Liberty is not a "conservative" issue

Contrary to a popular belief, liberty is not a "conservative" issue. To be sure, conservative pundits like Sean Hannity and Mark Levin would like us to believe that it is, so liberty lovers will support their neocon Republican candidates like Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum; but in truth, small-l libertarianism transcends the conservative-liberal spectrum. Examples of liberal libertarianism include anti-war issues, ending the drug war, and ending discrimination against homosexuals. And, evidently, many in the left are waking up to the fact that restrictions on our Constitutional rights will affect them, as well.

Case in point: The Tenth Amendment Center issued a news release yesterday announcing a press briefing tomorrow in which speakers from both parties will be speaking out against the National Defense Authorization Act's detention provisions. Co-sponsored by the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, Tenth Amendment Center, and Demand Progress, the scheduled speakers are:

• Naomi Wolf, author, journalist, former consultant to Vice President Al Gore
• Bruce Fein, attorney and former Justice Department official under President Reagan
• Missouri State Representative and former US Marine Paul Curtman (R)
• North Carolina State Senator Ellie Kinnaird  (D)
• Washington State Rep. Matt Shea (R)
• Northampton, Mass. City Councilor  Bill Dwight (D)
• El Paso, Colo. County Commissioner  Peggy Littleton  (R)

Americans are waking up to the dangers of the federal Leviathan, and are preparing to do what is necessary to either cut it down to size, or to break it up.

What is America about?

After getting into two highly acrimonious debates with individuals who are more interested in promoting political correctness than to listen to reasoned dissent, I have to ask myself what Americans think their country is about. 

The political division that currently exists suggests that there are three possible answers. The liberal would argue for economic, or redistributive “justice,” the neo-conservative would argue for power, and the libertarian for individual freedom. 

I have come to realize that constitutional and libertarian arguments will only make sense to those who value personal freedom – and it appears that for many Americans, that value is expendable. Those who see America in terms of economic equality or military power will support the notion that Ron Paul is an old crank who is off the rocker they think he should be seated on.  

"From each according to his gullibility,
to each according to his greed!"

The economic redistributionist rejects free enterprise, because it entails risk. Risk is unacceptable to the poor because they cannot, of course, accept financial loss; and is unacceptable for the rich because it creates wealth that (in their view) is not earned. Without risk, there is no opportunity, but for them that is a small price to pay. The end game, though, is to replace an elite based on wealth with one based on political correctness. For them, the goal is not really justice -- it is power for those who toe the party line. Their means is to write more extensive and tighter regulations to discourage anyone from taking any initiative that has not been blessed by their government.  

For such people, the charge of racism is a handy way to bully those who disagree with them. If you want to replace the welfare state, you are a racist. If you want an educational system that teaches young people how to find the truth, you are a racist. If you believe in the Anglo-American heritage of rule by law and would insist on using the English language so that everyone can fully understand that heritage, you are a racist. 

Those who see America’s purpose as being a military power see personal freedom as expendable to protect our “national security.” They cannot be persuaded by reasonable arguments that trade, diplomacy, and taking the moral high road can be effective levers to promote our national interest. They think applying the Golden Rule to international relations is ridiculous and perhaps even dangerous, and then they wonder why the Iraqis and the Afghans are intent on getting us out of their countries – after all, we came on a mission to build free and fair societies – according to our customs and standards. Ask the neocons about how they would feel if, for example, the Chinese invaded this country on the same basis, and they will mutter something about “American exceptionalism.” 

To a reasonable person, “American exceptionalism” is nothing more than arrogance, pure and simple. 

As I was recently reminded, those who see America in terms of power cannot understand any argument that undermines their almost religious belief that Abraham Lincoln was the greatest (or maybe second greatest) of Presidents. Yes, he preserved the Union, but was it really worth the cost: 660,000 battlefield casualties, the mass murder of Georgia’s civilians during Sherman’s March to the Sea, his blatant hypocrisy on slavery? The surrender at Appomattox began a process of consolidation into an all-powerful federal government that continues to this day. We had a Constitution to protect our rights. Why did he find it necessary to destroy it in order to save the Union? If the issue was slavery, he could have followed the lead of Britain and France (which Brazil later followed) and simply bought out the slaveowners, which would have been cheaper than going to war. If he valued freedom, he could have shown good faith to the Southerners who were willing to negotiate a settlement to prevent their secession.

