Young Americans for Liberty – Ole Miss Chapter

Ahh, Thursday – the beginning of the weekend in Oxford. Here’s what we’re reading this Thursday morning:

• 

  Marshall Ramsey's Always-Cutting Take on Haley's Pardongate

  Coverage of Haley Barbour’s Pardongate expanded yesterday as the former governor came under criticism for issuing around 200 pardons his last day in office.  Attorney General Hood’s efforts to block the release of prisoners seems to be moving forward. Haley’s defensive statement here.

• Mississippi Democrats are calling for a shortened legislative session. While this move is probably politically motivated given the recent Republican takeover of the House, giving the government less time to mess things up seems like a good idea. This is where Texas gets it right.

• The latest poll released from South Carolina shows Romney (23) essentially tied with Gingrich (21), followed by Santorum (14), Paul (13), Huntsman (7), and Perry (5).

• Another Iranian nuclear scientist is dead, further evidence that either American or Israeli forces are actively waging a covert war on Iran’s nuclear program.

• Another one of the reasons our military presence abroad inevitably inspires others to fight against us.

• MSN Money has a great piece warning about the dangers of another round of quantitative easing by the Fed. The author, Anthony Mirhaydari, lays it out: ”In simple terms: The Fed is laying the groundwork for another round of unmitigated money printing.”

• The Department of Justice asked a judge to rule in favor of allowing citizens to record police officers on duty. As Radley Balko notes, “The federal government rarely urges a federal court to give the government less power.”

• While covering the GOP primary in New Hampshire, Adam Kokesh had a surprisingly cordial encounter with a police officer discussing the use of recording equipment.

• Ole Miss YAL hosted Kokesh to speak in the grove during the 2008 presidential debate at Ole Miss. That video here.

Stay up-to-date, follow Ole Miss YAL on Facebook and Twitter.

–––

James Robertson currently attends the University of Mississippi, where he plans to receive degrees in Political Science and English. He is the President of the Ole Miss Chapter of Young Americans for Liberty. He can be contacted at jrrobert@olemiss.edu, Facebook and Twitter.

So you think the next key election will be in 2012?

Think again.

If you’re a registered voter get out your calendar and put a big red circle around November 8th. This is when Mississippi voters will be asked to decide ballot Initiative #26: The “Personhood Amendment.”

Wait a minute. Is “personhood” even a word? No matter. If Initiative 26 is passed it will suddenly become a household term as Article III, Section 1 of the Mississippi State Constitution is amended to define “person” or “persons” to include “every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof.”

That would undoubtedly make abortion illegal. And much, much more.

While there are many Mississippians who in good conscience would like to outlaw abortion, this strangely phrased initiative doesn’t stop there. It could ultimately be interpreted to ban most birth control pills, Plan B (the emergency morning-after pill), various IUDs, in vitro fertilization and stem-cell research.

Not to worry ladies – chastity belts, diaphragms and the good old rhythm method will still be permissible. For the time being, anyway.

The government has no business selecting contraception for its citizens. Frankly, the idea that bureaucrats believe this is in their scope of power is horrifying.

It’s not as if Mississippi is The Chastity State. A recent study by the Mississippi Economic Policy Center reported 76 percent of high school students admit that they’ve had sex by the 12th grade. Chances are that number is actually higher. Moreover, we all know Mississippi has the highest national teenage pregnancy rate.

Some want to use these grim statistics as ammunition in an on-going argument for extensive sex education for students. Please. Public schools are educational institutions that should be teaching children academics. Period. In a state with one of the highest illiteracy rates everything else is superfluous. In fact, all sex-ed classes ought to be scrapped. Just as government shouldn’t inject itself into contraceptive decisions, neither should it take on the role of parents in teaching children about sexual norms and personal values.

Accompanying those deplorable statistics is an especially discouraging one: the Magnolia State also has the highest child poverty rate in the country. The cost of these social problems is steep: The Mississippi Business Journal reports that taxpayers are on the hook for more than $154 million annually due mostly to lost tax revenues, incarcerations and foster care associated with teen parents.

Given this dismal picture, it is simply mean-spirited to propose making access to contraception nearly impossible for Mississippi women.

The Personhood lobby wants you to believe that this is simply a feel-good pro-life measure. Don’t be fooled. There is much more at stake this November than a pro-choice versus pro-life vote. Once this initiative is enshrined in law, Mississippi women could find themselves forced to cross state lines for basic contraceptives.

Even more curious than the intentions of those backing this initiative is the timing of the vote. Remember, 2011 is an off-year election. The architects of the Personhood Amendment seem to be counting on low voter turnout to ram through this sweeping change to Mississippi law. It’s a clever scheme to rally their supporters to get out and vote, while the rest of the population sleeps.

