I know, I know. There are plenty of Libertarians out there who are not satisified with Michael Badnarik as their candidate. Some are now even proselytizing not to vote at all (for example, Joseph Sobran). I didn't think the Libertarians had a chance... but then Michael Badnarik came out with his view on the most important issue of our time (though, granted, very late in the game). In the United States, 72% of mothers are awarded custody, while 9% of fathers are awarded custody. which means that 81% of parents across the United States lose almost complete access and responsibility to their children because the government thinks it's in the "best interest of the child." There are well over 16 million non-custodial parents out there who are screaming to get their children back (the class action lawsuit filed against 40 some-odd states on September 17, 2004 is but only a very conservative estimate). (Granted, many have stopped screaming and given up because they feel helpless and are tired from fighting.)
We FINALLY have a politician who will directly attack the terrorists who are most responsible for the destruction of families. Nothing will ever change if we, as individuals, don't take a stand. Many of you claim you don't want to "waste your vote" on someone who won't win, or that your single vote doesn't matter, or that you intend to vote for the "lesser of two evils." Please - be honest with yourself; Bush and Kerry are BOTH pure evil. Voting for the lesser of two evils is NOT taking a stand - on the contrary, it is you being a coward to stand-up for what is right. Additionally, voting for the lesser of two evils is STILL voting for evil. Change will never occur in the company of cowards. Michael Badarnik knows the terror the government is creating in families, and he has stated specifically what he will do about it. Vote for him.
Parents' Rights
No issue is more sensitive -- and few issues are more troubling to Libertarians -- than the role of government in family life. On the face of things, the federal government has an even smaller role in that area than it does in most, and I favor keeping Washington out of issues like defining and licensing marriage, regulating homeschooling, mandating childhood vaccinations or using tax policy for "socially engineering" the makeup and function of the family.
However, there are some areas of family life in which the federal government arguably has a role to play. The Constitution ordains that all Americans receive the equal protection of the law, and it prohibits involuntary servitude.
In both of these areas, the federal government has failed America's families and, in particular, its parents.
Equal protection of the law pre-supposes fairness for those coming before the bar of justice. Yet in divorce proceedings, the states routinely award custody of minor children to one parent or another, relegating the other parent to the status of "second-class citizen" -- not because the latter parent has been convicted of any crime, or found unfit, but because of a prejudice in favor of father or mother as the best "single" parent.
This is a matter of federal interest under the 14th Amendment, even intra-state. Once one parent or another, possibly with a child in tow, moves to another state, any shadow of doubt is erased. It becomes an interstate matter, and by definition therefore falls under federal jurisdiction.
As president, I will direct the Justice Department's civil rights division to investigate state policies which violate the 14th Amendment rights of parents and to pursue the elimination of those policies in court. The default presumption in any divorce proceeding must be for joint custody of minor children. Failing the waiver of that presumption by one parent, or proof that one parent is unfit, to deny any parent equal access to, and equal participation in the raising of, his or her children is clearly an abuse of law and repugnant to the Constitution.
Above and beyond the matter of custody comes child support. While it is reasonable to assess support for a minor child when circumstances dictate that he or she will be living exclusively with one parent, the matter has been inflated into, literally, a federal case.
The 13th Amendment prohibits involuntary servitude. In the Slaughterhouse Cases, the Supreme Court clearly and unambiguously ruled that this prohibition applies to "peonage" -- the attachment of criminal liability to failure to pay, or work off, debt. Yet, across the nation, hundreds of thousands of non-custodial parents find themselves in court, often charged with felonies and facing prison, for their failure or inability to pay child support. Further, the federal government has intervened to the extent of maintaining a special database to track "deadbeat parents" across state lines in order to enforce these draconian and unconstitutional laws.
As president, I will direct the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice to sue states which attach criminal liability to child support obligations and, if necessary, to charge government officials who administer that unconstitutional criminal liability with violations of the civil rights of non-custodial parents.
I'm Michael Badnarik, Libertarian for President. I ask the tough questions-to give you answers that really work!