Issues:

The statements below are taken in part or whole from the Libertarian’s website, which
can be accesses at: http://www.lp.org/. I have adjusted each section to fall in line with
my own beliefs where necessary.

1.0 Crime

America suffers from an epidemic of violence and crime, victimizing one family out of
four every year. There is a murder every half hour, a rape every five minutes, and a theft
every four seconds.

1.1 Protect Victims' Rights

Protecting the rights and interests of victims should be the basis of our criminal justice
system. Victims should have the right to be present, consulted and heard throughout the
prosecution of their case.

In addition, we should do more than just punish criminals. We should also make them
pay restitution to their victims for the damage they've caused, including property loss,
medical costs, pain, and suffering. If you are the victim of a crime, the criminal should
fully compensate you for your loss.

1.2 Protect the Right to Self-Defense

I believe that the private ownership of firearms is part of the solution to America's crime
epidemic, not part of the problem. Evidence: law-abiding citizens in Florida have been
able to carry concealed weapons since 1987. During that time, the murder rate in Florida
has declined 21% while the national murder rate has increased 12%.

In addition, evidence shows that self-defense with guns is the safest response to violent
crime. It results in fewer injuries to the defender (17.4% injury rate) than any other
response, including not resisting at all (24.7% injury rate). We should repeal waiting
periods, concealed carry laws, and other restrictions that make it difficult for victims to
defend themselves, and end the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of
self-defense.
1.3 Address the Root Causes of Crime

Any society that lets kids grow up dependent on government welfare, attending
government schools that fail to teach, and entering an economy where government policy
has crushed opportunity, will be a society that breeds criminals. No permanent solution to
crime will be found until we address these root causes of crime.

2.0 Foreign Policy

The below article was written by Michael Tanner, which can be accessed at:
http://www.lp.org/issues/foreign-policy. I believe what Mr. Tanner has written to be
accurate.

2.1 Ending welfare for nations--foreign aid

By Michael Tanner

Foreign aid is little more than welfare for nations -- with the same disastrous effects as
domestic welfare programs.

The U.S. currently spends approximately $14 billion per year on foreign aid -- far less
than most people believe, but still a substantial sum. Since the end of World War II, the
United States has spent more than $400 billion on aid to other countries. But there is little
evidence that any of these programs has significantly improved the lives of the people in
countries receiving this aid. Instead, foreign aid has typically slowed economic
development and created dependence.

Indeed, the U.S. Agency for International Development itself admits, "Only a handful of
countries that started receiving U.S. assistance in the 1950s and 1960s has ever graduated
from dependent status." In fact, despite massive amounts of international aid, the average
annual increase in per capita GNP has declined steadily in developing nations since the
1960s, with many of the Third World's heaviest aid recipients actually suffering negative
economic growth.

Tanzania provides a perfect example. Since the early 1970s, Tanzania has received more
international aid per capita than any other country. Yet, the country remains the world's
third-poorest nation and has had no per capita GNP growth between 1980 and 1992.
During the same period, inflation averaged 25% and energy and agricultural production
declined dramatically.
A recent study by Peter Boone of the London School of Economics and the Center for
Economic Performance confirmed that U.S. economic aid does not promote economic
development. Studying more than 100 countries, Boone concluded that "Long-term aid is
not a means to create [economic] growth."

There are many reasons for the failure of foreign aid. First, foreign aid has a widespread
record of waste, fraud, and abuse. U.S. aid programs have built tennis courts in Rwanda,
sent sewing machines to areas without electricity, and constructed hospitals in cities
where a dozen similar facilities already sat half empty.

Frequently, the aid is stolen by corrupt foreign leaders. The Agency for International
Development admitted in 1993 that "much of the investment financed by AID between
1960 and 1980 has disappeared without a trace."

Even when aid reaches its intended beneficiaries, the results are often counterproductive.
Just as domestic welfare prevents Americans from becoming self-sufficient, foreign aid
keeps entire nations dependent. According to one internal AID audit, "Long-term feeding
programs . . . have great potential for creating disincentives for food production."

