As Tim West at LibertyForSale.com pointed out earlier today, the Libertarian Party has published an exit strategy for Iraq.

The plan is detailed, thorough, convincing, and feasible. Highlights include:

• Begin troop withdrawal immediately, at a rate of 11,600 per month. At this rate all troops would be home in a year.
• Relocate 30,000 troops to other Middle Eastern countries.
• Negotiate a settlement with the mainstream faction of the insurgency to polarize extremists.
• Provide aid to the Iraqi government for creation of viable infrastruction.

I don’t believe that we should have gone into Iraq in the first place, but now that we are there we need a strategy for leaving. Bush claims that setting a time table for withdrawing troops will only encourage the “terrorists” to wait us out. However, evidence shows that many of these “terrorists” are Iraqi citizens who have lost loved ones in the war, and are driven by the US occupation. If the US started withdrawing troops, it is likely that alone would cause a decrease in violence.

This exit strategy from the Libertarian party is excellent, and I am thrilled to see them release it. I encourage you to read it through, and if you agree with it sign this list on the LP’s web site showing your support.

After stating that the purpose of this blog is to provide libertarian commentary on current events, I almost feel obligated to comment on tonight’s speech by President Bush. However, I don’t feel like he brought up anything new and relatively little that is blog-worthy.

He continues to link Iraq to terrorism, without mentioning that terrorism was almost non-existent there before we invaded. He mentions that if he succeeds, terrorist organizations will “lose recruits,” without mentioning the number of “terrorists” that he created by invading and occupying that country.

He didn’t clarify why we overthrew a government that posed us no threat. He made no mention of why the reasons for taking this country to war changed when it was confirmed that there were no weapons. He provided no excuses for proactively seeking out reasons to take us to war, instead of examining evidence and concluding that war was the only option.

I am convinced that Bush’s belief in empirical, neo-con ideologies led us into the war in Iraq. Based in his ideology, Bush believed that what the middle east needed was a democracy. Citizens in other middle eastern countries would see this flourishing democracy and eventually, like a seed, freedom would spread across the region, bringing an end to terrorism.

Iraq just happened to be the easiest target for this “seed of democracy.” They were already in violation of UN resolutions, so international support would be relatively easy to gain. We had intelligence that could arguably point to their having weapons of mass destruction, and possessing WMD’s means they could be considered a threat to us.

If Bush would admit that these were his reasons, I would have a lot more respect for him. And I would still go to my grave screaming that he is wrong.

Instead of the truth, all we get is rhetoric and hypocrisies that can lead us only to conclude that our commander in chief is either a liar, or an idiot.

Did he really believe there were weapons? Did he really believe Iraq was a threat to us? Did he really believe that war was the only option? Does he really believe that they hate us for our freedom?

Bush doesn’t believe any of that. I believe that Bush know’s the truth, but he is out to sell a war. A war that we are in because of his twisted neo-con beliefs, and his twisted definition of freedom. He believes that by overthrowing countries and interfering throughout the world, we can end terrorism. Unfortunately, that is what causes it.

Michael Badnarik, 2004 Libertarian presidential candiate, has posted a re-print of a great article by Thomas M. Sipos on his blog. Mr. Sipos provides an interesting perspective on the recent Supreme Court decision regarding eminent domain. I recommend you check it out.

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court decided against the file sharing application in MGM v. Grokster. What follows is the rant that I promised yesterday, if this happened.

For those of you who aren’t up to speed on this one, I’ll try to summarize. Grokster is a software program that allows consumers to share files across the internet. It is “peer-to-peer” software, which means that users connect directly to other users in order to search for and exchange files. File information is never sent to a central Grokster server, and Grokster has no knowledge or control over the files that consumers exchange using their software.

According to MGM, and not really denied by Grokster, a large majority of the files that are exchanged using the software are copyrighted music and movies. Grokster stressed the benefits of peer-to-peer technology over the more common ways of exchanging files, which depend on a central server. They claimed that their technology has considerable uses other than to facilitate the exchange of copyrighted material.

I have read through the Opinion of the Court, and it appears that Grokster didn’t do a whole lot to help themselves. It is obvious that they did little to discourage the exchange of copyrighted material, and there is considerable evidence that they used the availability of free copyrighted material as a selling point of their software to help attract more users, which translated into more advertising dollars.

So, the Supreme Court decided that Grokster went too far. Their decision claims that this is not an indictment against all types of file sharing software. It is not a decision against any company or application that facilitates the sharing of copyrighted material. It is just Grokster. Clearly, they went too far.

