The Board of Directors of the Libertarian Party of Colorado sets forth the following recommendations on the 18 COLORADO INITIATIVES currently on the ballot for this November, 2008.

TITLE	SUBJECT	SUMMARY DESCRIPTION	LPCO SAYS	EXPLANATION
Referendum L	Candidate age limits	If passed, this would lower the age of a candidate for the Colorado House and Senate from 25 to 21.	YES	If you can get the votes, age is irrelevant.
Referendum M	Obsolete constitutional provisions	If passed, this would eliminate obsolete provisions in the state constitution about land value increases.	YES	Nothing substantive changed by eliminating these obsolete provisions.
Referendum N	Obsolete constitutional provisions	If passed, this would eliminate obsolete provisions in the constitution about intoxicating liquor.	YES	Nothing substantive changed by eliminating these obsolete provisions.
Referendum O	Initiative process	If passed, this would make it harder for citizens to place constitutional amendments on the ballot for voter approval, but make it easier for citizens to place state statutes on the ballot. It also provides protection against the state legislature from amending statutes passed through the initiative process.	NO	The LPCO fully supports the citizen initiative process. Since this Referendum makes it harder for citizens to place Constitutional Amendments on the ballot we oppose it.

Amendment 46	Affirmative action	If passed, this would prohibit the state from discriminating against or granting preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.	YES	The government should not give preferential treatment to any group.
Amendment 47	Right to work	If passed, this would prohibit unions and employers from negotiating “union shop” contracts under which employees would be required to pay union membership or “agency” fees as a condition of continued employment.	YES	The LPCO supports the right to work.
Amendment 48	Definition of “person” and abortion	If passed, this would change the definition of ‘person’ in the Colorado Constitution to include any fertilized egg, embryo or fetus.	NO	While the LPCO takes no official position on abortion, this proposed constitutional amendment would have far reaching implications and unintended consequences throughout the entire state constitution.
Amendment 49	Public payroll deductions	If passed, this would bar automatic dues deductions for private enterprises, including unions, from public employee payrolls.	YES	The government (at taxpayer expense) should not act as collector, bundler and distributor of dues for any private organization.
Amendment 50	Casino gambling	If passed, this would allow the general assembly or voters in the cities that permit limited gaming to extend the hours of limited gaming operations; to add roulette, craps, or both to the allowed games; and to increase the maximum bet up to $100.	YES	The government has no business telling people what they can do with their own money. If people want to gamble, it is not the government’s business.
Amendment 51	Sales tax for the developmentally disabled	If passed, this would increase the sales tax, in July 2009 and again in July 2010, to fund services for the developmentally disabled.	NO	While this is an admirable cause, it is best addressed via private charity and not taxation.
Amendment 52	Severance tax and transportation	If passed, this would create the Colorado Transportation Trust Fund, to be funded by that portion of the severance tax that exceeds the amount deposited to the state severance tax fund in the previous year, adjusted for inflation via the Consumer Price Index	NO POSITION	Since this amendment does not raise taxes, it only changes how existing taxes are spent, the LPCO takes no position.
Amendment 53	Criminal liability for business executives	If passed, this would increase the conduct for which criminal liability attaches for conduct of business executives.	NO	This amendment makes executive conduct that is currently subject to civil liability and makes it criminal. Further, fraud is already illegal.
Amendment 54	Government contracting reform	If passed, this would prohibit those benefitting from no-bid government contracts valued at more than $100,000 a year from contributing to political causes for the duration of the contract plus two years.	NO POSITION	There was disagreement among the BOD concerning the best way to address this issue.
Amendment 55	Employee relations, “employment at will” doctrine	If passed, this would end the “employment at will” doctrine in the state. Employers would have to document “just cause” for firing an employee.	NO	This amendment would unnecessarily open additional litigation avenues, be of limited benefit to employees, and make the cost of doing business unnecessarily expensive in the state.

Amendment 56	Employee relations, health insurance	If passed, this would require employers of more than 20 people to pay for health insurance for their employees and families; also would establish a government program to administer the program.	NO	This amendment would make the cost of doing business in this state prohibitive and drive jobs out of the state.
Amendment 57	Employee relations, workplace conditions	If passed, this would allow employees to sue employers for work injuries outside of the workers’ compensation system.	NO	This amendment would make the cost of doing business in this state prohibitive and drive jobs out of the state.
Amendment 58	Taxes	If passed, this would eliminate a tax credit for property taxes paid for payers of the severance tax, using the revenue primarily to fund college scholarships.	NO	This amendment unnecessarily raises taxes for a cause better suited for private charitable contributions.
Amendment 59	Education funding	If passed, this would create a state education fund savings account within the state education fund, to be funded from 10% of the monies deposited into the state education fund, including revenue that would otherwise be rebated under the TABOR rules, would also require that state educational spending increase by rate of inflation plus 1% through fiscal year 2010-2011; and restricts spending of the state education fund to specific education expenses	NO	This amendment would eviscerate TABOR.