When looking at mysteries of this kind, some wise people have said, “Follow the money.” Prior to the Civil War, wealth was fairly evenly spread across the land – North and South. Lincoln was backed heavily by New York bankers, who greatly benefitted from his rule. In the 1870s, wealth heavily concentrated in New York City, while the South was reduced to abject poverty, and would remain so for nearly a century.

Fergit, hell!

The evidence for each of my statements is easy enough to find in any standard history of the Civil War or Reconstruction; but of course, my bringing it up is “revisionist.” And, of course, the neocons join the liberals in promoting the notion that any white male whose family has resided in the South more than a generation or two is the absolute scum of the earth. That notion is completely contrary to reason if you believe that people are individuals who deserve to be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin or the accent of their voice; but Lord, don’t let Martin Luther King, Jr.’s beliefs stand in the way of those who loudly sing his praises! And Christians should keep their religion to themselves if they aren’t willing to idolize the state, support foreign wars, and promote social conservatism!

Just before I wrote this, I asked myself how anyone could believe in personal freedom and not let those who feel they have been wronged to form their own nation; especially when they respected law enough to follow due process as it was understood prior to 1865.

I thought I didn’t get it. Unfortunately, I do now. The way the Republican Presidential primary is shaping up, it is becoming clear that America is not about personal freedom. If President Obama is defeated in November, we will establish that America probably is not about redistribution of wealth, at least not the way the Democratic and Socialist idealists look at it. So I guess it's about power. We will continue to be ruled by those who have the most to gain from holding power.

It’s enough to make a grown man cry.

I’m finished ranting now. Please return to your regularly-scheduled programming.

Can Americans be locked up on mere suspicion?

Yes! writes Constitutional expert Rob Natelson, author of The Original Constitution, writing for the blog at the Tenth Amendment Center. Commenting on the National Defense Appropriations Act, he carefully spells out what is appropriate to military law, and what the Framers intended when writing the provision for habeas corpus in the United States Constitution. He concludes that the much-discussed Sections 1021 and 1022 would indeed permit American citizens to be held on mere suspicion of terrorism.
To a section that the spin doctors are trying to persuade us was written to protect ordinary Americans, Mr. Natelson writes:

(e) . . . Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.Comment: This provision is sometimes touted as protecting citizens because it preserves existing Supreme Court decisions. The problem is that, as yet, there are no Supreme Court decisions that squarely provide the full measure of habeas corpus protection to citizens or legal aliens accused within our borders. This is true because neither the Bush nor the Obama administration has had the audacity to round up U.S. citizens without our borders and hold them indefinitely without trial.

He then goes on to cite four Supreme Court decisions, and explains why none of them get to the heart of the matter. Then there is this, also ballyhooed as protection for the rights of Americans:

§ 1022: (b) (1) . . . The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
(2) . . . The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

Comment: This section says that the administration is not REQUIRED to keep a U.S. citizen or legal resident alien in indefinite mCilitary custody. But it does not prevent the administration from doing so.

As we warned Nov. 29 and Dec. 16, vigorous application of this act against Americans will turn skeptics into secessionists. But you don't have to take my word for it. Rob Natelson said it and backed it up.

Political WWJD

I have often written that my rule is "WWJD?" In spiritual matters, what would Jesus do, and in political what would Jefferson do. Here is an excellent example of an issue where I stand with Thomas Jefferson:

Here is the context:

It should be our endeavour to cultivate the peace and friendship of every nation, even of that which has injured us most, when we shall have carried our point against her. Our interest will be to throw open the doors of commerce, and to knock off all its shackles, giving perfect freedom to all persons for the vent of whatever they may chuse to bring into our ports, and asking the same in theirs. Never was so much false arithmetic employed on any subject, as that which has been employed to persuade nations that it is their interest to go to war. Were the money which it has cost to gain, at the close of a long war, a little town, or a little territory, the right to cut wood here, or to catch fish there, expended in improving what they already possess, in making roads, opening rivers, building ports, improving the arts, and finding employment for their idle poor, it would render them much stronger, much wealthier and happier. This I hope will be our wisdom. --- Notes on the State of Virginia (1784), chapter 22.

