The question is, “What good is the 2nd amendment without the 1st?” Gun rights, without the freedom to defend them against an overreaching tyrannical government, are unmanageable at best. When a special interest group’s back-door deals are cut to defend only a narrowly defined agenda, that group should not be surprised when the same tactics are used in opposition. Until the Special Interests (which we may find common ground on individual issues) come to defend their issues with the full backing of the Constitution as a whole, we will perpetuate the tribal destruction of our Supreme Law.

Individual Liberty was the idea. Liberty to gun ownership, liberty to speak freely, liberty to raise one’s family as he sees fit, liberty to associate and do business with those who we wish, liberty to be left alone, LIBERTY. Under proper government, and as laid out in our Founding documents, Natural Rights of the individual are protected. Crime under this system is realized in theft of, or fraudulent acts against another’s property.

It was never the intent of our system of checks and balances to pass laws that would raise hoops for some to jump through, only to be lowered for the more fortunate to step over.

Brock T. Southwick
wapitimo@gmail.com
Liberty Freelance writer

                          

As the 2007-08 presidential campaign cycle offered up the usual slate of Washington insiders, Ron Paul, an obscure Congressman from Texas brought an alternative voice that challenged the political establishment.

Advocating a philosophy of sound money, a non-interventionist foreign policy, strict Constitutionalism, and individual liberty, Dr. Paul inspired a unique grassroots movement unmatched in American history – the repercussions of which continue to reverberate today and into the future of the American psyche.

For Liberty: How the Ron Paul Revolution Watered the Withered Tree of Liberty follows this historic campaign from the perspective of grassroots activists, and showcases the unique, often bizarre, yet groundbreaking projects they undertook as they brushed aside traditional campaign methodology.

For Liberty was released on September 23rd, 2009 on 16:9 widescreen DVD. 115 mins. Order here.

                          

Others, such as Lysander Spooner, argued, “the Constitution has either authorized such a government as we have had or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”

I am going to give an analogy based on the latter part — the “powerless to prevent it” part. However, I argue that it not only has been powerless to prevent our ever growing, ever expanding, ever stealing government; it has incentivized its expansion. What other conclusion could we possibly conceive if we live by a document that allows a small group of individuals the legal right to extort the entire population?

However, the blame never rests with the Constitution itself. The blame is always placed on “the people” for not adhering to the Constitution’s rules. Why blame “the people” for a document that clearly sets up an inevitable conclusion?

Here is an analogy: A high school teacher at a private school has a rather curious policy. This teacher’s policy states that every time they give a test, they tell the students not to cheat, and then they leave the building to go read in their car. At the end of the test, they return back to the classroom to grade the papers. For some reason, the students always do extremely well….

Certainly we all agree that the school would place blame for the rampant cheating on the teacher, not the students. It does not matter that the teacher, upon the leaving the classroom, tells the students not to cheat. She placed matters in an obvious and inevitable path to systematic cheating. And since it is a private school in question, I argue that the teacher would immediately be fired upon the administration finding out about the teacher’s test policy.

Like the teacher who leaves the room during a test, the Constitution has not only allowed the kind of government we have, but incentivized this government’s expansion and thieving. Like the teacher who simply tells the students not to cheat, the Constitution’s “limited” and divided powers are inadequate to prevent massive, systematic invasion of person and property.

I say we place blame where it belongs – squarely on the Constitutions impotent shoulders.

                          

One day you go and check the mail. Inside you find a bill from your neighbor for $300. The bill reads, “One month’s defense services…… $300.” This perplexes you to say the least. You don’t recall ever entering into an agreement with your neighbor for his services. Not even a verbal one. A strong sense of injustice overwhelms you, but before you walk next door to give him a piece of your mind, you realize who you are dealing with and back off.

Now you are indeed benefiting from your neighbor’s incredible home defense system and self-defense capabilities. That is a fact. However, you never asked for it, nor did you agree to it after the fact.

