Should Christians change political course?

by Laura Duke Stansbury

What if Christians were to wake tomorrow and realize that their political strategy over the course of the past century had been utterly misguided? Consider the timing. Few would argue that the Obama administration’s new culture of corruption has left the door wide open for Republican victory in November. But as it stands, today’s conservatives have become so embroiled in a philosophical deadlock that many are wondering whether unity will be possible.

I am a Christian, a so-called social conservative. Many of my colleagues are of the libertarian breed: Ayn Rand Republicans. Our party has long been divided between these two very distinct schools of thought. For a long time, I had lent my support to the legislating of virtue issues such as gay marriage and prayer in schools. Recently however, I attended an early morning lecture where business strategist and evangelical Christian Kevin Miller called into question many of my preconceived notions about the roles of virtue, politics and morality.

“Freedom Nationally, Virtue Locally” was Miller’s mantra. He pointed out that our government had only initially been established to provide this nation with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In Joseph Ellis’ The Founding Brothers, the author astutely unraveled a major conflict faced by the first Congress in 1790. “Perhaps it was inevitable, even preferable, that slavery as a national problem be moved from the Congress to the churches, where it could come under scrutiny as a sin requiring a national purging, rather than a social dilemma requiring a political solution.” In other words it was man’s heart, not his politics that weakened and eventually destroyed the institution of slavery.

Historical lessons notwithstanding, many Christians have been on a more than 100-year quest for a virtuous society by way of Congress. Enacting Prohibition through a Constitutional amendment was one such example. But according to scripture, Christians were never called to the mission of legally enforced virtue. Jesus came to change the hearts of man, and he instructed his followers to do the same.

As Christians, we instinctively argue in defense of virtue politics by reminding others that our nation was founded upon Biblical principles. But Miller points to the importance of historical contexts. During the drafting of the Constitution, the Founding Fathers were products of a more religious–and explicitly Christian–society. The timing of our nation’s founding allowed the Framers to craft a government around the principles of freedom, liberty and respect for the individual, matters of human dignity made possible only by God’s natural law.

As a Christian community, we are no longer surrounded by a society familiar with or interested in our Biblical principles. And as a Christian community, we are not called to try to have an impact. We’re called to have it. Our strategy must change so that our mission can remain the same.

In his book, The Case for Democracy, Former Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky described his unlikely kinship with a fellow state prisoner. Though Sharansky had been imprisoned on matters of religion and his friend on matters of sexual orientation, both had been uniformly deprived of their freedoms. Sharansky’s experience highlighted the necessity of freedom above all else.

As Christians, we claim to understand the importance of freedom. But politically we often send a very different message. Starting in the late 1800s, Christians attempted to outlaw activities like pornography, alcohol consumption, and contraception. From that point forward the legislation of morality became fair play, allowing for all variety of virtue politics to seep into the halls of Congress. And before we knew it, subjects of right and wrong and good and evil had become matters of opinion.

Now we have entered into a chapter in American history in which our elected officials have grown determined to alter our founding principles. For that we can only blame ourselves. Our leaders are nothing more than a reflection of our votes and their objectives, a reflection of our hearts.

Freedom Nationally, Virtue Locally. Perhaps Miller is onto something. Perhaps it is time for the Christian community to reflect upon how we have approached virtue and politics. Maybe, just maybe, were each of us to take a vested interest in those we pass in the supermarket or at the library or in the mall, we might need little more from our federal government than the freedom to exercise that effort. Perhaps all that our party has ever needed to unite behind were the faithful and basic principles of our Founders: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; nothing more and nothing less.

National Freedom Initiative website: http://www.nationalfreedominitiative.org/.

 

Laura Duke Stansbury is a political analyst, freelance writer and guest author for the Independence Institute [http://www.i2i.org/main/page.php?page_id=1]. She blogs at http://laurastansbury.blogspot.com.

Read original article here

Sphere: Related Content

Can you help me understand how gun ownership helps?

by Fran Tully

I recently spoke with a woman who lives in New Jersey. She had some great questions about gun ownership. Her questions were so good that I decided that the answers should be shared with others who might be in a similar situation. Please let me know if this helps you and if you have comments on anything else that I should have mentioned.

Before I answer her specific questions, I want to make a general argument about how gun ownership can help people.

Gun ownership is like wrestling in water – it levels the playing field. A 110 lb woman who pulls a gun out of her purse can instantly stop two 250 lb drug crazed rapists. Gun ownership allows citizens the ability to protect their life and property from criminals. Police will rarely be in a position to stop a rape, a mugging, or a car-jacking. In these situations, only an armed female stands a good chance of surviving unharmed. Even a grown man is no match for a group of hardened hoodlums intent on hurting him or taking his property. However, a single gun in the hands of someone who is not afraid to use it can quickly quiet the most obnoxious hoodlums.

Today’s criminal is a parasite. They prey on the weak. They will attack in garages, on quiet streets, in school parking lots, in empty homes, while you are carrying groceries, and while you are pushing a stroller. They are looking for the quickest “score” where they will meet with the least amount of resistance. Simply having a gun on you may raise your awareness and confidence to a degree that a criminal will sense that you may offer too much resistance. Whose walk do you think would be faster and appear more nervous; The girl walking down a deserted street alone, or the girl with her hand in her backpack holding her gun and looking around for danger?

