Bush Continues to Support UN "Law of The Sea" Treaty

William Norman Grigg writes:

"The Bush administration continues to support Senate ratification of the UN's Convention on the Law of the Sea, which would turn the oceans and their incomprehensible riches over to the world body.

"During confirmation hearings before the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, Secretary of State nominee Condoleezza Rice reaffirmed the Bush administration’s plans to seek ratification of the UN’s Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOST)...

"The bland assurances offered by Rice and Lugar should be considered about as reliable as the administration’s pre-Iraq war rhetoric predicting that the conflict would be a 'cakewalk.' As William F. Jasper, Senior Editor for The New American, has pointed out, LOST 'is not just a bad idea; it is a very dangerous, concrete thing, a revolutionary legal document that heralds a major step into world government and grants vast powers to the United Nations.'

"The LOST pact would 'create new jurisdictions and governing structures with real powers that threaten our national sovereignty,' continues Jasper. 'Among other things, LOST establishes an International Seabed Authority (referred to as ISA, or 'the Authority’), a new UN agency to control the minerals and other wealth of the sea floor. This also means granting the ISA control over two thirds of the Earth’s surface — no trifling matter. LOST designates this vast, watery commons as `the Area.’'

"Article 136 of the treaty declares: 'The Area and its resources are the common heritage of mankind' – 'common heritage' being a formulation long favored by international collectivists and other tax-fattened parasites eager to redistribute wealth. And Article 137 dictates: 'All rights in the resources of the Area are vested in mankind as a whole, on whose behalf the Authority shall act.'

"This means that the same UN that created the Iraq Oil-for-Food corruption scandal – described by some as the biggest swindle in history – would claim the right to control the unfathomable resources of the oceans and ocean floors, and apportion them as the world body sees fit.

"And the Bush administration, wrongly regarded in 'conservative' circles as anti-UN, enthusiastically supports the UN’s grab for the oceans.

"Concerned Americans must demand that the Senate refuse to ratify LOST. We must also get the U.S. out of the UN, and evict the squalid socialist organization from our shores. To learn what you can do to help, please visit www.getusout.org."

Bush Continues to Support UN "Law of The Sea" Treaty

"Insensibly" Sliding Into Tyranny

William Norman Grigg writes:

"By waging open-ended foreign wars for 'liberty,' warned John Quincy Adams, America's ruling philosophy would 'insensibly change from [one of] liberty to force....' That warning, sadly, was amply validated by George W. Bush's Second Inaugural Address...

"Did he refer to the criminal irresponsibility of his administration in failing to act on plentiful pre-September 11 warnings about the impending attack? Or was he alluding to a decades-old interventionist foreign policy that has nurtured foreign enemies and engendered hatred toward the United States? Or was he perchance offering an oblique apology for the ineptitude displayed by the federal government on that horrible morning, when the only effective defense of our nation was mounted by the private citizens aboard United Flight 93, even as the administration’s leaders were cowering in secure locations?

"In fact, the 'deepest source' of our vulnerability, according to Mr. Bush’s speechwriters, is the fact that there are regions of the world not firmly under Washington’s control...

"Of course, the president's speech did not acknowledge the role Washington's interventionist policies have played over decades, during both Republican and Democrat administrations, in helping to bring those simmering resentments to a murderous boil. There was no mention of how the U.S. government had supported Saddam's Iraqi regime prior to the Persian Gulf War or how the CIA had assisted Osama bin Laden... These observations were not made since, to cure the conditions exacerbated by U.S. foreign policy, the administration prescribes a larger – and perhaps ultimately more lethal – dose of the same interventionist treatment...

"Mr. Bush opened his speech with a perfunctory nod to 'the durable wisdom of our Constitution,' and spent the rest of it expressing disdain for the principles embodied in that charter. Nothing in our Constitution authorizes the federal government to mount a global campaign on behalf of democracy. In fact, in their wisdom the Founders ardently admonished Americans to eschew grandiose foreign entanglements of that sort...

"America, [John Quincy] Adams famously warned on Independence Day, 1821, 'goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own... She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force.... She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....'

"As thousands gathered to hear Mr. Bush extol 'freedom' in Washington, D.C., security preparations had transformed the Capitol into what the New York Times called 'a steel cocoon.' Missile launchers defended the skies; manhole covers were welded shut to secure the streets. Militarized police, metal detectors, body searches, and other stigmata of the garrison state were on full display. Performers in the inaugural parade were instructed not to do so much as look directly at the president, lest they be regarded as security threats."

"Insensibly" Sliding Into Tyranny

Washington Is a Sledgehammer; We Are Nails by William L. Anderson

William L. Anderson writes:

"Today, we see the Patriot Act, a law that Lew Rockwell once told me was 'RICO on steroids,' being used not to fight 'terrorism,' but rather to severely punish individuals in order to 'send a message' to the rest of us... federal prosecutors now have decided to put forth the legal fiction that a New Jersey man who was shining a green laser at air traffic near an airport is a 'terrorist.'...

"The FBI acknowledged the incident had no connection to terrorism but called Banach's actions 'foolhardy and negligent.'...

"The latest incident involved a very stupid act by a person who most likely did not understand the consequences of his behavior...

"But doing something stupid and committing an act of terrorism clearly are not one and the same, yet federal prosecutors are using the Patriot Act to throw Banach into prison...

"To put it another way, the feds are using a sledgehammer in a situation that does not even call for a regular hammer. While one can call this a case of 'overcriminalization,' the actions by federal prosecutors are not the result of overzealousness but rather a cruel, calculated and deliberate act to let the rest of us know that we are the slaves and federal prosecutors and law enforcement are our masters...

"Furthermore, while one can understand why Banach might have been less-than-full-truthful when first confronted with investigators, it would seem to me that the much bigger lie has been told by Bush Administration officials. As pointed out earlier in this article, federal officials promised Congress that they would not abuse the new and extraordinary powers that were given them. That clearly was and is a lie. Lying to Congress is a crime for the rest of us, but for federal prosecutors and their ilk, it is another day at the office.

"Yes, Banach did something that was incredibly stupid, but there also was clearly no criminal intent. Once upon a time in America, intent – the doctrine of mens rea – mattered when it came to the pursuit of criminal acts. Today in Amerika, the only thing that matters is the accumulation of power by federal officials, who then wield it like a sledgehammer against the rest of us..."

Washington Is a Sledgehammer; We Are Nails by William L. Anderson

Martha Stewart and Our Shadow Legal System by William L. Anderson and Candice Jackson

William L. Anderson and Candice E. Jackson write:

"While we can see why some might fault our reasoning, there is a deeper-held reason why we believe that Martha Stewart should be a free woman today. We hold that the federal criminal system that convicted her is an abomination to justice and is the destroyer of those precious 'Rights of Englishmen' that this nation inherited from Great Britain (and especially the famed jurist William Blackstone) more than two centuries ago. What exists today in the federal courts is nothing less than a shadow justice system, an evil twin of the common law that served us so well for so long, a system that keeps the trappings of common law, but is more like Stalin’s Soviet Union than Blackstone’s England...

"... the federal criminal system is nothing less than a mechanism that permits prosecutors to do an end run around the Constitutional protections that the framers of that document believed were the natural rights of individuals... modern federal criminal laws and policies hold much more in common with Josef Stalin’s U.S.S.R. in the 1930s than it does the Constitution of the United States.

"... most federal crimes actually are 'derivative' in nature. That is, they are not actual criminal acts, but rather are activities that have been criminalized because of ties to other things the accused person may have done...

"Keep in mind that Stewart 'cheated' no one; she simply sold her stock in an open market, something that hundreds of other owners of ImClone stock were doing at the same time. Had Stewart 'cheated' anyone, she could have been charged with a real 'securities fraud' charge, not the overreaching charge that even the anti-Stewart New York Times editorial board agreed was ridiculous.

"... today the criminal law has strayed far from its historical roots... an act does not have to harm anyone in order to be criminal in the federal system. In fact, the vast majority of federal crimes involve activities for which there was no harm, just a violation either of a federal rule or regulation, or something of that order. In the Stewart case, prosecutors were able to weave a series of charges around an act that the government apparently did not believe was criminal – or they would have unloaded a criminal charge of 'insider trading' against her and Bacanovic, something that prosecutors knew they could not prove in court – even federal court, where rules of evidence tilt heavily toward the prosecution...

"The law, which lawyers usually call 1001, for the section of the federal code that contains it, prohibits lying to any federal agent, even by a person who is not under oath and even by a person who has committed no other crime...

"Ms. Stewart was convicted of obstruction of justice and making false statements to F.B.I. agents and investigators from the Securities and Exchange Commission who were investigating her for insider trading...

"But Ms. Stewart was never charged with criminal insider trading, suggesting that if she had simply told investigators the truth she would not have faced criminal charges. The only counts the jury considered related to her behavior during the investigation.

"People lie all the time to colleagues, friends and family... and unless they are legal experts they probably do not know that lying to any federal investigator is illegal even if they are not under oath.

"And F.B.I. agents and other investigators usually do not tape-record their conversations, so people can be convicted of making false statements based only on an investigator's notes, which may not exactly reflect what was said.