When you finally work up the courage to discuss the issue with your neighbor, he thankfully keeps his cool and shows you a contract he wrote out for you. “The contact is right here my friend. It describes the service I’m providing you and the rate at which you are billed. I think $300 per month is MORE than fair” he says.

Swallowing very hard, you reply, “But I never consented to this contract — neither before you installed your system, nor after. And look, my signature is nowhere to be found on that piece of paper.”

This argument is not good enough for your neighbor and he, quite predictably, sticks to his proverbial guns. He claims that despite the fact that you never consented to this agreement, it still stands because there is no question that you benefit from his home defense services. In fact, “I’ve been watching over your house just as much as my own for the past month,” he says.

What sort of recourse do you have in this situation? Your neighbor is not going to back down, and he is much stronger than you. He never comes out and says it, but implicitly you fear he will take the $300 if you don’t willingly give it up. You must take this case to court and convince a judge that this type of contract is illegal. You never consented to it, your signature is nowhere to be found, and you don’t accept his services. At this point it is fair to say that the injustice is plain to see. A contract forced on someone else is not a contract. It is force.

I bring this example up because although we can all agree that you do in fact gain from your neighbor’s home defense system, it is immoral for you to be forced into paying for something you never consented to, nor ever asked for. Your neighbor was in the wrong when he tried to give you the old “offer you can’t refuse” bit.

The part that still confuses me is why Constitutionalists don’t see this parallel when debating limited government and the so called “social contract” in general, and the Constitution in particular. Lysander Spooner wrote about the“Constitution of No Authority” way back in 1867. It was obvious to him even back then that you cannot impose a contract on people who had nothing to do with it.

If forcing a contract on someone is so plainly wrong in my above neighbor example, when the victim is so clearly benefiting from the contract, knows the guy, and is friends with him, how can we possibly say that the government can make and enforce contracts on us against our will? The only possible way to justify such force is to say that the government owns all the land in America. It is to say that you are merely renting the land you live on and all the things you own. That you don’t have the final say over your own body and your own property.

If you’d like to believe such nonsense, go ahead. I choose to believe I own my body and all my property and that no one, no matter what kind of uniform they are wearing can force me into a contract I had nothing to do with, nor consented to. And yet that is the situation we face everyday. We pay for services we never requested, for prices we never agreed to, from people we never met.

….. on second thought, you better go back and reconcile with your neighbor. Pay him now, because he might be your best friend when the government bureaucrats start looking for more money to feed their bankrupt beast.

Article was originally posted by Justin Longo Dec 09

                          

Let me give you a simple example. You’ll often hear folks in the “tea party” crowd protest the impending government takeover of health care. Among the reasons for being against socialized medicine, the inconsistent tea partier will invoke morality.

A popular line of thinking goes like this: “I should not be forced to buy politically controlled health insurance simply because I’m alive and breathing.” Another goes this way, “How come Nancy Pelosi is allowed to point a gun at me and force me to buy a product from her, but I can’t point a gun in my neighbor’s face and force him to buy a product from me?”

Truth be told, both arguments are valid. And if made from someone who was actually consistent, they’d have merit. However, coming from the mouths of limited government (a.k.a. central planning and taxation only for things they like) tea party people, it’s rubbish. If I were an intelligent leftist, I would easily point out the inconsistency in a conversation that would go like this:

Tea Partier (TP): Obama care is immoral because Nancy Pelosi and friends are forcing us to buy politically controlled health insurance just because we’re alive.

Intelligent Leftist (IL): You believe it is immoral for Congress to pass a law forcing every American to buy whatever Congress considers to be health insurance? I don’t understand.

TP: Yeah. How come the stupid liberals in Congress are allowed to stick guns in our faces and force us to buy a product from them when I can’t stick a gun in my neighbor’s face and force him to buy a product from me? Where do they get off with this type of power? It is SOOO unconstitutional!! And besides, I’m a man. I shouldn’t be forced to pay for a woman’s c-section or birth control! And she shouldn’t be forced to pay for my Extenze! It’s unfair!

