Recently, the United States Supreme Court has overturned a California ban on the sale of violent video games to children. The Court ruled that the government had no authority to restrict ideas that children may come in contact with. While I certainly agree with this, I have some constitutional reservations. Anthony Gregory of the Independent Institute explains: "Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, saying the First Amendment was never meant to apply absolutely to distribution of ideas to children. I have a big problem with his reasoning. Certainly, if the First Amendment was meant to exempt situations concerning commercial dealings and children, it would say something like 'Congress shall make no law. . . abridging the freedom of speech, except where children are concerned.' Similarly, any conservative arguments that the First Amendment is not meant to apply to pornography, or liberal arguments that it is not meant to cover political contributions, bother me.
Yet one thing we do know is that the First Amendment was originally not meant to apply to state governments. The Bill of Rights bound the federal governments, not the states, until after the Civil War. A decision in 1833, Barron v. Baltimore, upheld this very distinction. This makes historical sense, as several states at the time of ratification had official religions, which would have been illegal under the First Amendment, had that amendment applied to the states. But it didn’t. And, although I am against all state-legal violations of free speech and religious liberty on libertarian grounds, the particular scheme whereby only the federal government was restrained by the Bill of Rights made a lot of sense from the standpoint of structural coherence."
The Real Constitution and United States of America
Under the U.S. Constitution, our country was designed to be a federal constitutional republic. The Framers made sure that the Constitution, and the union/confederacy that it created would be "federal". A federal government means that not only is their a weak central government and many state governments that retain most of their sovereignty (which are also made up of multiple localities), but that the powers of the central government are to be enumerated. This means that the central government in a federal system is to be extremely limited to the powers enumerated in the Constitution. It is correct to say that the Framers and Ratifiers intended that the Constitution be strictly interpreted, otherwise, the Constitution becomes meaningless in limiting government power. The United States was founded as a federal republic (which could also mean a confederacy) under the U.S. Constitution. This contrasted the "nation-states" that dominated Europe. In a "nation", government power is unlimited, while in a federal republic, the powers of government are very limited. This is why the United States was not founded as a "nation", but rather, as a confederacy.
The Incorporation Doctrine
Anthony Gregory continue: "With this in mind, the adoption of the First Amendment didn’t actually change anything. The anti-Federalists wanted a Bill of Rights, but only to make explicit the guarantees that were already assured them by the Federalists. The Constitution gives Congress no power to regulate speech, religion, or assembly, and so the First Amendment doesn’t add any new restriction upon Congress; it only reaffirms an implicit restriction that already existed. Same with the Second Amendment—the right to bear arms cannot be infringed by the federal government anyway, since the Constitution doesn’t establish the power to ban guns in the first place. This is all harmonious and sensible, if a bit redundant (in fact, the Federalists made the valid point that the superfluousness of a Bill of Rights would eventually undermine the strength of the Constitution as one of enumerated powers, which has in fact more or less happened). But what is less consonant is the attempt to apply the Bill of Rights to the state governments, which has happened since the Civil War through a number of Court decisions that have in a somewhat ad hoc manner given rise to the constitutional construction known as 'incorporation.' The Bill of Rights, starting with the First Amendment—an irony, since it alone singles out the federal Congress for limitation—was 'incorporated,' most often through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, meaning that these amendments now apply to the state governments.... Perhaps the Founders would have indeed thought it absurd for state governments to be restrained from regulating video games, but they would have also thought it odd to say that Congress could do so, and the whole dissonance has arisen because of the incorporation doctrine." The incorporation doctrine has brought about confused mess as far as the 1st Amendment is concerned. The 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." As this Amendment shows, the 1st Amendment is clear in its' intent to restrict the federal government, not state governments. At the time of the writing of the Constitution, many state government (with the exception of Virginia for sure) had their own established state-religions (as a Christian and a libertarian, I am all for the genuine separation of church and state, no the phony one we hear about in the textbooks). Under the incorporation doctrine, the federal government would force all those state governments with official state-religions to abandon them. But this would make no since because the 1st Amendment applies to the federal government only (or at least that was the original intent.).
Conclusion
In conclusion, I would have to agree with the following sentiments of Anthony Gregory: "Bottom line: Given that the Supreme Court had to define the limits of the First Amendment and sees itself as bound by the incorporation doctrine, I am very glad that Scalia and six fellow justices struck a blow for a broad reading of our guarantees to free speech. At the same time, I kind of see where Thomas is coming from in his instincts that the First Amendment was not meant to apply to all cases, although not his particular reasoning. Assuming we have to have the incorporation doctrine, I will always side with judicial interpretations that allow for the most liberty, and would do so even if I favored decentralism—since any weakening of the Bill of Rights’s restrictions on the states can eventually translate into weak restrictions on the feds. But perhaps more work needs to be done in revising the incorporation doctrine so as to allow for the most absolute of prohibitions on the federal level while being more coherently applied on the state level."
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
The Costs and Consequences of the Korean War
This past weekend was the 61st Anniversary of the Korean War, which began on June 25th, 1950, with the invasion of South Korea by the armies of North Korea.
A Grouse Failure
In the minds of most Americans, the U.S. intervention into Korea was necessary to defend the United States. But since the Korean War brought little success for the United States, our government shoves it under the rug. Ivan Eland of the Independent Institute elaborates: "Nationalism in many countries prompts their governments to trumpet foreign-policy successes while sweeping disappointments under the rug...Because American nationalism is especially strong, the U.S. government regularly attempts to take maximum credit for events such as the fall of the communist bloc and the killing of terrorist Osama bin Laden—while forgetting about profligate blunders that have made America and its citizens less secure, a failure in the most importance function of government." The Korean War is no exception. Laurence M. Vance elaborates further on the costs and sheer absurdity of the Korean War: "The civil war in Korea from 1950 to 1953 that the United States foolishly intervened in, and, for the first time for a major conflict, without a congressional declaration of war, is known as the Forgotten War. The number of American soldiers killed in this senseless war is over 36,000. Yet, Korea remains divided at the 38th parallel to this day just like it was before the war began. Talk about dying in vain. None of these soldiers died in defense of the United States; all of them died for the United Nations, for the foolish policies of Harry Truman, and for the failed diplomacy of World War II. "
Unnecessary and Unconstitutional
One basic fact that needed to be stated is this: North Korea never was a threat to our national defense during that war. And since North Korea was no genuine threat to the United States, there was no need to send over 36,000 American troops to their deaths in a war that made weakened our national defense, hindered economic growth, and assaulted our Constitution. American intervention into Korea was unconstitutional because President Harry Truman did not go to Congress and get a proper declaration of war against North Korea. Instead, he claimed two things: First, that he got his authority to intervene in Korea from the United Nations, and second, he also claimed that he needed no declaration of war and could send American troops abroad for whatever purpose or reason he chooses. But President Harry Truman was wrong. Under the U.S. Constitution, the President has no authority to initiate war against another nation-state. Therefore, under no circumstance may the President send troops abroad on his own authority. The President may only use military force on his own when the country has been invaded or is being attacked by a foreign government. This is why the Framers of the Constitution made the President the Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces (once only comprised on an army and navy) because they thought of this power as a necessary "emergency power" in the event of an attack or invasion by a foreign government. Said George Washington about war power under the Constitution: "The constitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure." James Madison echoed a similar sentiment:“The Constitution expressly and exclusively vests in the Legislature the power of declaring a state of war [and] the power of raising armies. A delegation of such powers [to the president] would have struck, not only at the fabric of our Constitution, but at the foundation of all well organized and well checked governments. The separation of the power of declaring war from that of conducting it, is wisely contrived to exclude the danger of its being declared for the sake of its being conducted.” As Bruce Fein has noted in his book American Empire: Before the Fall, instead of wasting precious American treasure and blood in a no-win, unnecessary war in Korea, the United States government could have first repealed and abolish the federal welfare-regulatory state and relieve the free-market economy of the disastrous and destructive regulations and welfare statism, then the United States government could have used its resources to strengthen American defenses instead of wasting them in unnecessary and unjustified wars.
The Current Mess and the Way Out
The failed and unjustified Korean War of the 1950s has greatly if not been the sole origin of the current mess in the Koreas. As it stands, the United States maintains a military presence of over 25,000 American troops in South Korea. The stated reason given for such a violation of the national sovereignty of South Korea is that those troops are needed there to prevent a dangerous North Korean regime from inflaming the region. While no one (including myself) is defending the totalitarian and communist regime of North Korea, charged acts of North Korean "aggression" do not come out of the blue. Jacob Hornberger of the Future of Freedom Foundation elaborates on an incident that occurred on November 25th, 2011, in which the North Korean Army launched artillery strikes onto a South Korean island: "Yesterday, the North Korean regime shelled a South Korean island, killing two South Korean soldiers and injuring several more. Did this act of aggression appear out of nowhere? Not exactly.
According to the New York Times, 'The attack on Yeonpyeong Island occurred after South Korean forces on exercises fired test shots into waters near the North Korean coast.' You mean to tell me that the South Korean military fired test shots near the North Korean coast before the North Koreans shelled that island from which the South Korean shots were made? Yep. According to this news report posted on Brahmand.com Defence and Aerospace News, the South Korean test shots into waters near the North Korean coast were part of a military exercise involving 70,000 South Korean troops designed to 'enhance combat capabilities against North Korea.' Question: If the Venezuelan armed forces fired test shots near the U.S. coast in the Gulf of Mexico, what would be the response of U.S. officials? Answer: There would be U.S. bombs falling on Caracas tomorrow, if not sooner. U.S. officials would never permit such a provocation from the Hugo Chavez regime to go unanswered. In fact, such test shots would undoubtedly be a dream-come-true for U.S. officials who have longed for regime change in Venezuela." Jacob Hornberger goes on: "Why shouldn't the U.S. government play a role in the South Korean military exercises? After all, U.S. soldiers in Korea are the sacrificial trip-wire that guarantees U.S. entry into another land war in Asia without the bother of congressional debates and the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war. I once read a lesson about scuba diving that applies in foreign policy. In the ocean, there are lots of dangerous creatures, such as sharks and moray eels. But by and large, if you leave them alone, they will leave you alone. Everyone knows that North Korea is headed by an irrational, weird, dangerous, unpredictable group of people. So why provoke them? Why not just leave them alone?" Doug Bandow of the Cato Institute (an institute that I do not endorse) explains that South Korea, if left to its' own devices (that means no help from the U.S. government) could defend itself: "Pyongyang retains a quantitative military edge, but its equipment is antiquated; North Korean troops are malnourished and get little training. The North is effectively bankrupt and without allies. With about 40 times the GDP and twice the population of the North, Seoul could outmatch the Kim regime in any way it chose. With large military reserves, a strong industrial base, abundant allies, and generous access to international credit markets, South Korea is well-positioned to triumph in any conflict...The DPRK has neither the interest nor the ability to challenge other nations in the region -- Indonesia, Australia, Philippines, et al. The North possesses an antiquated army and little else, not a globe-spanning military like that of the U.S." If we think about it, the North Korean regime does not have the capabilities to launch a successful invasion of the United States. "What about their nuclear weapons?" one might ask. The North Korean regime feels determined and pressured to pursue nuclear weapons as a means of preventing a meddlesome U.S. government from toppling their regime.
