The Constitutional Militant http://kdtunstall.com/ Libertarian Positions en-us Nucleus CMS v3.24 © Weblog http://backend.userland.com/rss http://kdtunstall.com//nucleus/nucleus2.gif The Constitutional Militant http://kdtunstall.com/ They Eat Their Own http://kdtunstall.com/index.php?itemid=23 Pronunciation: \'ka-ne-be,-li-zem\
Function: noun
Date: 1796
1 : the usually ritualistic eating of human flesh by a human being
2 : the eating of the flesh of an animal by another animal of the same kind
3 : an act of cannibalizing something

As a politically natured person, I watch the actions of not only my own party, but that of our tax subsidized big government adversaries. While I disagree with both of their jingoistic sound-bite sloganeering for the consumption of the masses, I respect their ability to inspire, solidify and expand their bases none the less.

This week and next we will be treated to infomercials on behalf of the two tax subsidized party candidates. I wait anxiously to see the total cost to the taxpayers for these infomercials. In 2004 the cost was in the neighborhood of $80 million for those in power to provide mass media consumption to the voting electorate.

The common theme that you will see in these productions is the quest, and often many requests, for unity and solidarity to "defeat" the evil candidate on the other side of the aisle. Their operatives and activists pick themselves up and prepare to work and volunteer for a candidate they did not support in the primary, all for their collective goal of defeating their opponent in the other party. While these "bodies" have not been deliberative for decades, they are the pinnacle and culmination of all the efforts of the party faithful who have labored to get out their message. I can only respect their dedication and ability to unify behind their "cause" though I disagree with their agenda. Then I look at my own house. If ever there was a finer example of a dysfunctional family, I know of no other. I have stood witness as good candidates were "bludgeoned" by the "purity police" leading up to an election. Slander and libel is the commonality here. Though the purity police claim to abhore fraud, they are inclined to engage in such activity as long as it isn't "one of them."

I hear those who profess that "the media" blacks us out, or that our candidates couldn’t convey "the message" to the electorate, as a reason for electoral losses. Another excuse is that "the playing field isn’t level." These are poor excuses at best and completely off target in reality. Though inequality certainly exists in election codes that protect the incumbent political parties, this myopic view of reality fails to grasp the fundamental issues that plague the libertarian movement.

My first experience with my party was to witness two party officers engage in a bitter dispute regarding the nominee after the convention. One supported the nominee, the other did not. I was dismayed that within the party structure itself, those who did not support the nominee could not lay down their rhetorical swords, and train their barbed tongues in the direction of the opposition. What is wrong with this picture?

When I began campaigning for one of our candidates, I watched as activists from other states attacked our candidate in this state. Their reason you ask? He wasn’t "libertarian enough." It did not matter that the candidate had been with the party since it's inception. It did not matter that they agreed with the candidate 98%. That 2% difference was just cause in their view to disseminate libelous statements regarding the candidate so that they could "insure" that he was not the first libertarian elected to national office. How noble is that?

Years of engagement between the so called "pragmatists" and "purists" in our state has proven that the two factions can work together for common goals, as well as guide and grow the party. We discovered that we desired the same goals. Our differences resided in the approach to achieve those goals. However, we are Texans and as such we pride ourselves in our hospitality, reason and mannerisms. Philosophy is a great subject for debate. However, we all realize that you cannot govern from a book of theory.

Now we find ourselves amidst an election for the President of the United States once more. In typical fashion, the caterwauling from the purity police has begun. The candidate "isn’t a true libertarian" is their battle cry. I find myself dismayed once more. One candidate who failed to garner the nomination has decided to run an ‘insurgent’ campaign in an attempt to deny the rightful nominee his place on the ballot. Let us call the kettle black shall we? This is political cannibalism.

Instead of setting aside our differences and uniting behind a common cause, this faction of ideologues work in an effort to discredit not only the party’s nominee, but the party itself. They demand purity while castigating and denigrating those with which they disagree, no matter how small the degree. Additionally, they accuse these candidates of being Reform Caucus candidates, though this group does not endorse candidates. It would appear that lying is acceptable to the ideologues. It is time for this nonsense to end.

Codified within the bylaws of the party is the ‘purpose’ of the organization. That purpose includes the goal of electing candidates who will move public policy in a libertarian direction and ‘support’ party and affiliate party candidates. Yet, we currently have affiliate party OFFICERS who are actively engaged in activities that subverts the efforts and the will of the National LP delegation. When will enough be enough? When will we see these affiliate party officers brought before the Judicial Committee, and their affiliation stripped? Must we go down that path? Must we call for heads to roll?

As a former state officer, my job was to support the candidates on both the state and federal level. Like it or not, the national delegation chose Bob Barr as the LP Presidential Candidate. While I do not agree with Bob Barr 100%, I will set aside my differences and work to garner votes for our candidate. Contrast this view with recent actions taken by the defeated candidate (Phillies) against the nominee (Barr).

Apparently, this affiliate officer feels that it is his job is to destroy the party because he failed to win the nomination. This type of reaction reminds me of a spoiled brat, throwing a temper tantrum because mom told him he couldn’t have a piece of candy. Is this something to be admired? I think not.

I believe that you are defined by your deeds, not your words. Your actions, not your rhetoric, make you who you are. In this context, we have seen Mr. Phillies demonstrate that he cannot behave at an adult level, choosing instead to act as a spoiled child who didn’t get his way.

I have asked Mr. Phillies if he would set his differences aside and work in unison with other party members. He refused. He has likened Barr, as a Libertarian candidate, to the “Imperial Wizard of the KKK” being nominated “to lead a party of African Americans.” This comment, quoted often in the press, from a sitting party officer I find repugnant.

I for one believe that Mr. Phillies, as chair of an affiliate party, and the state party he represents, should be stripped of ‘affiliate’ status and that the state party should be reorganized. In doing so, Mr. Phillies should be barred from ever serving in an official capacity again. This may seem to be ‘excessive’ to some. However, no other mechanism exists with respect to disciplining an officer of an "affiliate" party. Perhaps, with an eye on the future, we should provide the Judicial Committee the ability to strip the credentials from an individual thus barring them from becoming a delegate. However, that does not exist at this time.

