Letters to Editor

Published in Suburban Trends, Feb. 10, 2016

Dear Editor:

In a recent letter (Suburban Trends Jan. 31), it was suggested that the idea of self-ownership or individual sovereignty over one’s person is somehow a "flawed" belief. The writer was arguing from a theological standpoint based on her faith.

My question to her would be, how do you intend to implement your beliefs without using the power of the state to impose your faith and values on people who don’t necessarily agree with your beliefs?

I have long argued that religious "social conservatives" have a hostility to the ideals of individual liberty that is just as authoritarian as the anti-liberty beliefs of the "liberal progressive secular humanist" types who want to micromanage your life for you. Despite the seeming hostility between these two groups, they have much in common.

Published in Suburban Trends, Dec. 16, 2015

In your December 9, "Our View" editorial ("Our Take On Guns"), you state that you desire a discussion and debate on what the Second Amendment means.

I'm going to surprise you and your readers by saying the Second Amendment does not give you the right to own a firearm; in fact the entire Bill of Rights gives no rights whatsoever! If there was no Constitution and Bill of Rights, you would still have all the rights you possess by virtue of the fact that you exist as an individual human being.

Our individual liberties come from our humanity, as so eloquently stated by Judge Andrew Napolitano. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights only guarantee and protect those rights from government infringement; the don't grant them.

Published in the Bergen Record, December 5, 2015

Regarding "Religion used to hide bigotry" (Your Views, Nov. 28) and "Why a friend is suing me: the Arlene's Flowers story" (Other Views, Nov. 25):

I would say the letter writer is hiding his own bigotry towards the concepts of individual freedom of choice and the right of freedom of association.

Dear Editor:

At the outset of this letter, let me make clear that as a Libertarian individualist and activist that I am not really enamored of any flag. They are all symbols of nationalism and statism, both of which are collectivist philosophies and ideologies that believe the individual should be subordinate to the so-called "greater good."

Having said this, let me also make clear that the current frenzy over the Confederate battle flag (erroneously referred to by many as the "Stars and Bars," which was the flag of the Confederate government) shows that the "politically correct" liberal crowd is just as intolerant and hateful as the people they claim to be against!

Originally published in Suburban Trends

Once again government goes too far

Dear Editor:

Much has been in the news recently about the so-called Religious Freedom Restoration Act in Indiana and also in Arkansas. Sadly, all sides in this debate focus on the wrong issues.

We already have a Religious Freedom Act – it’s called the First Amendment to the Constitution! The real issue is property rights and the right of individual business owners to choose their customers – bringing religion into this debate only clouds the issue.


I would like to respond to two letters that appeared in the Suburban Trends on Feb. 14.

First the letter by Bill Weightman of Hardyston, advocating more taxpayer funding of the arts here in New Jersey. Government (at any level, even local) should not be taking money from one group (taxpayers) and redistributing it to special interest groups such as those who claim to be promoting the "arts."

On February 1, a letter appeared in your [The Suburban Trends] claiming that "conservative and libertarian voters" were advocates of voter ID laws. I can't speak for conservatives, but I'd like to know the writer's source of information that led him to think that we Libertarians support more voter ID laws.

As a point of fact, Libertarians have been in the forefront of making it easier to vote by our opposition to ballot access laws that make it difficult for all third parties and independents to get on the ballot as an alternative to the Republican and Democrat duopoly in American politics.

Steven Uccio of East Windsor is a Libertarian candidate for Mercer County Freeholder. This letter to the editor appeared in The Times of Trenton.

While our property taxes and debt climb, the Mercer County freeholders are focused on other things. What could be more important than making living here more affordable? Plastic shopping bags and new taxes.

Our freeholders want to levy a 5-cent per bag tax on each plastic shopping bag used here in Mercer County. First, I consider it a waste of time, when there are more important things to be done. Second, let the actual stores worry about their shopping bags. The freeholders should mind their own business; the stores can charge a fee if they deem it necessary. Most grocery stores already sell reusable shopping bags and some offer a discount to those who use them. I've never seen any reason that the county government had to step in.

Among the many advantages the Republicans and Democrats have conferred upon themselves is their privileged position on the voting ballot. The establishment political parties are guaranteed the first two columns on every ballot. The other political parties, such as the Libertarian Party, are then put in lottery drawing for columns three and above.

