In Defense of the Constitution

Have A Problem With Non-Interventionist Foreign Policy?

2011-12-18T10:23:00.001-06:00

I have no problem with Ron Paul's foreign policy--never have. This isn't because I am some naive kook who doesn't recognize the danger in the world and the realty that there exist bad men who desire to do bad things. I assure you I do, but my knowledge of this reality is not enough to skew my reality in the field of foreign policy.

One reason I find Dr. Paul's foreign policy position so easy to digest is that it was to some degree or another the mainstream conservative position for some time up until the last decade. It's nothing new, and its nothing I haven't encountered countless times before. One can easily look back to the great conservative leader Robert Taft in mid-twentieth century or much of the Republican establishment during the Clinton Administration for modern examples of those staking non-interventionist foreign policy positions in our modern times. Even then-governor George W. Bush of Texas held firmly to this position as a candidate for president, though he betrayed this position during his presidency. Of course, one need merely to look to our Founding Fathers' wisdom as the prime example of non-interventionist foreign policy. The non-interventionist position is nothing new and nothing I have reason to fear as some newfangled crackpot scheme. It is actually classical wisdom that has consistently held true.

Another reason I find no problem with the foreign policy of Paul and others who promote non-interventionism is that I am a student of history and politics. I understand that the claims made by Paul and others are no wild works of fiction, but rather, sound statements that line up with the realities of the day and the historical narrative. I don't fear enemies beyond their capabilities because I don't base my assumptions on war propaganda or media monster-weaving. Rather, I base my positions on fact and reason.

It is amazing how level-headed one can think if they weigh the claims of talk radio, mainstream news outlets, and the like, to see if those same claims hold water. Blind acceptance leads to both ignorance and poor position taking, and one who avoids such reckless behavior can easily avoid both. We should each strive to hold sound positions grounded in fact, regardless of the issue. And holding such positions often involves challenging mainstream assumptions.

It is not my intention to right every wrong or change every heart with this post. I merely would like some who hold such strong convictions against the foreign policy of those like Ron Paul to begin testing those convictions--to begin to think about these issues in a new light which has not been darkened by the shades of hearsay and falsehood.

Please begin this journey by watching the video below. See why so many veterans and active duty military have come to trust and support an Air Force veteran from Texas named Ron Paul. Moreover, see why so many experts in the field of foreign policy break from the mainstream media and political pundit's narrative and believe that Dr. Paul is right about these issues. Lastly, see why you as an American should support the foreign policy of Paul and restore our nation to a position of a sound foreign policy and a strong national defense.

I beg you to please take the time and watch this video.

Fox News on Ron Paul's Decision to Forgo Trump Debate and Trump's Criticism

2011-12-04T19:21:00.000-06:00

In the video below Fox News reports on Ron Paul's decision (along with Jon Huntsman) to not take part in the Donald Trump debate, calling the reality TV star's self-promotion sideshow "beneath the office of the presidency"

The panel rightly pointed out Trump's criticism of Paul's candidacy as unfounded, noting Paul's high poll numbers and solid ground game in Iowa--the state where the debate will be hosted.

It is nice to see the mainstream media finally coming around and noting Paul's credibility as of late. One can only image where the Texas congressman would find himself if given a fair shake more often in the electoral process.

Newt Gingrich Exposed in New Campaign Ad

2011-11-30T22:32:00.000-06:00

It is no secret that Newt Gingrich is the current flavor of the month in the Republican primary field, following in the footsteps of Rick Perry and Herman Cain as the mainstream media and GOP faithful's present alternative to Mitt Romney.

It is not that his positions differ sharply from the former Massachusetts governor, who is often chided for his liberal positions both presently and over the years. Rather, Newt--like his other so-called "conservative alternatives to Romney"--does a much better job of masking his big-government agenda on the campaign trail than the perceived front-runner, Romney.

Of course, like Cain and Perry before him, Newt is crossing both fingers--hoping voters stick to a superficial support of his candidacy without delving into his record. Doing so, would only leave him being found wanting in both conservative credentials and political consistency.

For those truly seeking what Mr. Gingrich is about, the campaign of Congressman Ron Paul has put together an invaluable starting point.

The video below is how a "negative" campaign ad should be--grounded completely in fact and policy. Take a look and see the true Newt Gingrich for yourself.

New Ron Paul Ad--Consistent

2011-10-18T19:59:00.000-05:00

This new Ron Paul ad sums up why he has my support and why he should have the support of every freedom-loving American. It really fires me up.

Anti-War Conservatism is Conservatism

2011-08-25T18:27:00.000-05:00

Please do yourself a service and read Jack Hunter's latest over at the Daily Caller, dealing with what exactly constitutes a conservative (and constitutional) foreign policy position. Hunter rightly points to the history of the conservative movement to show that there is nothing "leftist" about opposing unnecessary and unconstitutional wars.

Some of the loudest voices on the right continue to categorize Ron Paul’s foreign policy views as “leftist.” It is true that like many on the left, Paul has been a staunch opponent of the Iraq War, our decade-long presence in Afghanistan and the recent intervention in Libya.

Paul believes that the only just war is a war of defense. When America was attacked on 9/11, Paul supported going into Afghanistan because he believed what most Americans believed — that the Taliban was harboring those behind the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks. When America is attacked, she defends herself. This is what most Americans think of as “national defense.”

But what Paul’s critics on the right call “national defense” is often something quite different. The concept of preventive war — that is, going to war with nations that “might” be a threat at some point — is something new and without precedent in our history. This part of the Bush Doctrine, coupled with the notion that America can — and must — spread democracy throughout the globe, has become many conservatives’ default foreign policy position.

But this is a strange position for conservatives, because it is not conservative...

...Is Barack Obama a “conservative” for having a foreign policy similar to Bush’s? If “Bush kept us safe” was a mantra conservatives were comfortable using to obscure his big-government record, has “Obama kept us safe” by carrying on with the same wars, starting a new one in Libya and taking out Osama bin Laden? Ron Paul now attacks Obama’s foreign policy just as viciously as he did Bush’s and on the same grounds.

Is Obama the conservative and Paul the liberal?

Read the entire article here.

Debt and Constitutional Disregard

2011-07-29T12:39:00.000-05:00

Ron Natelson has a fantastic article over at the Tenth Amendment Center, regarding the debt ceiling ridiculousness going on at the moment. As someone who emailed one of my former Constitutional Law professors at 2:30am last night/morning to vent about this latest bastardization of the 14th Amendment, I appreciate Natelson's sound understanding of the issues.

Some people are claiming that if Congress fails to raise the debt limit, the President can raise it himself unilaterally. The claim is not only wrong, but far scarier for America’s future than a default would be.

Typical of those arguing this way is Bruce Bartlett, the formerly conservative economist who in recent years has been dashing to the left.

Barlett argues that “In the event that congressional irresponsibility makes default impossible to avoid, [the President] should order the secretary of the Treasury to simply disregard the debt limit and sell whatever securities are necessary to raise cash to pay the nation’s debts.”

Initially, you should understand that Barlett’s “Chicken Little” concerns are based on a false premise: That failure to raise the debt limit equals non-payment of national debt. The truth, however, is that there is plenty of revenue to pay the national debt (and the military, too). Doing so requires merely that the government take care of those expenses before continuing to fund other programs, many of them of dubious constitutionality.

But even if Bartlett’s premise were correct, his legal arguments remind us that he is an economist, and not a lawyer. Here are his three principal arguments, and the response to each: (continue reading here.)

Cut, Cap and Balance Act Supports the Status Quo

2011-07-19T15:31:00.000-05:00

Congressman Ron Paul's statement on the Cut, Cap and Balance Act is an absolute must read for anyone serious about addressing the debt and spending insanity being carried out by our federal government. Dr. Paul points to the true nature of the Act--a support of the status quo--and defines what must be done to solve our woes--cut spending.

Dr. Paul notes of the Cut, Cap and Balance Act's problems:

First, it purports to eventually balance the budget without cutting military spending, Social Security, or Medicare. This is impossible. These three budget items already cost nearly $1 trillion apiece annually. This means we can cut every other area of federal spending to zero and still have a $3 trillion budget. Since annual federal tax revenues almost certainly will not exceed $2.5 trillion for several years, this Act cannot balance the budget under any plausible scenario.

Second, it further entrenches the ludicrous beltway concept of discretionary vs. nondiscretionary spending. America faces a fiscal crisis, and we must seize the opportunity once and for all to slay Washington's sacred cows-- including defense contractors and entitlements. All spending must be deemed discretionary and reexamined by Congress each year. To allow otherwise is pure cowardice.

Third, the Act applies the nonsensical narrative about a "Global War on Terror" to justify exceptions to its spending caps. Since this war is undeclared, has no definite enemies, no clear objectives, and no metric to determine victory, it is by definition endless. Congress will never balance the budget until we reject the concept of endless wars.

Finally, and most egregiously, this Act ignores the real issue: total spending by government. As Milton Friedman famously argued, what we really need is a constitutional amendment to limit taxes and spending, not simply to balance the budget. What we need is a dramatically smaller federal government; if we achieve this a balanced budget will take care of itself.

Do yourself a service and read the whole statement.

The Debt-Ceiling Debate is Full of Malarkey

2011-07-16T00:19:00.000-05:00

In the video below, ReasonTV's Nick Gillespie points to three reasons why the current debt-ceiling debate is ridiculous and full of falsehood.

1. August 2nd is a Phoney Deadline
2.Reaching the Debt Ceiling is NOT Defaulting
3. Legislating-by-Panic is No Way to Run a Country

For weeks I have talked to both conservative and liberals about this issue and one thing has been crystal clear: no one seems to know what they are talking about. When I correctly stress the points below (especially the second point) I am stared downed as some kind of idiot by folks from all political backgrounds. Sadly, many seem to have a deep commitment to a certain course of action without a lick of understanding regarding the issue.

What is clear is that we need to stop this unconstitutional and unsustainable spending. We need to do it in a timely manner, and we need to cut spending without raising taxes. What we don't need to do is allow fear and misunderstanding to give us more of the same policies that got us into this mess.

Ron Paul Releases First TV Ad of 2012

2011-07-14T00:13:00.001-05:00

Congressman Ron Paul has launched his first television ad of the 2012 primary season, and boy, it is a darn good one. Playing out like a movie trailer, it has enough entertainment value to draw the viewer in and keep his or her attention. Moreover, it does a splendid job of positioning the congressman within the historical and present debate over economic policy and outlining his own economic convictions.

Take a look for yourself below. Paul fan or not, what do you think of this first ad to come out of his 2012 primary bid?

On Independence Day...

2011-07-04T01:25:00.001-05:00

On this Independence Day don't lose site of the meaning of this holiday--a struggle for secession, freedom, and self-determination. Please take the time to read or listen to the Declaration of Independence (below). Pay attention to its words. See how far we have come as a nation, or rather, how far we have reverted back to the ways of those we once rebelled against.

Let us remember that we are "endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights" for which we must continue to fight. May we continue our struggle and strive to make each July 4th more free and more happy than the last.

Ronald Regan and Foreign Policy

2011-06-28T11:08:00.000-05:00

In Jack Hunter's latest op-ed he takes on the neoconservative's latest round of crying "isolationism" when conservatives oppose perpetual and unnecessary war. Mr. Hunter properly attacks the neocons' misguided and misinformed claims and uses Ronald Reagan--a standard-bearer of the modern conservative movement--as an example.

