In support of background checks for unlicensed sellers, Clay Evens writes in last Sunday's Camera, "Where in the Constitution does it say Americans are to be free from all inconvenience?" (See 'Guns at CU probably won't enable heroes -- or villains').

Inconvenience?
Would requiring a woman to have a background check before having an abortion be just an "inconvenience"?
Would having to wait several additional days to have an abortion, because the instant background check system might be down, also be just an inconvenience?
Would being denied the right to even have an abortion, because the background check database is incorrect, be just an inconvenience?

I wonder if Clay Evens would mind having to submit to a background check every time he exercises his first amendment right to write a commentary for the Daily Camera.

Libertarians say that requiring a background check to exercise a right, is not just an inconvenience -- it's an infringement of that right.
Whether it's the right to an abortion, the right to publish political commentary, or the right to buy a firearm.

Of all the myths helping to sustain the unsustainable status quo in Washington, D.C., among the most widely accepted is the belief that a politician's seniority translates into tangible economic benefits for his or her district. In fact, this perception works hand-in-glove with another central government myth – the one about politicians being able to create private sector jobs with your tax dollars in the first place.

Perpetuated by aspiring elected officials at all levels of government (and parroted by an intellectually incurious mainstream media), these Keynesian pillars have gone virtually unchallenged for years – allowing government to continue devouring additional chunks of private sector industries it claims to be strengthening.

In recent years, however, public distrust of government has fueled renewed skepticism regarding these two myths – although the academic appetite to challenge them theoretically has been predictably lacking.

In fact, the research that could end up blowing these myths out of the water seems to have come about accidentally – or at least as an afterthought. Three professors at Harvard Business School – Lauren Cohen, Joshua Coval and Christopher Malloy – were examining the correlation between politically-connected firms and powerful legislative committee chairmen when they stumbled upon something "unexpected."

What did they discover? Something free market advocates have known for years: Government spending kills jobs.

"It was an enormous surprise, at least to us, to learn that the average firm in the chairman's state did not benefit at all from the increase in spending," says Coval. "Indeed, the firms significantly cut physical and R&D spending, reduced employment, and experienced lower sales."

The study - which examined government earmark and budget data from the past four decades – found this trend to be consistent across all variables. Specifically, it affected both large and small firms in large and small states, and it followed the ascension of committee chairmen in both the House and Senate. Also, the study found that the damage to the private sector was "partially reversed" when the committee chairmen either lost their seats or gave up their gavels.

Talk about turning conventional Washington "wisdom" on its ear.

"Fiscal spending shocks appear to significantly dampen corporate sector investment and employment activity," the researchers state plainly.

In other words, government spending directly supplants private sector investment – substituting expensive, cumbersome bureaucracies where efficient, profit-driven companies would have otherwise operated. Needless to say, this "crowding out" of the private sector not only costs jobs – it also comes at a tremendous up-front cost to the taxpayers.

Unlike other studies into the effects of government spending on private sector activity, this research's focus on committee chairmanships provides a unique "exogenous" (or independent) variable.

"We show that becoming a powerful committee chair results in a significant increase in federal funds flowing to the ascending chairman's state," the report reveals. "Thus, a congressman's ascension to a powerful committee chair creates a positive shock to his or her state's share of federal funds that is virtually independent of the state's economic conditions."

That critical consideration has been routinely ignored by numerous prior studies – most of which have returned "inconclusive" findings regarding the extent to which government growth has been cannibalizing the free market.

These results could not have come at a more opportune time for limited government champions.

Across America, hundreds of incumbent politicians are currently facing the fight of their political lives. In years past, these incumbents would have no doubt relied on their seniority and their ability to secure government funding for their districts as central planks of their reelection platform. Fortunately, the scales are falling from the public's eyes regarding these so-called "economic development" expenses.

In fact, a recent Rasmussen Reports poll found that only 18 percent of voters believe additional government spending will improve the economy. Conversely, two out of three American voters believe that cutting taxes is the best way to stimulate economic growth.

Voters clearly no longer want politicians who promise to "create jobs", they want politicians who promise to get out of the private sector's way.

Although the Health Care Bill has already passed I believe it is still necessary for me to update my blog readers on the latest developments about the new law. One of the major concerns expressed by me and other Constitutional lawyers was the fact that this legislation was basically adopted without being read by most members of Congress and it is what is being called “fill in the blanks legislation.” By that I mean that Congress granted broad authority to the President and his appointees to adopt whatever regulations they want to expand the law and enforce it. Several events have already occurred in this area.

First and foremost, the repeated pledges made by Obama to the American people that under the law they would be allowed to keep their current health care plans and the doctors they have chosen have now been negated. According to reports by FOX News and other sources, the regulations being adopted will directly affect the coverage provided by employers to employees. If the employer decides to change insurance providers or if even minor changes are made to the coverage such as a change in the co-pays or prescription drug benefits, the entire policies will be thrown out and employers and employees will be required to go through the Federal Government to get new coverage approved by Washington bureaucrats. This will change both the type of coverage and the names of the doctors that can be seen.

