At the core of modern liberalism

Modern liberalism pats itself on the back for having good intentions even if the policies modern liberals pursue obviously don't work.

So whether it's stripping U.S. citizens of their right to work for whatever wage they want (via the minimum wage law), or stripping U.S. citizens of the right to defend themselves (via gun control), what matters most to the liberal mindset is that their "good intentions" were revealed to all.

Video: Ron Paul gives trenchant foreign policy analysis in "The State of Liberty 2015"

If you are short on time, begin at the 30-minute mark. Dr. Paul gives an excellent analysis of foreign policy.

Near the beginning, he also touches on Ferguson and police militarization and police culture.

Video: Woman in Irish Parliament takes Obama to the woodshed

She criticizes the American president for wanting to arm Syrian rebels which have terrorist elements in them.

The Pro-Gay Marriage Reader - A Constitutional Perspective

The Constitutional Case for Same-Sex Marriage || UnitedLiberty.org

A strong argument that, while acknowledging that the libertarian notion that the best deal would be for the government to get out of the marriage business, also acknowledges the Jim Crow-like 2-tier marriage system is here and needs to be dealt with. Marriage for me, but not for thee, it argues, is not how things should be until the government gets completely out. Perhaps its most powerful argument, however, is that "[b]y outlawing same-sex marriage, the states are essentially forbidding religious institutions to marry whom they with."

The Moral and Constitutional Case for a Right to Gay Marriage || Cato.org

The Chairman of the libertarian-think tank the Cato Institute argues that "equal protection of the law" applies to homosexual/same-sex couples as well. Levy says that no compelling reason why the government sanctions marriage for heterosexuals and not for homosexuals has been given. Additionally, he argues that reasons to ban same-sex marriage - it would weaken the institution of marriage - isn't helped by that very ban, and offers legal suggestions to strengthen conservatives beloved institution.

The take-away from both articles:

The strongest case, it seems, for the pro-same-sex marriage crowd is to argue that banning gay marriage is a violation of the "equal protection of the law" granted in the 14th Amendment. Also, both writers are libertarians it seems they really wish - Levy uses the term "regrettably" - the government didn't get involved in marriage in the first place.

Bonus: Can We Really Get The Government Out of Marriage?

A piece giving a historical overview of the government's involvement in marriage, including property, taxes, and all sorts of benefits and protections, and acknowledges that "marriage licenses" are relatively new in human, or at least Western, history.

Bonus: When Did Laws Denying Same-Sex Couples Marriage Licenses Become Unconstitutional?

Another history lesson. This time, it answers when denying marriage licenses to gays became unconstitutional.

Friedersdorf: 'Obama terrorizes innocent Pakistanis on an almost daily basis'

I agree with this:

I find Obama likable when I see him on TV. He is a caring husband and father, a thoughtful speaker, and possessed of an inspirational biography. On stage, as he smiles into the camera, using words to evoke some of the best sentiments within us, it's hard to believe certain facts about him:    

1. Obama terrorizes innocent Pakistanis on an almost daily basis. The drone war he is waging in North Waziristan isn't "precise" or "surgical" as he would have Americans believe. It kills hundreds of innocents, including children. And for thousands of more innocents who live in the targeted communities, the drone war makes their lives into a nightmare worthy of dystopian novels. People are always afraid. Women cower in their homes. Children are kept out of school. The stress they endure gives them psychiatric disorders. Men are driven crazy by an inability to sleep as drones buzz overhead 24 hours a day, a deadly strike possible at any moment. At worst, this policy creates more terrorists than it kills; at best, America is ruining the lives of thousands of innocent people and killing hundreds of innocents for a small increase in safety from terrorists. It is a cowardly, immoral, and illegal policy, deliberately cloaked in opportunistic secrecy. And Democrats who believe that it is the most moral of all responsible policy alternatives are as misinformed and blinded by partisanship as any conservative ideologue. 
2. Obama established one of the most reckless precedents imaginable: that any president can secretly order and oversee the extrajudicial killing of American citizens. Obama's kill list transgresses against the Constitution as egregiously as anything George W. Bush ever did. It is as radical an invocation of executive power as anything Dick Cheney championed. The fact that the Democrats rebelled against those men before enthusiastically supporting Obama is hackery every bit as blatant and shameful as anything any talk radio host has done.  
3. Contrary to his own previously stated understanding of what the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution demand, President Obama committed U.S. forces to war in Libya without Congressional approval, despite the lack of anything like an imminent threat to national security.