What's a 'Neoconservative?'

2011-06-25T15:35:00.000-05:00

Once again, the American Conservative's Jack Hunter does a great job in his analysis.

A Blow to the President's War in Libya

2011-06-24T13:17:00.000-05:00

On Friday, the US House overwhelmingly rejected the Obama Administration's military action in Libya. This comes days after Secretary of State Clinton openly voiced frustration over members of both parties' refusal to go along with the President and months after the White House first entered into this unnecessary and unconstitutional new war.

The New York Times reports:

Over the last few months, there has been increasing hostility toward the Obama administration in the House among both Democrats who oppose the war and many Republicans, who cite Constitutional issues, over the president’s refusal to seek authorization from Congress for the operations in Libya. They say such authorization is required by the 1973 War Powers Resolution.

Speaker John A. Boehner has repeatedly warned President Obama that the House considers the situation untenable and would seek to intervene through resolutions and its power of the purse.

The House then quickly moved to debate a second resolution, sponsored by Representative Thomas Rooney, Republican of Florida, that would prohibit the use of money for military operations in Libya, allowing financing only for support operations like search and rescue, aerial refueling, operational planning, and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance — essentially requiring an end to direct American combat activity like missile strikes. The measure, which has the support of Republican leadership, was intended to severely limit America’s role while not completely leaving NATO allies in the lurch.

The Senate, controlled by Democrats, is not expected to pass such a measure and therefore it is unlikely to have any practical effect on the Libyan operations. Still, the measure would send a strong signal to Mr. Obama that he lacked full Congressional support, reflecting in large part a nation weary of war.

While there is still much to be desired in the effort to end the wars we wage, this is a positive action. We are finally seeing actors in both parties standing up and saying "enough is enough," opposing the warfare state. We who have long been part of the conservative/libertarian anti-war movement, should welcome those who are now seeing things our way and hope we can once again be peaceful nation that seeks national defense over military adventurism. We must, if we are to long endure.

The Case Against War in Libya

2011-06-17T14:01:00.000-05:00

A bi-partisan group of United States congressmen recently brought a lawsuit against the Obama Administration, claiming the administration is in violation of the War Powers Act and is, therefore, carrying out illegal military action in Libya. One of the plaintiffs, Texas Congressman Ron Paul, today released a defense of the lawsuit over at the Daily Caller, which is well worth your attention.

Paul writes:

There is no issue more serious than war. Wars result in the loss of life and property. Wars are also expensive and an enormous economic burden.

Our Founders understood that waging war is not something that should be taken lightly, which is why Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution gives Congress — not the president — the authority to declare war. This was meant to be an important check on presidential power. The last thing the Founders wanted was an out-of-control executive branch engaging in unnecessary and unpopular wars without so much as a Congressional debate.

Unfortunately, that’s exactly the situation we have today in Libya...

Please continue reading the article here.

The Return of the Anti-Interventionist Right

2011-06-07T15:36:00.000-05:00

Pat Buchanan has an encouraging piece over at The American Conservative regarding a number of those on the right's recent return a conservative, anti-war position. This is truly encouraging news to those of us who have for years championed the constitution and called for a end to our nation's unnecessary and unconstitutional military actions abroad.

Buchanan writes:

"What explains the shift in political and public sentiment away from military interventionism?

First, the length and cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq — the first in its 10th year, the latter in its eighth — with their endless bleedings of American blood and treasure for inconclusive results.

Over 6,000 dead, 40,000 wounded and $1 trillion sunk, with a real possibility a U.S. pullout from Iraq in December could result in civil war, and a fear that the Afghan War, where the Taliban now conduct jailbreaks of 500 men in Kandahar and fight on the Af-Pak border in battalion strength, may ultimately be lost.

A second cause is our fiscal crisis. America cannot afford any more wars, or more billions in foreign aid to balance budgets of Arab countries whose treasuries have been looted by departing despots.

Third, there is the sense in Congress that it has let itself be steadily stripped of its constitutional power to declare war."

Head over to The American Conservative's website and read the whole piece here.

Donate to Support the Constitution

2011-06-05T15:50:00.000-05:00

I just did my part by donating to the presidential campaign "June 5th Moneybomb" of Texas Congressman Ron Paul--our nation's greatest living defender of the constitution. Please head over to RonPaul2012.com and make a donation today. Your donation will send a message to the establishment that those of us who value the ideals of our Founders will have our voices heard.

"Our contest is not only whether we ourselves shall be free, but whether there shall be left to mankind an asylum on earth for civil and religious liberty."--Samuel Adams

Rick Santorum: Compassionate? Perhaps. Conservative? By No Means.

2011-05-09T01:06:00.000-05:00

I have been involved in a number of Facebook discussions today on a number of topics. One such discussion produced the following question:

"Daryl, what are your thoughts on [Rick] Santorum? Just curious."

I have long despised Santorum, even in my younger years when I was much more sympathetic to the so-called "social conservative wing" of the GOP. So I quickly provided the following response.

"I think Santorum represents everything that's wrong with the GOP in the post-Reagan era. He is a standard bearer for Bush neoconservatism, which is pie in the sky liberalism at its base, as well as misguided social conservatism.

What I mean by 'misguided social conservatism' is a focus on government prohibition and moral position taking that flies in the face of conservative values like limited government. I have no problem [I should say little problem with many] with the personal positions he holds on social issues. I share many of his positions myself. I just take issue at his insistence that we need the government to regulate those social issues. And this is coming from me--a guy who has never touched a drop of alcohol, practices abstinence, supports tradition, and the like. So it isn't that I am some immoral degenerate trying to get my behavior supported in the public arena; this is coming from a traditional conservative that believes like the Founders that social institutions and not the gov't should influence such behavior.

Plainly put: Santorum is all for big gov't as long as that big gov't suits his desires to shape society in his image--a Catholic one at that. Moreover, as an Evangelical Christian I take issue at his reliance on federal laws to change hearts and minds rather than the Gospel. I would not vote for him under any circumstances."

Hours later I came across the latest from Jack Hunter that gives a great analysis of the former Pennsylvania senator's big government ways. If I would have known of its existence at the time, I would have just posted the following video.

Let the Revolution Continue!

2011-05-07T01:16:00.000-05:00

Below is a great video that puts things in perspective, created by supporters of Dr. Ron Paul--the Thomas Jefferson of our day. Check it out and share with your friends, family, and acquaintances.

Hat Tip: The Humble Libertarian

Jack Hunter: Have We Forgotten 9/11?

2011-05-03T01:03:00.000-05:00

Once again The American Conservative's Jack Hunter provides fantastic perspective on the issues of the day. In the following he takes to task US foreign policy after 9/11.

Bin Laden's Dead: So What?

2011-05-02T01:13:00.000-05:00

Apparently, 9-11 mastermind Osama bin Laden has been killed. This could and should be good news to anyone seeking an end to the wars we are fighting and closure for the victims of those atrocious attacks some 10 years ago. But I fear the death of bin Laden will do little more than fuel blind displays of nationalism and, in the short-term, appease those demanding results in the so-called "War on Terror."

Before I get as excited as those on the internet and elsewhere about Bib Laden's, I must question whether the death of this monster will lead to any real change in US foreign policy. For the death of bin Laden bringing no lasting effect is no good news at all.

Osama bin Laden's hate was fueled and recruitment was aided by US involvement and occupation in the Middle East. Does that mean he was innocent of his crimes? Not at all! It just means that the US helped create and aid the very enemy we then fought to destroy. Our own CIA reported such, and we would be wise to prevent such behavior in the future. We must not repeat our past mistakes, if we are to achieve real, lasting victory in our current aims to crack down on terrorism as well as be successful future endeavors.

If we do not put a stop to a foreign policy that helped create and aid monsters like bin Laden, there is no victory in his death. Others like him will merely rise up to replace him.

Ten years ago we began our efforts to track down the mastermind behind the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001. Since then we have developed an alarming appetite for war, seen our civil liberties trampled upon one by one, scores of lives have been lost, numerous dollars and resources have been spent, and our country looks far less like America and more and more like a tyrannical empire. Perhaps, bin Laden has had more success than many are willing to give him. Therefore, let us repair the damage done and return to constitutional governance. Let's act to prevent such atrocities in the future.

I would have preferred we'd dealt with bin Laden through the constitutional means of issuing Letters of Marque and Reprisal, but we have brought him death nonetheless. Now let's put to death any policies that would bring about another bin Laden or aid his desired pursuits--such as taking the lives and liberties of others. If we do not, bin Laden is dead, but so what?

Fight of the Century: Keynes vs. Hayek Round Two

2011-04-28T11:08:00.000-05:00

Here it is--the awesome sequel to the popular "Fear the Boom and Bust" rap battle between Keynes and Hayek. I am still amazed at how these videos are so well done and properly present the positions of each economic school involved. What do you think?

Liberty Define: Abortion

2011-04-25T12:22:00.001-05:00

As I am reading through Ron Paul's new book Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom, I have decided to briefly provide summaries of his arguments put forth on each issue--or at least the biggest and most contentious ones. Chapter one deals with Abortion.

For those who have followed Dr. Paul's career for some time, it is well know that he is an ardent supporter of the pro-life position. So not surprisingly, in this early chapter, he pulls no punches regarding the issue.

On the first page, Congressman Paul insists his position is the one truly consistent with liberty. He states, "Some people believe that being pro-choice is being on the side of freedom. I've never understood how an act of violence, killing a human being, albeit a small one in a special place, is portrayed as a precious right." He continues by noting that such reasoning "ignores all thought of any legal rights of the unborn" and that "cavalierly accepting abortion diminishes the value of all life."

Dr. Paul points out the hypocrisy of those who support the termination of a child within the womb and oppose the same for a child outside the womb. For Paul protection of life is an absolute; either we protect it or destroy it; there is no middle ground. Moreover, we cannot trump the right to life of the child merely for the sake of the mother.

It should be noted: Paul's argument is not at all lacking in compassion for the mother. He wants to assist these women and make the alternatives of adoption and the like even easier for them by addressing adoption regulation and the costs of carrying a child to term.

Since it is Ron Paul writing on the issue he is quick to layout the constitutional reasoning that bolsters his argument. He notes that any attempt to justify abortion in the constitution will go unfounded. It is simply not in the document, and the federal government has no right to prevent states from protecting the life of the unborn. Moreover, he is critical of those within the pro-life movement which seek to use unconstitutional means to achieve and end even with which he agrees. Abortion can be dealt with in a constitutional manner that would work to protect life.

Ron Paul understands that more federal government is not the answer to the problem, nor is waiting on the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. Paul believes that the Constitution leaves the issue of abortion up to the states and that is where we as pro-lifers have the best chance of making real change. For years and years each side has done nothing to make in-roads on the issue. Instead the status quo is upheld--a status quo that leads to further death.

Unlike many politicians, Ron Paul has been trying to make honest in-roads for years. One example is a bill he annually sponsors which would instantly overturn Roe v. Wade in a constitutional manner. The bill would use Congress' right to change the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over abortion--instantly making the Court's Roe ruling a non-issue.

Paul notes that his position "does not oppose looking for certain judges to be appointed to the Supreme Court, or even having a constitutional definition of life," but these actions will only help in the long run, doing little to protect life immediately.

Not wanting to steal the good doctor's thunder, I will leave most of his arguement for you to read when you pick up the book, but I would like to address a few things I appreciate about his position.

