David Nolan, who lived in Colorado for about 20 years had just completed a losing campaign for the United States Senate.

The Washington Post relates the story of the founding of the libertarian party:

The impetus for the new party was a national address by President Richard M. Nixon on Aug. 15, 1971. U.S. currency would no longer be pegged to the gold standard, Nixon announced, and the federal government would institute new wage and price controls to curb inflation.

David Nolan died on Sunday, at 66

Mr. Nolan, who had campaigned to repeal the federal income tax, considered himself a Republican until he watched Nixon’s speech from his home in Colorado, surrounded by a group of friends. They saw the president’s moves as an unconstitutional overreach of power.

“We heard the announcement that he made, and we looked at each other and said . . . ‘If there was ever any doubt as to whether we need a party that stands for real limited government and individual freedom, then this should settle it for us.’ ”

Less than four months later, Mr. Nolan and seven others voted to form the national Libertarian Party. Its ideals were succinctly articulated by Mr. Nolan in a diagram known as the Nolan Chart, first published in 1971 in the Individualist magazine.

Instead of picturing the political spectrum as a simple line anchored by liberals on the left and conservatives on the right, Mr. Nolan’s chart depicted two axes: one labeled economic freedom and the other labeled personal freedom.

The Nolan Chart

Political philosophy was a result of one’s attitudes toward the two freedoms, Mr. Nolan wrote. Libertarians believed both should remain unfettered by government meddling.

Those willing to sacrifice economic liberty – whether Democrats pushing tax-supported social programs or Republicans authorizing big defense spending – were authoritarian. Ditto for those who believed in government’s right to monitor civilians, regulate abortion or otherwise impinge on civil liberties.

Clint Jones, Libertarian candidate for Colorado’s 1st CD seat this past go-around, had this to say, “David was very well known as one of the founders of the party and also for the Nolan Chart. He really helped spread the word that there was more to American politics than just liberals and conservatives, that there was a third tier that stood for freedom. He saw the Republicans losing their philosophy and losing their way and he did something about it.”

Said David K. Williams, Jr., state chair of the Libertarian Party, “David knew winning at the ballot box wasn’t likely, at least not in state-wide or national elections but he wanted people to know there was another way of looking at things. Both major parties are statist in their own ways.”

Nolan was found parked in his car Saturday. He apparently suffered either a heart attack or a stroke. He was taken to the hospital where he died on Sunday. The Tucson Sentinel printed an obituary yesterday.

Got a tip? Freelance story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth Monday ruled that President Barack Obama’s executive order that lifted funding restrictions put in place by former President George W. Bush for all but a few stem-cell lines was illegal under federal law.

Lamberth said despite new National Institutes of Health guidelines that define ethical standards scientists must adhere to in order to get federal funding, federal law does not allow federal dollars to be used in the destruction of human embryos. As a result, up to $74 million in grants will be withheld from scientists.

“I am disappointed the federal judge’s ruling could set back advancements in this important research,” Perlmutter said. “I urge my opponents to stand against this latest court ruling, and pledge their support for the continuance of this important research that will help so many families in the 7th Congressional District.”

Bailey told the Colorado Independent that he does not think the federal government should have a roll in stem-cell research.

“On stem-cell research, I believe it is important research that should be privately funded. This is not something the federal government should be funding or working to prevent,” Bailey said.

Frazier’s campaign did not return calls or emails requesting comment.

The lawsuit was brought by adult stem-cell researchers who said they would lose funding as a result of the executive order and Nightlight Christian Adoptions, which said increasing the funding would lead to a decrease in babies available for adoption.

Embryonic stem cells are pluripotent, meaning they can differentiate themselves into all cells in the human body. That ability gives researchers the hope that they will be able to use them to cure a number of diseases.

“Stem-cell research offers true potential for scientific discovery, and hope for families. This decision has just poured sand into that engine of discovery,” NIH Director Francis Collins said at a news conference Tuesday, according to USA Today.

According to Collins, some stem-cell research would continue using current funding, but new research would be blocked.

“Stem-cell research holds the greatest promise we have to find a cure for medical conditions such as epilepsy, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s and diabetes,” Perlmutter said. “The executive order took steps to require the National Institutes of Health to establish clear ethical guidelines for the research, and I think the research should be allowed to move forward … My oldest daughter has epilepsy, so I know firsthand the hope this kind of research can mean to individuals and families.”

While the Obama administration is looking at legal remedies to the judge’s ruling, Rep. Diana DeGette said that she plans to put the issue at the top of her legislative list.

‘‘This catapults this issue to the top of the agenda,” DeGette told Bloomberg. “Congress is getting right on top of this, and I know we’ll be acting soon after we get back.”

“It’s interesting that conservatives only notice “big government” when it’s something their political enemies want. When conservatives want it, apparently it doesn’t count.”

