Upon entering office, U.S. Presidents must pledge:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Similarly, members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives must affirm:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

If our public servants aren’t held to their oaths, then the oaths are rendered meaningless.

In similar fashion, Bruce Fein has opined in the San Francisco Chronicle, that the actions of President Bush and Vice President Cheney have violated the Constitution in a variety of ways, and indeed deserve censure.  Here’s a piece of what Fein had to say:

By wielding the threat of international terrorism, the Bush-Cheney team put the nation on a permanent war footing – the first time in history that war has been undertaken against a tactic. They maintained that the entire post-9/11 world is an active battlefield where United States military force may be used to kill suspected members of al Qaeda irrespective of international boundaries.

They claimed executive privilege and state secrets to conduct secret government – thereby circumventing political and legal accountability. This included directives to former White House officials Karl Rove and Harriet Miers to flout congressional subpoenas for testimony. They detained hundreds of people (including American citizens) as enemy combatants without accusation or trial. They authorized torture (waterboarding and extraordinary rendition), abductions, secret prisons and illegal surveillance of American citizens.

Like its immediate predecessors, the 110th Congress eagerly yielded its authorities – even the power of the purse – to the president. The Iraqi War Resolution, the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Act, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act amendments, and the declination to hold Rove in contempt of Congress were emblematic.

If left unrebuked, the Bush-Cheney usurpations of power will become part of the constitutional firmament and risk creating a safe harbor for future presidential abuses. Every member of Congress, moreover, is required to take an oath to “support (the) Constitution” pursuant to Article VI. There is no corresponding oath to support the Republican or Democratic parties or to subordinate the Constitution in the name of political harmony. Censure would be no novelty.

Read the whole article.

Download audio file (judgenapolitano-btm-rickwilliams-11052008.mp3)

The word “socialism” can mean many things to many people, anything from Western European style social welfare to state ownership of the means of production to the New Deal or the Great Society or a wide range of other usages. I’ll let those who know (or at least claim to know) more about the real meaning of the word have the debate over which usage is proper (mostly because I hate debates over whether somebody is using a politically-charged word correctly). Instead, I’ll engage the McCain rhetoric on its own terms.

McCain, just like Obama, believes that taxes should be levied for the purpose of funding social programs that redistribute income downwards. (We’ll leave aside, for the moment, the fact that both of them also believe that taxes should be levied for the purpose of funding a bloated military-industrial complex and other things that redistribute at least some of the income upward.) McCain and Obama may envision different forms and scopes for those programs, and those differences may or may not have profound consequences in practice. However, the McCain rhetoric is being employed to argue that just about any downward redistribution is a type of socialism. If it is (at least in McCain’s usage of the term) then McCain is a socialist. Maybe not as much of a socialist as Obama (we’ll leave aside welfare for the rich, for the moment) but a socialist nonetheless.

Read the rest here.

Download audio file (barr-hartman-airamerica-10202008.mp3)

Below you will discover the Liberty Maven rankings for BJ Lawson on the Paul-O-Meter, where candidates and current lawmakers can be rated on how closely they are in line with Dr. Ron Paul on the issues. To learn about the Paul-O-Meter methodology please see this article. You may also assign your own rankings or request a candidate be added to the system.

Continue reading to see if BJ Lawson truly deserves the moniker “Ron Paul Jr.”