Virtual buckeye to Paul Attridge in Facebook, and to Kevin Puffer, his commentor, who supplied the context above.

War fever is building again

... judging from last night's Republican candidate debate in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. I am specifically referring to audience reaction to the exchange about war policy, at 10:17 in the New York Times live blog:

The question was familiar -- virtually the same one that was famously asked of Democratic candidates for president in 2008: If there was actionable intelligence about Mullah Muhammad Omar, the Taliban leader, in Pakistan, would you go in?

Newt Gingrich took a while to get to the answer, but it was unmistakable.

"Andrew Jackson had a pretty clear idea about America's enemies," he said. "Kill them." *

Audience reaction: "USA! USA! USA!"

Mr. Romney had a pretty clear answer as well.
"We go anywhere they are, and we kill 'em," Mr. Romney said.

Same reaction.

That, of course, was not Mr. Paul's answer. His answer prompted loud boos from the audience.

"Maybe we ought to consider a golden rule," Mr. Paul said. "Don't do to other nations what we don't want them to do to us." [Emphasis added.]

Ron Paul later drew a distinction between defense spending and military spending. He argued that spending what we do on defense spending would ensure that our borders and our people are well protected (concurring opinion); but that military spending on "nation building" is, in fact, waste. 

Hearing this exchange on the radio frankly made me sick to my stomach. Following my post Dec. 1 drawing parallels between the Reichstag fire and 9-11, the audience reactions to Messrs. Gingrich and Romney, on the one hand, and Dr. Paul, on the other, reminded me of the hysteria the Nazis whipped up among the Germans during the Third Reich, with the help of the party song Horst Wessel Lied, the lyrics to which are: 

The banner high! The ranks are tightly closed!

The SA march with calm, firm step.

Comrades shot by the Reds and reactionaries

March in spirit within our ranks.

Clear the streets for the brown battalions,

Clear the streets for the stormtrooper!

Millions are inspired when they see the swastika,

The day of freedom and of bread dawns!

For the last time, the call to arms is sounded!

For the fight, we all stand prepared!

Soon Hitler's banners will fly over all streets.

Our time of bondage is nearly over!

Substitute our troops for the SA, Jihadists and terrorists for Reds and reactionaries, and the U.S. flag for swastika and Hitler's banners, and you get a pretty good picture of the pro-war, any war, mindset; one that apparently has taken over one audience in South Carolina against the teachings of the Christ many of them would so proudly proclaim (Matthew 7:12), and against the warnings of Washington and Eisenhower.

* It should be noted that when Andrew Jackson said that, he was referring to the British invasions of the United States during the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812.

Blunt truth of the day

From Jennifer Smith, political director of the Franklin County Libertarian Party, via Facebook:

Just so that everyone knows what our civil-liberties-stomping president just signed: ANYONE who fits a very broad definition of activist (Tea Partiers and Occupiers, for example) can be swept to Guantánamo Bay by the MILITARY. No trial. No due process. No police. No proof of anything. If you know any Obama supporters, share this story with them. If they STILL support him, then you know they're war mongering, anti-civil rights bigots. Because this is it.

The following article, which Jennifer linked, is to a Politico piece about the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 being sent to the White House for signature.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70527.html


The article states that President Obama lifted his veto threat when it became clear that Congress had the votes to override. I am not surprised. Please note (and I am repeating myself): The President's signature to this legislation will provide ample grounds for declaring Ohio's independence (See Trigger #1 on the right sidebar). If we value our freedom at all, we must act to ensure that this provision of law never touch otherwise law-abiding citizens within the State of Ohio. First step: Press our state legislators to NULLIFY Sections 1033 and 1034 of the Defense Appropriations Act of 2012. If this effort fails, then a declaration of independence will be justified.

Update Dec. 16: Another friend of mine on Facebook reports that he struggled for 11 years to obtain U.S. citizenship for his wife, who was born in the Soviet Union. Now he feels that they are no better off than before.

Amen, sister!

Karen Kwiatkowski, again. This time in her own words, from LewRockwell.com, about Christmas, Christianity, and fascism. The entire article is well worth reading.

