Home
Political Links
News
Soap Box
Cartridge Box
Jury Box
Humor
Boycott
Biography
Contact Liz
Liz Michael for United States Senate

Healing Our World: The Other Piece of the Puzzle
by Mary J. Ruwart
If your wondering how we got into the difficulties we face in America today and how we could make things better, then Healing Our World is the book for you. Not only is it informative, its a good read (not at all boring or stuffy). If more voters read this book we might all be much better off.

Creating Equal : My Fight Against Race Preferences
by Ward Connerly

Ward Connerly, the champion of California's controversial Proposition 209 outlawing racial preferences in state government, offers a compelling memoir and polemic with Creating Equal. Connerly has generated strong reactions, many of them negative, ever since he burst on the scene as a University of California regent opposed to racial preferences in student admissions. Because he is black, Connerly was derisively labeled an "Uncle Tom" for his efforts. Conservatives will applaud Creating Equal, while many of Connerly's sparring partners will recognize its thoughtfulness: "Affirmative action was the kissing cousin of welfare, a seemingly humane social gesture that was actually quite diabolical in its consequences--not only causing racial conflict because of its inequities, but also validating blacks' fears of inferiority and reinforcing racial stereotypes."

The Triumph of Liberty: A 2000 Year History Told Through the Lives of Freedom's Greatest Champions
by Jim Powell

We the Jury : The Impact of Jurors on Our Basic Freedoms : Great Jury Trials of History
by Godfrey D. Lehman

Lehman traces classic cases, from Britain and czarist Russia to the U.S., from colonial days to the twentieth century. Obstacles to independent juries, Lehman holds, include jury consultants and the voir dire process, exclusion of evidence, and judicial reluctance to acknowledge juries' nullification powers. "When jurors receive all the evidence, when they are informed of their full powers, when they are left to themselves, when they are free of outside influences, and when there are twelve of them together--in short, when they are independent, they almost invariably prove that they are the ultimate guardians and defenders of the people's liberties."

Causality : Models, Reasoning, and Inference
by Judea Pearl

This highly original book will change the way social science researchers think about causality for years to come. Pearl has produced a new and powerful formal theory of causal analysis that will be great use to the serious empirical researcher.

Civil Liberties and Personal Freedoms

Religious Liberties

Freedom is something that has a strong religious grounding for me. In the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, when were true believers in Yahweh most free to worship as they knew they should? The period of the Judges. What kind of government existed during the period of the Judges? One of the most libertarian governments believers in Yahweh ever lived under in history. When the Israelites began to demand to "be like the rest of the world", and have kings rule over them, Yahweh warned them that what they were about to do would result in disaster. And it did. It ushered in a period of successive governments where, with few exceptions, true believers in Yahweh were persecuted.

The history of this very country demonstrates a similar principle. When classical liberal principles were followed, true believers in the Creator were allowed to prosper. But whenever those principles were abandoned, as in state churches, as in the witch hunts, and as in slavery snd segregation, monstrous evils resulted, invariably with persecutions against believers.

Again, I see people, most of whom are earnest believers, making these same mistakes. I will readily admit to being a sinner and even a scoundrel at times. But I know enough to know this. To have the freedom to worship as you see is right, you have to grant the freedom to others, to worship, or to not worship, as they will. You may preach at the pulpit all you wish on what is wrong and what is right, even if I think you're wrong. Even using the bully pulpit of public office to encourage morality is good. But trying to compel righteousness through legal authority never works. All we have to do is look at the Pharisees, Imperial Rome, and the Holy Roman Empire to see what man-devised theocracies become: that period of the Judges worked for the most part, and the closer America followed its example, the better a country, and dare I say, a more godly country, we were.

Prayer in Public School

That having been said, let me say what I believe is proper under our Constitution. I oppose in general, organized prayer in public school led by a public official such as a teacher: that clearly is not constitutional. I also believe that oaths, such as the Pledge of Allegiance, when made compulsory, are counter to the very concept of liberty spoken of in the oath.

However, students are not public officials, and I believe any attempt to censor a student's freedom of speech or assembly, during such things as valedictorian addresses and football games over religious conduct, or even the wearing of religious insignia, is equally unconstitutional.

Moreover, I do not believe that a teacher should be persecuted or expelled from a public school, for attempting to comfort a class during a tragedy with spontaneous prayer, as a teacher in New York was recently victimized. Nor do I believe a teacher should be compelled to supress his or her religious beliefs or hide them.

