The First Libertarian

Scan 46Earlier today, I had the chance to meet with Stuart Bain in Salem.  As some of you may know, back in 2010, Mr. Bain was the Libertarian candidate for the 6th congressional district in Virginia.  Coincidentally, during our lunch, longtime legislator and 2012 Constitution Party presidential candidate Virgil Goode also met a group in the restaurant.

I remember first speaking to Stuart Bain one evening after a meeting of the Harrisonburg Tea Party during his campaign.  Never having met a Libertarian candidate before, I was curious to learn more about him.  I remember viewing Libertarians in a negative light at that time; that they were all little more than a version of amoral Republicans who, if they got their way, would legalize all kinds of harmful drugs and destroy the moral underpinnings of our nation, ultimately leading to the decay of our society.

Trying to strike up a dialogue, I introduced myself as a former employee of Dr. Ron Paul.  In response, Stuart Bain asked me if I supported Bob Goodlatte and I told him that I did.  He found my response exceedingly peculiar.  He asked if I favored a limited, constitutional government; of course I said yes.  He asked if I supported the Patriot Act; I’m sure you know the answer was no.  What about the ballooning national debt?  I told him it was awful.  He then informed me that Bob Goodlatte stood in stark contrast to Ron Paul’s positions on these issues.  At the time, I remember being puzzled.  Representative Bob Goodlatte had been in office since before my time in high school and I guess I simply assumed that he was one of the good guys, that his philosophy and mine were in sync.  Assumptions can be dangerous.

Yes, George W. Bush had been a disaster on many issues, but eager to prove that my representative was worthy of the time and support I had given him over the years, upon the suggestion of Stuart Bain, I did my research.  I’m sure you can guess what happened.  The more I read, the more I realized that Bain was right, that Representative Goodlatte didn’t do a particularly good job following many of what I thought were Republican principles.  Over the course of the election I had the opportunity to listen to Stuart Bain a few more times, including in a debate hosted by James Madison University.  At that event, I looked forward to asking Representative Goodlatte about these issues during the question and answer period, but he neither appeared nor apparently even took the time to respond to the invitation.  I thought that move was extremely discourteous to both JMU and to the voters of the 6th district and expressed my displeasure on this blog.

Stuart Bain didn’t seem to fit my preconceived Libertarian mold.  Could there actually be more than one kind of Libertarian?  He stood for much more than drug legalization; for example, he supported Dr. Paul’s Sanctity of Life Act, an exceedingly important issue for a long-time pro-life activist like myself.  Much like the motto of this blog, he advocated a policy of “personal responsibility and liberty“.  Now did we agree on every issue?  Of course not, but comparing Bain with Goodlatte was like night and day.  Therefore, the 2010 election presented a considerable problem.  It was obvious who the best candidate was, but as a 15-year activist in the Republican Party, I didn’t feel I could say anything in support of Stuart Bain even though I sorely wished to do so.  I picked up one of his bumper stickers but I never felt comfortable placing it on my car.

For the record, the city of Salem (Bain’s home) was removed from the 6th congressional district after the 2010 election, so any hope of a future Bain-Goodlatte rematch was dashed.

Getting back to the present, after the election Stuart Bain joined the GOP and currently serves as the vice-chairman of the Republican Party of Salem.  As a result, some Libertarians view Mr. Bain with disdain, believing that he abandoned them.  Conversely, some Republicans think of me in the same light, given my support of Robert Sarvis in 2013 and removal from that party in early 2014.  Even though I know some activists will denounce this statement, although we should unite as much as possible, I believe we ought to celebrate the accomplishments of our liberty-minded brothers and sisters in whatever party they believe best serves the movement or even if these actions are done completely outside of a political party.

Remember, good reader, that you never know how your actions will influence those around you.  For example, my attitudes shifted as a result of the 2010 election.  My vote for Stuart Bain in that year led to another Libertarian vote in 2012 and, as most of you know, in 2013 I finally felt comfortable to openly support a Libertarian, Robert Sarvis.

Although our paths have taken us in different directions, I’m glad to know that Mr. Bain is still fighting the fight for liberty.  So, today I write in salute of Stuart Bain, my first Libertarian vote.  Here’s to you!

