Let the Revolution Continue!

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

Ron Paul's Liberty Defined

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.

C4L Video

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

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

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

The Politics of Hoarding

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.

Mandatory Organ Donorship...an Affront to Liberty

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.)

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

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. 

Principle, Not Preference Should Inform Policy

Please check out my newest post at The Humble Libertarian.

So often when arguing against statist programs and privacy violations I hear many of the same contentions: "It doesn't bother me, personally." "I don't mind it, so why should I care?" "I am too busy to do it myself, so I'm glad to let the government handle it for me." "I have nothing to hide." "As long as someone's not breaking the law, they have nothing to fear." The list goes on and on, but the gist of each is a lack of concern for liberty violations based on personal opinion.

However, one's personal feelings should never guide policy and never trump the protection of liberty. Yes, personal feelings are at play in any matter. They inform our decision making processes and are important in a number of ways. But in the ultimate scheme of things, principle--not preference--should be the deciding factor in all we do.

In order to flush out this idea, let us look to some examples. (Continue reading here.)

Learn About Liberty

I would like to draw your attention to Wes Messamore's free e-book Learn About Liberty--a fantastic, short primer on the ideas of liberty. Wes is the editor and chief of The Humble Libertarian--where I am a contributor. His writing is clear, concise, and has been of great value to me. Please checkout  his work and peruse his site.

Learn About Liberty begins:

Libertarianism is more inspiring, compelling, and interesting now than at any other time in human history. Our world truly faces a deepening and urgent moral crisis and its people are searching for an answer to the problems we face. Many of us wonder about the "obscure" philosophy of liberty and its adherents, the libertarians.

Who are libertarians and what do they believe? How do they propose to solve our world's problems? Where did libertarian ideas come from and when did they ever succeed? Why does it matter? Are libertarians a bunch of pie-in-the-sky idealists? Or are they reactionary cynics? Do they give humanity too much credit? Or are they all selfish, anti-social miscreants? (Read the rest and the entire e-book here.)

Give me Liberty, or Give me Death!

On this day in 1775 Patrick Henry gave his famed "Give me Liberty, or Give me Death!" speech before the Virginia House of Burgesses, urging action against the tyranny of the British. Its words have long been an inspiration to me, and its conclusion is something we all must ponder: Are you willing to live a slave or die free? As for me, "Give me liberty, or give me death!"

Listen to the words of Henry's famous speech and evaluate yourself.

The Patriot's Pledge

Realizing the enormous growth of government and shameful decay of liberties following the terrorist attacks of 9/11/2001, The Patriot's Pledge has come onto the scene--seeking to provide a voice for victims in the case of a potential terrorist attack in the future. It is a call for a constitutional response and the preservation of liberty, rather than the regretful aftermath of our last major domestic attack.

Hopefully, I will never need this pledge to speak on my behalf--but if I do--I want to make my position sound. I will not see the liberty of my countrymen eroded in a response by our government. I hope that you will not as well. And I hope that you will sign the pledge, affirming as much.

(Thanks to The Humble Libertarian for alerting me to this worthy cause.)

Where I've Been...

I have been in Louisville, KY all week advancing liberty with Young Americans for Liberty. I will return Sunday and be back to regular blogging. It has been an exciting time in Kentucky as I have met with liberty lovers from across our nation. Yesterday, I was able to meet Rand Paul and was blown away by his mix of principle and political skill. Volunteering for Dr. Paul's campaign has been a true honor and privilege. 

Extremism in the Defense of Liberty by the Southern Avenger

 I don't know how I missed this one when it came out, but it is good nonetheless.

Time to Start Acting Like Patriots, Not Patriot Acting

In case you missed it: this weekend saw the extension of the unconstitutional and misnamed "Patriot Act"--an affront to our liberties and a failure at keeping us safe. It was politics as usual with the re-authorization flying under the radar, disguised as a vote to approve Senate amendments to the Medicare Physician Payment Reform Act.