Why I Refuse to Vote for Barack Obama || Conor Friedersdorf

Why you technically may be an extremist

I put two and two together a long time ago. But Gary North tells it on his news site/blog.

From the Tea Party Economist Blog:

This article indicates how far the U.S. government has gone to define “Constitutionalist” as militia extremist.

Are You a Militia Extremist? Technically, You Probably Are. || Tea Party Economist

Sen. Rand Paul: ‘I’m Free!’ | CNSnews.com

(CNSNews.com) – After being stopped earlier today by TSA officials at the airport in Nashville, Tenn., Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a strong critic of TSA procedures, was interviewed on the radio where he declared, “I’m free. I’ve been released on my own recognizance.” He also, half-jokingly added, “You don’t want to travel with me either, I don’t know, I might be a magnet for problems.”

Sen. Rand Paul: ‘I’m Free!’ | CNSnews.com

Ron Paul calls for repeal of detainee rules, slams Lindsey Graham - The Hill's Floor Action

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) took to the House floor Wednesday morning to call on his colleagues to support his new legislation that would repeal controversial language that he and others believe could lead to the detention of Americans for terrorist activities without due process.

Paul’s bill would repeal Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which President Obama has already signed into law. That section states that the government can detain anyone who has “substantially supported certain terrorist groups.”

Ron Paul calls for repeal of detainee rules, slams Lindsey Graham - The Hill's Floor Action

Video: Liberal Democrat Alan Colmes Defends Ron Paul against Newt Gingrich and Neocon defender

Ron Paul: Border fence could be used to ‘keep us in’ | Raw Replay

Never thought of that.

Ron Paul: Border fence could be used to ‘keep us in’ | Raw Replay

Video: You Have No Rights, What in the Gold?!?

Video: Government Gangsters Raid Raw Food Stores

If a group of thugs come into my place of business with guns and steal my products, then they go to jail.

If a group of government agents come into my place of business with guns and steal my products, then they get a promotion.

Double Standards?



Don't Steal the Government Hates Competition

TSA: Theatrical Security Agents, Touching Stuff Aggressively

Trampling Several Amendments,Teaching Submission to Americans, Touching Sensitive Areas, Too Stupid for Arby's, Testicle Searchers of America, Touch Stroke Assault, Targeted Sexual Assault -- these are but a few of various ways you can say TSA, and all thanks goes to Reason TV for creating the wonderfully irreverent video I got this from.

In all seriousness, the TSA keeps on violating people's sense of dignity. Earlier this month they patted down a six-year old girl (and we all know six-year olds have been packing lately), and now the former Miss USA. Despite the age difference, both parties feel violated (and the little girl was confused. Her parents taught her to not let strangers touch her sensitive areas, and some stranger in a government uniform). The age gap also shows that you can be any age and realize that there is something that is fundamentally wrong about getting touched by strangers against your will.

The jackals don't seems to realize that people do not feel safer. They feel like they are being molested. And if that is what it takes to become safer give me no part of it. I'll take my chances.

Just watch the videos and share the pain and anger.

Susie's Experience with the TSA Pat Down from SusieCastillo.net on Vimeo.

Video: End of Liberty

State-Mandated Health Care Unconstitutional, But What about Car-Insurance?

The recent declaration of Obamacare, specifically the section that mandates the uninsured to buy health insurance, unconstitutional is a victory for liberty and a reason for celebration.