This is an old political trick. Don’t fall for it.

In fact, beware of any political movement that can only succeed if the majority of voters stay home.

Opponents of the Personhood Amendment, such as the ACLU, are confident that even if Initiative 26 passes, it will ultimately be ruled unconstitutional and nullified. Great. But that will take years of litigation and countless taxpayer dollars. Worse, in the meantime Mississippians will have to live under a bad law.

If you’re registered to vote in Mississippi go to the polls on November 8th.  Show the shortsighted “Personhood” lobby that smart people vote even in off-year elections.

And this time they’re saying “no.”
—

Bryn Kerrigan Mahan is a Senior Political Science major from Virginia Beach, Virginia.  She is a member of the Ole Miss Chapter of Young Americans for Liberty and a contributor to UMFreedom.com. She can be contacted at bkmahan@olemiss.edu.

On November 8, Mississippians will head to the polls to decide three proposed ballot initiatives. One of these referendums, termed Initiative 31, aims to protect private property rights in Mississippi by restricting the government’s power of eminent domain. Governments have always used the power of eminent domain to acquire property on which to construct roads, schools, and other public developments.

Private property rights form the bedrock of a society of ordered liberty. For this reason, governments should prioritize the protection of private property second only to life and liberty itself. The justifications for a state’s eminent domain power lie in two considerations: 1) The state must provide adequate compensation for the acquired land, and 2) the land must be devoted to a public use. Using its power of eminent domain, both federal and state governments have purchased land from individuals to construct roads, schools, and public buildings.

In the controversial 2005 case of Kelo v. New London, the US Supreme Court vastly expanded the power of eminent domain. The case concerned a Connecticut resident whose property was acquired by the government using the power of eminent domain. Instead of using the land for a traditional public purpose, though, the government planned to transfer the property to a private pharmaceutical company. In a 5-4 decision that upended the world of eminent domain law, the court ruled that this was a constitutional use of the government’s taking power.

According to Kelo, eminent domain can be used to transfer private property to another private entity as long as the new owner will provide an “economic benefit” to the community. Using this logic, Peter the used car dealer could lobby the government to acquire your family farm. Though the farm belongs to you, Peter convinces the state that by opening a new car lot on your land, he could benefit the town economically.

Initiative 31 aims to prevent just this sort of crony capitalism. In response to this expansion of power, Mississippians have a chance to defend their private property against government that seeks to transfer it to another citizen. Initiative 31 would amend the state constitution to prohibit the state from transferring private property to another private individual for 10 years. This greatly reduces any incentive for the government to take private property for private uses.

Support property rights on November 8 by voting YES on Initiative 31.

—

James Robertson currently attends the University of Mississippi, where he plans to receive degrees in Political Science and English. He is the President of the Ole Miss Chapter of Young Americans for Liberty. He can be contacted at jrrobert@olemiss.edu.

Tupelo, Mississippi has long been known as the birthplace of “The King.”  Unfortunately, there’s a new king in town, and he’ll make sure you’re singing the “Jailhouse Rock” if you don’t recite a loyalty oath upon his command.

According to WTVA, an attorney was arrested and jailed for contempt of court after refusing to pledge his allegiance to the American flag upon the judge’s order.  If this isn’t tyranny, what is?  What is it the judge wanted the disobedient attorney to pledge his allegiance to?  Authoritarian rule?  That reminds me of a famous quote from a wise man:

He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt.  He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would fully suffice.  This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once.

-Albert Einstein

http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/federal-judge-charged-with-658597.html

Reason Magazine recently ran a story by Radley Balko about Eddie Lee Howard, an inmate on death row in Mississippi for the 1994 rape and murder of Georgia Kemp. His conviction hinged on the testimony of an expert witness, dentist Michael West, whose work in bite mark analysis was notoriously unreliable. This was the basis for Howard’s 2006 appeal to the Mississippi Supreme Court, but his conviction was upheld. In 2008, though, the National Academy of Sciences released a report discrediting West and labeling his analysis as “impossible.” Despite these recent developments, Attorney General Jim Hood seeks to bar Howard from filing another appeal, on the grounds that Dr. West’s credibility had already been challenged, and found reliable, in the previous appeal.

As Balko points out, the Attorney General’s mission should be to seek justice, not convictions. While this new appeal also deals with Dr. West’s credibility, new evidence has come forth since that issue was previously raised before Mississippi’s high court. As the Supreme Court says, “death is different.” Taking a man’s life is no small thing, and before the state can deprive a citizen of life itself, the ultimate God-given right it is instituted to protect, every relevant fact available must be taken into consideration.