On a national level, gun ownership helps by presenting an unspoken warning to government. The second amendment was written so that citizens would have the means to confront a tyrannical government and so that the non-military people (the militia) could quickly assemble as a standing army in the event of a foreign attack. It has been shown that states that grant their citizens a permit to carry concealed weapons see a sudden drop in violent crime. This is because the criminals are unsure who is armed and who will offer resistance. I contend that governments harbor that same fear. If every person in America was armed, we would have a more polite society and we would have a government that was not so quick to take away our rights.

I believe in personal responsibility. Making a decision to carry a gun is the first and most important step in taking personal responsibility for your self-defense. If you are not willing to make an effort to protect yourself, why should anyone else be willing to protect you?

Now here are the questions -

Q – When my friend and I started inquiring about gun ownership, it seems as if there are so many restrictions that I can’t see the practical value. Maybe that’s only because of the laws in NJ.

A – It is not just NJ. There are many states that absolutely do not want their citizens armed and put up as many restrictions as possible. Reasonable people understand that this will not prevent criminals from getting and using guns. In fact, over regulation of gun laws almost guarantees safety for criminals. Remember this; the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Any law that contradicts the constitution is invalid. It was not written to prohibit the freedom of the people but to keep the government from abusing the power granted them by the people. The bill of rights is not a list of privileges; it is a list of natural rights that the government is forbidden from infringing upon. No government has the right to prevent you from the means of self-defense.
Q – For example, if I got a permit to buy a gun, what would I have to do to be able to carry it?

A – First of all, I urge you NOT to get a permit – EVER. Not because I suggest operating outside of the law, but because the law has no authority to grant that permission. It is your right to keep and bear arms. The permit is a way of allowing local NJ law enforcement officers to play God and decide who should and shouldn’t be able to have a gun. It is also the main way of creating a local database of gun owners. Simply applying for a permit will add your name to that list. If you do not believe me, I can send you proof. They are now using these databases to confiscate legally purchased guns in Chicago, and CA. But, to answer your question, once you have obtained a NJ permit to buy a gun, you must buy a gun within 72 hours (maybe it is a week?) or you have to go through the whole process again. This is not about safety, it is about control. When you go to buy the gun – only from a licensed dealer (FFL) in NJ, they will then make you fill out another set of forms for a background check. This now puts your name into a national database. Then, after you “own” the gun, you must keep it in your home or in a locked box. If you then want to carry it (good luck in NJ) you will need to get permission to take a concealed carry class. Upon passing that class, your name will be put into another database, and the state will make you get a new drivers license which indicates that you are a concealed weapons carrier. In addition, you will have to get a CCW permit that is required to be on your person any time you have the gun with you. Of course, this is all moot, because unless you are personal friends with a politician in NJ, there is almost NO CHANCE that you will get a NJ CCW. I will make my recommendation at the end of this message.
Q – If I couldn’t carry it, what use is it to me?

A – Absolutely none when you are most likely to need it. However, you could still have it on your property and when traveling. More on this later.
Q – Even in my house, if I can’t keep it easily accessible and loaded, how will it help me protect myself?

A – It won’t. As anyone can see, these laws aren’t made for your protection, they were made to control you, increase revenue, and protect government employees. It also becomes a shopping list to break into your home and steal your weapons. Knowing NJ, if your stolen gun were then used in a crime, it would be your fault and you would be charged with failure to carefully secure a dangerous weapon, or some such nonsense. I don’t know if this would happen, but I wouldn’t put it past them.
Q – I guess an unloaded but real gun pointed at certain potential criminals would scare them off, but can I carry it even unloaded?

A – No. In NJ, it doesn’t matter if it is loaded or not – you cannot carry it or brandish it without permission. Besides, are you willing to gamble and point an unloaded gun at a criminal? What if he calls your bluff?
Now, here is another option. If you are like most people, with the exception of a courthouse and an airport, your bag has never been searched and you have never been “frisked”. With that in mind, how great a risk are you really taking if you start carrying a weapon? The only reason you would ever use it would be for self-defense in a life-threatening situation. Chances are that in that situation, there would be no one there to see you use it anyway. Even if there were, a ticket for carrying a gun without a permit is much better than being dead. Besides, most juries will find you not guilty if the gun were used for self-defense.

There are a few things that I recommend if you intend to carry a gun. Get shooting lessons. Try shooting several different guns and pick the one that you like the best, are most comfortable with, is easy to conceal and use, and offers the greatest protection. The cost is the least important factor. A gun carried properly, is a good form of life insurance and will outlast anyone you know. This insurance can be passed down for generations or sold later at a profit.

The following suggestions are answers to hypothetical questions that I offer as suggestions:

1. How to get a gun if not from a local dealer? – From another state. Many states still allow for the private sale of firearms to residents of that same state. The legal definition of a resident is someone who lives in that state or intends to live there and is in the process of moving to that state. You also may be given a gun from a friend or family member. Do not register it, do not tell anyone about it. Through a private sale is the only way I would ever suggest getting a gun. It is the only way that you can be sure you and your gun will not be on any government databases. – By the way, when congress approved background checks, they did it with one condition. The condition was that there would be NO NATIONAL DATABASE of gun owners. The FBI, SBI, and BATF have violated that condition from day one. They have refused to destroy these records that congress insisted be destroyed “immediately.”

