Constitution

Home » Constitution

Really, Almost Most Everyone in Congress Should be Thrown Out of Office

in Elections and Politics, Liberator Online, News You Can Use by Jackson Jones Comments are off

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

On Tuesday, surprisingly, Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., filed a resolution to declare the office of the Speaker of the House of Representatives vacant, which, he said, is meant to serve an expression of dissatisfaction with Republican leadership in the lower chamber.

Congress“It’s really more about trying to have a conversation about making this place work,” Meadows said, “where everybody’s voice matters, where it’s not a punitive culture.”

H. Res. 385, which is non-privileged, has absolutely no chance of passage in the normal legislative process. It would never get out of committee, for example. Republican leaders would never allow that to happen. Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, against whom the resolution is directed, dismissed the tactic at a press conference on Wednesday.

There is another way, however. Meadows or any other member of the House could make a privileged motion from the floor, however, which would require a vote within 48 hours. Considering that 29 Republicans voted against Boehner in the election for Speaker in January, it’s quite possible that a few defections, provided the original group sticks together, could throw House Republicans in turmoil.

H. Res. 385 is a strongly worded condemnation of Boehner’s tenure as Speaker, which began in January 2011, listening several infractions that necessitate removal. “Whereas the Speaker has, through inaction, caused the power of Congress to atrophy, thereby making Congress subservient to the executive and judicial branches, diminishing the voice of the American people,” the resolution states. “Whereas the Speaker uses the power of the office to punish Members who vote according to their conscience instead of the will of the Speaker.”

“Whereas the Speaker uses the legislative calendar to create crises for the American people, in order to compel Members to vote for legislation,” the resolution continues. “Whereas the Speaker does not comply with the spirit of the rules of the House of Representatives, which provide that Members shall have three days to review legislation before voting,” it adds before declaring the office of the Speaker vacant.

Still, the resolution, whatever Meadows meant by it, does make one think. Boehner’s lack of respect for process or the strong-arming of members may bother the North Carolina Republican, but let’s go further. Most on Capitol Hill, regardless of party, have little regard for the rules and limitations on the federal government defined in the Constitution or the individual liberties protected by the Bill of Rights.

Really, why stop at Boehner? That’s not a knock against Meadows. His complaints are about the process by which the House is run, and they are entirely valid and worthy of discussion.

Looking at the bigger picture, there may be a handful of members who’ve stayed true to their oaths of office. Others have passed laws to spy on Americans, expand government to impose mandates on states and the American people, created a fourth branch of government – the regulatory state – that promulgated rules that were never approved by lawmakers, and plunged the nation further and further into debt by doling out money for programs that are blatantly unconstitutional.

For too long, Americans have allowed politicians to scare us with crises – including the Great Depression, World War II, and the War on Terror. “Don’t just stand there, do something!” we cry, while the great document that protects or liberties from government is erased word by word. We’ve signed our liberties away in favor of purported economic and national security.

Of course, no member of Congress is going to thrown his or herself out of office, but we do have a serious problem in the United States. It doesn’t begin or end with Boehner. Ultimately, it begins with “We the People.” It’s truly a sad state of affairs.

House of Representatives Fails to Meet Its Most Important Constitutional Duty

in Foreign Policy, Liberator Online, Middle East, News You Can Use by Jackson Jones Comments are off

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

The House of Representatives, on Wednesday, blocked a resolution that would have required President Barack Obama to remove all United States armed forces operating in Iraq and Syria by the end of the year, at the latest.

It’s clear that the framers of the Constitution intended authorization or declarations of war come from Congress, rather than presidents. Article I, Section 8 of the nation’s foundational document, which lists the limited powers of the legislative branch, makes this quite clear.

The framers knew unchecked power in the hands of a president was dangerous. In Pacificus-Helvidius debate with Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, wrote: “In no part of the Constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department. Beside the objection to such a mixture to heterogeneous powers, the trust and the temptation would be too great for any one man; not such as nature may offer as the prodigy of many centuries, but such as may be expected in the ordinary successions of magistracy. War is in fact the true nurse of executive aggrandizement.”

H. Con. Res. 55 – introduced by Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., and cosponsored by Reps. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., and Walter Jones, R-N.C. – would have required President Obama, under Section 5 of the War Powers Resolution, to remove American troops in Iraq and Syria absent an authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

In late May, McGovern and Jones sent a letter to Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, to remind him of comments he gave to The New York Times late last summer. “Doing this with a whole group of members who are on their way out the door, I don’t think that is the right way to handle this,” said Boehner, who added that the issue should be discussed early in the new Congress, which came into session in January. President Obama asked for an AUMF in February.