1. Liberty-based Voting Record – Lawson does not have a voting record; therefore per guidelines the score is a 3. Score: 3
2. The Federal Reserve and Monetary Policy – Lawson supports instituting competing currencies, and badmouths the Federal Reserve any chance he gets. He doesn’t advocate abolishing it, like Ron Paul, but does advocate more transparency and accountability. Score: 4
3. Foreign Policy and Iraq – Lawson is a non-interventionist and advocates a safe and immediate withdrawal from Iraq.  Score: 5
4. Taxes – Supports efforts to transition to a point when income taxes are unnecessary. Supports some flavor of consumption tax, but has concerns about the Fair Tax. Score: 4
5. Government Spending – Lawson supports a balanced budget amendment and ending deficit spending. Score: 5
6. Privacy and Civil Liberties – Lawson says “no thanks” to the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, Real ID, and FISA just like Ron Paul. Score: 5
7. Immigration – Lawson is against amnesty for illegal aliens and points out that we need to end the welfare/economic incentives that encourage illegal immigration. Score: 5
8. Gun Control and Second Amendment – Lawson is very close to Ron Paul here. He supports the 2nd Amendment and concealed carry laws, but is not completely explicit on ancillary gun control issues like trigger locks, background checks, and waiting periods. Score: 4
9. Internet Regulation – Lawson does not support federally regulating Internet gambling. Lawson has stated that he supports Net Neutrality which is not something Ron Paul supports because he views it as more regulation. Score: 2
10. Adherence To The Constitution – Lawson calls the Constitution the “rule book” for our country. Score: 5
11. Religion vs. Public Policy – Lawson rarely, if ever, invokes religion in his rhetoric and policy positions. Score: 5
12. Environment – Lawson advocates utilizing the court system and property rights as a defense for the environment just like Ron Paul. However, he also favors a Carbon tax which Ron Paul does not support. Score: 4
13. Energy Policy – Lawson supports drilling wherever necessary and also recognizes that it isn’t the only solution. He does not speak out against Nuclear power and suggests we use all means to obtain more energy. Score: 5
14. U.S. Sovereignty – Lawson does not seem to ever mention the NAU, but does mention protecting U.S. sovereignty. That is not good enough to score points though due to the stringent guidelines for this item. UPDATE: We received word from the Lawson campaign that he is 100% opposed to the NAU, therefore we update his score. Score:5
15. War On Drugs – Lawson advocates ending the war on drugs, leaving drug regulation to the states, and pardoning non-violent drug offenders just like Paul. Score: 5
16. Education – Lawson advocates getting rid of the Department of Education and advocates more choice and home schooling. Score: 5
17. Welfare Programs – Lawson advocates gracefully reducing welfare programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. He also advocates ending corporate welfare. Score: 5
18. Abortion – Lawson is pro-life and will leave the decision of legalizing or prohibiting abortion to the states per the Constitution. Score: 5
19. Health Care – Lawson is a Ron Paul twin on health care. He is against any nationalized plan and advocates free market approaches and returning medical decisions back to doctors and patients rather than health insurance companies. Score: 5
20. Ability To Spread The Liberty Message – Lawson hands out pocket Constitutions during his campaign events. He is a very visible candidate campaigning throughout his district in North Carolina. There is no questioning his dedication to the liberty message. Score: 5

William “BJ” Lawson’s final Paul-O-Meter Score: 91 out of 99 possible points.

It is hardly surprising that Lawson achieved such a high score. It is certainly safe to say that BJ Lawson can be honestly called “Ron Paul Jr.”. There were a handful of issues where Lawson could score higher, but the information was either not out there or was too difficult to find. NOTE: We have updated Lawson’s score by +5 (giving him a 91 instead of an 86) because his campaign has informed us that he is 100% against the NAU.

Lawson is a Ron Paul supporter’s best bet to get a liberty-loving Constitutionalist into Congress. We should all pretend we live within Lawson’s district and do everything in our power to help get him elected.

If you disagree with our ratings or would like to rate other candidates and lawmakers feel free to do so on the Paul-O-Meter site. All current representatives (both Senate and House) are in the system, as well as many user-submitted candidates running for office throughout America. Each candidate now also has their very own Paul-O-Meter rating page that can be linked to from all around the web.

“…this new mission marks the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities.”

“The 1st BCT’s soldiers also will learn how to use ‘the first ever nonlethal package that the Army has fielded,’ 1st BCT commander Col. Roger Cloutier said, referring to crowd and traffic control equipment and nonlethal weapons designed to subdue unruly or dangerous individuals without killing them.”

So, then, what is an unruly crowd?  Is it anything at all akin to the peaceful, park-loving protesters and bystanders who were spontaneously surrounded by SWAT Police in full riot gear and arrested on Labor Day in St. Paul, Minnesota?

Folks, this concerns me.  In fact, quite frankly, this makes me want to go run and find a cave.

Let’s look at the big picture:

1) We won’t defend our borders, and, quite frankly, neither of the two mainstream Presidential candidates are interested in any action on that front. Instead, we’ve got volunteer Minutemen who have to do the government’s duty, from spotting illegal immigrants and alerting authorities on the border of McCain’s home state of Arizona, to building a fence in Texas.

2) We now have greater civil unrest in Mexico, as the Mexican Mafia has now turned to terrorist-like acts of violence against citizens, as opposed to singling out politicians and others involved in the drug trade. In fact, as civil unrest and violence in Mexico increase at our own borders, and even crosses over them into our own nation, the government decides that the most sensible and effective course of action is to label these individuals as “narcoterrorists”. Instead of focusing on the most TRULY sensible and logical next step, working to secure our borders, Washington now uses recent events as a justification for increasing “its investment in the fight against the drug trade by spending $2 billion in counternarcotics aid money to Mexico and Central America through the Merida Initiative.” Well, why not?  The War on Drugs and the War on Terror haven’t been successful so far, so why not throw a couple more billion at the problem, doing the exact opposite of what common sense dictates?