2. What about Gun Safety?- Again, I suggest taking lessons outside of the nanny state or from a competent person in the privacy of your own home. As a certified NRA instructor, I am certified to give firearms instruction and would gladly do so in someone’s home. If that person did not want a certificate or any record of that training, I would have NO problem at all with that and would even reduce my training fee. For close friends or family, I might even waive my fee.

3. How do I Carry the Gun?- You can carry either on your body, in your bag, or in your vehicle. If on your body, find at least one comfortable holster that can be worn everyday. If this is your plan, it is important to get a gun that is easy to conceal. If in your bag, weight and size are also an issue. You might consider sewing an extra pocket in your bag to allow easier access in the event of an emergency. In your car – This is important. If you carry on your body or in your car, I suggest a combo-locking briefcase. If you are in the car alone, lay the gun in the briefcase on the seat next to you – but leave it unlocked. It will be within reach if needed. If for any reason you get stopped by police, close the briefcase and lock it before the police come up to your car. Next, get out of the car and lock the car behind you. Current law allows Law Enforcement Officers (LEO) to search your reachable area. If your car is locked behind you, it no longer poses a threat to the LEO. Even if you cannot get out of your car and the police DO search your vehicle, they cannot search the briefcase without a warrant. REFUSE to open the case regardless of any threats that the LEO makes. Tell him you don’t have the combination. In order to “legally” get into your briefcase, the LEO will need probable cause. See that your car in neat order and that there is nothing in view that will give them probable cause to get a warrant. The book “You and the Police” by Boston T. Party offers great suggestions and more information on this.

4. What about Practice? – I suggest lots of practice. Practice indoors with NO AMMO. Practice handling, loading, putting the safety on and off, pointing, getting it in and out of the bag or holster. Practice dry-firing to improve your skill, practice sighting and “point shooting”, and develop confidence with your guns. Practice as often as you can. When you are ready to practice shooting at targets, find a quiet private range away from your local area. The idea is so that you want no one you know to see you there. Remember, you don’t want anyone to know that you have a gun. There are lots of places in PA or upstate NY where you can practice and not be bothered. I may even be able to help you find some places.

5. What if I Need to Use My Gun?- Chances are very small that you will ever need to use it, but the idea is to always be prepared for that chance. If you feel that your life is threatened or that you may be in for severe bodily harm, you can legally use the gun to stop that threat. If raising the gun and shouting “STOP NOW!” ends that threat – and it usually does, then you can be on your way. If it does not, then shoot to kill. This is important. The law says that you can use it to stop an imminent threat to life or limb. Therefore, if you only shoot to wound, it can be argued (and is argued) that the threat was not that great. However, if you shoot to kill (even if you only wound them) you are within the law and will be acquitted. Because of the legal ramifications, I would strongly suggest that you never use your gun to protect those that you do not know. In the event that you do use it in self-defense, what you do next will be a big decision. What happened? Did someone rescue you? Did you shoot? Do you stay or go? Do you call the police? These are tough questions that only you can answer. I believe the answer depends on the situation. Either way, it will be stressful. Although statistics are tough to find on this, I believe that the ratio of shooting the perp to ending the conflict by just pointing a gun is around 20:1 – In other words, in only 5 out of 100 cases do people actually have to shoot to stop the treat. These are great odds. Plus, if the odds of survival are 0% without shooting, the decision to pull the trigger should be an easy one. I would rather be alive to argue about it than dead. Consider the following:

? Chance of being searched by LEO and them finding a gun – almost none. ? Chance of you ever having to kill with your gun – almost none. ? Chance of survival with gun if attacked – significantly greater. (especially for women)? Penalty for having un-permitted gun in your possession – insignificant, maybe confiscation of gun and up to $150 fine. ? Cost of following the letter of the law – Permit $250, additional cost of buying a new gun from dealer $200, Background check $75, CCW permit $75 (if even possible), cost of being on databases – almost certain confiscation of gun, probable insurance increases, future license renewals and fees, and potential increase of break-ins.

In my mind, there is ample reason to purchase and carry a gun without jumping through legal hoops and making a target of yourself. If this is your decision, I will help you in any way that I can.

 

 

 

Originally published at Liberty For All August 20, 2007.

Read original article here

Sphere: Related Content

Democracy: The joke’s on you

by Larken Rose

Despite all the lovey-dovey rhetoric about the supposed greatness of “democracy,” there’s only one thing its proponents want it for: to get moral permission to force their preferences, opinions and ideas on other people. People vote, hoping “their guy” will win. Why? So their own interests and agenda, and not the interests and agenda of the people who voted for “the other guy,” will be served by the machine of “government.” And everything “government” does, it does by threat of force. (It doesn’t just ask nicely; it commands, and inflicts harm on any who don’t obey.)

I realize that’s not the flowery explanation that democracy- worshipers prefer, but it happens to be the truth. The left-wing statists want to win elections so the right-wing statists (and everyone else) will be forced to fund welfare programs, wealth redistribution, more government control (a.k.a. “regulation”) of commerce, etc. Meanwhile, right-wing statists want to win so the left-wing statists (and everyone else) will be forced to fund a huge military, a bigger police force, more border patrols, a “war on drugs,” etc.

In short, democracy is gang warfare for cowards. The voters, being too chicken-poop to do it themselves, desperately try to get “government” to rob and control all of their neighbors (while accepting no responsibility for having advocated that). If your gang of voters outnumbers the other gang, you can get the mercenaries of the state to boss them around. Yippee! Ain’t democracy great?