I do not believe that the First Amendment requires a school to avoid all reference to God at all costs. Forbiding establishment of a religion does not equate with censorship of religious expression.

Affirmative Action

I believe strongly in "The Dream" of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., that one day people would be judged not by the color of their skin but by the contact of their character. Accordingly, I oppose affirmative action based on race or ethnicity. I believe that making decisions on people based on their race is itself racist. Only affirmative actions programs based on factors which truly constitute disadvantagement, such as economic class, income, poverty, or developmental disabilities, are worthy concepts in my opinion.

I believe that all racial classifications by governments should be eliminated. This includes the census, which should ask no questions about race or ethnicity. The census has been used in the present day to racially profile, and in the 40's, to inter Japanese-Amercians in camps. As long as our government keeps data on race, our civil liberties are threatened by that data.

Regulation of the Internet

Simply stated, I do not believe the internet should be regulated in any way that any other area of society would not also be regulated. Most of the freedom of the net can be summed up in the First Amendment freedoms of speech and assembly. I also oppose moves by some to burden internet commerce with cumbersome tax requirements. The individual's right to privacy, property, and right to speak or not to speak should not be infringed by the government. The government should not use electronic or other means of covert surveillance of an individual's actions or private property without the consent of the owner or occupant.

I oppose all restrictions and regulations on the private development, sale, and use of encryption technology. I specifically oppose any requirement for disclosure of encryption methods or keys, including the government's proposals for so-called "key escrow" which is truly government access to keys, and any requirement for use of government-specified devices or protocols. We also oppose government classification of civilian research on encryption methods.

Protection of Children from Vice

The primary responsibility for protection and supervision of children rests with parents and guardians, not the state. I do not believe that vendors of any particular item, substance, literature, film, video, or web site, should be punished for having a minor simply stumble upon them, or having a minor seeking them out. Certainly I support easily verifiable measures such as carding for cigarettes, drugs, alcohol, firearms, and pornography. And of course, I support laws against child pornography. But I believe the responsiblity of a merchant is limited to what he can reasonably be expected to supervise, such as activity on his premises or in the vicinity of his premises.

The web is a complex issue, and some legislators want to go to extraordinary measures to somehow guarantee a minor will never see certain sites. But in most states, individuals under 18 cannot sign a contract without parental consent. Therefore, they cannot legally contract to purchase a computer, or contract to purchase web access, without the consent of a parent. Therefore, the real problem with kids getting into pornographic web sites really rests with parental failure to adequately supervise them. This is not the fault of either the state or of the site owner: therefore, they should not be held accountable for parental irresponsibility. Nor should the site owner be forced to make the decision for the parent of what a child should or should not see.

Pornography and other censorship

The entire wrinkle in the whole concept of censorship is "who decides". Even when censorship SEEMS like a good thing to do, there's always that bugaboo about who makes the decision. And that's just about the same thing in every other aspect of life, and it separates those who prefer liberty from those who prefer dependency. Government is the great enabler.

I believe the decision to filter pornographic sites on computers likely to be found in use by children in public places, such as schools or school libraries, should be made on a localized basis, not from a central government. We must be very careful so as not to infringe upon the liberty of individuals seeking free information.

Gambling

While gambling gone awry certainly could be defined as a potentially addictive and destructive behavior, I believe the states, by endorsement of their own gambling programs and lotteries, lack any moral standing to argue the continued illegality of gambling. While I believe that localities have the right to regulate whether gaming establishments shall exist in their community, and if so, where, I do not believe the states have any legitimate interest in the criminalization of fair gaming of any type.

I do, however, support the elimination of government operated lotteries. Of course, I realize this won't happen. Government is more addicted to gambling than we are.

Driving and Identity Cards

The issuance of drivers' licenses should rest solely on the ability of any given individual to drive, and on no other factor, such as their identity, their citizenship, their gender, or any other factor. Ideally, so many people drive anyway that having the government license drivers is a useless invasion of privacy.A better approach would be to have drivers licensed by private organizations, such as AAA, insurance companies, and what have you, when an entity such as a bank holding title on a car, an employer having to verify an individual's qualifications, or an insurance company verifying an auto insurance risk, needs to verify that an individual has adequate qualifications to drive. I do not believe one should have to be a citizen to be licensed to drive.

The practice of setting roadblocks to randomly test for intoxicated drivers is blatantly unconstitutional, and law enforcement should not be allowed to stop a driver without probable cause that a crime or violation is being committed, has been committed, or that an individual is reasonably expected to have a warrant for his arrest.