This action is not meant to ‘stifle dissent.’ On the contrary, it is simply a matter of discipline to correct childish behavior. Adults will debate. Children will argue, point fingers and utilize pejoratives to belittle their adversaries. I have had the pleasure of watching the LP mature into a viable alternative party. We can ill afford the actions of childish ideologues result in a backlide to irrelevancy.

You wish to know why LP candidates don’t win elections. Here is a shining example. Some Libertarians feel that they must eat their own.
]]> National http://kdtunstall.com/index.php?itemid=23 Fri, 29 Aug 2008 13:48:38 -0500 Give Me Liberty http://kdtunstall.com/index.php?itemid=22 “quaint” and “outdated.” Indeed, I hold the ideals of the founders of our nation in high esteem. They were not perfect men by any stretch of the imagination, nor the Constitution a perfect document. However, both accomplished something never before realized in history. A nation was born where the framework established that government obeyed the laws of the people, and the people were the sovereigns of a nation.

These very detractors are often those who promote a concept where the rule of law applies only to those outside their immediate peer group. Regardless of political positions, be they leaning right, left or somewhere outside of the “mainstream,” they promote the concept that government may employ whatever measures necessary to advance their agenda regardless of the ramifications to those who are not in agreement with their goals.

Previously, I discussed what the positions of our founders were with respect to “authority” provided to the federal government under the Constitution. The premise that no authority exists outside of those codified under Article I, Section 8 can be clearly proven by a simple glance at not only the IX’th and X’th amendments, but the Federalist / Anti-Federalist papers and the individual writings of Madison, Jefferson et al. Why then do proponents of authoritarianism and statism constantly denigrate these positions and promote resistance to lawful authority? Today, we live in a politically correct world where federal authority pervades our lives with malicious intent. Similar to the time when the Alien and Sedition Act was thrust upon our nation, we must remember the response of our most fervent of founding political thinkers.

Virginia’s response to this egregious assault on liberty was the Virginia Resolution of 1798 which in parts stated:

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact [the Constitution]


and continues

the General Assembly doth particularly protest against the palpable and alarming infractions of the Constitution, in the two late cases of the "Alien and Sedition Acts" passed at the last session of Congress; the first of which exercises a power no where delegated to the federal government, and which by uniting legislative and judicial powers to those of executive, subverts the general principles of free government


Kentucky’s followed in short order by producing the Kentucky Resolution of 1798 which in part stated:

That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.


and continued:

That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations, and no other crimes, whatsoever

Kentucky felt it necessary to reiterate its position with the Kentucky Resolution of 1799 which in part stated:

That if those who administer the general government be permitted to transgress the limits fixed by that compact [the Constitution], by a total disregard to the special delegations of power therein contained, an annihilation of the state governments... will be the inevitable consequence.......


I cannot help but wonder what has become of such men (or women) who would don the mantle of leadership and demand that the federal government act within the bounds of the authority granted to it by the individual states. Where are our state elected officials? Where is their leadership? Why do they remain silent regarding such unconstitutional laws such as The Patriot Act (federal spying on the citizens without probable cause or warrant) and the Military Commissions Act (suspension of habeas corpus)? Who will stand up for what is right and lead our people back to our roots of liberty?

Whenever I engage someone who states “if it isn’t prohibited (federal authority) by the Constitution, then it is legal,” I have the urge to strike out against their ignorance and perfidy. There is a phrase for those who promote resistance to lawful authority [the Constitution]. That phrase is sedition. It is long past the time we call the kettle black and call these nefarious people to task.

I for one will no longer remain politically correct for to do so only invites further transgressions against our liberty. My creator granted to me such rights as only to be limited and restrained to the extent of violating the equal rights of another. This is the essence of natural rights on which this nation was founded. Those who contend that government grants me my rights I will view as a mortal enemy to liberty. For those who refuse to take a stand on these issues, I am reminded of the following quote by Samuel Adams:

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace.

We ask not your counsels or your arms.
Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”


It is high time that we as a people reject the politics of derision and embrace the mutual goal of returning our nation to its roots of individual liberty and personal responsibility. I ask you to join me in this endeavor. Get involved and make a difference. Challenge those who would rule over us as opposed to representing the interests of the people. Begin by helping clean your own house (locally) and rejecting those moneyed politicians who place the profits of their special interest benefactors above the rights of the people. Look beyond parties and follow the money. Become an informed citizen, for only an informed electorate can be the guardian of liberty.
]]> General http://kdtunstall.com/index.php?itemid=22 Fri, 23 Nov 2007 16:20:07 -0600 University of Houston Speech (Video) http://kdtunstall.com/index.php?itemid=21 I need a haircut.

You can watch this video on youtube if you are having problems watching from the blog.
Here is the link....

YouTube Video

Here is a google video of Willie's presentation:

Google Video

It is about an hour long]]> General http://kdtunstall.com/index.php?itemid=21 Tue, 14 Aug 2007 22:40:35 -0500 University of Houston Speech http://kdtunstall.com/index.php?itemid=20


It is good to be back at the University of Houston.
It is a place where I wiled away hours of my misspent youth in the QUEST for knowledge, both academic and otherwise.

I am honored to be here this evening.
It is not often that one has the opportunity to meet, much less introduce a TRUE American hero.

America today has little resemblance with the nation of my youth.
Liberty has been forsaken in the name of security.
We were once the home of the brave.
Today, we are fed a daily dose of fear by the corporate main stream media.We are told by the media that our “Heroes” should be the likes of Berry Bonds and Kobe Bryant.
While I will agree that excelling in sports may be admirable, it simply can not compare to the common man who faces adversity and exhibits exceptional bravery and fortitude.

I was taught to believe that TRUTH was the key to maintaining a free society.
Truth in actions or deeds, truth in advertising and truth in government were once important to our people.
Yet, this is not the same country that I grew up in.
These attributes have all but been forgotten.