“Since then, the House has failed to act on the President’s request [for an AUMF against ISIL], or any alternative,” McGovern and Jones wrote to Boehner. “No AUMF bill has been marked up in committee or debated on the House floor. As a result, the House has failed to asset its proper constitutional authority over declaring and authorizing war.”

Some Republicans have suggested that President Obama doesn’t necessarily need an AUMF to fight ISIL. Instead, they say, he can rely on the War Powers Resolution. This notion, however, is woefully inaccurate. Section 2 of the War Powers Resolution places limitations on executive branch, requiring a formal declaration of war, statutory authorization, or a national emergency due to an attack on the United States.The proposed resolution found bipartisan support. Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., for example, urged the House to act.

“Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress, not the President, the power to declare war,” Massie said from the House floor. “War requires congressional authorization, and the American people deserve open debate by their elected officials.”

“If we are to send our brave young men and women into harm’s way overseas, then Congress must honor the Constitution, declare war, and fight to win. Anything else is illegal, unconstitutional, and likely to lead to horrific unintended consequences,” he added.

In the end, the House failed to meet its constitutional obligation. H. Con. Res. 55 failed by a vote of 139 to 288, meaning that an authorized war against ISIL will continue for as long as…well, who knows.

Bipartisan Senate Amendment Seeks to End Indefinite Detention of American Citizens

in Criminal Justice, Foreign Policy, Liberator Online, Middle East, National Defense, News You Can Use, Personal Liberty by Jackson Jones Comments are off

An amendment to the FY 2016 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), sponsored by Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, would guarantee that no American citizen can be indefinitely detained by the federal government without charges being filed against them.

DetentionIn 2011, Congress passed the FY 2012 version of the NDAA, which contained a controversial provision that, read broadly, could be used to detain American citizens suspected of terrorism without charges or trail under the 2001 Authorization for Military Force against al-Qaeda. The Lee amendment – which is cosponsored by a bipartisan group of senators, including Rand Paul, R-Ky., and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. – would resolve the controversy.

“America should never waiver in vigilantly pursuing those who would commit, or plot to commit, acts of treason against our country. But the federal government should not be allowed to indefinitely imprison any American on the mere accusation of treason without affording them the due process guaranteed by our Constitution,” Lee said in a statement released by his office. “By forbidding the government from detaining Americans without trial absent explicit congressional approval, the Due Process Guarantee amendment strikes the right balance between protecting our security and the civil liberties of each citizen.”

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution guarantee Americans the right to due process of law. The Sixth Amendment protects the right to “a speedy and public trial.”

The indefinite detention provision was inserted into the FY 2012 NDAA at the request of the White House, according to then-Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., who complied with the administration’s wishes. A Senate amendment, which passed the upper chamber with strong bipartisan support, to clarify the language was dropped during negotiations to resolve differences between the House and Senate’s versions of the FY 2013 NDAA.

“The Constitution does not allow President Obama, or any President, to apprehend an American citizen, arrested on U.S. soil, and detain these citizens indefinitely without a trial,” said Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, another cosponsor of the amendment. “The Due Process Guarantee amendment will prohibit the President’s ability to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens arrested on American soil without trial or due process.”

“While we must vigorously protect national security by pursuing violent terrorists and preventing acts of terror, we must also ensure our most basic rights as American citizens are protected,” Cruz added.

The Senate is currently debating the FY 2016 version of the NDAA. Votes on amendments will occur over the next few legislative days. The bill passed the House in mid-May by a vote of 269-151.

They Said It… With David Simpson, Matthew Fogg, and More!

in Liberator Online by James W. Harris Comments are off

(From the They Said It section in Volume 20, No. 11 of the Liberator Online. Subscribe here!)

Matthew FoggFORMER DEA AGENT SAYS DRUG WAR IS AIMED AT POOR BLACKS: “What I began to see is that the Drug War is totally about race. If we were locking up everybody, white and black, for doing the same drugs, they would have done the same thing they did with Prohibition. They would have outlawed it. They would have said, ‘Let’s stop this craziness. You’re not putting my son in jail. My daughter isn’t going to jail.’” — Matthew Fogg, retired Chief Deputy U.S. Marshall and former DEA special agent, in  an interview with Brave New Films. Fogg says he and other agents were ordered by superiors not to enforce drug laws in prosperous white neighborhoods.

