Interesting report on Indiana 9th district race.
SchansBlog: Survey USA poll results on Hill, Sodrel and me
A Degenerate Empire
2 days ago
Thoughts and commentary from a Christian, pro-liberty, free-market, anti-war perspective.
The situation in Zimbabwe provides an excellent example of how U.S. foreign policy should operate all over the world.
What should the U.S. government do in this horrific situation? Should it invade and occupy Zimbabwe? Should it attempt a regime-change operation? Should it assassinate Mugabe? Should it impose sanctions and embargos? Should it buy Mugabe off with foreign aid?
The answer is: None of the above. It is no more business of the U.S. government to intervene in the affairs of Zimbabwe, no matter how horrible conditions are there, then it is for, say, the Swiss government to do so.
Is there anything the United States can do to help people in Zimbabwe? Yes. Here are some ways:
1. Americans should be free to travel to Zimbabwe and do whatever they want to support Mugabe’s opposition, including armed revolution if it comes to that. What such Americans should not be permitted to do is enlist the U.S. government to come to their aid. They must take individual responsibility for their convictions and actions.
2. Americans should be free to send money and other aid to people in Zimbabwe on a purely voluntary basis. They should not be permitted to enlist the taxing power of the U.S. government to assist them with foreign aid.
3. Americans should be free to engage in economic activity with Zimbabweans. No sanctions or embargoes. Building up the economic base of the private sector is one of the most effective tools against tyranny.
4. In a larger context, Americans should be devoting their efforts to establishing a model free society here at home to serve as an example to the people of Zimbabwe and the rest of the world. This would include the end of such things as kidnapping, torture, militarism, rendition, and military tribunals at the hands of the U.S. government and the complete restoration of such principles as due process of law, right to counsel, habeas corpus, right to confront witnesses, and trial by jury. It would also include the complete restoration of economic liberty to the American people.
5. In a similarly larger context, Americans should restore their heritage of open borders, which would send a message to the world that the beacon in the Statue of Liberty has been relit, sending forth its light to people all over the world, especially those suffering tyranny, oppression, or starvation. The message would be: “We will not permit our government to come and save you with soldiers, bombs, missiles, and bullets, which would kill and maim hundreds of thousands of you. Instead, you should know that if you are able and willing to escape your plight, there is at least one nation to which you can come that will not force you to return.”
Given the interventionist debacle in Iraq, which has killed and maimed thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, fortunately there are few Americans who are calling on the U.S. government to invade and occupy Zimbabwe, despite the lack of democracy in that nation. The same holds true, of course, for such nations as Vietnam, North Korea, and China, where there is a lack of democracy and a willingness among Americans to live with that fact.
The same policy of nonintervention (i.e., no invasion, occupation, or assassination) that Americans embrace for Vietnam, North Korea, China, and Zimbabwe should be applied to every country on earth. The time has come for the American people to end the U.S. government’s role as the world’s international policeman and welfare provider, a role that inevitably only makes a bad situation worse.
Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.
So while there is no threat, the country is at war and the threat level is "elevated" even though there is no threat which means that your car can be "nearly stripped" and you can be "detained" if you have a "nervous demeanor." But you have no reason to be nervous if there is no threat, even though the threat level is "elevated."
You can't make this stuff up, and it bears repeating: "As war and government prove, insanity is the most contagious of diseases." ~ Edward Abbey
We need to be clear about the trade-off. The price of liberty is a small but appreciable loss of security; the price of security is a loss of liberty. In the case of the 42 days, the increase in security is obviously too small to justify the loss of a freedom such as habeas corpus.
As for cycle helmets, we should be allowed, in our muddled way, to make up our own minds. Sometimes we will go for hatless, sun-blessed, windswept liberty; sometimes for helmeted security.
The important thing is that we assess the risk, we make the decision, and be it on our own heads - or, in the case of my helmet, sometimes not.
Why, if all that were so — if the enterprise were to be a failure from the start — was there any sense in starting it? "Ah," the Lord said, "you do not get the point. There is a Remnant there that you know nothing about. They are obscure, unorganized, inarticulate, each one rubbing along as best he can. They need to be encouraged and braced up because when everything has gone completely to the dogs, they are the ones who will come back and build up a new society; and meanwhile, your preaching will reassure them and keep them hanging on. Your job is to take care of the Remnant, so be off now and set about it..."
