I recently emailed both my senators:

Dear Senator (Moran) (Roberts):

I was bitterly disappointd to see that you voted in favor of H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act for 2010.

Supporting a bill that authorizes the indefinite detention of American citizens without charges or trial is unconscionable.

If the President vetoes this bill — as I hope he will — please do not vote to override the veto.

Sincerely,

I have received responses from both of them, which I include without comment.

Dear Ms. DuBois:  

Our government has a duty to secure our country from terrorism, but we should not sacrifice the constitutional rights and protections we enjoy as Americans. Thank you for contacting me with your concerns about the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and its impact on civil liberties.  

The 2012 NDAA, S. 1867, further defines U.S. laws regarding the capturing and detaining of suspected terrorists.  I believe it is critical that our country’s detainee laws protect the rights of U.S. citizens.  For this reason, I supported an amendment by Senator Feinstein to the legislation that, though unsuccessful, would have prohibited the U.S. military from detaining a citizen of the United States without a trial. I also voted in favor of Senator Feinstein’s compromise language to maintain current laws relating to American citizens and legal resident aliens detained in the United States, which was adopted by the Senate in the final bill. 

On December 1, the Senate passed this legislation, 93-7, and it now goes to a conference committee to resolve differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill.  As Congress continues to consider these issues, I will remember your thoughts and work to balance Americans’ civil liberties with our national security needs. 

I am grateful for the opportunity Kansans have given me to serve them in the United States Senate.  If you are interested in learning more about my efforts on your behalf, I encourage you to visit moran.senate.gov.  Please let me know if I can be of service to you or your family in the future.

Dear Ms. Dubois:

Thank you for contacting me regarding defense policy. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.

In December, the Senate passed its version of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2012 (S.1867). This legislation authorizes funding levels and programs for the Department of Defense. Specifically, Sections 1031 to 1034 reauthorized detention, interrogation, and prosecution practices regarding enemy combatants. Individuals authorized for detainment under military custody are persons who have planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks on 9/11, or supported al Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces in hostilities against the United States. This detention authority remains in accordance with the laws of war.

I appreciate your concern regarding these provisions. However, this legislation maintains the status quo on detainee policy as the Obama Administration has abided by since 2009. During consideration of the bill, Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) introduced an amendment (SA 1456), which passed with my support by a vote of 99-1, confirming that nothing in the bill “shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of U.S. citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.” Additionally, the Executive Branch has been given the authority to issue a waiver for certain individuals and to establish the procedures for determining which individuals are subject to military custody or civilian custody.

In 2004, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld that U.S. citizens found to be belligerent, enemy combatants against the United States could be subject to military commissions for prosecution. S.1867 continues to uphold the current policies and procedures established under the Military Commission Act of 2009 and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Hamdi. While the war on terrorism continues to threaten our nation, I will continue to support detainee policies focused on keeping our warfighters and citizens, both at home and abroad, safe.

Again thank you for taking the time to contact me. If you would like more information on issues before the Senate, please visit my website at http://roberts.senate.gov. You may also sign up on my home page for a monthly electronic newsletter that will provide additional updates on my work for Kansas.

With every best wish,

Sincerely, 

Pat Roberts

PR:to

Posted by Sharon under Libertarianism | No Comments »

I have come to the realization that I dislike politics.

That’s an astonishing epiphany for someone as actively involved in a political party as I am.  I think it came to me when it was suggested that I run for office, and I realized that there are few things that would make me less happy.

Understand, please, that I am passionate about civil rights.  There is little that is more important to me than personal freedom and the individual responsibility that comes along with it.  But those are concepts; it’s the implementation that’s a problem for me.

The animosity between competing factions scares me.  The machinations of plotting someone’s defeat make me feel slimy.  The requirement to paint the other party as incompetent or evil makes me sad.

Posted by Sharon under Libertarianism | No Comments »

One of my many objections to the Internal Revenue Service, as I have written before, is its distance from its original function, which is to raise money for use by the government.

As a Libertarian, I find its basic function offensive enough; but the IRS has now strayed into the dodgy area of trying to manipulate behavior.  We give tax breaks to citizens for adopting children, investing in certain industries, giving money to charities, and buying medications, among others.