THE FOURTH AMENDMENT VS. THE NSA: “The Fourth Amendment… is the law of the land. And the NSA is violating its letter and spirit, no matter how many times its defenders use dubious legal reasoning to argue otherwise. The right of the people to be secure in their ‘persons, houses, papers, and effects’ is meaningless if the NSA can seize and later search details about everyone’s communications. The requirements for probable cause and particularity cannot be squared with surveillance that implicates practically everyone. The Fourth Amendment’s historic attempt to end general warrants cannot be viewed as a success so long as the government is prying into the private affairs of tens of millions of people who are not even suspected of any wrongdoing.” — journalist Conor Friedersdorf, “The Surveillance State’s Greatest Enemy? The U.S. Constitution,” The Atlantic, March 3, 2015.

ACTUALLY, IT’S A POLITICAL PROBLEM, TOO: “It’s not a political problem; it’s a math problem. … Everyone is looking at the model right now, asking how do we do math? Every [restaurant] operator I’m talking to is in panic mode, trying to figure out what the new world will look like.” — Anthony Anton, president and CEO of the Washington Restaurant Association, on the new difficulties restaurant owners face because of Seattle’s new $15 per hour minimum wage (i.e., tax on employers who hire workers). The law is expected to send labor costs skyrocketing, and is being blamed for a rash of restaurant closings. Quoted in “Why Are So Many Seattle Restaurants Closing Lately?” in Seattle magazine, March 4, 2015.

ZERO WAGES FOR SEATTLE’S NEW JOBLESS: “As the implementation date for Seattle’s strict $15 per hour minimum wage law approaches, the city is experiencing a rising trend in restaurant closures. The tough new law goes into effect April 1st. The closings have occurred across the city, from Grub in the upscale Queen Anne Hill neighborhood, to Little Uncle in gritty Pioneer Square, to the Boat Street Cafe on Western Avenue near the waterfront. The shut-downs have idled dozens of low-wage workers, the very people advocates say the wage law is supposed to help. Instead of delivering the promised ‘living wage’ of $15 an hour, economic realities created by the new law have dropped the hourly wage for these workers to zero.” — Paul Guppy, Washington Policy Center blog, “Seattle’s $15 wage law a factor in restaurant closings”

BEST RE-LEGALIZATION BILL EVER:

Representative David Simpson (R - Longview)“I am proposing that this plant [marijuana] be regulated like tomatoes, jalapenos or coffee. Current marijuana policies are not based on science or sound evidence, but rather misinformation and fear. All that God created is good, including marijuana. God did not make a mistake when he made marijuana that the government needs to fix. Let’s allow the plant to be utilized for good — helping people with seizures, treating warriors with PTSD, producing fiber and other products — or simply for beauty and enjoyment. Government prohibition should be for violent actions that harm your neighbor — not of the possession, cultivation, and responsible use of plants.” — Texas Republican state representative David Simpson, who describes himself as a “constitutional conservative,” explaining his marijuana re-legalization bill, KETK NBC TV, Tyler, Texas.

Why Did Our Ancestors Approve the Constitution?

in Liberator Online by James W. Harris Comments are off

(From the Activist Ammunition section in Volume 20, No. 8 of the Liberator Online. Subscribe here!)

United States Constitution

Here’s a provocative thought experiment from Jacob G. Hornberger, president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. In a recent article “Why Did Our Ancestors Approve the Constitution?“ Hornberger poses this question:

“Suppose our American ancestors in 1787 had been told that the proposed Constitution, which they were being asked to approve, was going to bring into existence a federal government that would have the following powers:

  • The power to tax people’s incomes in any amount government officials deemed appropriate.
  • The power to regulate people’s economic activities.
  • The power to incarcerate and fine people for ingesting harmful substances.
  • The power to round people up and incarcerate them indefinitely without trial by jury and due process of law.
  • The power to torture people.
  • The power to assassinate people.
  • The power to invade foreign countries and wage wars of aggression against them.
  • The power to establish military bases in foreign countries.
  • The power to take money from people and give it to others.
  • The power to secretly spy on people and monitor their activities.
  • The power to incarcerate and fine people for spending money in other countries.
  • The power to make paper money the official money of the United States.
  • The power to control and regulate gun ownership.

“Imagine, also, that the American people were told that the Constitution was going to bring into existence a vast, permanent military establishment as well as a secretive governmental agency (i.e., the CIA) with the omnipotent powers to kidnap people, conduct medical experiments on them without their consent, torture people, and assassinate people.

