Blogs

Feb 3, 2010

The Problem with Constitutionalism
by Thomas L. Knapp

This may be the only place you ever hear what I’m about to say, so let me say it up front: Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) may be the most honest member of the United States Congress. Per CNSNews.com:
Read more...

It has been almost a week since President Obama gave his first State of the Union address, and it has been analyzed from the left, right, center, front, and back. Of course, the speech is really about the performance of the federal government, particularly its wonderful accomplishments under the leadership of the sitting president. This is not peculiar to the Obama presidency. As far back as Jefferson, presidents have used the Constitutionally-mandated stump speech to do a little self-promotion, although what they promote has certainly changed quite dramatically.
Read more...

It is still a tiny minority who understand that central banking is a collectivist institution that is completely hostile to liberty. It is, by definition, an instrument of theft that purports to stabilize economic conditions for the collective by controlling the supply of money and credit. The fact that its only means to attempt to do so is to steal from savers to finance well-connected borrowers is a seldom-mentioned detail. That people only use the central bank’s currency because they are forced to do so by legal tenders laws is a fact that is spoken of even less.
Read more...

I have a friend that tends to express his ideas about everything in the jargon of a securities trader. Of course, this is probably because he has been a very successful trader, both in bull and bear markets, for many years. “Every trend in history, even liberty, can be charted like a stock,” he has often observed. I tend to agree.
Read more...

Taking note of the massive donation levels reached by the Schiff and Paul campaigns, one can easily lose perspective when comparing to totals raised by less spotlighted races. But we must remember that each race nets only one vote and each vote is just as valuable to the cause of Liberty regardless of its monetary cost.
Read more...

Fiat money is a medium of exchange, but it has no commercial commodity value, no producer or consumer value, nor does it convey any title to an underlying commodity property. The only method of imparting value to an irredeemable paper fiat money is through government decree based solely upon the enforcement of legal tender laws with threat of penalty.
Read more...

At some point in the past, the American ethos was centered on suspicion of government –whether liberal, conservative, or otherwise. For most of America’s first two centuries, Americans were taxed less, regulated less, and left more alone by their government than any other people in the world. These conditions resulted in an explosion of innovation, wealth, and culture unsurpassed at any time in human history.

As that trend seems to have reversed, Americans look to their past to try to establish where we have gone wrong and what we can do to solve our problems. Increasingly, some Americans point to the U.S. Constitution and our abandonment of its “limits on government” as the reason for our downfall. It is generally argued by “strict constitutionalists” that the purpose of the U.S. Constitution was to limit the power of the government. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Don’t get me wrong. If our government were limited to the powers granted it in that document, the United States of America would be far freer, far more prosperous, and likely not facing any of the monumental problems that it is facing now. However, that does not change the facts about why the Constitutional Convention was called or why the Constitution itself was created. If you are astounded that any Republican can still claim that George Bush was “pro-freedom” or that any Democrat can claim that Barack Obama is “anti-war,” you should be equally surprised that anyone can claim that the U.S. Constitution limited the powers of the central government.

Remember that there was already a federal government of the United States prior to the U.S. Constitution. It was defined in a document called the Articles of Confederation and had been in existence since 1778. Under the Articles, the young nation had defeated the mightiest military empire in human history to win its independence. Acknowledging the true meaning of the words “federation” and “federal,” the document defined the relationship between the states as “a firm league of friendship with each other.” There was no implication that the United States was one nation and the several states merely subdivisions within it. There was no president to usurp power. There was no Supreme Court to legally sanction tyranny. There was no IRS. While the federal government would pay for any war fought by the federation out of a common treasury, the Articles left the actual act of taxation to the States.
Read more...

"
Read more...

See all of Kevin's Cartoons at his blog on the DP.

by RJ Harris | December 3, 2009

A Congressional Candidates Response to the Afghanistan Surge of 2009

Somewhere between the events of 911 and the President's Afghanistan "surge speech" we seem to have forgotten that what distinguishes us from the terrorists trying to kill us is our commitment to the rule of law. Terrorists and pirates care nothing about safeguarding individual liberty or fundamental human rights, but we do. Our commitment to these formalities is what makes us human and free and makes them the enemies of humanity. This commitment requires us to provide due process and equal protection to all persons, not only citizens, within our Republic's jurisdiction regardless of where they were captured or where they are currently held. (14th Amendment) To meet this due process requirement, and to classify enemy combatants, terrorist or pirates as prisoners of war, requires; 1. notice; 2. an opportunity to be heard. For soldiers of a foreign sovereign to have the required notice requires a formal declaration of war issued by our Congress. Article I section 8 of the Constitution limits this power to only the Congress. This power cannot be delegated to the President by way of Authorization for the Use of Force Resolutions, as was done in Iraq and Afghanistan, because the President would then be able to commit acts of war without a war being first properly declared. The President may defend the lives, liberty and property of U.S. Citizens while eminent threats remain but to go on offense requires a proper congressional war declaration.