Those familiar with the legislation know its history (composed of failed leftover power grabs from the Clinton administration, it was rushed through in the fearful aftermath of 9/11) and its contents (an unprecedented allowance of government intrusion and constitutional infringement, including the ability to bypass the constitutional requirement for warrants in a number of cases).

Benjamin Franklin once stated, "Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither." Sadly, in post 9/11 America, we seem to be getting exactly what we deserve. Our feeble attempt to subvert our liberties in the name of security has made us neither freer nor safer.

Now the Supreme Court is dealing with another aspect of the massive piece of legislation. With its broad ability to crack down on those offering support to "terrorist groups," the Patriot Act may actually be being used in the cracking down on humanitarian groups and those seeking peace--all the while in a violation of First Amendment guarantees.

Warren Richey reports:

The law makes it a crime to provide “material support” to a known terrorist organization. It is designed to isolate terrorists by making it more difficult for them to receive assistance, services, and recruits.

But critics say the government has adopted such a broad reading of “material support” that even peace activists working to persuade a terror group to pursue nonviolent methods of political change would themselves be liable for up to 15 years in prison for providing “support” to terrorists.

“[The law] imposes criminal liability on speech and association without any showing that the speaker intended to incite or promote terrorist activity in any way,” writes Georgetown Law Professor David Cole in his brief to the court on behalf those challenging the law.

In my humble opinion, the problem goes even further.With the government's already embarrassing and bloated terror watch list proving to be deeply flawed, there is little hope that much faith can be put in Uncle Sam to not abuse its new-found authority and suppress innocents here at home. We already know actual terrorists don't make the list, while innocent citizens do. So can we truly feel comfortable while the government is viewing its own innocent citizens as "domestic terrorists?" I think not.

The Patriot Act leaves too much room for abuse, too much room for persecution of innocents, and has done too little to achieve its goal of making us safer (plus it is unconstitutional!) . Just look at the piles of evidence for proof of the former and to the number of recent terrorist attacks on American soil as proof of the latter.

I applaud those who voted against the measure, and am deeply ashamed of those who refused to stand for the Constitution. If we want to be safe and free, we do not need the Patriot Act; we need to follow the Constitution.

What's sure is this: increased government power and decreased individual liberty is not the answer in keeping us safe. Rather, we should promote our national defense through constitutional means; that's the actions of a true patriot.

Thoughts on CPAC

Now that this year's Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) has wrapped up, I'd like to offer a brief word that is on my mind.

Overall, I would say CPAC was a success for those of us in the liberty movement. Liberty activists made a good showing, provided Dr. Ron Paul with his straw poll victory, and let the establishment know that the love of liberty is far from dead with a great slate of speakers and supporters.

That being said, CPAC still suffers from its same establishment problems. Though it is a slightly smaller tent than the GOP at large, it is still unable to sustain a consistent, conservative message. Yes, many true conservatives were in attendance, but so were many who merely label themselves as such--the whole time betraying the very principles of the Old Right conservative movement. Does this mean that our battel cry should ring, "off with their heads?" Not at all, but we should call for consistency in our positions and fidelity to our labels. The liberty movement is a prime candidate to bring this about, but it will take time and sustained influence like that of this past weekend.

What those in the liberty movement should not do is write off things like CPAC completely without attempting to bring change from within. Yes, there are people involved with CPAC that I despise...I mean despise, but there is still value in bringing our voice to the table and presenting our ideas as part of the public discourse.

Some people at CPAC may not have all that we are looking for and some may represent the very ideas we oppose, but that doesn't mean that we should abandon CPAC and things like it all together. Who knows? Maybe one day the neocons will be upset that CPAC is so libertarian. Mike Huckabee already is.

It should be noted that even the liberty movement contains factions I am ardently opposed to and continuosly frustrated by. Though I have friends who are so-called "911 Truthers" that are involved with the liberty movement, I believe they are trodding down the wrong path. Yes, they frustrate me, but I will not abandon liberty movement functions just because of their presence. We should extend the same grace to other "conservative" events

Let's not compromise our beliefs, but let's also not think that we are above fraternization with people who at times share our concerns.