1. Paul realizes that the way we treat the abortion issue as a society directly influences the amount of innocent life that is destroyed. If we act cavalier about abortion, we will reap the negative effects. Moreover, our unwillingness to protect life leads to more people deciding to flippantly take life.

2. Paul is quick to point out hypocrisy on both sides of the issue. In addition to the pro-choice hypocrisy discussed above, Paul points out the hypocrisy of those who claim to be pro-life but support unnecessary war.

3. Paul, unlike many, does not merely run on emotion. You can sense that his position is on thoroughly grounded in fact and conviction.

Please pick up Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom and read his position for yourself. You can buy the book at the link below.

Ron Paul's Liberty Defined

2011-04-21T20:07:00.001-05:00

I was pleased to find a copy of Ron Paul's new book Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom waiting for me, after arriving home this afternoon. I had ordered a copy when it came out on Tuesday, and look forward to soon devouring the 325 page work by the Texas congressman in which he tackles over 50 essential issues ranging from Abortion to Zionism.

I intend to write up a review of the work when I finish it, but let me go ahead and recommend you pick up a copy for yourself. I seriously doubt from reading his other books, that Dr. Paul will disappoint. Agree with with him in totality or not, Ron Paul always presents solid arguments and passionate defenses in his books that benefit all who take the time to read them.

If you do purchase the book, please consider buying it through the Amazon link posted below. A portion of the proceeds will go to helping finance In Defense of the Constitution.

An Ayn Rand Movie Recommendation

2011-04-19T20:20:00.000-05:00

I've not seen the new Atlas Shrugged movie; therefore, I cannot offer a comment on it at this time. I heard it is a bit clunky and suffers from poor technical film-making, but without seeing it myself I cannot deny or confirm these claims.

What I can do is recommend another movie based on an Ayn Rand novel that I have seen. That film is the 1949 classic The Fountainhead--a film written by Ayn Rand in which she exercised a large amount creative control.

If you have never seen The Fountainhead, I recommend you remedy that loss as soon as possible. More than just a great defense of individualism, the film is a great movie experience. While I do not endorse Rand's Objectivism as a political or moral philosophy, I do appreciate her contributions toward the pursuit of human freedom and free markets.

I have heard from those who have read the book, which the movie was based on, that the book will satisfy any Rand fan.

Below is a video of the philosophical highpoint of the movie.

Reflections for Tax Day

2011-04-15T11:16:00.000-05:00

George Washington once truly opined, "No taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant." While this is true, we should always attempt to make taxation as fair as possible and strictly confined to its constitutional limits. Sadly, our current system is both unfair and unconstitutional in a number of ways (look to graduated income taxes for a good example).

Government is force, and taxation come at the point of a gun. If you question the truth of that statement, refuse to comply with tax collection and you will see its truth. It should be a primary goal of ours to only levy taxes based on consumption and confine all taxation to what is necessary and proper to meet the demands of government's specified constitutional duties.

Based on one's own humanity, one has the right to keep the fruits of one's own labor. Any attempt to remove that fruit without the consent of those being taxed is plunder--legal or otherwise. As members of a free society we must strive to defeat this plunder.

My problem is not necessarily with taxation. In a constitutional society we have agreed to the collection of some of our wealth to meet certain pre-agreed upon government functions. These functions are clearly defined in our constitution. Therefore, being taxed for government functions and services not defined in the Constitution is where the problem lies.

Because we have gone far beyond constitutional boundaries in the functions and services of our government, we now have a bigger bill to foot than we should. Our problem is not that we are undertaxed--quite the opposite. Rather, our problem is that our government is involved in unconstitutional activities that demand more of our money. This is wrong, and it is illegal.

Any fight against taxation should find its battle cry in a demand for a return to constitutional government and a stop to the provision of unconstitutional services--charitable or otherwise. Not only can we not afford to meet the current unconstitutional demands of government with our taxes, liberty cannot endure such demands.

Finally a Voice of Reason in the Budget Debate!

2011-04-15T00:08:00.000-05:00

It is so refreshing to finally hear someone in Washington refusing to play the partisan game and standing up, like an adult, offering a real voice with real solutions to our national spending and debt crisis. Thank you Senator Paul for taking a stand against the status quo that is being supported by both parties.

Rand Paul and Mike Lee on the Unconstitutional Libyan War

2011-04-06T08:43:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, Sen. Rand Paul took to the Senate floor, championing the constitutional requirement for congressional authorization before military action and calling out the hypocrisy of the Obama administration. It was a rousing speech and a great moment for my favorite young senator.

Washington Foreign Policy in Four Easy Steps

2011-03-21T20:16:00.000-05:00

The Most Ballin' Committee Meeting Speech EVER!

2011-03-10T14:16:00.000-06:00

Please take the time to listen to Rand Paul's truthful statements about energy regulators and their hypocrisy regarding choice.

Sarah Palin's Stand Against Egyptian Self-Determination

2011-02-07T01:49:00.000-06:00

While taking jabs at the Obama Administration's handling of the Egyptian uprising over the weekend, Sarah Palin once again showed why she is unfit to lead this or any country.

In a weekend interview, the former Alaskan governor was critical of the White House for "not doing enough" regarding Egypt.While any true conservative or libertarian should be critical of the administration's handling of the situation (Likewise, they should also have been critical of US policies leading up to this crisis.), Palin argues for a position that is perhaps even more flawed than that of the White House.

Politico reports:

Palin said the administration must get more information and find out who "fills now the void in the government." She said the U.S. "should not stand" for an Egypt led by the Muslim Brotherhood.

She did not offer specifics for how she would handle the crisis, saying only: "We need strength and sound mind there in the White House. We need to know what it is that America stands for so we know who it is that America will stand with."
In speaking out about the administration's handling of Egypt, Palin joins at least two other possible GOP 2012 presidential candidates — Newt Gingrich and John Bolton.

Palin has indeed firmly joined with the neoconservatives on this issue as she often does. Likewise, her comments show an alarming disdain for State sovereignty. To say that the United States "should not stand" for an Egypt led by the Muslim Brotherhood is truly outrageous.

Egypt is a sovereign nation, and the people of Egypt--not the US--should and must decide who will lead their country forward. I must admit that my knowledge of the Muslim Brotherhood is quite limited, but many credible sources claim that the group would not necessarily be bad for the country. However, even if they would be, the Egyptians have the right to self-determination. They must forge their own path into the future, and the United States must stop interfering with the affairs of Egypt--whether we are propping up dictators or trying to "spread democracy."

Of course, calling on the United States to return to a foreign policy envisioned by the Founders, leaving the Egyptians to move forward and govern themselves according to their own desires, is anathema to Palin and her neo-con cronies. For Palin, anything less than the US choosing and propping up a hand-picked puppet is unacceptable.

In typical Palin style, her comments feature a partisan attack, offer no solution, and lacks any clear understanding of the issue. Palin would have us further entangle ourselves in a situation we have already had too much of a hand in. Her position is all-around flawed. It is wrong. It is unconstitutional, and it runs counter to the American Founding vision.

As for me, unlike Sarah Palin, I stand with the Egyptian people against overbearing government--whether that government is in Cairo or DC.

Happy MLK Day

2011-01-17T14:04:00.000-06:00

Today we celebrate the legacy of a great America--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. A man who was once seen as a great dividing force by those clinging to the evil relics of codified racial inequality has now become a symbol of non-violent action and hope for many. One need not agree fully with all of Dr. King's actions or positions to admire the man, for he leaves much to admire. I, for one, greatly admire Dr. King's commitment to racial equality and non-violence. He was a true enemy of the state, and bless him for it.

Below is an excerpt from King's famous "Loving Your Enemies" speech.

To our most bitter opponents we say:

“We shall match your capacity to inflict suffering by our capacity to endure suffering.

We shall meet your physical force with soul force.

Do to us what you will, and we shall continue to love you.

We cannot in all good conscience obey your unjust laws because noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good.

Throw us in jail and we shall still love you.

Bomb our homes and threaten our children, and we shall still love you.

Send your hooded perpetrators of violence into our community at the midnight hour and beat us and leave us half dead, and we shall still love you.

But be ye assured that we will wear you down by our capacity to suffer.

One day we shall win freedom but not only for ourselves. We shall so appeal to your heart and conscience that we shall win you in the process and our victory will be a double victory.”

Interview: Daniel McCarthy on Neoconservatism

2010-12-30T14:12:00.000-06:00

Jack Hunter, the Southern Avenger, provides an informative interview with the American Conservative's Daniel McCarthy on the topic of "neoconservatism" (as opposed to true conservatism) in the video below. Check it out whether you are seasoned or new to the issue. It is well worth the time.

A Constitutionalist's Perspective on WikiLeaks

2010-12-02T01:13:00.000-06:00

By now chances are that you have heard about the latest WikiLeaks release and have either formed an opinion or sought out the opinions of others. Originally, it was my intention to keep my mouth shut regarding the issue because there are plenty of folks out there giving their opinions and demanding you agree with them. Some have offered balanced assessments, while most--I feel--have spouted ridiculous untruths, based on misguided ideological or partisan bias.

(It is not my intention to get into the nuts and bolts of the released WikiLeaks content in this post. For a good overview I recommend this article. It gives a sample of the content and the situation surrounding it.)

To properly inform one's perspective on the issue, one mustn't be taken in with the alarmism being thrown around. Likewise, one must separate the judgment involved in the releasing of the leaks from the legality of the actions.

The absurdity coming from many opponents rests on a major misunderstanding--one where personal feelings have clouded proper criticism. Many have called into question the wisdom in releasing documents that could harm US-foreign relations. Such questioning is fine, and I believe sensible people can find themselves on both sides of the fence. Some can find the actions of WikiLeaks to be foolish; others can find them harmless or even heroic. I am not asking anyone to fall into either camp. I am just asking for people not to buy into foolishness.

Congressman Peter King is one of the most vocal peddlers of such foolishness. His blatant disregard for reality and the First Amendment is alarming. King's call for WikiLeaks to be classified as a terrorist organization and statement that the releasing of the WikiLeaks files is "worse than a military attack" proves he is a bit off his rocker, operating in a different world that ignores reality and constitutional freedoms. Anyone who has seen the content of the leaks can easily recognize the treat is one of political embarrassment, not military logistics. Moreover, even Secretary of Defense Gates has admitted that the last WikiLeaks release--which actually did pertain to current military action--yielded no casualties or lasting military failures, contrary to the dooming prophecies of neocons, alarmists, and warmongers alike, who made such claims.

Globalists, administration officials, and neocons may very well have reason to be alarmed at the latest round of WikiLeaks releases, but the chances that our men and women in the military have reason to worry over the works is slim to none. Their only worry should stem from leadership in both parties being ever willing to put and keep them in harm's way.

Clearly, if we are to value freedom, we must not compromise it even when the situation proves difficult. We must protect the freedom of speech and press at all costs, especially when doing so is unpopular. This does not mean, however, that we must agree with the content of that speech or press or even the decision of those producing the content to produce it.

What is being lost in the public discourse is that the wisdom of the leaks can be questioned while upholding the right for the information to be made public. We need not demonize to show disapproval. Calling the releases foolish is one thing, calling it terrorism is quite another. That is where many of the critics fail. Instead of merely disagreeing with the decision for the information to be released and offering their reasons why, many critics demonize WikiLeaks and create unfounded claims against the release of said information.