“Imagine, also, that they were told that a vast welfare state was going to be brought into existence, with the federal government charged with the task of taking care of people with Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, farm subsidies, foreign aid to dictators, and the like.

“One thing is beyond dispute: If our American ancestors had believed that the Constitution was going to bring into existence that type of federal government — the type of federal government we have today — they never would have approved it.”

There’s much more provocative reading in the rest of “Why Did Our Ancestors Approve the Constitution?

Libertarian Chinese Immigrant Opens Eyes on Gun Control

in Liberator Online by James W. Harris Comments are off

(From the Activist Ammunition section in Volume 20, No. 6 of the Liberator Online. Subscribe here!)

Lily WilliamsLily Tang Williams immigrated to the United States when she was 24 to escape communist rule in China. Having grown up under Mao Zedong’s tyrannical communist regime, she doesn’t take her rights for granted — including the right to keep and bear arms.

Today she’s a U.S. citizen, a Libertarian Party member, Colorado Director of 2012 Libertarian Party presidential candidate Gary Johnson’s Our America Initiative, and all-around liberty activist.

On February 2 she testified before the Colorado State Legislature, urging the repeal of gun control laws passed in 2013. Her powerful testimony is spreading around the web.

Here’s what she said.

I was born and grew up in People’s Republic of China, where the Communist Party rules everything. Chinese citizens are not allowed to have any guns ever since the Communist Party took over in 1949. So, Chinese people are left helpless when they need to defend themselves. I grew up with fear like millions of other children. Fear police will pound our doors at night for no good reason (search warrant is not necessary for them to do that), fear bad guys will come to rob us (there were crimes in our poor neighborhood), fear my parents and brothers would get hurt and taken away. I have seen local people who defend themselves with kitchen knives, rocks, glass bottles and sticks against criminals. But when it comes to dealing with the Chinese government and police brutality, there is nothing we could do.

Remember June 4th Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989? Our own soldiers, ordered by the top leaders in Beijing, killed thousands of students. Even though the local residents were supporting students, they had no ways to help them. Some Beijing residents begged for the tanks to stop but they did not. What if the residents and students had guns? What if there was militia in China that time? What if the citizens had unlimited magazines? The history might have been different.

Why do you limit our firearms to only 15-round magazines? Do the criminals limit theirs? Does the government limit theirs? If we use our guns primarily for self defense, I need as many magazines as needed to defend my family and myself because I am a bad shot. It seems not fair at all to limit law abiding citizens’ ability for self defense. What if the shop owners only could fire 15 times during the famous LA riot? What if the home owners ran out of bullets during the looting after Hurricane Katrina? What happens if the ranchers near the border have to face a big group of drug cartels who threaten them? How about the famous cases of our government gone wild: Ruby Ridge, Waco, Texas, Athens, Tennessee — a small town in the U.S.A at the end of the World War II, where the local dictators wanted to highjack the election results with their guns, [but] local residents organized and armed themselves to take their town back?

I came to the U.S. for freedom, including the freedom granted by the Second Amendment: the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. When I held my own gun for the first time in my life in this country, I felt empowered and for the first time, I felt free.

If the Communist government took my gun rights away, why are you limiting my gun rights in Colorado? Are you becoming communists? I hope not. I lived under tyranny for 24 years, I do not want to ever live under it again.

Please vote as if the Constitution actually means something, because it does! Didn’t you swear that you would uphold the U.S. Constitution and Colorado constitution when you became a House representative? I urge you to vote yes on HB15-1009, Repeal Large Ammo Magazine Ban, making our beautiful state free again. Thank you.

They Said It… With Doug Bandow, Judge Andrew Napolitano And More

in Liberator Online by James W. Harris Comments are off

(From the They Said It section in Volume 20, No. 1 of the Liberator Online. Subscribe here!)

THE DRUG WAR GULAG: “The U.S. rate of incarceration, with nearly one of every 100 adults in prison or jail, is five to 10 times higher than the rates in Western Europe and other democracies… America puts people in prison for crimes that other nations don’t, mostly minor drug offenses, and keeps them in prison much longer. Yet these long sentences have had at best a marginal impact on crime reduction.” — former U.S. Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin and Nicholas Turner, “The Steep Cost of America’s High Incarceration Rate,” Wall Street Journal, Dec. 25, 2014.