If a conservative wants a trillion-dollar foreign war, that doesn’t count.

If a conservative wants a $700 billion bank bailout, that doesn’t count.

If a conservative wants to spend billions fighting a needless and destructive War on Drugs, that doesn’t count.

If a conservative wants to spend billions building border fences, that doesn’t count.

If a conservative wants to “protect” the huge, unjust, and terribly inefficient Social Security and Medicare programs, that doesn’t count.

If a conservative wants billions in farm subsidies, that doesn’t count.

It’s truly amazing how many things “don’t count.”

Conservatives like Rush Limbaugh can’t ever be satisfied with enough military spending and foreign wars.

Conservatives like Mitt Romney want to force everyone to buy health insurance.

Conservatives like George W. Bush — well, his list of supporting big-government programs is almost endless.

Ronald Reagan, often praised as an icon of conservatism, signed massive spending bills that made his the biggest-spending administration (as a percentage of GDP) since World War II.

As GOP leaders are busy screaming about the recent levels of deficit spending, it’s worth checking out again the historic rise of the national debt — and which party controlled the White House when the biggest jumps occurred. You know the answer.

Got a tip? Freelance story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

(Photo/Bob Barr for President, Flickr)

Barr, an attorney from Georgia and former Republican congressman for the state’s7th District, leapt onto the national stage as the first lawmaker to call for the impeachment of President Bill Clinton.

He lost his congressional seat in 2002 and switched his affiliation to Libertarian in 2006.

While Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain spend millions on commercials to attack each other’s ideologies, Barr claims they’re both essentially the same. His latest video asserts there isn’t a dimes worth of difference between the two, asserting that they both want more government, more bailouts and more intervention to buy up bad loans.

It’s a message that may be resonating with more and more Colorado voters. Not only did Denver host this year’s Libertarian National Convention, it was also the third most generous metro area for Barr, contributing $19,590 to his campaign coffers.

Travis Nicks, chairman of the Libertarian Party of Colorado, believes he knows why.

“Colorado is a Libertarian minded state,” he said. “Our Republicans and Democrats both have a Libertarian streak.”

He also claims that the top two parties are ignoring their constituents.

“The major politicians aren’t listening,” he said. “People see the Libertarian Party as a viable, valid third choice.”

Based on comments to Barr’s latest posting on Townhall.com, it seems many people see him as posing a threat, but not to win the election. They believe that, similar to Ross Perot in 1992, Barr could take enough conservative votes away from McCain to give Colorado to Obama. One commenter went so far as to say, “If you throw even a single state to Obama we will hunt you down with dogs.”

In response to this possibility, Nicks is dismissive.

“Barr can’t steal votes from McCain,” he said. “every vote is earned. If McCain can’t earn people’s votes, that reflects on McCain, not Bob Barr.”

Colorado College political science professor Bob Loevy agrees. “In a really close election a third party might appear to swing the vote, but there is really no way to know where those votes would have gone,” he said.

He also sees no indication that Barr could make much of a difference based on the polling numbers in Colorado.

“In order to be a successful third-party candidate, you need money, a well-known public personaand a major issue to mobilize the vote,” said Loevy, “and I don’t think Barr has that.”

And as for those who might try to hunt him down with dogs, be forewarned. Barr is a former board member of the National Rifle Association, and the 12-gauge Mossberg Model 590A that was up for grabs on his Web site Wednesday has mysteriously disappeared.

“Libertarian presidential frontrunner Wayne Allyn Root won both the Colorado and Michigan Presidential Preference Polls on Saturday. Those victories were on the heels of Root’s dominant performance of two weeks ago in the California Libertarian Preference Poll — beating a large field of candidates on all 3 ballots and finishing with 60% of the vote.

“California is the most populous Libertarian state, with the largest delegation to the national convention in Denver in May 2008. Colorado, host of the Convention, is projected to have one of the largest delegations in attendance as well.”

Root is a professional gambler, producer and entrepreneur, according to his campaign Web site, Root for America

The Colorado Libertarian convention was held last week at Colorado State University in Fort Collins, where Michael P. Jingozian, George Phillies, and Root each spoke and fielded questions, according to the party’s Web site .

While Root may not be sharing the national spotlight with Democratic and Republican front runners, he was in Barack Obama’s class, literally, prior to the presidential election, as theonlinewire reports:

“Root and his wife Debra are home-school parents to their four young children. Root graduated Columbia University Class of ’83 with his fellow candidate and Political Science classmate Barack Obama.”

And for those voters who have more than the country’s future riding on the November election:

“While Root appears to be on track to win the Libertarian nomination Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are still fighting for the front seat of the Democratic Party. Sportsbook.com posted the latest odds to win the Democratic nomination: Obama 1 to 3, Clinton 2 to 1.”