Specific examples of counterproductive aid policies are easy to come by. For example,
following a devastating earthquake in Guatemala, farmers trying to sell their surplus
grain found the market flooded by the U.S. Food for Peace program. As a result,
according to the Institute for Food and Development Policy, "food aid stood in the way of
development." According to journalist Michael Maren, a long-time volunteer with such
groups as the Peace Corps, Catholic Relief Services, and AID, aid to Somalia aggravated
the country's famine, disrupted local agriculture, and turned nomadic tribesmen into
"relief junkies." Similar results have been documented in countries as diverse as
Colombia, Haiti, and India.

Moreover, foreign aid has often been used to prop up failing Socialist economies,
preventing countries from moving to free-market economic policies. Yet, an examination
of world economies clearly shows that those countries with free markets experience the
greatest economic prosperity.

As a result, Alex de Waal, president of the human rights group, Africa Rights, concludes
that foreign aid is "structurally bad because it undermines the incentive to take
responsibility. The more aid a country receives, the less the government of that country
has to answer to the people."

If Americans truly want to help other countries, they can best do so not through failed
foreign aid programs, but by improving the U.S. economy, so that U.S. businesses have
funds to invest abroad, and pursuing free trade policies. As the Congressional Budget
Office recently admitted, "Critics rightly argue that the broad policies of the major
Western countries -- trade policies, budget deficits, growth rates, and the like -- generally
exert greater [positive] influence on the economies of developing countries than does
aid."

--------------
Michael Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and author of Leviathan on the
Right: How Big-Government Conservatism Brought Down the Republican Revolution
(2007).

3.0 The Right of Self Defense

The right to keep and bear arms shall never be infringed.

Guns are not the problem. They are inanimate objects. Gun control advocates talk as if
guns could act on their own, as if human beings cannot control them, so the
uncontrollable guns must be banished.

Let us put the responsibility where it belongs, on the owner and user of the gun. If he or
she acts responsibly, without attacking others or causing injury negligently, no crime or
harm has been done. Leave them in peace. But, if a person commits a crime with a gun,
then impose the severest penalties for the injuries done to the victim. Similarly, hold the
negligent gun user fully liable for all harm his negligence does to others.

Rather than banning guns, the politicians and the police should encourage gun ownership,
as well as education and training programs. A responsible, well-armed and trained
citizenry is the best protection against domestic crime and the threat of foreign invasion.
America's founders knew that. It is still true today.
4.0 Immigration

With the exception of Native American’s we are all essentially immigrants. People from
all nations have come to America seeking a better life for themselves and their families.
My Great-Grandparents emigrated from Ireland. I remember them telling me stories of
how bad life was and why they chose to leave. I also remember them telling me the
difficulties they faced as new American’s. It seems that history repeats itself in this area.
I have given this subject a lot of thought and while imagining myself in the other persons
shoes I have come to a personal conclusion. If I or my family was suffering from tyranny
or poverty and if I had the chance to provide a better life for them I would do so, even if
that meant entering a foreign country legally or illegally. The most common complaint
that we hear is that the immigrants are taking jobs. The fact is that most American’s
don’t want these jobs. The fact is that America is currently being built from the labors of
those immigrants. The fact is that the majority are good hard working people that add to
America’s mixed culture. I believe the current immigration laws need to be adjusted. I
believe that the illegal immigrants should be held accountable for breaking the current
laws, but I do not support deportation of non-violent criminals.

Below is an article by Daniel T. Griswold that can be accessed at:

http://www.lp.org/issues/immigration.

4.1 Immigration Law Should Reflect Our Dynamic Labor Market

By Daniel T. Griswold

Among its many virtues, America is a nation where laws are generally reasonable,
respected and impartially enforced. A glaring exception is immigration.

Today an estimated 12 million people live in the U.S. without authorization, 1.6 million
in Texas alone, and that number grows every year. Many Americans understandably want
the rule of law restored to a system where law-breaking has become the norm.

The fundamental choice before us is whether we redouble our efforts to enforce existing
immigration law, whatever the cost, or whether we change the law to match the reality of
a dynamic society and labor market.
Low-skilled immigrants cross the Mexican border illegally or overstay their visas for a
simple reason: There are jobs waiting here for them to fill, especially in Texas and other,
faster growing states. Each year our economy creates hundreds of thousands of net new
jobs — in such sectors as retail, cleaning, food preparation, construction and tourism —
that require only short-term, on-the-job training.

At the same time, the supply of Americans who have traditionally filled many of those
jobs — those without a high school diploma — continues to shrink. Their numbers have
declined by 4.6 million in the past decade, as the typical American worker becomes older
and better educated.

