We’ve seen this movie before:  Spectacular photos of Tomahawk Cruise missiles being launched from American navy vessel, B-2 bombers piloted by amazing American crews making nonstop trips from Missouri to the Mediterranean…. And Americans of all political stripes asking: What’s the plan?

Make no mistake.  Muammar Gaddafi is a very bad guy.  He has been a bad guy for 40 years, and he has brazenly killed Americans on several occasions in attacks that fit any reasonable definition of terrorism.  The world would be better off without him.

But, at the same time that our courageous and incredibly skilled military is again being asked to destroy a military headquarters in Tripoli without damaging the civilian building next to it, the White House is saying “Gaddafi must go”, but these attacks are not about “regime change”.  They are saying the mission is to protect the Libyan people from Gaddafi’s madness, but that we aren’t going to send troops in to do the protecting.  And yes, they are once again assuring us that the U.S. commitment is limited and we are just doing our part as a coalition of the willing.

When are we going to learn?  Injecting American military right into the internal strife of other nations with no clear definition of a successful outcome doesn’t work.  Our service men and women who are putting themselves at risk, the taxpayers who are paying $600,000 for every Tomahawk missile launched, and yes, the people in Libya we are supposedly trying to help, all deserve to know what the plan is.  That really isn’t too much to ask.

Sometimes it appears our political leaders doubt that we can handle the truth.

If the objective in Libya is to replace Muammar Gaddafi – then why don’t we just say it, and do it?  Or at least have an honest debate about it.  If that is the idea, it is perhaps worth noting that the guy has hung on to power for decades and just bombing his missile defenses may not do the trick.  It is also worth pointing out that we went into Afghanistan to get rid of Osama bin Laden and his cronies, and almost ten years and hundreds of billions of dollars and too many American lives later, we are still there – and bin Laden isn’t.

If the plan were to somehow level the playing field in Libya so that Gaddafi’s opposition has a fighting chance of toppling him, it would have been a lot cheaper and easier to do that 3 weeks ago – before he was on the verge of crushing them.  And then there is the whole question of who will replace him, will they be any better for U.S. interests than Gaddafi, and how many of those people we are trying to protect will die in the process?

It has been observed that, by weakening his military capabilities, perhaps we will encourage dissension and defection among his own leadership and commanders. If that is the plan, it would be cheaper and a whole lot safer to just give each of them a check for a million dollars and a condo in Florida.

Or, if there is some hope that Colonel Gaddafi will back down, see the handwriting on the wall and turn over a new leaf, it really must be remembered that we have tried that a couple of times already.  The result:  He is still in power and killing people, and the Presidents who “backed him down” are not Presidents anymore.

For the cynical among us, let’s even try the theory that we care about what happens in Libya because it is the source of 1.3 million barrels of oil per day – and we need imports like that for more than half of our oil needs.  If we are worried about oil, we should be a lot more concerned about what is going on in Saudi Arabia and a bunch of other countries that are in fact much more important to our energy security.

Mr. President, or someone, PLEASE, tell us what the plan is.  Otherwise, just stop. At the end of the day, what is happening in Libya is a civil war against a clearly bad leader.  The world is full of clearly bad and evil leaders, and millions of people being victimized by them.  What makes Libya special?  Simply enforcing a no-fly zone will cost American taxpayers as much as $300 million a week, and that doesn’t include all those Tomahawk missiles and B-2 round trips.  More importantly, those are American crews risking their lives.  If there is some compelling reason to be doing what we are doing, tell us what it is.

If, on the other hand, we are once again playing cop to the world, we can’t afford it.

In Liberty,

Gary Johnson

1.) The Board should not accept the guidelines as recommended by staff as they added 29 pages of new language and only gave VC COLAB 2 days to respond to it.

2.) These guidelines, as written, will make County Public works programs more expensive and place an unnecessary burden on Taxpayers by increasing the need for higher taxes to pay for these new costs. The County should be looking for ways to save money not take on new costs.

3.) The guidelines, as written, will cost the County jobs as more private projects that are necessary for businesses to expand and hire workers will not be economically feasible. In fact, more businesses will leave the County and jobs will be lost. You cannot say you are for bringing back jobs and vote for these guidelines.

4.) The guidelines were created by selectively receiving the input of local biologists rather than taking into consideration the input of all the biologists who met with County Planning.

5.) These guidelines referring to “Locally Important Species” go too far! They even restrict species that are not endangered, rare, uncommon or unique. This will raise the cost of reporting, mitigating and creating environmental documents for EVERY discretionary project with native vegetation in the County to accommodate common species.
(Think fire prevention!  Are you willing to let your house burn down to protect a common onion?) This language in the document is entirely unnecessary and unwarranted and has NO APPARENT GAIN even for County Planning.