" 'Any casual conversation between a citizen and a person of the executive branch is fraught with the possibility that you can be convicted of lying,'... If the government wants to make sure it is being told the truth... it should put people under oath. 'That's why we have perjury laws – because we tell people this time you're under a special formal obligation to tell the truth,'... 'And by the way, you'll notice it doesn't run in both directions, so a federal agent can lie to you, can trick you, in order to get information.'

"Thus, we find ourselves at the purpose of the crime of 'obstruction of justice,' of which 1001 is a part. The purpose is to trap someone under investigation who otherwise might not be prosecuted for a crime. We emphasize this point again: The purpose of this law and many others in the federal system is to create crimes (and criminals) where none might exist...

"Moreover... the law runs only one way. Federal investigators and prosecutors regularly lie during conversations with those who are targeted... the F.B.I. in its training manual for new agents tells them that individuals who are targeted for investigation 'have forfeited their rights to the truth.'...

"We believe that Stewart went into her interviews with government agents in good faith... Furthermore, prosecutors at that time were talking about charging her with insider trading, and no doubt had laid down some veiled – and not-so-veiled – threats against her. A congressional committee already had illegally leaked testimony about her (yes, another felony that the government did not see fit to pursue) and the press already was baying about Martha in prison stripes.

"It is almost certain that federal investigators tried the same bully-boy tactics on Stewart, and given the history of lying by the feds, we are not fully convinced that Stewart and Bacanovic were guilty as charged. Certainly, the jurors did not base all of their verdicts upon the facts; as we noted in another article on this subject, the jurors believe that Stewart and Bacanovic were 'arrogant' and in their minds thought perhaps they should be punished for being who they were, as opposed to what they might have done.

"Instead, we see Martha Stewart going to prison because she... made the misjudgment of thinking she simply could sit down and talk to federal investigators. A law from which some government employees are exempt ultimately trapped her – as it is supposed to do.

"[The federal system] does not protect citizens from the state; instead, it gives the state all of the weapons (federal prosecutors like to call them 'tools') it needs to declare everyone a criminal."

Martha Stewart and Our Shadow Legal System by William L. Anderson and Candice Jackson

"Retention Deficit: Stop-loss in a Volunteer State" by Tim Cavanaugh

On 22 Dec 2003, Tim Cavanaugh wrote:

"When a free nation can't maintain its foreign adventures with willing volunteers, the rational solution should be to cut down on the adventures, not to fudge the definition of 'willing.' Stop-loss may not be the worst thing the government is doing to America's troops, but anybody who is seriously trying to estimate the costs of the war in Iraq should be paying close attention to it."

Reason

Disasters: Natural and Un-Natural by Paul Hein

The only think I would add to Paul Hein's observations is that, despite much unfortunate precedent to the contrary, it is also not the proper constitutional business of the federal government to provide charitable aid to its own citizens. As farmer Horatio Bunce reminded Congressman Davy Crockett:

"Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose"

http://www.trimonline.org/congress/articles/crockett.htm


Mr. Hein writes:

"The 'United States' which provides relief is the corporation headquartered in Washington D.C., and the assistance it provides is the only sort it can provide: money – or what passes for it. And it obtains that by creating it from thin air, i.e., inflation, or seizing it from people who have earned it, i.e., taxation. Very noble and generous!

"Government disaster relief is, in fact, disaster redistribution. As is always the case with government programs, the benefits are immediate, obvious, and widely touted. The downside is subtle, gradual, and diffuse, and always ignored. The hundreds of millions that the U.S. will provide tsunami victims (or, more likely, their rulers) will have results visible at once: removal of wreckage, those perennial favorites: water and blankets, and other well-photographed benefits. The damage to the standard of living of Americans by the inflation of the dollar, or taxation, will be unappreciated and unreported. Just another straw on the camel’s back. Can anyone doubt that, eventually, the camel’s back must break? But surely, just one more straw can be tolerated! ...

"I find it discouraging to see the public approval of these government relief schemes. It is good and proper for people to sympathize with their neighbors in time of disaster, and altogether fitting that they should come to their aid. But it is not, by the remotest stretch of the imagination, the proper business of government to provide material aid to foreigners. The fact that the burden of this aid is placed on the backs of Americans, whose property the government, in theory, exists to protect, makes the situation surreal."

Disasters: Natural and Un-Natural by Paul Hein

The Myth of the Voluntary Military by Jeffrey A. Tucker

On 29 March 2003, Jeffrey A. Tucker gives some food for thought:

"... all modern armies are essentially totalitarian enterprises. Once you sign up for them, or are drafted, you are a slave. The penalty for becoming a fugitive is death. Even now, the enforcements against mutiny, desertion, going AWOL, or what have you, are never questioned...

"To force people to fight when they would rather not is the very essence of modern military organization. In modern practice, there is no such thing as a voluntary military. Whether you are forced into the machine our not (via conscription or via payments in tax dollars), once you are cog, you must stay in no matter how much grinding you do or how much you are ground...

"The slave-like nature of the military commitment has no expiration date. Yes, there are contracts, but the military can void them whenever it so desires. Predictably, it desires to void these contracts (through so-called stop-loss regulations) when the enlisted most want to leave: when they must kill and risk being killed. All branches of the military have implemented these stop-loss regulations because of the war on terror...

"Still, one wonders how much the ranks of the militarily employed would shrink in absence of anti-desertion enforcement. If modern presidents had to recruit the way barons and lords recruited, and if they constantly faced the prospect of mass desertions, they might be more careful about getting involved in unnecessary, unjust, unwinnable wars, or going to war at all. Peace would take on new value out of necessity. When going to war, they might be more careful to curb their war aims, and match war strategies with those more limited aims...

"The legalization of desertion might provide the very key to bringing about a more humane world...

"In the meantime, US officials would do well to stop complaining that Iraqi soldiers are being forced to serve and forced to kill. A press release from the Air Force announcing its new stop-loss rule says: 'We understand the individual sacrifices that our airmen and their families will be making... We appreciate their unwavering support and dedication to our nation.' "

The Myth of the Voluntary Military by Jeffrey A. Tucker

Perspective by Charley Reese

Charlie Reese writes:

"I enraged one of the Fox News chatterers while a guest on his show by accusing him of being a fearmonger on the subject of terrorism. I pointed out that the same year terrorists killed 3,000 Americans, ordinary criminals murdered 12,000, and the usual 90,000 or so died in accidents. For some reason, he thought that was an outrageous statement...

"As for the war in Iraq, that, too, should be viewed in perspective. We've been there since March 2003, and we've lost about 1,300 soldiers. To be brutally realistic, that is not a particularly high toll for a guerrilla war... What we have to realize is that a certain number of Americans are going to die as long as we stay in Iraq. That is the price of an imperialistic foreign policy. The insurgents cannot drive us out in open battle, but they can nibble away at us indefinitely.

"What ought to enrage Americans is that all this blood and treasure is being spent at best as a favor for the Iraqi people... I'd have been damned if I would have spent 1,300 American lives and $200 billion just to relieve the Iraqi people of their homegrown dictator. Iraq was never a threat to America, and never would have been a threat.

"However, if the American people wish to lavish lives and treasure on a crusade to relieve other people of their own evil governments, then rejoice, for there are plenty of hellholes in which we can bleed out...

"But if you apply the perspective of history to our present situation, you will clearly see that empires don't last. They exhaust themselves fiscally and morally in their endless wars and occupations. My prayer is that we will eventually come to our senses and spend our lives and treasure trying to make the good old U.S.A. as good as any country can be. The internationalists call it isolationism, but George Washington called it a sensible policy."

Perspective by Charley Reese

Fears of Terrorism Are Unjustified - by Leon Hadar

Leon Hadar writes:

"Not only should terrorism be seen as a marginal threat in geostrategic terms, it could also prove to be a rather limited and manageable problem as far as domestic security in the US and other countries is concerned, argues John Mueller, the head of security studies at Ohio State University...

"Prof. Mueller... contends that 'for all the attention it evokes, terrorism actually causes rather little damage' and the likelihood that any individual will become a victim in most places is 'microscopic.' The number of people worldwide who die as a result of terrorism is generally only a few hundred a year – tiny compared to the numbers who die in car accidents and is closer to the number who drown in bathtubs in the United States...

"In a way, terrorists force us to redirect resources from sensible programs and future growth in order to pursue unachievable but politically popular levels of domestic security. From that perspective, the terrorists have won an important victory that mortgaged our future. For example, measures that delay airline passengers by half an hour could cost the American economy $15 billion a year.

"What is needed is not a declaration of 'a war' on terrorism, not to mention the sense of hysteria that is advanced by politicians in the media, but a convincing, coherent, and nuanced answer to several questions...

" 'How much should I be willing to pay for a small reduction in probabilities that are already extremely low?'

" 'How much should I be willing to pay for actions that are primarily reassuring but do little to change the actual risk?'

"The message that officials in Washington seem to be sending these days to the American public is: Be scared; be very, very scared – but go on with your lives.

"Such messages, as one critic put it, have helped create 'a false sense of insecurity.'

"And that is exactly what the terrorists with their limited resources and power want to achieve."

