserve. So instead I am going to just lay them all out here with a brief statement about what I found especially worthwhile in each of them. They all can be assumed to be preceded by the statement, "This is a particularly great article that I very much recommend reading."

Shane Stenfield of PoliticalNonviolence.org posted a dispatch at Bureaucrash a long time ago about his experience being a co-presenter at a College Freedom Tour stop. What makes it great is how he explains the advantages of using economic rather than political power to affect change. He has a cool way of doing it, and he describes how he took the audience through an interactive demonstration to make his point. While I've long touted the benefits of persuasive market activism over coercive political activism, Shane showed me a different way to approach selling it. Check it out here.

In this column by Radley Balko (titled "Bush Pursues Big-Gov Nanny State"), Balko takes President Bush to task for reducing freedom by expanding government, at home and abroad.

James Bovard does a tremendous service with his efforts to document the tremendous overreach of the government, especially when it comes to civil liberties. In a recent article for Reason Online, he bares the soul of the Transportation Security Administration. "Dominate. Intimidate. Control." That's the name of the article-- it was taken from the motto that's posted at the TSA's air marshal center. Wait until you hear how some air marshals decided to live out that motto.

"How to Lose Your Job in Talk Radio" is an article by conservative talk show host Charles Goyette. The subtitle of it is "Clear Channel gags an anti-war conservative". That tells you in a nutshell what the article's focus is. But you should still read it, if just to hear the story in Goyette's own words.

Jacob Lyles, a columnist for Wake Forest University's school paper, wrote a superb column about George Bush called "No Longer a Conservative". It contains this gem:

Big national goals are never easy on the taxpayer. For every national goal accomplished, a hundred private goals lay in ashes to fund it. For every hunk of metal the government puts on Mars, a working mother does not buy school supplies for her daughter, a middle-class family goes without a family car and a billionaire cannot open a new factory.

and this similar gem:

Bush's State of the Union address promises to push forward the era of big government that started under his rule. He is determined to strip people of the ability to solve the problems dearest to them in order that he may solve ones that put him on the pages of history.

I've also got some sites to highlight, but I'll put them in another entry.

Posted by Lance Brown || Link to this entry | Post a comment (0 so far)

February 03, 2004

Clark Does It (Wrong) Again

I wrote last week about how Wes Clark almost committed the major misstep of starting his New Hampshire concession speech at the exact same time that big winner John Kerry started his victory speech (thus cheating himself out of live coverage by the cable news channels, which obviously featured Kerry).

Well, as the title of this entry implies, he repeated the error again this week. As I was watching John Kerry's (very effective) victory speech, a small inset box showed up on the left, and I watched as Wesley Clark took the stage and commenced his own victory speech-- silently. He was at least a minute into his speech before FoxNews switched away from Kerry's still-in-progress speech. And frankly, it was too bad they did, since Clark's speech was pretty much boring, empty rhetoric, delivered only somewhat competently. Clark is not going to win this nomination, and shouldn't. He has proven that he is not solid enough to survive the two-party campaign process.

P.S. -- Barring the rise of a serious third-party or independent candidate (and that is not out of the question at all, as I will discuss soon), I think John Kerry is likely to stomp George Bush in November. His speech tonight was extremely poised and presidential-- meanwhile, Bush was on the news in two different contexts, and in both he seemed almost confused. It was like he was saying three words, then saying "uh", and pausing to think, and then saying three more words. Which would have been fine if he was saying stuff that needed to be thought about. But he wasn't. He was saying standard boilerplate avoidisms-- one about the WMD intelligence investigation, and one about the UN. He had a big-time deer-in-the-headlights look to him. (It could be because he sees his unraveling presidency staring him in the face.)

Posted by Lance Brown || Link to this entry | Post a comment (0 so far)

February 01, 2004

Ron Crickenberger, R.I.P.

I only met Ron Crickenberger once, at a medical marijuana rally in Sacramento. The last interaction I had with him was me hooting and hollering and clapping in support of his speech at that rally. My only other direct connection with Ron's world was when his partner interviewed me about StopCarnivore.org two years ago. My first indirect connection with Ron was probably whenever I first heard of the Libertarian Party. Chances are, he played some role in whatever it was that first brought the LP into my worldview.

Ron's universe came in contact with just about everyone in the Libertarian movement, really. As you can see in the article about his passing in LP News, and in this memorial at Liberty For All, and on this condolences page, and this page from the Advocates for Self-Government, Ron was a person who made a positive impression, and made a difference, for almost everyone he came in contact with-- and for millions of people who will never know who he is.

Now that's living!

In a way I'm luckier than most, I guess, in that the last thing I ever said to Ron was exactly what I would say if I had another chance:

"Woooohoooo! Yeaaaahh Ron!"
{frantic applause}

Posted by Lance Brown || Link to this entry | Post a comment (0 so far)