Christmas is a Christian celebration, but it is truly something that should be celebrated each day, in peace, in forbearance, in humble joy and gratefulness for God’s love, His generosity and His guidance. I’d like to think that we Christians might someday be able to show that Gandhi was wrong about us – that we do indeed follow the Prince of Peace in our daily lives, in our relationships at home and at work, and through our participation in politics. It is impossible for a true Christian to cheer war, to celebrate death, disease, destruction and poverty, to wish ill on others. It is downright devilish for Christians to claim their faith while exalting human governments that seek war on the basis of lies, that sow fear and loathing in the name of empire or government survival, and governments that would steal the very future from their own children in the name of patriotism. All I want for Christmas is a glimpse of real Christianity, in our lives and in our politics... [Emphasis added]

God knows what we need even before we ask Him, so I’ve been taught. That being the case, maybe I should see to it that I love liberty more passionately. I’ll add a grain of pure courage to my morning coffee, and I will try to think more independently, and step away from the party lines. I’ll see if I can live my Christianity in a more honest way. All that would make for a lovely Christmas, and it would be more than enough.

But Santa, if there is room for one more gift, please give me the opportunity to vote Ron Paul for President in 2012. Merry Christmas, America!

One more good reason she should be Vice President (if not President) of the United States!

Speedbump on the road to tyranny

In the interest of accuracy and full disclosure, I need to report that the following amendment to the National Defense Appropriations bill (S. 1867) was approved Dec. 1 by a vote of 99-1:

SA 1456. Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Levin and Mr. Durbin) proposed an amendment to the bill S. 1867, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; as follows:

   On p. 360, between lines 21 and 22 [Section 1032], insert the following:

   (e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

The lone dissenter was Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Arizona). This is good news, but we need to remain vigilant. My post yesterday remains true enough. Still makes me want to rethink going to Canada next summer...

A lesson from history

Reichstag fire

Compare the following account in Conservapedia with the logic behind Sections 1033 and 1034 of the Defense Appropriations bill, which we discussed Tuesday. I found the comparison rather chilling:

On February 27, 1933, the Reichstag in Berlin was destroyed in a fire that had plainly been deliberately set. Exactly who set the fire remains a question never fully resolved. Most contemporary observers both in and outside of Germany blamed and still blame the Nazis themselves, though [author William] Shirer admits in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich that “The whole truth about the Reichstag Fire will probably never be known...”

9-11

Didn't all this hysteria over terrorism start with 9-11? Like the Reichstag fire, the whole truth of how the World Trade Center was destroyed will probably never be known.* In response, Congress passed several acts designed to restrict the freedom of the American people, notably the USA PATRIOT Act, creation of the Department of Homeland Security (which makes it possible for the federal government to create a secret police apparatus), the REAL ID Act, and those Transportation Security Administration gropers and scanners.

The article continues:

A day later a “defensive measure against Communist acts of violence endangering the state” was passed:

“Restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press; on the rights of assembly and association; and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications; and warrants for house searchers, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.”  [Does the part in italics sound familiar?]

Thus, the first taste of Nazi state terror was rendered “legal,” as over the next week Brownshirts took into “protective custody” several thousand Communist officials and many Social Democrats and liberals. These prisoners, often snatched from their homes and off the streets, were loaded onto trucks and carried off to SA barracks and hastily set up prisons where many of them were held, tortured and killed without the formality of a hearing or trial. The rationale for these drastic measures, Hitler’s government insisted, was the dire threat posed by the communist menace... 

Not to be alarmist, but if the Defense Appropriations bill stands, our soldiers will be able to do exactly the same thing, and not just to suspected al-Qaeda terrorists! And then there are those empty FEMA camps... Continuing in Conservapedia:

“The burning of the Reichstag was to be the signal for a bloody insurrection and civil war…it was ascertained that today was to have seen throughout Germany terrorist acts against individual persons, against private property, and against the life and limb of the peaceful population, and also the beginning of general civil war.” 

Compare this paragraph with Senator Lindsay Graham's statement about Al-Qaeda on our shores in the Defense Appropriations bill debate (from The Hill):

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) argued that al Qaeda members are enemy combatants and should be held and prosecuted by the military. He and fellow Republicans have been critical of reading terror suspects Miranda rights.