Fears of Terrorism Are Unjustified - by Leon Hadar

Don't Believe Them

On 18 May 2000, Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. wrote:

"Here it is ten years after the [first] Gulf war, and the lies told by the US government are still pouring in. Most recently, Seymour Hersh writes in the New Yorker that a two-star general ordered a massacre against a five-mile line of retreating Iraqi soldiers, and did so two days after a ceasefire went into effect. Hundreds of soldiers were murdered, men and boys who posed no threat and didn’t know the war was still on. Many civilians, including children, were also shot. The numbers are still unclear because the corpses were buried quickly by the tank-bulldozers...

"Why was this bloodshed not reported at the time? There were no media around to witness it. They were operating under the military’s rules – accepted by a press said to be jealous of its liberties – against any unsupervised reporting in post-war Iraq...

"Is it any wonder that the US is hated in huge swaths of the Gulf region? So much for George Washington's ideal of being a beacon of liberty to the world. To many, the US is nothing but a torrent of helicopter gunships unleashing Hell on retreating soldiers and innocent civilians. This is not only a repudiation of America's founding principles; it is a flagrant violation of every rule of warfare agreed upon by every civilized country from the Middle Ages to the present day. This is the behavior of a murderous rogue state, not an indispensable nation.

"Again and again, the truth about US wars has turned out to be exactly the opposite of Pentagon press releases...

"If we were to develop an axiom about war informed by the last several, it would be this: believe nothing (nothing!) that the government tells you while the war is going on. Assume that it is all a lie, that the enemy is not nearly as evil as the Pentagon says, and that the US is behaving a darn-sight worse than the evening news claims. Go ahead and believe the worst about the US while the battle is going on and, ten years hence, you won't be far off the mark...

"Of course there will always be debunkers during war, a handful of people who will say outrageous things... During the war, these debunkers are denounced as unpatriotic and told to produce their sources. But sometimes they cannot. They doubt the Official Line because they have developed an instinct for spotting the wartime lie.

"The evidence to back their claims only starts pouring in a year and ten years after discussion about the war has been closed down...

"There is, however, something that can be done about it... Bone up on past wars and acquaint yourself with the lies and the new truths about those wars. Stand up for journalists who dare to stand up to the power elite; Lord knows it doesn't happen very often. Examine the history of warfare to understand how the state uses it to destroy liberty.

"And when the next war breaks out, prepare to discount every bit of information you hear about it... Speak out on behalf of writers and commentators who take an independent stand. Oppose US military intervention in any foreign conflict. Above all, ascribe no decent motives to the federal government. Always and everywhere, it is the enemy of truth.

"May 18, 2000"

Don't Believe Them

Noah Webster (1758-1843)

The Acton Institute writes, regarding Noah Webster (1758–1843):

"In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government, ought to be instructed. The Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people."

For Webster, the preservation of property was one of the chief ends of good government: "To render every man free, there must be energy enough in the executive, to restrain any man and any body of men from injuring the person or property of any individual in society." Indeed, Webster held that the preservation of private property is one of the surest bulwarks against the encroachment of liberty and that all other rights are "inferior considerations, when compared with a general distribution of real property among every class of people." Insofar as property is a result of man's labor, taking another's property without his consent or compensation is tantamount to enslaving him. Thus Webster concludes: "Let the people have property and they will have power -- a power that will forever be exerted to prevent the abridgment of any other privilege..."

Furthermore, Webster thought a virtuous and well-educated citizenry ensured the preservation of freedom. "Information is fatal to despotism," he wrote, and part of his life's labor was the writing and publishing of textbooks to be used in local schools and in homes that would convey the rudiments of spelling and grammar, as well as provide both moral formation and civic education. These latter projects were pivotal for Webster: "The virtues of men are of more consequence to society than their abilities; and for this reason, the heart should be cultivated with more assiduity than the head."

Noah Webster (1758-1843)

The Reality of Red-State Fascism by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., writes:

"A positive agenda of liberty is the only way we might have been spared the blizzard of government controls that were fastened on this country after Bush used the events of 9-11 to increase central planning, invade Afghanistan and Iraq, and otherwise bring a form of statism to America that makes Clinton look laissez-faire by comparison. The Bush administration has not only faced no resistance from the bourgeoisie. it has received cheers...

"... the very people who once proclaimed [hatred] of government now advocate its use against dissidents of all sorts, especially against those who would dare call for curbs in the totalitarian bureaucracy of the military, or suggest that Bush is something less than infallible in his foreign-policy decisions. The lesson here is that it is always a mistake to advocate government action, for there is no way you can fully anticipate how government will be used. Nor can you ever count on a slice of the population to be moral in its advocacy of the uses of the police power...

"In short, what we have alive in the US is an updated and Americanized fascism... It is for all the core institutions of bourgeois life in America: family, faith, and flag. But it sees the state as the central organizing principle of society, views public institutions as the most essential means by which all these institutions are protected and advanced, and adores the head of state as a godlike figure...

"No, today, the clear and present danger to freedom comes from the right side of the ideological spectrum, those people who are pleased to preserve most of free enterprise but favor top-down management of society, culture, family, and school, and seek to use a messianic and belligerent nationalism to impose their vision of politics on the world...

"Indeed, the current times can be seen as a training period for all true friends of liberty. We need to learn to recognize the many different guises in which tyranny appears...

The Reality of Red-State Fascism by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

'Our' Collective Goodness in the Tsunami Disaster by Jacob G. Hornberger

Jacob Hornberger writes:

"In the 20th century, 'we' embraced a collectivized system in which 'we' nationalized everyone’s income and then made the government 'our' agent for 'our' goodness, compassion, and caring. The system that 'we' adopted functions like this:

"'We' authorize the Congress that 'we' elect to take any portion of 'our' income it wants, as long as the percentage is set in a democratic (i.e., majority-vote) fashion. Once that portion or percentage is democratically set, the Internal Revenue Service is authorized to use force to collect the assigned take from everyone. The IRS then delivers the take to other government agencies, which then distribute the take to the poor and needy of the world. Voila! 'We' are caring, compassionate, and good … well, as long as 'our' government officials and agencies are caring, compassionate, and good. If they are 'stingy,' then 'we' are stingy.

"That’s in fact the underlying collectivized 'moral' basis for the entire welfare-warfare system that 'we' brought into existence in the 20th century. That’s why 'we' are good in Iraq –because the IRS delivered a portion of the take to the Pentagon, which then used the money to invade Iraq to bring 'democracy and liberation' to the Iraqi people, all on the orders of the president, who is of course democratically elected by 'us.' Voila! Through the collective, joint efforts of the IRS and the Pentagon (well, and the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve also) and the president, 'we' are good people for what 'we' are doing in Iraq...

"What about our American ancestors? You know, those Americans who for more than 100 years rejected income taxation, Social Security, welfare, foreign aid, and foreign wars of 'democracy and liberation.' You know, our ancestors who believed that freedom entailed a person’s keeping everything he earns and having the right to decide what to do with it without government interference – spend, donate, invest, hoard, or whatever. You know, our ancestors who had the right to accumulate unlimited amounts of wealth and, without being forced to care for others, brought into existence the most charitable society in history. You know, our ancestors who believed that charity, compassion, and caring meant nothing unless it came from the voluntary heart of an individual, as compared to the collectivized force of majority vote...

'Our' Collective Goodness in the Tsunami Disaster by Jacob G. Hornberger

The Fed's Folly by Scott M. Rosen

Scott Rosen writes:

"There is probably no better indication of just how powerful the state has grown since the founding of the republic than the fact that the citizens of this nation disinterestedly sit idly by while their government engages in behavior that would send these same folks to prison. The US government can attack foreign nations and cavalierly dismiss the loss of innocent civilian life as collateral damage rather than murder. It can forcibly extract money and property from whomever it wants, yet distinguishes between such confiscation and criminal theft.

"While the warfare-welfare state is afforded the right to commit infractions that private citizens are proscribed from engaging in, its operations are underwritten by the nation’s central bank, the Federal Reserve. The Fed is responsible for managing the nation’s monetary policy and has the sole legal authority to expand and contract the supply of money in circulation...

"Here’s the key, though: How does the Fed purchase existing debt and thusly conduct this convoluted operation? It simply creates the money out of thin air! When the FOMC buys government debt or sells it at a slower rate, it is said to be easing its monetary policy. When it does the opposite, selling government debt or decreasing the rate it purchases it, the Fed is tightening its monetary policy.

"Amazingly enough, if a private citizen decides to reproduce US currency and then circulate it, that’s referred to as counterfeit, but if the government essentially does the exact same thing, it’s called expansionary monetary policy...

"Counterfeiting is illegal for a reason. It undermines the value of the currency, and it is effectively stealing. Like theft and murder, however, the state seems to believe the rules that apply to the citizens don’t apply to it. Some might protest that it is a different situation when the government engages in theft (taxation), murder (war), and counterfeit (monetary policy). That’s true: When the state commits these acts, the results are far more widespread and devastating."

The Fed's Folly by Scott M. Rosen

'Stay the Course!' -- Is Not Enough by Patrick J. Buchanan

Pat Buchanan writes:

"We might all prefer that Arab nations be democratic. But that is not vital to us. If they remain despotic, that is their problem, so long as they do not threaten or attack us. But to invade an Islamic country to force it to adopt democratic reforms is democratic imperialism. If we practice it, we must expect that some of those we are reforming will resort to the time-honored weapon of anti-imperialists, terrorism – the one effective weapon the weak have against the strong...