How do we solve this dilemma? Simple. We need to return the foreign policy of noninterventionism as advocated by our Founding Fathers. This means that the United States government needs to bring all the troops home from the Korean Peninsula, terminate our defense obligations to South Korea, eliminate all foreign aid to South Korea, end our constant meddling into the affairs of North Korea, and simply defending America.
A Grouse Failure
In the minds of most Americans, the U.S. intervention into Korea was necessary to defend the United States. But since the Korean War brought little success for the United States, our government shoves it under the rug. Ivan Eland of the Independent Institute elaborates: "Nationalism in many countries prompts their governments to trumpet foreign-policy successes while sweeping disappointments under the rug...Because American nationalism is especially strong, the U.S. government regularly attempts to take maximum credit for events such as the fall of the communist bloc and the killing of terrorist Osama bin Laden—while forgetting about profligate blunders that have made America and its citizens less secure, a failure in the most importance function of government." The Korean War is no exception. Laurence M. Vance elaborates further on the costs and sheer absurdity of the Korean War: "The civil war in Korea from 1950 to 1953 that the United States foolishly intervened in, and, for the first time for a major conflict, without a congressional declaration of war, is known as the Forgotten War. The number of American soldiers killed in this senseless war is over 36,000. Yet, Korea remains divided at the 38th parallel to this day just like it was before the war began. Talk about dying in vain. None of these soldiers died in defense of the United States; all of them died for the United Nations, for the foolish policies of Harry Truman, and for the failed diplomacy of World War II. "
Unnecessary and Unconstitutional
One basic fact that needed to be stated is this: North Korea never was a threat to our national defense during that war. And since North Korea was no genuine threat to the United States, there was no need to send over 36,000 American troops to their deaths in a war that made weakened our national defense, hindered economic growth, and assaulted our Constitution. American intervention into Korea was unconstitutional because President Harry Truman did not go to Congress and get a proper declaration of war against North Korea. Instead, he claimed two things: First, that he got his authority to intervene in Korea from the United Nations, and second, he also claimed that he needed no declaration of war and could send American troops abroad for whatever purpose or reason he chooses. But President Harry Truman was wrong. Under the U.S. Constitution, the President has no authority to initiate war against another nation-state. Therefore, under no circumstance may the President send troops abroad on his own authority. The President may only use military force on his own when the country has been invaded or is being attacked by a foreign government. This is why the Framers of the Constitution made the President the Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces (once only comprised on an army and navy) because they thought of this power as a necessary "emergency power" in the event of an attack or invasion by a foreign government. Said George Washington about war power under the Constitution: "The constitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure." James Madison echoed a similar sentiment:“The Constitution expressly and exclusively vests in the Legislature the power of declaring a state of war [and] the power of raising armies. A delegation of such powers [to the president] would have struck, not only at the fabric of our Constitution, but at the foundation of all well organized and well checked governments. The separation of the power of declaring war from that of conducting it, is wisely contrived to exclude the danger of its being declared for the sake of its being conducted.” As Bruce Fein has noted in his book American Empire: Before the Fall, instead of wasting precious American treasure and blood in a no-win, unnecessary war in Korea, the United States government could have first repealed and abolish the federal welfare-regulatory state and relieve the free-market economy of the disastrous and destructive regulations and welfare statism, then the United States government could have used its resources to strengthen American defenses instead of wasting them in unnecessary and unjustified wars.
The Current Mess and the Way Out
The failed and unjustified Korean War of the 1950s has greatly if not been the sole origin of the current mess in the Koreas. As it stands, the United States maintains a military presence of over 25,000 American troops in South Korea. The stated reason given for such a violation of the national sovereignty of South Korea is that those troops are needed there to prevent a dangerous North Korean regime from inflaming the region. While no one (including myself) is defending the totalitarian and communist regime of North Korea, charged acts of North Korean "aggression" do not come out of the blue. Jacob Hornberger of the Future of Freedom Foundation elaborates on an incident that occurred on November 25th, 2011, in which the North Korean Army launched artillery strikes onto a South Korean island: "Yesterday, the North Korean regime shelled a South Korean island, killing two South Korean soldiers and injuring several more. Did this act of aggression appear out of nowhere? Not exactly.
According to the New York Times, 'The attack on Yeonpyeong Island occurred after South Korean forces on exercises fired test shots into waters near the North Korean coast.' You mean to tell me that the South Korean military fired test shots near the North Korean coast before the North Koreans shelled that island from which the South Korean shots were made? Yep. According to this news report posted on Brahmand.com Defence and Aerospace News, the South Korean test shots into waters near the North Korean coast were part of a military exercise involving 70,000 South Korean troops designed to 'enhance combat capabilities against North Korea.' Question: If the Venezuelan armed forces fired test shots near the U.S. coast in the Gulf of Mexico, what would be the response of U.S. officials? Answer: There would be U.S. bombs falling on Caracas tomorrow, if not sooner. U.S. officials would never permit such a provocation from the Hugo Chavez regime to go unanswered. In fact, such test shots would undoubtedly be a dream-come-true for U.S. officials who have longed for regime change in Venezuela." Jacob Hornberger goes on: "Why shouldn't the U.S. government play a role in the South Korean military exercises? After all, U.S. soldiers in Korea are the sacrificial trip-wire that guarantees U.S. entry into another land war in Asia without the bother of congressional debates and the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war. I once read a lesson about scuba diving that applies in foreign policy. In the ocean, there are lots of dangerous creatures, such as sharks and moray eels. But by and large, if you leave them alone, they will leave you alone. Everyone knows that North Korea is headed by an irrational, weird, dangerous, unpredictable group of people. So why provoke them? Why not just leave them alone?" Doug Bandow of the Cato Institute (an institute that I do not endorse) explains that South Korea, if left to its' own devices (that means no help from the U.S. government) could defend itself: "Pyongyang retains a quantitative military edge, but its equipment is antiquated; North Korean troops are malnourished and get little training. The North is effectively bankrupt and without allies. With about 40 times the GDP and twice the population of the North, Seoul could outmatch the Kim regime in any way it chose. With large military reserves, a strong industrial base, abundant allies, and generous access to international credit markets, South Korea is well-positioned to triumph in any conflict...The DPRK has neither the interest nor the ability to challenge other nations in the region -- Indonesia, Australia, Philippines, et al. The North possesses an antiquated army and little else, not a globe-spanning military like that of the U.S." If we think about it, the North Korean regime does not have the capabilities to launch a successful invasion of the United States. "What about their nuclear weapons?" one might ask. The North Korean regime feels determined and pressured to pursue nuclear weapons as a means of preventing a meddlesome U.S. government from toppling their regime.
How do we solve this dilemma? Simple. We need to return the foreign policy of noninterventionism as advocated by our Founding Fathers. This means that the United States government needs to bring all the troops home from the Korean Peninsula, terminate our defense obligations to South Korea, eliminate all foreign aid to South Korea, end our constant meddling into the affairs of North Korea, and simply defending America.
Jennifer Garner: I want more cradle to grave socialism
While those words are not literally her words, that was the basic message of actress Jennifer Garner as she praises President Obama for committing $500 million to Federally Funded Toddler Education. She then proceeds to say that the funding for such an unconstitutional program is not enough. While $500 million seems like a drop in the bucket compared to our enormous national debt of trillions of dollars, it really irks me when someone insists that government spending must increase, in spite of the fact that if we are to avoid economic Armageddon, we have to cut government spending (and in huge sums). Writes Laurence Vance at lewrockwell.com: "What is even worse is Republican support over the years for programs like Head Start, food stamps, SCHIP, WIC, and the federal school lunch program, all to protect our children, of course. It is worse because Hollywood liberals never claim to be believers in free markets and less government like Republicans do."
I believe that actress Jennifer Garner needs to study real American history and the message of liberty, and that requires reading many books. A good place to start would be the following:
1. Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom by Ron Paul
2. The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History by Thomas E. Woods jr.
3. Lies the Government Told You: Myth, Power, and Deception in American History by Andrew Napolitano
I believe that actress Jennifer Garner needs to study real American history and the message of liberty, and that requires reading many books. A good place to start would be the following:
1. Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom by Ron Paul
2. The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History by Thomas E. Woods jr.
3. Lies the Government Told You: Myth, Power, and Deception in American History by Andrew Napolitano
Dissecting Michele Bachmann's Foreign Policy
Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann is a widely-known individual in America. She is popular with Tea-Party and conservative activists. She is known to be a "scholar" of the Constitution (despite the fact that she voted for the unconstitutional Patriot Act, supports our unconstitutional foreign policy of perpetual war, and has a Tea Party Caucus in Congress that has not defended the Constitution in their votes). In a recent video, Congresswoman Bachmann discusses Israel, the Middle East and U.S. foreign policy. I shall attempt to dissect and challenge her views on foreign policy.