“When they say, ‘I want a lawyer,’ you tell them, ‘Shut up,’ ” Graham said. “ ‘You don’t get a lawyer. You’re an enemy combatant, and we’re going to talk to you about why you joined al Qaeda.’ ”

At this point, the democratic Weimar Republic became Adolf Hitler's totalitarian Third Reich. Let me suggest that we may have a point of comparison here with a statement of President Obama's (July 27):

[The President] admitted that “the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting” when it came to dealing with Congress over the debt deal. And while he added the caveat that our democracy doesn’t work like that – the crowd was cheering the possibility of Obama side stepping Congress and doing things his own way.

The Third Reich built a system that enriched Germany's largest industrialists at the expense of everyone else. We call that system Fascism. In one of my early posts (January 2008), I listed ten steps to fascism. This act effectively completes Step 10 (to suspend the rule of law). The only remaining step is Step 9, to assert that dissent is the same as treason, and I expect that shoe to drop very shortly. We are already close to that, as evidenced by this Washington Times interview April 6 (which I reported a month later) and this Homeland Security advisory dated April 7, 2009.

When I was a student at Ohio Northern University, I lived on the west end of a large open space on campus. I could see the sunrise (or a moment or two after, because of buildings and trees in the distance). I once had a horrific dream where I saw the sun rise, on which was emblazoned a black swastika. In the midst of the Red menace when I went there, that would have seemed ridiculous; but it convinced me then that Fascism would be a greater threat to this country than Communism ever was.

This is one dream that I do not want to come true.

(Source of the Reichstag fire account: William Shirer, Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, volume II)

* Update 12/2: I have encountered some skepticism about this claim, because it suggests that I am a so-called "Truther". There is considerable evidence gathered by professional architects, engineers, and demolition experts that the World Trade Center could not have fallen the way it did solely from the planes crashing themselves through the buildings. The collapse of each building, in their professional opinion, and from films I have seen of controlled demolitions, suggest that the crash was supplemented by a controlled demolition. See the 911 Architects and Engineers for Truth site for this evidence. Also see my Dec. 2 post.

Next steps

In yesterday's post, I wrote that enactment of the defense appropriations act (S.1867) without the Udall (or Paul) Amendment would be, in my opinion, grounds for pressing for independence. I am not being rash. I have been thinking about this for several years.

However, that time is not quite yet. To become law, S.1867 has to go through one or two more steps. The first is, to be signed or vetoed by the President. The President has stated that he would veto the bill if the offending sections were not removed. To sign the bill after that statement would be an act of perfidy unrivaled in the history of the Republic, which only eleven years ago would have provided sufficient grounds for impeachment. However, with this President, we cannot rule out that possibility.

The second possibility, which offers a slender thread of hope, is that the President will veto it. To overturn the veto requires a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress. The House of Representatives would easily pass the bill again; but to override the veto, the Senate is six votes short.

Judge Andrew Napolitano asks today, "What if the Constitution no longer applied?" What is to be done?

The prudent course of action would appear to be, continue unless and until the bill is enacted; and if it is, to determine the most effective course of action moving forward. It may be necessary to stop this blog for a time, to ensure that my actions do not defeat my purpose; which is, and always has been, to restore the liberties of our Founding Fathers to the people of Ohio.

In these times, you cannot be a patriot and a coward at the same time.So choose wisely, dear reader. Remember from history the Nazi concentration camps, which housed not only Jews, but many others, including "Aryan" dissidents. Remember the Soviet gulags. Remember the "tiger cages" of Vietnam. Remember how men disappeared and died in Argentina in the days of Juan Perón. We have heard rumors of Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) concentration camps* being erected for those who commit so-called "domestic terrorism." Sen. Rand Paul yesterday noted that people who could be suspected for "domestic terrorism" under existing law include those with missing fingers, those who store guns and ammunition, and those with more than a seven-day food supply in their homes. If the FBI and the military are given free rein to pick up American citizens on the slightest suspicion, those concentration camps (some built by Halliburton, Dick Cheney's company, by the way) will become reality.

Without liberty, there is no true prosperity and no purpose in life. However, as we have often quoted Thomas Jefferson in this space, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Are you prepared to give yours, to ensure the freedom of your children and grandchildren?

* I have no way of knowing whether everything in this link is factual; however, the San Francisco Chronicle editorial in the middle of the link is convincing.