"Before addressing his countrymen, the president needs to ask and answer for himself some hard questions... Who led him into a situation where his choice appears to be between a seemingly endless guerrilla war that could destroy his presidency, and walking away from Iraq and watching it collapse in mayhem and massacre of those who cast their lot with us? Why have these fools not been fired, like the CIA geniuses who sold JFK on the Bay of Pigs?

"But the president needs to know that if he intends to use U.S. military power to democratize the Middle East, Americans – 56 percent of whom now believe Iraq was a mistake – will not follow him..."

'Stay the Course!' -- Is Not Enough by Patrick J. Buchanan

WorldNetDaily: Buying the 'big lie' of church-state separation

David Kupelian, vice president and managing editor of WorldNetDaily.com and Whistleblower magazine, writes:

"If we really have been convinced that our Constitution – conceived, written, believed in, fought for and died for overwhelmingly by Christians and God-fearing people – requires that the Christian faith be taken out of government, then there's really no hope for us as a nation.

"But I don't think we've all bought the Big Lie...

"Focus on the Family's James Dobson summed it all up...

'We're at a pivotal point in the history of this country.

'Be a participant... Don't sit on the sidelines while our basic freedoms are lost.'

"Even James Madison, father of the Constitution, seemed to have something to say about this case:

'We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.' "

WorldNetDaily: Buying the 'big lie' of church-state separation

Extremism In Defense of the Status Quo by Butler Shaffer

Butler Shaffer writes:

In the mass-minded culture of politics, once one’s opinions get characterized as "extremist," they become irrelevant to any further discussion, no matter how factual, rational, or principled they might otherwise be...

Just as the government school system exists to condition minds in political catechisms, a major function of the establishment media is to generate, by rote reinforcement, the acceptable range of opinions...

By definition, collective thinking has no tolerance for deviations from announced norms. The "extremist" is the individual whose opinions lie outside the herd mindset...

Asking the kinds of questions that we are not supposed to ask has always been central to the creative process, and the insightful persons who dare to ask such questions have often suffered at the hands of the prevailing order...

To respect diversity is to welcome variation and uniqueness; deviation from a central norm. It is, in other words, to defend extremism (i.e., opinions or behavior that do not conform to the collective model)...

Of course, tolerance for views or conduct that diverge from the collective mindset is not what most defenders of "diversity" seek to promote...

You will not find any politically correct colleges or universities wringing their hands over the lack of "white supremacists" or "militia group" applicants: such people are considered "extremists..."

Thus it was that, in a recent holiday parade in Denver, a gay/lesbian group was permitted to have a float, while a Christian church group – which wanted to have a float with Christmas carolers – was not allowed...

The establishment’s hostility to "extremism" is not unlike the charge of "counter-revolutionary" directed against those Russians who questioned the direction taken during the Bolshevik Revolution. To have a collective resolve weakened by doubt or alternative purpose is a threat to the power base from which all political action arises. Furthermore, "extremists" often end up being people who operate on the basis of deeply-held and integrated philosophic principles, an attribute unwelcome in a collective atmosphere in which the pursuit of power is an end in itself...

Very often, an "extremist" is one who sees the long-term implications of present government policies, and opposes them in an effort to prevent what he views as their harmful consequences. Such a person does not await the rounding up of men and women to be loaded onto boxcars for shipment to concentration camps to voice concerns for the police-state implications of legislation giving the state such powers! This is why libertarians are often labeled "extremists," for their insistence on including spiritual, philosophical, and other non-material costs in the calculation of social policies...

No matter how deftly one tries to tap-dance around the subject – as with delusions of "limited government" – political systems are inherently at war with private property. If "government" is defined as a system with a monopoly on the lawful use of force, such force can only be exercised against the lives and property of individuals...

Over forty years ago... I heard the words that my late and dear friend, Karl Hess, had written for Barry Goldwater to speak to the convention. One passage, in particular, aroused the passions of delegates as no other political speech has in my lifetime: "extremism in defense of liberty is no vice!" ...

Extremism In Defense of the Status Quo by Butler Shaffer

God, Bush, and Functional Atheism by William L. Anderson

This story of Janet Reno's torturing a wife into testifying against her husband is eerily reminiscent of George Orwell's tale of the torture of Winston Smith and Julia to mutual betrayal in "1984".

God, Bush, and Functional Atheism by William L. Anderson

A Small But Important Victory by James Ostrowski

Attorney James Ostrowski writes:

"[N]o one with the slightest degree of intellectual honesty can deny that the vast bulk of the problems the public associates with the term 'drug problem' are in fact caused by drug prohibition and enforcement.

"Prohibition creates the black market and is thus responsible for all the problems related to the black market like high drug profits to dealers, drug gangs funded by those profits, shoot-outs over turf, addicts who steal to pay for expensive black market drugs, HIV-positive addicts spreading the virus by sharing needles which are illegal and thus expensive, children selling drugs and acting as look-outs because they are subject to lower penalties than their adult comrades, police corruption, clogged courts and prisons, the creation of a criminal subculture in the inner city, the jailing and criminalization of large numbers of young minority males...

"Once it is understood that prohibition not only is ineffective in preventing drug use, but also creates out of thin air a whole new set of virulent social problems, the absurdity of our occasional drug wars becomes clear. If prohibition creates big problems, intensifying prohibition creates bigger problems...

"No one is happy with the status quo. Escalating the drug war is doomed to failure because the drug problem increases in direct proportion to the level of enforcement. That leaves only one way out – de-escalate, move towards legalization...

"[M]ost people still oppose legalization, not because they can muster any cost-benefit data against it, or because they can rebut any of its main arguments, but, because they deeply oppose drug use on fundamental moral and religious grounds. Regardless of where and when it is done, and what the social consequences are, they just don't want to live in a world where anyone is consuming drugs...

"Unfortunately, millions of others have decided that they have no moral qualms about using drugs and they continue to do so despite society's best efforts to stop them. The prohibitionist majority's attempt to impose their values on the drug-using minority by force is the root cause of today's drug problem...

"The only real solution to the drug problem and the only real end of the perpetual drug war will come when we declare freedom of self-medication and ask the drug warriors to hang up their holsters and call it a career..."

A Small But Important Victory by James Ostrowski

It Can't Happen Here by Ron Paul

Congressman Ron Paul writes:

"Undoubtedly many Americans and members of Congress don’t believe America is becoming a police state, which is reasonable enough. They associate the phrase with highly visible symbols of authoritarianism like military patrols, martial law, and summary executions. But we ought to be concerned that we have laid the foundation for tyranny by making the public more docile, more accustomed to government bullying, and more accepting of arbitrary authority – all in the name of security. Our love for liberty above all has been so diminished that we tolerate intrusions into our privacy that would have been abhorred just a few years ago...

"American history, at least in part, is a history of people who don’t like being told what to do. Yet we are increasingly empowering the federal government and its agents to run our lives...

"Many citizens believe that once the war on terror is over, restrictions on their liberties will be reversed. But this war is undeclared and open-ended, with no precise enemy and no expressly stated final goal. Terrorism will never be eradicated completely; does this mean future presidents will assert extraordinary war powers indefinitely?

"Washington DC provides a vivid illustration of what our future might look like. Visitors to Capitol Hill encounter police barricades, metal detectors, paramilitary officers carrying fully automatic rifles, police dogs, ID checks, and vehicle stops. The people are totally disarmed; only the police and criminals have guns. Surveillance cameras are everywhere, monitoring street activity, subway travel, parks, and federal buildings. There's not much evidence of an open society in Washington, DC, yet most folks do not complain – anything goes if it's for government-provided safety and security.

"After all, proponents argue, the government is doing all this to catch the bad guys. If you don’t have anything to hide, they ask, what are you so afraid of? The answer is that I’m afraid of losing the last vestiges of privacy that a free society should hold dear. I’m afraid of creating a society where the burden is on citizens to prove their innocence, rather than on government to prove wrongdoing. Most of all, I’m afraid of living in a society where a subservient populace surrenders its liberties to an all-powerful government...

"It may be true that average Americans do not feel intimidated by the encroachment of the police state. Americans remain tolerant of what they see as mere nuisances because they have been deluded into believing total government supervision is necessary and helpful, and because they still enjoy a high level of material comfort. That tolerance may wane, however, as our standard of living falls due to spiraling debt, endless deficit spending at home and abroad, a declining fiat dollar, inflation, higher interest rates, and failing entitlement programs. At that point attitudes toward omnipotent government may change, but the trend toward authoritarianism will be difficult to reverse.

"Those who believe a police state can't happen here are poor students of history. Every government, democratic or not, is capable of tyranny. We must understand this if we hope to remain a free people."

It Can't Happen Here by Ron Paul

Homeschoolers Need Grandparents (And Grandparents Need Grandchildren) by Linda Schrock Taylor

Homeschoolers Need Grandparents (And Grandparents Need Grandchildren) by Linda Schrock Taylor

Why We Must Stay in Iraq (or Not) by Harry Browne

Harry Browne writes:

"Withdrawing from Iraq would not be 'the greatest surrender in history.' The greatest surrender already has occurred – when we surrendered to the federal government the power to sacrifice our lives and eat away our sustenance – when we allowed one man to put this nation in such jeopardy...