One thought on “The First Libertarian

  1. CIVIL COURT -VS- CRIMINAL COURT

    I find it to be crazy to think that because gay men get a law to pass in one state, that they can force it to be honored in another state. The citizens of Virginia have chosen not to honor the certificates of marriage that are issued by other states for the same sex marriage, because it contridicts their criminal law. We should not have a problem with their right to enforce criminal laws that have been more than a century in their law books. Such laws as their criminal laws against murder, theft, arson, slavery, and of course “sodomy”. In the state of Colorado it is legal to buy weed, so should I be able to take the weed with my receipt from Colorado to Virginia and smoke it under the same conditions and rules as I agreed to in Colorado? Of course not because Virginia has laws against the possession and consumption of weed, and it also has a criminal law against sodomy.

    To many of our laws have been turned away from our unified way of life to meet or cover the real live problems that only exsist because of a criminals need to justify his sodomy. So many men are exposed to what is almost always going to end in what is now a hate crime. Just think about all the men that are in prison, and will be going to prison in the future, because of some deceiving gay men. How is finding out the person you thought was a women (because that’s how they presented themselves) and having sex with a hate crime when you react to finding out that they are really man? Some men fall in love on the first date, and still wait on the woman to make the first move towards sex. This move may come after many romantic dinners, and after many nights out to the movies, well after his feelings have went beyond just friends. For this man finding out that his person of interest is a man, causes an understandable rage and should be covered as a crime of passion, not a hate crime at all.

    It is not just the laws we have passed for the gay man, but the reasoning behind it. To say that a person has the legal right to love is preposterous. The rapist may come up with a legal platform that condons rape in a few decades, does that mean we do away with the law against rape. What about the murders love for blood, the arsonist love for fire, or the pedophile love for children. Should we do away with the age requirement on sex to dilute our law on child molestation? So why should we pass a law that dilutes the criminal law on sodomy, by the legal joining of two men? Now don’t get it twisted! I’m not saying that no one has the right to love, I’m saying that no one has the legal right to love. If our laws are to be written based on the emotion of love, we will also have to recognize all the other emotion such as sorrow, depression, and hate while writing them.

    However, it is not just the writers of the laws that are to blame, but our Judical System as a whole. We have a Supreme Court with judges on it that are suppose to always address the constitutionality of a law, yet a seated judge said that he was a supporter of the same sex marriage long before the case came before the Supreme Court, which should have disqualified him from the case altogether. Instead the citizens of California were shot down by one vote. You may think it to mean nothing but, what if they were deciding on gun control, abortion, or a civil service tax. A judges predetermined verdict nullifies the evidence before him in his mind and is unfair to the generations that his decision effects. It was because of all the hoop la that was going on concerning the same sex marriage that I wrote a letter, and hand delivered it to the Supreme Court, nine copies in envelopes address to the nine judges myself. I did this long before the California case came before them, and just so you know what the letter said here it is.

    A homosexual judge commits sodomy every time he has sex with his partner, and so does any other homosexual public servant. In Maryland this is a violation of Maryland criminal code 3-321, a felony and is punishable by up to ten years in prison. So this homosexual judge sits on the bench judging the citizens in his jurisdiction, when he should be in jail like any other felon. These public servants are without excuse. Most people don’t get overtaken by homosexuality after they take their oath of office. The oath that they take is one that calls for them to serve the citizens of this great land with respect and honor. This oath of public office calls for our elected or selected public officials to perform their duties with all diligence and complete obedience to all city, county, state, and federal laws.

    While they are in office or receiving their paycheck from tax payer dollars, there is an ethical standard that is mandatory for them to keep. They can’t smoke drugs, because it is against the law. They can’t lie to congress, because it’s against the law. They can’t drive drunk, because it’s against the law. They can’t sexually harass their co-workers, because it’s against the law. They can’t take bribes, because it is against the law. They can’t commit sodomy, because it’s against the law. Prosecutors nationwide have been taking down public servants for breaking the law, yet they have turned a blind eye to the rise of the sodomite. Don’t say that it is not an enforceable law because ”conspiracy to commit” can be added to any felony charge, by just your words.

