I realize that I have been somewhat reticent for quite some time. Being involved in a Congressional race tends to capitalize much time and drains your energy. Now that the race is over, I hope to become more vocal on issues once more. Towards that end, I would like to share the speech that I prepared for a local Bill of Rights dinner which I attended this month. Though I did not deliver the entire speech at the event due to time constraints, I would like to make it available in its entirety. Enjoy.

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

I received word from Portland that the convention flushed the vast majority of the platform over the weekend. Preliminary reports indicate that only four of the existing planks of the platform were retained. There were five planks, which were a combination and rewording of existing philosophy, that were added. Beyond that, if I understand correctly, the convention added ten planks that came out of the platform committee.

While no one outside the convention has yet to see what the new platform looks like, the squeals from the peanut gallery have begun. As I support reform or the platform, you may imagine my surprise, or lack thereof, to be labeled, castigated and ridiculed by the more radical. Here is but an example of the mindset that we must deal with. As always, my sources are at the bottom.

I have been somewhat reticent lately due to a myriad of personal issues. I suppose that my recent campaign and election would be the paramount reason for my absence. Ideally, I would find the time necessary to blog, campaign, fundraise and a whole host of other activities I am involved in. However, I remain resolute in maintaining my family as the priority in my life. As this activity (blogging) is perhaps the lowest on my list of priorities, it has suffered the most from my increased involvement in other areas.

I make not apologies for my involvement in the Libertarian Reform movement. Nor will I apologize for being a constitutionalist. Being such allows me to utilize a broad brush in my criticism of our elected leaders. From my initial involvement with the LP, it became painfully clear that many in the party, for some reason, seek exclusivity and dogmatic purity as opposed to adopting a rational approach of providing practical policy solutions. I have watched the LP for over 20 years in electoral politics. Practicing the policy of purges and Puritanism will only result in the marginalization of the libertarian movement and our nation will slip further down the slope to despotism.

Sometimes the level of intestinal fortitude must be elevated when watching our elected leaders address the nation. As the President spoke, last night was no exception. The issue of illegal immigration is one that strikes an emotional, though well intended, response from everyone in our society. It is difficult to formulate a realistic approach when such intentions outweigh logic. History dictates that nations who fail to control their borders cease to exist. Likewise, a society, which refuses to enforce its laws, will collapse. Neither the open border advocates nor those who would build a wall around our nation seem to be inclined to take a hard, realistic look at the subject. They demonstrate a propensity of allowing their emotions to dictate their positions. Additionally, one would be hard pressed to believe that the government would actually act in the best interest of its citizens as opposed to its corporate sponsors.

Last night, our president pontificated once more, the preferred path chosen by the ruling elite. At the core is whether the corporate moguls will have a source of cheap, unrestricted labor from which to exploit. Some have even suggested that it is a “conspiracy” to destroy the middle class. Whatever the motivation, when inflation becomes synonymous with a living wage, we all lose.

Where the Libertarian Party seems to fail in its policy formulation is not realizing it has bundled separate issues into one plank. Border Security is a separate issue from Immigration, which is likewise separate from Naturalization. Though they are inexorably interwoven, they must be addressed separately in order to clarify the positions. Understanding this fact, and formulating rational policies can and will lead to support on this issue. We must, therefore, retool the message while remaining consistent with libertarian ideals, protect sovereignty and promote liberty abroad.

Sometimes in our haste to confront adversity, we lose sight of the fact that we struggle for the same cause. This came to my realization over the past couple of weeks as a series of events unfolded. In the context of my attempt to bring the Libertarian Party into the mainstream political view, I clearly belong to the “reform” camp. If someone had told me in the summer of 2004, that I would be heavily involved in politics, I would have laughed, handed them another Shiner, and suggested they seek professional help.

When I reluctantly entered into the power structure of the Party back in 2004, it was the result of a request from a member of the State Party Executive Committee, and as a result of certain events that opened my eyes to the dire need of my becoming involved. I had been asked to attend a committee meeting in a neighboring county. To my dismay, the meeting devolved into a debating match between those who held fast to a rigid libertarian philosophy and those who floated somewhere within the libertarian quadrant of the Nolan chart. All who sat at the table were Libertarians. However, differing views were as abundant as the participants in attendance. The candidate had been selected. The convention was over. Yet here these folks were arguing about philosophy instead of discussing how they were going to get out the vote.

When one discusses the concept of libertarianism with others, it is always important to remember what our priorities are as citizens of the United States of America. All elected officials and military personnel take an oath upon entering service to the citizens of our states and nation. As we likewise intend on serving our countrymen, one must not lose sight of what our obligations are, and would be, if and when we are chosen to serve in such a capacity. Our first priority is to protect and defend the constitution of the United States of America, and the individual states if applicable. Keeping that in mind, some seem to find libertarianism unpalatable. I understand, at least in this context, how and why people misconstrue the intent of libertarians and specifically members of the Libertarian Party. Indeed, the National LP platform can seem quite hostile to the concepts of sovereignty and self-preservation as a nation.

On this occasion, let us take but one item from our platform and discuss how this has been used against the movement, and our candidates, when we are trying to broaden our membership and support. I know that some will try and claim that "people don’t read the platform." Well, I can testify that the notion of our platform not being read is a pure fiction. Our political adversaries often read the platform, and they continually utilize the platform to discredit our candidates. Therefore, I will attempt, at least on this issue, to correct some misconceptions concerning libertarians in general.