You mean [holding Iraqi elections] will justify the deaths of upwards of 100,000 Iraqis and Americans – probably none of whom considers an election in Iraq to be a worthwhile reward for losing his life? And since you consider it will all be worth it, are you now on your way to Iraq to offer your life? Or is it worth only other people’s lives?"

Why We Must Stay in Iraq (or Not) by Harry Browne

It's Time To Support the Troops by Sheila Samples

Sheila Samples writes:

"Now we can all get back to supporting 'the troops' by keeping them out of public view and safely back where they belong – like Bush says – in our thoughts 'n prayers. Criticizing the boss for sending them unarmed and unprepared into a never-ending, no-way-out bloody fiasco only demoralizes the troops...

"I have a considerable stash of words, but none sufficiently harsh to describe the contempt I feel for these Democrat and Republican legislators who silently lowered their heads – who turned their backs – and allowed Bush and Rumsfeld to send their young constituents to their deaths, untrained and improperly equipped...

"Congress had to know Saddam Hussein posed no threat whatever to America; that he had no connection to 9-11, and that Iraq was broken by 12 years of sanctions, by the disease and death resulting from our relentless bombing of Iraqi infrastructure and the withholding of medicines and food...

"It is even more grisly when you consider they knew their silence would not only disrupt, but destroy thousands of families at home and abroad, and that even those troops lucky enough to return would never be the same again...

"Americans are not natural predators. Is it supporting the troops to maliciously turn them into monsters so they will be 'up' for the eyeball-to-eyeball killing they must do for 'God and Country?'...

"USA Today founder Al Neuharth... [suggested] last week that, although Support Our Troops is a wonderful patriotic slogan, '...the best way to support troops thrust by unwise commanders in chief into ill-advised adventures like Vietnam and Iraq is to bring them home. Sooner rather than later,' Neuharth wrote in a Dec. 22 editorial. 'That should be our New Year's resolution.'

"I don't know about you, but I'm with Rosa and Al. It's time to stop the killing – time to stop the grievin' 'n mournin'. It's time to truly support American troops."

It's Time To Support the Troops by Sheila Samples

Support Out Troops: Bring Them Home

USA TODAY Founder, Al Neuharth, writes:

"Despite unhappy holidays, nearly all of us who served in WWII were proud, determined and properly armed and equipped to help defeat would-be world conquerors Hitler in Germany, Mussolini in Italy and Hirohito in Japan.

"At age 80, I'd gladly volunteer for such highly moral duty again. But if I were eligible for service in Iraq, I would do all I could to avoid it. I would have done the same during the Vietnam War, as many of the politically connected did.

" 'Support Our Troops' is a wonderful patriotic slogan. But the best way to support troops thrust by unwise commanders in chief into ill-advised adventures like Vietnam and Iraq is to bring them home. Sooner rather than later. That should be our New Year's resolution."

USATODAY.com - They can only dream of holidays at home

Hands Off the Electoral College by Ron Paul

Congressman Ron Paul reminds us that "our country is not a democracy."

"Our nation was founded as a constitutionally limited republic, as any grammar school child knew just a few decades ago. Remember the Pledge of Allegiance: 'and to the Republic for which it stands'? The Founding Fathers were concerned with liberty, not democracy. In fact, the word democracy does not appear in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution...

"Yet we have become obsessed with democracy, as though any government action would be permissible if a majority of voters simply approved of it... But the founders created a constitutionally limited republic precisely to protect fundamental liberties from the whims of the masses, to guard against the excesses of democracy. The Electoral College likewise was created in the Constitution to guard against majority tyranny in federal elections. The President was to be elected by the states rather than the citizenry as a whole, with votes apportioned to states according to their representation in Congress. The will of the people was to be tempered by the wisdom of the Electoral College...

"By contrast, election of the President by pure popular vote totals would damage statehood. Populated areas on both coasts would have increasing influence on national elections, to the detriment of less populated southern and western states... A popular vote system simply would intensify the populist pandering which already dominates national campaigns.

"Not surprisingly, calls to abolish the Electoral College system are heard most loudly among left elites concentrated largely on the two coasts. Liberals favor a very strong centralized federal government, and have contempt for the concept of states' rights (a contempt now shared, unfortunately, by the Republican Party). They believe in federalizing virtually every area of law, leaving states powerless to challenge directives sent down from Washington. The Electoral College system threatens liberals because it allows states to elect the president, and in many states the majority of voters still believe in limited government and the Constitution. Citizens in southern and western states in particular tend to value individual liberty, property rights, gun rights, and religious freedom, values which are abhorrent to the collectivist elites. The collectivists care about centralized power, not democracy. Their efforts to discredit the Electoral College system are an attempt to limit the voting power of pro-liberty states."

Hands Off the Electoral College by Ron Paul

Cell Phone Ban Has Totalitarian Implications by James Ostrowski

Attorney James Ostrowski makes a compelling case that the New York state law against making a cell phone call while driving "is a law that forbids innocuous behavior that millions of people in this country engage in every day without incident, but leads to enforcement efforts that in and of themselves cause accidents!"

Cell Phone Ban Has Totalitarian Implications by James Ostrowski

Roasted Chestnuts in July by Gary North

Gary North writes:

"One of the most popular of all Christmas songs was written by one of America’s great pop singers, Mel Tormé. It begins, 'Chestnuts roasting on an open fire. . . . 'It’s called 'The Christmas Song.' It was written in 1945 and was turned into a seasonal classic in 1946 by Nat 'King' Cole – in my book, the greatest of America’s pop singers.

"Christmas is merry. But what you do with it in July may make all the difference."

Fascinating story of the history of this popular song.

Roasted Chestnuts in July by Gary North

The Christmas Truce by Laurence M. Vance

Laurence M. Vance writes:

"The Christmas of 1914 was the first Christmas of the 'war to end all wars.' The war would drag on through three more...

"Brief and localized pre-holiday truces were springing up, usually initiated by the Germans...

"No one knows for certain where and how the truce officially began. What is known is that men from both sides up and down the front agreed on informal truces for Christmas Eve and Christmas Day...

"Where they couldn’t talk the language they were making themselves understood by signs, and everyone seemed to be getting on nicely. Here we were laughing and chatting to men whom only a few hours before we were trying to kill!

"That last sentence alone shows the utter folly of war. It also shows that left to themselves, men would not naturally engage in such a senseless war like World War I. It takes the state to get men to hate and kill other men that have never aggressed against them and that they don’t even know.

"After a silent night and a day, the war continued – the commanders saw to it...

"The situation described by Lew Rockwell just after Christmas two years ago has not changed: 'The US remains the only government in human history to have dropped nuclear weapons on people, it has far more weapons than anyone else, and remains the only country that reserves to itself the right of first strike.'

"Instead of invading the world, the United States should declare a truce with the world. No more threats. No more bombs. No more troops or bases on foreign soil. No more spies. No more trade sanctions. No more embargoes. No more foreign aid bribes. No more foreign entanglements. No more simultaneously playing the world’s bully and policeman. In a word: non-interventionism; that is, the principles of our Founding Fathers. What is wrong with 'peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations'? What is wrong with avoiding 'entangling alliances'? What is wrong with 'having as little political connection as possible' with foreign nations? What is wrong with not going abroad 'seeking monsters to destroy'? Can anyone honestly say that Bush’s principles are better than Jefferson’s principles?

"Over 1,300 U.S. soldiers won’t be celebrating Christmas this year – or any year. They died in vain for an unconstitutional, immoral, senseless war while in the service of a reckless, imperial presidency. They will forever have a silent night."

The Christmas Truce by Laurence M. Vance

Lyn Nofziger on political party affiliation

Lyn Nofziger writes in his mini-autobiography:

"I am a Republican because I believe that freedom is more important than government-provided security. Sometimes I wish I were a Democrat because Democrats seem to have more fun. At other times I wish I were a Libertarian because Republicans are too much like Democrats.

"What I actually am is a right-wing independent who is registered Republican because there isn't any place else to go. In the future I expect to be critical of both parties and their leadership and a lot of other people and things, too.

"Hope to see you around. 10/19/04"

Welcome to Lyn Nofziger.com

Conservative by Charley Reese

Charlie Reese explains what is a true conservative:

"A conservative believes that not only should the Supreme Court strictly construe the Constitution, but so should the president, the House, the Senate, governors, mayors and everybody else. A conservative does not approve of wars, except in defense of the land and the people, and only upon a declaration of war by both houses of Congress. A war to liberate somebody else from a nasty government is unconstitutional, illegal and immoral...

"A conservative is against foreign aid. Nowhere in the Constitution is Congress authorized to tax the American people and then hand their money to a foreign government as either a gift or a loan. Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government authorized to provide welfare, health care, housing or education. Nowhere in the Constitution does it mention abortion or gay marriage. Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government authorized to subsidize either individuals or corporations...

"Philosophical and moral issues are to be decided by the legislatures of the states, not by federal courts or even by Congress, whose duties and powers are strictly limited by the Constitution. Whether homosexuals should be allowed to marry or form civil unions and whether abortion should be legal or illegal are both questions to be decided by the state legislatures. No state or federal judge should have a say in the matter, and Congress likewise has no authority to intervene one way or the other...