The last straw

Speaking of Gestapo tactics, now come Sens. Carl Levin (D-Michigan) and John McCain (R-Arizona) to sneak into a defense appropriation bill provisions that potentially would enable the military to enter the home of any American citizen on American soil and detain them indefinitely without any warrant or trial. The bill (S. 1867, specifically sections 1031-1032) is justified on the grounds that it will give the military the flexibility and tools it needs to combat al-Qaeda. Technically, the executive would be given discretion as to whether a specified terrorism suspect should be tried in the civilian courts or a military tribunal.

It has been opposed by (among others) Sens. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) and Mark Udall (D-Colorado). Sen. Udall has introduced an amendment to remove sections 1031-1032, which would conform the bill to customary American values. President Obama, to his credit, is threatening to veto the bill if the two sections are included.* The White House issued this statement giving the President's objections:

Moreover, applying this military custody requirement to individuals inside the United States, as some Members of Congress have suggested is their intention, would raise serious and unsettled legal questions and would be inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets.

I would have liked it better if the President could say "Fourth Amendment," but I suppose that is asking too much.

Dr. Andrew Bosworth, writing for the Canadian think tank Global Research, has done an extensive analysis of the bill, which is reproduced in the Infowars.com website. In an article aptly titled "Treason from Within," Dr. Bosworth cites the opinion of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld 542 U.S. 507 (2004), in which an attempt was made to detain Yaser Esam Hamdi, an American citizen, as an enemy combatant:

… it would turn our system of checks and balances on its head to suggest that a citizen could not make his way to court with a challenge to the factual basis for his detention by his government, simply because the Executive opposes making available such a challenge. Absent suspension of the writ by Congress, a citizen detained as an enemy combatant is entitled to this process.

Dr. Bosworth concludes:

The “war on terror” was originally to be waged against foreigners in far-away lands, but Rep. Ron Paul was right, the anti-terror infrastructure is swinging around to be used against American citizens.

This was the design all along.

The intention was always to immobilize the American public with a police-state control grid, now backed by the regular military, so that the process of economic extraction and political subjection could be completed.

The NDAA for 2012 represents a significant step, on the part of the government, towards a “final takedown.”

The bill’s provision for the indefinite detention of American citizens, without charge or trial, represents nothing short of an declaration of war by the federal government on the American people.

Couldn't have said it better myself, though I will add a couple of comments:

If there is danger from terrorism (and there may well be), it is because we have sent our military abroad, who have killed innocent civilians in "collateral damage." As one active-duty soldier put it, "There is no flag large enough to cover... the shame of killing innocent people" (in Pakistan, for example). Further restricting our liberties only erodes the moral standing this country once had with the world -- and for that matter, with its own people.

If this bill is enacted without the Udall Amendment, I will consider it to execute both Triggers 1 and 2 to Ohio independence (see right panel), and will thereupon press for independence in earnest.

Even if a soldier knocks down the door of my home and takes me.

Update 9 pm: The Washington Times reports that the Senate voted 61-37 to approve the bill, including Sections 1031-1032. Senators Rand Paul and Mark Steven Kirk (R-Illinois) were the only Republicans voting against the bill because of the language. Forty-four Republicans, 16 Democrats, and one independent voted in favor. The Constitution is dead. Heaven help us all.

Virtual buckeyes to Charlie Earl and Jason Rink.

* Unless Sen. Levin is right, and the President was conveniently posturing against a position he originally pressed for.

Our troops know what is going on

This photo appeared earlier this week in Facebook. I'm sure some will find it offensive, but it is certainly the truth. If this country is to survive the next few years, we must bring our troops home and reduce some of the taxes used to pay for these wars to let us build up our economy!

The inscription on the flag reads, "There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people."

Veterans Day

My meditation today is a paraphrase of Winston Churchill:

Never in the field of human conflict have so many given so much for so little.

Those who serve know it -- and give their campaign money to Ron Paul. No one wants to give their life to an unworthy cause; but thousands of Americans have done so, not because the defense of the United States is unworthy of their sacrifice, but because their sacrifice has had nothing to do with the defense of the United States.

Remind me why

From Judge Andrew Napolitano's Facebook page:

The courage and valor of the American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines is admirable -- the purpose of their missions, unfortunately, is not.

"National defense" means protecting the territory of the United States from foreign aggressors, such as Mexican drug lords.

Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be.
But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.
She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.
She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.

