The Libertarian Party condemned Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama for recently stating he does not oppose the Bush administration's program of illegally spying on U.S. citizens. "Obama has sold out liberty in his refusal to stand up to Republicans on FISA," says Libertarian Party spokesperson Andrew Davis.

"We have come to expect Republicans to hold a contempt for basic protections of civil liberties," says Davis. "To see this same type of reckless disregard for the Constitution from Democrats--especially their presidential nominee--is extremely unfortunate. Democrats were given a chance to stand up to Republicans after the 2006 election, but they have failed to do so time and time again ever since. Obama's refusal to state a clear opposition to the President's illegal program of domestic surveillance is just one more example of how both Republicans and Democrats have failed the American people."

In an interview last week with ABC News' Senior National Correspondent Jack Tapper, Obama stated, "I haven't opposed, for example, the national security surveillance program, the NSA program," adding that he believed the program could be done without violating the Constitution.

"Perhaps it is in Obama's nature as a big-government liberal to trust the government with unchecked power," Davis adds, "but supporting a proposal to give the government blanket permission to spy on American citizens should give voters an idea of how much Obama respects the Constitution and privacy rights."

The Libertarian Party has called repeatedly to reject any amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that empowers the government to spy on U.S. citizens, which includes the most recent "compromise" by Republicans and Democrats. Additionally, Libertarian Party candidate for president Bob Barr recently issued a video that blasted supporters of the recent FISA amendments.

Presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain both share a spotty history on gun rights and should not be granted a free pass with their recent rhetoric, says the Libertarian Party. "McCain and Obama are no friends to the Second Amendment, despite what they now say on the campaign trail," says Libertarian Party National Chairman William Redpath.

"Both Obama and McCain have a history of anti-gun rhetoric and legislation," says Redpath. "No matter how pro-gun their campaign rhetoric may be, they can't erase their past statements and votes as Republican and Democratic gun-grabbers. While a conscientious change of heart on the issue is nothing to be ashamed of, Obama and McCain's flip-flop on the issue of guns appears to be an obligatory, almost pathetic, appeal to a demographic to which they have never been faithful."

In the past, McCain has taken heat for his involvement with the group "Americans for Gun Safety," which the National Rifle Association (NRA) has called "neither nonpartisan nor a friend of gun owners." McCain has a "C+" rating on gun issues from the NRA, who once called him "one of the premier flag carriers for the enemies of the Second Amendment."

Obama, who in the past has supported legislation regulating the sale of handguns and other forms of gun control, has frequently stated on the campaign trail that the Second Amendment is an individual right--though one that can be regulated.

"Obama's position on the Second Amendment is even more damaging than some of the positions McCain has taken on guns in the past," says Libertarian Party Spokesperson Andrew Davis. "To call something a right, but at the same time saying it is a right that can be subject to 'reasonable' limitations, completely undermines the very notion of Constitutionally-protected rights. The Libertarian Party recognizes that there is a certain extent as to how far rights can go, but we shudder to think at what Obama might consider a 'reasonable' limitation."

The Libertarian Party hailed the recent Heller decision in a press release issued yesterday. The Party opposes the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense. It also opposes all laws at any level of government requiring registration of, or restricting, the ownership, manufacturing, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition.

It's funny that Ralph Nader, the perennial presidential-election spoiler, is claiming that Barack Obama is appealing to white guilt. I've seen no evidence of that. In fact, Obama has been trying his best to run a colorblind campaign.

The truth is, except for his skin color, Obama is your standard Northern liberal. If there's only a dime's worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats, there's only a penny's worth of difference between Obama and Teddy Kennedy on matters of policy. Obama, however, is certainly the smarter of the two.

I've never been a fan of Nader, and I don't see why anyone is paying him the least bit of attention. He says what he thinks will get him ink and airtime. He's a publicity hound. There's something perverse about people who will run for office, knowing they can't win, but are willing to skim a few votes off one of the major candidates. Nader definitely cost Al Gore the election in 2000, so we can justly blame him for eight years of George W. Bush. As far as I'm concerned, that consigns Nader to the dung heap.

In reality, I'm not sure that there is even such a thing as white guilt. Most Northerners seem to feel self-righteous on race matters, having for years enjoyed blaming the South. Most Southerners don't feel any guilt. I don't. I never owned any slaves, and I was glad to see the end of segregation. What's to feel guilty about?

Whatever profits accrued to the South as a result of slavery were wiped out by the War of Northern Aggression and Reconstruction. The South, both blacks and whites, was plunged into poverty, from which it didn't begin to recover until World War II. While scientists were working on the atomic bomb in the 1940s in Chicago, Georgia tenant farmers, many of them, were picking cotton by hand and carrying it to the gin in mule-drawn wagons.

Outhouses, wells and oil lamps were familiar objects in my childhood. I went barefoot all summer, except for Sundays, and the only free lunches came from friends and relatives during visits. Believe it or not, people managed to survive without welfare, Medicaid or Medicare. I chopped kindling with an axe and carried in many a bucket of good old Pennsylvania anthracite coal for the fireplaces and stoves. My treasured possessions were a pocketknife, a secondhand .22 rifle and marbles.

No one I can recall considered himself poor or felt any guilt. If Obama receives any votes because of white guilt, it will be in the North or Midwest. Perhaps that is appropriate, since it was people from those regions who screwed the former slaves out of the promised 40 acres and a mule and cut a deal with the Democrats that made segregation possible.

And if there was segregation by law in the South, there was segregation by practice in the North. I grew up in a sea of black faces and played every day with black kids. There were no black ghettos in most of the South; black people lived a block from my house.

That said, was it tough being black in the segregated South? You bet. In some places, a wrong word or even a look could get you beaten or killed. Job opportunities were as scarce as voter registration. Apartheid was about the same in the South as in South Africa, although white Southerners – some of them, anyway – were naturally more polite than the Afrikaners. Schools were separate and unequal. The N-word and "boy" were constant affronts to men's dignity. Obama and people in his age group are lucky in the year of their birth.

But we Americans are not very good at feeling guilty. If you don't believe me, ask the Cheyenne, the Cherokee or the Sioux.