It is not surprising that these regulations will not apply to members of labor unions. Their plans are “grandfathered” in and will not be affected by these regulations. They are the only ones exempt from the new regulations. Unfortunately, millions of other Americans will potentially lose their current coverage. This is clearly a violation of the authority given to Congress or the Executive Branch of Government by the Constitution.

In addition, on June 10, 2010 President Obama issued an Executive Order in conjunction with the new health care legislation. The order is titled: “Establishing the National Prevention, Health Promotion, and Public Health Council.” The entire order can be found on the official White House website at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-establishing-national-prevention-health-promotion-and-public-health

There is also an Advisory Group established that is required to provide certain reports and recommendations to the Council. The most troubling report called for is contained in Section 6 C of the order that states:  “(c) contains a list of national priorities on health promotion and disease prevention to address lifestyle behavior modification (including smoking cessation, proper nutrition, appropriate exercise, mental health, behavioral health, substance-use disorder, and domestic violence screenings) and the prevention measures for the five leading disease killers in the United States;”

What exactly is behavior health modification and where is the Constitutional authority for the Federal government to try and modify or control the behavior of the American people when it comes to things like what we eat and the amount of exercise we must have? What will the government be looking at when it comes to our “mental health” and “behavioral health?” In the former Soviet Union people who opposed the Communist form of government were regularly committed to mental institutions and in Communist China those who exhibited behavior contrary to that mandated by the State were sent to “re-education camps” in order to modify their behavior.

This is an Orwellian concept far outside of what is acceptable in a free nation and frankly just a few years ago I would have laughed at anyone who suggested that this could occur in the United States of America. Yet, from the standpoint of one who supports our Constitution, I find the language in this Executive Order very dangerous. Moreover, at the beginning of the Executive order Obama says this:  “By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 4001 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148), it is hereby ordered as follows:”

I beg to disagree Mr. President. While Section 4001 of the Health Care Bill may claim to give you this authority, the Constitution of the United States, that you took an oath to defend and uphold, does not give you any such authority. Unless I am violating an existing Federal or State criminal law, nothing I say or do as an American citizen is subject to your control.

WASHINGTON - Wes Benedict, executive director of the Libertarian Party, issued the following statement on June 18th, 2010:

"The federal government and BP share the blame for the large oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

"When the CEO of BP appeared at a Congressional hearing yesterday, Republicans and Democrats predictably engaged in finger-pointing and blame-ducking, trying to score political points. Their fingers should have been pointed at themselves.

"When President Obama gave his Oval Office speech on Tuesday, there was one important word missing: the word 'liability.' The president never mentioned that, thanks to liability caps provided by the federal government, BP was able to engage in riskier activities than it would have otherwise. If BP had known in advance that it would be fully liable for all damages related to an oil spill, it probably would have taken greater safeguards. When you know that your liability will be strictly limited, cutting corners becomes a lot more attractive.

"The spill will cause a lot of damage to the property and livelihood of people living along the Gulf. We have a well-developed system of civil courts to help people obtain compensation. Unfortunately, the legislative and executive branches have inappropriately trampled on this territory, and they seem to be trying to take the place of the courts.

"The president has apparently convinced BP to put $20 billion in some kind of compensation account. He said in his speech that it will be 'administered by an independent third party.' Will this third party be able to decide what 'legitimate claims' are, and how much they should receive? Assessing damages should be done by courts, not by political bureaucrats appointed in backroom deals between the president and a large corporation.

"The president could have taken the opportunity to talk about getting government out of the energy industry, and allowing the free market to guide the future of energy production. Unfortunately, he instead blamed the free market for government failures, and discussed his hopes of increasing government interference in the energy industry.

"For decades, Libertarians have warned against putting trust in government regulatory bureaucracies like the Minerals Management Service (MMS). While costing the taxpayers a lot of money, these agencies generally fail to deliver the kind of protections they promise, they tend to become corrupt, and they discourage vigilance on the part of citizens by lulling them into a false sense of security.

"When large companies and the government start working together, the results can be disastrous. Congressional liability caps, the MMS bureaucracy, and BP have all cooperated to create a costly disaster that should never have happened."

For more information, or to arrange an interview, call LP Executive Director Wes Benedict at 202-333-0008 ext. 222.

The LP is America's third-largest political party, founded in 1971. The Libertarian Party stands for free markets and civil liberties. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party at our website.