The mass man is one who has neither the force of intellect to apprehend the principles issuing in what we know as the humane life, nor the force of character to adhere to those principles steadily and strictly as laws of conduct; and because such people make up the great and overwhelming majority of mankind, they are called collectively the masses...
The Remnant are those who by force of intellect are able to apprehend these principles, and by force of character are able, at least measurably, to cleave to them. The masses are those who are unable to do either...
If a prophet were not too particular about making money out of his mission or getting a dubious sort of notoriety out of it, the foregoing considerations would lead one to say that serving the Remnant looks like a good job. An assignment that you can really put your back into, and do your best without thinking about results, is a real job; whereas serving the masses is at best only half a job, considering the inexorable conditions that the masses impose upon their servants...
The Remnant, on the other hand, want only the best you have, whatever that may be. Give them that, and they are satisfied; you have nothing more to worry about. The prophet of the American masses must aim consciously at the lowest common denominator of intellect, taste, and character among 120,000,000 people; and this is a distressing task. The prophet of the Remnant, on the contrary, is in the enviable position of Papa Haydn in the household of Prince Esterhazy. All Haydn had to do was keep forking out the very best music he knew how to produce, knowing it would be understood and appreciated by those for whom he produced it, and caring not a button what anyone else thought of it — and that makes a good job...
... in any given society the Remnant are always so largely an unknown quantity. You do not know, and will never know, more than two things about them. You can be sure of those — dead sure, as our phrase is — but you will never be able to make even a respectable guess at anything else. You do not know, and will never know, who the Remnant are, nor what they are doing or will do. Two things you do know, and no more: First, that they exist; second, that they will find you.
if Elijah the Prophet could not make a closer guess on the number of the Remnant than he made when he missed it by 7,000, anyone else who tackled the problem would only waste his time...
The other certainty which the prophet of the Remnant may always have is that the Remnant will find him...
In the field of justice, man's will is all; men can move mountains, if only men so decide. A passion for instantaneous justice — in short, a radical passion — is therefore not utopian, as would be a desire for the instant elimination of poverty or the instant transformation of everyone into a concert pianist. For instant justice could be achieved if enough people so willed...
The true test, then, of the radical spirit, is the button-pushing test: if we could push the button for instantaneous abolition of unjust invasions of liberty, would we do it? If we would not do it, we could scarcely call ourselves libertarians, and most of us would only do it if primarily guided by a passion for justice...
The genuine libertarian, then, is, in all senses of the word, an "abolitionist"; he would, if he could, abolish instantaneously all invasions of liberty, whether it be, in the original coining of the term, slavery, or whether it be the manifold other instances of State oppression. He would, in the words of another libertarian in a similar connection, "blister my thumb pushing that button!"...
The libertarian goals are "realistic" in the sense that they could be achieved if enough people agreed on their desirability, and that, if achieved, they would bring about a far better world. The "realism" of the goal can only be challenged by a critique of the goal itself, not in the problem of how to attain it. Then, after we have decided on the goal, we face the entirely separate strategic question of how to attain that goal as rapidly as possible, how to build a movement to attain it, etc...
Actually, in the realm of the strategic, raising the banner of pure and radical principle is generally the fastest way of arriving at radical goals. For if the pure goal is never brought to the fore, there will never be any momentum developed for driving toward it...
Upon being reproached for the habitual severity and heat of his language, Garrison retorted: "I have need to be all on fire, for I have mountains of ice about me to melt." It is this spirit that must mark the man truly dedicated to the cause of liberty.
a
Philosophers know many things about right and wrong that most other people do not know. Here are some examples of things that we know:
(F1) Women do not have the right to do whatever they choose with their own bodies.
(F2) There is no right to life.
(F9) The fact that something is illegal does not make it wrong.
(F10) Doing something wrong is not the same thing as wronging someone.
Jesus is not forbidding us to defend ourselves when attacked; he is urging us to ignore insults and to foreswear revenge. His command comes in the specific context of an injunction against revenge and retaliation...
A justified blow struck in self-defense is not wrong; it does not violate the attacker's rights...
People want to avoid making decisions; they want to avoid responsibility. People are afraid of being blamed for a bad decision; they do not expect to be given credit for a good decision. At work, they have a set of rules, and if they follow those rules, they feel that they are safe from being blamed, scolded, demoted, or fired. "I know it's stupid, but it's the policy" feels safe...