"A conservative Christian believes that his own soul is not imperiled if other people down the street decide to do some sinning. A conservative Christian recognizes that he is commanded to feed the hungry, clothe the naked and comfort the sick and dying. He is not commanded to shift this responsibility to government. He is not commanded to judge other people's lives and to regulate their behavior. A conservative Christian recognizes that something does not have to be illegal in order for him to refrain from doing it.

"A conservative believes in the real, traditional values of this country: courage, hard work, self-reliance, frugality, chastity before marriage, faithfulness after marriage, loyalty to family and loyalty to the Constitution. Loyalty to a political party or to a politician is profoundly un-American...

"Now, it should be noted that the republic handed to us by our Founding Fathers died with the Confederate States of America. That's what that war was about. Since then, we have had a centralized national government ever increasing its powers, and an imperialistic foreign policy. People in Washington pay lip service, if that, to the Constitution, and people outside of Washington don't seem to care.

"As for traditional values, they are little observed. America is a decadent country, especially its cultural elite. One would have to be deaf, blind and living in a monastery not to recognize this. A true conservative has no place in either major party. They are both committed to a centralized government at home and imperialism abroad. One's only choice on Election Day is to try to pick the more competent of two candidates...

Conservative by Charley Reese

Congressman Ron Paul Denounces National ID Card

“National ID cards are not proper in a free society,” Paul stated. “This is America, not Soviet Russia. The federal government should never be allowed to demand papers from American citizens, and it certainly has no constitutional authority to do so.”

“Nationalizing standards for drivers licenses and birth certificates, and linking them together via a national database, creates a national ID system pure and simple. Proponents of the national ID understand that the public remains wary of the scheme, so they attempt to claim they’re merely creating new standards for existing state IDs. Nonsense! This legislation imposes federal standards in a federal bill, and it creates a federalized ID regardless of whether the ID itself is still stamped with the name of your state.”

“Those who are willing to allow the government to establish a Soviet-style internal passport system because they think it will make us safer are terribly mistaken,” Paul concluded... “Every conservative who believes in constitutional restraints on government should reject the authoritarian national ID card and the nonsensical intelligence bill itself.”

Paul Denounces National ID Card

TSA- Bullies at the Airport

Congressman Ron Paul points out the out-of-control airport security gestapo tactics.

"A new TSA policy begun in September calls for invasive and humiliating searches of random passengers; in some instances crude pat-downs have taken place in full public view. Some female travelers quite understandably have burst into tears upon being groped, and one can only imagine the lawsuits if TSA were a private company. But TSA is not private, TSA is a federal agency-- and therefore totally unaccountable to the American people...

"In the rush to hire a new workforce, 28,000 screeners were put to work without background checks. Some of them were convicted felons. Many were very young, uneducated, with little job experience. At Kennedy and LaGuardia airports in New York, police arrested dozens of TSA employees who were simply stealing valuables from the luggage they were assigned to inspect. Of course TSA has banned locks on checked luggage, leaving passengers with checked bags totally at the mercy of screeners working behind closed doors...

"... we must understand the reality of TSA: its employees have no special training, wisdom, intelligence, or experience whatsoever that qualifies them to have any authority over you. They certainly have no better idea than you do how to prevent terrorism. TSA is about new bureaucratic turf and lucrative union makework, not terrorism...

"TSA has created an atmosphere of fear and meek subservience in our airports that smacks of Soviet bureaucratic bullying. TSA policies are subject to change at any moment, they differ from airport to airport, and they need not be in writing... Think you have a right to know the laws and regulations you are expected to obey? Too bad. Get in line and stay quiet, or we'll make life very hard for you. This is the attitude of TSA personnel...

"Passengers, of course, have caught on quickly. They have learned to stay quiet and not ask any questions, no matter how ludicrous or undignified the command. It's bad enough to see ordinary Americans bossed around in their stocking feet by newly-minted TSA agents, but it's downright disgraceful to see older Americans and children treated so imperiously. But any objection, however rational and reasonable, risks immediate scrutiny. At best, complainers will be taken aside and might miss their flight. If they don't submit quickly and attempt to assert any rights, they will end up detained, put on a TSA list that guarantees them hostile treatment at every airport, and possibly arrested or fined for their 'attitude'...

"Airlines should be using every last ounce of their lobbying and public relations power to stop TSA from harassing, delaying, humiliating, and otherwise mistreating their paying passengers. They should be protecting their employees, passengers, and aircraft using private security and guns in the cockpit. After all, who has more incentive to create safe skies than the airlines themselves? Many security-intensive industries, including nuclear power plants, oil refineries, and armored money transports, employ private security forces with excellent results. Yet the airlines prefer to relinquish all responsibility for security to the government, so they cannot be held accountable if another disaster occurs. But airlines are finding out the hard way that millions of Americans simply won't put up with TSA's abuse... Who can blame anyone for avoiding airports altogether?

"While millions of Americans undoubtedly welcome any TSA indignity under the guise of 'preventing terrorism', millions more are not willing to give blind obedience to arbitrary authority. TSA creates only a false sense of security, at great cost not only financially but also in terms of our dignity. How we as Americans react to authoritarian agencies like TSA is an indicator of how much we still value freedom over our persons and effects."


TSA- Bullies at the Airport

Chuck Muth on pork-barrel spending and who's really "pro-choice"

Chuck Muth points out how the White House crowd regularly paints everyone and anyone who voices an objection to ILLEGAL immigration as anti-immigrant or, worse, a racist... Josh Bolten, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, brags that raising the debt ceiling to over 8 TRILLION dollars and passing a larded-up $388 billion omnibus spending bill is somehow "a significant victory in the battle for spending discipline in Washington" by President Bush and Congressional leaders... And pro-choicers lament that allowing hospitals to opt out of providing abortions is somehow a great step back for women's rights... Hogwash. If a woman chooses to have a legal abortion after this bill is enacted, she’ll just have to get it from a doctor or hospital which chooses to provide that service. Congress merely extended “choice” on this issue to others. But apparently, in the minds of the abortion rights crowd, the pro-choice road is a one-way street.

Time for Some Political Truth-In-Labeling

Selective Bullying, by Harry Browne

Harry Browne says the Bush administration is unleashing the dogs of war again, this time on Iran.

Selective Bullying, by Harry Browne

Once Again, Incumbents Are the Big Winners

Patrick Basham and John Samples write:

Election Day 2004 showed the power of incumbency in American politics. For the fourth time in row, incumbents in the House of Representatives won over 98 percent of their races. And not only are they winning consistently, but they're doing so by increasingly wider margins; incumbency now adds about 11 percent to the vote share of the average officeholder. The past three elections constituted the least competitive elections (with one exception) since 1946.

The congressional franking privilege allows incumbents to flood their districts with mail that often is little more than taxpayer-funded campaign literature. Large administrative and political staffs on Capitol Hill and in district offices attend to the needs of voters, all the while stressing the qualities of their bosses. Incumbents also receive taxpayer-subsidized travel, easy access to the media and, most recently, Web sites to communicate with the electorate. And they have the power to deliver pork barrel spending to their districts. The limits on all of those advantages are set by their beneficiaries -- the Congress members themselves.

And the incumbents' advantages are growing. Thirty years ago, in the wake of Watergate, Congress imposed restrictions on campaign contributions. The more recent McCain-Feingold legislation has set that limit at $2,000 for a congressional candidate. Under the rhetorical guise of warding off unspecified corruption, an incumbent is happy to cap contributions at $2,000 per contributor if his challenger must operate under the same limit. Certainly, an incumbent may detest the phone calls he has to make to potential donors and the fundraising breakfasts, lunches and dinners he has to attend. But at night he sleeps well in the knowledge that his challenger back home must do the same (more, if the challenger is serious about winning) without, in most cases, a comparable network of contacts, donors and lobbyists whose longstanding collective investment in the incumbent's career ensures continuing financial commitment...

Political gerrymandering has also helped incumbents. More and more House districts have become safe for Democrats or Republicans thanks to redistricting by state legislatures. In nearly a third of this year's House races, the winning candidate (i.e., the incumbent) was either unopposed or faced an opponent without campaign funds.

The public understands the electoral game is fixed. A Rasmussen poll found 72 percent of Americans agreed with the statement that, "In American elections,members of Congress have unfair advantages over people who want to run against them."

American elections do have competition between the political parties. After all, the Democrats could win back the House and Senate in 2006. What we lack is competition between insiders and outsiders. No one can seriously believe even 10 percent of incumbents will lose in 2006. This lack of competitive congressional elections is a direct consequence of public subsidy.

In the Federalist Papers, James Madison wrote that the House of Representatives was a "numerous and changeable body" that would most directly reflect the shifting popular will. These days, changes in the House are the rare exception rather than the democratic rule. Representative democracy works best when voters have choices and competition for office. Americans have too little of both now.

This article appeared on FOXNews.com, November 21, 2004.

Once Again, Incumbents Are the Big Winners

Ron Paul: Where To From Here?

U.S. Representative Ron Paul writes:

It’s important to note that total future obligations of the United States government are estimated at well over $70 trillion. These obligations obviously cannot be met. This indebtedness equates to an average household share of the national debt of $474,000!

