Liberals: Gun Control leads to violation of other rights; Conservatives: The right to bear arms is violated with Stop-and-Frisk

Anthony Gregory of the Independent Institute explains:

Even today, gun laws are much like drug laws in that they are disproportionately used against minorities. Gun control is the chief impetus behind New York City’s Stop-and-Frisk program, which in 2011 ensnared young black men more times than there are young black men in the city, and targets minorities by a ratio of nine to one. Conservatives who defend this program are defending gun control at its most invasive—the wholesale profiling and searching of people in the attempt to procure guns, which conservatives claim people have a natural and constitutional right to carry in the first place. Liberals opposed to this program should recognize that to violate gun rights, government must violate other rights.

He also quotes a former Black Panther party leader on the matter:

Elaine Brown, head of the Black Panther Party in the 1970s, recently explained:
The position of the Black Panther Party was that black people live in communities occupied by police forces that are armed and dangerous and represent the frontline of forces keeping us oppressed. We did not promote guns, but rather, the right to defend ourselves against a state that was oppressing us — with guns. There were innumerable incidents in which police agents kicked in our doors or shot our brothers and sisters in what we called red-light trials, where the policeman was the judge, the jury and the executioner. We called for an immediate end to this brutality, and advocated for our right to self-defense.  

On Reagan:

As governor of California, Reagan signed the Mulford Act into law in 1967. Written by Republican Assemblyman Don Mulford, the legislation was the most sweeping state edict in all the country, prohibiting the more or less free carrying of firearms in public. It went along with the rest of his heavy-handed entire law-and-order agenda and inspired an avalanche of new gun laws nationwide.The purpose of the law was to disarm the Black Panthers, a radical leftist group that openly carried firearms, kept an eye out on the police, and even took their rifles to the state Capitol to protest what they decried as racist legislation. (bold edits are my own ~GR)

The Tea Party and the Black Panthers have something in common. Strange bedfellows.

The Constitution Can't Check Despots, the Founders created a new God, and Christian Constitutionalists are powerless to stop it

An old, but good essay on choosing between the tyranny of the constitution and liberty. He's admittedly a little uncertain on theology as he gets near the end. Here are some excerpts:

Excerpt 1: The Constitution Can't Check Despotism

What I am suggesting is that the Constitution, if the letter of its law was obeyed, would be preferable to the government we have now. But we can't go back. If the Constitution itself was so good, it would have been obeyed from the very beginning. But near the very beginning, it was violated, and has been violated ever since. Whether from a self-perceived higher ethical law, or expediency, the Constitution will always be violated. It has not been, is not now, nor ever will be, a check on despotism. Yes, Americans will still think of themselves as free and therefore morally superior to other nations. But many public school students in the Soviet Union also used to think of themselves as free. Illusion is not reality, not even the grand illusion of our Constitution.

Excerpt 2: Why Isn't the Constitution followed?

But it is not followed. Why is this so? It is because the ethical/religious views of the people and their rulers take precedence.

Excerpt 3: Who is the New God? What Created Separation of Church and State?

North places great importance on the Oath, alleging that this, not the First Amendment, created the Separation of Church and State. No federal officer would have any "religious test," that is, will not be bound by an oath before the Trinitarian, Christian God. This was an about-face from the practice of all twelve of the states that sent delegates to the Convention (and, ironically, consistent with the principles of the one state that was a no-show: Roger Williams' Rhode Island.) The leading Founders were not orthodox, Trinitarian Christians, and their new Constitution was a break with the Trinitarian, Christian God and a new Covenant with a new God, the "People."

Excerpt 4: The Challenge for Christians

Dr. North's approach may be incomprehensible to the unreligious. But his challenge to American Christians is remarkable. Western Christians, even if they try to resist the spirits of the age such as Marxism and Darwinism, must still confront their own Newtonian Modernism, and their innate belief that humans can somehow figure out the universe and play at least some role in saving themselves and society, instead of relying wholly on the infinite grace of the Triune God. 

Why the Constitution Isn't the Bible || James Leroy Wilson

A Conservative Icon Wrote This? F.A. Hayek on Compulsory Health Care

Sounding like Newt Gingrich and Barack Obama wrapped in one, the conservative--not libertarian--intellectual Friedrich Hayek pretty much defends the Affordable Care Act, President Barack Obama's signature legislative "achievement" in the realm of health.