-->

Why did Ron Paul endorse Chuck Baldwin?

by BlueCarp | 11:07 am, September 23, 2008

Ron Paul has done more for the cause of limited government and personal liberty than any politician since Barry Goldwater.

That’s why his presidential endorsement of Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin is puzzling.

He announced his endorsement via his Campaign for Liberty site.

Before making the announcement, he discussed his “Unity Press Conference,” which was attended by Baldwin, Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney – but not Bob Barr:

Obviously the press conference could have been even more successful without the last-minute change of heart by the Libertarian Party candidate by not participating. He stated that his support for the four points remains firm. His real reason for not coming, nor letting me know until forty minutes before the press conference started, is unknown to me. To say the least, I was shocked and disappointed.

Of course, the Barr campaign has a different version of events. Bob Barr campaign manager Russ Verney, in an email to supporters, said:

After rumors were spread in advance of the news conference that Bob Barr was dropping from the race – just to hype the event – I became even more hesitant to attend. Those tactics were unacceptable and when asked about it, Ron Paul’s staff simply smiled and said it would attract the press.

When I was provided a copy of Ron Paul’s prepared remarks just hours before the start of the planned news conference it became clear to me that the message Ron Paul intended to deliver was essentially to scatter the votes for the liberty agenda to the four winds.

His remarks not only encouraged anyone listening to support any one of four candidates, he also applauded ‘non-voters’. To me encouraging people not to vote is not principled leadership for the Liberty agenda.

Apparently there was a lack of communication between the two camps and some hurt feelings. But this is politics. There is no place for hurt feelings.

In his endorsement of Baldwin, Paul wrote:

Yet in the long run, this last-minute change in plans will prove to be of little importance. I’m convinced that problems like this always seem bigger at the moment, yet things usually work out in the end. Recovering from the mistakes and shortcomings of all that we do in this effort is not difficult if the message is right and our efforts are determined. And I’m convinced they are. That’s what will determine our long-term success, not the shortcomings of any one person.

Given the context of the entire announcement, it appears that the “shortcomings of any one person” is a thinly veiled jab at Barr. No problem. This is politics.

Paul continued:

The Libertarian Party Candidate admonished me for “remaining neutral” in the presidential race and not stating whom I will vote for in November.

…

I’ve thought about the unsolicited advice from the Libertarian Party candidate, and he has convinced me to reject my neutral stance in the November election. I’m supporting Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate.

That is the general background leading up to Paul’s endorsement.

Most people outside the insulated world of third party politics probably have a question: “Who is Chuck Baldwin?”

Let’s look at the Constitution Party website for some answers.

Among other things, the CP wants to end American involvement in overseas wars, limit the federal government’s powers to those specifically enumerated in the Constitution, and return power to those states by reviving the dormant Tenth Amendment.

So far, so good.

But let’s look at some of those “other things,” as well.

The CP website asks visitors to “Join the Constitution Party in its work to restore our government to its Constitutional limits and our law to its Biblical foundations.”

Biblical foundations? At best, that claim is historically questionable. Throughout its website, the CP picks quotes from John Adams and others that indicate a belief that Christianity is an important part of American government.

Of course, the CP ignores quotes from Thomas Jefferson and others that indicate a different belief.

For an organization that purports to support a stringent reading of the Constitution, it fails to address why the words “Jesus Christ,” “Christianity,” “bible,” or even “church” fail to appear in the document.

The CP has to look outside the document to support its position, which is exactly what liberal judicial activists do to support their arguments for expansion of federal power.

The entire CP platform is online.

It begins: “The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States.”

The CP therefore has no place for those that do not accept Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior.

Ironically, this would keep Thomas Jefferson out of the CP. Jefferson denied that Christ was divine, and put together a little something called “The Jefferson Bible” to support that belief.

It is hard to imagine how a political party that rejects Jews, Muslims, atheists, Wiccans, Buddhists, Hindus, agnostics and Thomas Jefferson can be said to support either freedom or liberty.

In that regard, the CP platform sets forth its specific positions very clearly:

The CP is against homosexual rights.

The CP is against abortion, even in cases of rape and incest.

The CP supports the war on drugs.

The CP favors government regulation of the internet and the media in general because both contain sexually provocative images.

The CP is anti-free market in that it favors government restriction on the private use of personal money on gambling and prostitution.

The CP is anti-free trade.

The CP supports government’s power to kill criminals.

The CP would not allow women in combat.

The CP believes that education “cannot be separated from religious faith.”

The CP would eliminate all immigration into the country “except in extreme hardship cases or in other individual special circumstances.”

The CP would keep out immigrants based on whether or not the government found them a moral burden on the country or not.

The CP supports “all the legislation which would remove from Federal appellate review jurisdiction matters involving acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.”

There can be no doubt Ron Paul believes in individual liberty, freedom and limited government. But it is hard to see how Chuck Baldwin and the CP advance these beliefs.

It appears that Paul has taken a perceived slight from Bob Barr personally, and in a fit of pique, endorsed a religious zealot, intolerant of non-Christians and a believer in government authority to implement a Christian theocracy.

And that’s too bad

-->