According to state election law, the Republicans and Democrats lose their special columns on the left of the ballot if neither can "poll" at least 10 percent of the votes cast in the previous Assembly election. In 2014 only 8 percent of eligible New Jersey voters participated in one of the two taxpayer-funded primaries. Some 10 percent of 3.7 million votes is 370,000. The law is clear. Neither party even came close.

A recent letter to the Suburban Trends expressed outrage that some business groups take their holdings offshore to avoid U.S. taxes.

The writer shows a complete ignorance of economics and a hostility to private business.

Business and industry flee America because of the anti-free market environment they have to deal with thanks to the politicians and unelected bureaucrats. No business leader in their right mind would want to set up shop where they will be penalized for being productive.

Dear Editor:

As I write this, another Memorial Day has come and gone and the politicians and their media allies have mouthed the usual high-sounding platitudes about the "service" and "sacrifice" of our armed forces. Nice, lofty sounding stuff but sadly it is a blatant lie! There is an old saying that "Truth is the first casualty in war."

For nearly a century now, the globalists and other assorted international interventionists have lied, tricked, and maneuvered us into two world wars plus a seemingly never-ending string of unconstitutional, undeclared "no-win" police-action "interventions" around the world.

Our so-called leaders don’t’ give a damn about our armed forces; they view them as expendable, cheap "cannon-fodder" to be used to prop up foreign regimes around the world that we happen to be allied with at any given moment. Our veterans have been lied to; they have fought, bled, and died for nothing and no one seems to want to "rock the boat" and point this out to the American people.

Former New Mexico Governor, Gary Johnson was once voted the most fiscally conservative governor during his time in office beginning in 1995 and ending in 2003. He brought a business like mentality to governing and believed that public policy should be based on cost and benefits and not strict ideology.

Known as “Governor Veto” during his time in office, Johnson vetoed a record of 750 bills, a majority of which had to do with spending. When he left office, New Mexico was one of four states at the time to have a balanced budget. Also, during his time there, he received a grade of “A “    for his fiscal policies from the libertarian Cato Institute.

By Matthew Boyer. Matthew Boyer is a School of Arts and Science sophomore with a major in political science and a minor in German. His column, “Legalizing Life,” runs in The Daily Targum on alternate Wednesdays.

Every election, America faces a battle between two dominant political parties, which in turn divides America. We bicker about the opposing party’s policies and are distracted by trivial matters. We then elect a new president who typically behaves similarly to the one prior. Four or eight years down the road, half the country regrets who they cast their vote for. This scenario has essentially been an ongoing ordeal for decades. The American people have let the establishment of the two dominating parties overshadow the possibility of new voices in American politics. But there is a fresh alternative to the Democrats and Republicans we have all come to love and hate: Libertarians.

Putting aside talking points from watching an hour of MSNBC or Fox News, what are the legitimate differences between Democrats and Republicans? Well, let’s start with America’s history of military interventionism. Many people consider Democrats to be anti-war, whereas Republicans are considered warmongers — hence the anti-Condoleezza Rice sentiment among the University faculty. However, since World War II, history in the White House has shown an overwhelming pursuit of war, regardless of which party held office.For example, our current president continues Middle Eastern interventionism, global spying programs and unrestricted drone use, and he is a Democrat. Somalia intervention was under Bill Clinton, a Democrat. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars were under George W. Bush, a Republican. The Gulf War was under the President Bush senior, also a Republican. The Vietnam War was started under John F. Kennedy and continued through Johnson’s administration. Both were Democrats. It was Franklin D. Roosevelt who established the Japanese internment camps across the United States through executive order. The striking similarity in both parties’ foreign policy suggests the need for a new party that would boldly proclaim their pro-diplomacy, pro-peace and anti-war policies.

Published in Suburban Trends

Dear Editor:

Please let me be one of the first to commend you folks at the Suburban Trends for your editorial today (April 2, 2014) calling for the end of marijuana prohibition.

As we all know, alcohol prohibition didn’t work in the 1920s (and created all kinds of crime problems) and the so-called "War on Drugs" isn’t working either. Ninety years may have passed since the first "prohibition" but economic laws never change and certain substances will always be available.

The late free-market economist Milton Friedman called for the repeal of drug laws decades ago, and he was ridiculed for his Libertarian pro-individual choice views; time has, however, shown him to be correct.