I’m a believer in freedom because of Harry Browne. Well, perhaps it was just convenience and timing, but I became a lover of liberty in the mid 90’s as a college student. Harry Browne was the Libertarian Party nominee for President in 1996 and 2000. He was a tall glass of freedom-loving ice water in the hot and dry politics-as-usual desert. He quenched my libertarian soul.
While everyone else is celebrating the “4th of July” I’m celebrating Independence Day. On this Independence Day I’m celebrating by remembering the man that spoke with my voice before I knew what my voice was. Browne wrote an article on July 4th, 2003 (3 years before he died) called, “Uncelebrating the 4th of July“.
The article sums up perfectly how I feel about Independence Day right now. As was so often the case, Harry Browne was years ahead of his time.
I remember around that same year (2003) I was one of those libertarians that supported the Iraq war. I was a libertarian-in-progress or maybe some today would have called me a “Wayne Allyn Root” libertarian. I wrote an email to Harry Browne giving him my opinion about the war and asking him what he thought of my reasoning. He didn’t think much of it.
It’s Friday and that means it’s time for another installment of “Quick Hits”.
Helen Thomas and Chip Reid berated White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs the other day for pre-selecting questions for Obama’s “town hall” and “controlling” the press. It appears that the honeymoon (I call it the “Obamagasm”) is coming to an end. Gibbs seems to be out of his league as Obama’s Press Secretary. I’ll be surprised if he makes it through Obama’s first and hopefully only term.
There is one particular forbidden health care question for Obama. I would love to hear his answer to the following question:
“Mr. President, you are considered a Constitutional scholar. Could you educate the American people a bit and tell them what section, article, or amendment permits the federal government to provide health care?”
Sure, he would dodge the question, but it is one dodge that I long to hear.
On Monday, Ron Paul’s son Rand Paul held another money bomb campaign fund raiser. The goal was to break $100k. The goal was met. This is huge news and a great sign that the Ron Paul wing of the Republican Party is not going anywhere. Rand Paul raised over $100,000 in about a month without an official fund raiser. Senator Rand Paul has a nice ring to it.
There was high drama last Friday afternoon on the House floor during the debate on the narrowly passed Cap and Trade bill. The Republicans kept pointing out that the legislation will lose more jobs and put a higher tax burden on the American people.
Quote of the Day: “It is my living sentiment, and by the blessing of God, it shall be my dying sentiment. Independence now, and independence forever.” – Daniel Webster, in an August 2, 1826 eulogy to Thomas Jefferson and John Adams; both had died on July 4th.
Every Election Day tens of millions of Americans consent to be governed, at least in theory. The politicians constantly point back to the election as justification for the things they do. But is this really valid? What about all the people who now feel betrayed by the office-holder? What about all the people who…
* voted for the lesser evil or
* voted for candidates that lost or
* would have voted for “none of the above” if the option had been available or
* didn’t vote at all because they didn’t want to endorse or encourage any of the candidates?
Do elections really confer consent? We don’t think so.
What does confer consent? Silence.
If we don’t inform our elected representatives that we object to their policies, then we shouldn’t be surprised if they assume their election to high office implies consent to their actions.
Those who mostly favor what our government is doing can celebrate July 4th content in the knowledge that they’re getting what they want. But what about the rest of us?
Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence…
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
Jefferson and the other Founders withdrew their consent and listed their reasons for doing so. Shouldn’t we do the same on this July 4th, and on every July 4th for as long as our government violates our inalienable rights?
Please use your personal comments to tell your Representatives in Congress that you don’t approve of the job they’re doing. Let them know that you’re tired of them expanding the government’s size, power, and expense far, far beyond what the Constitution provides. Read More »
Yesterday Ron Paul appeared again on “Freedom Watch” with Judge Andrew Napolitano. The Judge delivered another stellar opening monologue that was extremely critical of the hate crime legislation making its way through Congress.
Following the monologue Ron Paul was brought in to discuss the topic further. I enjoy these types of discussions because they steadfastly refute all of the completely inane and idiotic charges that Ron Paul is a “racist”. Anyone who refuses to allow emotional “arguments” cloud their reasoned judgment should understand that Ron Paul is completely opposed to any kind of racism or collectivism.
Unfortunately, most people don’t do their homework. They drool through life digesting all the news they can about the latest Michael Jackson-type death of the day. Ignorance is not bliss, ignorance is willful neglect. It should be our responsibility to know that our country of birth is fundamentally moving away from the principles of its founding. With that responsibility should come individual action.
I find it humorous that they call themselves “progressives”, as if advocating a return to the principles found in the Constitution makes one a “regressive”. No, it appears to me that so called “progressives” want to return to a time before the American Revolution, a time of empire and tyranny. If we want to have “progress” in this country it should mean restoring the rule of law found in our Constitution not continuing the practice of ignoring it.
Check out the latest episode of Freedom Watch below. Other than Ron Paul, the Judge welcomed Mary Ruwart, John McManus, David Bruckner, and Jim Babka to the show.