Honesty, integrity and pursuit of TRUTH were the most admirable of qualities.
Now, those qualities are the impetus of ridicule, scorn and marginalization by both the ruling elite and their corporate media enablers.

In their attempt to obfuscate any effort to cast light on certain events, those who seek to advance their agenda will often label those who seek the truth as “conspiracy theorists.”

This agenda is often antithetical to the concept of liberty itself.
This agenda could even be considered seditious.
For certainly this agenda promotes the resistance to lawful authority, that authority being our constitution and our individual sovereignty.

Yet, what is the essence of a conspiracy theory?
A conspiracy, an act of conspiring, or an act in harmony towards a common end is a legitimate description of the events that surround September 11th, while a theory is a hypothesis or a conjecture assumed for the sake of investigation.

Indeed, THE EVENTS PROCLAIMED AS “TRUTH” BY OUR GOVERNMENT, and their corporate media enablers, is a perfect example of a “conspiracy theory.
For, their “theory” has yet to be proven and a conspiracy certainly exists.

Today we are often faced with difficult decisions.
One such decision is whether to maintain the status quo, or embark on a proclaimed “radical” shift towards our origins of political philosophy.

Those decisions are often labeled with negative monikers such as “wasted votes” or labeling candidates as not “viable.”
Yet, these monikers are often provided to us by those who promote a “conspiracy theory,” and castigate those who seek only TRUTH.

I ask you……….do you really trust “THEM?”

Or, will you educate yourself on the issues, become an informed voter and exercise your duty to protect our Republic from the enemies of both liberty and the indeed the constitution itself?

Our speaker has shown those exceptional qualities once exalted by our society.
He has certainly paid the price for this exhibition.
Ridiculed by some but not disheartened, he stands before you tonight.
He is a glimmer of hope and resolve.

He rejected the temptation of becoming part of the problem, and instead elected to strive for the solution.

Regardless of what you may consider yourself on a political scale, be it left, right or in the middle, we should all seek the same goal, that goal being ACCOUNTABILITY.
For without accountability, we are simply subjects……..to a ruling elite and a nation devolved into ignorance, fear and deceit.

My battles have involved issues which defend our “personal” liberties against the corporatism that exists and pervades our local politics. This corporatism threatens our very rights of private property, privacy and independence.
Exposing the entrenched special interests and demanding truth has been key to my efforts

Our speaker battles these very elements on a much larger scale.
With that in mind, I am truly honored to introduce to you a TRUE American hero.

Mr. William Rodriguez.


Upon listening to Mr. Rodriquez and his realizing the burden he carries, I have the utmost respect for this man. I would advise everyone to listen or watch some of the videos on the internet of his presentation. He draws no conclusions. He simply is asking the tough questions.]]> General http://kdtunstall.com/index.php?itemid=20 Sun, 12 Aug 2007 12:12:35 -0500 Government Run Amok http://kdtunstall.com/index.php?itemid=18
I have taken the liberty, as a matter of portraying simple fact, to post the ordinance on this site. I believe all that visit this site are more than capable of reading and comprehending the "language" contained in the ordinance. I have warned many, that with politicians you must watch what they do and ignore what they say. In this context, our city representatives have failed in their obligation to respect the rights and property of the citizens and attempted to transfer liability away from the city.

Furthermore, I would like to remind all persons that this is not a matter of preventing blight, abandonment or neglected properties. The issue at hand is who is responsible to repair or maintain city (public) owned property. What follows is the statement I read to the assembly.

I would like to thank you for the opportunity to address you this evening.
My name is Kevin Tunstall. I am a homeowner in this community and a business owner in Stafford.

I was made aware of this ordinance only a few days ago. Now, I have studied the ordinance and must agree with the concerned citizens of this community that this ordinance is overtly hostile to both our home and business owners. While I understand the desire to maintain a marketable appearance, this measure has too many problems and too much possibility for abuse.

Regardless of whether or not the ordinance has been effective, I would like to point out a few flaws I was able to recognize in my short study of the ordinance.

First and foremost, no member of this community should be forced to pay for the repair of property that they DO NOT OWN. Not only would this be unfair, it could also be construed as a violation of our rights under the Texas Constitution. Money is property. Having money seized without due process, is a violation of the Constitution. Making an appeal, to one who stands to gain from the seizure, can not be considered as due process.

Second, providing criminal penalties for what is essentially a civil dispute is a tactic utilized by autocratic regimes throughout history. These types of measures almost always target the less affluent. How can a property owner commit a crime when they have not violated the life, rights or property of another?

Third, the city has given itself the authority to apply liens and foreclose on properties whose owners fail to comply. This provision provides too much power to the government and invites abuse.

This ordinance perhaps was penned to address blight and neglected property. However, the fact remains that it IS NOT the responsibility of any property owner to repair "infrastructure" that is owned by another.

I appreciate the council members who have decided to revisit this issue. I simply can not help but question their motives. All council members, excluding Mr. Kolaja voted for this ordinance. However, Mr. Kolaja did not vote against the measure either. Could we be seeing a change of position due to the nearing election cycle?

I can only hope that the council will reconsider its current position on this ordinance. However, the time for making that decision is drawing to a close. For if our local government continues to remain this hostile to the property owners of this community, then the voters will be left little recourse than to replace those who have forgotten who they work for. I believe competition to be a good thing.

Thank You


Some council members seemed understanding of the implications surrounding the issue. However, one council member reacted with contempt towards the concerns of the citizens. He claimed that the ordinance in question had nothing to do with my statement, though evidence proves otherwise. He claimed the issue was about who would pay for sidewalk repairs, though the issue is one of liability. He admitted that SOMETIMES citizens "have valid ideas," as opposed to government employees. I suppose some elected officials no longer consider themselves citizens, but the "ruling elite."

What struck me as especially "haughty" was his statement that we (the citizens) shouldn't mind the increased taxes required to maintain city infrastructure. Additionally, this city council representative implied that we should be grateful that the city allows us to "use" the right-of-way located at the back of our property. Was he implying that the city should be charging rent?