    There is no lawful two man sexual relationships, “NONE”. There is no such thing as consensual sodomy, it is as conspiracy to breakdown the law. Were the patients of Dr. Kevorkian considered consensual participants by his prosecutor? Our criminal law on sodomy does not have any exemptions written in it at all. So even if consent is their defense, like the suicide doctor they should be charged for breaking the law, and instantly removed from public office, upon conviction of any kind. However, instead of upholding all our criminal laws, we have a President, Vice President, Congress, and Supreme Court that seen to have forgotten their oath of office. They seem to have turned the blind eye to the criminal laws, that the same sex marriage was conspired to dilute, by a civil law passage. How can a civil law be passed that condones or promotes the breaking of a criminal law? That unconstitutional!! Yet our college educated, oath of office taking, elected and selected officials, and judges have chosen to endorse the lifestyle of these law breaking sodomites. They have lost their respect and honor for our nation’s criminal laws. Supporting something that contradicts our checks and balances system, and the laws of the land, they have lost their way! What else are they willing to support behind their personal feelings? We all know the stuggles of the gay man, but just because you understand the reasoning of why a law is broken does not mean you can turn a blind eye to the law.

    If a man beat up another man for stealing his car, should he be charged with assault? Of course he should because he broke the law. The upholding of the law is the means of keeping the peace. What would our country be like if we did not enforce the laws because we understood the breaking of it? Some people understood why OJ went after his trophy, why JFK and M L King were shot, why Nixon had Watergate, why Marian Berry smoked crack, why hustlers sell drugs, and why people drink and drive, our country would be open for total anarchy. If our land is to be governed by our understanding of any one person’s actions, let us do away with the law altogether, and return to the days of only the strong survive. Let us move on down to doing whatever we feel we have the right, to do. We can have national days of killing all pedophiles one week, and lawyers the next week. Does that sound good to you? Well it shouldn’t, and it doesn’t to me , but it is on the road that our oath taking officials, and judges are playing on. They have lost their focus and began to set a precedent at dismantling our way of obtaining peace, which is found in the observance of our criminal laws.

    It is time to let your voice be heard and your actions be seen as we move to maintain the peace. We should not be humoring the gay man with a new law. We already have a criminal law concerning his lifestyle. Now before I say this I want you to know that I am not a racist. However, the only reason that the same sex marriage is even an issue is because most homosexuals in this country, that want to get married are white. You heard me correctly. The same sex marriage is predominantly an issue brought about by white homosexual Americans, and will only leave the legal arena when white heterosexual Americans show up on the issue. Yes it is 2014, but we all know who it takes to pass a law, the white man and woman. Our laws have always been influenced by the desires of white Americans, because you’ll are the majority in our country. So you see I’m not being racist, I’m just stating a fact.

    I’m telling you that it’s up to you to bring an end to the rise of the sodomite. It is up to you, to not let this chink be put in the armor of the law by our blinded officials. It is up to you, to open the eyes of our elected and selected officials and judges, to the oath of office that they swore to as their official duty. It is up to you to keep us from anarchy, and days of lawlessness, because if we ignore one law, we might as well do away with them all. It is up to you to restore honor and respect of the law, by holding our elected and selected public officials and judges to all of the ethical codes, rules, regulations, and criminal laws of our great land. It is up to you, to put down the law breaking sodomites of the same sex marriage, and secure the soundness of our criminal laws for future generations. It is up to you, to end this conspiracy of undermining the authority of our criminal law court by the supporters of the same sex marriage in civil law court. How can a civil law court pass a law that supports or condones the breaking of a criminal law, which comes from a higher court than it. That’s unconstitutional !! Let no precedence be set, it will bring the undoing of all our criminal laws in time. It is up to you to decide where we are going!

    Now that was close to the letter that I wrote to all nine judges of the Supreme Court, does it sound like it missed the mark of understandability. I think I covered the issue well enough for the same judges that declared Obama care a fine and not a tax, making it constitutional, to be able to use that same standard of judgement and see the error of a civil court in a criminal law matter. Civil Courts only have the right to address matters that are not covered in District, Circuit, or Federal Courts.

    Attorney General, Mark R Herring, it is time to step up to your sworn duty of defending the law in Virginia, which includes “SODOMY”. Search the history of criminal law and see if you can find one criminal law (FELONY) that was overturned in civil court. Shall a Supreme Court Ruling be overturned in District Court. If you answered “yes”, I understand why Delegate Bob Marshall called for your impeachment. It is time to get the job done on this issue. No civil court can pass a law that violates a criminal law! It’s unconstitutional, and I’m sure you, and all the other Attorney Generals nationwide can defend that!!!

    http://www.blackstormministry.com

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>