Whether you agree or disagree with the decision of WikiLeaks to release the information; there is no right to call their actions terrorism. Once again: calling something unwise or reckless is one thing; claiming terrorism and calling for a suspension of constitutional rights is quite another.

Over the past week I have seen utter hysteria over these new leaks. Looking at them objectively, I laugh at how bent out of shape some are getting over the incident--especially considering how tame the leaks are compared to the last batch. What I find most alarming is how quickly people are willing to label the action of WikiLeaks "terrorism" and completely throw the Constitution out when considering the matter. Moreover, the true colors of many pundits and politicians is being well displayed. We see how globalist many are in their concerns, how deep neoconservatism has imbeded itself into modern political thought, and how much of a battle those of us who desire a humble and constitutional foreign policy still have to fight.

When considering the WikiLeaks issue I was reminded of my hero Thomas Jefferson's words to Charles Yancey where he wrote, "The functionaries of every government have propensities to command at will the liberty and property of their constituents. There is no safe deposit for these but with the people themselves, nor can they be safe with them without information. Where the press is free, and every man able to read, all is safe."

I think we know where Mr. Jefferson would have sided on the issue.

I leave you with the words of Ron Holland, which echo my own sentiments:

I join with real conservatives not the false neocon war advocates hoping these leaks do not threaten our troops or necessary intelligence operatives. Still Americans must understand it is Washington and economic interests that have actually placed our troops at risks in foreign military wars and occupations not in the real interests of the United States, the nations invaded or civilians killed.

European Small Gov't Advocates Rule!

2010-11-26T18:04:00.000-06:00

I've long watched European politics from afar with interest,and I have admired many small government advocates across the pond which refused to pull punches--unlike their American counterparts. When Daniel Hannan broke into the scene with his rousing speech "The Devalued Prime Minister of a Devalued Government," I thought it couldn't get any better. It may not, but below is a new contender for the crown.

If you vote...

2010-11-02T11:31:00.000-05:00

‎"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."
~ John Quincy Adams

Nasty Attacks Are Nothing New

2010-10-31T21:06:00.000-05:00

When I hear folks ranting about how "politics have become so dirty," I always point to the election of 1800 as proof that things have been bad since the beginning. In fact, things may have become more civil. Take a look at this great video from Reason that gives us a taste of what was said in our nations first competitive presidential election in the form of would-be ads from 1800.

The Revolution Will be Pumpkinized

2010-10-29T15:57:00.000-05:00

This cool carving of a Ron Paul jack-o-lantern topped with Dr. No's famed "What If..." speech is making its way around the net. Check it out! It is quite cool and creative--just like all liberty-lovers.

Title Credit: A.C. Kleinheider

Change of Heart Over Stimulus and FED

2010-09-28T15:04:00.000-05:00

In a grand turn of event's Telegraph reporter Ambrose Evans-Pritchard has reversed his pro-Fed, pro-stimulus position, issued an apology, and is now calling for an end to the central bank. This marks an important milestone for those of us who call for a return to sound money. People are starting to realize that the emperor has no clothes when it comes to fiat currency and interventionist fiscal policy and are waking up from their state-induced dream. Let us welcome these new converts as they join the battle against Leviathan's central banking and fiat currency system.

My favorite line from Ambrose reads, "My apologies. Mercy, for I have sinned against sound money, and therefore against sound politics."

I encourage you to read the whole piece. It begins:

I apologise to readers around the world for having defended the emergency stimulus policies of the US Federal Reserve, and for arguing like an imbecile naif that the Fed would not succumb to drug addiction, political abuse, and mad intoxicated debauchery, once it began taking its first shots of quantitative easing.

My pathetic assumption was that Ben Bernanke would deploy further QE only to stave off DEFLATION, not to create INFLATION. If the Federal Open Market Committee cannot see the difference, God help America.

We now learn from last week’s minutes that the Fed is willing “to provide additional accommodation if needed to … return inflation, over time, to levels consistent with its mandate.”

NO, NO, NO, this cannot possibly be true. (Read the rest here.)

Follow the San Francisco Chronicle's Example?

2010-09-27T00:11:00.000-05:00

It is rare that I would advocate anyone following the example of the San Francisco Chronicle, but their editorial board's refusal to endorse in California's senate race commands our consideration.

Claiming that "Californians are left with a deeply unsatisfying choice for the U.S. Senate this year," the Chronicle on Sunday refused to throw their support behind Barbara Boxer or Carly Fiorina, claiming that Boxer lacks the effectiveness in advocating the liberal causes the editors advocate and Fiorina stands in the way of those very causes. While the paper's reasoning is flawed and differs greatly from my own, they are right to notice that it is unwise to throw support behind candidates that do not share one's values.

Too often we are told to choose the lesser of two evils and support one of the major party candidates even if neither represent the values we desire in a candidate, but this urging is misguided and down right foolish. All we do when supporting the "lesser of two evils" is reward political parties for running "evil" candidates, create a continued cycle of "evil" candidates in each election, and place "evil" people into office. The lie that one party is better than the other is revealed every time a poor candidate is rewarded with victory; they govern in a way not unlike their opponents and we wonder why things never change. It is philosophy, not party, that truly distinguishes candidates.

If we truly seek to advance liberty we must stop blindly supporting major party candidates if they are not worthy of our support. While we will never find someone we agree with 100% of the time, we must be careful to not quickly compromise our principles. Much of the poor situation we find ourselves in can be linked back to similar compromises in past elections.

Whether it be in primaries or general elections, those of us serious about liberty and a return to a free society must follow the example of the Chronicle--if no one is worthy of our support, let's withhold it.

Wither the Neocons? by the Souther Avenger

2010-09-25T00:23:00.001-05:00

Once again the Southern Avenger offers up a pointed and perfect commentary. I love it. Take a watch a be the wiser for it.

Happy Constitution Day

2010-09-17T12:38:00.000-05:00

Today we celebrate the signing of a document I truly love and cherish--the US Constitution. Though it is far from perfect, our Constitution has brought the quest for human freedom leap and bounds ahead of where it was when adopted. For that I am grateful.

Sadly, our Constitution is continually disregarded and infringed upon. So let's be vigilant and fight to restore constitutional government in this country as we pursue liberty and limited government.

Now for a little Constitution Day wisdom...

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."
-- James Madison

"In matters of Power, let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."
-- Patrick Henry

"The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now."
-- South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905)

We Who Dare Say No to the War

2010-09-08T23:52:00.000-05:00

I really enjoyed this video of the Mises Institute's Jeffrey Tucker interviewing Tom Woods about his book We Who Dare Say No to War. It's fantastic and worth your time.

A blurb on the book:

The rap on those who oppose war is that they are "anti-American" or "unpatriotic" or not supportive of American ideals. How can this be when war itself has been a main enemy of freedom for Americans themselves? When the war is on, government is unleashed. Those who oppose this are the greatest friends of freedom, especially because they dare to oppose the regime when it matters most.

We Who Dared to Say No to War uncovers some of the forgotten but compelling body of work from the American antiwar tradition speeches, articles, poetry, book excerpts, political cartoons, and more - from people throughout our history who have opposed war. Beginning with the War of 1812, these selections cover every major American war up to the present and come from both the left and the right, from religious and secular viewpoints.

Hat Tip: Young Americans for Liberty

Amazing Article on Beck's Rally and Beyond

2010-09-02T21:19:00.000-05:00

I beg you to head over to The Humble Libertarian and read Carl Wicklander's latest on the Beck rally and the state of conservatism in America. It is an absolute must read, brilliantly laying out what is in front of us and stating the tough truth.

Here is a taste of the article:

If there is any question about the status of the conservative movement, it could be found in Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally: it is as alive and kicking as Ronald Reagan himself. Too soon? Either way, despite estimates of hundreds of thousands attending Beck’s rally last Saturday, there was nothing on display to imply that American conservatism has any long-term usefulness.

More than anything, it showed the triumph of "liberalism" over everything in the country, even the purported conservative movement itself.

Heeding criticism that the rally could only be political in nature, the Mormon Beck made it about “god.” Only keynote speaker Sarah Palin, whose presence was derided as proof that the event would just be a Republican rally, treaded into the political muck.

The insufferable opening prayer, led by a supposed descendent of Mayflower passengers, alongside a rabbi and supposed descendants of the Indians er, Native Americans at Plymouth Rock, included a petition about Quaker William Penn and this beauty:

“And you, O God, called us to repentance when we did not live up to our creed, and we did not treat everyone as equal. But Lord, we found out that you are a God of forgiveness, you are a God of covenant, you are a God of restoration, you are a God of healing and you have healed us.”

I’m no professional theologian, but if I understand that correctly, Americans didn’t learn about the forgiveness of God by reading the Bible’s account of Christ’s sacrificial death but only after we had enslaved the blacks and broken our treaties with the Ind-. . . Native Americans. Was this conservative Christianity or the liberal gods of collective guilt and multiculturalism?

This display of multiculturalism isn’t new and it isn’t even unique for Beck. (Continue Here).

PS: Please check out Carl's personal blog here. I am a huge fan.

Uncomfortable Lindsey Graham by the Southern Avenger

2010-08-31T11:05:00.000-05:00

Yet another great video from the Southern Avenger about my least favorite person in Congress.

C4L Video

2010-08-29T23:53:00.001-05:00

This video gets me all emotional inside. Carry on the r3volution!

Happy Birthday Ron Paul

2010-08-20T11:57:00.000-05:00

Today is Ron Paul's birthday! The Texas congressman has been a huge influence in my life. His tireless commitment to liberty and the Constitution is truly inspiring. He is our modern day Thomas Jefferson, and I love him for it.

Happy Birthday Dr. Paul. God bless you. Please keep fighting for us.

Now head over to Ron's son Rand's website and give to his money bomb today.

My View on the "Ground-Zero Mosque"

2010-08-19T13:53:00.000-05:00

I have long avoided this post, even though I've followed the issue before it became such a massive national news story. My reluctance to write is not due to a lack of a clear opinion. Rather, the "mosque" has become such a divisive and sensitive issue, and frankly, I hate talking about it. But due to an overwhelming demand that I come out and discuss the issue, I will do so briefly.

First, it must be noted that this is an issue of property rights more than anything else. As a constitutionalist, I do not budge on this issue. A private developer/property owner has the right to do whatever he wishes with his property as long as it does not infringe on upon the rights of others. (Btw, there is no right to not be offended.) Therefore, it does not mater what the project is. Some say it is a mosque. Some say it is a cultural center. Some say it is both. What the project is should not matter. Rights should not be conditional.

Moreover, anyone weighing in on this issue should be careful to consider it from all possible perspectives. Imagine if this where a Christian project. Would you be just as offended? Would you be offended that others were offended? The point here is that we must be willing to defend the same rights for all, especially the unpopular.

I belong to an increasingly unpopular religion--conservative evangelical Christianity. My faith is already under attack by the politically correct crowd who want to legislate what can and cannot be said from the pulpit. When we start to pick winners and losers in religion, it is a slippery slope. A Muslim center may be stopped in New York City today, but a conservative Baptist church may be stopped in San Francisco in the future.

I have little problem with social influence affecting construction of this or any other project, but when we start talking legal action, that is where we should take issue. The way that our politicians in both parties have politicized this issue is unacceptable.