The question then remains – why does Misssissippi’s chief prosecutor seek to deny this man another chance to prove his innocence? Is it really in the state’s best interest to ensure that this accused murderer no longer lives, faulty testimony be damned? Two inmates who were sentenced to death due to West’s testimony have already been acquitted and released, the real murdered identified using DNA technology. Has Attorney General Hood lost sight of the purpose of our criminal justice system?

There has been a great deal of interest in the 1st District of Mississippi about Angela McGlowan’s exchange with a group of Ole Miss YAL students concerning the Bill of Rights and her ability to name all of them. As a background, James Robertson and a few other YAL members approached Congressional Candidate Angela McGlowan before an announcement she was about to give in front of the steps of the Ole Miss Student Union. They asked her if she could name all 10 of the first 10 amendments to the US Constitution. Her reaction was anything but expected. Go here to read the full article on the confrontation.

Paul Gallo took some interest in the story and we thought it would benefit all interested to share her side of the story spoken to Paul Gallo as well as YAL’s side of the story. Enjoy! (The second audio clip is worse sound quality so the volume is lower. Sorry about that.)

Angela McGlowan’s Response on Paul Gallo

James Robertson’s Response on Paul Gallo

By: James Robertson

The recent “Tea Party” phenomenon has exploded in the mainstream media, heralded by some as a rebirth of the Republican Party and vilified by others as an outlet for lunatics. While the significance of the movement has yet to be determined, it has certainly increased awareness of certain political values. Among them are limited government, personal liberty, and most importantly, adherence to the Constitution. While Tea Partiers and Republicans both like to pepper their speeches with these buzzwords, their voting records tend to call into question their actual adherence to these principles.

Angela McGlowan

Angela McGlowan, candidate in Mississippi’s 1^st Congressional District Republican Primary, recently spoke at the National Tea Party Convention in Nashville. In her speech, she took swipes at Democratic incumbent Travis Childers, calling for a move to the right on Capitol Hill. McGlowan held a press conference onthe University of Mississippi campus Friday in which Judge Joe Brown of daytime television stardom endorsed her candidacy. Before the event got underway, McGlowan was chatting with students near the podium on the front steps of the student union, where the conference was to take place. It was here that McGlowan was approached by a student member of the campus organization Young Americans for Liberty.

Throughout the week, Young Americans for Liberty had a table set up inside the union advertising their group. They offered prizes to passerby who could name all of the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the safeguards commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights. Students and faculty alike tried their hand at reciting all ten, along with several University Police Department officers and Dean of Students Sparky Reardon.

The student group member who approached Mrs. McGlowan asked if she could name the first ten amendments in exchange for a prize, to which she responded that she could but would not do so while standing in the sun on the front steps of the Student Union. The student then replied that Mrs. McGlowan’s response led him to believe that she could not in fact name the first ten amendments. At this remark, the Congress hopeful became noticeably perturbed and summoned UPD officers to have the student removed from the area. Knowledgeable of the situation and the students’ rights, UPD did not remove the student from the area and simply sought to cool the situation down. One officer even remarked that he didn’t see what all the fuss was about, as he had tried to win the prize at the group’s table earlier in the week.

Mrs. McGlowan’s reaction might be indicative of her future in politics. Stating that she can indeed name the first ten amendments yet refraining from doing so at the request of a constituent does indeed cast doubt upon the veracity of her claim. While the midday sun might have been a little warm, she was waiting to begin a half-hour press conference in the same location, suggesting that her aversion wasn’t necessarily driven by comfort, but possibly embarrassment at her own lack of knowledge.

This is not to say that all members of Congress should be expected to recite the Bill of Rights verbatim on the spot. However, inquiring as to whether or not a candidate knows about the document he or she would be expected to defend upon election seems like a fair request. The Congresswoman-elect could have even attempted to salvage the situation by admitting that she did not know the amendments and that that was an area she planned to work on. Instead, she summoned security and requested that the student be removed.

While McGlowan’s Tea Party speech was very well received by the delegates in Nashville, that kind of national publicity does not necessarily translate to votes in North Mississippi. The fact that she showed such unabashed hostility towards a student group that champions conservative values demonstrates her propensity to alienate her home base. Her primary challenger Alan Nunnelee is from Tupelo, the most highly populated city in the 1^st District. Stir in a very liberal stance on gun control you have Mrs. McGlowan facing an uphill battle in the primaries. If this incident on the University campus is indicative of McGlowan’s style, it could spell an early end to her general election hopes.

If you would like to see the entire speech, click on the link below to read the rest of the article. 

Read the rest of this entry »