• Michael Landon

      by Published on 09-16-2014 08:40 AM

      At the previous City Council meeting, I was involved in a heated discussion regarding the First Amendment and whether or not the government can restrict speech. I took the position that our rights come from our creator and can not be taken away, the other councilor argued that the Supreme Court has ruled that there are exceptions and restrictions to the freedom of speech portion of the First Amendment. He said that my interpretation of the First Amendment was wrong because it differed from the Supreme Court and I told him that he was wrong and that my interpretation was based on the interpretation by the founders of the country, those who WROTE the Constitution. Regardless, I feel I won the argument but, ultimately, I lost the vote, 4-1.

      Well, at tonight's City Council meeting, ...
      by Published on 04-02-2014 09:38 PM

      Do you support the zoning of property into residential, business, etc.?

      We will be discussing the possibility of rezoning someone's property from residential to multiple residences at the next City Council meeting. The property owner wants to tear down his home and build a triplex but his neighbors are up in arms over this and are trying to stop him. I'm curious to see what everyone thinks about zoning.

      I've always been of the belief that someone can do whatever they want with their property and they shouldn't have to go to the government to seek permission. This is why I plan on supporting the change.

      Thoughts and opinions?

      - ML
      by Published on 08-08-2013 03:05 AM

      Before I get into the story of what he was upset about, I'll need to recap the situation he referred to.

      A couple of months ago, we had two votes that dealt with the liquor store that the city owns.

      The first vote was to hire a new full time employee, the vote went 4-1 with my vote being the opposing vote. At the time, I stated my view that I didn't believe the city should own a liquor store and that the taxpayers shouldn't have their money taken out of their pockets and invested in a business that belongs in the private sector. I said that I found it to be a conflict of interest when the city determines who can or can't have liquor licenses all the while owning their own liquor store. One of the other councilors tried to explain to me that the city needed to own the store so we could control the amount of liquor being sold and I laughed and said that there are literally dozens of liquor stores in the neighboring bigger cities within minutes from our town and it is absurd to think that we are somehow controlling the amount of liquor people consume. I went on to say that I my vote against this hiring wasn't personal against the person being hired but rather my disagreement with the city owning a liquor store.

      The second vote was a few meetings later, and was to spending close to $150,000 to build onto the existing store so we could expand our selection of liquors and increase our sales. I know, this goes against everything I just said in the prior paragraph, if the city needs to own a liquor store to control the amount of liquor sold, why would we increase it's size? Anyway, once again I went into detail explaining that I didn't think we should be spending the taxpayer's money on a business the city has no reason to be in. The vote went 4-1 to approve the spending, with me being the lone vote against it.

      Fast forward to today...

      I was taking my work break at a local gas station, buying some lemonade and almonds, when a gentleman ahead of me in line turns and says "why did you vote against hiring me?" I wasn't sure who he was at first and said, "what?" He repeated his question and then I realized that he was the guy the council hired for the liquor store, at this point I said that it wasn't anything personal and before I could get into explaining why I voted against hiring him, he turned his back on me. So I tried talking to his back to explain my opposition to the city owning a liquor store, he said that it was personal, to which I replied that it wasn't anything personal against him. I again tried to explain my position on the liquor store and he turned his back towards me. So I figured we were done and he turned toward me and asked if the liquor store makes a profit? As I was about to answer he turned away again. At this point I was getting irritable with him disrespecting me. I said that the liquor store makes a little profit. He then turns toward me again and says, "you vote against everything in this town!" I said, to his back, "not everything." He replied, "yes, you do, look at your record! You vote against everything!" I told him to look at my record and he'll see that I don't vote against everything. He quit talking and I walked to the back of the line.

      I find it funny that someone who has never attended a single city council meeting that I've been a part of, can say as a matter of fact, how I vote.

      Every time, I vote against something I go into great detail explaining why I'm voting the way I am. I do this so everyone can understand why I oppose it.

      Apparently, city councilors are supposed to vote in favor of every item on the agenda, regardless of whether or not it's right. If that's the kind of councilor this gentleman wants, then I suggest he vote for someone else next time. I vote based on my principles and if I stand alone, so be it.

      - ML
      by Published on 07-28-2013 10:46 PM

      Michael wrote: a friend of mine, Ray Whitledge, is running for Duluth City Council and he needs some help. There are five candidates running and the DFL (Democrat Party) has endorsed two of them so they are going to have a huge war chest to help them. My friend Ray, who was endorsed by the Libertarian Party, unfortunately will NOT have a huge war chest behind him so he needs help. If you can help him, please do. Here is his latest post from Facebook....

