Washington, D.C. - The Libertarian Party is questioning John McCain's rhetoric of bringing "real change" to Washington after it was revealed by a McCain adviser that the Republican presidential candidate supports the warrantless wiretap programs of the Bush administration. "McCain's support of President Bush's domestic spying program would indicate that a McCain administration would be another four years of Constitution treading and civil liberties abuse," says Libertarian Party spokesperson Andrew Davis.

"McCain has tried to project himself as a 'real change' from the disastrous programs of the last seven years," Davis continues. "However, McCain's reluctance to fully abandon the egregious policies of his predecessor makes him simply a repackaged version of the Bush administration--far from the illusion of change McCain has worked so hard to create."

On Friday, the New York Times reported that a McCain adviser had stated McCain as believing that “neither the administration nor the telecoms need apologize for actions that most people, except for the A.C.L.U. and trial lawyers, understand were constitutional and appropriate in the wake of the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.” Taking such a position would put McCain in lockstep with the highly criticized programs of the Bush administration.

"Real change--the kind that a Barr administration would bring to Americans--would be returning America to a place where citizens can trust that the government is not looking over their shoulder or listening in on their phone calls," says LP presidential candidate and former Congressman Bob Barr. "A McCain administration would undoubtedly be a continuation of the status quo from which Americans are ready to escape. McCain is not change. McCain is four more years of the same."

The Libertarian Party is America's third largest political party, founded in 1971 as an alternative to the two main political parties. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party by visiting www.LP.org. The Libertarian Party proudly stands for smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom.

John McCain proudly announced the newest member of his staff this week. Michael Goldfarb, online editor for the neocon magazine The Weekly Standard, is his new Deputy Communications Director.

Last April, Goldfarb wrote the following about the powers he thinks the U.S. president possesses:

"The framers... sought an energetic executive with near dictatorial power in pursuing foreign policy and war."

Oh, really? The Founders wanted a president with "near dictatorial" power? Responds liberal journalist Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com:

"Until the Bill Kristols and John Yoos and other authoritarians of that strain entered the political mainstream, I never heard of prominent Americans who describe the power that they want to vest in our political leaders as 'near dictatorial.' Anyone with an even passing belief in American political values would consider the word 'dictatorial' -- at least rhetorically, if not substantively -- to define that which we avoid at all costs, not something which we seek, embrace and celebrate.

"And the very idea that the Founders -- whose principal concern was how to avoid consolidated power in any one person -- sought to vest 'near dictatorial power' in the president is too perverse for words. But that's been the core 'principle' driving the destructive radicalism of the last seven years, and it's an extremist view that is obviously welcomed at the highest levels of the McCain campaign."

Goldfarb has also endorsed torture techniques such as beatings and waterboarding, and has called for amnesty for corporations which assist the government in knowingly and illegally spying upon Americans without warrants.

But of course, that's what you'd expect from the spokesman for a "near dictator," right?

QUESTION: If we end the War on Drugs and legalize drugs, drug kingpins aren't just going to sit idly by and let their kingdoms go to... pot, are they? So how can we keep the peace and protect people from the violence of gang warfare and drug turf wars after drugs are decriminalized?

MY SHORT ANSWER: When alcohol Prohibition ended, the gang wars ended, too. Organized crime quickly got out of the business of selling alcohol when re-legalization took the black market profits out of booze. Crime decreased dramatically and so did the need for police. Criminals simply cannot compete with private business, in production, distribution, or quality of product.

When we end Drug Prohibition, we can expect the pushers to fade quietly away also. When we re-legalize drugs, we'll take away the black market profit that attracts the criminal element. Drug gang shoot-outs over turf will stop, because they won't be worth winning. Drug addicts won't need to steal to support their habit because legalization will dramatically lower prices, and will make treatment or less dangerous drugs available to those who want them. Just as when we ended alcohol Prohibition, crime will decrease dramatically and so will the need for police activity."

LEARN MORE: "How Legalizing Drugs Will End the Violence," by Norm Stamper, former chief of the Seattle Police Department:
http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/39565/

"Thinking About Drug Legalization," Cato Institute Policy Analysis:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=981

* * *

What if all private charities shut down at once?

QUESTION: In a libertarian society what would happen to people who are mentally or physically unable to work, and who have no families to support them? What if private charities all just decide to close down?

MY SHORT ANSWER: Long before government welfare, private charities owned and operated hospitals, orphanages, and mental institutions. Government simply took over this private sector function, and does it poorly in comparison.

Two-thirds of each tax dollar targeted for helping the disadvantaged goes to the middle-class administrators; over two-thirds of private donations actually reach the people that we're trying to help. When people aren't forced to give to wasteful government welfare programs, they'll have more money to give to efficient private charities.

Because private charities are many and diverse, there's little risk that they'd all shut down -- for any reason. However, centralized government funding can be easily cut or eliminated by a handful of politicians, virtually overnight. When this happens, many needy people are displaced while the private sector races to catch up.

The needy are best served by those who care enough to volunteer time and money. They don't need the further abuse of being treated like a political football.

LEARN MORE: "Replacing Welfare," Cato Institute:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/cpr-18n6-1.html