As a reminder, Missouri City has an image problem. The city imposes higher taxes and more burdensome regulations than our neighboring communities. Recently the city government hired a consulting firm to "revamp" the city's image. Our government wishes to shed the "Misery City" image it now holds. Instead of wasting our hard-earned money on ridiculous endeavors, perhaps our local leaders should look into a mirror to locate the source of the problem. Making the city a more inviting place in which to relocate and live could eliminate the city's negative image and reputation. There is nothing wrong with the name of our city. There is everything wrong with a bloated unaccountable bureaucracy run amok.]]> Local http://kdtunstall.com/index.php?itemid=18 Thu, 8 Feb 2007 15:19:09 -0600 Response to Digg Post http://kdtunstall.com/index.php?itemid=17 digg.com posed the following:

I often hear a libertarian ’s opinion on something and end up agreeing. However, I’m still clueless about a lot of libertarian positions, so I’ve posted 13 questions in the first comment. I’m posting this on Digg because it seems a lot of members lean libertarian. The link just takes you to Wikipedia. Thanks for helping me understand.

Then, the poster posed the following questions. I have provided my responses. Mind you, I do not claim to speak for all / any libertarians other than myself. I do, however, believe that my responses are reasonable. Please take the time to comment.

Here are my 13 questions about libertarian philosophy. I know that not all libertarians will agree on every issue, and that some questions might even divide libertarians. Also, I know some might seem pointed or hypothetical, but I’m looking for genuine responses. When replying, it could help to indicate whether or not you consider yourself a libertarian as well. Thanks for helping me understand.

1. Should the federal government protect the environment? Should there be national parks or endangered species laws?
The environment, something that we deem The Commons, is a commodity that must be preserved and protected for future generations. That does not mean that the government should have the authority to condemn the land and take property from the rightful owner. It simply means that government should punish those who damage the commons, as it results in harm to others.

As a simplistic example consider the following. A factory pollutes both a nearby stream and pumps toxins into the air. Both the air and water flow away from the factory and as a result damage the property and health of others. One could consider this a simple case of trespassing, or one could simply state that the factory is indeed littering on the neighbor’s property (physical) or the commons (air and water). Why then would not government intervene and force the factory to cease and desist in such activity? I would contend that if it is government’s duty to protect the rights and property of the citizens, and a citizen has a right NOT to breathe or drink pollution on their property as a result of the actions of a bad neighbor, then government has authority to intervene. Therefore, they (the factory) can either insure that the air and water that comes to my property does not contain any of their litter (toxins), or they should face criminal prosecution for their actions.

I would disagree that it is the federal government’s responsibility to act at such a level. There is no authority delegated to the federal government, by the individual states via the constitution, to do so. That does not imply that I would not consider providing the federal government said authority via amendment. I hold the same view with respect to endangered species. It is strictly a state function and would be better served at that level. Ironically, the federal government is the largest polluter in our nation. Yet, they remain immune from regulation.

While it is true that many libertarians would privatize everything, including parks, I do not fall into that camp. I have traveled extensively in the southern half of our nation (and some northern parts). There is much land that is simply not inhabitable by humans (lack of water). Whether this is federal or state jurisdiction is a question of whether or not the individual state legislature has “sold” the land to the federal government (Article I, Section 8 [17] USC).

2. Should food companies be required to list the ingredients on the package? If not, should there be a punishment for printing false information on food product packages, or would the only determent be how customers would react if they found out they were lied to.

Congress has the authority to regulate interstate and international commerce. As such, requiring ingredients to be labeled as a condition to participate in a market, to export and import between the states and nation, is acceptable from my point of view. Publishing false information on a food package is a form of fraud. As such, any and all incidents of this type should be dealt with on a criminal level. Providing sufficient punishment via incarceration and de-capitalization would be a large deterrent to acting in such a fashion.

3. I’ve gained enough info to understand that libertarians are against federal drug laws, but what about state or city drug laws? Also, are federal drug laws unconstitutional?

On a philosophical level, what business is it of government what I ingest? However, if the ingestion of any particular substance leads to bad behavior, then we have a different situation. Are federal drug laws unconstitutional? To answer that question, simply attempt to find where in the constitution or amendments that the individual states have delegated this authority to the federal government. As it does not exist (as did the XVIII / XXI amendments), any action by the federal government regulating “drugs” is unconstitutional.

As far as an individual state regulating the production / dispensing / use of a substance, that would depend on their individual state constitutions. I would personally be opposed to providing government authority over individual use of a substance, provided it was utilized in a responsible manner. I would vehemently agree that any bad behavior as a result of said use should be dealt with firmly and swiftly. As commercial production and dispensing of substances constitutes trade, the government has the authority to regulate these actions. Personal production for self-use is an inalienable right.

4. Should there be a post office?

The establishment of post offices is granted to Congress in Article I, Section 8 [7] USC. However, the government should not hold a monopoly on delivery of products. We have seen in my lifetime, the emergence of private companies that provide these types of services (UPS, FedEx, etc.). However, the private sector is prevented from competing with USPS in first and third class mail. This is an unfair advantage and should be resolved. For a very in-depth article including references, please see: www.free.org

5. Should interstate highways even exist? Furthermore, should there be state-funded roads, or should all roads be ran by companies? Companies provide us with electricity we have to pay for, so why don’t companies provide us with roads we have to pay for.

The authority to establish post roads is granted to the federal government in the same section mentioned above. As population has grown dramatically, the efficiency of these roads have decreased. The Interstate Highway system, though constitutional, should never be used as a hammer to regulate individual state behavior. This constitutes extortion.

One need only look at the relation of the federal government and the abuse of state sovereignty, with regard to draconian laws regulating personal behavior, to see the result of this practice. Again, government should not have a monopoly in providing transportation services to the public.

Additionally, only government holds the power of eminent domain. This power must NEVER be utilized to take from an individual to provide material profit to another. That is why the Libertarian Party of Texas is fighting against the Trans Texas Corridor (a.k.a. NAFTA Super Highway). This particular project will create a 400-yard swath through our state establishing an International Free Trade zone where the Constitution need not apply. I could write a whole book on eminent domain abuse, and perhaps will with time.