Israel: Tripwire for U.S. Foreign Policy
Congresswoman Bachmann first asserts that our alliance with Israel is "critical at all times" and that strengthening our alliance with Israel is "common sense". What Congresswoman Bachmann does not understand is that by having such an alliance with Israel (as opposed to holding the neutral position of friendship) the United States is put at risk. Israel is the biggest recipient of U.S. military and economic aid. The money and weapons the U.S. gives to Israel is used against their unfriendly neighbors. Giving the State of Israel military and economic aid, while waging constant warfare in the Middle East, puts the United States into the crosshairs of many in the Arab world. When Israel launches military strikes against their neighbors, the country being attacked by Israel will immediately be consumed with hatred for not only Israel, but for the United States as well because our government indirectly subsidises the military actions of Israel. One of the main reasons Osama Bin Laden and the members of Al Qaeda attacked the United States on 9/11 was because of the U.S. government's unconditional support for the State of Israel and its' constant quarreling with the Palestinians (on top of U.S. troops being stationed on the Arabian Peninsula, and the constant bombing of Iraq in the 1990s). Counter-terrorism and military intelligence expert Philip Giraldi elaborates on the Israeli tripwire: "General David Petraeus has recently gone public with something that many have understood for a long time: Israel’s policies enflame Muslim opinion in the Middle East and Asia to such an extent that they are endangering American troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Admiral Mike Mullen has privately gone one step farther with the Israelis, telling them that Washington does not want war with Iran. Mullen knows that the relationship with Israel is potentially toxic in that Israeli actions, uncontrolled by the US, can lead to much bigger confrontations with more formidable adversaries. Most in Washington now accept that Israel was a key player in the run up to the war against Iraq, a role that it and its major ally in Washington AIPAC are again playing to bring about a war with Iran. Reports that Israel might be considering using its own nuclear weapons against Iran to destroy that country’s nuclear development program are disquieting to say the least. The United States forces spread out through the region would quickly find themselves in the middle of a nuclear holocaust." So, "strengthening" the US-Israeli alliance is not "common sense".
Entangling Alliances
Congresswoman Bachmann goes on to condemn President Obama's Middle East speech back in May in which he orders the State of Israel to set up its' official border at the pre-Six Day War boundary. Bachmann accused Obama of appeasing the Palestinians. Here is another trouble with a foreign policy of interventionism. By picking sides in foreign quarrels, we inevitably create new enemies by alienating one side of a conflict. Our government gives money and weapons to Israel, and the Arab states get angry. And when our government tells Israel to do something that it doesn't want to do, Israel and its' people get angry. Said Congressman Ron Paul in a speech in 2002:
Israel: Tripwire for U.S. Foreign Policy
Congresswoman Bachmann first asserts that our alliance with Israel is "critical at all times" and that strengthening our alliance with Israel is "common sense". What Congresswoman Bachmann does not understand is that by having such an alliance with Israel (as opposed to holding the neutral position of friendship) the United States is put at risk. Israel is the biggest recipient of U.S. military and economic aid. The money and weapons the U.S. gives to Israel is used against their unfriendly neighbors. Giving the State of Israel military and economic aid, while waging constant warfare in the Middle East, puts the United States into the crosshairs of many in the Arab world. When Israel launches military strikes against their neighbors, the country being attacked by Israel will immediately be consumed with hatred for not only Israel, but for the United States as well because our government indirectly subsidises the military actions of Israel. One of the main reasons Osama Bin Laden and the members of Al Qaeda attacked the United States on 9/11 was because of the U.S. government's unconditional support for the State of Israel and its' constant quarreling with the Palestinians (on top of U.S. troops being stationed on the Arabian Peninsula, and the constant bombing of Iraq in the 1990s). Counter-terrorism and military intelligence expert Philip Giraldi elaborates on the Israeli tripwire: "General David Petraeus has recently gone public with something that many have understood for a long time: Israel’s policies enflame Muslim opinion in the Middle East and Asia to such an extent that they are endangering American troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Admiral Mike Mullen has privately gone one step farther with the Israelis, telling them that Washington does not want war with Iran. Mullen knows that the relationship with Israel is potentially toxic in that Israeli actions, uncontrolled by the US, can lead to much bigger confrontations with more formidable adversaries. Most in Washington now accept that Israel was a key player in the run up to the war against Iraq, a role that it and its major ally in Washington AIPAC are again playing to bring about a war with Iran. Reports that Israel might be considering using its own nuclear weapons against Iran to destroy that country’s nuclear development program are disquieting to say the least. The United States forces spread out through the region would quickly find themselves in the middle of a nuclear holocaust." So, "strengthening" the US-Israeli alliance is not "common sense".
Entangling Alliances
Congresswoman Bachmann goes on to condemn President Obama's Middle East speech back in May in which he orders the State of Israel to set up its' official border at the pre-Six Day War boundary. Bachmann accused Obama of appeasing the Palestinians. Here is another trouble with a foreign policy of interventionism. By picking sides in foreign quarrels, we inevitably create new enemies by alienating one side of a conflict. Our government gives money and weapons to Israel, and the Arab states get angry. And when our government tells Israel to do something that it doesn't want to do, Israel and its' people get angry. Said Congressman Ron Paul in a speech in 2002:
"By trying to support both sides we, in the end, will alienate both sides. We are forced, by domestic politics here at home, to support Israel at all costs, with billions of dollars of aid, sophisticated weapons, and a guarantee that America will do whatever is necessary for Israel's security. Political pressure compels us to support Israel, but it is oil that prompts us to guarantee security for the Western puppet governments of the oil rich Arab nation. Since the Israeli-Arab fight will not soon be resolved, our policy of involving ourselves in a conflict unrelated to our security guarantees that we will suffer the consequences. What a choice! We must choose between the character of Arafat versus that of Sharon." And now in 2011, Ron Paul gave the same message in response to President Obama's speech: "Israel is our close friend. While President Obama’s demand that Israel make hard concessions in her border conflicts may very well be in her long-term interest, only Israel can make that determination on her own, without pressure from the United States or coercion by the United Nations. Unlike this President, I do not believe it is our place to dictate how Israel runs her affairs. There can only be peace in the region if those sides work out their differences among one another. We should respect Israel’s sovereignty and not try to dictate her policy from Washington......We need to come to our senses, trade with our friends in the Middle East (both Arab and Israeli), clean up our own economic mess so we set a good example, and allow them to work out their own conflicts." It doesn't make since that we neglect defending our country (especially our borders), and then intervene to resolve other conflicts unrelated to our national defense. Congresswoman Bachmann then goes on to claim that the American people and the Israeli people have the same interest, and that our countries share the same "exceptional " mission.
Hurting Israel
Congresswoman Bachmann goes on to say that in order to "protect our national security here at home", we must strengthen Israel. But by doing so, our government is violating Israel's national sovereignty. There have been reports in both the United States and Israel that have shown that U.S. economic and military aid to Israel actually hinders their military and their economy. Because of U.S. aid, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) have become heavily bureaucratized, and the Israeli economy has not developed as well as it would if Israel has a true free-market economy. So our "strengthening" of Israel has actually caused more harm than good. By interfering in their internal affairs, Israel feels no need to take proper measures to defend itself from it's neighbors. The State of Israel also feels compelled to ask the U.S. government's permission to do almost anything foreign policy related. So U.S. aid to Israel does more harm to Israel's interest than it does good.
America First
Bachmann then proudly declares, "I stand with Israel." What ever happened to "Standing with America"? What about "American First"? This statement reminds me of a quote by the famed conservative thinker Russel Kirk, in which he claimed something along the lines that many conservatives have often thought that Tel Aviv was somehow the capitol of the United States.
The Lessons learned
What can we learn from the current situation in the Middle East? How should the U.S. react to events in Israel and Palestine? We can find the answers from the Founding Fathers. President George Washington declared in his Farewell Address: "Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove, that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government ... Excessive partiality for one foreign nation, and excessive dislike of another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests." He went on to advise the American people to "Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all."
Thomas Jefferson best summarized a foreign policy on noninterventionism which was (and is) the only constitutional foreign policy with the following statement: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations-entangling alliances with none." How can this be applied to the Israeli and Palestinian question? First off, the U.S. government must terminate all foreign aid to both the Arab states and the State of Israel. The U.S. government then must terminate all the wars we are currently engaged in (a total of 5 wars) and bring the troops home. The U.S. must then swear off intervening in the internal affairs and conflicts of Israel and Palestine (and the whole world while we are at it). The U.S. must also swear off having a special relationship with any country, including any Arab state and the State of Israel. If America wishes to be safe and free, and if we wish to make Israel safer and free, then we must reject foreign interventionism and empire all together and embrace noninterventionism and strategic independence.
Monday, June 27, 2011
More TSA Tyranny
In another example of sheer tyranny, the TSA once again proves that it is a threat to liberty and is basically useless. Tim Shoemaker of Campaign for Liberty explains:
"Recently, not content with "enhanced screening" of six year old girls, the Transportation Security Administration took their procedures to the other extreme as they forced a 95-year old woman to remove her adult diaper during an "enhanced pat-down" in a private screening area.
The daughter is now filing a complaint with the Department of Homeland Security.
'Jean Weber of Destin filed a complaint with the Department of Homeland Security after her 95-year-old mother was detained and extensively searched last Saturday while trying to board a plane to fly to Michigan to be with family members during the final stages of her battle with leukemia.
Her mother, who was in a wheelchair, was asked to remove an adult diaper in order to complete a pat-down search.
'It’s something I couldn’t imagine happening on American soil,' Weber said Friday. 'Here is my mother, 95 years old, 105 pounds, barely able to stand, and then this.'
A DHS representative contacted the daughter last week and told her the screeners were simply following procedure.
'Then I thought, if you’re just following rules and regulations, then the rules and regulations need to be changed,' she said.
Weber said she plans to file additional complaints next week.
'I’m not one to make waves, but dadgummit, this is wrong. People need to know. Next time it could be you.'
Read the rest."
Laurence M. Vance provides a good libertarian perpective of airline security here.
In the following video, Congressman Ron Paul rips into the TSA and its' tyrannical policies (and rightly so).
"Recently, not content with "enhanced screening" of six year old girls, the Transportation Security Administration took their procedures to the other extreme as they forced a 95-year old woman to remove her adult diaper during an "enhanced pat-down" in a private screening area.