Via GaryNorth.com:

"There is little doubt that the growth of health insurance is a desirable development. And perhaps there is also a case for making it compulsory since many who could thus provide for themselves might otherwise become a public charge. But there are strong arguments against a single scheme for state insurance; there seems to be an overwhelming case against a free health service for all." -- F. A. Hayek.

Hayek wrote this on page 298 of his magnum opus, The Constitution of Liberty (1960). We could put this another way.

This isn't about putting government in charge of your health insurance; it's about putting you in charge of your health insurance. Under the reforms we seek, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.

These words may sound familiar. They are from President Obama's 2009 speech calling on Congress to pass ObamaCare.

And this little nugget from North (not Hayek) here:

HAYEK WAS A CONSERVATIVE, NOT A LIBERTARIAN

Hayek was much closer to conservatives than to libertarians. He was much closer to Russell Kirk than he was to Murray Rothbard. Neither Kirk nor Hayek believed in economic law. They both rejected the idea on the same basis, namely, their commitment to some form of social evolution. Each of them would come down on the side of free-market institutions, for they did not trust the operations of state bureaucracies, but always on the basis of a pragmatic argument that society had chosen these free market institutions voluntarily. Then the question arises: "How can we stop the state from invading and capturing the institutions of society?" Or this: "How can we stop the politicizing of social institutions by the state?" Hayek had no philosophical answer, and neither did Kirk.

 F.A. Hayek: Obamacare's Defender || GaryNorth

Ted Weiland on the overturning of DOMA

Ted Weiland:

This ruling could have never occurred had the government not got into the (lucrative) business of licensing (making legal) heterosexual marriages, what was already lawful under Yahweh's jurisdiction. That which provides the license, ultimately makes the rules for what it licenses.

Had the framers not failed to expressly establish government upon Yahweh's immutable morality, secular government would have never been allowed to provide licenses for marriage and this ruling would have never occurred. In fact, not one of today's Supreme Court Justices would be on the bench if Bible law were the rule and thereby Biblical qualifications the standard for judges.

For more, see online Chapter 6 "Article 3: Judicial Usurpation." Click on my name, then our website. Go to our Online Books page, click on the top entry, and scroll down to Chapter 6.

Original Comment here

A Great Interview with Brent Bozell

From the Daily Caller:

Leaders with Ginni Thomas: Brent Bozell, Media Research Center

This is my favorite part though.

Murray Rothbard on Public Schools

To the religious conservatives: Restoring public prayer won't be enough, says Murray Rothbard.

Restoring prayer, however, will scarcely at this date solve the grievous public school problem. Public schools are expensive and massive centers for cultural and ideological brainwashing, at which they are unfortunately far more effective than in teaching the 3R's or in keeping simple order within the schools. Any plan to begin dismantling the public school monstrosity is met with effective opposition by the teachers' and educators' unions. Truly radical change is needed to shift education from public to unregulated private schooling, religious and secular, as well as home-schooling parents.

Murray Rothbard, The Religious Right: Towards A Coalition, The Irrepressible Rothbard: The Rothbard-Rockwell Report Essays Of Murray N. Rothbard

William F. Buckley and Ron Paul on 'The Firing Line'

Conservative Heavyweights William F. Buckley, Thomas Sowell, and Walter Williams are against the Drug War

William F. Buckley, pretty much the founder of the conservative movement, spoke about "emancipating ourselves from the superstition that that which is legal is for that reason something we approve of" in a 1988 ABC TV special, publicly debated liberal Congressman Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) in 1991 on drug legalization, then he argued before the New York Bar Association in favor of drug legalization, and then again in 2004 wrote for the National Review on marijuana legalization.

We have, at the very least, a span of 16 years of Mr. Buckley on record questioning the status quo in regards to the drug war.

Thomas Sowell, no conservative lightweight and quite the opposite, has argued in favor of drug legalization.

And finally, Walter Williams, another conservative intellectual, has argued in favor of the very same thing in The Freeman magazine.

All of these men are conservative giants.