P.S. If you have not yet become a member of the Libertarian Party and wish to do so,
please use this link and join the only political party dedicated to free markets and
civil liberties: http://announce.lp.org/t/26989/713088/465/0/

If you would like to make a contribution separate from membership, please use this link: http://announce.lp.org/t/26989/713088/472/0/

Pueblo Chieftain Newspaper - July 5, 2010:
Freedom rings in Smith campaign - Libertarian calls incumbent 'big government politician'. http://www.chieftain.com/news/local/article_f3da0ec6-87f3-11df-8950-001cc4c002e0.html

Pueblo Chieftain Newspaper - June 27, 2010:
Libertarian Candidate
http://www.chieftain.com/opinion/tell_it_to_the_chieftain/article_d4cfae2c-81af-11df-83a7-001cc4c03286.html

Westword Newspaper Article - June 17, 2010:
Everything goes when libertarian Christine Smith gets into politics
http://www.westword.com/2010-06-17/news/everything-goes-when-libertarian-christine-smith-gets-into-politics/

Pueblo Chieftain Newspaper Article - June 17, 2010:
Incumbent top fundraiser in House District 60 race Tom Massey faces challenges from three candidates.
http://www.chieftain.com/news/local/article_18e4b292-79d1-11df-b652-001cc4c002e0.html


Crestone Eagle Newspaper Article - June 2010:
Christine Smith, Libertarian Candidate for State House, is running on platform of 'Freedom'
http://electchristinesmith.com/2010/06/03/crestone-eagle-newspaper-article/

Mountain Mail Newspaper Interview - June 1, 2010:
Libertarian candidate responds to legislative session results
http://electchristinesmith.com/2010/06/01/mountain-mail-interview-june-1-2010-newspaper/

Canon City Daily Record Newspaper Interview - May 14, 2010:
Smith seeks District 60 seat
http://www.canoncitydailyrecord.com/Top-Story.asp?id=13650

KENY TV Interview - May 12, 2010:
Christine Smith is running for House District 60
http://www.kenytv.com/video/christine-smith-running-house-district-60

Rocky Mountain Cannabis Convention & Wellness Expo Live Presentation - July 9th & July 10th, 2010:
Jaimes Brown Libertarian Candidate For The Governor of Colorado

101.5 FM KTNI Mike Zinna Radio Show - June 30, 2010:
Interview with Congressional Candidate Jeffrey Schitter

Falseflag Radio Interview - May 13, 2010:
Interview with Senatorial Candidate John Finger
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/falseflagradio/2010/05/13/interview-with-senatorial-candidate-john-finger

Business For Breakfast Radio Interview - May 21, 2010:
The interview starts half-way through the program.
http://www.radioconetwork.com/rss/b4b/052110_b4b3.mp3

Business For Breakfast Radio Interview - June 3, 2010:
The interview starts half-way through the program.
http://www.radioconetwork.com/rss/b4b/060310_b4b2.mp3

The Hour of Power Radio Interview - June 23, 2010:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/matthew-a-brower/2010/06/24/the-hour-of-power-with-matthew-brower

101.5 FM KTNI Mike Zinna Radio Show - June 15th, 2010:
Interview with Rob McNealy


Jeff Rense - June 10th, 2010:
Interview with Rob McNealy


Russia Today - May 26th, 2010:
Libertarian Rob McNealy


John Doe Radio - May 25th, 2010:
Libertarian Rob McNealy


Mike Chambers Live - May 25th, 2010:
Libertarian Rob McNealy


Freedomizer Talk Radio - May 19th, 2010:
Libertarian Rob McNealy


Twitter Talk Radio - May 19th, 2010:
Rob McNealy Uses Twitter & Social Media to Run for Congress


Al Korelin - May 13th, 2010:
Libertarian Rob McNealy


Declare Your Independence - May 12th, 2010:
Libertarian Rob McNealy Interviewed By Ernie Hancock


The Columbine Courier - May 11th, 2010:
Libertarian Courts Independent Voters for 6th District


Green Rights Radio - May 10th, 2010:
Libertarian Rob McNealy


Freedomizer Radio - May 8th, 2010:
Libertarian Rob McNealy


Al Korelin - May 6th, 2010:
Libertarian Rob McNealy


850 KOA Interview With Rick Barber - May 5th, 2010:
The Rise of Third Parties


Social Media Professor - May 4th, 2010:
Social Media Professor with Rob McNealy


The Hour of Power with Matthew Brower - May 3rd, 2010:
Libertarian Rob McNealy


Denver Libertarian Examiner - May 2nd, 2010:
Colorado legislation to kill 'payday' loans

GRAND JUNCTION, Colo. (KKCO) - The Grand Junction Tea Party's rally Sunday didn't just highlight politicians aiming for D.C. or Denver. A local candidate who's getting some extra crumpets from the Tea Party is Stephen Saint. Saint is running for Mesa County commissioner as a Libertarian. Saint says a priority of his is to be accessible and to put the people's voice back into government.

"They can come to me any time, voice their opinion, and I will actually put merit to it and sit down with the other commissioners, if I get elected, and say this what the people of Mesa County want and what are we going to do about it?" says Saint.

Saint currently works in the Mesa County Sheriff's Office. He says he's a hardworking family man who can relate to people struggling in Mesa County. Saint will be running against current County Commissioner Steve Acquafresca.