Whether the decision to go ahead with the center is tactful or not, there is no denying that those proposing construction have every right to go ahead with the construction and to use the building as they see fit. At this point it probably is in poor taste to go ahead with the project, but is also in poor taste to stand against it. If we are to take the high ground and be the land of the free, let's truly be the land of the free and protect the rights of all.

My personal opinion is best summed up by Young Americans For Liberty founder Jeff Frazee's facebook status a few days ago:

I wish Muslim leaders would choose to abandon their plans for the "ground zero mosque" just as a symbol of sensitivity and friendship with neighbors. I think it would go a long way in inter-religious relations within the US. But, I will defend their right to property if they unfortunately choose otherwise.

Reagan Wisdom--"Those Voices Don't Speak for the Rest of Us"

2010-08-17T01:15:00.000-05:00

Below is an extremely well done video that showcases vintage Ronald Reagan applied to our current circumstances. "The Great Communicator's" words are flawlessly delivered and remind me of those of F. A. Hayek in his Road to Serfdom. Every word of it is so true and so on point. I love this video!!!

Hat Tip: Memorandum

I'm Back and Blogging

2010-08-16T00:45:00.000-05:00

I am back in the saddle again and will begin blogging daily, perhaps multiple times a day, again.

The last few months of my life have been both hectic and rewarding, working for the gubernatorial campaign of Lt. Governor Ron Ramsey--a man I deeply respect and support.

We lost the primary after putting up a good fight for constitutional principles, and now I am back home with some time on my hands. Therefore, I will be creating new content for you as much as possible. SO please check back daily at the least.

What do I need from you? I need your requests for subjects from you about which I can blog. So please reply back with topic suggestions, and I'll do my best to meet your requests.

Vote Ron Ramsey for Governor of TN!!!!

2010-08-04T23:48:00.000-05:00

For the past few months I have worked tirelessly for the campaign of Ron Ramsey for governor of Tennessee, believing Ron Ramsey to be the only right man for the job.

As a constitutionalist and lover of liberty, I am proud to support a man who is truly committed to the principles that our Founders sought to establish. Ron is the real deal. He is the only one ready to do the job on day one after taking office, and he is the only one with the philosophical commitment to govern in accordance with constitutional principles. His voting record proves it. Therefore, I am convinced that he must be our next governor.

The other candidates in the race are not conservatives, libertarians, or small government types at all. They hold flawed positions and have liberty-hostile records on the issues that matter.

Ron Ramsey is the only candidate worthy of my and your vote. So please vote for my boss, Ron Ramsey, in today's Republican primary. Vote Ramsey. Vote the Constitution.

CS Lewis on Democracy

2010-07-22T13:18:00.000-05:00

C.S. Lewis:

I am a democrat [proponent of democracy] because I believe in the Fall of Man.
I think most people are democrats for the opposite reason. A great deal of democratic enthusiasm descends from the ideas of people like Rousseau, who believed in democracy because they thought mankind so wise and good that every one deserved a share in the government.
The danger of defending democracy on those grounds is that they’re not true. . . . I find that they’re not true without looking further than myself. I don’t deserve a share in governing a hen-roost. Much less a nation. . . .
The real reason for democracy is just the reverse. Mankind is so fallen that no man can be trusted with unchecked power over his fellows. Aristotle said that some people were only fit to be slaves. I do not contradict him. But I reject slavery because I see no men fit to be masters.

—C.S. Lewis, “Equality,” in Present Concerns (reprint: Mariner Books, 2002), p. 17.

(Hat Tip: Justin Taylor)

New Article Hightlights Establishment's Disdain for Tea Party

2010-07-18T22:23:00.000-05:00

Here is an interesting piece from the Washington Post.

With the Tea Parties starting have an effect on elections across the country, the establishment is not pleased. Why? Because they know that the Tea Party is seeking to hold them accountable. It is my experience that when establishment politicians are upset, something good is happening. Incumbents hate being held accountable, and they will seek any route to discredit their opponents.

With Michele Bachman in the House and Rand Paul soon to be in the Senate both seeking to form a Tea Party caucus, the establishment is squirming, and I am loving every moment of it.

Please read the article here and enjoy such gems as the one below from the oblivious Trent Lott.

Former Senate majority leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.), now a D.C. lobbyist, warned that a robust bloc of rabble-rousers spells further Senate dysfunction. "We don't need a lot of Jim DeMint disciples," Lott said in an interview. "As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them."

But Lott said he's not expecting a tea-party sweep. "I still have faith in the visceral judgment of the American people," he said.

(Enough to make you sick, right?)

For Liberty: How the Ron Paul Revolution Watered the Withered Tree of Liberty

2010-07-10T15:15:00.000-05:00

For Liberty is finally out for online viewing. It is a great film to watch even if you are not involved in the liberty movement. I was honestly brought to tears a few times during the film. It is a beautiful movement of which I am thankfully a part.

"Conservative" Lindsey Graham by the Southern Avenger

2010-07-05T22:15:00.000-05:00

When in the Course of Human Events...

2010-07-04T10:00:00.000-05:00

Enjoy, learn, and apply the widom from the video below on this day we celebrate our stand against tyranny.

A Note on Blogging

2010-06-23T22:02:00.000-05:00

If you haven't noticed, my blog content has been sparse for the past few weeks. That is because I am working around the clock in a gubernatorial campaign. Please stick with me and check back daily for new content. I am going to attempt to make more time to blog and provide you with new content.

Alvin Greene's Dumb Party by the Southern Avenger

2010-06-17T23:02:00.000-05:00

Dale Peterson with a Sequel!!!!!!!

2010-06-17T15:22:00.000-05:00

He's back and this time he's endorsing. So take that, thugs and criminals!

The original video that started it all is here.

A Dangerous Republic of Fools

2010-06-14T11:53:00.000-05:00

This quotation has been making its rounds and is attributed to someone in the Czech Republic. Regardless of who it belongs to, I believe it is spot on and can be applied to our electoral decisions overall.

"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitudeof fools such as those who made him their president."

Freedom Watch Gets Its Debut!

2010-06-12T13:01:00.000-05:00

This message just in from Campaign for Liberty:

Judge Andrew Napolitano will take the freedom message to the television airwaves this Saturday with the national debut of Freedom Watch on the Fox Business channel at 10 am eastern.

Congressman Ron Paul will be a guest on this first show, and the Judge will also be joined by Rand Paul, Jim DeMint, Michele Bachmann, Dick Armey, and Sarah Palin.

In case you miss the 10 am premier, Freedom Watch will re-air at 7pm eastern Saturday night, as well as 8pm and 11pm eastern on Sunday evening.

Pass the news along and tune in!

Americans Agree: No Tax Money to Bailout Failing Newspapers

2010-06-11T17:08:00.000-05:00

Check out my latest post at The Humble Libertarian:

It is no secret that printed news sources have been struggling for years and are on their way out as cable and online news now take over the market. A new report from Rasmussen sheds a little light on the public's feelings regarding this reality and also points to the ridiculous measures being considered by our government.

Rasmussen notes:
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is considering several ways to help the struggling newspaper industry, but Americans strongly reject several proposed taxes to keep privately-owned newspapers going.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 84% oppose a three percent (3%) tax on monthly cell phone bills to help newspapers and traditional journalism.

Similarly, 76% oppose a proposed five percent tax on the purchase of consumer electronic items such as computers, iPads and Kindles to help support newspapers and traditional journalism. Seventy-four percent (74%) oppose the proposal to tax web sites like the Drudge Report to help the newspapers they draw their headlines from.

Each of these ideas was suggested for consideration in a recent FTC report. (my emphasis)
You read that right. We are not dealing with mere hypothetical speculation here. Rather, the FTC has really been suggesting taxing consumer goods to subsidize a failing news medium. That is such a violation of constitutional and free market principles that it seems unthinkable that it could even be considered.

What's even more alarming is the rationale given by proponents.(continue reading here.)

Nikki Haley and the New Conservatives by the Southern Avenger

2010-06-08T08:57:00.000-05:00

The Politics of Hoarding

2010-06-07T08:46:00.000-05:00

The lives of compulsive hoarders have long been a fascination of mine. What would drive some to acquire and hold onto items in such a manner that they lose control of their belongings, their homes, and even their lives? Thanks to the newest slate of hoarding-themed shows on the air, an unprecedented look is being given into the lives of those effected with this debilitating disorder.

Sadly, anyone who has watched any hoarding television programs has witnessed both individuals lives and their governments spiraling out of control.

While it is completely appropriate for landlords to demand hoarders to clean up or get out (they obviously have the right to maintain the integrity of their properties), the government has no right to tell individuals how to manage their property as long as others' rights are not being violated. Sadly, time after time the government steps in and tells adults (without children even!) how they must maintain their homes. This is a massive affront to liberty. In a free society there is no room for such a massive infringement on one's property rights. People should be free to make their own mistakes.

Regretfully, action against hoarders and like offenders is expected and embrace by many today. A common rebut is "It is for their own good." In fact, many times it is the Department of Adult Protective Services that forces hoarders to clean up their act. (The fact that such a department exists is repulsive to any who value personal responsibility and individual liberty.) Perhaps the behavior of hoarders is detrimental to their health. As a neat freak, I definitely am no fan of those types of living conditions. But it is not mine or the masses' preferences, feelings, or beliefs that should dictate how an individual lives his or her life. Property rights are fundamental, and the willing violation of one's property rights negatively affects us all.

If we value the protection of our own rights, we must resist the violation of others' rights.

When we live in a society where the government can tell an individual how he or she can maintain their own property, we see that the biggest mess isn't that of the hoarders. The mess it that of the government.

Forgetting the Troops by the Southern Avenger

2010-05-31T23:27:00.000-05:00

Ron Ramsey on Memorial Day

2010-05-31T17:17:00.001-05:00

Paleos, Libertarians and Rand Paul by the Southern Avenger

2010-05-28T19:21:00.000-05:00

Sestak and the Obama Administration...The Proper Move

2010-05-26T22:59:00.000-05:00

ABC News reports:

In a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder today, all seven Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee "urge the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate Congressman Joe Sestak's claim that a White House official offered him a job to induce him to exit the Pennsylvania Senate primary race against Senator Arlen Specter."

Though it may appear to be an act of political opportunism, the actions of the GOP committeemen are quite proper and should be encouraged. Sadly, we are dealing with a possible high-profile political crime carried out by the White House. If the Mr Sestak's claim--that he was offered a position in the administration to bow out of the PA Democratic primary--is true, there's been a major breach of the law that must be prosecuted.

Treating federal jobs like thank you cards is bad enough, but using them to intervene in electoral politics is even worse. Not only does it allow for political manipulation and the ability of the executive branch to pick the legislative players, it is illegal. If we are to be a nation of laws, we cannot have the White House leading the pack in the violation of those laws.

All that said, we should be careful to let the eveidence speak for itself.

No one should be too quick to call the president a liar, side with Sestak, and cry foul. The jury is still, out and I will not pass judgment until more evidence is available. Until the facts are in we should give the chief executive the presumption of innocence.

Moreover, even though I despise the president's policies, I hope he is innocent. The ramifications of the White House manipulating elections by offering jobs on this level would be a huge step back in a time that we don't need more trouble. If the allegations are true, however, I hope those responsible will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. None should be spared.