And while people tend to place Thomas Sowell (he called himself a libertarian in a Salon interview) and Walter Williams (he said he's a Jeffersonian Liberal) in the libertarian tradition, which may be rightly deserved, no one can say that William F. Buckley is a libertarian (Well, except for Buckley himself).

*Skim over sentences for sources

Ron Paul Only GOP Primary Candidate Who Calls For Eliminating Federal Departments | CNSNews.com

(CNSNews.com) – For the four Republican primary candidates still in the race, only Ron Paul’s budget proposal, “Plan to Restore America,” calls for the elimination of specific federal departments, which is a policy view that many conservative candidates used to hold, including Ronald Reagan.

Paul’s plan calls for the elimination of five Cabinet departments: Energy, Commerce, Interior, Education and Housing & Urban Development. In the 1980 race, Reagan called for eliminating the Department of Education. In addition, the elimination of the Departments of Commerce, Education, Energy, and Housing & Urban Development have long been advocated by conservatives.

Ron Paul Only GOP Primary Candidate Who Calls For Eliminating Federal Departments | CNSNews.com

The Ultimate Rick Santorum Takedown

The most vicious attack on the "pro-life statist" yet:

What we need after all of this is education: education on Rick Santorum’s background, education on the Federal Reserve, and education on Iranian politics.

Paul: Santorum is ‘a liberal’; Goins Report: ‘And he’s wrong on the Federal Reserve and Iranian Nuclear Capabilities’

Ron Paul's 1987 Resignation Letter to the RNC

Ron Paul excoriates the Reagan regime (thank you Wikisource):

As a lifelong Republican, it saddens me to have to write this letter. My parents believed in the Republican Party and its free enterprise philosophy, and that's the way I was brought up. At age 21, in 1956, I cast my first vote for Ike and the entire Republican slate.

Because of frustration with the direction in which the country was going, I became a political activist and ran for the U.S. Congress in 1974. Even with Watergate, my loyalty, optimism, and hope for the future were tied to the Republican Party and its message of free enterprise, limited government, and balanced budgets.

Eventually I was elected to the U.S. Congress four times as a Republican. This permitted me a first-hand look at the interworkings of the U.S. Congress, seeing both the benefits and partisan frustrations that guide its shaky proceedings. I found that although representative government still exists, special interest control of the legislative process clearly presents a danger to our constitutional system of government.

In 1976 I was impressed with Ronald Reagan's program and was one of the four members of Congress who endorsed his candidacy. In 1980, unlike other Republican office holders in Texas, I again supported our President in his efforts.

Since 1981, however, I have gradually and steadily grown weary of the Republican Party's efforts to reduce the size of the federal government. Since then Ronald Reagan and the Republican Party have given us skyrocketing deficits, and astoundingly a doubled national debt. How is it that the party of balanced budgets, with control of the White House and Senate, accumulated red ink greater than all previous administrations put together? Tip O'Neill, although part of the problem, cannot alone be blamed.

Tax revenues are up 59 percent since 1980. Because of our economic growth? No. During Carter's four years, we had growth of 37.2 percent; Reagan's five years have given us 30.7 percent. The new revenues are due to four giant Republican tax increases since 1981.

All republicans rightly chastised Carter for his $38 billion deficit. But they ignore or even defend deficits of $220 billion, as government spending has grown 10.4 percent per year since Reagan took office, while the federal payroll has zoomed by a quarter of a million bureaucrats.

Despite the Supply-Sider-Keynesian claim that "deficits don't matter,"the debt presents a grave threat to our country. Thanks to the President and Republican Party, we have lost the chance to reduce the deficit and the spending in a non-crisis fashion. Even worse, big government has been legitimized in a way the Democrats never could have accomplished. It was tragic to listen to Ronald Reagan on the 1986 campaign trail bragging about his high spending on farm subsidies, welfare, warfare, etc., in his futile effort to hold on to control of the Senate.

Instead of cutting some of the immeasurable waste in the Department of Defense, it has gotten worse, with the inevitable result that we are less secure today. Reagan's foreign aid expenditures exceed Eisenhower's, Kennedy's, Johnson's, Nixon's, Ford's, and Carter's put together. Foreign intervention has exploded since 1980. Only an end to military welfare for foreign governments plus a curtailment of our unconstitutional commitments abroad will enable us really to defend ourselves and solve our financial problems.