Well, to all you voters, the joke’s on you. While you’ve been whining for other people to be taxed and regulated (robbed and controlled), the tyrants have always been one step ahead of you, using your own envy, cowardice, and irresponsibility against you. In case you haven’t noticed, win or lose, both gangs of voters always get robbed and controlled.

Did you really think the politicians and their mercenaries would be on your side, if you were in the majority? (If so, you pretty much deserve the mess you’re in right now.) The tyrants have several nifty tricks for getting the shackles on ALL of the peasants, regardless of how anyone votes. One of those tricks relies on this dirty little secret:

EVERYONE IS A MINORITY.

Sound strange? Well, it all depends upon how people are categorized. Maybe you’re in the majority when it comes to race. Maybe you’re in the majority when it comes to religion. But there will always be SOME criteria that the tyrants can use to divide the people which will have YOU landing on the minority side. And then it’s YOU the majority will be stomping on, via the thugs in “government.” Then your boneheaded faith in democracy (mob rule) will bite you right in the rear end.

Are you in the top 49% of income earners? If so, you’re a minority, and the tyrants know they can rely on the bottom 51% to cheer for you to be robbed blind. Are you younger than 30? I’m sure everyone above 40 would love to raise your taxes, to pay for goodies for them. Or maybe you’re above 40, in which case you’re STILL in the minority, and the YOUNGER people might vote to tax the heck out of whatever wealth you’ve accumulated so far. It all depends where the politicians decide to draw the dividing line. The possibilities are nearly endless.

Is marijuana your drug of choice? If so, the beer-drinking majority will be happy to advocate that draconian government violence be used against you if you’re caught with an “unapproved” plant. Are you male? Well, you’re a minority. And if the women ever figure out that they can VOTE away your suffrage “rights,” you’re poop out of luck. Do you own a gun? If so, you’re a minority, and one of these days the politicians might just scare the majority into voting for you to be disarmed.

Depending upon how you slice up the “pie” of human society, there is SOME way in which YOU are in the minority. Ergo, there is some way that “democracy” can be used to oppress YOU, no matter how “normal” or “average” you think you might be. There is always some way to divide up society so you are on the losing end, in terms of numbers. And the tyrants are constantly looking for such divisions, to keep one group of people advocating the oppression of another.

Maybe most people in a particular town own dryers, so they vote to outlaw the use of clotheslines (which they think look too “low class”). Or maybe people over 21 vote to prohibit younger people from drinking or smoking. Or maybe a conservative majority votes to ban music or videos the majority finds offensive. Or maybe the people decide to ban the “environmentally unfriendly” gas-guzzlers driven by a quarter of the population. Maybe most of your neighbors, at the coaxing of the politicians, will decide they don’t like your barbeque grill, or your dog, or the canoe you keep in your back yard, or your political yard sign, or your bumper- sticker. Maybe they don’t like what you’re teaching your kids. One way or another, the tyrants will find a way to control you, and, by using clever divide-and-conquer tactics, they will be able to do it in the name of “the people.”

Then, of course, there is the supposed right that politicians have to steal (”taxation”). Whatever a majority wants, it will vote to force everyone–including the people who DON’T want it–to pay for it. Pacifists are forced to pay for war. Pot smokers are forced to pay for the “war on drugs.” People who think government “welfare” rewards laziness are forced to pay for it anyway. Young people are forced to pay for old people to get “benefits” from the state. People who homeschool are forced to pay for schools they don’t like and don’t use.

The tyrants are well aware that if they chop up the “pie” of society in enough ways, EVERY piece of it is a minority, in one way or another. And whatever criteria is needed to put YOU into a category which includes 49% or less of the people, you can bet that, sooner or later, the tyrants will be urging the people on the OTHER side of that line to demand “laws” to control and rob YOU. Need proof? Consider this:

Is there anyone who approves of everything “government” does with his money? No. (Never mind that no one even KNOWS what all “government” does with his money.) Therefore, EVERYONE is being forced, via the “democracy” scam, to fund things he doesn’t want to fund. The myth of “majority rule” (which is a lousy ideal anyway) is constantly used to force 100% of the population to fund things they oppose!

The bottom line is, through the cult of “democracy,” tyrants can oppress and enslave EVERYONE, while in every case claiming it was the “will of the people,” condoned by a majority. So the control freaks stomp on you, all your friends, all your neighbors, and everyone in your family, while at the same time tricking YOU into thinking it was YOUR idea, and pretending that “the people” CONSENTED to all of it. Ain’t “democracy” wonderful?

There is only one way to avoid this. Dismiss the evil that calls itself “democracy.” Stop partaking in the self-enslaving and neighbor-enslaving ritual of voting. Stop trying to get the Uber Nanny that is “government” to try to make other people into what you wish they were. Mind your own damn business. Spend your own damn money. Start THINKING, for a change, until you grasp the bleeding obvious principle of “self-ownership,” where every individual belongs to HIMSELF, and no one else.

If the people did that, the best the tyrants could hope for is that a few dolts might, on an individual basis, advocate their OWN enslavement. And the rest of us–of all races, religions, ages, income levels, etc.–could start living like free human beings.

 

Find out more about Larken Rose at http://www.larkenrose.com

Read original article here

Sphere: Related Content

The party and the pendulum

by Scott Williamson

When we meet another libertarian we often spend the first few minutes sizing them up and trying to determine the nuances of their philosophy. Once we have this piece of the puzzle we too often create a relationship based on if a person is one of “us” or one of “them.” The fact of the matter is the “them” is never our fellow libertarians, but those statists who wave the flag with one hand while stealing our liberties with the other.