      "Ray Whitledge for Duluth City Council" just set up our PayPal account to accept donations!!! As the only candidate endorsed by the Libertarian Party of Minnesota, you can be sure I will fight hard to bring "Local Liberty" to Duluth!!
      ...
      Well? What are you waiting for? Go Donate! We need another $300 MINIMUM to place our first order for yard signs. We'd like to order MORE, but that depends on YOU!!! Click on the link, and show a little love for "Local Liberty!" Thank you for your support! We will see you soon!!!

      Paypal Donation Link - Click Here

      Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/RayWhitledg...uthCityCouncil

      Please share this on your facebook pages and in liberty groups on facebook.
      by Published on 11-09-2012 10:30 AM

      I had a Republican friend of mine post the following on Facebook blaming Ron Paul for Mitt's loss:

      I know, I know, if's and but's. But, if Ron Paul would have endorsed Romney/Ryan , would we have had a different outcome? How many republican votes were wasted on him, when he had no chance? Just sayin.

      Here is my response to him:

      When we lose a race, we first start out in a somber mood and then after thinking about the loss over and over we begin to rationalize how we lost and cast blame. We justify the loss by blaming someone or something else and most times we blame others when we shouldn't be. This is one of those times.

      Ron Paul's supporters are one of the most missunderstood subjects for the general Republican. His supporters aren't the same as a Santorum supporter or a Newt supporter or even a Bachmann supporter. Those who support any of those three candidates are in the "general Republican" demographic, meaning they are a Republican who will support all Republicans regardless of who that Republican is. When Bachmann dropped out of the Presidential race, her supporters latched onto the Republican candidate that was their second choice, perhaps someone like Newt. This is how the general Republican's work. Steve, you fit in his demographic and that's not a bad thing, mind you. "General Republicans" tend to have a hard time understanding why Ron Paul's supporters don't do this and that's because they view the Ron Paul supporters as "general Republicans" when in fact they are not.

      Ron Paul's supporters come from a variety of areas. I would break down his supporters into the following percentages:

      25% General Republicans
      25% Disenfranchised Democrats
      25% Libertarians
      25% Independents

      These percentages explain alot. The general Republican assumes that Mitt Romney would have received all of the votes from the Ron Paul supporters IF Ron Paul had thrown his support and endorsement behind Romney and this is not true.

      During this election, the 25% of Ron Paul supporters that were in the "General Republican" category ended up voting for Romney. This happened regardless of a Paul endorsement.

      The 25% of Paul supporters that were Democrat went back to voting for Democrats, mainly Obama. They ONLY voted "Republican" because they liked Ron Paul and not because they had an epiphany and seen the light only to switch parties. These supporters would only vote for a Republican Presidential nominee if that nominee were Ron Paul. When that wasn't the case, they went back to the Democrat party.

      The 25% of Paul supporters that were Libertarian, like the Paul Democrats, went back to voting for the Libertarian Party candidates. Paul brought them in and they were only going to stay if he were the nominee. In their eyes, Romney was so far left and nowhere near their Libertarian beliefs, that they would NEVER vote for him and they didn't. Those votes went to Gary Johnson. It is worth noting, the Libertarian Party and Gary Johnson both said they wouldn't run a Presidential candidate if the Republican's had nominated Ron Paul.

      Now the other 25% of Paul supporters are a mix of disenfranchised Green Party voters, Constitution Party voters, etc. They, most likely, went back to voting for their Party's candidates, although I'm sure a few voted for Romney, Obama and Gary Johnson also.

      The reason I point all this out is because Ron Paul brought in ALOT of potential voters to the Republican Party and when Romney won the nomination, close to 75% of those voters left the Republican Party.

      It's easy to blame Ron Paul for Mitt Romney's loss but this is a wrong. The one person we should blame for Mitt's loss is Mitt himself. This is proven by the losses the Republicans suffered in the lower races. In Presidential election years, the top of the ticket tends to influence how the rest of the ticket does. Meaning, the stronger the Presidential candidate, the more votes the lower candidates get because they ride on his or her coattails. Mitt was not a strong candidate and thus didn't bring in a lot of enthusiasm to the party so there wasn't any enthusiasm to carry over into the congressional races, senate races and state races.

      At this point, those of us that are "general Republicans" need to step back and assess our Party's future and plan for two years from now and four years from now. My first suggestion is to stay away from nominating moderates and nominate a conservative.
      by Published on 10-05-2012 10:34 AM
      Article Preview



      Ron Paul endorsed Kurt Bills, and Kurt Bills endorsed Ron for the Minnesota caucuses. Please consider donating if possible on October 5th.

      https://kurtbills.com/donate/power-the-campaign/

      - ML ...
    • Follow us on Twitter! Like us on Facebook! Subscribe to our top news RSS Feed! New! Subscribe to us on YouTube!





    • End the Fed Coin