The daughter is now filing a complaint with the Department of Homeland Security.
'Jean Weber of Destin filed a complaint with the Department of Homeland Security after her 95-year-old mother was detained and extensively searched last Saturday while trying to board a plane to fly to Michigan to be with family members during the final stages of her battle with leukemia.
Her mother, who was in a wheelchair, was asked to remove an adult diaper in order to complete a pat-down search.
'It’s something I couldn’t imagine happening on American soil,' Weber said Friday. 'Here is my mother, 95 years old, 105 pounds, barely able to stand, and then this.'
A DHS representative contacted the daughter last week and told her the screeners were simply following procedure.
'Then I thought, if you’re just following rules and regulations, then the rules and regulations need to be changed,' she said.
Weber said she plans to file additional complaints next week.
'I’m not one to make waves, but dadgummit, this is wrong. People need to know. Next time it could be you.'
Read the rest."
Laurence M. Vance provides a good libertarian perpective of airline security here.
In the following video, Congressman Ron Paul rips into the TSA and its' tyrannical policies (and rightly so).
Sunday, June 26, 2011
C.S. Lewis on Tyranny, the Individual, and The State
Here are some interesting quotes by the great Christian writer and thinker C.S. Lewis.
On The State and the Individual: "Again, Christianity asserts that every individual human being is going to live for ever, and this must be either true or false. . . . And immortality makes this other difference, which, by the by, has a connection with the difference between totalitarianism and democracy. If individuals live only seventy years, then a state, or a nation, or a civilisation, which may last for a thousand years, is more important than an individual. But if Christianity is true, then the individual is not only more important but incomparably more important, for he is everlasting and the life of the state or civilisation, compared with his, is only a moment."
On tyranny: "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
On freedom and natural rights : “The very idea of freedom presupposes some objective moral law which overarches rulers and ruled alike. Subjectivism about values is eternally incompatible with democracy. We and our rulers are of one kind only so long as we are subject to one law. But if there is no Law of Nature, the ethos of any society is the creation of its rulers, educators and conditioners; and every creator stands above and outside his own creation.”
On The State and the Individual: "Again, Christianity asserts that every individual human being is going to live for ever, and this must be either true or false. . . . And immortality makes this other difference, which, by the by, has a connection with the difference between totalitarianism and democracy. If individuals live only seventy years, then a state, or a nation, or a civilisation, which may last for a thousand years, is more important than an individual. But if Christianity is true, then the individual is not only more important but incomparably more important, for he is everlasting and the life of the state or civilisation, compared with his, is only a moment."
On tyranny: "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
On freedom and natural rights : “The very idea of freedom presupposes some objective moral law which overarches rulers and ruled alike. Subjectivism about values is eternally incompatible with democracy. We and our rulers are of one kind only so long as we are subject to one law. But if there is no Law of Nature, the ethos of any society is the creation of its rulers, educators and conditioners; and every creator stands above and outside his own creation.”
The Drug War: The 40 year war on Liberty
June 17, 2011 marked the 40 year anniversary of another failed government war. This war happens to be the Drug War, which was declared by President Richard Nixon on June 17, 1971. It seems that almost every government war on an abstract or material "thing" makes the problem worse. The government declares a war on poverty, and poverty gets worse. The government declares war on obesity, and obesity increases. The government declares war on terrorism, and terrorism increases or escapes being destroyed. The same can be said about the Drug War. President Nixon describes this war as follows: "This will be a worldwide offensive dealing with the problems of sources of supply, as well as Americans who may be stationed abroad, wherever they are in the world. It will be government wide, pulling together the nine different fragmented areas within the government in which this problem is now being handled, and it will be nationwide in terms of a new educational program that we trust will result from the discussions that we have had."
But this is certainly not the first time the Federal Government has waged a war on freedom via the drug war. The first instance came with the passage of first federal anti-narcotics law in 1905. The law was aimed at ending the opium trade in the Philippines, which had been taken as a protectorate country after the Spanish-American War of 1898. Laurence M. Vance explains the drug war timeline as follows: "This [the 1905 anti-narcotics law] was followed by the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, the Opium Exclusion Act of 1909, the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914, the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, the Narcotic Control Act of 1956, and the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970. And since the beginning of Nixon’s war, we have had the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, the Chemical Diversion and Trafficking Act of 1988, the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act of 2003, and the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005. And who can forget the D.A.R.E. school-lecture program, 'Just Say No' clubs, and the Partnership for a Drug-Free America’s television ad featuring a hot skillet, an egg, and the phrase, 'This is your brain on drugs.'"
As Art Caden has noted, one of the unintended consequences of the Drug War has been that drugs have increased in potency. Art Caden elaborates: "Which would be easier to smuggle: $1,000,000 worth of marijuana, or $1,000,000 worth of cocaine? $1,000,000 worth of cocaine can be packed into a much smaller space than $1,000,000 of marijuana. If we decide to fight drugs, what is likely to disappear from the market and what is likely to end up all over the market? Low-potency drugs are likely to disappear. High-potency drugs—like higher-potency marijuana—are likely to stay. According to Milton Friedman, 'crack would never have existed...if you had not had drug prohibition.'” Caden also points out that another consequence of the Drug as been that "The 'land of the free' has a higher incarceration rate than any other country in the world. Economist and drug policy expert Jeffrey Miron points out, we would have a lot less violence if we ended drug prohibition."
The costs of the Drug War are also high and a waste of resources. If the Drug War was ended at the Federal level, the Federal Government would save $15.6 billion per year. Local governments would save $25.7 billion per year if the Drug War was ended. These statisics show us that State and Local governments have to commit a huge sum of tax-payer dollars to keep Drug Prohibition instituted, while the Federal Government does not have to pay as much for the Drug War. But more importantly, liberty is at stake in the Drug War. Says Caden on the fate of liberty in the Drug War: "The kinds of encroachments on liberty being rationalized in the name of the drug war are unworthy of a country that calls itself the “land of the free.” For examples, look no further than the military-style “no-knock raids” that are becoming far too common (70,000-80,000 per year, according to criminologist Peter Kraska via USA Today)."
Laurence Vance provides a ten point case against the Drug War as follows:
The war on drugs costs American taxpayers over $40 billion a year.
For the first half of our nation’s history there were no prohibitions against any drug.
The war on drugs is not authorized by the Constitution.
Tobacco kills more people every year than all of the people killed by all illegal drugs in the twentieth century.
The war on drugs has done nothing to reduce the demand for illicit drugs.
Numerous studies have shown that smoking marijuana is less dangerous than drinking alcohol.
The war on drugs is the cause of our unnecessarily swelled prison populations.
Alcohol abuse, not drug abuse, is one of the leading causes of premature deaths in the United States.
The war on drugs has ruined more lives than drugs themselves.
More people in America die every year from drugs prescribed and administered by physicians than from illegal drugs.
Let us be clear on this. Neither Laurence nor I endorse using narcotics and we both recogize that they can be very dangerous to one's health. "But drugs are dangerous!" one might say. Well, I don' think alot of people would despute that. What can be desputed is whether or not the government needs to be prohibiting the use of drugs in a free society. Vance elaborates: "What matters is personal freedom, private property, personal responsibility, individual liberty, personal and financial privacy, free markets, limited government, and the natural right to be left alone if one is not aggressing against his someone and is doing 'anything that’s peaceful.' Ending the war on drugs is not an esoteric issue of libertarians or a pet issue of those who want to get high. Once the government claims control over what a man smokes, snorts, sniffs, inhales, or otherwise ingests into his body, there is no limit to its power. As the economist Ludwig von Mises so eloquently said: 'As soon as we surrender the principle that the state should not interfere in any questions touching on the individual’s mode of life, we end by regulating and restricting the latter down to the smallest detail.' The war on drugs is incompatible with a free society. "
As human beings created in God's image, we have been endowed with the natural right of freedom of choice (with the exception of choosing to kill the unborn, but that is for another time). That freedom of choice includes the ability to make stupid and bad choices like using drugs. But an important matter here is that under this principle, everybody has to have personal responsibility, meaning that even if people make dumb choices, they are the only ones responsibly and must learn from their mistakes and make the proper corrections. Social pressure and aid from institutions of a free society, like the church for example, are better ways at combating drug usage in America while still retaining our natural rights. Jacob Hornberger elaborates: "the true test of a free society is not whether people are free to do what is popularly accepted but rather whether they are free to do what is not popularly accepted, especially conduct that is considered by others to be irresponsible, immoral, dangerous, or self-destructive, but with one important condition: the conduct must be peaceful. That is, no murder, rape, theft, fraud, etc. "
It is time that the War on Drugs comes to an end. It has been an expensive and failing enterprise that has assaulted our liberties. Laurence Vance was right: "The war on drugs is incompatible with a free society."
But this is certainly not the first time the Federal Government has waged a war on freedom via the drug war. The first instance came with the passage of first federal anti-narcotics law in 1905. The law was aimed at ending the opium trade in the Philippines, which had been taken as a protectorate country after the Spanish-American War of 1898. Laurence M. Vance explains the drug war timeline as follows: "This [the 1905 anti-narcotics law] was followed by the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, the Opium Exclusion Act of 1909, the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914, the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, the Narcotic Control Act of 1956, and the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970. And since the beginning of Nixon’s war, we have had the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, the Chemical Diversion and Trafficking Act of 1988, the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act of 2003, and the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005. And who can forget the D.A.R.E. school-lecture program, 'Just Say No' clubs, and the Partnership for a Drug-Free America’s television ad featuring a hot skillet, an egg, and the phrase, 'This is your brain on drugs.'"
As Art Caden has noted, one of the unintended consequences of the Drug War has been that drugs have increased in potency. Art Caden elaborates: "Which would be easier to smuggle: $1,000,000 worth of marijuana, or $1,000,000 worth of cocaine? $1,000,000 worth of cocaine can be packed into a much smaller space than $1,000,000 of marijuana. If we decide to fight drugs, what is likely to disappear from the market and what is likely to end up all over the market? Low-potency drugs are likely to disappear. High-potency drugs—like higher-potency marijuana—are likely to stay. According to Milton Friedman, 'crack would never have existed...if you had not had drug prohibition.'” Caden also points out that another consequence of the Drug as been that "The 'land of the free' has a higher incarceration rate than any other country in the world. Economist and drug policy expert Jeffrey Miron points out, we would have a lot less violence if we ended drug prohibition."