A pendulum swinging back and forth never moves forward.  We can have a national committee full of self described “radicals” that refuse to let any “reformer” have input. The following convention the “reformers” can take over the national committee and shut out the “radicals.” In the end we are back where we started.  We will never manage to move forward if part of the national committee spends its time trying to silence members who disagree with them. We will not survive if we continue to allow LNC subcommittees to hold meetings in which some members were excluded because other members disagreed with them.

The Libertarian National Committee needs to live up to the libertarian philosophy of personal liberty. We have to accept that our fellow libertarians will sometimes disagree with us.  We can only create a libertarian society when we spend less time as a party fighting over how we word our message and more time spreading our message.

The party must stand firm on its principals of individual liberty and personal responsibility. With the Democrat pendulum swinging to the left and the Republican pendulum swinging to the right, some argue the Libertarian Party needs to rush into the void. By moving our party to the left or the right we are just creating another void “up.” We cannot and should not compromise our philosophy to fill a void. Where would this leave our party when the Republican or Democrat pendulum swings back? Instead of moving into the void we should reach into the void. Through outreach and education we will bring those who are left politically homeless by their parties into the Libertarian Party.

We should never mistake the Libertarian National Committee for our Libertarian Party. Our party is not a committee of seventeen.  Our Libertarian Party is the people who run for office, donate money, and volunteer their time. The party is those who are activist working to change the world. Our Libertarian Party is us.

Our Libertarian National Committee needs to listen to our members, the people who elect the committee, to listen where they want their donations spent and on which path they want to go. Then our LNC should lead the way. Our National Committee should learn what our party actually needs from a national office and then find an economical way to meet our needs.  When we listen to activist on the front line and meet their needs we will move our party and our society into a bright future of freedom.

 

Scott Williamson is a candidate for LNC Regional Representative and can be contacted at scott.williamson01@comcast.net

Read original article here

Sphere: Related Content

The party and the pendulum

by Scott Williamson

When we meet another libertarian we often spend the first few minutes sizing them up and trying to determine the nuances of their philosophy. Once we have this piece of the puzzle we too often create a relationship based on if a person is one of “us” or one of “them.” The fact of the matter is the “them” is never our fellow libertarians, but those statists who wave the flag with one hand while stealing our liberties with the other.

A pendulum swinging back and forth never moves forward.  We can have a national committee full of self described “radicals” that refuse to let any “reformer” have input. The following convention the “reformers” can take over the national committee and shut out the “radicals.” In the end we are back where we started.  We will never manage to move forward if part of the national committee spends its time trying to silence members who disagree with them. We will not survive if we continue to allow LNC subcommittees to hold meetings in which some members were excluded because other members disagreed with them.

The Libertarian National Committee needs to live up to the libertarian philosophy of personal liberty. We have to accept that our fellow libertarians will sometimes disagree with us.  We can only create a libertarian society when we spend less time as a party fighting over how we word our message and more time spreading our message.

The party must stand firm on its principals of individual liberty and personal responsibility. With the Democrat pendulum swinging to the left and the Republican pendulum swinging to the right, some argue the Libertarian Party needs to rush into the void. By moving our party to the left or the right we are just creating another void “up.” We cannot and should not compromise our philosophy to fill a void. Where would this leave our party when the Republican or Democrat pendulum swings back? Instead of moving into the void we should reach into the void. Through outreach and education we will bring those who are left politically homeless by their parties into the Libertarian Party.

We should never mistake the Libertarian National Committee for our Libertarian Party. Our party is not a committee of seventeen.  Our Libertarian Party is the people who run for office, donate money, and volunteer their time. The party is those who are activist working to change the world. Our Libertarian Party is us.

Our Libertarian National Committee needs to listen to our members, the people who elect the committee, to listen where they want their donations spent and on which path they want to go. Then our LNC should lead the way. Our National Committee should learn what our party actually needs from a national office and then find an economical way to meet our needs.  When we listen to activist on the front line and meet their needs we will move our party and our society into a bright future of freedom.

 

Scott Williamson is a candidate for LNC Regional Representative and can be contacted at scott.williamson01@comcast.net

Read original article here

Sphere: Related Content

President dismisses separation of powers in State of the Union address

by Brian Irving

The last time President Obama addressed the Congress the most controversial part probably occurred when Rep. Joe Wilson shouted “You lie” when the president’s claimed that illegal immigrants would not get special treatment under health care reform.

Political pundits and the mainstream media talking heads called this an unprecedented breach of protocol (the most polite comment made).

Last night, the president himself committed an unprecedented breach of protocol when he claimed the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision would “open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections.”

“I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people,” the president said, looking straight at the Supreme Court justices sitting stoically in the front row.

Although he prefaced his criticism with the words “with all due deference to the separation of powers” he ignored the spirit of that principle by misinterpreting the courts decision.

The president, purportedly a Constitution scholar, expressed his disdain for the separation principle later in the speech as well. Since Congress blocked a bill to establish a fiscal commission to review the budget for “programs that we can’t afford and don’t work,” he said he would sign an executive order to set up the commission anyway.

Other than an opening remark noting the Constitutional origins of the State of the Union address, the president never cited a section or article of the Constitution to justify any of the programs he proposed.