DEATH BY FDA: “The paternalist FDA long has delayed the approval of life-saving drugs, thereby killing thousands of people, far more than the number likely saved by preventing the sale of dangerous medicines.” — Doug Bandow, Cato Institute, “Close the Government to Close Bad Government Programs,” Cato Blog, December 31, 2014.

POLICE WATCHING YOU ONLINE:
Scottish Police on Twitter“Please be aware that we will continue to monitor comments on social media & any offensive comments will be investigated.” — tweet by the Scottish police, Dec. 30. Such monitoring is on the rise in the UK, according to the UK Independent; about 20,000 people in Britain have been investigated in the past three years for comments made online, and some have been arrested and imprisoned.

Judge Andrew Napolitano

NAPOLITANO ON TORTURE: “All torture is criminal under all circumstances — under treaties to which the U.S. is a party, under the Constitution that governs the government wherever it goes, and under federal law. Torture degrades the victim and the perpetrator. It undermines the moral authority of a country whose government condones it. It destroys the rule of law. It exposes our own folks to the awful retaliatory beheadings we have all seen. It is slow, inefficient, morbid, and ineffective. It is a recruiting tool for those who have come to cause us harm. All human beings possess basic inalienable rights derived from the natural law and protected by the Constitution the CIA has sworn to uphold. Torture violates all of those rights.” — Judge Andrew P. Napolitano, “The CIA and Its Torturers,” syndicated column, Dec. 11, 2014.

100 YEARS OF THE WAR ON DRUGS:
Mark Thornton“The War on Drugs … kills thousands of people, destroys untold number of lives, and wastes hundreds of billions of dollars every year. … What has the War on Drugs accomplished? It has not reduced access to illegal drugs. It has not reduced illegal drug use or abuse. It has not reduced the rate of addiction. If anything, the rates of use, abuse, and addiction have increased over the past century. Prison population statistics clearly indicate that it has been used to suppress minorities.

“It has also greatly increased the powers of law enforcement and the legal system and reduced the legal rights and protections of citizens under the tradition of the rule of law. It has greatly increased the militarization of the police and the use of the military in police work. It has also led to a significant increase in U.S. political and military intervention in foreign nations, particularly in the drug supply nations of Central and South America. … it is the number one cause of crime, corruption, and violence in the United States, as well as many of the countries of Central and South America.” — economist Mark Thornton, “The War on Drugs Was Born 100 Years Ago,” Mises Daily, December 17, 2014.

Ron Paul: My New Year’s Resolutions for Congress

in Liberator Online by Advocates HQ Comments are off

(From the Libertarian’s New Year’s Resolutions section in Volume 19, No. 27 of the Liberator Online. Subscribe here!)

In late December 2012, as he approached retirement from Congress, Ron Paul presented some New Year’s resolutions for his fellow members of Congress to ponder. 

If anything, they’re more relevant today than ever, and we’re pleased to share them with you. 

* * *

Ron PaulAs I prepare to retire from Congress, I’d like to suggest a few New Year’s resolutions for my colleagues to consider. For the sake of liberty, peace, and prosperity I certainly hope more members of Congress consider the strict libertarian constitutional approach to government…

In just a few days, Congress will solemnly swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic.  They should reread Article 1 Section 8 and the Bill of Rights before taking such a serious oath. Most legislation violates key provisions of the Constitution in very basic ways, and if members can’t bring themselves to say no in the face of pressure from special interests, they have broken trust with their constituents and violated their oaths. Congress does not exist to serve special interests, it exists to protect the rule of law.

I also urge my colleagues to end unconstitutional wars overseas. Stop the drone strikes; stop the covert activities and meddling in the internal affairs of other nations. Strive to observe “good faith and justice towards all Nations” as George Washington admonished. We are only making more enemies, wasting lives, and bankrupting ourselves with the neoconservative, interventionist mindset that endorses pre-emptive war that now dominates both parties.

All foreign aid should end because it is blatantly unconstitutional. While it may be a relatively small part of our federal budget, for many countries it is a large part of theirs — and it creates perverse incentives for both our friends and enemies. There is no way members of Congress can know or understand the political, economic, legal, and social realities in the many nations to which they send taxpayer dollars.

Congress needs to stop accumulating more debt. U.S. debt, monetized by the Federal Reserve, is the true threat to our national security. Revisiting the parameters of Article 1 Section 8 would be a good start.