The costs of the Drug War are also high and a waste of resources. If the Drug War was ended at the Federal level, the Federal Government would save $15.6 billion per year. Local governments would save $25.7 billion per year if the Drug War was ended. These statisics show us that State and Local governments have to commit a huge sum of tax-payer dollars to keep Drug Prohibition instituted, while the Federal Government does not have to pay as much for the Drug War. But more importantly, liberty is at stake in the Drug War. Says Caden on the fate of liberty in the Drug War: "The kinds of encroachments on liberty being rationalized in the name of the drug war are unworthy of a country that calls itself the “land of the free.” For examples, look no further than the military-style “no-knock raids” that are becoming far too common (70,000-80,000 per year, according to criminologist Peter Kraska via USA Today)."
Laurence Vance provides a ten point case against the Drug War as follows:
Let us be clear on this. Neither Laurence nor I endorse using narcotics and we both recogize that they can be very dangerous to one's health. "But drugs are dangerous!" one might say. Well, I don' think alot of people would despute that. What can be desputed is whether or not the government needs to be prohibiting the use of drugs in a free society. Vance elaborates: "What matters is personal freedom, private property, personal responsibility, individual liberty, personal and financial privacy, free markets, limited government, and the natural right to be left alone if one is not aggressing against his someone and is doing 'anything that’s peaceful.' Ending the war on drugs is not an esoteric issue of libertarians or a pet issue of those who want to get high. Once the government claims control over what a man smokes, snorts, sniffs, inhales, or otherwise ingests into his body, there is no limit to its power. As the economist Ludwig von Mises so eloquently said: 'As soon as we surrender the principle that the state should not interfere in any questions touching on the individual’s mode of life, we end by regulating and restricting the latter down to the smallest detail.' The war on drugs is incompatible with a free society. "
As human beings created in God's image, we have been endowed with the natural right of freedom of choice (with the exception of choosing to kill the unborn, but that is for another time). That freedom of choice includes the ability to make stupid and bad choices like using drugs. But an important matter here is that under this principle, everybody has to have personal responsibility, meaning that even if people make dumb choices, they are the only ones responsibly and must learn from their mistakes and make the proper corrections. Social pressure and aid from institutions of a free society, like the church for example, are better ways at combating drug usage in America while still retaining our natural rights. Jacob Hornberger elaborates: "the true test of a free society is not whether people are free to do what is popularly accepted but rather whether they are free to do what is not popularly accepted, especially conduct that is considered by others to be irresponsible, immoral, dangerous, or self-destructive, but with one important condition: the conduct must be peaceful. That is, no murder, rape, theft, fraud, etc. "
It is time that the War on Drugs comes to an end. It has been an expensive and failing enterprise that has assaulted our liberties. Laurence Vance was right: "The war on drugs is incompatible with a free society."
Saturday, June 25, 2011
The Government cannot be trusted
Judge Andrew Napolitano discusses government secrecy versus the truth. Says Napolitano: "The government needs to be exposed because it cannot be trusted to expose itself, the light of day and the light of truth are the best disinfectants for the government"
A Memo to Conservatives: Presidents cannot initiate war
Writes Jacob Hornberger: "Suppose a law or a presidential act contradicts a provision of the Constitution. Which wins out? Libertarians say: The Constitution does. The law and the act are invalid because the Constitution is a higher law than the congressional law or the presidential act. Keep in mind, after all, that we the people — that is, our American ancestors — used the Constitution to call the federal government into existence as our servant, not our master, and on the condition that U.S. officials, including the president and the members of Congress, would comply with the terms of the document.
One of those terms deals with the critically important issue of war. The Framers did not want to give the president the power to declare war. They felt that if they did that, presidents would be likely to send the nation into senseless, expensive, deadly, and destructive wars. Moreover, they agreed with what James Madison pointed out — that of all the enemies to the freedom of the American people, war would be the biggest because it would provide the opportunity for the federal government to centralize and expand its powers and to infringe on the rights and freedoms of the American people."
One of those terms deals with the critically important issue of war. The Framers did not want to give the president the power to declare war. They felt that if they did that, presidents would be likely to send the nation into senseless, expensive, deadly, and destructive wars. Moreover, they agreed with what James Madison pointed out — that of all the enemies to the freedom of the American people, war would be the biggest because it would provide the opportunity for the federal government to centralize and expand its powers and to infringe on the rights and freedoms of the American people."
Friday, June 24, 2011
The FTC declares war against Google
Earlier this week according to the Wall Street Journal, "The Federal Trade Commission is poised to serve Google Inc. with civil subpoenas, according to people familiar with the matter, signaling the start of a wide-ranging, formal investigation into whether the Internet-search giant has abused its dominance on the Web. The agency’s five-member panel of commissioners is preparing to send its formal demands for information to Google within days, these people said. They said other companies are likely to receive official requests for information about their dealings with Google at a later stage.
Representatives for Google and the FTC declined to comment. The [FTC's] inquiry…will examine fundamental issues relating to Google’s core search-advertising business, said people familiar with the matter. The business is the source of most of Google’s revenue. The issues include whether Google—which accounts for around two-thirds of Internet searches in the U.S. and more abroad—unfairly channels users to its own growing network of services at the expense of rival providers.In November, the European Commission, the European Union’s executive arm, opened its own formal investigation into allegations by several companies that Google had violated European competition laws. Google denies the allegations"
We are witnessing the Federal Government declaring war against Google all because they have satisfied billions of consumers. As Declan McCullagh has reported: "It was inevitable that Google, one of the world’s largest technology companies, would find itself in the crosshairs of the Washington antitrust establishment. But what is, or should be, a little surprising is how enthusiastic the establishment became about pulling the trigger."
The apologists for antitrust laws will certainly tell us that "we need antitrust laws to protect us from monopolies and promote competition!" But this is certainly not true. Prior to the passage of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, there were no monopolies that dominated the market. Let us quote Alan Greenspan (before he became a central-planner): "The world of antitrust is reminiscent of Alice's Wonderland: everything seemingly is, yet apparently isn't, simultaneously. It is a world in which competition is lauded as the basic axiom and guiding principle, yet 'too much'competition is condemned as 'cutthroat.' It is a world in which actions designed to limit competition are branded as criminal when taken by businessmen, yet praised as 'enlightened' when initiated by government. It is a world in which the law is so vague that businessmen have no way of knowing whether specific actions will be declared illegal until they hear the judge's verdict-after the fact."
In the following video, which was filmed back in 1983, Congressman Ron Paul discusses antitrust laws and monopoly with Dominick T. Armentano, who wrote a book entitled Antitrust and Monopoly: Anatomy of a Policy Failure.
Representatives for Google and the FTC declined to comment. The [FTC's] inquiry…will examine fundamental issues relating to Google’s core search-advertising business, said people familiar with the matter. The business is the source of most of Google’s revenue. The issues include whether Google—which accounts for around two-thirds of Internet searches in the U.S. and more abroad—unfairly channels users to its own growing network of services at the expense of rival providers.In November, the European Commission, the European Union’s executive arm, opened its own formal investigation into allegations by several companies that Google had violated European competition laws. Google denies the allegations"
We are witnessing the Federal Government declaring war against Google all because they have satisfied billions of consumers. As Declan McCullagh has reported: "It was inevitable that Google, one of the world’s largest technology companies, would find itself in the crosshairs of the Washington antitrust establishment. But what is, or should be, a little surprising is how enthusiastic the establishment became about pulling the trigger."
The apologists for antitrust laws will certainly tell us that "we need antitrust laws to protect us from monopolies and promote competition!" But this is certainly not true. Prior to the passage of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, there were no monopolies that dominated the market. Let us quote Alan Greenspan (before he became a central-planner): "The world of antitrust is reminiscent of Alice's Wonderland: everything seemingly is, yet apparently isn't, simultaneously. It is a world in which competition is lauded as the basic axiom and guiding principle, yet 'too much'competition is condemned as 'cutthroat.' It is a world in which actions designed to limit competition are branded as criminal when taken by businessmen, yet praised as 'enlightened' when initiated by government. It is a world in which the law is so vague that businessmen have no way of knowing whether specific actions will be declared illegal until they hear the judge's verdict-after the fact."
In the following video, which was filmed back in 1983, Congressman Ron Paul discusses antitrust laws and monopoly with Dominick T. Armentano, who wrote a book entitled Antitrust and Monopoly: Anatomy of a Policy Failure.
Dr. Paul and the Judge
In this clip of Judge Andrew Napolitano's Freedom Watch on Fox Business, the Judge and Dr. Paul discuss the national debt, returning the marijuana issue to the states, and President Obama's unconstitutional war in Libya.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Tim Pawlenty, the "horrid" specter of "Isolationism", and the Afghan War
In a recent interview with Politico, Tim Pawlenty warns the GOP to stay away from "isolationism" on the eve of President Barack Obama's speech to announce the "withdrawal" of over 33,000 U.S. troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2012. Tim Pawlenty said "“I don’t like the drift of the Republican Party toward what appears to be a retreat or a move more towards isolationism,”. He also said that "“I wouldn’t be overly anxious to get the troops out of there until we have enough stability and capacity within the Afghanistan security forces to take up the slack. We need to make sure we do not send the message that we are leaving just because we’re tired or just because it’s too difficult."
Tim Pawlenty holds some bad assumptions here. The first bad assumption is that of isolationism. Isolationism is nothing more than a smear word that proponents of perpetual war and interventionism use to silence critics of foreign military adventurism and opponents of an American Empire. There is a clear distinction between isolationism and noninterventionism (the foreign policy that libertarians like Ron Paul support). Noninterventionism is a foreign policy by which a government refuses to fight the wars of other countries and abstains from intervening into the internal affairs of other nations. Noninterventionism is also dedicated to promoting a strong national defense at home, where the military is limited to protecting the country from an attack or invasion by a foreign government on a country's territory. The doctrine of noninterventionism holds that wars should only be entered into for the purpose of self-defense, that is, a country would not initiate a war, but respond to and attack or invasion and drive the aggressor out. Isolationism holds that not only should a country have a noninterventionist foreign policy, but that a country should have a trade policy of high protective tariffs to shield domestic industries from foreign competition. This is what separates isolationism and noninterventionism. Noninterventionists such as myself and Ron Paul support free trade and travel and discourage and despise protective tariffs.