No serious thoughts are expressed in Washington about the constitutional principle of local government. The notion of a loose-knit republican form of government is no longer a consideration. The consensus is that the federal government has responsibility for solving all of our problems, and even amending the Constitution to gain proper authority is no longer thought necessary...

With stronger partisan control over Congress, the president will have even less difficulty in raising the limit as necessary. It is now acceptable policy to spend excessively without worrying about debt limits. It may be a sign of the times, but the laws of economics cannot be repealed and eventually a price will be paid for this extravagance...

It is imperative that we resolve the dilemma of why it’s proper to financially reward an abortionist who acts one minute before birth, yet we arrest and prosecute a new mother who throws her child into a garbage bin one minute after birth...

Being more attuned to our Constitution and having a different understanding of morality would go a long way toward preventing unnecessary and dangerous wars. I’d like to make a few points about this different understanding:

First: The United States should never go to war without an express Declaration by Congress. If we had followed this crucial but long-forgotten rule the lives lost in Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf, and Iraq might have been prevented. And instead of making us less secure, this process would make us more secure. Absent our foreign occupations and support for certain governments in the Middle East and central Asia over the past fifty years, the 9-11 attack would have been far less likely to happen.

Second: A defensive war is morally permissible and justified, even required. Just as a criminal who invades our house and threatens our family deserves to be shot on the spot, so too does a nation have the moral duty to defend against invasion or an imminent threat. For centuries the Christian definition of a just war has guided many nations in making this decision.

Third: The best test (a test the chicken hawks who promoted the war refused to take) for those who are so eager to send our troops to die in no-win wars is this: “Am I willing to go; am I willing to be shot; am I willing to die for this cause; am I willing to sacrifice my children and grandchildren for this effort?” The bottom line: Is this Iraq war worth the loss of more than 1200 dead Americans, and thousands of severe casualties, with no end in sight, likely lasting for years and motivating even more suicidal attacks on innocent Americans here at home?

Fourth: Can we as a moral people continue to ignore the loss of innocent life on the other side? Can we as a nation accept the callousness of the war proponents regarding the estimated 100,000 Iraqi civilian deaths? Can we believe these deaths are a mere consequence of our worthy effort to impose our will on an alien culture? Is it really our duty to sacrifice so much to pursue a questionable policy of dictating to others what we think is best for them? Can these deaths be dismissed as nothing more than “collateral damage,” and even applauded as proof of the professed progress we are making in our effort to democratize the Middle East? By ignoring the human costs of the conflict we invite problems, and the consequence of our actions will come back to haunt us.

Fifth: Arguing that the war in Iraq is necessary for our national security is pure fiction; that it has something to do with the 9-11 attack or WMDs is nonsense. Our meddling in the Middle East and the rest of the world actually increases the odds of us being attacked again by suicidal guerrillas here at home. Tragically, this is something the neo-cons will never admit.

Sixth: What kind of satisfaction can we achieve from the civil war we have instigated? A significant portion of the killing in Iraq now occurs amongst Iraqis themselves, at our urging. The country is in chaos, despite the assurances of our leaders. Even under the thug Saddam Hussein, Christians at least were protected by the government-- whereas today their churches are bombed and many are struggling to escape the violence by fleeing to Syria. There is no evidence that our efforts in the Middle East have promoted life and peace. Tragically, no one expects the death and destruction in Iraq to end anytime soon.

By failing to understand the history of the region and the nature of tribal culture, we have made victory virtually impossible. Tribal customs and religious beliefs that have existed for thousands of years instruct that family honor requires reciprocal killing for every member of the family killed by infidels/Americans. For each of the possible 100,000 Iraqis killed, there’s a family that feels a moral obligation to get revenge by killing an American, any American if possible.

Ronald Reagan learned this lesson the hard way in coming to understand attitudes in Lebanon. Reagan spoke boldly that he would not turn tail and run no matter how difficult the task when he sent Marines to support the Israeli/Christian side of the Lebanese civil war in 1983. But he changed his tune after 241 Marines were killed. He wrote about the incident in his autobiography: “Perhaps we didn’t appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle. Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass murder to gain instant entry to Paradise was so foreign to our own values and consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for the Marines’ safety that it should have… In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believed the last thing we should do was turn tail and leave… Yet, the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to re-think our policy there.” Shortly thereafter Reagan withdrew the Marines from Lebanon, and no more Americans were killed in that fruitless venture.

Reagan’s willingness to admit error and withdraw from Lebanon was heroic, and proved to be life-saving. True to form, many neo-cons with their love of war exude contempt for Reagan’s decision. To them force and violence are heroic, not reassessing a bad situation and changing policy accordingly.

A policy that uses the religious civil war within the Muslim faith as an excuse for remaking the entire Middle East by force makes little sense and will not end well. The more we fight and the more we kill the greater the animosity of those who want us out of their family feud-- and out of their countries.

Here are a few reasons why conservatives ought to reject the current policy of pre-emptive war:

1. The Constitution is on the side of peace. Under the Constitution-- the law of the land-- only Congress can declare war. The president is prohibited from taking us to war on his own.

2. The Founders and all the early presidents argued the case for non-intervention overseas, with the precise goals of avoiding entangling alliances and not involving our people in foreign wars unrelated to our security.

3. The American tradition and sense of morality for almost all our history rejected the notion that we would ever deliberately start a war, even with noble intentions.

4. The Christian concept of just war rejects all the excuses given for marching off to Iraq with the intention of changing the whole region into a western-style democracy by force, with little regard for the cost in life and limb and the economic consequences here at home.

5. America faces a 7.5 trillion dollar national debt that is increasing by 600 billion dollars per year. Fiscal conservatives cannot dismiss this, even as they clamor for wars we cannot afford.

6. History shows the size of the state always grows when we’re at war. Under conditions of war civil liberties are always sacrificed-- thus begging the point. We go hither and yon to spread our message of freedom, while sacrificing our freedoms here at home and eating away at the wealth of the country.

7. Those who understand the most important function of our national government is to provide strong national defense should realize that having troops in over 100 countries hardly helps us protect America, secure our borders, or avoid alienating our allies and potential enemies.

8. The best way to prevent terrorism is to change our policies, stop playing crusader, and stop picking sides in religious civil wars or any other civil wars. “Blowback” from our policies is not imaginary.

9. Promoting true free trade and promoting prosperity through low taxes and less regulation sends a strong message to the world and those interested in peace and commerce.

10. A policy of free exchange with other nations avoids the trappings of the new isolationists, who influence our foreign policy with the generous use of sanctions, trade barriers, and competitive currency devaluations. They are only too willing to defer to the World Trade Organization and allow it to dictate our trade and tax policies.

Conservatives who profess to uphold the principle of right-to-life should have little trouble supporting the position of the Founders and the Constitution: a foreign policy of “peace and commerce with those who choose and no entangling alliances.”

Where To From Here?

A Forgotten Day & A Forgotten Country

Harry Browne writes:

"Many of us know what once was and what could be again. And that's why we refuse to give up. We want to bring back 19th-century freedom and marry it with 21st-century technology. Then we can again celebrate this day and this country as it should be. And once again that great statue of Lady Liberty can provide light and hope and inspiration to the entire world"

A Forgotten Day & A Forgotten Country

Why oppose a federal marriage amendment?

This posting summarizes the excellent rationale for pro-family citizens to oppose the proposed federal marriage amendment.

The Liberty Committee -- Legislative Alerts: federal marriage amendment

Why We Cannot Win by Al Lorentz

As my friend, Dean May, says:

"Let's really support our troops. Let's Bring 'Em Home."

Why We Cannot Win by Al Lorentz

Opposed to government ban on smoking in private businesses

Following is a letter I sent today to the mayor and members of the City Council of Columbus, Indiana.


I have not seen a copy yet of the smoking ban ordinance that Mayor Armstrong plans to introduce to the City Council on September 21, but I am strongly opposed to any measure such as this which would dictate to private business owners how they may conduct business on their own property. Trying to cast a private business as a "public place" may try to put this in a different light, but it comes down to the same thing.

I encourage local government officials to seek out and find effective non-statutory means of promoting healthy individual and business choices.

By way of background, I am a non-smoker and I prefer to avoid entering and staying in situations where I am breathing significant second-hand smoke. Therefore I seldom frequent businesses in which smoking is prevalent, and I choose to work for an employer who voluntarily prohibits smoking on the premises, except in designated areas. The company for which I work has made this decision because they perceive it is a wise business decision for them.

I also favor no-smoking policies in government buildings, where there is no private competition available for the services which are offered there.

However, government regulation of smoking in private businesses unnecessarily forsakes the American tradition of providing the least intrusive government that serves the best interest of all its citizens. Here we are talking about a local government taking the money these very business people are forced to provide to support that government, and then wanting to turn right around and use their own money against them to force them to run their businesses in a different way than the way they perceive to be best. That just doesn't sound have a "land of the free" ring to it to me.

As in many other realms, the free market is effective and sufficient for regulating smoking in this situation. If having a smoking section is good for business, then the business owner should have the freedom to offer that situation. Customers (and employees) who disagree are free to vote with their feet. If there are enough of them, competition for customers and employees will show that the non-smoking establishments do better than businesses which permit smoking, and the enlightened business owner can choose to adjust his business strategy or not.