6. Should there be anti-monopoly laws, or should the market take care of itself?

The free market precludes the ability for monopolies to emerge. True competition always reduces cost and fosters innovation. Monopolies are a creation of government. The price fixing associated with monopolies is a form of fraud. History has shown that monopolies have only formed with the assistance of government regulations, which stifle competition. Should there be anti-monopoly laws? I think so.

7. Should any government entity prevent restaurants from serving food or items that are known to be bad for us? A lot of libertarians disagree with the upcoming trans fat ban in NYC, but trans fat is pretty much just bad for us. What if restaurants still served our food on plates with lead paint? It’s bad, but people could chose not to eat there.

Government’s function is to protect the RIGHTS and PROPERTY of the citizens and resolve disputes. It has no authority to govern personal behavior until that behavior violates the life, rights or property of another. The restaurant in which you dine is the private property of the owner. As the restaurant owner is not violating the rights or property of another, why is government involved? As an adult, I am perfectly capable of making a decision on what / how much to eat. I know that pissing on an electric fence could be detrimental to my health. However, even I have the right to be an idiot if I wish.

8. I’ve gathered that libertarians don’t like seatbelt laws, but should there be laws requiring parents to make their children under 18 wear seatbelts? With that said, should it still be illegal for parents to give children alcohol?

Does the government own my children? My job as a parent is very similar to government’s relationship to me. I am the protector of my child’s rights until they reach the age of accountability. A child has a right not to be abused or exploited. So too a parent has a responsibility to provide a safe and nurturing environment for their children. The decision on when / how to allow a child to drink, while the purview of the parent, can also fall into the abused or exploited category.

As an example, we see that Europeans serving wine with water to their children quite early. Would one contend that European children are somehow decedent or degenerates because of this? Of course not. Would one contend that European parents are by nature abusive towards their children? Statistics indicate the opposite. If the child were to become intoxicated, then I would consider that abusive. That said, I had my first beer upon graduating eighth grade at a campout. My parents, however, were unaware.

Back then, there were no criminal penalties for allowing a minor to have a drink at a bar as long as their parent was present and the child and parent remained sober. I must admit that on occasion I did visit such establishments and if lucky (I considered), might be served a beer or glass of wine. This is where I learned the skills of Backgammon and Billiards, which in turn provided me the means of paying for college. It is again a situation where government is regulating personal actions on the premise that it "might" lead to bad behavior. Governmental authority only begins at the point where bad behavior is initiated.

9. Should there be laws that say where guns are allowed, or should it be up to the owner of the place?

The federal government has absolutely no authority to regulate “arms.” Depending on the constitutions of an individual state will dictate whether the people have delegated this authority to their local government. In Texas, the state government only has authority to “regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.” Unless I am violating the rights or property of another, the government should stay out of my business.

I once asked a friend from California if she felt she had a “right” to know how many guns I owned though I lived in Texas. She responded that she did indeed feel she had that right to breach my privacy. I asked her, on the same token, if she felt I should have the right to know whom she slept with, how often, when and where? She claimed that her “personal” life was a matter of privacy. If I am not violating the right of another, is this not hypocrisy? The bottom line is that no one has a right to interfere with the equal rights of another.

10. Should there be public education systems, or should all schools be private? I’m sure some charity would open free schools, but they wouldn’t be ran by any sort of government

Again, this is a constitutional matter. The federal government has no authority to regulate education. However, and obviously depending on the individual state, some do have authority to provide education. In Texas, this is found under Article 7.

Like post offices and roads, government should not hold a monopoly on these areas of our lives. Private schools have a much better rate of success than government ran facilities. Referring back to my obligations as a parent, providing my child with an education is my responsibility. My oldest child has attended public education for 5 years. It will be her last year until she reaches high school. The middle school in my neighborhood is simply not a safe environment. Nor are the majority of the students even members of my community. Now, do you think it fair for me to be taxed for running this dangerous facility while paying private tuition to educate my child?

The core of this issue is parental rights and responsibilities. Government run facilities provide fundamental or basic education while private entities tend to teach critical thinking abilities. Additionally, government run facilities indoctrinate children to believing that government provides them with their rights and can freely take them away as opposed to rights being inalienable with government being responsible for protecting those rights.

11. Should it be illegal for an employer to discriminate by race when hiring?

Government can not regulate the hearts and minds of men. Attempting to do so will only foster resentment and entrench the positions of those who it proposes to regulate. It can, however, insure discrimination is absent from companies who seek to do business with the government as a condition to receiving a contract.

12. Libertarians seem to hold private property in high value. Should people be allowed to own airspace?

In my opinion, no. These are what I consider the commons.

13. If our society were truly libertarian, what type of legislation would congress work on?

My top ten are the following:


  • Requiring a declaration of war to initiate military force.

  • Ending eminent domain abuse

  • Eliminate unconstitutional spending thus drastically reducing the budget.

  • End corporate personage.

  • Repeal of the XVI’th amendment and replace all current taxes with an excise tax such as the Automated Payment Transaction Tax.

  • Return all criminal matters to the states.

  • End corporate welfare.

  • Investigate and punish governmental abuse.

  • Put an end to NAFTA, CAFTA, FTAA, WTO and other “agreements” that breach our sovereignty.

  • Get rid of the IRS and the Federal Reserve.



I can come up with much more.

Thomas Jefferson perhaps summed it up the best when he said “No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him. ...the idea is quite unfounded that on entering into society we give up any natural rights.”

One must also understand that there are two basic factions of the Libertarian Party. On one hand you have the anarcho-capitalists. On the other hand, you have the pragmatists and constitutionalists. Both factions wish as little governmental intrusion in our personal lives as possible. However, we have very different ideas on how to achieve this goal.

Most of the problems that our society faces today could be resolved or greatly reduced if we simply adhered to the wisdom codified by our founding fathers in the Constitution. Though not perfect, it is perhaps the closest we have yet to come with respect to guarding individual liberty. I do not look to government to solve my problems or provide for my family. I look to government only to protect my rights and property and to resolve disputes that may arise as a result of interaction with others.