The second bad assumption Tim Pawlenty holds (though not explicitly stated) is that the U.S. needed to invade Afghanistan. It seems like no public official in America ever thinks it was wrong to invade a country whose government had not actually attacked us. There were some alternatives to invading and occupying Afghanistan, which is historically known as the "Graveyard of Empires". One such alternative, which falls in line with our Constitution, is Letters of Marque and Reprisal. The U.S. government could authorize Letters of Marque and Reprisal against Osama Bin Laden and some of his top lieutenants and allow private bounty-hunters to go capture or kill Bin Laden for a certain price. This alternative would have been cheaper compared to all that our country has lost in treasure (and blood for that matter) in a no-win war that has not made the United States any safer, but has in fact, made us less safe. But as a consequence of our invasion of Afghanistan, our country may experience some blowback from our foreign policy in the future in the form of more terrorist attacks. Many proponents of the Afghan War will say that it was necessary for the U.S. to invade Afghanistan because the Taliban had "provided a sanctuary in Afghanistan" for Osama Bin Laden. but this argument has one flaw: Jacob Hornberger asks, if we define sanctuary as a place where terrorists are living when they plot there murderous acts, "then what about the 9/11 terrorists who were living here in the United States prior to the attacks, especially those who were living here by permission of the U.S. government? Would that mean that the U.S. government provided a "sanctuary" for the 9/11 terrorists?
Or how about Germany, where some of the 9/11 terrorists had some of their planning sessions? Was Germany providing a "sanctuary" to them? Of course not. Simply because terrorists are residing in a country when they're conspiring to commit a terrorist act is insufficient to hold the particular regime of that country responsible for the criminal act. Obviously, more is needed to justify an attack against a nation state. Complicity in the attack has to be a necessary prerequisite to justify going to war against a foreign regime." Afghan war proponents will then say that the Taliban "conspired with Al Qaeda". But even this argument is sketchy. Notes Hornberger: "If the U.S. government had any evidence whatsoever that established Taliban complicity in the attacks, don't you think it would have released such evidence by now? Yet, 8 years after the attacks it still hasn't done so, and the only possible reason for that is that no such evidence exists." After 9/11, Bush requested the Taliban to voluntarily turn bin Laden over to the U.S. Does anyone think that Bush would have made such a request if he actually possessed evidence that the Taliban had participated in the attacks? Not a chance. If Bush had had such evidence, he wouldn't have asked the Taliban to turn bin Laden over to the U.S. He would have simply attacked both Afghanistan and al-Qaeda, perhaps even with the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war. In fact, if the Taliban had complied with Bush's request to deliver bin Laden to U.S. forces, it is a virtual certainty that the U.S. would never have attacked the Taliban regime and ousted it from power. " As Scott Horton of Antiwar radio and Congressman Ron Paul have both noted, one of Osama Bin Laden's main goals was to get the United States to overreact to a terrorist attack and to foolishly invade Afghanistan. To Bin Laden and his cohorts, this would allow them to kill Americans on their soil and bankrupt our country and spread ourselves militarily, which is what is currently happening right now. Our country is bankrupt and our military is spread dangerously thin across the globe. This would also stir up hatred for the United States among the Afghan people who are intolerant of a foreign military power occupying their country and turn them into potential terrorists.
The third assumption that Tim Pawlenty holds is that Afghanistan can be made stable. The fact that our government has invaded the country and is occupying it is a big source of instablily. As I noted earlier, American presense in Afghanistan incites the Afghan people to have a hatred for the United States and to want to come over to America to attack and kill Americans. As Jacob Hornberger notes: "Thus, once we understand the motive of people who are intent on doing harm to the United States, the solution becomes obvious: Stop the sanctions and embargoes. Stop the invasions and occupations. Stop the killings, maiming, torture, and abuse. Stop the bombings. Stop the drone attacks. Stop the destruction. Immediately withdraw all troops and bring them home. Terminate all foreign aid, not only to Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan but also to every other regime in the world. Stop the U.S. government from meddling in the internal affairs of other countries." Afghanistan by its' very nature is an unstable, heavily decentralized state made up of multiple tribes that are in constant conflict. Occupying such a country with the intent of creating a new central government will cause these tribes to either fight each other to gain the new powers of the central government, or cause them to unite for the time being a expel the occupying power. The new Afghan government has proven itself to be rife with corruption and abuse of power. So why should the American tax-payer be forced to pay for the construction and protection of this new corrupt centralized government.
On Wednesday, June 22, 2011, President Obama gave a speech in which he outlined his plan to withdraw American troops. Some critics say that his plan is "too fast". I say, his plan is too slow and it assumes an almost permanent military presence in the country. Remember when he campaigned on ending the Iraq war? Well, the U.S. is still occupying Iraq. Remember when he positioned himself as a peace president? Well that was a lie as President Obama has expanded the Afghan war, escalated drone attacks in Pakistan, bombing Yemen and building a military base outside of Yemen to facilitate and support such attacks, unconstitutionally started a war in libya, and continues to occupy Iraq. There is no sign to me that President Obama is serious about ending these wars. Therefore, it is time the United States terminate all these wars in the Middle East, bring the troops home (not just from the Middle East, but from all around the world), defend this country, and return to the constitutional, traditional, and pro-American foreign policy of noninterventionism as advocated and advised by our Founding Fathers. This would make America more safe, more prosperous, and more free.
Tim Pawlenty holds some bad assumptions here. The first bad assumption is that of isolationism. Isolationism is nothing more than a smear word that proponents of perpetual war and interventionism use to silence critics of foreign military adventurism and opponents of an American Empire. There is a clear distinction between isolationism and noninterventionism (the foreign policy that libertarians like Ron Paul support). Noninterventionism is a foreign policy by which a government refuses to fight the wars of other countries and abstains from intervening into the internal affairs of other nations. Noninterventionism is also dedicated to promoting a strong national defense at home, where the military is limited to protecting the country from an attack or invasion by a foreign government on a country's territory. The doctrine of noninterventionism holds that wars should only be entered into for the purpose of self-defense, that is, a country would not initiate a war, but respond to and attack or invasion and drive the aggressor out. Isolationism holds that not only should a country have a noninterventionist foreign policy, but that a country should have a trade policy of high protective tariffs to shield domestic industries from foreign competition. This is what separates isolationism and noninterventionism. Noninterventionists such as myself and Ron Paul support free trade and travel and discourage and despise protective tariffs.
The second bad assumption Tim Pawlenty holds (though not explicitly stated) is that the U.S. needed to invade Afghanistan. It seems like no public official in America ever thinks it was wrong to invade a country whose government had not actually attacked us. There were some alternatives to invading and occupying Afghanistan, which is historically known as the "Graveyard of Empires". One such alternative, which falls in line with our Constitution, is Letters of Marque and Reprisal. The U.S. government could authorize Letters of Marque and Reprisal against Osama Bin Laden and some of his top lieutenants and allow private bounty-hunters to go capture or kill Bin Laden for a certain price. This alternative would have been cheaper compared to all that our country has lost in treasure (and blood for that matter) in a no-win war that has not made the United States any safer, but has in fact, made us less safe. But as a consequence of our invasion of Afghanistan, our country may experience some blowback from our foreign policy in the future in the form of more terrorist attacks. Many proponents of the Afghan War will say that it was necessary for the U.S. to invade Afghanistan because the Taliban had "provided a sanctuary in Afghanistan" for Osama Bin Laden. but this argument has one flaw: Jacob Hornberger asks, if we define sanctuary as a place where terrorists are living when they plot there murderous acts, "then what about the 9/11 terrorists who were living here in the United States prior to the attacks, especially those who were living here by permission of the U.S. government? Would that mean that the U.S. government provided a "sanctuary" for the 9/11 terrorists?
Or how about Germany, where some of the 9/11 terrorists had some of their planning sessions? Was Germany providing a "sanctuary" to them? Of course not. Simply because terrorists are residing in a country when they're conspiring to commit a terrorist act is insufficient to hold the particular regime of that country responsible for the criminal act. Obviously, more is needed to justify an attack against a nation state. Complicity in the attack has to be a necessary prerequisite to justify going to war against a foreign regime." Afghan war proponents will then say that the Taliban "conspired with Al Qaeda". But even this argument is sketchy. Notes Hornberger: "If the U.S. government had any evidence whatsoever that established Taliban complicity in the attacks, don't you think it would have released such evidence by now? Yet, 8 years after the attacks it still hasn't done so, and the only possible reason for that is that no such evidence exists." After 9/11, Bush requested the Taliban to voluntarily turn bin Laden over to the U.S. Does anyone think that Bush would have made such a request if he actually possessed evidence that the Taliban had participated in the attacks? Not a chance. If Bush had had such evidence, he wouldn't have asked the Taliban to turn bin Laden over to the U.S. He would have simply attacked both Afghanistan and al-Qaeda, perhaps even with the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war. In fact, if the Taliban had complied with Bush's request to deliver bin Laden to U.S. forces, it is a virtual certainty that the U.S. would never have attacked the Taliban regime and ousted it from power. " As Scott Horton of Antiwar radio and Congressman Ron Paul have both noted, one of Osama Bin Laden's main goals was to get the United States to overreact to a terrorist attack and to foolishly invade Afghanistan. To Bin Laden and his cohorts, this would allow them to kill Americans on their soil and bankrupt our country and spread ourselves militarily, which is what is currently happening right now. Our country is bankrupt and our military is spread dangerously thin across the globe. This would also stir up hatred for the United States among the Afghan people who are intolerant of a foreign military power occupying their country and turn them into potential terrorists.