An excellent op-ed in the Washington Times today authored by Congressman Ron Paul hammers home the Old Right ideas of non-interventionism in foreign policy arguably better than he ever did during his Presidential campaign.
Paul writes:
Neoconservatives who have come to power in both the Democratic and Republican parties argue that the U.S. must ether confront every evil in every corner of the globe or risk danger at home. We need to “fight them over there” they say, so we don’t have to “fight them over here.” This argument presents a false choice. We do not have to pick between interventionism and vulnerability. The complexity of our world is exactly why the lessons of our past should ring true and demand a return to a traditional, pro-American foreign policy: one of nonintervention.
In this piece Ron Paul seems to be taking some lessons from his son Rand. Paul the elder is framing his non-interventionist foreign policy beliefs in a way that should be less off-putting to die hard neo-conservatives.
In the June 24, 2009, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) led by FED Chairman Ben Bernanke announced that the FED will monetize another $1.75 Trillion in 2009. The announcement reads “the Federal Reserve will purchase a total of up to $1.25 trillion of agency mortgage-backed securities and up to $200 billion of agency debt by the end of the year. In addition, the Federal Reserve will buy up to $300 billion of Treasury securities by autumn.”
This is a last-ditch attempt to continue to prop the housing market from a further collapse due to option, Alt-A, ARM mortgages. As with most of the current interventions, instead of “softening the blow” this action will merely drag out this depression, and likely will make the end resolution that much more catastrophic. Monetization of debt increase the money supply of dollars, which inevitably causes debasement of the dollar by inflation.
Ron Paul was interviewed on the Jason Lewis Show by guest host Rod Grams this evening. They talked for about 16 minutes and covered several topics but in the end focused on auditing and potentially ending the Federal Reserve.
Paul specifically discusses why he doesn’t think the way to get HR1207 to a House vote is through a discharge petition. He suggests continuing to drum up grassroots support for HR1207 is the best method.
Grams allowed Ron Paul to speak until he was done on each topic. He even pointed out that his niece convinced him that Paul was a great candidate during the 2008 election.
Listen to the interview in it’s entirety below.
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Author’s Note: Hello all. The editors of Liberty Maven have graciously agreed to include me as a contributor to this fine site. As they are always on the ball with breaking news, it may be a challenge to keep up with valuable content. So, for my first post, I’d like to start with a rhetorical, philosophical open letter that I wrote directed at all those who think that more government regulation will solve all of our nation’s ills. I hope you enjoy it!
—————————————
I’ve gotten some feedback on the subject of deregulation, and the effect of greed. Many are quick to demonize it, but I think we all need to slow down and take a look at what greed really is, before we admonish the “greedy”.
Interestingly, greed, is one of the 7 deadly sins, so we should strive to not be greedy, right? Well, greed is defined in several different ways, but the most unbiased true definition (not relating to material wealth – I’ll explain why this is important in a moment) of greed is: An eager desire or longing; greediness; as, a greed of gain. Is this not merely an extension of self interest? What is self interest? Self interest is defined as personal interest or advantage. Everyone acts in ways of self interest, some more than others. The reason is because life is a competition, like it or not. You cannot beat the self interest out of anyone, and that is the paradoxical nature of self interest, i.e., greed. To clarify my point, allow me to give several examples.
1. Early in life, we play games. The object of a game is to win. The desire to win is an act of self interest. Yes it is fun to play, but winning and losing is part of the game, and the desire to win is part of human nature. If the true object of the game is only to have fun, why do we keep score? Why do we play at all? Can we not find more fun and productive things to do if the object is “fun”?
2. When we go to school, we get graded on our performance. We strive to get good grades based on our performance, and to gauge how we are faring against our peers. Some learn faster, or in different ways, than others. It is in our self interest to get the best grades possible, so that we not only know we are learning, but to ensure that our future will be bright, by being accepted into higher educational facilities which boast better educational practices than others.
By Judge Andrew P.Napolitano FOX News Senior Judicial Analyst
The Secretary of the Treasury and the Chair of the Federal Reserve have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution and the federal laws. Among those laws is the obligation of management of publicly traded corporations to inform shareholders in a meaningful way of the risks attendant upon all extraordinary corporate activity, including major acquisitions.
The acquisition of Merrill Lynch by the Bank of America was surely a major acquisition and an extraordinary corporate act. The president of B of A now tells us that the Secretary and the Chair told him not to inform his shareholders that Merrill Lynch was truly a risky investment. As it turns out, when Ken Lewis learned that Merrill Lynch was worth about $17 billion less than the $50 billion agreed upon amount, he attempted to invoke the material adverse change (MAC) clause in the contract of acquisition, which would have given him the option of getting Merrill Lynch for $33 billion or walking away from the deal.
“Ken Lewis, Henry Paulson, John Thain, Ben Bernanke, and Jeffrey Lacker, the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, should all be prosecuted for extortion, conspiracy to extort, criminal fraud, and theft of honest services; and they should be imprisoned if convicted.”
Liberty Maven
“A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.”
Follow LM on Twitter