6-a.) You cannot say you are for “preserving agriculture” if you adopt these regulations because the South Coast Missing Linkages project considers agriculture a barrier to wildlife movement, calling for farming to be restricted. Fully 26,000 acres of farmland in Ventura County touches these Wildlife Corridors!!!

6-b.) These guidelines threaten county agriculture because new food safety laws requiring no animal droppings in agricultural fields and orchards will eventually require fencing which will render the specific routes proposed by the linkage studies infeasible. Will farming have to halt in order to comply with both requirements of these proposed guidelines and existing food safety laws? Whether farmers put up fencing or not, either way, they would be in conflict with regulations somewhere if they were to continue farming.

7.) While protecting wetlands is an agreeable endeavor, the guidelines, as written, would create a moratorium on all county projects that impact waters and wetlands because the County has yet to setup a program for mitigating or restoring such wetlands.

8.) These guidelines will hurt low-income families and minorities because a large percentage of these groups rely on agriculture for their income and jobs in Ventura County. These guidelines would reduce agricultural activity and the need for labor due to unnecessary restrictions.

9.) County Planners and Save Open-Space & Agricultural Resources (S.O.A.R.) claim these regulations are necessary to “protect” farming and prevent urban sprawl, but they do just the opposite. Preventing farmers from building structures such as barns, storage sheds, and other facilities (with hyper-restrictive regulations) isn’t the “urban sprawl” most people are trying to avoid. They are necessary investments to produce the food we all eat.

10.) The definition of a wetland is so all-encompassing that common landscape features such as culverts can potentially be defined as wetlands. And what farm doesn’t have a culvert next to it’s fields?

11.) The guidelines are based on studies, some of which the public has not been allowed access to the underlying data or methodologies. It is irresponsible for the County Board of Supervisors to adopt new regulations where the public has not had a chance to verify whether the science is sound or not. Think Climate-gate scandal

12.) As a twelfth bonus reason, these guidelines are an affront to private property rights protected under the United State Constitution. Government is going too far.

“Key to sound environmental policy is respect for private property rights” -Ron Paul

The effects of a proposed change to Biology Initial Assessment Guidelines are only starting to be understood even as Ventura County planning staff are rushing their recommendations back to the Ventura County Board of Supervisors for a vote. Taxpayers now face the prospect of the Board of Supervisors raising the cost of public works in addition to the cost of doing business in the county. Lynn Jensen, Executive Director for (VC COLAB), stated in a recent email received by the Ventura County Libertarian Party:

“County Public Works Projects will be even more expensive with implementation of this new document as written ** YES** – that means public projects including the improvement and construction of new flood control channels, water, sewer and solid waste facilities, fire protection, roads, etc.  In addition, more private projects that are necessary for businesses to expand and hire workers will not be economically feasible.  This will have a major impact on farming which is already on the ropes due to increased cost and reduced supply of water, new pests, new air quality regulations and now this!  In fact, more businesses will leave the County and more jobs will be lost.?”

How the Ventura County Board of Supervisors acts on this particular issue will be a clear indication for Ventura County residents as to whether or not a particular supervisor is fiscally responsible, as so many of them claim.  The Ventura County Planning staff have also recommended guidelines that will, in effect, place a moratorium on certain kinds of building when “wetlands” are involved due to the fact that the County does not have mitigation steps in place when a project involves a “wetland”.  For example, if your project will involve a “wetland” often times as part of the approval process, the property owner is required to restore a “wetland” somewhere else. However, the County has not setup the programs whereby a property owner could restore “wetlands”, so the potential  adoption of these new guidelines would essentially prevent not only public improvement projects, but small private road crossings and culvert projects according to VC COLAB.

Ventura County ISAG would make this culvert a "wetland"

This is a "Wetland" ???

While protecting “wetlands” and the biological diversity contained within them is a goal most residents share, the devil is in the details.  As it turns out, a man made ditch between a road and a farm field can be considered a “wetland” due to the definition used by the state.  To fit the definition of a “wetland” a landscape feature needs to meet only three criteria: Hydrology (water), obligate species (such as cattails), and anaerobic soil (soggy dirt).  And what farm doesn’t have a ditch with cattails abutting it somewhere?  That’s just one example of how these regulations threaten the very agriculture so important to Ventura County’s economic base and which our County Board of Supervisors all claim to want to protect. The proof will be in this upcoming vote.