Rand Paul's Practical Philosophy by the Southern Avenger

2010-05-25T10:02:00.000-05:00

Rand Paul Revolution by the Southern Avenger

2010-05-21T00:11:00.001-05:00

A Victory for Rand Paul and the Tea Party

2010-05-18T23:46:00.000-05:00

The power of the Tea Party Movement manifested itself mightily in yesterday's GOP primary in Kentucky. In what seemed an impossibility just a few short months ago, Rand Paul--a Bowling Green doctor and Tea Party favorite--defeated the establishment-backed Trey Grayson with a margin slightly higher than 2:1.

Lacking the powerful donors and the backing of the establishment machine, Paul's support came primarily from Tea Party patriots, conservative/libertarian groups, and other grassroots activists across the Bluegrass State. Defying the likes of Mitch McConnell and a whole host of neoconservatives, Rand Paul's primary victory proved that the grassroots can still provide electoral victory, and it will be that same grassroots support that will provide general election victory for Paul and other liberty lovers come November.

Looking to the results in Kentucky, we can draw a few conclusions.

1. The establishment should not overlook the possible success of those they currently do not see as threats. Those minor threats could morph into major contenders who boast major victories.

2. These positive results can and should be replicated in races across the nations. If it can happen for Paul in Kentucky, it can happen for other candidates around the country. (I believe it will happen for Ron Ramsey in Tennessee, personally.)

3. The Tea Party can and will make a difference at the end of the day. The media and others can mock all they want, but they cannot argue with these (and similar) results.

Despite these truths the Tea Party movement should remain vigilant and guard against co-optation. If they are not careful to maintain philosophical consistency and purity, they may be the establishment who is punished years from now.

No Mercy for Incumbents by the Southern Avenger

2010-05-18T11:13:00.000-05:00

Laura Bush's Support of Elena Kagan

2010-05-16T23:06:00.001-05:00

Former First Lady Laura Bush voiced her support for President Obama's new Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan, on Sunday noting:

"I think it's great. I'm really glad that there will be three [women] if she's confirmed. I like to have women on the Supreme Court."

Bush added: "I think it does make a difference. And you know, I just like women to be represented in all parts of American political and civic life."

Mrs. Bush's statements are ridiculous on two major fronts. One one hand, to support someone based on gender rather than principle is plain foolish. On the other hand, it is a massive double standard that would not be toloerated if the tables where turned.

There is nothing wrong with Mrs. Bush supporting Kagan for the right reasons. Being the wife of a Republican president does not prohibit her from liking Obama's nominee, but being thrilled merely because of the nominee's gender is just plain stupid. Decisions like this should be supported based on factors like judicial philosophy, not mere physical characteristics.

I could care less if the Court was made up of 2 women, 3 women, or 9 women. In fact, I'd rather have 9 constitutionalist women over any assortment of men or women who do not respect the rule of law. Sadly, Laura Bush's preference finds shallower support.

What is really shocking about the former First Lady's statement is the double standard it presents. Imagine if a man said he was thrilled with a male nominee because of gender; the fallout would be huge. Of course, people are free to their opinions, but we should hold each to a uniform standard.

If Mrs. Bush likes Kagan, she should do so based on judicial merit. Sadly, that is not the case. Hopefully, the Senate will show support or opposition for reasons that transcend gender.

(Watch the video here.)

Ike and Iron Man by the Southern Avenger

2010-05-14T09:36:00.001-05:00

Progressives Don't Understand Economics...Big Surprise

2010-05-11T08:28:00.000-05:00

Wes over at The Humble Libertarian has posted the link to an interesting study. The results found self-described Progressives to be quite ignorant about basic economics.

Some of the results:

67% of self-described Progressives believe that restrictions on housing development (i.e., regulations that reduce the supply of housing) do not make housing less affordable.

51% believe that mandatory licensing of professionals (i.e., reducing the supply of professionals) doesn’t increase the cost of professional services.

Perhaps most amazing, 79% of self-described Progressive believe that rent control (i.e., price controls) does not lead to housing shortages.

The conclusion:

'Those identifying as “libertarian” and “very conservative” were the most knowledgeable about basic economics. Those identifying as “Progressive” and “Liberal” were the worst.'

Check out Wes' full commentary here. (Btw, I had to use his picture...brilliant!)

Opponents Should Be Careful About New SC Nominee Kagan's Lack of Judicial Experience

2010-05-10T09:26:00.000-05:00

With famed liberal Justice John Paul Stevens stepping down from the Supreme Court, the Obama administration has been looking far and wide to find what it deems a suitable replacement. For now, the search seems to be over.

The Associated Press reports:

WASHINGTON – Solicitor General Elena Kagan will be nominated Monday to the Supreme Court by President Barack Obama, pushing the former law school dean toward the pinnacle of her profession and positioning the United States to have three women justices for the first time in its history.

Obama will announce his choice at 10 a.m. in the East Room of the White House alongside Vice President Joe Biden. Kagan will also speak. The room will be filled with Kagan's Justice Department colleagues and other guests invited to soak in one of a presidency's biggest moments.

Unknown to most, Kagan is already being closely investigated before her Senate hearing even begins. One major item that is already receiving much attention is Kagan's lack of judicial experience, having never served as judge. Opponents of the nominee would be wise to not make this a major point of contention.

There is no constitutional requirement that a Supreme Court justice have previous experience as a judge prior to joining the Court, and a number of justices throughout our history have lacked said judicial experice. Even in the modern age we have seen similar circumstances.

William Rehnquist, who served as our last chief justice, lacked experience as judge before joining the Court, but he was obviously able to excel at the position. Agree with him or not, he performed the technical aspects of the job quite well and was well respected.

Knowing these things, those who find contention with Kagan as a choice should look to her views of the Constitution, judicial authority, and the like when making their decision, rather than hamper on her lack of judicial experience. If they fail to do so, they show their own ignorance of history and unwillingness to do the heavy lifting in vetting the candidate.

America Owns a Hotel Chain?!?!--Thanks to the Federal Reserve

2010-05-08T10:57:00.000-05:00

Here is a must-watch presentation on the House floor in which Alan Grayson (D-Florida) lays out why we own the Red Roof Inn thanks to the Federal Reserve. Clearly, we need an Audit (and ending) of the FED!!!!

Hat Tip: The Daily Paul

Lessons from the Dobson Endorsement Scandal

2010-05-07T19:25:00.000-05:00

My latest post at the Humble Libertarian.

Earlier this week THL reported that Focus on the Family founder Dr. James Dobson has officially taken his support away from Trey Grayson and endorsed Rand Paul in the Kentucky Senate race. The implications of this act are vast and reveal a great deal about Dobson, Paul, and the GOP establishment.

After listening to Dr. Dobson's change-of-heart explanation it is evident that he was lied to by Republican Party leadership. In a shameless act of political desperation, leadership within the GOP flat out lied to secure the Dobson endorsement for Grayson. In short, Dobson was falsely told that Rand Paul is, among other things, not pro-life. This led to an understandable opposition to Rand's campaign by the famed social-conservative. But this past week things changed.

Thankfully, after hearing Rand speak on the pro-life issue, an OB/GYN friend of Dobson alerted him to the truth. After looking further into the issue, Dobson uncovered the GOP deception and found Rand to be "my kind of man." He then dropped his support for Grayson, exposed the GOP establishment's lies, and endorsed Rand.

So what lessons can we take away from this? (Continue reading here.)

Republicans War Fetish by the Southern Avenger

2010-05-06T09:51:00.000-05:00

McCain's Unconstitutional Desire for the NY Car Bomber

2010-05-05T00:13:00.000-05:00

Unless you have been sleeping under a rock, you're probably aware of the failed terrorist attempt to explode a car bomb in New York's Times Square over the weekend. This act is disgusting in nature, completely unjustifiable, and should be dealt with properly. But, sadly, some in our government are already showing their disregard for the Constitution when discussing the situation.

On Tuesday, Sen. John McCain plainly vocalized his views regarding the Justice Department's actions. According to Sen. McCain, "It would have been a serious mistake to have read the suspect in the attempted Times Square car bombing his Miranda rights." The Arizona senator went on to explain that only after receiving "all the information we have" and finding out what the attack is "all about" should we even consider reading the suspect his rights.

So, in essence, the senator would like to gut the rights reading process of all its significance. His approach amounts to the following: Find out if one's rights will get in the way. If they don't, go ahead and let them have them. If they do, let the Constitution be damned.

Of course, the argument over the rights of terrorists is no new one; we have faced it a number of times, including the controversy around last year's Christmas Eve bomber case. But where those cases centered around the issue of whether or not a non-citizen had constitutional rights, this particular case does not.

The Times Square terror suspect is an American citizen, and there is no denying his constitutional rights of due process warrant protection. Making this claim is in no way an act of sympathy toward the would-be murderer or a call to impede justice. Rather, it is a call for justice as required by the Constitution--a justice that doesn't dissolve liberty or the rule of law.

If the suspect is truly guilty, he will face a number of charges that carry with them the death penalty. McCain even admits that he thinks justice will be served through traditional channels. Therefore, his concern is obviously unmerited, if it is justice he seeks. Still, wanting to squeeze information from the suspect without constitutional restrictions, McCain is dissatisfied with granting a US citizen his rights.

In a country gone mad, rights have become the enemy and disregard for the rule of law has become the desired norm. When the desire is for even US citizens to be denied basic rights, we are truly in danger.

I am confident that justice will be served, and I am confident that the Constitution will aid in carrying it out. Otherwise, we will merely see injustice on the part of the state. The Constitution protects liberty for us all. When its protection is eroded, even for undeserving terrorists, we all suffer in the long run.

Liberty, Limits and Illegal Immigration by the Southern Avenger

2010-05-04T01:35:00.000-05:00

A Reflection on my Latest Gun Show Attendance

2010-05-03T00:37:00.000-05:00

This Saturday, as heavy rain flooded Nashville, I was in the city attending a gun show. My father and I are now handgun carry permit holders in the state of Tennessee, and even though we have a number of guns, we were in the market for something pocket-sized yet powerful. (We found what we were looking for at a great price, in case you are wondering--pictured above.)

In the venue were thousands of guns, knifes, and ammo rounds. Moreover, almost everyone in the room had a gun or two on their person as they walked around. Gun right opponents refer to such as a "war zone," blabbering about the possibility of "blood in the streets" and "senseless loss of life due to the bearing of arms." Needless to say, that wasn't the case at all.

Throughout my hours at the show, I felt nothing less than completely safe--which is not always the case when I am walking around in Nashville. Someone would be crazy to pull a gun on someone with all those lawful citizens packing.

I was thoroughly impressed with the professionalism of the exhibitors, the comradery among the patrons, and of course the libertarian themes on display. It was fun, fruitful, and well worth the trip.

To the surprise of opponents of such events, individuals as well as families were in attendance--both shopping and selling. Likewise, there was diversity across the board regarding attendees. People from all walks of life where there, and all were welcome. In short, it was just law abiding citizens engaging in law abiding activity; no shots were fired, and no lives were lost.

Of course, the politics of the room were one-sided. Obviously, there were more Ron Paul fans than Obama fans in attendance--if any Obama fans was there at all. (He and all others hostile to the Second Amendment were not very poplar, as can be understood.) But my point is that these people were not just some "right-wing wackos." Rather, they were a cross-section of America with a deep concern for the Second Amendment.

Of course, this account should come as no surprise to most of you. But for you surprised that one could walk away unharmed from an event where attendees where armed to the teeth, now you know.

Mandatory Organ Donorship...an Affront to Liberty

2010-04-30T09:52:00.000-05:00

Checkout my latest post at The Humble Libertarian.