Yet our system offers no legal channel for anywhere near a sufficient number of peaceful,
hardworking immigrants to legally enter the United States even temporarily to fill this
growing gap. The predictable result is illegal immigration.

In response, we can spend billions more to beef up border patrols. We can erect hundreds
of miles of ugly fence slicing through private property along the Rio Grande. We can raid
more discount stores and chicken-processing plants from coast to coast. We can require
all Americans to carry a national ID card and seek approval from a government computer
before starting a new job.

Or we can change our immigration law to more closely conform to how millions of
normal people actually live.

Crossing an international border to support your family and pursue dreams of a better life
is not an inherently criminal act like rape or robbery. If it were, then most of us descend
from criminals. As the people of Texas know well, the large majority of illegal
immigrants are not bad people. They are people who value family, faith and hard work
trying to live within a bad system.

When large numbers of otherwise decent people routinely violate a law, the law itself is
probably the problem. To argue that illegal immigration is bad merely because it is illegal
avoids the threshold question of whether we should prohibit this kind of immigration in
the first place.

We've faced this choice on immigration before. In the early 1950s, federal agents were
making a million arrests a year along the Mexican border. In response, Congress ramped
up enforcement, but it also dramatically increased the number of visas available through
the Bracero guest worker program. As a result, apprehensions at the border dropped 95
percent. By changing the law, we transformed an illegal inflow of workers into a legal
flow.

For those workers already in the United States illegally, we can avoid "amnesty" and still
offer a pathway out of the underground economy. Newly legalized workers can be
assessed fines and back taxes and serve probation befitting the misdemeanor they've
committed. They can be required to take their place at the back of the line should they
eventually apply for permanent residency.

The fatal flaw of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act was not that it offered
legal status to workers already here but that it made no provision for future workers to
enter legally.

Immigration is not the only area of American life where a misguided law has collided
with reality. In the 1920s and '30s, Prohibition turned millions of otherwise law-abiding
Americans into lawbreakers and spawned an underworld of moon-shining, boot-legging
and related criminal activity. (Sound familiar?) We eventually made the right choice to
tax and regulate alcohol rather than prohibit it.

In the 19th century, America's frontier was settled largely by illegal squatters. In his
influential book on property rights, The Mystery of Capital, economist Hernando de Soto
describes how these so-called extralegals began to farm, mine and otherwise improve
land to which they did not have strict legal title. After failed attempts by the authorities to
destroy their cabins and evict them, federal and state officials finally recognized reality,
changed the laws, declared amnesty and issued legal documents conferring title to the
land the settlers had improved.

As Mr. de Soto wisely concluded: "The law must be compatible with how people actually
arrange their lives." That must be a guiding principle when Congress returns to the
important task of fixing our immigration laws.

------
Daniel Griswold is the director of the Cato Institute's Center for Trade Policy Studies.
For a copy of the original article, please visit Cato's Web site here.
Platform:
The statements below are taken in part or whole from the Libertarian’s platform, which
can be accesses at: http://www.lp.org/platform. I have adjusted each section to fall in
line with my own beliefs.

1.0 Personal Liberty

Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for
the consequences of the choices they make. No individual, group, or government may
initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Our support of an
individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or
disapprove of those choices.

1.1 Expression and Communication

I support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation or

control of communications media and technology. I favor the freedom to engage in or
abstain from any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others. I oppose
government actions which either aid or attack any religion. I believe it is up to the parent
to provide guidance and exercise personal censorship to prevent their children from being
exposed to what the parent deems inappropriate.

1.2 Personal Privacy

I support the protections provided by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons,
homes, and property.

1.3 Personal Relationships

Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the
rights of individuals by government, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption,
immigration. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and
personal relationships. Government does not have the authority to define, license or
restrict personal relationships.
1.4 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views
on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the
question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

1.5 Crime and Justice

Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and
property. Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through
force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of
harm. Individuals retain the right to voluntarily assume risk of harm to themselves. I
support restitution of the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the
criminal or the negligent wrongdoer. I oppose reduction of constitutional safeguards of
the rights of the criminally accused. The rights of due process, a speedy trial, legal
counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must
not be denied. I assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also
the justice of the law.

1.6 Self-Defense

The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights — life, liberty, and
justly acquired property — against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who
may agree to be aided by any other individual or group. I affirm the right to keep and
bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-
defense. I oppose all laws at any level of government requiring registration of, or
restricting, the ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition.