At a time when Ventura County is feeling the pinch of high unemployment and reduced tax revenue, taking measures that will preclude jobs from being created by blocking economic activity with needless regulations is injurious to working families and the businesses that employ them.

Tell the supervisors to POSTPONE their decision or VOTE NO on the new guidelines:

Steve Bennett: steve.bennett@ventura.org

Linda Parks: linda.parks@ventura.org

Kathy Long:         kathy.long@ventura.org

Peter Foy:              supervisor.foy@ventura.org

John Zaragoza:  supervisor.zaragoza@ventura.org

As a recovering Republican and now a full fledged “big L” Libertarian in the Libertarian Party of California (LPC), I have met many like minded folks in the GOP who believe they can reform a Republican party that is both insolent and unwelcoming toward their efforts. Here in Ventura County, a Ron Paul Republican won a central committee seat with the GOP only to have the party bosses strong arm a few key votes so that their “chosen one” was the winner. The problem? The voting had been closed and the winners announced when the votes were changed. Election fraud is not unique to Democrats or their ACORN buddies. I mention this particular vote because it is emblematic of the GOP at-large, where those in power within the GOP are threatened by those who wish to have the Republican party actually be conservative. The party bosses are fighting tooth and nail to keep the status quo while painting a Potemkin picture of change.

But even if you could reform the GOP here in California, their brand is so tarnished and reputation so derided, that whether or not the party actually does manage to reform into something more Libertarian, will it make a difference in the minds of the public -especially the young? Have you been to a GOP meeting lately? Just look around. Moreover, in a year in which Republicans were sweeping into office across other parts of the nation, it was only here in California that the GOP actually suffered even more losses, having not won a single statewide-race at all and losing ground in the legislature! This is a symptom of how anemic the party has become in the Golden State.

It’s so hard for Republicans to raise funds for major races here if California that it seems only mega-wealthy, self-financed candidates ever stand a chance at winning a governor’s race. Just think Arnold Schwarzenegger and Meg Whitman; each worth approximately $300 million and 1 billion, respectively. But, not even Whitman’s eye-popping campaign spending, at $178.5 million, was enough to push her over the edge. Now that’s a wasted vote. And as if these weren’t enough indications of a lost cause for the GOP in California, their voter registration numbers in the state are dwindling while “big L” Libertarian numbers are rising. The number of registered Independent and Decline-To-State voters is up, too. “Anywhere but the GOP” is what these figures should tell you. Libertarian Party of California numbers would be rising exponentially were it not for the LPC’s historic reticence to fundraise to the same degree the other parties do. That’s changing swiftly though…

So why fight a party machine that doesn’t want you and that the public doesn’t want either? Given the mood Californians are in, Libertarians are finding people to join the party with ease. The LPC is rapidly evolving into an effective party, it sells easily with the public, and isn’t a watered-down version of Liberty. I encourage everyone to visit http://ca.lp.org/ and discover an alternative that actually stands a chance in California’s future.

-Flavio Fiumerodo

Vice Chair – LPVC

Friday night (1/28/11) I attended a talk by Steve Forbes at the Reagan Library and was very impressed with his ideas on the major issues of the day: health care, education, taxation, economic decline and growth, size of government, national and personal debt, money manipulation and politics. Forbes not only addressed the problems and named names (of the culprits), but proposed realistic, libertarian, free-market-based solutions. I was pleased to hear support for throwing out the current tax code in exchange for a flat tax (and later during Q&A, agreement on the necessity of repealing the 16th Amendment to eliminate the progressive income tax). Solutions regarding health care and education focused on competition and freedom of choice. He suggested government assistance for those who can’t afford health insurance, the same way  government programs help people pay for food (e.g., food stamps), saying this would be more cost-effective and productive than a universal takeover of health care. Although Forbes smartly (considering his venue) gave nod to Republicans like Reagan for supporting some small government, liberty-minded ideas, he also laid blame on the GOP for various failures. Applause was heard many times from the audience, but never more loudly than when Forbes predicted that in his lifetime the dollar would again be tied to gold.

It doesn’t appear that the Reagan Foundation website stores Reagan Forum speeches for replay, but here is a YouTube video that captured about nine minutes of the roughly 50-minute Forbes speech: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlqQhNKTHaw. If I later find a video of the full speech, I’ll pass it along.

© 2010 Libertarian Party of Ventura County Ventura County Libertarian Party P.O. Box 2417 Camarillo, CA 93011 Phone: (805) 652-0290 Email: lpventura.co@gmail.com Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha

Bad Behavior has blocked 200 access attempts in the last 7 days.