Moreover, I oppose the issuance by the government of identity cards, to be required for any purpose, such as employment, voting, or border crossing. This includes the widespread illegal use of the Social Security Number as a personal identification code, whether by government agencies or by intimidation of private companies by governments.

Self-Medication

I believe in the repeal of laws prohibiting self-medication, and believe that many currently controlled substances should be decontrolled. I believe in the legalization of any and all medicinal substances, unless it can be clearly demonstrated that either the claims made for the product are fraudulent, or that the dangers of the drug significantly outweigh any possible benefits. I support the legalization of medical marijuana and oppose the thuggery of the federal government against states which have legalized medical marijuana. I oppose any moves for prescription requirements for the purchase of vitamins, drugs, and similar substances. I believe that state discrimination against alternative medical disciplines such as oesteopathy, acupuncture, eastern and tribal medicine, wholistic medicine, herbal medicine, and chiropracy should cease.

Suicide and Assisted Suicide

I do not believe there should be laws against suicide. However, I do not believe that allowing others to assist in a suicide, or allowing someone to wilfully and artificially terminate a patient's life can be allowed. I have great concern when others enter into a decision, or attempt in influence a decision, of any individual to commit suicide, or make a self-decision that this is what the patient "would have wanted". I have yet to see assisted suicide laws that adequately protect a patient's right not to be killed or protect a patient's right to change their mind.

Other Victimless Crimes

Because only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes, I favor the repeal of any law creating "crimes" without victims, including prostitution and drug use. Moroever, I support federal legislation which would mandate that all prosecutions under federal, state, and local law must specify a victim specific and that the prosecution has the burden of proving injury in any prosecution.

The Right to Define Gender

I believe the right to define one's gender rests with the individual, and I believe the state has no interest in defining the gender of its citizens, on documents such as drivers' licenses, birth registrations, marriage certificates, etc. Just as discrimination on the basis of gender should not be legal, why should the state have an interest in defining gender at all, except in very narrow circumstances?

Freedom to Define Family

I support the rights of sexual minorities, and I support the rights of all people, regardless of orientation, to civilly marry whom they choose and love whom they choose.

Various "Definition of Marriage Initiatives" are frequently propsed by religious groups. They are statements to the effect, that the state should insert itself into YOUR family, and define YOUR family as valid or invalid. I wholehearted reject this concept and reject all DOMI's. Additionally, these initiatives perpetuate hatred and divisiveness toward gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transsexual people.

I go on record as stating I support domestic partnership arrangements, support the rights of sexual minorities to adopt, and support the freedom of all people to orient, define, and arrange their families in whatever manner they as individuals choose. I support allowing cities and counties to issue marriage certificates which are "gender neutral".

I also support the right of people to refuse civil marriage for religious conviction yet marry and be recognized as a family under their religious tradition. This is a point of gross discrimination against people who believe submitting your marriage to approval by the state is an abomination.

Sexual Liberties

I will work for the repeal of all state and federal laws regarding consensual sexual relations between adults, including prostitution, pandering, sodomy and solicitation, and the cessation of state oppression and harassment of sexual minorities. Nuisances such as street prostitution should be banned on a local level under nuisance and zoning ordinances. If a legal venue for buyers and sellers of sexual services is allowed somewhere, that it will be easier to rid localities of nuisance prostitution.

I will work for the repeal of all laws regulating or prohibiting the possession, use, sale, production, or distribution of sexually explicit material using only adults and distributed only to adults, independent of "socially redeeming value" or compliance with "community standards"; I do not personally support porn: I see most pornography as a corruption and distortion of real sexuality which is counterproductive to the promotion of healthy sexuality. However, who is it that should determine what is "healthy", what is "acceptible"? And even if someone is distributing material that is clearly perverse, does that individual deserve to be imprisoned for doing that? Not unless he has compelled someone, killed someone, or victimized a minor. I reject this concept of "if it is wrong, it should therefore be illegal".

Moreover, I do not subscribe to the American moral ethic on nudity that is unique to this nation. I personally am not offended by nudity, nor do I believe mere nudity is an unhealthy thing. I do not believe that sex is such a disgusting thing that having it seen is something which should be subject to prosecution and imprisonment. I believe that this puritan aversion some of us in America seem to have toward all things sexual is itself somewhat unnatural, and opens the gate for various perversions of sex.