This is an archive of a past election.|
See http://www.smartvoter.org/ca/state/ for current information.
|Los Angeles County, CA||March 2, 2004 Election|
Senatoris est civitatis libertatem tueri
By Leland Thomas FaegreCandidate for United States Representative; District 32; Libertarian Party
This information is provided by the candidate
Senatoris est civitatis libertatem tueri"While I do not fault the California Senate for not understanding Latin, it is inexplicable incompetence, to have never bothered to translate the Latin inscription emblazoned over the rostrum of the State Senate Chamber, into leadership," said Leland Faegre, Libertarian candidate for California's 32nd Congressional District.
"If they had translated the Latin into leadership, they would have to conclude that, they are in violation of their oaths. Because so few American lawmakers understand that, 'it is the duty of the legislators to protect the liberty of the citizens,' today I declare my candidacy for the 32nd Congressional District.
His entrance into the 32nd Congressional race addresses what he says, is the need for incontrovertible leadership, primarily by narrowing the discourse to five central themes:
Repeal of the Income Tax; Repeal All Firearm Statutes; Repeal of the State Monopoly on Education; Repeal of the War on Drugs; And Repeal of the Social Security Pyramid Scheme
Faegre cited M. Stanton Evans when he wrote, "the plain reality is that the Constitution as originally adopted, and expounded in The Federalist, is no longer with us; the forms and titles remain, there are still entities called states, and there are divisions of administrative function. But the system of limited powers that was supposed to be the palladium of our freedoms has been consigned these fifty years and more to the dustbin of forgotten doctrines."
And with little debate, it can no longer be assumed that a consensus exists in support of the principles of the Declaration of Independence. In fact, it is commonly held that government is not to protect our liberty, as the Founders understood, but rather to provide for our needs.
The elections process has been subverted by gerrymandering, restrictions of free expression, corruption of voter registration procedure and maintenance; and the overwhelming bureaucratic industrial complex that funnels hundreds of millions of dollars of public employee salaries directly into political action committees without their expressed consent.
When the two major parties arrogantly refused to return a massive state surplus in Minnesota, a professional wrestler entered the ring to return the people's money. He packs a gun on the job. And when asked by a woman about what he would do as Governor to help her with her illegitimate children, he answered, "Please explain to me why I am responsible for your bad life choices."
The eternal struggle between the divine right of kings, and the toil of humanity who want to live their own lives with minimal state interference has entered a new phase. The people may not even be aware of the reason, but the parties of Big Government have turned people off.
Both major parties are losing support while the Libertarian Party is embracing the disaffected. The people want government as far away from them as possible, and because of the people's distrust of government, 401(k) plans, homeschooling and private security are flourishing exponentially.
Unlike the Republicans and Democrats, (the Republicrats), the Libertarian Party does not have myriad schemes to spend your money. In fact, we have only one scheme; to return to you, your right to keep what you earn. And just how do we intend to do that? The best and most direct way is to eliminate the mechanism that steals legally from you. "I advocate the repeal of the state income tax," The Libertarian said.
"It was, and remains the most important mechanism for the theft and redistribution of your wealth. It serves the special interests of politicians who create and live from the trough of the welfare state, the plethora of alphabet agencies, and the monstrous unspeakable abuse it wields against its own citizens--or should I say subjects?"
The elimination of the Marxist income tax would transform our social requirement for both parents to work, enabling one parent to remain in the home for the first time in a generation, and permit children to be educated ideally, in the home.
Because, in traditional government education, more funding has been tried. It failed. Smaller classes have been tried. They failed. Higher-priced teachers have been tried. Merit pay failed. More educational bureaucrats have been tried. Bureaucracy has failed.
In fact, the only thing that hasn't been tried is competition: The freedom of parents to use their own money to send their children to the non-profit, religious, or private school of their choice --non-government schools that effectively teach the values parents want.
"We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say we want no religion at all. We object to a state enforced equality. Then they say we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain."
---Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850)
Faegre said, "Unless, and until, we can unleash the magic of the marketplace into the educational arts, the best that government schools can be, are wormed apples."
The outspoken Libertarian wants to end the threat to civil liberties known now by the expression, War on Drugs. Formerly known as the war on alcohol, calling it government fraud.
"Just as bootleggers were forced out of business in 1933 when prohibition was repealed, making the sale of liquor legal (thus eliminating racketeering), the legalization of drugs would put drug dealers out of business. An added plus: There would be far less crowding in our prisons due to drug-related crimes. It's something to consider."
Abigail Van Buren, "Dear Abby," May 3 1994
"There is not now, nor has there ever been a War on Drugs. There has been an elaborate, $200 billion pretense of political duplicity; the intent of which is not to prevent drug abuse (which it in fact encourages), but to create a climate of distrust, fear, hostility, alienation, divisiveness, and violence in our society. Drug prohibition is in reality a war of cultural prejudice waged primarily against the young, the poor, and the socially disaffected to the advantage of the elected elite, privileged few," Faegre said.
"Those of us who advocate the end to Drug Prohibition understand that drug abuse is a serious reality with which every American should be concerned. However, the current policy of prohibition and criminalization of drugs does not reduce drug abuse or the harm that drugs cause. In fact, The War on Drugs actually exacerbates the problem far beyond the dangers of the drugs themselves, by making criminals of drug users, and transforming our society into a police state. I will no longer vote for, or advocate any political party or politician, which utilizes the War on Drugs as a get votes strategy. Anyone who does this is simply an accomplice to totalitarianism," said Faegre.
Upon this campaign platform, Faegre said he intends to fulfill his responsibility to his fellow citizens of California, and the Republic of the United States of America.
Position Paper 2
|| Feedback to Candidate
|| This Contest
March 2004 Home (Ballot Lookup) || About Smart Voter
ca/state Created from information supplied by the candidate: February 24, 2004 14:48
Smart Voter <http://www.smartvoter.org/>
Copyright © League of Women Voters of California Education Fund.
The League of Women Voters neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office or political parties.
|| Feedback to Candidate
|| This Contest