In other words, Clinton is the safe bet.

Today, we invite you to read more about the legal and policy issues the Colorado Libertarian Party hopes to see raised.Libertarians offer a unique, but popular view toward the upcoming 2008 Colorado legislative session. While liberals/Democrats tend to protect our personal liberties at the expense of economic freedom (e.g., through expanding government social programs and services), and conservatives/Republicans tend to defend economic freedom at the expense of personal liberties (e.g., Patriot Act, REAL ID Act, suspension of habeas corpus), Libertarians understand that a free society must maintain both personal liberties and economic freedom.

With Democrats controlling both the Legislature and governor’s office, Libertarians had hoped for more legislation restoring personal liberties in 2007. While we were delighted that Colorado became the eighth state to adopt a resolution opposing the REAL ID Act, we were disappointed to see a tsunami of bills attacking our economic freedoms. Libertarians expect this trend to continue in 2008 with a major emphasis on health care reform. Governor Ritter’s Blue Ribbon Commission for Health Care Reform has, as we feared, only offered plans that require a massive increase in government interference in medicine — in the name of “universal coverage.” The plans include some combination of forcing all residents into a single-payer health program, forcing some or all individuals and/or businesses to purchase a state-approved insurance policy, requiring insurance companies to provide additional benefits, establishing a new bureaucracy to set payments to the doctors for services they provide and doubling the Colorado Medicaid population.

Recognizing that all of these plans have already been tried unsuccessfully in other states — resulting only in higher costs and lower-quality patient care — Libertarians oppose all of these plans. Instead, Libertarians propose restoring a free market through repealing the health care mandates codified in Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS) 10-16-104. Ending these mandates could reduce health insurance costs by as much as one-third (using the median cost estimates for Colorado in the Health Insurance Mandates in the States 2007 study by The Council for Affordable Health Insurance).

The string of broken promises made by legislators to voters in 2005 for the passage of Referendum C is expected to continue. Referendum C, which Libertarians had opposed, allows the state to increase spending on transportation, health care and education through keeping monies that would have otherwise been refunded under the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR).

From 2001 through 2006 the Colorado Legislature spent over $70 million (budgeted through the governor’s office) via the Economic Development Commission (EDC) providing grants to corporations or companies, public and private, both in and out of the state for the purpose of encouraging, promoting, and stimulating economic development and employment in Colorado. This was done under CRS 24-46 (creating and funding the Colorado EDC), which is in direct conflict with our state constitution, Article XI, Sec. 2 (forbidding aid to corporations). Representatives are elected to government to serve the interests of the people, not corporations. CRS 24-46 should be repealed.

Libertarians applaud Rep. Wes McKinley (D-HD 64), who will be introducing a bill designed to restore the sovereignty of Colorado by removing the blanket consent (CRS 3-1-101 and 3-1-102) given to the U.S. government to acquire land within our state.

While we have not yet seen the text, Libertarians are cautiously optimistic that a bill to be introduced by Rep. Rob Witwer (R-HD 25) — and sponsored in the Senate by Sen. Ron Tupa (D-Dist. 18) — will make positive modifications to the “adverse possession” statutes (CRS 38-41) and strengthen property-owners rights.

One of the precious few bills restoring both our personal liberties and economic freedom is being introduced by Sen. Jennifer Veiga (D-Dist 31) to allow the sale of liquor on Sundays.

Ultimately, Libertarians hope to see more bills introduced in 2008 restoring both our personal liberties and economic freedoms.

Richard C. Randall is the legislative director of the Libertarian Party of Colorado.

Rep. Paul Weissmann’s plan to double the amount of fines for “driving while distracted” is headed nowhere, as is Rep. Mary Hodge’s fledgling effort to outlaw human microchip implantation.

Among the concerns about Weissmann’s bill, detailed last week by Colorado Confidential, was it gave law enforcement too much discretion over determining when a driver actually was “knowingly districted.” The proposal would have targeted drivers who commit traffic violations while on their cellphones, using headphones or computers, recorders or digital music players, as well as grooming, reading, eating and drinking.Weissmann, a Democrat from Louisville, had argued his bill represented  “a reasonable approach, as it is still legal to do those distracting activities. It just costs you more if you commit a moving violation while doing it.”

Earlier in the week he joked that the originating idea for the bill, “was actually a phone call, from his car, from a Libertarian upset because someone cut him off on the road while talking on his phone.” The Libertarian Party of Colorado, which advocates for limited government, had emerged in strong opposition.

“When will our elected officials understand that the people of Colorado don’t need to be told when and where they can listen to music or eat a Big Mac?” asked Libertarian Party chairman Travis Nicks. “The unintended consequences from this type of legislation divert crucial law enforcement resources from tracking down real criminals to increasing revenue for their jurisdiction.”