PS: I'm fully aware of the absurdity in some of CPAC's going-ons. When I learned that obviously-unqualified John Ashcroft won the Defender of the Constitution Award (after vomiting a gallon of blood) I quipped, "With prime candidates like Ashcroft, Cheney, and Bush I am never going to win the Defender of the Constitution Award! Darn it!"

Vintage Goldwater

Hat Tip: Matt Hurtt

As a bonus, here is my favorite passage from Goldwater's classic The Conscience of a Conservative:

I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is 'needed' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents' interests, I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.

There is No Balance of Liberty and Safety

Below is a quotation from a recent article by Judge Andrew Napolitano that I found to be quite true and well put. I recommend you read the article in its entirety, as well.

And we hear it from the Progressives that the government must take our freedoms in order to keep us safe. That’s hogwash. Freedom is our birthright. It doesn’t come from the government; it is part of our humanity. America is the only country in the history of the world dedicated to the truism that we are endowed by our Creator, as Jefferson wrote, with certain inalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The government has forgotten basic civics: "Endowed by our Creator" means that our rights come from God and not from the feds. "Inalienable" means that we and our freedoms cannot be separated, unless and until we are convicted by a jury of violating someone else’s rights. What is the value of being safe if we are not free? Did our forefathers flee the kings and despots of Europe and come here to be safe? Did Patrick Henry say "Give me safety or give me death?" Here is the mistake that the Big Government crowd wants to thrust upon us: They want to balance liberty and safety. There is no such thing as balance when it comes to freedom.

If That Ain't the Kettle Calling the Pot...well...You Know.

You can imagine when I saw the Washington Times headline: “Bush Warns of Threat to Freedom, Economic growth,” I could not pass it up. The very man who spent the last eight years undermining freedom and the end of those eroding economic liberty was giving a warning about those very tyrannous acts? Well…it turns out the former president wasn’t pointing fingers at himself. Rather, he was criticizing the policies as they now stand.

Apparently, it is ok to flirt with market intervention, suppression of human freedom, and a whole host of other unconstitutional matters that plagued his presidency, but those actions better end with his presidency.

As we know, they haven’t. The Obama Administration has fallen right in line, following the path I think is best characterized as “the Bush administration on steroids.” The very market intervention Bush started Obama has perfected. The wars in the Middle East show no signs of ending. And domestic tyranny here at home is still in place, though the enemies list has additions.

You can see why I was surprised to see President Bush speak strongly about such topics on the campus of Southern Methodist University on Thursday. However, the highlights of his speech, as quoted by the article, are quite sound as he called for more economic and personal liberty.

Bush noted, "As the world recovers, we will face a temptation to replace the risk-and-reward model of the private sector with the blunt instruments of government spending and control. History shows that the greater threat to prosperity is not too little government involvement, but too much,"

He continued, "I believe that free markets open the path to opportunity, that a successful society requires personal responsibility, that freedom is universal and transformative, and that every human life has dignity and value."

Once again, his words are true and needed, but his actions in office fall far short of the mark.

So what is the problem here? How could one who claims to be for free people and free markets erode those very freedoms and make (in his own words) “the most difficult of [his] presidency, [going]against [his] free market instincts and approv[ing] a temporary government intervention to unfreeze credit and prevent a global financial catastrophe.”

The answer lies in compromise. Blind “pragmatism” trumps ideological consistency and fidelity in our public square, and freedom suffers as a consequence. Without a steady philosophical compass and a firm base of uncompromising fervor, we are doomed to fall into the same traps. Tyranny does not arise over night. It comes through erosion of the rule of law and acts of “pragmatism” that would see liberty suffer.

May it not be too late in this nation. Let us educate ourselves, bind ourselves down with the chains of the Constitution, and never compromise in our pursuit of liberty.

PS: My liberal friends, you can do this as well. Just remember it is the opposite of what Bush would do.