An alarming movement is afoot in New York. Already New Yorkers are told what they can eat and how they can defend themselves (among other things). Now they may lose total control of their bodies. Legislation is being proposed that will create mandatory "organ donor" status for all residents of the Empire State.

On the surface, this may not seem like a big deal. One may ask , "What's wrong with everyone being an organ donor?" But the issue is more than one of organ donor status; the mandatory nature of the legislation is what makes this bill so appalling. (Continue reading here.)

Goldman Sachs is a Scapegoat for Uncle Sam

2010-04-29T00:50:00.000-05:00

Over the past few days I have witnessed behavior in the halls of Congress that makes me sick to my stomach. The Goldman Sachs hearings are nothing short of a crucifixion. Without question the financial giant deserves both scorn and punishment, but this should come at the hands of wronged clients--not government minions. Even former President Clinton noted that while there was no perceived merit in Goldman's behavior, he was "not at all sure they violated the law." So how do we explain the actions of Congress?

What makes the harsh words and congressional ridicule levied at Goldman Sachs so upsetting is the misplaced blame across the board. Listening to the congressional hearings, one would think that the financial giant single-handedly caused the economic collapse. Apparently, Goldman has d-bags working for them; this fuel poor investment; that led to our economic ruin; and now we need to strictly regulate financial markets.

I'm sorry to sound like an apologist for the financial institutions, but their actions were mere symptoms of a greater evil, not the problem itself. Sure malinvestment was to blame, and that malinvestment was fueled by the government.

By continually betraying free-market principles and wedding the actions of these giants of Wall Street with those of the federal government, an atmosphere of poor business practice was created and rewarded. When failed policies are rewarded through bailouts, grants, loans, and unrealistic interest rates, there is little incentive for responsible business practice. And, of course, our old friend the Federal Reserve was the chief actor in causing the the economic turmoil we now face. It kept interest rates at ridiculously low levels, fueled malinvestment, and encouraged poor behavior.

So what is the solution proposed by Congress in the financial reform package before the Senate? More bailouts, more government intervention, and more power to the FED. Such would be a grave mistake!

Michele Bachman comments:

Sen. Reid thinks he can paint Republicans as in the pocket of Wall Street, but that’s not going to cut it because it’s flat out wrong. This bill is seriously flawed and only perpetuates a “too big to fail” mentality through permanent bailouts of Wall Street, with or without the $50 billion reserve fund. Sen. Reid has painted himself into a corner, and I think he is drastically overestimating the American people's support for his approach to financial reform. There are better ways to go about it like those proposed by Republicans that will stop the Democrats’ permanent bailouts, protect taxpayers and create jobs, address Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac reform, and rein in the out-of-control Federal Reserve.

Back to the Goldman Sachs hearings, it is obvious that the timing is a tool to stir up emotional support for the Democrat's reform package. People should be upset at the matter, but they should be upset across the board without letting emotion driving bad policy. Even President Clinton notes the timing of the Goldman Sachs suit is "suspect." He is right, and the approach of those behind this financial reform package is definitely suspect.

Once again we face misdiagnosis of the problem, a bad subscription, and another attempt for a Washington power grab by our "leadership."

Ron Paul's Transition Plan

2010-04-28T15:25:00.000-05:00

Here is a great video compiling Dr. Paul's words on what his transition plan would look like.

Praising Arizona by the Southern Avenger

2010-04-27T11:14:00.000-05:00

Jack Hunter takes on the new immigration law in Arizona.

Nothing is Sacred...Except Islam

2010-04-26T12:13:00.000-05:00

In this morning's New York Times Op-Ed columnist Ross Douthat offers a great piece on the latest South Park/Muhammad depiction controversy.

For those not up to snuff, the creators of South Park recently received death threats/warnings for depicting the Islamic prophet Muhammad. Facing the possibility of death, the show used alternative and comedic means to avoid showing the prophet's face--including dressing him in a mascot uniform and having him in the back of a U-Haul trailer. Leave it to South Park creators Parker and Stone to make censorship fun!

But the censorship isn't all fun and games. Douthat notes, "In last week’s follow-up episode, the prophet’s non-appearance appearances were censored, and every single reference to Muhammad was bleeped out. The historical record was quickly scrubbed as well: The original 'Super Best Friends' episode [a previous episode that featured the Muslim prophet] is no longer available on the Internet."

This sort of pandering to Islam is nothing new. It seems that time after time each religion is fair game for criticism and mocking, except for Islam. Anti-religious documentaries primarily sling mud at Christianity. The new atheists find their prime opponent in the Christian God. On and on the one-sided offensive behavior is railed. Islam is left relatively untouched, and the forced censorship continues.

It should be noted that the South Park "Super Best Friends" cast includes the leaders of every major world religion, including my savior Jesus Christ. I am often offended by the mocking and misrepresentation of my Lord and my faith in pop culture, but I would never support the censoring of such. I adhere to the classical Christian view regarding freedom of conscience, and I know that it is not my place to forcibly bring change in one's behavior. It is God who brings true, lasting change--not me, not censorship, not force.

In Psalm 2 the Bible speaks of the heathens raging against God--mocking, disrespecting, and defying. The passage goes on to say that God "sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord holds them [the mocking and self-assured world] in derision. Then he will speak to them in his wrath, and terrify them in his fury..." Knowing of His own sovereignty and the power of His Son, the LORD is no respecter of persons or their mocks. Knowing this same thing, Christians have no reason to fear the scorn of the world. Islamic fringe elements, on the other hand, lack that surety.

A large part of the censorship and egg shell walking surrounding Islam involves fear, and the only way to break this fear is to defy any attempts to squelch expression. In a country founded on freedom of conscience and expression, we cannot stand for this type of fear-induced censorship.

Douthat concludes:

In a country where the latest hit movie, “Kick-Ass,” features an 11-year-old girl spitting obscenities and gutting bad guys while dressed in pedophile-bait outfits, there isn’t much room for real transgression. Our culture has few taboos that can’t be violated, and our establishment has largely given up on setting standards in the first place.

Except where Islam is concerned. There, the standards are established under threat of violence, and accepted out of a mix of self-preservation and self-loathing.

This is what decadence looks like: a frantic coarseness that “bravely” trashes its own values and traditions, and then knuckles under swiftly to totalitarianism and brute force.

Happily, today’s would-be totalitarians are probably too marginal to take full advantage. This isn’t Weimar Germany, and Islam’s radical fringe is still a fringe, rather than an existential enemy.

For that, we should be grateful. Because if a violent fringe is capable of inspiring so much cowardice and self-censorship, it suggests that there’s enough rot in our institutions that a stronger foe might be able to bring them crashing down.

Ron Paul on Chris Matthews

2010-04-25T18:08:00.000-05:00

This is a much watch video in which Dr. Paul defends the principles of liberty as well as the Tea Party movement, and touches on a number of other issues.

Hat Tip: The Humble Libertarian

Conservatism In Exile by the Southern Avenger

2010-04-24T01:30:00.000-05:00

What to Make of Cheney's Endorsement of Rubio

2010-04-23T12:43:00.000-05:00

In what should be a kiss of death, former Vice-President Dick Cheney has officially endorsed Marco Rubio over Charlie Christ in the Florida senate race.

Politico reports:

Former Vice President Dick Cheney threw his support to Marco Rubio in the Florida GOP Senate primary Thursday, warning that "Charlie Crist cannot even be trusted to remain a Republican."

The Cheney endorsement represents the most significant national "get" to date for Rubio, and comes as Crist weighs bolting the Republican Party to run as an independent.

In a statement issued by Rubio's campaign, the former vice president urged Crist to stay in the primary or drop out of the race altogether. "The only winners from an independent bid by Crist would be Barack Obama and Harry Reid," Cheney said.

Crist's plunging poll numbers and open consideration of an independent run have prompted a stampede of previously neutral GOP figures to get behind Rubio. In less than a week, the former state House speaker has won support from 2008 presidential candidate Mitt Romney, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor and now Cheney.

Rubio is the golden boy for conservatives, Tea Party members, and those disgusted with business as usual in the Sunshine State. Moreover, he has racked up massive support from traditional conservatives like South Carolina's Jim DeMint and has taken his long shot senate bid to a blistering lead.

Not on the surface unlike Rand Paul's fairing in Kentucky, Rubio still has much to prove as to whether he can match the level of consistent conservatism held by Paul. But that does not mean that Rubio isn't a conservative at all; I merely have my doubts. Truly, he may do well, or he may become a tool of the establishment and betray traditional conservatives views of spending, the role of government, foreign policy, etc.Those fears aside, Rubio has taken on the establishment in the form of Crist and now has them knocking at his door for support.

I don't believe that Cheney's endorsement should look poorly upon Mr. Rubio. He cannot help it if an evil, neocon sees victory and desires to be on the winning bandwagon. Moreover, for some ignorant people, Cheney is still a positive figure who's support is a welcomed move. Of course, these people truly care little for the Constitution, conservatism, liberty, or the like--whether they realize it or not. For, one look at Cheney's record shows him to be one of the greatest opponents to liberty and the Constitution to ever hold the office of vice-president.

The real thing to be taken away form the ordeal is the irony in Cheney endorsement. He is obviously not committed to conservatism; he did endorse Clintonian Trey Grayson in KY. Therefore, in endorsing Rubio over Crist, Cheney is basically saying, "Don't vote for the guy like me!"

Crist is a big government type like Cheney. He has continuall betrayed principle and until a couple of weeks ago he was the establishment's man. Rubio on the other hand is the antithesis of Cheney. He seems to be committed to principle. Likewise, he is a Tea Party favorite and took on the party establishment with his choice to run.

If Cheney's endorsement means that he sees himself in Rubio, we should all be concerned. However, if he is telling us to shy from Crist/Cheney types, for once we should take his advice.

Christian Perspective on Earth Day

2010-04-22T13:20:00.000-05:00

Here is a great article from Pastor Kevin DeYoung, reflecting on Christians and Earth Day.

Today is Earth Day, the fortieth anniversary in fact. It’s hard for me to be excited.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s possible for Christians to celebrate Earth Day in the right way. I’m sure many do. We can thank God for the physical world, enjoy the beauty of creation, and think through ways to steward the earth God has put under our dominion.

But the official Earth Day movement rests on several debatable premises, like “the world is in greater peril than ever” and “climate change is the greatest challenge of our time.” More to the point, there are deep assumptions, unspoken assumptions, that too often provide the foundation for our basic thinking about the environment. And unless Christians are building on the right foundation, we will not think about environmental issues in ways that are most helpful and most biblical.(Continue reading here.)

Policy Over Personality

2010-04-21T21:01:00.000-05:00

Here is a great piece by Wes Messamore of The Humble Libertarian from Gary Johnson's Our America Initiative.

A lot has been said of “principle over party” by the tea party movement in the last year. They stuck to their guns so strongly as to support a third party candidate over the Republican candidate in New York’s special District 23 election, because they felt the Republican candidate didn’t align closely enough with the principles they held so dear.

Videos on YouTube abound of tea party protesters shouting down and booing Republican speakers who dared come to their events to speak after voting for 2008’s financial bailout package. Over and over again, tea party leaders stress that this is about principles, not partisan politics- they could care less who has what letter next to their name. They only want people who stand for the right principles: limited government, individual liberty, Constitutional rule of law.