But one thing I never understood, and I haven't understood this since I was sixteen and one month, was why I have to purchase state-mandated car insurance.

What if I can't afford to drive and pay for insurance and pay for gas that is continually going up in price? How does one save when a teenager?

Having a car assumes someone has saved enough for car payments and gas to use the contraption. That is understood. But this law has the potential to kill savings, if it has not already done so, and is a way to force young people, even the responsible ones, to quit driving all together. At least that's what I think.

Can someone please tell me the difference between state-mandated health insurance and state-mandated car insurance? Somebody? Anybody?

I must look deeper into the history and reasoning behind state-mandated car insurance.

Ron Paul On D.L. Hughley Breaks The News 03/07/09

As I was reading the course description for History 575 (The Great Centralizer: Lincoln and the Growth of Statism) it reminded of the fact that Abraham Lincoln "ignored how most of the rest of the world ended slavery peacefully." As Ron Paul reminds us in the above video, instead of fighting the civil war...well...I'll just let Ron tell you.

Here is part of the transcript, excerpted from RonPaul.com:

D.L. Hugley: So you were against George Bush’s big spending too?

Ron Paul: Oh, absolutely. And certainly I was against his foreign policy and his violation of personal civil liberties. The privacy that he was invading and the secrecy of government… I didn’t like any of that. I am sort of an old-fashioned conservative that believes in the constitution.

And here the other part that I thoroughly enjoyed:

D.L. Hugley: Ron, you are too human to be a Republican. Now, I was on Bill Maher about a year and a half ago or so, and you came on by satellite, and you were explaining about the Civil War and how it didn’t need to be fought. And I was at first like, ‘Is he saying that it didn’t need to be fought?’ But when you explained it to me, I thought it was one of the most pragmatic, reasonable things I have ever heard a politician say.

Ron Paul: Well, you know the other nations in the West that had slavery all got rid of slavery without a civil war. The motivation behind the Civil War had more to do than just the slavery issue. So we lost 600,000 Americans and there is lot of residual, probably some left over today. There is still residual. So you could have, with a small fraction of the money and no deaths, just bought the slaves, you know, and freed the slaves. That’s what Britain and some other nations did and that just makes a lot more sense than fighting a war and killing each other. I know I don’t like this war as a solution to our problems.

Sneaky: The Obamacare Provision Regulating Gold

This could be the shortest blog post ever, asking only one question: Why is there a provision on regulating gold in a health care bill?

But I will further express my anguish over these new details about the Obamacare bill being brought to light.

Thomas Sowell's recent article alerted me to this provision:

One of the many slick tricks of the Obama administration was to insert a provision in the massive Obamacare legislation regulating people who sell gold. This had nothing to do with medical care but everything to do with sneaking in an extension of the government's power over gold, in a bill too big for most people to read.

I never understood politicians who slip in these unrelated provisions into a much larger bill that is likely to get passed.

One can be for Obamacare--not me personally--but against the regulation of gold and be put in a very tight situation: "Do I go against the bill because of the gold provision? Or do I go for the Obamacare bill and cramp the liberties of gold owners?"

Seriously, it was a massive bill that no one read - and now that its details are coming to light people are going to see how slick and insidious the left can be.

What happened to the old left? The one that didn't encroach people's liberties.

The End of the Internet

I received this in my e-mail. I thought it was kind of important for you to know what the government planned on doing back in 2009. Who knows, a bill like this may try to creep up again.

Oh, and I almost forgot. I received this from John Tate, the Campaign for Liberty President.

Sign this petition if you are for the cause.

Read on dear internet user!

Dear Patriot:

Please take your time and read this email carefully.

Because if a bill quietly sneaking its way through Congress passes, an email like this could be the last non-government message to ever hit your inbox.

In fact, someday you may even find yourself unable to log in to your email in the first place!

I know what you're thinking: Maybe this is just another Internet hoax.