IL: No, it is absolutely fair! You are better off if you buy health insurance. Why shouldn’t they be allowed to force that on you? Besides, there are plenty of things that you are forced to purchase under threat of jail that you tea partiers don’t seem to mind.

TP: No way! We don’t believe in that type of governmental power… it’s UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!

IL: What’s the difference between you being forced to purchase health insurance for your own good and you being forced to purchase roads and road repair for your own good? You don’t seem to mind that Governor Bill Ritter has what you call a gun to your head, forcing you to buy road construction from him. You also don’t seem to mind that the local police chief forces you to buy his services. How do you explain that?

TP: Well, that’s all okay. We don’t mind paying for those vital services, we need those things.

IL: So you don’t mind being forced to buy things against your will, as long as they are services you approve of. That’s convenient. I happen to approve of forcing everyone to buy health care. Surely you wouldn’t also reject forcing everyone in a school district to buy the services of their local schools would you?

TP: Well, that’s different! Kids need to be educated!

IL: I don’t see how that’s any different than health care. Roads, police, fire, schools, health care and the like are all things that benefit everyone. We are all better off if we are forced to buy them. You can’t be a freeloader!

TP: But….. but….

IL: It’s pretty obvious that you would like to just pick and choose what you are paying for. You can’t have it both ways, it doesn’t work like that.

….This is when a consistent person steps in and says, “Yes, we all would prefer to pay only for those goods and services we found worthy of our hard earned money. And no that’s not possible with government. But I’ll give you a hint as to what institution allows for everyone to purchase only what they want, and to never be stolen from, no matter the pretense….”

MARKETS YOU FOOLS!

Originally Posted 10 Dec 2009 at Justin Longo’s Blog

                          

In Michael Riley’s article in the Denver Post entitled “Colorado Democratic delegation in dilemma on how to proceed on health care” he quotes Rep. Perlmutter in regards to the health care battle:

“It’s a mess,” said exasperated Congressman Ed Perlmutter, a Democrat from Golden, last week, noting that he’d be happy as long as Congress manages to pass a provision prohibiting insurance companies from excluding coverage because of pre-existing conditions.

“That’s still my focus, that will be my focus when it comes to health care stuff. . . . It’s a moral imperative and I think it’s a constitutional (emphasis mine) one,” he said.

Excuse me? What the heck are you talking about Edwin? Certainly not the U.S. Constitution in which no mention of “health” is written in the document. To be fair, Perlmutter isn’t the first politician or judge to liberally interpret the Constitution to fit his or her own desires but you really have to dig deep into imagination land to come up with a constitutional “right” to health care. I wonder if Ed Perlmutter even read the Constitution prior to taking his oath? It seems unlikely but what’s even scarier is the thought that he did read the Constitution and still came away with the idea that health care is a constitutional right. I shudder to think what other “rights” the next politician will conjure.

                          

Join other Coloradans to rally for our Constitution Sep, 19th from 1 to 3 p.m. on the west steps of the Capitol building. Featured speakers include: John Andrews - Tony Fabian - Sean Doherty - Jimmy Sengenberger - Pastor Gino Geraci - Dan Corsentino - Mike Holler. For more information visit the Council For Wise Public Policy.

                          

The Freedom Conference is an educational event that will introduce you to the Constitution and demonstrate how the Federal Reserve monetary system is destroying liberty.  Education is the first line of defense for our freedom and country.  You will learn what you can do to stop the destruction of liberty and preserve the Constitution.

When: September 12th, 2009
Time: 9am to 12 noon.
Location: University of Denver, Sturm Hall, Davis auditorium, 2nd floor
2000 East Asbury Ave.
Denver, CO 80208
Price: $10, (parking available for $6).

Lecturers: Mike Holler, Paul Prentice, and Fred Holden.