Mind you, I think that giving to charities and adopting children are noble behaviors.  I just object to my government mixing behavior modification with fund raising.  I object to my government indulging in behavior modification at all.

The current heated debate among our legislators about extending tax cuts seems to me to be the classic embodiment of this dichotomy.  Some of them want to keep the tax cuts for everyone.  Some of them want to keep the tax cuts for only the less wealthy.  Where to draw the line that determines who is more wealthy and who is less wealthy is the only item still on the agenda, and will almost certainly be the tool of compromise.

Wealthy people in our culture are, after all, always suspect.  They’re probably evil and exploitive, don’t adopt children or give to charities, and got their money by cheating more deserving folks.  And since we can’t find a way to legally modify their behavior, at the very least we can make them pay a larger part of the shared expenses.

Posted by Sharon under Libertarianism | No Comments »

Dear LPKS,

Okay, the mid-term election is over, and we didn’t get the results we hoped and worked for.  I admit to being profoundly disappointed, and sometimes I wonder why we do what we do.

God knows it’s not expedient.  God knows it’s not popular.  God knows it’s right.

And that’s it, isn’t it?  Every one of us knows, as surely as we breathe, that assuring liberty and expecting responsibility is the only acceptable way to govern.  And we suspect that we are the only line resisting the slide into tyranny.

So this is my love letter, and my note of thanks, to all of you.

To the candidates, those who put their names on the ballot, who stood up there visible and vulnerable, who held the banner for all to see:  thank you.

To the candidates’ families, those who stood beside them and who welcomed them home at night, who urged them to bed at two in the morning even as they kept answering emails and planning strategies, who saw the anger and the frustration and, probably, the tears that the rest of us will never know about:  thank you.

To those who booked speaking engagements and produced radio ads and researched ad placements and deposited donations and filed financial reports and gave advice about wording for ads:  thank you.

To those who donated money in any amount:  thank you.

To those who walked or drove or rode in the parades throwing candy and handing out flyers, to those who stood on the corner of 10^th and Topeka Blvd. waving campaign signs and cheering for anyone who honked in agreement:  thank you.

To those who planned the watch party and brought food to the party, those who came to the party and were determined to be cheerful even when the returns were disappointing, to those who were not cheerful at all but came to the party anyway:  thank you.

To those who voted for freedom:  thank you.

There is no group of people I am more proud to call my friends.

I’ll see you all back here again in a couple of years, okay?

Love,

Sharon

Posted by Sharon under Libertarianism | No Comments »

Look in the Yellow Pages.  If there are two or more local businesses performing any given service, it is not a governmental function.

Posted by Sharon under Libertarianism | No Comments »

When you expect the government to do everything you want for you, you end up with a government that thinks it can do anything it wants to you.

Posted by Sharon under Libertarianism | No Comments »

Posted by Sharon under Libertarianism | No Comments »

From The Kiplinger Letter dated September 3, 2010:

Keep your eyes on regulators, not lawmakers.

Rulemakers will be the real agents of change over the next two years of the Obama administration.

Congress and Obama won’t agree on much….

That gives more power to rulewriters.

And they’re ready to use it, in spades.  Obama’s lieutenants will move in a host of areas to implement his priorities.  Congress can’t stop them, and lobbyists will have influence only on the margins.

Chilling.

Posted by Sharon under Libertarianism | No Comments »

Yesterday I made a trip to the bookstore, then headed for their coffee shop to sit and read for a while.

One of my purchases was a collection of short essays, and I wanted to check the copyright date on one of them.  At the bottom of the page with all that sort of information is this:

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American

 National Standard for Information Sciences — Permanence of Paper for Printed

 Library Materials, ANSI Z329.48-1984.

The Libertarian in me balked, and I was going to come home and rant loundly herein.  But a cursory check indicates that the ANSI is a member organization that “coordinates the development of U.S. voluntary national standards in both the private and public sectors.” 

Oh. Okay.

Now I am just left to marvel that there are people, somewhere, who are paid to spend time being concerned with the Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials.

Posted by Sharon under Libertarianism | No Comments »

You can be a practicing Christian in a totally Libertarian society, but it’s almost impossible to be a practicing Libertarian in a totally Christian society.

Posted by Sharon under Libertarianism | No Comments »