- John Quincy Adams, Independence Day speech to the U.S. House of Representatives, July 4, 1821

Iran, again

Several of my Facebook friends have been circulating this map of U.S. bases surrounding Iran, following Iran's threat last week to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States:

No wonder Iran feels threatened!

This map has been verified from various sources (best single source is the Canadian think tank Global Research, but I have checked others). I have verified all of these locations except Georgia and Azerbaijan (upper left on the map).


We are beginning to hear the same aggressive talk toward Iran that I heard a decade ago in the runup to the war in Iraq.

I am unalterably opposed to such a war. As I have repeatedly stated, a war with Iran will be a catastrophe from which the United States will never recover. Not financially. Not politically. Not militarily. Not economically. Not ever. I wrote this four years ago, and I stand by it today. Iran has never attacked us (whether it would like to do so is another story).

I can see only two reasons, both invalid, for even attempting such a thing: (1) To protect Israel (which is perfectly capable of protecting itself), or (2) because the establishment wants to prolong a state of continuous war for economic reasons. The Iranian desire for a nuclear bomb is a natural response to the threat it perceives from us. However, it would be too late for anyone to dissuade the Iranians from continuing, even if the US withdrew all of our troops from the region.

The United States has only one sustainable foreign policy -- to mind our own business. Unfortunately, we find it difficult to communicate that fact to our fellow Ohioans, let alone to Washington. The unsustainable foreign policy, along with the mounting deficit, coming hyperinflation, and accelerating loss of personal freedom, will contribute to the breakup of the United States in the near future, which could prove to be the best thing for all concerned.

Quotation of the day

Dwight D. Eisenhower
President of the United States 1953-1961

By one of the most underrated Presidents in U.S. history, Dwight D. Eisenhower, in a speech to the American Society of Newspaper Editors, April 16, 1953:

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. ... Is there no other way the world may live?

Virtual buckeye to William Golden.

9-11

Today marks the tenth anniversary of the 9-11 attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the crash of Flight 93 in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

There is only so much one can say on 9-11, so this will probably be my last post on the subject, unless something new emerges that calls for comment.

The most appropriate way to observe 9-11 is to make it a day:

• To remember the 3,100 people who died in the attacks.
• To thank the first responders in New York and Washington for risking their lives to save so many others, and to bring closure to the families of those who perished.
• To remind ourselves of the threat of terrorism, at least as long as we maintain a military presence in the far reaches of the globe. Many people scoff at the idea of "Fortress America" -- keeping our troops entirely (or almost entirely) within our own borders; but no military presence abroad can really respect the sovereignty of other nations. Those who doubt this should consider how we would react if foreign troops were stationed on our soil. Justifying our presence abroad in the face of the Golden Rule (for example, by justifying it as "American exceptionalism") is nothing more than pure arrogance on our part. Our presence abroad provides terrorists with the motivation to attack us. We have no moral obligation to protect any country except our own. Europe is (or should be) perfectly capable of defending Europe. Israel and South Korea can likewise defend themselves against any likely attackers. The simplest and most effective antidote to terrorism is to remove their motivation to attack us.
• To mourn for the lost liberty that we allowed to occur, in the false belief that it was necessary to preserve our national security. Americans need to remember that the Fourth Amendment (against unreasonable searches and seizures), the rest of the Bill of Rights, and the Constitutional protections of habeas corpus*, and against bills of attainder and ex post facto laws** are absolutes. The best security for Americans is to jealously guard our liberties from our own governments, which by their nature will attack personal liberties for their convenience, or to protect favored interests.

As in past years, I refuse to be drawn into the "truther" arguments. I am not saying that the truthers are wrong -- I am saying that evidence to prove the truth either does not exist, or will remain hidden until this country experiences a revoluton, or years after most of us are dead.

Two of our Founding Fathers have given us the admonitions we most need to heed whenever we remember 9-11:

"Eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty"

-- Thomas Jefferson

"The man who would exchange essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety."

-- Benjamin Franklin

Americans lost their liberty because the people were not vigilant; and the experience of the last ten years should show us why we are today neither free nor safe.

* Habeas corpus is the legal principle that one should not be detained by the state, except according to law -- specifically, pursuant to a court order.