                          

by

Curtis Harris

Freedom Fest ’09 was time well spent for me. As the name implies, the conference was focused on economic freedom, free markets and libertarian ideas. Given that focus, and America’s political and economic climate, the general tone of the conference sessions was negative for the short-term and guarded for the long-term. Essentially, America is suffering because of an overgrown federal government and its economic errors over the past 10 years. To make matters worse, the current administration is continuing those errors while dramatically increasing deficit spending and federal power over the economy. I found the contributions by Steve Forbes (Forbes magazine), Peter Schiff (Euro-Pacific Capital), David Boaz (Cato Institute), John Fund (Wall Street Journal), Keith Fitz-Gerald (Fitz-Gerald Research) and Tom Woods (Author) most valuable among the many speakers on a wide range of topics.

As an indication of the consensus opinion on the economy, the most positive view came from Larry Kudlow of CNBC. After admitting he was wrong about a recovery starting in the last half of ’09, he predicted 2-3% growth in 2010. None of the other speakers I heard predicted that much economic growth. They pointed to the continuing fiscal and monetary irresponsibility of the Federal government and the Democrat plans for Cap and Trade taxes and the nationalization of healthcare as reasons for pessimism. Their predictions ranged from mild recovery coupled with double-digit inflation to depression and deflation. Their primary concern was the value of the U.S. dollar. With the Federal Reserve continuing to maintain artificially low interest rates and the Congress and the President running up ever higher budget deficits, the dollar will continue to lose value. The only point of disagreement was on the severity of the decline and its timing. Peter Schiff made a convincing case that, in the near future, the countries now buying US Treasury debt will stop doing so. They will, if they have not already, recognize the unsustainable nature of our fiscal and monetary policies, and act to protect themselves from the US dollar’s decline. When they stop buying our debt, the Federal Reserve will print money to buy it and set off high, if not hyper, inflation. His message, largely confirmed by the other speakers, was to diversify assets into foreign stocks, precious metals and foreign currencies. Peter Schiff’s 2007 book, Crash Proof, predicted today’s economic crisis. He has a new book coming out in October, Crash Proof 2.0. He is also considering a run for the Senate from Connecticut. See www.SchiffforSenate.com for more information.

The political message from the conference was less clear. There was, no surprise, widespread condemnation of the Democrats and their plans to turn America into a socialist state. There was also much criticism of George Bush and the Republicans for their blunders over the past eight years. Essentially, they abandoned free market principles and participated in the Federal spending binge. The political tone of the conference was decidedly libertarian – emphasizing our Constitution as well as economic and personal freedom. The speakers I heard danced around the issue of the Republican Party’s future. They acknowledged a severe credibility issue, but could not admit the party’s survival is in doubt. David Boaz did the best job of explaining the problem. American society, especially the younger generations, has become socially tolerant but remains politically center-right. The Republican Party is branded as socially intolerant and therefore cannot hope to attract the support necessary to regain power. So we are left with a big issue – What political force will arise to successfully counteract the rise of socialism in America?

The Campaign for Liberty (C4L) held one of their regional training conferences that somewhat overlapped Freedom Fest. This was by design so that the attendees of one could also participate in the other. C4L grew from Ron Paul’s campaign for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008. C4L’s focus seems to be on creating a grassroots network of liberty-minded people that can make a difference in future elections. C4L supports the US Constitution, the primacy of local government and personal and economic freedom. I see no difference between C4L’s core principles and those of the Libertarian Party.

The hopeful note that ran through Freedom Fest and the C4L sessions was the recognition that there is a widespread, although not yet well organized, movement in support of liberty in America. The best example is the Tea parties held around the country on April 15^th and July 4^th. Many of these events have attracted large crowds concerned about the future of freedom in America. There are also several emerging efforts on the web that oppose the actions of the Federal government and target the Congress as the problem. Two examples are www.downsizedc.org and www.kickthemallout.com. I hope we see a melding of these groups into a political movement.