As always, your comments will be appreciated.
]]> General http://kdtunstall.com/index.php?itemid=17 Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:40:05 -0600 Recent Solicitation http://kdtunstall.com/index.php?itemid=16
Julie: Hello, this is Julie Lee with the NRCC (National Republican Congressional Committee). I am working with Congressman Tom Cole and would like to speak to Mr. Tunstall.

KT: Speaking, may I help you?

JL: Mr. Tunstall?

KT: Yes?

JL: This is Julie Lee with the NRCC. I am calling today on behalf of Congressman Cole, the chairman of the NRCC, regarding government regulations and their effect on small business leaders in your community.

KT: OK

JL: I have a recorded message from Congressman Cole, could you spare a few minutes to listen?

KT: Sure



Hi, my name is Tom Cole, head of the NRCC, and I am reaching out to small business owners who would like to affect the amount of regulations imposed upon them by Congress. We are seeking conservative business owners, such as yourself, with experience and integrity to help guide our congressional delegation with regard to their must urgent concerns of how regulation affects their ability to compete in today's economy. We value your input and hope that your contribution will guide our current and future congressional members as they write legislation affecting your ability to run your business.


JL: Hello Mr. Tunstall?

KT: Yes

JL: Did you listen to the recording?

KT: Yes I did

JL: We would like to extend an invitation to serve as "Honorary Chairman" of our "Small Business Advisory Panel" for Texas. As such, you would be able to participate in our congressional surveys, have your name printed in the Wall Street Journal and be invited to attend the Presidential Dinner to honor small business owners, the fastest growing sector of the American economy. Would you be interested?

KT: What does it require?

JL: Participation is not required but would be appreciated.

KT: How much does it cost?

JL: There is no required cost Mr. Tunstall, we simply ask that you assist in sponsoring the full page advertisement in the Wall Street Journal. For your small contribution of $300, you will receive a signed picture of the president, a thank you letter from Mr. Cole, a ceremonial gavel as the Honorary State Chairman, engraved with your name and . All of which may be displayed proudly in your office. You will also receive our monthly newsletter.

KT: Ms. Lee, may I call you Julie?

JL: Yes sir

KT: Let me explain a bit about myself so you may understand a bit better where I am coming from.

JL: OK

KT: I have worked in the healthcare industry for 16 years and my industry has undergone a drastic series of increased regulations imposed by the previous Republican congress. They've not only made the industry non-profitable, but their latest regulation will in effect force 2/3 of the providers in my sector out of business by the end of this year. So please explain to me, if you will, why I should support a group of so called "conservatives" who have increased the size of government, increased burdensome regulations, increased the national debt and are currently trying to bankrupt my family?

JL: Uhhhh…..well that is why we need voices such as yours on our advisory board.

KT: Oh please Julie, allow me to continue.
You see, I submitted my application to have "permission" to be paid for the services that I am required to provide under law in July of last year. Since that time, I have been denied that "permission" yet I remain obligated, under federal law, to continue to provide those very same services without hope of compensation. Now, I don't mind running a "non-profit" entity. However, don't you think it would at least be fair if I were compensated for the cost of the products and services that I am required to provide?

JL: Yes sir.

KT: Furthermore, I am not new to politics. You see, I worked on Congressman Ron Paul's last campaign. I know the difference between a true conservative and those who simply pay lip service to small business owners while empowering their "publicly-traded" competitors with regulations intended to stifle competition and innovation. That is why I left the GOP and joined the only party that is principled to the concept of smaller government, less regulation and might I add Constitutional compliance. I am not only a business owner, a political activist, but I am also the Vice-Chairman of the Libertarian Party of the State of Texas. Now, don't you believe that there might be a conflict of interest for me to provide financial assistance to a group who has burdened my industry with more regulations, runs candidates who are opposed to the concepts embodied in the Constitution and has completely turned their backs on the ideals promoted by Berry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan?

JL: Again, Mr. Tunstall that is why your opinion means so much to us.

KT: Well Julie I'll make this deal for you and you can accept it for what it is worth. I do not mind giving you my "opinions" and I will provide you with honest answers based upon my experience and knowledge of my industry. However, I cannot provide financial support to a group that I am actively engaged against in a struggle to financially survive. I will not provide financial assistance to a group, who has tried to destroy the Constitution, makes deals with our enemies and wishes to enslave my children. If you can accept these terms then I'll be glad to participate.

JL: Thank you very much Mr. Tunstall. If you'll go to this website and register, you can begin voicing your opinion today.


Julie then provided me with the necessary information to begin "voicing my concerns" to her corporate masters. Don't ask me how I was able to speak so eloquently on the fly. Perhaps those public speaking engagements are helping me with my diction. I have been known to cross the party line in the past. No doubt I will do so in the future. However, I will only support candidates that uphold their oath of office. Currently, there is only one such man.

What have we become when we can no longer engage in peaceful trade without permission from the government? Is that not by definition of Socialism? I can only hope that my struggle with the government does not end in financial disaster for my family. I am not confident of that possibility at this point. I grow tired of those who would steal from me in order to provide favors to others. They say that karma is a bitch and paybacks will be hell. Only time will tell.
]]> National http://kdtunstall.com/index.php?itemid=16 Thu, 25 Jan 2007 20:16:16 -0600 Growing Pains http://kdtunstall.com/index.php?itemid=15
I find it troubling that one of the founders of the party, Mr. Nolan, felt obliged to denigrate those in the party who work towards making the LP a relevant faction of the American Body Politic. I dislike the notion of being at odds with one of the founders of the political party which I belong, yet felt compelled to refute the position which he is promoting. We all know that there are elements within the libertarian movement who would relegate activities based solely upon spreading philosophy. Likewise, another faction would have us work solely on electoral success. I contend that it will take both in order to gain any success whatsoever.