America's big problem is the rapid, unstoppable expansion of government at every level. This isn't just a problem of affordability – as in making sure there are sufficient tax dollars to sustain the growth. It's a problem of liberty. The bigger government gets, the more it extinguishes the choices made by individuals. We all enjoy fewer freedoms as regulation grows, the number of government agents expands, taxes increase, programs grow, wars continue and laws proliferate. It's as simple as that...
For those of us still more concerned about being free rather than coddled, the best advice is to resist all the fear-mongering, regardless of whether it is Republican fear-mongering or Democratic fear-mongering. Both parties are toxic these days, and neither one values liberty as an end in and of itself...
A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have...
Be scared – but of your own government, not of whatever it is officials are selling. Be leery of officials at every level, whether it's a local redevelopment director telling you that it's OK to take someone's property to wipe out "blight" (based on whatever broad and debatable definition the director offers), or a secretary of state telling you that the government needs to suspend habeas corpus to battle terrorists, real or not.
But perhaps H.L. Mencken said it best: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."...
Just remember that government always is about coercion – whether the promises are uttered by a likable and uplifting candidate who offers change or by a crusty old war hero who promises whatever it is he is promising this week. Fear them, but don't let them scare you.
The preponderance of the evidence strongly suggest that the Marines in Indianapolis are being prepared for civilian law enforcement functions in direct violation of Posse Comitatus which prohibits federal troops from exercising state law enforcement police or peace officer powers to maintain “law and order” on non-federal property. I suspect most of the Marines in the 26th are not even aware of their role in this joint law enforcement exercises. Neither the Marines nor Indiana police have been briefed on the significance of the Posse Comitatus Act...
[I]t is the military veterans of this nation who are sounding the alarm as rogue elements within our government have decided to Cross the Rubicon misusing the relationship between the public and U. S. Armed Forces to desensitize military and law enforcement personnel and encourage them to accept what was once considered unacceptable...
The ultimate mission of the Marine Corps is to protect and defend The Constitution, not to practice waging war against America.
Simply put, when you don’t believe in an afterlife — in a spiritual world — you often become obsessed with staying in this world as long as possible. I believe this breeds a deep-seated fear of injury and death and at least partially explains our safety-freak mentality. Jesus said, "And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell." Without a belief in the soul, the body is all there is. And then the sins against it — smoking, drinking, etc. — become mortal.
Pointing out the relationship between U.S. foreign policy and terrorist blowback implies that the federal government has done wrongful things to foreigners. That’s considered blasphemy among conservatives because their federal deity is incapable of doing bad things to anyone...
Libertarians, who would never consider deifying the federal government, take the view that what matters, first and foremost, is the exercise of conscience, which means that sometimes a person has to take a firm stand against the wrongdoing committed by his own government. Conservatives rail against the libertarian view because it suggests that their deity is capable of wrongdoing. Thus, the conservative mindset steadfastly maintains, “My government, never wrong.”
The line between investigating and persecuting is a very fine one... We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law.
We will not walk in fear, one of another.... We are not descended from fearful men — not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes that were, for the moment, unpopular.... We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home.
Make no mistake about it: To maintain its own economic and political positions, the Establishment will sacrifice the economic welfare and the constitutional rights of everyone else. And to succeed it will be compelled to crack down: first, on people's resistance to its propaganda, agitation, disinformation, and other techniques of psycho-political manipulation; then on refractory dissent; then on rebellion at the polls; then on mass refusals to obey its oppressive "statutes", "regulations", and "judicial decisions"; and, at length, on revolt against every aspect of its misrule. The Establishment is building a domestic police state today for the purpose of deterring, cowing, and if necessary smashing this opposition tomorrow. So, even if the supposed threat from Islamic terrorists were to disappear today, the Department of Homeland Security would continue to grow tomorrow. Also, the breakneck speed at which the Department of Homeland Security is being constructed should warn America how much the Establishment fears that monetary and banking crises of serious proportions cannot be long delayed.
The danger will continue to exist as long as this country's Ponzified monetary and banking systems remain in place, increasingly shaky and prone to collapse. Americans need to begin working now to replace these systems with sound money and honest banking.
By now, it is widely known that the Supreme Court has weighed in on the debate over the rights of the prisoners at Gitmo. The court has stated that the detainees’ habeas corpus rights (the protection against an indefinite detention without charges and a trial) ought to be respected.