The third assumption that Tim Pawlenty holds is that Afghanistan can be made stable. The fact that our government has invaded the country and is occupying it is a big source of instablily. As I noted earlier, American presense in Afghanistan incites the Afghan people to have a hatred for the United States and to want to come over to America to attack and kill Americans. As Jacob Hornberger notes: "Thus, once we understand the motive of people who are intent on doing harm to the United States, the solution becomes obvious: Stop the sanctions and embargoes. Stop the invasions and occupations. Stop the killings, maiming, torture, and abuse. Stop the bombings. Stop the drone attacks. Stop the destruction. Immediately withdraw all troops and bring them home. Terminate all foreign aid, not only to Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan but also to every other regime in the world. Stop the U.S. government from meddling in the internal affairs of other countries." Afghanistan by its' very nature is an unstable, heavily decentralized state made up of multiple tribes that are in constant conflict. Occupying such a country with the intent of creating a new central government will cause these tribes to either fight each other to gain the new powers of the central government, or cause them to unite for the time being a expel the occupying power. The new Afghan government has proven itself to be rife with corruption and abuse of power. So why should the American tax-payer be forced to pay for the construction and protection of this new corrupt centralized government.
On Wednesday, June 22, 2011, President Obama gave a speech in which he outlined his plan to withdraw American troops. Some critics say that his plan is "too fast". I say, his plan is too slow and it assumes an almost permanent military presence in the country. Remember when he campaigned on ending the Iraq war? Well, the U.S. is still occupying Iraq. Remember when he positioned himself as a peace president? Well that was a lie as President Obama has expanded the Afghan war, escalated drone attacks in Pakistan, bombing Yemen and building a military base outside of Yemen to facilitate and support such attacks, unconstitutionally started a war in libya, and continues to occupy Iraq. There is no sign to me that President Obama is serious about ending these wars. Therefore, it is time the United States terminate all these wars in the Middle East, bring the troops home (not just from the Middle East, but from all around the world), defend this country, and return to the constitutional, traditional, and pro-American foreign policy of noninterventionism as advocated and advised by our Founding Fathers. This would make America more safe, more prosperous, and more free.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Texas vs the TSA
Right now, there is a great battle going on in the State of Texas. Over the last several months, the Texas legistlature has had a controversial piece of legislation floating around called the Travelers' Dignity Act, an anti-TSA bill that would clarify to TSA employees that they have no immunity from the Texas criminal code. The actions of the TSA in airports is a violation of the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as it amounts to an unconstitutional search and seizure. The 4th Amendment reads as follows: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." I would like to commend Texas Representative David Simpson (author of the anti-TSA bill) for his efforts to stand up to the TSA, the Federal Leviathan, and more importantly, for standing up for the U.S. Constitution.
Texas Representative David Simpson released a letter on May 24th, 2011 to his fellow Representatives concerning the threats they have been receiving from the Department of Justice that the TSA would shut down airports (read:impose a no-fly zone) if HB 1937, the Travelers' Dignity Act became law. The letter reads as follows:
Texas Representative David Simpson released a letter on May 24th, 2011 to his fellow Representatives concerning the threats they have been receiving from the Department of Justice that the TSA would shut down airports (read:impose a no-fly zone) if HB 1937, the Travelers' Dignity Act became law. The letter reads as follows:
Dear Sirs:
Today you received a letter from Mr. John E. Murphy, United States Attorney, Western District of Texas in regards to House Bill 1937 currently up for consideration by the Senate.
In his letter, Mr. Murphy made a veiled threat to the elected officials of Texas that if we move to protect the constitutional rights of our citizens, the TSA could shut down flights to and from Texas airports.
175 years ago in the first battle of the Texas Revolution against Mexico, a small band of Texans stood in defiance at Gonzalez, turning back the attempt to deprive them of their weapon of defense, a single cannon.
Gentlemen, we find ourselves at such a watershed moment today. The federal government is attempting to deprive the citizens of Texas of their constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 9 of the Texas Constitution. If we do not stand for our citizens in the face of this deprivation of their personal rights and dignity, who will?
Time is critical. If the bill does not pass the Senate tonight it may very well be dead until the next legislative session. Meanwhile, our wives, our children, our mothers and grandmothers, will be rudely violated by federal employees out of control.
My response to Mr. Murphy’s factually inaccurate letter follows. Please give this matter your immediate attention.
For Texas And Liberty!
David Simpson
The DOJ attempted to rationalize there opposition to the anti-TSA bill by saying that it violated Federal law and the Supremacy Clause of the Constitutiuon. But this argument holds no water, since the TSA itself and the anti-terrorism measures they enforce are unconstitutional. The Supremacy Clause reads as follows: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." (Note the emphasis of "in pursuance thereof"). As Tim Shoemaker of Campaign for Liberty notes: "Scanning and groping law-abiding American citizens as a condition for travel is something the founders would have abhorred."
Just recently, Texas Governor Rick Perry has allowed the anti-TSA bill to be considered in a special session of the Texas legislature after facing pressure from Representative David Simpson and anti-TSA groups to consider the bill. But as I have noted in my last blog post, I do not expect Governor Rick Perry to be supportive of the anti-TSA bill. But I once again commend Representative David Simpson for his efforts against the unconstitutional TSA and I hope and pray to God that the State of Texas would assert its' sovereignty and defend the natural God-given rights of its' citizens against the Federal Government.
Monday, June 20, 2011
Governor Rick Perry: Friend or Foe to Liberty?
I don't know that much about Texas Governor Rick Perry. But from what I have heard about him, he apparently is a "champion" of states' rights, and is running the Texas Government in good fiscal conditions. He is the author of the book Fed Up!: Our Fight to Save America from Washington. I have a feeling that in reality, and outside rhetoric, Gov. Rick Perry is not an ardent champion of states' rights, nor is he a hero of fiscal conservatives or libertarians. As I have examined his role in the battle between the State of Texas vs the TSA, I have become more skeptical of Gov. Perry and have asked myself whether or not he is a friend of liberty. Some things I have come across recently about the Governor have raised and confirmed my suspicions. Robert Wenzel, a free market economist who runs a blog entitled "EconomicPolicyJournal.com", offers some observations about Governor Rick Perry:
"Despite the widely held view that Texas is in strong financial shape, the state has severe debt overhang. Since Perry took over as governor in 2000, blame for the current debt situation can be place at his feet.While not raising the sales tax in Texas (Texas has no income tax). He raised just about every other fee and tax he could think of, including a surcharge on traffic violations. He also borrowed money for road bonds and borrowed from the Federal Unemployment Trust Fund. In 2003, he launched the Texas Enterprise Fund, he quickly, in 2004, gave $20 million to Countrywide Financial, the mortgage creating machine that was a major player in subprime, no docs mortgages. Depending how it is calculated, the debt of the state of Texas could be considered as high as $269 billion, which on a per citizen basis is $10,644 and is higher than even the $9,931 per citizen debt in the state of California. In 2000, when Perry first became governor, total spending by the state of Texas was $49 billion. At the end of 2010, it was $90 billion."
More skepticism comes from Paul Joseph Watson, who asks Americans to "Look beyond the rhetoric and study what Perry has actually done in his role as Governor – he’s the ultimate globalist – his every action illustrates how he’s the diametric opposite to the image of the Tea Party populist that he attempts to portray. That’s why he’s the perfect pick for the globalists, someone who can suck in the trust of the American people only to stab them in the back upon becoming president, just as Obama did before him." Paul Watson further elaborates:
"'Speculation that Perry is the Bilderberg group’s ace card was prompted by the current political climate, which can largely be gleaned from the fact that Perry is a longtime, unwavering supporter of the NAFTA Superhighway and related infrastructure projects,' wrote AFP’s Jim Tucker earlier this month. 'These pave the way for the Bilderberg-supported North American Union (NAU) proposal that would merge the U.S., Canada and Mexico.' Perry has also given enthusiastic support to former Mexican President Vicente Fox’s efforts to turn Texas into a sanctuary state for illegal immigrants. He also aggressively promoted the Rockefeller Foundation-backed HPV vaccination campaign in Texas that has led to deaths worldwide. David Rockefeller is a prominent Bilderberger, attending each annual meeting without fail. Perry attended the June 2007 Bilderberg conference in Istanbul, Turkey, and in doing so violated the Logan Act, a United States federal law that forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments."
In relation to states' rights, under much pressure from some Texas State Representatives and anti-TSA groups like Campaign for Liberty (an organization that I proudly endorse), Governor Rick Perry has allowed a popular and controversial anti-TSA bill to be considered by the Texas State legislature during a special session. But from what I have observed, it seems that he is not highly enthusiastic or supportive of the bill, despite the fact that this anti-TSA bill incorporates an important doctrine of true federalism and states' rights: the doctrine of nullification. The doctrine of nullification is basically the constitutional principle that the Federal Government must follow the Constitution by a strict interpretation as originally intended by the Framers and Ratifiers of the document, and that when the Federal Government implements and unconstitutional policy or law, it is void and of no force. Therefore, State government under this doctrine may interpose by nullifying unconstitutional policies and laws in order to protect the rights of the citizens within the borders of each individual state. The anti-TSA bill being considered in the Texas legislature is in principle a nullification bill by declaring that TSA employees have no immunity from the Texas criminal code by simply obeying there orders from their wise overlords in Washington D.C. Again I ask, is Governor Perry really a states' right champion?
So is Governor Rick Perry a friend or foe to liberty? In my humble opinion, I think he is not. But I will let you be the judge.
"Despite the widely held view that Texas is in strong financial shape, the state has severe debt overhang. Since Perry took over as governor in 2000, blame for the current debt situation can be place at his feet.While not raising the sales tax in Texas (Texas has no income tax). He raised just about every other fee and tax he could think of, including a surcharge on traffic violations. He also borrowed money for road bonds and borrowed from the Federal Unemployment Trust Fund. In 2003, he launched the Texas Enterprise Fund, he quickly, in 2004, gave $20 million to Countrywide Financial, the mortgage creating machine that was a major player in subprime, no docs mortgages. Depending how it is calculated, the debt of the state of Texas could be considered as high as $269 billion, which on a per citizen basis is $10,644 and is higher than even the $9,931 per citizen debt in the state of California. In 2000, when Perry first became governor, total spending by the state of Texas was $49 billion. At the end of 2010, it was $90 billion."