Congress should resolve to respect personal liberty and free markets. Learn more about the free market and how it regulates commerce and produces greater prosperity better than any legislation or regulation. Understand that economic freedom IS freedom. Resolve not to get in the way of voluntary contracts between consenting adults. Stop bailing out failed yet politically connected companies and industries. Stop forcing people to engage in commerce when they don’t want to, and stop prohibiting them from buying and selling when they do want to. Stop trying to legislate your ideas of fairness. Protect property rights. Protect the individual. That is enough.

There are many more resolutions I would like to see my colleagues in Congress adopt, but respect for the Constitution and the oath of office should be at the core of everything members of Congress do in 2013.

They Said It… Ann Coulter, Jacob Sollum, Milton Friedman and More

in Communicating Liberty, Liberator Online by James W. Harris Comments are off

(From the They Said It section in Volume 19, No. 15 of the Liberator Online. Subscribe here!)

ANN COULTER WANTS TO DROWN LIBERTARIAN VOTERS: 

Ann Coulter“The biggest current danger for Republicans is that idiots will vote for Libertarian candidates in do-or-die Senate elections… If you are considering voting for the Libertarian candidate in any Senate election, please send me your name and address so I can track you down and drown you.” — Ann Coulter, “Your ‘To-Do’ List to Save America,” syndicated column, September 17, 2014.

OBAMA VS. THE CONSTITUTION: “[President Obama] is acting on the Bruce Ackermanproposition that the president, in his capacity as commander in chief, has unilateral authority to declare war. In taking this step, Mr. Obama is not only betraying the electoral majorities who twice voted him into office on his promise to end Bush-era abuses of executive authority. He is also betraying the Constitution he swore to uphold.” — Bruce Ackerman, professor of law and politics at Yale, “Obama’s Betrayal of the Constitution,” New York Times, Sept. 11, 2014.

 

U.S. GENERAL ADMITS “WE HELPED BUILD ISIS”: 
Tom McInerney“In Syria we backed… some of the wrong people and not in the right part of the Free Syrian Army. … I’ve always maintained… that we were backing the wrong types. … Some of those weapons from Benghazi ended up in the hands of ISIS. So we helped build ISIS.” — retired U.S. Air Force General Tom McInerney, FOX News, early September.

Tom BoggioniMILITARIZING SCHOOL DISTRICTS: “Taking advantage of U.S. Defense Department offers of free or low-cost military hardware, Texas school districts have been helping themselves to high-powered weaponry, bullet-proof vests, and armored vehicles to militarize their campus police officers. … [Ten] districts have acquired 64 M-16 rifles, 18 M-14 rifles, 25 automatic pistols, extended magazines, and 4,500 rounds of ammunition. Additionally, the schools stocked up on armored plating, tactical vests, as well as 15 surplus military vehicles.” — Tom Boggioni, “Texas school districts militarize campus cops with free surplus weapons, armored vehicles,” The Raw Story, Sept. 5, 2014.

LIFE SENTENCE FOR SELLING POT:
Jacob Sollum“Washington and Colorado have repealed all criminal penalties for possessing up to an ounce of marijuana and for production and sale by state-licensed businesses (as well as home cultivation of up to six plants in Colorado). … In Oklahoma, by contrast, possession of any amount can get you up to a year in jail, and sale of any amount less than 25 pounds triggers a sentence of two years to life.” — Jacob Sullum, “Life In Prison For Pot And Other Travesties Of Marijuana Prohibition,” Forbes.com, Sept. 4, 2014.

ME NEITHER: “Remember when war was something fought to defend the homeland from invasion? Yeah, me neither.” — tweet from Jonathan Danforth, Sept. 9, 2014.

NOTED AND RE-QUOTED
MY MOUTH, MY CHOICE:
Milton Friedman“The government has no more right to tell me what goes into my mouth than it has to tell me what comes out of my mouth.” — Milton Friedman, meme circulated by the Independent Institute.

 

Click here to return to the newsletter.

* * * * * * * * * *

“They Said It…” is compiled by Liberator Online editor James W. Harris.

They Said It… Rand Paul, John Hickenlooper, And More!

in Liberator Online by James W. Harris Comments are off

(From the They Said It section in Volume 19, No. 14 of the Liberator Online. Subscribe here!)

Doug Sosnik

AMERICANS MAD AT GOV’T, WANT LESS OF IT: “It is difficult to overstate the depth of the anger and alienation that a majority of all Americans feel toward the federal government. A June 30, 2014, Gallup poll found that Americans’ level of confidence has dropped to near record lows for all three branches — the presidency (30 percent), Congress (7 percent) and the U.S. Supreme Court (29 percent). …the country’s diminishing faith in its institutions has translated into a desire for less government, not more.” — Democratic political strategist Doug Sosnik, former political director for President Clinton, “Blue Crush: How the Left Took Over the Democratic Party,” Politico Magazine, July 24, 2014.