3) Speaking of the War On Terror, has anyone noticed that Osama Bin Laden was never charged with a crime for his involvement in 9/11?  Has anyone noticed that no criteria have ever been suggested towards an identification of success, or victory, in the War on Terror?  Heck, even Asia, which is “home to more Muslims than the Middle East”, believes that “the current US administration has been overly focused on the Middle East”.

So, we’re not accomplishing anything by “addressing threats abroad”, or by fighting a “War on Drugs”, or even with the official Border Patrol.  Yet, we will train our militaries for domestic crowd control?  Congress and the military will put together equipment to stand up a hasty road block; spike strips for slowing, stopping or controlling traffic…, but they won’t defend our borders, or even bother to read Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which specifically states that everything they are doing is THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what they are empowered and obligated to do?:

…To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress…

Congress is, at this very moment, collapsing our economy.  Whether you believe that the Wall Street disasters are incidents of negligence or of deliberate fraud and corruption, the end result is the same:  our government has failed us, and it won’t take much more for a total economic collapse.  It would seem to me that, in the event of a total economic collapse, there might be a little bit of “civil unrest”.  Apparently, the U.S. Government also feels that our country is headed down this path, as they are doing more to prepare for “dealing with crowds” than they are about returning to the Fundamentals of the Founding Fathers in an effort to nurture and naturally heal this country back to a position of financial strength.

Sarah Palin In The Land Of McCain's Oz

It is now time to rate the vice presidential candidates on the Paul-O-Meter. We start with John McCain’s VP pick Sarah Palin. The perfect strategic pick for McCain, Palin has little history. She’s been Governor of Alaska for less than two years, but now that McCain’s handlers are pulling Palin’s puppet strings it is difficult to see a difference between the two.

Here we examine Palin on 20 issues to see how she stacks up to Ron Paul. Hopefully this will help some see the lips through the lipstick.

If you’d like to see more ratings or rate Palin or any other candidate or lawmaker head on over to Paul-O-Meter.com and explore the possibilities.

If you want to delve into the question of whether Palin truly is similar to Ron Paul read onward.

1. Liberty-based Voting Record – Palin is a bit wishy washy on her liberty voting record. She supported the infamous “Bridge To Nowhere” first and then changed her position when it became the popular thing to do. She does to a certain extent try to follow the Constitution, for instance she refused to sign a bill from the Alaskan state legislature stating that the Real ID will not be funded in Alaska. She let the signing period expire which ended up making the law pass. So she didn’t exactly stand up for liberty in that case. Score: 3
2. The Federal Reserve and Monetary Policy – Palin hasn’t mentioned this issue thus far. She seems to be taking the same position as McCain so it is hard to tell where she stands on the issue. In any case, she is certainly not like Ron Paul who calls for abolishing the Fed and legalizing competing currencies. Score: 0
3. Foreign Policy and Iraq – Palin has stated several times her support of going into Iraq before even being chosen as VP. She now has adopted John McCain’s foreign policy of intervention, the polar opposite of Ron Paul. Score: 0
4. Taxes – She supported lowering taxes in Alaska, but did raise the sales tax. As VP she’s taken John McCain’s promise to lower taxes on businesses to promote job growth. This is tinkering from a Ron Paul perspective. She does not support repealing the 16th amendment nor a consumption tax. Score: 1
5. Government Spending – She was a champion of curbing spending in Alaska and is continuing the same lines as VP. She hasn’t mentioned reducing the national debt, but has echoed John McCain on earmark reform. Score: 2
6. Privacy and Civil Liberties – Palin is not quite a friend to Privacy and Civil Liberties. She created “FBI Day” in Alaska to “support fighting global crime”. No word from her on FISA or the Patriot Act. Similar to Ron Paul, she has stated that she doesn’t support hate crime. Because she allowed Alaska to vote to not fund the Real ID she deserves at least a point or two. Score: 2
7. Immigration – It’s very difficult to find Palin’s stance on immigration. According to Laura Ingraham though who talked with Palin, she disagrees with McCain on “comprehensive immigration reform” which supports amnesty. If true, she is more like Ron Paul on illegal immigration than John McCain. Score: 3
8. Gun Control and Second Amendment – She is a large advocate of the Second amendment and supporting the repeal of the DC gun ban. Score: 5
9. Internet Regulation – Palin hasn’t stated anything publicly about internet regulation specifically. There is conjecture that she may support Net Neutrality based on other legislative actions, but that is unreliable. She has promised to not expand “gambling” in Alaska saying it is harmful to society so it is certainly probably she would be for UIGEA which virtually bans online gambling. Given the lack of information we must guess at the score. Score: 2
10. Adherence To The Constitution – She has voted against her own personal views in Alaska because the bill was unconstitutional. At least with respect to Alaska and her view on gun rights she seems to be a Constitutionalist. Her statements on privacy and civil liberties, though, call into question her stance on the Fourth Amendment. Score: 3
11. Religion vs. Public Policy – Palin publicly declared that U.S. involvement in the Iraq war was the “will of God”. She also has injected religion into her speeches and statements quite regularly. This is quite opposite to Ron Paul. Score: 0
12. Environment – She has spoken out against John McCain’s “cap and trade” proposal. She has voted against endangered species legislation in Alaska. She seems to be closer to Ron Paul on this issue than John McCain. Score: 4
13. Energy Policy – She is a strong advocate for drilling in ANWR and off the U.S. coastlines. She seems to be right in line with Ron Paul here. Score: 5
14. U.S. Sovereignty – Palin doesn’t seem to have ever mentioned the NAU nor the threat to U.S. Sovereignty. Score: 0
15. War On Drugs – Palin is a drug warrior like McCain. She doesn’t support legalizing medical marijuana. Score: 0
16. Education – She doesn’t support abolishing the Department of Education, but she does support school choice and home schooling. Score: 3
17. Welfare Programs – Palin supports Social Security reform, but is quite short on specifics. It seems she refuses to give a straight answer on this topic. Score: 0
18. Abortion – She is a mirror of Ron Paul on the abortion issue. Score: 5
19. Health Care – She seems to echo Ron Paul on health care. She supports competition and putting decisions back in the hands of doctors, not bureaucrats. Score: 5
20. Ability To Spread The Liberty Message – Palin doesn’t have a liberty message on most topics, revealing that her being a “libertarian” is a complete misnomer. Therefore she doesn’t deserve much of a score here. Score: 1