My personal view is that the Republican Party is broken beyond repair. The party’s broken brand will never be able to attract support from significant numbers of young people and unaffiliated voters. America is likely to have a three party system for the next few years – the dedicated socialists of the Democrat party, aging Republicans and the religious right, and a diverse group of liberty-minded people coalescing into a new political force. This third ‘party’ will be seeking an identity and organizing principles. The Libertarian Party, although not a significant factor in national politics today, can be the organizational structure that gives this movement an ideological home and a logistical base from which to grow. I believe the Libertarian Party has an opportunity and an obligation to be proactive in marketing to young people and unaffiliated voters in order to build itself into a third party capable of winning congressional elections and, at least, influencing the outcome of presidential elections.

Everything I heard at Freedom Fest was consistent with the ideas and strategy in my book, It’s the Congress, Stupid!, available at www.defeatcongress.org.

Curtis Harris is a retired businessman, entertaining himself with private investments, golf, biking and politics. His book is the result of his long-standing frustration with the conduct of the United States Congress.

                          

This is the time we must ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms intended for us by our Founding Fathers. Our Founder’s established a Republican form of government in order to protect our freedoms.

We believe a government that is strong but limited secures liberty best. The letter of the Constitution defines these limitations, and when our government oversteps them, it becomes tyrannical regardless of the party in power.
This notion of limited government guided our Founders as they composed the Declaration of Independence. This established a nation guided by the rule of law, not the rule of man.

We believe the fundamental duty of the federal government is to secure the rights of its citizens. This is accomplished through a fair justice system, a strong national defense, and a foreign policy that always puts America’s interests first.

We believe that the Constitution of the United States is supreme law of the land, and the best instrument yet instituted by man for protecting personal liberty by establishing a very limited and defined role for government.

Its genius lies in its clear separation of powers at the federal level and its recognition that other non-enumerated powers reside with the states and their citizens.

We believe that the only economic philosophy congruent with these commitments to individual liberty and limited government is free market capitalism.
Individuals contribute to this system through personal industry and initiative; government contributes by confining its regulatory activity within constitutional limits and by employing a system of taxation that is fair and comprehensible for all citizens.

Entitlements and welfare schemes destroy not only personal initiative and responsibility, but also liberty and prosperity.

Political freedom is inseparable from economic freedom. Thus, when the government stays within its constitutional role, America prospers.

Fact is that government cannot give to anybody what it does not first take from somebody else.

However, now the ruling party is replete with western apologists for socialist political and economic agendas.
Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality.

Democracy seeks equality in liberty;
Socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.”
I see on the horizon a looming threat — a threat that will challenge the freedoms written in the blood and toil of our nation’s Founders

LET THERE BE NO DOUBT

The Patriot’s allegiance to our Constitution and the authority of our Declaration of Independence far exceeds loyalty to any individual, organization or political party
Do we believe in our capacity for self-government or have we abandoned the VERY IDEA of Freedom that our Fore Fathers Established for us.

The Founding Fathers knew a government can’t control the economy without controlling the people. And they knew when a government sets out to do that it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose.
Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, inalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this very moment.”

Recognize that government invasion of public power is eventually an assault upon your very own life
If you are afraid of reprisals recognize that you are just feeding the crocodile hoping he WILL eat you last.

NOW WE HAVE COME TO A TIME OF CHOOSING

Will we preserve this last great bastion of freedom?
Or will we sentence OUR CHILDREN to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children say of us:
THEY justified THEIR brief moment here. THEY did all that could be done. THEY fought for freedom with THEIR last dying breaths. The liberties and freedom of our country are worth defending at all hazards.  It is our sworn duty to defend them against all attacks.

Let us honor the sacrifices of Samuel Adams and the Founders this Independence Day By defending freedom as we should
and striving to rebuild the foundation they so carefully laid for our Country. Americans we are in for the fight of our lives
and surely if we lose this fight we lose our country.

The battle is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active and the brave.

I close with the words of the Samuel Adams:

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!”

MAY GOD BLESS AND PRESERVE AMERICA