Hodge’s microchip bill, meanwhile, has been abandoned after the Brighton Democrat said more research is needed. The Rocky Mountain News reported last week that Hodge introduced the measure at the urging of a librarian in Adam’s County who was concerned about the potential abuse of microchipping at the hands of Big Brother in a post-Patriot Act eavesdropping era.

The Denver daily quoted from an e-mail that former Republican Rep.-turned-political consultant Rob Fairbank sent out, “Is this a problem? Do we have gangs of post-apocalyptic Terminator-style cyborgs roaming the streets of Colorado implanting citizens with microchips?” Fairbank joked. “One of my legislator friends said, ‘If we can’t implant microchips on people, how will we know when the black helicopters arrive?’ “

However, at least 17 other states have considered similar measures designed to prevent potential abuses of microchip technology in humans, including New Hampshire, Georgia, Rhode Island and New Jersey. Last year Wisconsin became the first state to adopt a law that prohibits the required implanting of microchips in humans.

Human microchips, which were just recently developed, have been used, among other things, by hospitals to retrieve the medical records of patients. Some companies have implanted microchips in their employees to use as electronic keys and for other security purposes.

According to a 2006 Wisconsin legislative brief:

“As with most technology, [microchip implants] can be seen as a timesaving convenience. Some night clubs in Europe already allow patrons with microchip implants to pay with the electronic codes they carry under their skin, and some in the U.S. have experimented with programming computers to read radio frequency identification implanted microchips to accomplish such tasks as unlocking a car with a wave of the hand.”

As noted in Wisconsin’s legislative brief, concerns over potential health and privacy risks are not limited to one librarian in Adams County, Colorado:

“Civil libertarians warn that human implantation has not received enough debate and may put us on a slippery slope toward a system of human numbering.  They contend that human micro

]]> http://coloradoindependent.com/1289/doa-bills-aimed-at-distracted-drivers-human-microchips/feed 0 http://coloradoindependent.com/1249/call-to-curb-driving-while-distracted http://coloradoindependent.com/1249/call-to-curb-driving-while-distracted#comments Wed, 17 Jan 2007 18:57:32 +0000 Cara Degette http://www.coloradoindependent.com.php5-9.websitetestlink.com/?p=1249 Nearly everyone – scrap that, everyone – has an oh-man-listen-to-this-with-a-shaking-head story about that nasty driver who spent forever crawling up your tail, only to whip around your car, cast you a glare – and commence with the chattering on the…

]]> Nearly everyone – scrap that, everyone – has an oh-man-listen-to-this-with-a-shaking-head story about that nasty driver who spent forever crawling up your tail, only to whip around your car, cast you a glare – and commence with the chattering on the cell phone.

Or the woman who was actually painting mascara onto her lashes at 80 MPH. Or the fella in the honkin’ big SUV, chomping on a Carl’s Jr. Guacamole Bacon Six Dollar Burger, deliriously ignorant of the cars around him. Or the load of teenagers blissfully sailing through a red light, their car literally thumping to the music.

A proposal, HB 1006, would double the traffic violation penalties for “driving while distracted” – and help cut down on potential hazards of the road, maintains state Rep. Paul Weissmann.

But the small government Libertarian Party of Colorado, which “adamantly opposes” the bill, has a question: “Will traffic cops be staking out fast food restaurants with drive thru windows?”“When will our elected officials understand that the people of Colorado don’t need to be told when and where they can listen to music or eat a Big Mac?” asked Libertarian Party chairman Travis Nicks. “The unintended consequences from this type of legislation divert crucial law enforcement resources from tracking down real criminals to increasing revenue for their jurisdiction.” 

Nonsense, says Weissmann, a Democrat from Louisville. The originating idea for the bill, Weissman quipped, “was actually a phone call, from his car, from a Libertarian upset because someone cut him off on the road while talking on his phone.”

Seriously, “This is, I think, a reasonable approach, as it is still legal to do those distracting activities,” Weissmann said. “It just costs you more if you commit a moving violation while doing it.”

As it’s currently written, the proposal would increase the penalties for drivers who are “knowingly districted” – including, but not limited to, cellphone use, headphone or headset use, use of an electronic device including computers, recorders or digital music players, grooming, reading, eating and drinking.

The  Rocky Mountain News reported today that the Colorado State Patrol has begun asking drivers involved in all accidents if they were using their cell phones. National studies have found that “distractions of various kinds cause 23 percent of all vehicle crashes,” the newspaper reports, though the CSP does not currently have any statewide statistics to determine to what extent cell-phone use poses a public safety problem.

Cara DeGette is a longtime editor and columnist at the Colorado Springs Independent.

]]> http://coloradoindependent.com/1249/call-to-curb-driving-while-distracted/feed 1