What I find very puzzling about Mr. Nolan’s position is his apparent contradiction. Mr. Nolan proposed at the Ohio Libertarian Convention in June 2006 that the mission statement should read as such:

“The mission of the Libertarian Party is to move public policy in a libertarian direction by building a network of pro-freedom activists who can effectively support positive policy changes and oppose negative changes by working within the political process on an issue-by-issue basis.” 1


How then, may I inquire, would Mr. Nolan propose to “move public policy…. within the political process?” I have often posed this same question to members of the anarcho-purist sect of the LP and have yet to receive a satisfactory answer. The solutions I have received were generally based upon “educating the people” on libertarian philosophy. Yet, the Libertarian Party has done exactly that for the past 35 years with scant success.

Mr. Nolan opines that:

“I noted that while the LP grew steadily, and at an accelerating pace, up through the year 2000, membership and revenues have declined markedly since then. If our prior growth pattern had continued, our membership today would be at least double what it was six years ago. In reality, it is barely half as large. Clearly, some of the fall-off was caused by the events of 9/11/2001, but we can’t use that excuse forever!” 2


I would contend that this is a direct result of “preaching” to the masses as opposed to running qualified candidates and strategic campaigns. Additionally, Mr. Nolan provides specious statistics. His figures are based upon individuals who paid dues to the LNC over that same period of time. True, the number of dues paying members peaked in 1999 at 33495. It has contracted since that time especially in consideration that “dues” are no longer imposed on members of the party. I suppose if we utilized this methodology today, we could state that the LP has NO members, but we all know that a statement to that effect would not be accurate.

Mr. Nolan continues:

“I next noted that from the very beginning, the LP was intended primarily as a vehicle for building a network of activists and spreading libertarian ideas to the American public. Back in 1971 I listed seven reasons to form a libertarian political party, and electing people to office was the last item on the list – almost an afterthought.”3


While this position is correct within the framework of a fledgling organization, I would hope that everyone agrees that the Libertarian Party has grown since 1971. Again, I would simply ask, how do we move “public policy” into a libertarian direction without actually electing people to office?

This apparent conflict in ideals I will pen the term “The Nolan Paradox.” It reminds me of my daughter expressing her desire to be treated as an adult. However, upon reaching the age where responsibilities begin, she now longs for the days when she could simply spend her days in carefree distractions. I will come back to this mindset in due course.

In a recent article at rationalreview.com Mr. Nolan continues promoting his theory. He pontificates that:

“This is a success rate of about 1.3%. It is fairly typical of how we do, year after year. And yet a vociferous faction within the LP continues to say that our "primary mission" is to elect people to office.”4


I will agree that this is typical. However, I will not agree on the cause of the results. I would state that it is typical in that the same tactic of “preaching philosophy” has been employed with little to no success. Additionally, when we do see viable campaigns emerge, we often find the candidate under attack by the anarcho-purist element within the LP itself. I have a whole list of people that sent me hate mail throughout the campaign, demanding that the candidate make a statement on this position or that. Failure to comply meant that you were not libertarian enough and the libelous attacks across the net would begin shortly thereafter.

Expanding on this train of thought, Mr. Nolan continues:

“This, I will submit, is stupid. When you define your mission as something you're not good at, people stop taking you seriously after awhile. They conclude that you are either delusional or dishonest”5


I would agree with Mr. Nolan that many libertarians are “not good at” running campaigns. They are neophytes in that sense. However, there are others that do quite well. To refute this presumption, one need only look at the resent LP results in Texas. The “signature” candidate raised and spent around $50,000 and received 6.1% of the vote in what can only be considered a three-way race. Though the “official” GOP candidate was a write-in, the electronic voting machines made it very simple to execute that choice. The same candidate received 18.9% in the special election.

These types of candidates are those that “boost” the party’s election totals. Compare that with the 2% that Mr. Nolan received and you may understand my angst when I read opinion such as his. Mr. Nolan comes to the conclusion that:

“It is time for us to recognize, as we once did, that for the foreseeable future the primary mission of the Libertarian Party is NOT electing people to office.”6


I will whole-heartedly disagree with this statement. I am not interested in being in a philosophy club or a debating society. I am here to attempt to move public policy towards libertarian philosophy. However, unlike Mr. Nolan, I understand that unless you have the ability to change the policy by having libertarians in office, then the steady march towards despotism will continue to be the result. The belief that the masses will convert upon hearing libertarian philosophy has a tried and true track record of failure.

If you recall, I mentioned my daughter’s desire to revert to the age of play and no responsibility? I observe her make mistakes and become frustrated when she is not proficient at certain tasks. With time, she masters an activity and moves on to more difficult items. I would like to think that the LP is exhibiting signs of maturity in the past few years. Sure, there are those who will view years gone by with nostalgia. I can even appreciate their opinions and points of view, at least on a philosophical basis. I am relieved, however, that the “dead hand of the past” is no longer steering the rudder.


1. Nolan's speech
2. ibid
3. ibid
4. RationalReview.com
5. ibid
6. ibid
]]> National http://kdtunstall.com/index.php?itemid=15 Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:12:29 -0600 Bill of Rights Day Speech http://kdtunstall.com/index.php?itemid=14
THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.In the minds of the Founders, we are born with rights by the simple fact of existence, as identified by John Locke and others in the 1600s, and written by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence in 1776. "We hold these truths to be self-evident," Jefferson wrote. Humans are "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights...." These rights are clear and obvious, the Founders repeatedly said. They belong to us from birth, as opposed to something the Constitution - or any government - can hand to us.

Some of our founders felt that a “bill of rights” was indeed unwarranted. In the opening sentence of the Constitution, Hamilton argued, "We, The People" created this government, and therefore "We, The People" hold all the rights.

Thomas Jefferson, however, foresaw a time when the concepts so fundamental to the founding of America could be forgotten by the people. He began to agitate for at least a rudimentary statement of rights as amendments to the Constitution, laying out those main areas where government could never intrude into our lives.

Although the purpose of the Constitution wasn't to grant rights to people, Jefferson felt it was necessary to be unambiguous about the reality that humans are the holders of rights, and that in no way was the new government of the United States to ever infringe on those rights.