I wish it was.

But Barack Obama and Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) want to make this nightmare a reality. That's why Rockefeller recently introduced S. 773, "The Cybersecurity Act of 2009."

Initial cosponsors include Senators Evan Bayh (D-IN), Bill Nelson (D-FL) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME).

You see, Barack Obama is seeking sweeping new powers to "shut down" all private internet in the event of a "cybersecurity emergency" — a vague term that the President can define at his discretion.

And Rockefeller's bill gives Barack Obama just what he wants.

That's why this expansive new power grab should really be called "The Internet Takeover Bill."

As you know, the Internet has developed into an independent sphere where 1st Amendment Rights can still be (fairly) freely exercised.

It's also become an important outlet for liberty-minded speech, cutting around the Obama-worship and corporate censorship of the mainstream media.

And we've already seen the Obama Administration's reaction to any online speech they deem "fishy."

In July, the Administration called upon Americans to report their friends' and neighbors' emails to help Barack Obama silence the "disinformation" about the Obamacare bills in Congress.

Well now Barack Obama wants to cut out the middle man.

If the Internet Takeover Bill passes, Barack Obama can silence his dissenters directly — by ordering a shutdown of the U.S. Internet.

That's right, under this bill Barack Obama can order all non-government U.S. networks to shutdown from the Internet.

But that's not all.

Even outside of periods of White House-declared "emergency," this bill mandates that private-sector networks only be managed by government-licensed "cybersecurity professionals."

If you think dealing with your office IT department is bad now, just wait until they're federally-licensed bureaucrats.

Well I know I like writing to you, and I hope you like hearing from me.

Or if not me, at least you probably like staying in touch with your family and friends, and having access to uncensored news and current events.

And that's why I hope you'll help Campaign for Liberty stop the Internet Takeover Bill by signing our Internet User's Mandate to Congress.

Today, legislation like this — built on the same statist principles as the infamous Patriot Act — must sneak through Congress quietly.

They know Americans are no longer willing to swallow this swill "for our own good."

And it's especially critical that Campaign for Liberty and other fellow R3volutionaries fight this power grab.

Can you imagine how easily those in power could fabricate an "emergency" on a big money bomb day for a strong liberty candidate threatening the establishment?

Or how about message boards vital to planning and freedom rallies and protests of socialized medicine?

With "right-wing extremists" freely and visibly exercising their 2nd Amendment rights at such events, no doubt the White House could declare "emergency" and shut down all online planning.

I don't want to see good politicians lose potential millions or demonstrations of liberty extinguished. I hope you don't either.

That's why I hope you'll sign your Internet User's Mandate and make a donation right now to Campaign for Liberty to make sure that never happens.

We're going to fight this bill hard, because it's clear that the Internet is the next frontier for liberty politics, and Campaign for Liberty is right on the forefront.

So please click here to sign your Internet User's Mandate to Congress in opposition to Barack Obama's Internet Takeover and Shutdown Bill.

And in addition to signing your mandate, please make a generous contribution of $100, $50 or $25 so we can fight this Internet takeover.

We need to fight to make sure Barack Obama doesn't disconnect your computer, shut down your favorite websites, or block all your emails.

And frankly with Audit the Fed, Cap and Tax and socialized healthcare debates, Campaign for Liberty is stretched pretty thin.

And unlike the government we don't print, borrow or take money by force (taxes). Our only revenue comes from voluntary contributions from liberty activists like you.

We need you to stay educated and active.

We've put too much time into building our pro-liberty online networks, websites and email lists. We simply cannot afford to give Barack Obama the power to dismantle all that at the drop of a hat.

So please, click here to sign your Internet User's Mandate and if you can make a contribution of $100, $50 or $25 or whatever you want to Campaign for Liberty to stop this power grab...

...to defend our rights...

...and most importantly, to protect this movement.

I trust you'll join this fight to protect all the progress we've made.

In Liberty,


John Tate
President