Referring to the human beings who are still being detained at Guantanamo Bay, McCain stated, “These are people who are not citizens. They do not and never have been given the rights that citizens in this country have” (emphasis added).
So our rights are given to us? Interesting.
I might ask McCain at the out-set, since you apparently believe that only citizens have rights (presumably “given” to them in the Constitution) where exactly in text of the Constitution does the Constitution give this right the right of habeas corpus?
You won’t find it. The Constitution only puts limits on the removal of habeas corpus, which implies that human beings possess this right naturally, and that habeas corpus is not some peculiar civil privilege, such as welfare, or some right that only citizens have, such as voting in our elections.
Similarly, human beings possess the rights in the Bill of Rights naturally, and as such, government is prevented from infringing upon them in the first ten amendments to the Constitution. But the rights are not granted by the government or the Constitution; we already had the rights as human beings!
I recommend that McCain read the Declaration of Independence. He has admitted that he is ignorant of economics, so perhaps he needs to brush up on his political theory and History, as well.
The Declaration of Independence declares the self-evident truth that God gave us our rights and that we are “endowed by our creator” with “unalienable rights,” such as, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Unalienable. Can’t be taken away. God-given natural rights. This is extremely important. Pay attention.
You see, if governments have “given” you “rights,” well then guess who can take them away at their will. Governments! McCain’s dangerous philosophy of rights as privileges is a recipe for tyranny. Government gives us our liberty? Is he serious? Well then that makes the state our god.
In reality, when something is granted, it is not a right at all. Something that is granted is, by nature, a mere privilege that can be revoked upon the whim of the entity which granted it–in this case, government... a scary notion, indeed.
A right, on the other hand, is unalienably possessed by somebody because he is the rightful owner of his life, liberty, and property. His own body, his thoughts, his decisions to move about, his money and possessions, etc.
These rights are his naturally. They are his property.
Rights are rooted in ownership of the property in question, and this very concept is God-ordained, thus we say that our rights are “God-given.”
They are NOT granted by government. They are NOT merely a privilege of citizenship.
Under the American philosophy of government where our rights are natural, or God-given, we have the power of free action that is limited only by the equal rights of others. And only when we impede upon the rights of others can government legitimately intervene to punish the criminal aggressor…and it can only do that through due process (they have to prove your guilt in a fair, speedy, jury trial).
The right of habeas corpus has been recognized as a basic right since the Magna Carta.
McCain is reversing the progress of human rights 800 years.
It doesn’t take the great mind of an ACLU liberal to figure this out.
As Ronald Reagan said, “The very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.” McCain, once again, betrays conservative values of limited government and God-given property rights. His is the view that the state is supreme.
Liberty and justice for all. But for McCain... just the privileged few. Just pray that you stay in the good graces of an arbitrary McCain government, because where the government grants “rights,” it can take them away. So watch yourself dissenters... especially because McCain has a “volcanic temper.” Will the American people let this man be the next ‘decider’?
[Scott Ritsema teaches Economics, Government, and Advanced Placement U.S. History at a Christian high school, and possesses a master's degree in those three disciplines. Visit his new site CIVICS NEWS.com ...news with a conscience.]
The Constitution does not give the president power over any of the topics the candidates like to talk about. The president can't raise or lower taxes; can't legislate on any matter, including Social Security and health care; can't declare war; and can't make treaties or appoint Supreme Court justices without the advice and consent of the Senate.
The authors of the Constitution had just finished a long and bitter war with Great Britain, whose king they saw as a tyrant. The last thing they were going to do is give kingly powers to their own chief executive.
The duties of the president are simple to state: He can require reports from department heads; he may grant pardons and reprieves; with the advice and consent of the Senate, he can make treaties and appoint ambassadors, consuls, ministers and judges; he can receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he must take care to faithfully execute the laws; and he commissions all U.S. officers. He is the commander in chief of the armed forces. From "time to time," he is to report to Congress on the state of the union.
The last duty to be listed says he may "recommend certain measures" to Congress. Congress, of course, is under no obligation, legal or otherwise, to accept his recommendations or, in fact, to do anything he asks Congress to do. The one exception is that under extraordinary circumstances, he can order Congress to convene.