This was ostensibly the State of the Union address, but with the Democrats jumping up and clapping for standing ovations every few minutes, with a smiling Speaker Nancy Pelosi beaming over his shoulder, and with the scholarly Vice President (Uncle) Joe Biden nodding approval, it had all the trappings of a yet another stump speech.

Throughout the speech, President Obama kept referring to “Washington” in the third person, adding to the aura of a campaign event.

The president did not back off his pledge to reform national health care. He said he would not “walk away” from the issue and challenged the Congress not to walk away either.

“Let’s get it done,” he said.

Most of the speech, however, focused on the economy and jobs. President Obama claimed credit for preventing the “Second Depression” with his stimulus package, including tax cuts for 95 percent of all Americans, and he defended the bank bailout.

He said the one thing that united Democrats and Republicans was that they all hated the bank bailout, but it was necessary to prevent a meltdown of the financial system.

“I hated it. You hated it. It was about as popular as a root canal,” the president said.

The president noted that most of the stimulus money given to the banks had been recovered, but he then proposed to give the recovered $30 million to small banks for small business loans. He also proposed a fee on the “biggest banks” to recover the rest of the stimulus money.

The president announced a plan to freeze government spending in three years, but it would not start until 2011 because “that’s how budgets work.” However, he budget freeze would not include national security, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, which compose the bulk of the Federal budget. In addition, large portions of the defense and national security expenditures are “off the books.”

“But,” the president hastily added, all other “discretionary funding” would be included.

 

Brian Irving is a contributing editor for Liberty For All. Read more of Irving’s rants at www.libertypoint.org.

Read original article here

Sphere: Related Content

President dismisses separation of powers in State of the Union address

by Brian Irving

The last time President Obama addressed the Congress the most controversial part probably occurred when Rep. Joe Wilson shouted “You lie” when the president’s claimed that illegal immigrants would not get special treatment under health care reform.

Political pundits and the mainstream media talking heads called this an unprecedented breach of protocol (the most polite comment made).

Last night, the president himself committed an unprecedented breach of protocol when he claimed the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision would “open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections.”

“I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people,” the president said, looking straight at the Supreme Court justices sitting stoically in the front row.

Although he prefaced his criticism with the words “with all due deference to the separation of powers” he ignored the spirit of that principle by misinterpreting the courts decision.

The president, purportedly a Constitution scholar, expressed his disdain for the separation principle later in the speech as well. Since Congress blocked a bill to establish a fiscal commission to review the budget for “programs that we can’t afford and don’t work,” he said he would sign an executive order to set up the commission anyway.

Other than an opening remark noting the Constitutional origins of the State of the Union address, the president never cited a section or article of the Constitution to justify any of the programs he proposed.

This was ostensibly the State of the Union address, but with the Democrats jumping up and clapping for standing ovations every few minutes, with a smiling Speaker Nancy Pelosi beaming over his shoulder, and with the scholarly Vice President (Uncle) Joe Biden nodding approval, it had all the trappings of a yet another stump speech.

Throughout the speech, President Obama kept referring to “Washington” in the third person, adding to the aura of a campaign event.

The president did not back off his pledge to reform national health care. He said he would not “walk away” from the issue and challenged the Congress not to walk away either.

“Let’s get it done,” he said.

Most of the speech, however, focused on the economy and jobs. President Obama claimed credit for preventing the “Second Depression” with his stimulus package, including tax cuts for 95 percent of all Americans, and he defended the bank bailout.

He said the one thing that united Democrats and Republicans was that they all hated the bank bailout, but it was necessary to prevent a meltdown of the financial system.

“I hated it. You hated it. It was about as popular as a root canal,” the president said.

The president noted that most of the stimulus money given to the banks had been recovered, but he then proposed to give the recovered $30 million to small banks for small business loans. He also proposed a fee on the “biggest banks” to recover the rest of the stimulus money.

The president announced a plan to freeze government spending in three years, but it would not start until 2011 because “that’s how budgets work.” However, he budget freeze would not include national security, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, which compose the bulk of the Federal budget. In addition, large portions of the defense and national security expenditures are “off the books.”

“But,” the president hastily added, all other “discretionary funding” would be included.

 

Brian Irving is a contributing editor for Liberty For All. Read more of Irving’s rants at www.libertypoint.org.

Read original article here

Sphere: Related Content

President dismisses separation of powers in State of the Union address

by Brian Irving

The last time President Obama addressed the Congress the most controversial part probably occurred when Rep. Joe Wilson shouted “You lie” when the president’s claimed that illegal immigrants would not get special treatment under health care reform.

Political pundits and the mainstream media talking heads called this an unprecedented breach of protocol (the most polite comment made).

Last night, the president himself committed an unprecedented breach of protocol when he claimed the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision would “open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections.”

“I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people,” the president said, looking straight at the Supreme Court justices sitting stoically in the front row.

Although he prefaced his criticism with the words “with all due deference to the separation of powers” he ignored the spirit of that principle by misinterpreting the courts decision.

The president, purportedly a Constitution scholar, expressed his disdain for the separation principle later in the speech as well. Since Congress blocked a bill to establish a fiscal commission to review the budget for “programs that we can’t afford and don’t work,” he said he would sign an executive order to set up the commission anyway.

Other than an opening remark noting the Constitutional origins of the State of the Union address, the president never cited a section or article of the Constitution to justify any of the programs he proposed.