But there’s an important aspect of “principle over party” that cannot be overlooked. If the tea party neglects this one important thing, it will be doomed to fail in its attempt to limit and reverse the relentless expansion of government into our lives. That one crucial factor in its success is for the tea party to remember policy over personality. (Continue reading here.)

A Victory for Free Expression...Court Upholds Unpopular Expression

2010-04-20T11:57:00.000-05:00

The Washington Post reports on the latest victory for free expression:

The Supreme Court struck down a federal law Tuesday aimed at banning videos depicting graphic violence against animals, saying that it violates the constitutional right to free speech.

Chief Justice John J. Roberts Jr., writing for an eight-member majority, said the law was overly broad and not allowed by the First Amendment. He rejected the government's argument that whether certain categories of speech deserve constitutional protection depends on balancing the value of the speech against its societal costs.

"The First Amendment's guarantee of free speech does not extend only to categories of speech that survive an ad hoc balancing of relative social costs and benefits," Roberts wrote. "The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the Government outweigh the costs. Our Constitution forecloses any attempt to revise that judgment simply on the basis that some speech is not worth it."

The law was passed in 1999 in an attempt to prevent the sale of "crush films"--fetish films in which animals are crushed. The law, however, is so overly broad that it could be used against hunting videos and mere depictions of violence toward animals.

Writing for the Court, the Chief Jusice noted that as written the law “creates a criminal prohibition of alarming breadth.” The SCOTUS blog reported, "Noting that the government had given assurances that it would enforce the law only against commercial portrayals of “extreme cruelty,” the Chief Justice wrote that the Court would not uphold an unconstitutional law “merely because the government promises to use it responsibly.”"

The Cheif Justice is right to call into question reliance on responsible usage of the law. Any chance for abuse must be nipped in the bud when its knowledge arises.

It should be noted that the Court's ruling was not against the ability of the federal government to legislate against animal cruelty. Rather, the ability to ban videos depicting such was called into question. The Court thankfully took the right stand refusing to further gut First Amendment protection.

It has long been noted that the First Amendment is not needed to protect popular expression. Rather, it is the unpopular which warrants protection. Indeed, those of us who value liberty are oft in need of the First Amendment's protection.

I find animal cruelty despicable, but so is the violation of First Amendment protection. If states want to enact laws against cruelty to animals, that is their prerogative. But banning a form of expression is outside the pale of acceptability. If we are to maintain a free society, let us fix these problems by changing the culture, not by changing the law.

In his magnum opus On Liberty, John Stuart Mill wrote, "Strange it is that men should admit the validity of the arguments for free speech but object to their being "pushed to an extreme", not seeing that unless the reasons are good for an extreme case, they are not good for any case." Write he was then, and so he is today.

Smells Like Ron Paul Spirit by the Southern Avenger

2010-04-20T00:01:00.000-05:00

What Is A Libertarian?

2010-04-19T12:00:00.001-05:00

Checkout my latest at The Humble Libertarian.

Libertarians are those weird little guys who lurk in their parents’ basement—spouting out conspiracy theories, smoking funny things, and reading books many have never even heard of, right?

Well...some libertarians are those odd little guys and gals. But even more libertarians are average men and women, grandpas and grandmas, artists, business professionals, blue-collar workers, teachers, students, and people from all walks of life. Libertarians are everywhere you look. Some openly identify as such; others need to be alerted to the fact.

I am convinced that the average person on the street is open to libertarian principles. And many of them are libertarian to one degree or another. Perhaps it would take some explanation and flushing out of the issues for folks to identify as libertarian, but liberty is a popular idea. Most people want liberty and the government out of their business, however many do not realize that this is libertarianism. (Continue reading here.)

Federal Court Shows Establishment Clause Ignorance

2010-04-19T01:02:00.000-05:00

On Thursday a federal judge in Wisconsin ruled the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional, claiming it to be a call for religious action that violates our nation's supreme law. Needless to say, U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb could not be farther off the mark in her ruling.

According the the Associated Press, Judge Crabb "wrote that the government can no more enact laws supporting a day of prayer than it can encourage citizens to fast during Ramadan, attend a synagogue or practice magic."

Actually, the government could do all of those things and still fall within the pale of the Constitution. Regretfully, the judge's ignorance of the Constitution's meaning is glaring. The First Amendment to the US Constitution merely forbids laws respecting the establishment of religion--an understandable concern for a nation founded as a refuge for religious liberty. Anything that falls short of an establishment of a national church/religion is not the least bit unconstitutional. Of course, the Court has over the years attempted to set up arbitrary barriers around Church-State interactions, but whether or not these barriers are good policy is beside the point. It is constitutionality, not the effects of policy, which should be the Court's concern.

I think it is personally bad policy for the event to happen, but that does not mean I can call such unconstitutional. I believe the National Day of Prayer is a superficial act which does nothing to further the Gospel or health of the Christian faith. To me it is an event that has turned into one big DC charade, therefore, I could care less if it was done away with. But, when it faces cancellation based on false rulings by a federal court, I will be quick to call foul.

Whether or not one agrees with prayer in a political setting is of no concern in the matter. The simple question is "What does the Constitution mean, and is this particular act a violation of such?" If properly approached, a ruling contrary to the Wisconsin court should be the result.

I hold to the classical evangelical position that goes beyond a forbidding of establishment and calls for a lack of mingling the business of church and state, believing that such causes harm to both and a compromise to the Gospel. But even if I think something is in poor taste, I would never be as foolish as to call such unconstitutional.The court system would be wise to follow suit.

Almost as bad as the misguided ruling of the court is the cry of many conservatives.

The American Center for Law and Justice, which represented 31 members of Congress who joined the federal government as defendants, called Crabb's ruling flawed and promised to appeal.

"It is unfortunate that this court failed to understand that a day set aside for prayer for the country represents a time-honored tradition that embraces the First Amendment, not violates it," ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow said in a statement.

The Alliance Defense Fund, an Arizona-based group of Christian lawyers, issued a statement saying Crabb's ruling undermines American tradition dating back to the nation's birth.

Completely missing the mark, these opponents of the ruling point to tradition for support. Tradition is not the final word; the Constitution is. The document's actual meaning should be their source of strength.

What we see in this case is failure on both sides to respect the Constitution. The court appeals to a need for a "significant secular purpose" to constitute prayer. (What could that even be?!?!) And the defendants point to tradition. I would merely like to see the document given the final say; apparently that is too much to ask.

PS: In case you were wondering, the Obama administration is not backing down and intends to go ahead with the National Day of Prayer.

Great Article on Austrian Economics

2010-04-18T01:59:00.000-05:00

This article is well worth the read.

“Peter, you have been mocked on all of these financial shows going back to 2005. Going back to 2005! Not only did you predict problems, you actually explained what was going to happen. Why didn’t anybody listen? You were Cassandra!” — MSNBC commentator Joe Scarborough to “Austrian school” economics adherent Peter Schiff on Morning Joe, March 25, 2009

Scarborough’s reference to Cassandra — the character from Greek mythology given the gift of prophecy and the curse that nobody would believe her predictions — was particularly apropos to the Austrian school of economic theory until the latest economic crash. The name of this free-market economic school acknowledges the fact that many of the school’s “founding fathers” were Austrian nationals and disciples of the Austrian economist Karl Menger. Of course, the “Austrian school” is not a school in the traditional sense of the word denoting a physical structure; the term defines those who believe in pure free-market economics and laissez-faire principles. The Austrian school has a long history of amazingly accurate economic predictions while at the same time being completely ignored by the political establishment and virtually ignored by the mainstream media. (Continue reading here).

Hat Tip: Lew Rockwell

Was Joe Stack a Terrorist? by the Southern Avenger

2010-04-17T17:55:00.001-05:00

Tea Party Speech

2010-04-16T20:30:00.000-05:00

For any interested in my speech from yesterday's local Tax Day Tea Party. Here it is.

Regulatory Reform Support Shows Misunderstanding Across the Board

2010-04-16T00:29:00.000-05:00

Politico reported yesterday:

The Republican rhetoric sounded tough on financial regulatory reform early this week...

...But behind such tough talk is a realization within Republican ranks that several of their own may find themselves voting with Obama when the final Wall Street reform deal comes together.

Of course, this sort of behavior is nothing new. In it we see more evidence of talk lacking action in Washington, and we see that principle has little place in the actions of many in government. When pressed on the issue I would venture that many of those who support the financial regulatory reform package would claim to support free market economics. Their support for such a measure, however, points in the opposite direction.

More than just lacking principle, anyone supporting the proposed legislation must also lack sound economic understanding. Simply put, the regulatory reform bill is indicative of the incorrect diagnosis going around as to what cause the recent financial collapse.
William L. Anderson correctly notes:

The meltdown did not occur for lack of regulation, but because of moral hazard. When the government agreed both tacitly and openly to backstop Wall Street losses, and when huge pyramids of "investments" were piled on mortgage securities (also tacitly backed by the government) that turned bad, a meltdown was inevitable.

The meltdown did not occur in a "free market orgy." Indeed, the market exposed the foolishness on Wall Street, which long ago had jumped into bed with the politicians.(Wall Street has been a major campaign contributor, and politicians don't want to lose their cash cow.) Furthermore, the bailouts have not prevented us from going into a depression; they only have prolonged the financial agony.

Dr. Anderson is dead on. An incorrect storyline is going around regarding to the cause of the economic collapse. The free market was not to blame for our crisis, contrary to the cries of statists and economic fools. Rather, the free market was not even able to operate! Instead, the government's involvement in the market drove malinvestment and created moral hazard. This resulted in economic ruin, just as the Austrian free market folks predicted years in advance.

In addition to the failed reasoning behind the bill, it is also bad policy (here's why)--plain and simple. Folks on the left and right both fear that the bill will harm upstart businesses, and others are concerned about the impact it will have on the greater world of business, investing, and on our economic system itself. Still others feel that more government influence is not the solution. Indeed, it was the government that brought about our problems in the first place.

The Republican senators looking to jump on-board the Obama Administration regulatory reform wagon, should do their homework before they support poor policy based on bad information. And if they do support such a measure, they should never claim support for the free market system again. Instead, they will forever show their statist colors.

Tax Day Quotations

2010-04-15T02:00:00.000-05:00

In honor of our beloved tax day, here are some quotations on the subject...

Congress can raise taxes because it can persuade a sizable fraction of the populace that somebody else will pay.--Milton Friedman

The point to remember is that what the government gives it must first take away.--John S. Coleman

Income tax returns are the most imaginative fiction being written today.--Herman Wouk

America is a land of taxation that was founded to avoid taxation.--Dr. Laurence J. Peter

There is no such thing as a good tax.--Winston Churchill

To force a man to pay for the violation of his own liberty is indeed an addition of insult to injury.--Benjamin Tucker

Collecting more taxes than is absolutely necessary is legalized robbery.--Calvin Coolidge

Taxes may be levied for public necessity, but beyond this “to impose them upon the common folk without cause is tyrannical extortion.”--John Calvin

"To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." --Thomas Jefferson

"To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, 'to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare.'For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union." --Thomas Jefferson

"What at first was plunder assumed the softer name of revenue." --Thomas Paine

"If, from the more wretched parts of the old world, we look at those which are in an advanced stage of improvement, we still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised, to furnish new pretenses for revenues and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without tribute."--Thomas Paine

“Taxation: how the sheep are shorn.”--Edward Abbey

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”--James Madison