ANGRY AMERICANS PART 2: 
John Hickenlooper“People are mad at Democrats. But they’re certainly not happy with Republicans. They’re mad at everything.” — Democratic governor of Colorado John Hickenlooper, quoted in the  New York Times, August 26, 2014.


John HaywardBURGER KING HAS IT THEIR WAY: “Three cheers for Burger King, I say! All of the whiny liberals racing to call them ‘unpatriotic’ for pursuing a deal to merge with the Canadian coffee shop Tim Horton and reincorporate north of the border, thus escaping the deranged American corporate tax system, are completely missing the point. Nothing is more patriotic, more quintessentially American, than voting with your feet and withdrawing your consent from an unhinged government. When CEOs start climbing over the walls to escape from greedy left-wing government, the problem is not insufficiently high walls.” — conservative writer John Hayward, “Burger King to escape U.S. corporate tax system,” Human Events, August 26, 2014.

RAND PAUL ON THE INTERVENTIONISTS: 
Senator Rand Paul“The let’s-intervene-and-consider-the-consequences-later crowd left us with more than 4,000 Americans dead, over 2 million refugees and trillions of dollars in debt. Anytime someone advocates sending our sons and daughters to war, questions about precise objectives, effective methods and an exit strategy must be thoughtfully answered. America deserves this.” — Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), “Rick Perry Is Dead Wrong,” Politico.com, July 14, 2014.

Ron PaulRON PAUL ON HELPING ISIS RECRUIT: “A new U.S. military incursion will not end ISIS; it will provide them with the recruiting tool they most crave, while draining the U.S. treasury. Just what Osama bin Laden wanted!” — Ron Paul, “Obama Has No Middle East Strategy? Good!” Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, August 31, 2014.

FREEDOM OR EMPIRE:
Robert Murphy“If Americans want a free society at home, then they must convince the U.S. government to give up its global empire. The militarized police recently on display in Ferguson was no freak coincidence: Antiwar activists and other civil libertarians have been warning for decades that an aggressive U.S. foreign policy would eventually destroy domestic liberties. Americans can’t ask their government to subjugate foreigners with bombs but bow to their own wishes at the ballot box.” — Robert P. Murphy, “A free society must give up empire,” Antiwar.com, August. 30, 2014.


LABOR DAY, OBAMA ERA:
 “It’s Labor Day weekend. Labor Day, of course, is a David Lettermanholiday where people take three days off from being unemployed.” — David Letterman, August 28, 2014.

NOTED AND REQUOTED
CANDIDATE OBAMA VS PRESIDENT OBAMA:

President Barack Obama

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” — Sen. Barack Obama, interviewed by the Boston Globe while running for president in 2008, quoted by Conor Friedersdorf at Atlantic.com.

Libertarian Landslide: Rand Paul Wins Big (Again) at CPAC

in Liberator Online by James W. Harris Comments are off

(From the Intellectual Ammunition section in Volume 19, No. 5 of the Liberator Online. Subscribe here!)

“CPAC Shifts to the Libertarians” — Daily Beast headline

“A Rand Paul Rout in CPAC Straw Poll” — Politico Magazine headline.

The headlines tell the story — and an exciting story it is.

The Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) is the nation’s largest annual gathering of conservative activists and office holders. A highlight of each convention is a presidential straw poll, closely watched as an indicator of where Republicans and the broadly-defined conservative movement are moving.

This year, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky simply ran away with the Saturday March 8 poll, winning a whopping 31 percent of the 2,459 votes.

No one else was even close. Sen. Ted Cruz came in a distance second with 11 percent of the vote. Trailing behind them in single digits was a host of big-name Republicans, including Chris Christie, Rick Santorum, Paul Ryan, Rick Perry, Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, and more.

It should be noted that the large number of younger activists who attend CPAC give the event a noticeable libertarian flavor. Rand Paul won last year’s poll as well, and his father Ron Paul won in 2010 and 2011.

Ron Paul’s CPAC victories previewed his historic 2012 race, which galvanized and mobilized the liberty movement. So Rand Paul’s sweeping victories last year and this year are widely seen as an indication of the growing political power of libertarian ideas.

On Friday night of the convention, Rand Paul delivered an electrifying speech that called for a liberty movement that would reach beyond the Republican party.