Thus, in the case of presidential candidates, honesty really would be the best policy. Whatever the candidate hopes to accomplish, he will need the people to pressure Congress. Otherwise, Congress will listen to the lobbyists, who represent the selfish interests of their clients.
Even presidential candidates, however, seem to get a sniff of what they suppose is the power of the presidency and thus go around saying, "I will do this" and "I will do that." They should be saying, "I need your help, first to get elected, and second to pressure Congress to adopt my recommendations. Otherwise it will be business as usual in Washington."
Clearly, the framers of the Constitution intended for Congress to be the most powerful part of the government. The only influence, other than persuasion, the president has is to veto legislation, but here again Congress has the power to override a presidential veto.
Moreover, the president does not have the power to veto only a part of a bill (commonly referred to as the line-item veto). This was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
The concept of an imperial president took root in the post-Eisenhower years. Before that, Harry Truman was fond of taking walks in downtown Washington. Franklin Roosevelt, when he was in Warm Springs, Ga., would drive up into the Pine Mountains, pull over to the side and have a picnic on the ground with a few friends.
The Bush presidents, when they traveled, took an entourage that included at least 16 limousines and greatly inconvenienced whomever they were visiting.
Our president is not a king or an emperor. He's a hired public servant working on a temporary basis. It was no accident when the Founding Fathers decided that the only title a president could claim or deserve was "Mr. President." He is a citizen just like you or me, he puts his pants on just as we do, and he answers the call of nature in the usual manner. As the French essayist Montaigne observed, "No matter how high the throne, the king still sits on his arse." So do all presidents.
[T]he true origin and purpose of public education is not so much education as we think of it, but indoctrination in the civic religion. This explains why the civic elite is so suspicious of homeschooling and private schooling: it's not fear of low test scores that is driving this, but the worry that these kids aren't learning the values that the state considers important...
All studies have shown that average cost per pupil for public schools is twice that of private schools...
This runs contrary to intuition, since people think of public schools as free and private schools as expensive. But once you consider the source of funding (tax dollars vs. market tuition or donation), the private alternative is much cheaper. In fact, the public schools cost as much as the most expensive and elite private schools in the country. The difference is that the cost of public schooling is spread out over the entire population, whereas the private school cost is borne only by the families with students who attend them.
In short, if we could abolish public schools and compulsory schooling laws, and replace it all with market-provided education, we would have better schools at half the price, and be freer too. We would also be a more just society, with only the customers of education bearing the costs...
But let's pretend. Let's say that a single town decided that the costs of public schooling are too vast relative to private schooling, and the city council decided to abolish public schools outright...
If we can somehow make it to phase two, something completely different will emerge. The existing private schools will be filled to capacity and there will be a crying need for new ones. Entrepreneurs will quickly flood into the area to provide schools on a competitive basis. Churches and other civic institutions will gather the money to provide education...
After this phase two, this town would emerge as one of the most desirable in the country. Educational alternatives would be unlimited. It would be the source of enormous progress, and a model for the nation. It could cause the entire country to rethink education. And then those who moved away would move back to enjoy the best schools in the country at half the price of the public schools, and those without children in the house wouldn't have to pay a dime for education. Talk about attractive!
So which town will be the first to try it and show us all the way?
But what blogs have done is provided unprecedented transparency to a process that would have otherwise happened entirely in the shadows. Never again will a state party in Indiana hold a convention where delegates will be strong-armed. No candidate will want to risk the backlash that would come with being exposed... No contested convention campaign in Indiana is going to be able to ignore blogs in the future...
The Governor’s peeps... were utterly unable to deliver a victory for the man their boss had endorsed. Not only did they fail to deliver a victory to Jon Costas, but word of their apparent use of antiquated strong-arm tactics spread via the internet and caused a backlash that contributed to the impressive margin of Zoeller’s victory...
Hopefully, the Governor will learn from the bungling of his underlings before they ruin something else that can’t be so easily undone...
These are arrogant, bullying people who have yet to realize that they will get much further with the base of the party with friendship, respect, and persuasion...
The chairman of the Marion County GOP worked hard to deliver his county for the Governor’s man. He packed his delegate appointments with dependable votes... He also reportedly demanded loyalty oaths... In the end, however, his packing scheme failed to help Jon Costas carry the day and it caused a popular backlash on the internet and out in the rest of the state that probably more than offset the gains such tactics provided...
Indy Establishment... support seems to be the kiss of death in Indiana politics these days...