1.7 Economic Liberty

A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each
person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only
proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate
disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts
by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a
free society.
1.8 Environment

I support a clean and healthy environment and sensible use of our natural resources.
Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural
resources. Pollution and misuse of resources cause damage to our ecosystem.
Governments, unlike private businesses, are unaccountable for such damage done to our
environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection.
Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual
rights in resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Free markets and property rights
stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our
environment and ecosystems. I realize that our planet's climate is constantly changing,
but environmental advocates and social pressure are the most effective means of
changing public behavior.

1.9 Energy and Resources

While energy is needed to fuel a modern society, government should not be subsidizing
any particular form of energy. I oppose all government control of energy pricing,
allocation, and production.

1.10 Government Finance and Spending

All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. I oppose any legal requirements
forcing employers to serve as tax collectors. Government should not incur debt, which
burdens future generations without their consent. I support the passage of a "Balanced
Budget Amendment" to the U.S. Constitution, provided that the budget is balanced
exclusively by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes.

2.0 Labor Markets

I support repeal of all laws which impede the ability of any person to find employment. I
oppose government-fostered forced retirement. I support the right of free persons to
associate or not associate in labor unions, and an employer should have the right to
recognize or refuse to recognize a union. I oppose government interference in bargaining,
such as compulsory arbitration or imposing an obligation to bargain.
2.1 Education

Schools should be managed locally to achieve greater accountability and parental

involvement. Recognizing that the education of children is inextricably linked to moral
values, we would return authority to parents to determine the education of their children,
without interference from government. In particular, parents should have control of and
responsibility for all funds expended for their children's education.

2.2 Health Care

I favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. I recognize the freedom
of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want, the level of health
care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use
and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions.

2.3 Retirement and Income Security

Retirement planning is the responsibility of the individual, not the government. I favor
replacing the current government-sponsored Social Security system with a private
voluntary system. The proper source of help for the poor is the voluntary efforts of
private groups and individuals. I believe that people currently receiving these benefits
should not have them reduced and be allowed to collect until the time of their death.

2.4 Securing Liberty

The protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of government.

Government is constitutionally limited so as to prevent the infringement of individual
rights by the government itself. The principle of non-initiation of force should guide the
relationships between governments.

2.5 National Defense

I support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against
aggression. The United States should both abandon its attempts to act as policeman for
the world and avoid entangling alliances.
2.6 Internal Security and Individual Rights

The defense of the country requires that we have adequate intelligence to detect and to
counter threats to domestic security. This requirement must not take priority over
maintaining the civil liberties of our citizens. The Bill of Rights provides no exceptions
for a time of war. Intelligence agencies that legitimately seek to preserve the security of
the nation must be subject to oversight and transparency. I oppose the government's use
of secret classifications to keep from the public information that it should have, especially
that which shows that the government has violated the law.

2.7 International Affairs

American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world and its defense
against attack from abroad. We should end the current U.S. government policy of foreign
intervention, including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to
resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and
especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are
committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups. I support America’s
involvement in fledgling nations who are striving for freedom and liberty, but only after
the people of that nation have taken steps to secure that future for themselves.

2.8 Free Trade and Migration

I support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and
escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by
government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the
unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders.
However, I support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose
a threat to security, health or property.

2.9 Rights and Discrimination

I condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should not deny or abridge
any individual's rights based on sex, wealth, race, color, creed, age, national origin,
personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation. Parents, or other guardians,
have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs.
2.10 Representative Government

I support electoral systems that are more representative of the electorate at the federal,
state and local levels. As private voluntary groups, political parties should be allowed to
establish their own rules for nomination procedures, primaries and conventions. I call for
an end to any tax-financed subsidies to candidates or parties and the repeal of all laws
which restrict voluntary financing of election campaigns. I oppose laws that effectively
exclude alternative candidates and parties, deny ballot access, gerrymander districts, or
deny the voters their right to consider all legitimate alternatives.

3.0 Self-Determination

Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of individual liberty, it is the

right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to agree to such new governance as to
them shall seem most likely to protect their liberty.

4.0 Omissions

My silence about any other particular government law, regulation, ordinance, directive,
edict, control, regulatory agency, activity, or machination should not be construed to
imply approval.