Excerpts:

“Imagine a time when liberty is again spread from coast to coast. Imagine a time when our great country is again governed by the Constitution. Imagine a time when the White House is once again occupied by a friend of liberty. You may think I’m talking about electing Republicans. I’m not. I’m talking about electing lovers of liberty.

“It isn’t good enough to pick the lesser of two evils. We must elect men and women of principle, and conviction and action, who will lead us back to greatness. There is a great and tumultuous battle underway for the future, not of the Republican Party but the future of the entire country.

“The question is, will we be bold and proclaim our message with passion or will we be sunshine patriots retreating under adverse fire?”

Rand Paul’s speech was peppered with quotes from the Founders, anti-slavery activist William Lloyd Garrison, and other great freedom fighters of the past. Paul attacked indefinite detention, NSA data collection, violation of Fourth Amendment rights, and more in a rip-roaring libertarian defense of civil liberties.

You can see the entire speech here.

After the speech and its wildly enthusiastic reception by so many young activists, the Daily Beast wrote:

“The crowd loved [Rand Paul]. These were his people, and they were whooping and hollering and chanting and fist-pumping like it was Saturday night at the roller derby.

“By the time Rand wrapped it all up by calling on the crowd to ‘Stand with me! Stand together for liberty!’ at least half the room would have followed him down to the gates of hell if he’d asked.

“If I were among the conservative movement’s values voters or hawks, I’d be getting mighty nervous right about now.”

UPDATE: New poll finds Rand Paul is GOP presidential race front-runner. It’s not just CPAC attendees who are ready to “Stand for Rand.” A new CNN/ORC International survey finds that Paul now tops the list of potential Republican presidential candidates.

The Surveillance Scandal: The Right — and the Wrong –Terms

in Communicating Liberty, Liberator Online by Sharon Harris Comments are off

“In the animal kingdom, the rule is, eat or be eaten; in the 

Privacy or Liberty?human kingdom, define or be defined.”

So wrote the great libertarian Thomas Szasz.

Define or be defined. That’s a key principle of effective communication.

You can see this at work right now, in the unfolding scandal concerning government surveillance and the resulting public debate.

Those who defend such programs are using specific words to attempt to redefine and change what is at stake in this debate.

“I think it’s important to recognize that you can’t have 100 percent security, and also then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience,” President Obama said this month. “We’re going to have to make some choices as a society.”

Similarly, I’ve watched TV pundits and talk show hosts discuss this issue over and over again — always using the word “privacy” and talking about “the debate over balancing security with privacy.”

What’s going on here? The president and his supporters are attempting to define — or perhaps more accurately, redefine — the debate.

They want us to see this, and discuss this, as a question of “privacy” and “convenience” versus “security.”

Or even better for them, as Obama puts it in the quote above: “100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience” versus security.

They want these words and phrases to define the debate because, if we debate using these terms, they win.

The argument that we must compromise on “privacy” and “convenience” sounds so reasonable. After all, don’t we all routinely relinquish some privacy for other values? For example, we voluntarily give websites like Facebook our personal information, in exchange for the value of being able to use their services. We give credit card companies detailed information about our financial and personal lives for the benefits of using their cards.

As for “convenience,” it sounds unreasonable — in fact, downright selfish — not to be willing to give up something so trivial as a little convenience in order to protect Americans from terrorism.

That’s the argument the administration and its defenders want to make. It’s how they want to frame the debate.

But “privacy” and “convenience” are not what this debate is about. Not at all.

It’s about liberty. The Fourth Amendment. Fundamental Bill of Rights freedoms. The Constitution. Basic rights. Core freedoms.

“Privacy” and “convenience” are squishy, malleable, non-political terms. It’s easy to imagine “striking a balance” between them and something so vital as security.

But it’s far harder to imagine “balancing” your fundamental liberty. Anyone familiar with politics and history can see that such balancing acts quickly tip over to the government side.

They want to change the debate. Don’t let them.

Don’t use terms like “privacy” and “convenience” when discussing this issue. You lose every time these words are the ones used to describe what’s at stake in this debate. Politely but firmly object to them if politicians and others use them.

Point out that this debate is about liberty. The Fourth Amendment. Fundamental Bill of Rights freedoms. The Constitution. Constitutional guarantees. Basic rights. Core freedoms.

This is also a great time to memorize, and quote, the words of Benjamin Franklin: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

And the words of President Obama, in 2009: “As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.”

Define — or be defined.