The specific fallacy which I have not seen much addressed thus far in the public debate is that employees are somehow helpless victims of an employer who chooses to offer a choice of smoking in his business. It is disingenuous to claim that "employees deserve a healthy work environment." While no employer should negligently permit unnecessary risks in the workplace, it is a fact of life that every job carries with it intrinsic hazards, some more so than others. The compensation for working in that workplace must implicitly take those hazards into account, or the employer would not be able to hire any employees who were willing to subject themselves to the risks inherent in that workplace.

For example, the general public understands that those who choose to work in such occupations as the armed forces, firefighting, law enforcement, mining, or offshore drilling voluntarily assume greater risks to life and health as a part of their job than those who choose many other occupations, for example as an office worker. Other than the military, nearly every other occupation in our country permits each employee to evaluate on a daily basis whether he considers the benefits of his job (e.g., the pay) to outweigh the costs, including the health risks.

Indentured servanthood has been gone for a long time in our society. Nearly everyone who works in our country, including the Columbus and Bartholomew County area, has the daily freedom to leave a job whenever he comes to believe that the risks outweigh the benefits for him. I understand there are many compelling reasons for wanting to stay in a long-held job, including accrued vacation and benefits, but those must all simply enter into the daily cost-benefit analysis.

I grew up on a hog farm in nearby Rush County, so that brings an illustration to mind. We occasionally shook our heads in near-incredulity to hear the stories of city folk who, longing for a nice place in the country, knowingly selected property near a hog confinement operation for their new residence. Then, after a period of enduring the odors to which they had knowingly subjected themselves, they took the hog farmer to court to protest the very smells that had been there all along, usually since long before they ever decided to place themselves in that environment.

This is the same sort of pomposity I see in an employee (or a well-intentioned public servant who wishes to intervene on his behalf in exchange for a vote in the next election) who knowingly hires into a smoking environment, and then suddenly decides that he has a right to demand the employer provide him a different environment, rather than just voting with his feet and selling his services to someone else who will provide him a work environment with a cost-benefit ratio more to his liking.

Another option open to any employee is to politely negotiate with the employer before deciding to leave. Perhaps faced with losing one or more valued and experienced employees, some employers would suddenly find it in their own enlightened self-interest to voluntarily institute a no-smoking policy for the business. If not, asking the question has at least helped to clarify whether the employer with these priorities is really the one for whom you wish to work anyway.

One of the sound bites playing on WCSI radio today in the story on the August 30 public forum was positively Orwellian. I did not hear who the man speaking was, but he said something to the effect that if the taxpaying members of the community were not voluntarily making "good" health choices (as he defines "good"), then he sees government's role as stepping in and forcing them to do so. This flies in the face of those like me who see one of government's primary roles as preserving the rights of liberty and private property.

It reminds me of Benjamin Franklin's comment, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." In this case, those giving up essential liberty are those seeking a little temporary safety from tobacco smoke by using the force of government to compel their neighbors to give up a measure of liberty.

While I am no fan of second-hand smoke, the loss of liberty, and the precedent it sets for further losses in the future for other perceived "public goods", is just not worth it.

"Red Dawn" and Iraq

Thomas Eddlem quotes a line from the 1984 movie "Red Dawn" and draws a parallel with the "friendly" British occupation of Boston in 1768 to help explain why the Iraqi people are not happy about being occupied by a foreign force.

Nostradamus, Bush Is Not - by Thomas R. Eddlem

How politicians muzzle preachers

Discover the history behind the muzzling of America's clergy.

Intellivu - Editorial Columns

Whom Do We Elect?

Gary Benoit explains why it does not matter a whole lot who we elect as our next president. The critical elections in which an activist constitutionalist can really make a difference for our country's future are the 435 congressional districts.

Whom Do We Elect? - The New American - July 12, 2004

The war on drugs feeds the war on guns

Joel Miller explains how the war on drugs threatens the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

WorldNetDaily: The war on guns

WorldNetDaily: Boy Scouts still under heavy fire

David Limbaugh weighs in on the "homosexual activists' relentless assault on the Boy Scouts of America, all because the BSA will not conform its standards to accommodate their lifestyle."

WorldNetDaily: Boy Scouts still under heavy fire

WorldNetDaily: Child murders and illegal immigration

Joseph Farah connects the heinous child murders in Baltimore with the illegal immigration problem.

WorldNetDaily: Child murders and illegal immigration

WorldNetDaily: Pizza man saved by gun, but fired for packin' heat

Rick Whitham points out "the incredible unfairness of a huge company telling its employees – in essence – they must agree to die for the company rather than use legal reasonable means to defend themselves..."

WorldNetDaily: Pizza man saved by gun, but fired for packin' heat

Chuck Baldwin -- "The Spirit of Fear" Controls Many Christians

Pastor Chuck Baldwin reminds Christians that "Duty is ours; results are God's."

Chuck Baldwin -- "The Spirit of Fear" Controls Many Christians

How Much Is Hussein's Departure Worth?, by Harry Browne

Harry Browne asks, "Would removing Hussein be worth it if the cost were just one human life — but that life was yours?"

How Much Is Hussein's Departure Worth?, by Harry Browne

WorldNetDaily: 'Hate crimes' bill: Prescription for tyranny

Robert Knight says, ' Let's go to the bottom line: The federal "hate crimes" bill lays the groundwork for persecution of Christians in this country... This isn't a slippery slope; it's a luge ride toward totalitarianism.

If you value the freedom to speak our minds, you might want to let public officials know in no uncertain terms how you feel about politicians who aid and abet the effort to create "thought crimes." '

WorldNetDaily: 'Hate crimes' bill: Prescription for tyranny

WorldNetDaily: Randall Terry's prodigal son, the homosexual, Part 2

Randall Terry points out that ' Homosexual behavior is suicide on the installment plan. '

' The homosexual activists have become masters of "mix and match." They talk about "feelings" and behavior as if they are one and the some. They are not... Homosexual behavior is wrong because it violates the way our Creator made the world, and the Laws He gave us... absent the Created order and standards of the Almighty, there is no reason to oppose same-sex-marriage... The reason we oppose homosexual marriage is because it violates the way God made the world – it attacks the institution He created; it betrays and defies the Laws He gave us. '

' ... If there is no God... then anything goes... But if there is a God who makes the rules, then He has imposed His morals on all of us, and we are obliged to obey and defend those ethics in the public square... The Declaration of Independence declares that our rights come from God. It also declares that Laws come from God, and that God is the Supreme Judge of the Universe. We do not get to pick our rights, nor the laws that govern our behavior... God loves homosexuals, and will redeem their lives, and give them the strength to overcome this self-destructive behavior... '

' Our bad feelings don't come from our Maker. Our feelings are ours – they come and go – but we can all control our behavior, and overcome unhealthy feelings... we must not confuse homosexual "feelings" with homosexual behavior... We must never give up the idea that people can change. '

' We know there is a God in Heaven who loves us, and has helped many of us turn from unhealthy and unholy behaviors by the power of the Gospel. Likewise, with the help of God's grace, many of us have overcome unhealthy feelings, or we have learned how to defuse those feelings, and not let them rule over us... To say that homosexuals cannot overcome their addiction and their behavior is to deny the power of the Gospel. '

' We must have enough love and courage to tell the homosexual movement the Truth: We accept that you have feelings and struggles that are self-abusive, and we hope and pray you overcome them. We will help you as we are able. We love you, because you are made in the image of God. But don't expect us to validate, lionize, legalize or otherwise elevate as "normal" your self-destructive addiction. Don't expect us to tell our sons and daughters that homosexual behavior is a healthy path they might choose someday. '

' If homosexuals seek to live at peace while they work on their struggles, fine... But when they seek to cram their agenda and perversions down our throat as good and normal, we must oppose them, and defeat their efforts. '

WorldNetDaily: My prodigal son, the homosexual, Part 2

ISLAM AND DEMOCRACY: THE IMPOSSIBLE UNION - Amir Taheri - Benador Associates

Amir Taheri makes a thought-provoking case for the immiscibility of Islam and democracy.

ISLAM AND DEMOCRACY: THE IMPOSSIBLE UNION - Amir Taheri - Benador Associates

U.N. sea treaty supporters feel the heat

Cheryl Chumley recounts some excellent arguments to let the LOST (Law of the Sea Treaty) stay lost.

ESR | May 17, 2004 | U.N. sea treaty supporters feel the heat: "U.N. sea treaty supporters feel the heat"

Stop Immigration, Start Deportation

Mitchell Brooks makes a compelling case that George W. Bush refuses to protect our sovereignty while keeping the Border Patrol woefully understaffed.

The Washington Dispatch

Law Of Unintended FCC Consequences

Excellent commentary by Stuart Epperson on the downside of trying to gore the other person's ox.

The Washington Dispatch

Why Pictures of Flag-Draped Coffins Should Be Published (The Washington Dispatch)

Excellent case for the U.S. government to back off its attempted suppression of the true costs of our involvement in another undeclared war.

The Washington Dispatch

WorldNetDaily: Let's do some detective work

Walter Williams cites some Constitutional experts on what's wrong with today's national government.

WorldNetDaily: Let's do some detective work

The case against gun locks

Dr. John Lott makes a strong case against locking up guns.

TCS: Tech Central Station - Bound to Misfire