This was ostensibly the State of the Union address, but with the Democrats jumping up and clapping for standing ovations every few minutes, with a smiling Speaker Nancy Pelosi beaming over his shoulder, and with the scholarly Vice President (Uncle) Joe Biden nodding approval, it had all the trappings of a yet another stump speech.

Throughout the speech, President Obama kept referring to “Washington” in the third person, adding to the aura of a campaign event.

The president did not back off his pledge to reform national health care. He said he would not “walk away” from the issue and challenged the Congress not to walk away either.

“Let’s get it done,” he said.

Most of the speech, however, focused on the economy and jobs. President Obama claimed credit for preventing the “Second Depression” with his stimulus package, including tax cuts for 95 percent of all Americans, and he defended the bank bailout.

He said the one thing that united Democrats and Republicans was that they all hated the bank bailout, but it was necessary to prevent a meltdown of the financial system.

“I hated it. You hated it. It was about as popular as a root canal,” the president said.

The president noted that most of the stimulus money given to the banks had been recovered, but he then proposed to give the recovered $30 million to small banks for small business loans. He also proposed a fee on the “biggest banks” to recover the rest of the stimulus money.

The president announced a plan to freeze government spending in three years, but it would not start until 2011 because “that’s how budgets work.” However, he budget freeze would not include national security, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, which compose the bulk of the Federal budget. In addition, large portions of the defense and national security expenditures are “off the books.”

“But,” the president hastily added, all other “discretionary funding” would be included.

 

Brian Irving is a contributing editor for Liberty For All. Read more of Irving’s rants at www.libertypoint.org.

Read original article here

Sphere: Related Content

President dismisses separation of powers in State of the Union address

by Brian Irving

The last time President Obama addressed the Congress the most controversial part probably occurred when Rep. Joe Wilson shouted “You lie” when the president’s claimed that illegal immigrants would not get special treatment under health care reform.

Political pundits and the mainstream media talking heads called this an unprecedented breach of protocol (the most polite comment made).

Last night, the president himself committed an unprecedented breach of protocol when he claimed the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision would “open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections.”

“I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people,” the president said, looking straight at the Supreme Court justices sitting stoically in the front row.

Although he prefaced his criticism with the words “with all due deference to the separation of powers” he ignored the spirit of that principle by misinterpreting the courts decision.

The president, purportedly a Constitution scholar, expressed his disdain for the separation principle later in the speech as well. Since Congress blocked a bill to establish a fiscal commission to review the budget for “programs that we can’t afford and don’t work,” he said he would sign an executive order to set up the commission anyway.

Other than an opening remark noting the Constitutional origins of the State of the Union address, the president never cited a section or article of the Constitution to justify any of the programs he proposed.

This was ostensibly the State of the Union address, but with the Democrats jumping up and clapping for standing ovations every few minutes, with a smiling Speaker Nancy Pelosi beaming over his shoulder, and with the scholarly Vice President (Uncle) Joe Biden nodding approval, it had all the trappings of a yet another stump speech.

Throughout the speech, President Obama kept referring to “Washington” in the third person, adding to the aura of a campaign event.

The president did not back off his pledge to reform national health care. He said he would not “walk away” from the issue and challenged the Congress not to walk away either.

“Let’s get it done,” he said.

Most of the speech, however, focused on the economy and jobs. President Obama claimed credit for preventing the “Second Depression” with his stimulus package, including tax cuts for 95 percent of all Americans, and he defended the bank bailout.

He said the one thing that united Democrats and Republicans was that they all hated the bank bailout, but it was necessary to prevent a meltdown of the financial system.

“I hated it. You hated it. It was about as popular as a root canal,” the president said.

The president noted that most of the stimulus money given to the banks had been recovered, but he then proposed to give the recovered $30 million to small banks for small business loans. He also proposed a fee on the “biggest banks” to recover the rest of the stimulus money.

The president announced a plan to freeze government spending in three years, but it would not start until 2011 because “that’s how budgets work.” However, he budget freeze would not include national security, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, which compose the bulk of the Federal budget. In addition, large portions of the defense and national security expenditures are “off the books.”

“But,” the president hastily added, all other “discretionary funding” would be included.

 

Brian Irving is a contributing editor for Liberty For All. Read more of Irving’s rants at www.libertypoint.org.

Read original article here

Sphere: Related Content

The obligatory post-airport Homeland Security rant

by Rachel Mills

I flew somewhere for Christmas. I had a super-keen eight-tool key fob stolen legally because it happened to include a three-quarter inch knife. I was sad. I was mad and sad. And feeling bad.

Several people along the way seemed wonderfully at ease with the tightened security, delighted even. “Well, I’m happy for them to (insert latest arbitrary P.I.A. security measure here) if that means we are all safer. Happy to comply.” They will thank the security officers on the way through the checkpoint. “Thanks for the anal cavity search, Officer. Glad you’re doing your job, and a Merry Christmas to you and yours.” This is all in the same tone used to thank the checkout girl for checking photo I.D.s when taking their credit card. Like it’s just exactly the same thing. For your protection.

It makes some people feel better to have a visual on the government doing something, Thank God. And to the people this comforts, the rest of us, with an uneasy feeling that we’ve merely been butt-probed, look like whining brats with no comprehension that our inconvenience is all for the greater good.

I feel it’s not merely pointless and damaging to the travel industry, it’s actually counterproductive to safety. I will elucidate.