More skepticism comes from Paul Joseph Watson, who asks Americans to "Look beyond the rhetoric and study what Perry has actually done in his role as Governor – he’s the ultimate globalist – his every action illustrates how he’s the diametric opposite to the image of the Tea Party populist that he attempts to portray. That’s why he’s the perfect pick for the globalists, someone who can suck in the trust of the American people only to stab them in the back upon becoming president, just as Obama did before him." Paul Watson further elaborates:
"'Speculation that Perry is the Bilderberg group’s ace card was prompted by the current political climate, which can largely be gleaned from the fact that Perry is a longtime, unwavering supporter of the NAFTA Superhighway and related infrastructure projects,' wrote AFP’s Jim Tucker earlier this month. 'These pave the way for the Bilderberg-supported North American Union (NAU) proposal that would merge the U.S., Canada and Mexico.' Perry has also given enthusiastic support to former Mexican President Vicente Fox’s efforts to turn Texas into a sanctuary state for illegal immigrants. He also aggressively promoted the Rockefeller Foundation-backed HPV vaccination campaign in Texas that has led to deaths worldwide. David Rockefeller is a prominent Bilderberger, attending each annual meeting without fail. Perry attended the June 2007 Bilderberg conference in Istanbul, Turkey, and in doing so violated the Logan Act, a United States federal law that forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments."
In relation to states' rights, under much pressure from some Texas State Representatives and anti-TSA groups like Campaign for Liberty (an organization that I proudly endorse), Governor Rick Perry has allowed a popular and controversial anti-TSA bill to be considered by the Texas State legislature during a special session. But from what I have observed, it seems that he is not highly enthusiastic or supportive of the bill, despite the fact that this anti-TSA bill incorporates an important doctrine of true federalism and states' rights: the doctrine of nullification. The doctrine of nullification is basically the constitutional principle that the Federal Government must follow the Constitution by a strict interpretation as originally intended by the Framers and Ratifiers of the document, and that when the Federal Government implements and unconstitutional policy or law, it is void and of no force. Therefore, State government under this doctrine may interpose by nullifying unconstitutional policies and laws in order to protect the rights of the citizens within the borders of each individual state. The anti-TSA bill being considered in the Texas legislature is in principle a nullification bill by declaring that TSA employees have no immunity from the Texas criminal code by simply obeying there orders from their wise overlords in Washington D.C. Again I ask, is Governor Perry really a states' right champion?
So is Governor Rick Perry a friend or foe to liberty? In my humble opinion, I think he is not. But I will let you be the judge.
Should the Military be the foundation for society?
As the United States comes to a point where military interventionism and building an American Empire abroad has made the United States less safe, less prosperous, and most importantly less free, most Americans still hold the rosey-glassed view that the US Military constantly fights for our freedom. This is an unfortunate situtation because as historian John V. Denson has shown, wars in American history have resulted in a loss of freedom in America. But is it possible that people view the military as the bedrock of society? In a recent blog post by David Theroux of the Independent Institute, Theroux has found such a person. Theroux comments as follows: "While numerous liberal and conservative pundits have long mistakenly supported military Keynesianism as necessary for national defense and economic prosperity, Kristof has now taken this view far further to claim that the military provides the all-inclusive socialist model for all of society." Nicholas D. Kristof, author of the article "Our Lefty Military", claimes that : "The business sector is dazzlingly productive, but it also periodically blows up our financial system. Yet if we seek another model, one that emphasizes universal health care and educational opportunity, one that seeks to curb income inequality, we don’t have to turn to Sweden. Rather, look to the United States military. You see, when our armed forces are not firing missiles, they live by an astonishingly liberal ethos — and it works. The military helped lead the way in racial desegregation, and even today it does more to provide equal opportunity to working-class families — especially to blacks — than just about any social program. It has been an escalator of social mobility in American society because it invests in soldiers and gives them skills and opportunities." In the following statement, Kristof assumes that the private sector of the economy (i.e. the free market) is the cause of recessions and depressions. But as historian Tom Woods has shown, it has been government intervention into the economy, and more specifically, the monetary policies of the Federal Reserve of deliberate destruction of the currency that "blows up our financial system". And as Theroux explains, "And as Research Fellow Jonathan Bean reveals in his Institute book, Race and Liberty in America, desegregation not only began in the private sector decades before federal courts and laws intervened, but it was government regulations (e.g., Jim Crow laws, labor regulations, etc.), including that mandated by the military, that institutionalized racism on a huge scale and made desegregation so difficult." German-Prussian Chancellor Otto von Bismarck would proclaim, " Call it socialism or whatever you like. It is the same to me." as he constructed a welfare-state in Germany to pursue war in the 1880s. Kristof finishes his article with this declaration: "So as the United States armed forces try to pull Iraqi and Afghan societies into the 21st century, maybe they could do the same for America’s. Hoo-ah!" As Theroux has noted, this goes back to a quote from Benito Mussolini: "Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived in their relation to the State.
—”The Doctrine of Fascism” (1932) So what should be the role of military in a free society?
The military in a free constitutional republic should be limited to protecting the country from an attack or invasion from a foreign government. The military should not be an engine or model of social engineering at home or abroad, and it certainly should not be utilized to build an American Empire overseas while facilitating the advent of a welfare-regulatory-state at home. In short, the United States needs to return to the original foreign policy of noninterventionism. By following a foreign policy of armed neutrality and strategic independence with free trade and travel, the desire to build an American Empire overseas and expand the powers of the central government at home will be nullified, along with the collectivist desires of men like Nicholas Kristof
—”The Doctrine of Fascism” (1932) So what should be the role of military in a free society?
The military in a free constitutional republic should be limited to protecting the country from an attack or invasion from a foreign government. The military should not be an engine or model of social engineering at home or abroad, and it certainly should not be utilized to build an American Empire overseas while facilitating the advent of a welfare-regulatory-state at home. In short, the United States needs to return to the original foreign policy of noninterventionism. By following a foreign policy of armed neutrality and strategic independence with free trade and travel, the desire to build an American Empire overseas and expand the powers of the central government at home will be nullified, along with the collectivist desires of men like Nicholas Kristof
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Defending Liberty and the Free Society: An introduction to myself
Like most Americans, I would consider myself a Patriot. But my love for my country is based on reasons that many Americans would not immediately think of. Many Americans are patriots because of the opportunities to improve one's economic status(even though government intervention into the economy has made economic improvement much more difficult). Many if not most Americans are patriots because we have the mightiest military in the world and are willing to use it to supposedly "make the world safe for democracy", as Woodrow Wilson described US intervention into World War 1. Many Americans have used their patriotism to support an aggressive foreign policy of empire and interventionism (which is actually called jingoism). Other Americans use their patriotism to promote government intervention into the economy to promote nationalism (which usually includes protective tariffs, corporate welfare, and increased government spending). But none of these descriptions accurately portray a true American Patriot.
As Congressman Ron Paul has stated in his new book Liberty Defined: "To be an American patriot means to love liberty." He is absolutely right. Our country was founded on a solid foundation liberty and natural rights which allowed our society to become one the most prosperous and most freest society in human history. The American society was founded upon the great principles of individual liberty, constitutional government, sound money, free markets, and a noninterventionist foreign policy. But sadly, the American tradition of our Founding Fathers has almost been buried. By promoting the ideas of the original American Patriots like Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James Madison, or Patrick Henry, one many find themselves labeled as "extremists" or "radicals".
The purpose of this blog is to promote those great American principles of individual liberty, constitutional government, sound money, free markets, and a noninterventionist foreign policy. I am further inspired by the words of Jacob Hornberger when he stated :
"Imagine: A society with no income taxation or IRS -- people were free to keep everything they earned and there wasn't anything the government could do about it. No Social Security, no Medicare, no Medicaid, no welfare, no systems of public (i.e., government) schooling, no drug laws, no immigration controls, no Federal Reserve, no legal-tender laws, few economic regulations, no gun control, no torture, no huge standing army or military-industrial complex, no going abroad in search of monsters to destroy or to spread democracy with bombs, missiles, and bullets.
What was the result of this unusual society? Only the most prosperous nation that mankind had ever seen! When people were free to accumulate wealth, massive amounts of savings and capital came into existence, making workers increasingly productive. The reason that thousands of penniless immigrants were flooding American shores every day was because they not only had a chance to survive, for the first time in history they had the chance to become wealthy. People were going from rags to riches in one, two, or three generations."
I hope that my efforts will help reclaim the Republic, and restore the Constitution.
As Congressman Ron Paul has stated in his new book Liberty Defined: "To be an American patriot means to love liberty." He is absolutely right. Our country was founded on a solid foundation liberty and natural rights which allowed our society to become one the most prosperous and most freest society in human history. The American society was founded upon the great principles of individual liberty, constitutional government, sound money, free markets, and a noninterventionist foreign policy. But sadly, the American tradition of our Founding Fathers has almost been buried. By promoting the ideas of the original American Patriots like Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James Madison, or Patrick Henry, one many find themselves labeled as "extremists" or "radicals".
The purpose of this blog is to promote those great American principles of individual liberty, constitutional government, sound money, free markets, and a noninterventionist foreign policy. I am further inspired by the words of Jacob Hornberger when he stated :
"Imagine: A society with no income taxation or IRS -- people were free to keep everything they earned and there wasn't anything the government could do about it. No Social Security, no Medicare, no Medicaid, no welfare, no systems of public (i.e., government) schooling, no drug laws, no immigration controls, no Federal Reserve, no legal-tender laws, few economic regulations, no gun control, no torture, no huge standing army or military-industrial complex, no going abroad in search of monsters to destroy or to spread democracy with bombs, missiles, and bullets.
What was the result of this unusual society? Only the most prosperous nation that mankind had ever seen! When people were free to accumulate wealth, massive amounts of savings and capital came into existence, making workers increasingly productive. The reason that thousands of penniless immigrants were flooding American shores every day was because they not only had a chance to survive, for the first time in history they had the chance to become wealthy. People were going from rags to riches in one, two, or three generations."
I hope that my efforts will help reclaim the Republic, and restore the Constitution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)