** Definitions and examples of bills of attainder and ex post facto laws (scroll down just past the sentence in bold).

Rasmussen Reports: President Obama has a 1 point lead over Ron Paul

According to a Rasmussen Report poll released on Tuesday, Ron Paul is running only one point behind President Obama in a hypothetical 2012 matchup (39%-38% of likely voters). However, the same source states that among likely Republican voters, Dr. Paul is favored by only 9%, behind Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, and Michelle Bachmann. Dr. Paul enjoys a ten-point lead among independent voters.

This suggests that the Republican primary will be a bigger hurdle for Dr. Paul than the election itself.

I cite these figures as a strong indicator that the libertarian message is beginning to reach the American people. However, I am not confident that, if Ron Paul be elected, that he would be able to effect significant change, because I cannot envision a Congress that would cooperate with him.

In my opinion, independence would be much easier and more effective as a means for restoring liberty in Ohio than to turn around the Leviathan in Washington.

However, both ideas are non-starters until we can persuade the Republican loyalists and neoconservatives that militarism is against our national interest.

Too many Christians are hypocrites about war

I have argued this for some time, but Laurence M. Vance argues it effectively at considerable length in LewRockwell.com. The following paragraphs summarize his (and my) position nicely:

I believe the two greatest reasons religious people have gotten things so wrong are American exceptionalism and American militarism.

Many Christians are guilty of nationalistic and political idolatry. They have bought into a variety of American nationalism that has been called the myth of American exceptionalism. This is the idea that the government of the United States is morally and politically superior to all other governments, that American leaders are exempt from the bad characteristics of the leaders of other countries, that the U.S. government should be trusted even as the governments of other countries should be distrusted, that the United States is the indispensable nation responsible for the peace and prosperity of the world, that the motives of the United States are always benevolent and paternalistic, that foreign governments should conform to the policies of the U.S. government, that most other nations are potential enemies that threaten U.S. safety and security, and that the United States is morally justified in imposing sanctions or launching military attacks against any country that refuses to conform to our dictates. These are the tenets of American exceptionalism.

The result of this American exceptionalism is a foreign policy that is aggressive, reckless, belligerent, and meddling. This is why U.S. foreign policy results in discord, strife, hatred, and terrorism toward the United States. We would never tolerate another country engaging in an American-style foreign policy. How many countries are allowed to build military bases and station troops in the United States? It is the height of arrogance to insist that the United States alone has the right to garrison the planet with bases, station troops wherever it wants, intervene in the affairs of other countries, and be the world’s policeman, fireman, social worker, security guard, mediator, and babysitter.

The other reason religious people have gotten things so wrong is American militarism. Americans love the military, and American Christians are no exception. There is an unseemly alliance that exists between certain sectors of Christianity and the military. Even Christians who are otherwise sound in the faith, who treasure the Constitution, who don’t support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and who oppose an aggressive U.S. foreign policy get indignant when you question the institution of the military. 

It doesn’t seem to matter the reason for each war or intrusion into the affairs of another country. It doesn’t seem to matter how long U.S. troops remain after the initial intervention. It doesn’t seem to matter how many foreign civilians are killed or injured. It doesn’t seem to matter how many billions of dollars are spent by the military. It doesn’t even seem to matter what the troops are actually doing – Americans in general, and American Christians in particular, believe in supporting the troops no matter what. Americans are repulsed by the serial killer who, to satisfy the most basest of desires, dismembers his victims; but revere the bomber pilot in the stratosphere who, flying above the clouds, never hears the screams of his victims or sees the flesh torn from their bones. Killing women and children from five feet is viewed as an atrocity, but from five thousand feet it is a heroic act. It is sometimes suspicious when a soldier kills up close, but never when he launches a missile from afar.

Christians of all branches and denominations have a love affair with the military. To question the military in any way – its size, its budget, its efficiency, its bureaucracy, its contractors, its weaponry, its mission, its effectiveness, its foreign interventions – is to question America itself. One can condemn the size of government, but never the size of the military. One can criticize federal spending, but never military spending. One can denounce government bureaucrats, but never military brass. One can depreciate the welfare state, but never the warfare state. One can expose government abuses, but never military abuses. One can label domestic policy as socialistic, but never foreign policy as imperialistic.

Iran? Forget it.

I understand Rick Santorum and some of the other Republican neocons are rumbling about attacking Iran. I have two words for them: forget it.