For suspected international terrorists or pirates to have the notice required under due process requires that Letters of Reprisals (declarations of war upon stateless actors and activities) be issued against them by Congress and for Congress to have defined and set the punishments for piracies and offences against the law of Nations. (Article I Section 8) To date, no Letters of Reprisal have been issued against ANY terrorist organization or activity. For all of the persons herein mentioned, an opportunity to be heard is provided when the above formalities have taken place, before or during the outbreak of hostilities, thereby allowing these persons to be classified as prisoners of war, held under military authority and tried in accordance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Read more...

Tuesday 01 December 2009 - 08:51:02

Agents of the state are morally responsible for their actions
Wendy McElroy
Read more...

By Michael Nystrom | December 2, 2009

It's hard to believe that it is almost three years since the beginning of the Ron Paul Revolution. Back in late 2006, when rumors began circulating online of his potential presidential candidacy, Ron Paul was not even a blip on the national mainstream media radar. The events that would transpire over the next three years would catapult him to national fame, casting a global spotlight on his never-ending campaign for Liberty.

Chris Rye and Corey Kealiher have done a tremendous service for us all with their documentary For Liberty: How the Ron Paul Revolution Watered the Withered Tree of Liberty. Not only is it a wonderful memento for all of us who were involved in the campaign, but it serves as an exceptional teaching tool for those who still don't get it about Ron Paul, especially those who may call themselves Republicans. In fact, at the recent West Coast premier of the film, many such Republicans had their first taste of who Ron Paul really is and what he stands for. One audience member had this to say:

I enjoyed the movie, and find it hard to believe that Republicans so marginalized Ron Paul during his candidacy. Quite simply, he is promoting that we get back to the basics of following the Constitution and principles on which this country was founded. That should be embraced, not rejected.

Comments such as this are typical from Republicans, and For Liberty shows us why: From the beginning, the Ron Paul campaign was ignored, ridiculed and marginalized by the mainstream media. But this is not the story of the film; it is only the beginning. The real story is about Ron Paul's message, why it resonated with millions of Americans across the political spectrum, how the mainstream media attempted to silence it, and what his millions-strong army of supporters did in response during the 2008 presidential campaign.

The film takes the form of a documentary, told by the activists who were instrumental in the movement, including exclusive interview excerpts of Dr. Paul himself. In a candid moment early in the film, Dr. Paul explains how he was the most reluctant person to get involved in the race, cataloging the litany of arguments that ran through his head:

I was the most hesitant to get involved - the time isn't right, people haven't heard about this, I'm not the right guy, we need more education…because I believe that ideas move the country, not individuals - unless they're in the right place at the right time.
Read more...

...is Gary Johnson.

Talk is cheap. Every politician says what most Americans want to hear, that he/she is going to spend responsibly, fight corruption, keep America out of open-ended wars, rise above partisanship, and choose principle over party. Even Bush and Obama said they'd do all those things.
Read more...

Monday, 30 November 2009 10:05

Government Schools Are Bad for Your Kids
Written by Patrick Krey

The closure of St. Rose of Lima in Buffalo, New York, ignited a fury in libertarian activist, attorney, and LewRockwell.com contributor James Ostrowski. Ostrowski was furious that his children, who were happily enrolled in the private school, now had to start all over.
Read more...

Published: 29 November 2009

The State is a Maginot Line
By Kyle Bennett

Samuel Edward Konkin’s great insight was that smashing the state is not a prerequisite to achieving freedom, but is a consequence of it. The usual political formulation is this:

Choose freedom -> Get a lot of people together -> smash the state -> have free markets -> build wealth

Konkin saw that it could instead go like this:
Read more...

Albuquerque Libertarian Examiner November 28, 5:57 PM

Perfect-sized states?
Kent McManigal
Read more...

Especially in the aftermath of the recent controversy over Guantanamo Bay (but even before that), I have seen comments by a few of Ron Paul's supporters around the Internet like at RonPaulForums.com or on my own blog, that go along the lines of this comment someone recently left on my website:
Read more...