In an October 17, 1788 letter to Jefferson, Madison initially took Hamilton's position, writing that he was more afraid of the people abusing the government than the government abusing the people.

"Wherever the real power in a Government lies," Madison wrote, "there is the danger of oppression. In our Governments, the real power lies in the majority of the Community...."

In ignorant or corrupt future hands, a Bill of Rights may actually limit rights "because," Madison believed, "there is great reason to fear that a positive declaration of some of the most essential rights could not be obtained in the
requisite latitude."

Yet despite all the documentary evidence - from the Declaration of Independence, to the Federalist Papers, to the Constitution's own Preamble, to the letters of our nations Founders and Framers – some people continue to insist that we only have rights if he can find them written down in the Constitution.

The Constitution doesn't grant rights - it acknowledges that We The People are the sole holders of rights. We need not "pass a law" to have rights.

Yet history may be all but forgotten in today’s modern society.
I will end by submitting to you these two quotes:

Thomas Jefferson - from a letter to Francis W. Gilmor, July 7, 1786 stated:

"No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him. ...the idea is quite unfounded that on entering into society we give up any natural rights."


Finally and as a dark reminder of the danger to our liberties…..

"Beware the leader who bangs the drums in war to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, they will offer up all their rights unto the leader and gladly so.

How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Ceasar."


Let us never forget history and the lessons it holds.

Thank you]]> National http://kdtunstall.com/index.php?itemid=14 Sat, 16 Dec 2006 14:11:09 -0600 Peanut Gallery Strikes Again http://kdtunstall.com/index.php?itemid=10
While no one outside the convention has yet to see what the new platform looks like, the squeals from the peanut gallery have begun. As I support reform or the platform, you may imagine my surprise, or lack thereof, to be labeled, castigated and ridiculed by the more radical. Here is but an example of the mindset that we must deal with.
As always, my sources are at the bottom.
I just got the news that the neocon traitors who run this country infiltrated the Libertarian Party (under the guise of being moderates or libertarians-lite) and deleted most of the platform planks, including those against military interventionism and secession.

Well, how about that? Reformers who wish the LP to evolve into a relative force as opposed to marginalized in the political process are now labeled as neo-cons. I have spent the past couple of years waging my own battles against “neo-cons” in my own district. While I am sure that Ms. Moore, living in the Den of Corruption, has had the opportunity to actually meet many a neo-con, she has decided to cast a wide brush with her statement without knowing who voted for what, and their reasoning for doing so. I believe that she is correct on the secession plank, but I am unsure about the military interventionism plank.

I was one of hundreds of hard core libertarians who didn't even bother to put up a fight - or attend the bi-annual convention held in Portland, Oregon - because the party has proved itself to be a vehicle that attracts people willing to sell out principles for power.

Hard core, in this respect, means unwilling to debate an issue. I am truly grateful that Ms. Moore decided not to attend. Otherwise, supercilious planks, such as secession, would remain in the platform. The plank, which she so laments, was indefensible, as I will point out at a later in this article.
However, I'm not discouraged! That's just more ex-LP members available to join the growing secession movement. Of course, I guess we'll have to start a WASHINGTON DC LIBERTARIAN SECESSIONISTS group to make sure all the big politicians know where libertarians REALLY stand: LIBERTARIAN = SECESSIONIST.

Alas and as previously proven, we see the true spirit of those such as Ms. Moore. They neither believe in electoral politics or government at all. LIBERTARIAN does not equate to SECESSIONIST as Ms. Moore would have you believe. A libertarian is one who promotes libertarian principles. In the context of a political party, it refers to those who work within the framework of government, OUR government, and who promote individual liberty above the authority of the state. It is quite simple really. The government derives its authority at the consent of the governed. As I have no “right” to plunder, I can not grant that “authority” to the state.

But why keep secession to ourselves? We couldn't if we tried. The liberal Blue States were talking secession when Bush stole the 2004 election. Wait until Hillary wins in 2008 despite the best cheating the Republicans can do. The Red States won't just talk about secession, they'll do it! Only a neocon or an idiot would remove secession from the LP platform.

Okeydokey then. What can I say? Thopugh secession may be within the “authority” of a state, that perception is hardly what our previous plank promoted. It, in fact, promoted the notion that an individual had the “right” to secede from a city, county, state or nation. To that effect, I suppose one does have the right to divorce themselves from a political unit. One does so by relocating. However, the suggestion that my neighbor may declare themselves independent from the United States, and establish their own nation on their quarter acre of land is ludicrous. Just as my previous post pointed out a principle reason why the LP is viewed as irrational, extreme and full of wackos. This too is a shining example of why few take the LP seriously. If Ms. Moore wishes to establish a secessionist group, so be it. However, please do so under your own banner. Perhaps you should consider seceding from the LP. I would wholeheartedly support your right to do so.

For me, I will reserve my judgement of the new platform when I have had the opportunity to read and study the document. This is the way rational people react to change. I for one am at a loss as to how these people ever gained any position of influence in the party

One final note. Brian Holtz, a member of the LP Platform Committee, recently noted on his site a statement made by anarcho-purist Paul Ireland. Mr. Ireland’s reputation precedes him in that his well-documented behavior resulted in his election loss at the California LP Convention. So mean-spirited are some of these folks that they would rather destroy the libertarian movement then to admit defeat due to their extremism. Upon losing his seat on the LPC ExComm, Mr. Ireland stated:
I am very tempted to do something so outrageous and horrific during a televised interview, it would give the California LP a black eye it might never recover from. I'd rather see the LP destroyed entirely than to see it misused and have its principles tossed out the window

I am utterly dismayed at the level of perfidy displayed by people such as Mr. Ireland. I can only hope that we solidify our gains prior to the Convention in 2008. If we fail, people like Mr. Ireland and Ms. Moore will continue to destroy any chances the LP has to become a relevant political party for generations to come.

Carol Moore's Blog
Repository of Mr. Ireland's quotes
Mr. Ireland's lates splean vent
]]> National http://kdtunstall.com/index.php?itemid=10 Mon, 3 Jul 2006 15:53:40 -0500