Amidst the failure of the Gramm-Rudman gimmick, we hear the President and the Republican Party call for a balanced-budget ammendment and a line-item veto. This is only a smokescreen. President Reagan, as governor of California, had a line-item veto and virtually never used it. As President he has failed to exercise his constitutional responsibility to veto spending. Instead, he has encouraged it.

Monetary policy has been disastrous as well. The five Reagan appointees to the Federal Reserve Board have advocated even faster monetary inflation than Chairman Volcker, and this is the fourth straight year of double-digit increases. The chickens have yet to come home to roost, but they will, and America will suffer from a Reaganomics that is nothing but warmed-over Keynesianism.

Candidate Reagan in 1980 correctly opposed draft registration. Yet when he had the chance to abolish it, he reneged, as he did on his pledge to abolish the Departments of Education and Energy, or to work against abortion.

Under the guise of attacking drug use and money laundering, the Republican Administration has systematically attacked personal and financial privacy. The effect has been to victimize innocent Americans who wish to conduct their private lives without government snooping. (Should people really be put on a suspected drug dealer list because they transfer $3,000 at one time?) Reagan's urine testing of Americans without probable cause is a clear violation of our civil liberties, as are his proposals for extensive "lie detector" tests.

Under Reagan, the IRS has grown bigger, richer, more powerful, and more arrogant. In the words of the founders of our country, our government has "sent hither swarms" of tax gatherers "to harass our people and eat out their substance." His officers jailed the innocent George Hansen, with the

President refusing to pardon a great American whose only crime was to defend the Constitution. Reagan's new tax "reform" gives even more power to the IRS. Far from making taxes fairer or simpler, it deceitfully raises more revenue for the government to waste.

Knowing this administration's record, I wasn't surprised by its Libyan disinformation campaign, Israeli-Iranian arms-for-hostages swap, or illegal funding of the Contras. All this has contributed to my disenchantment with the Republican Party, and helped me make up my mind.

I want to totally disassociate myself from the policies that have given us unprecedented deficits, massive monetary inflation, indiscriminate military spending, an irrational and unconstitutional foreign policy, zooming foreign aid, the exaltation of international banking, and the attack on our personal liberties and privacy.

After years of trying to work through the Republican Party both in and out of government, I have reluctantly concluded that my efforts must be carried on outside the Republican Party. Republicans know that the Democratic agenda is dangerous to our political and economic health. Yet, in the past six years Republicans have expanded its worst aspects and called them our own. The Republican Party has not reduced the size of government. It has become big government's best friend.

If Ronald Reagan couldn't or wouldn't balance the budget, which Republican leader on the horizon can we possibly expect to do so? There is no credibility left for the Republican Party as a force to reduce the size of government. That is the message of the Reagan years.

I conclude that one must look to other avenues if a successful effort is ever to be achieved in reversing America's direction.

I therefore resign my membership in the Republican Party and enclose my membership card.

Ron Paul, "Dear Frank" Letter (1987)

Video: Matt Welch Debates Ann Coulter on the Iraq War, TSA, and using Torture o...

Little Leviathians need to be monitored, too

The conservative focus on the federal government is understandable, considering the way it affects all citizens. But as the population increases, it becomes imperative that we pay equal attention to the Little Leviathans that arise at the state and even local levels of governance.

Joe Carter, The Limits of Limited Government

Chris Matthews to Ron Paul: "Ok, You Won."

My article on Ron Paul about his appearance on Hardball with Chris Matthews was featured on the Charleston Tea Party website. Here is an excerpt:

It would be wise for conservatives to not ignore these crucial points of history. Because conservatives (and liberals) ignoring history does not mean we won’t repeat it.

Article: Chris Matthews to Ron Paul: “Ok, You Won.”

My Seventh Published Article

Black Conservative Leader Challenges Sharpton, Morial, Fauntroy to Defend in Debate Charges Tea Party is Racist | CNSnews.com

My third published article!

Liberal News Media Still Rewriting Reagan’s Legacy, Says Media Research Center | CNSnews.com