Basically, today, the Supreme Court drew a line. A very fuzzy line. A line that will be moved, shortened, twisted, and bent so often over time that it will disappear entirely. What eventually happens when the Supreme Court draws these fuzzy lines was made painfully clear just last week, when the line that was “public use” disappeared and became, instead, “private use”.

Read the rest of this entry…

All eyes will be on the Supreme Court tomorrow. Several important decisions will be announced, and possibly one or two retirements, on the last day before a three month summer break.

Most people are looking for a resignation announcement from Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who is 80 and has thyroid cancer. I guess it is also possible, but less likely, that Sandra Day O’Conner, 75, or John Paul Stevens, 85 will step down as well.

I am most concerned, however, with the decisions that will come down. A big one concerns internet file sharing, and will decide if software makers who create file sharing applications are liable if users of their software share copyrighted material. If they are found to be liable, look for a new rant from me.

Another case deals with the “Ten Commandments” issue. Are state buildings, such as courthouses and capitol buildings allowed to display the Commandments? I believe this is a states issue and should not be made illegal by the federal courts.

Let’s hope the Justices come down on the side of liberty and personal freedom, but based on recent history, I’m not holding my breath.

This news item is a few weeks old now, but since this site wasn’t up a few weeks ago I’m going to mention it now. That’s how important this one is.

Congressman Sensenbrenner (R-Wi) has introduced legislation in the House that will make it a crime to not report certain drug offenses that you learn of or witness.

The innocently named bill, titled “Defending America’s Most Vulnerable: Safe Access to Drug Treatment and Child Protection Act of 2005 ” is anything but innocent. If passed, this legislation would require you to report to local law enforcement, within 24 hours, if you simply become aware of one of many drug related offenses by a anyone under the age of 18.

Not only are you required to report these individuals, you are also required to assist the government in investigating, apprehending, and prosecuting these individuals. I presume this could mean you would be asked to wear a wire to entrap the individual, or you could even be asked to testify against a family member.

And if you choose not to report the individual or assist to government? You would face, at minimum, a 2 year sentence!

Read the rest of this entry…

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court decided that local governments can seize people’s homes or businesses, against their will, for private development. This means that if city officials prefer to see, for example, an office building where your home is located, they can force you to sell your property to a developer at what they determine to be a fair market price.

This officially drives the stake through the heart of any remaining property rights that we may have thought we had. The government now has full consent to take anyone’s property, as long as they determine it will be ‘upgraded’.

Read the rest of this entry…

The House passed a resolution today proposing an amendment that would exclude flag burning from our first amendment rights. If passed, Congress would be permitted to make laws punishing anyone caught burning a flag in protest.

If this weren’t so sad, it would be funny. Our politicians have had our Constitution up in flames for years now, what’s wrong with me burning a flag? This is supposed to be America!! Freedom of speech capital of the world! Geesh, what has happened to this country?

What I don’t understand is, it seems that most people actually support this. Sure, the flag is a symbol of our country’s government, and I guess that most folks have a warm spot in their hearts for the country and the flag. But do we really want to head down the path of making speech against government symbols a crime? I certainly don’t.

Like most things in goverment, if this ever passed it would have the opposite of the intended effect. More flags would be burned in protest of this amendment than have been burned in the last 20 years on US soil.

The reality is, symbol or not, a flag is the property of its owner. If a property owner chooses to destroy his property, that is his choice and his right. Let’s hope it remains his right.

H.R. 2745, the United Nations Reform Act of 2005 has been passed by the US House. This bill cuts the United Nations funding by 50% unless the UN agrees to impliment certain listed reforms.

If you’re like me, and believe that the US should withdraw from the UN, then on the surface this sounds like a great deal. Drastically reducing the dues that we pay to the UN is certainly a step in the right direction. This bill was passed mostly along party lines, so maybe the congressional Republicans are finally thinking straight!

Wrong. As Ron Paul and Henry Lamb point out, the devil is in the details. If implimented, these reforms would grant the UN unprecedented new powers, and streamline existing processes.

Read the rest of this entry…

Across the nation, city governments are looking into what it would take to offer “free”, city-wide wireless internet access to all residents. A few small cities, such as Alexandria, Va. and Marshalltown, Ia. already offer this, and larger cities like Philadelphia are not far behind. Don’t be suprised if, in a few years, municipal telecommunications services are as popular as municipal garbage collection.

Proponents say that providing wireless internet access will benefit many people, would be relatively inexpensive to impliment, could tie into existing government equipment, and could attact new businesses and residents to the city.

In actuality, this will lead to higher taxes and internet prices, will stifle competition, eliminate jobs, and lead us down the slippery slope towards censorship.

Read the rest of this entry…