I have a friend who is chronically allergic. To everything. Even her own dog. She gets shots twice a week, and still sneezes fitfully at the slightest hint of dust or pollen and begins to flow from all visible orifices upon being in the presence of a cat. When I met her parents in the house she grew up in, I developed a theory on why. Her mother greeted us at the door in a kerchief, busily cleaning everything in sight. And to my standards, it was already clean. She was an only child to older parents, overprotected in every way from everything, including from dust and filth. And the opportunity to develop any kind of proper immune response to real world dirt and dangers. She always wanted a dog growing up, and finally has one as an adult. But she is dependent on those shots to coexist with him, even though he’s the cleanest little dog you’ll ever meet.

I grew up with two older brothers, several pets, a reasonable amount of filth, and lengthy exposure to a third world country, including a bout with malaria. My immune system kicks serious tail compared to hers. My theory is it’s all in conditioning. My system is always on the lookout and deals with invaders quickly, quietly and efficiently. My immune system is a well-trained machine. Hers has no clue what the heck it’s doing. It is a debutante in a minefield.

Experts say an allergic reaction is an over-reaction to a foreign substance the body doesn’t know how to fight, so it attacks so violently that it attacks itself. It can even kill itself, as with anaphylactic shock, which is what people who die from bee stings die from – the body fatally attacking itself to protect itself from a relatively harmless foreign invader.

From an article on Life Network by Shandley McMurray:

“Cleanliness is next to… irritation. Monika Gibson, Ontario Coordinator for the Allergy/Asthma Information Association (AAIA) blames cleanliness for the increase in allergies. ‘We’re way too clean in the house,’ she says. We’re taking away bacteria and other exposures that we were meant to live with. Some experts have coined the term ‘hygiene hypothesis’ to describe this problem, claiming that our children are being overprotected from infections due to our compulsive cleaning habits-their immune systems haven’t been able to build up protection against common allergens.”

Maybe you see where I’m going with this.

The most heroic, and effective, foiling of terrorist plots have had little to do with airport security checks. Those are always two steps behind. Take the case of Richard Reid and the shoe bomb. The flight attendants and passengers, not uniformed employees answering to Tom Ridge, wrestled this man to the ground quickly, quietly and efficiently. They acted as America’s own strong and healthy white blood cells, fending off attacks from within, alert and ready to respond and protect.

Let’s take the analogy a little further. Antibiotics. My chronically allergic friend is also on tons of antibiotics all the time. Experts say this is a very bad idea. It messes with the yeast and stuff that is supposed to be in your intestinal tract to maintain a functional immune system. The point is – if you give you immune system too much outside “help” it can’t do its job because it loses the ability. Same with Homeland Security. Kinda like the “antibiotics” that took my keychain to prevent dangerous little 5′1 me from taking over the plane with a three-quarters inch blade, they have also further crippled me in the off-chance I need it for some form of self-defense, or maybe to cut a rope binding someone’s hands. If you overprotect the body, if you medicate it too much, it can’t protect itself. It loses the ability.

When you infuse the land with too much “security”, antibiotics, you slow everything down and you end up disabling the function of the REAL protection, which comes from 280 million white blood cells called citizens, many of whom are armed, many of whom are trained in self-defense, and many who would die to defend the lives of others, and I’m not just talking about the military. That bravado in our citizenry is our real strength, our real protection. Not the patronizing speeches of W, not the condescending reassurance of armed people in uniforms taking your gun, your pocket knife, and your autonomy saying “Don’t worry your pretty little heads. We’ll take care of everything from here.”

Likewise, if you isolate the body too much, it overreacts to foreign threats and is counter-productive. We forget to be on the lookout and have a healthy level of suspicion. We trust the government is taking care of everything and we relax. We forget what a threat looks like, and when we see it on the news, we overreact and kill ourselves economically by effectively boycotting everything. Like a terrorist allergic reaction. Once booming airlines go bust and entire industries wither in the wake of our anaphylactic fear, and we gratefully accept further hobbling of our economy and our lives in the name of security, so that we can maintain our “freedoms” – our way of life.

If we are so passionate about protecting our freedoms from outside threats, why do we attack them so?

We have to decide – do we want to live like the boy in the plastic bubble? Unable to defend ourselves against – ANYTHING? Or are we courageous enough to face the inherent risk that comes with freedom, and the free will of others? Yes, they could hurt us. But we can hurt them back and defend ourselves. We just have to be vigilant and realize that no amount of inconvenience and disregard of the Fourth Amendment can make this world a Safe Place. The Constitution was written during a time of war and outside threat, based on principles thousands of years old that survived countless wars. The principles of freedom, of Cato, Cicero, Plato, Socrates, Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, Paine and Rand ARE relevant today. They are stronger than twin towers and cannot be knocked down with a jet, a bomb or an envelope with white powder. If you consider freedom to be that fragile, what do you consider to be strong? What endures, if not freedom? Go find a padded cell somewhere if you want safety above all. We have to re-embrace freedom if we really want to live.

I understand that my safety rests largely on my own shoulders, no matter what that Transportation Security Officer says. I take that very seriously, even when I board an airplane. I do what I can. I look around me. I watch other people. I am a white blood cell, mangled and partially neutralized though I may be. I may be without my three-quarters inch blade…

But, for the time being, they still let me fly in three-inch stilettos…

 

Originally published in Liberty For All December 28, 2003.

Read original article here

Sphere: Related Content

Next Page »