Sarah Palin’s final Paul-O-Meter Score: 44 out of 99 points.

Those that call Palin “libertarian leaning” are simply mischaracterizing her positions. She’s no libertarian, leaning or otherwise. She is a low fat neo-conservative. She always supported the Iraq War. She is a drug warrior. Obama’s much criticized statement that John McCain in choosing Palin was trying to put “lipstick on a pig” therefore has another meaning. McCain is trying to put “libertarianism” on a “neo-conservative”.

Hopefully, the mindless masses will see what’s behind McCain’s curtain before the end of the movie.

Bob Barr

This afternoon WashingtonPost.com had a Q&A session with Bob Barr. I found it somewhat annoying that he didn’t answer all the questions (or they weren’t included in the transcript) when someone asked a two- or three-part question, but nonetheless it could serve well for those not too familiar with Bob Barr. Oh, and the closet Libertarian purist in me cringed when he called for “some form of a consumption type tax” in lieu of the IRS and payroll deductions.

Read it here.

His explanation demonstrates the incremental steps taking us from freedom towards tyranny. The next time someone attempts to argue with you about having to sacrifice liberty for safety point them to this interview.

Reason: What’s your case against the USA PATRIOT Act?

Napolitano: Let’s put aside all of the procedural problems with enacting it. Forget about the fact that there was no debate. Forget about the fact that most members of Congress didn’t even have an opportunity to read it. It is a direct assault on at least three amendments to the Constitution: the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment. The PATRIOT Act legitimates the notion that if we give up certain freedoms, the government will keep us safer. I reject that notion from a moral and legal point of view. I also reject it from a practical point of view. It doesn’t work. The government doesn’t need our freedoms to keep us safer. No one–no lawyer, judge, or historian–can point to a single incident in American history where national security was impaired because someone insisted on their right to free speech or their right to privacy or their right to due process.

The PATRIOT Act encourages what the government calls “national security letters”–basically, self-written search warrants. It violates the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits self-written search warrants. The PATRIOT Act and two of its predecessors, the Foreign Intelligence Security Act of 1977 [FISA] and the Electronic Privacy Act of 1986, authorized the government to obtain search warrants by bypassing [longstanding tradition in] the courts. Today an FBI agent investigating a person need only satisfy her or himself that the person under investigation is a threat to national security. The agent doesn’t have to demonstrate evidence to a judge.

The Judge can authoritatively articulate our loss of liberty better than anyone and that includes Ron Paul. It is a shame he is beholden to FOX News and cannot show bias about candidates he supports. It is pretty obvious that he is a Ron Paul supporter after his rousing introduction of Ron Paul last year, calling him the “Thomas Jefferson of our day”.

He deserves a medal for doing his radio show along side neocon torture supporter and warmonger Brian Kilmeade without choking him.

Read the great full interview with Judge Napolitano here.

1. Although some polls put Bob Barr in the 6% range in June, all polls now put him in the 1-2% range.
2. Measuring up to Ron Paul’s, Barr’s fundraising is comparatively non-existent.
3. Barr has “failed to win over the party faithful”, and has failed to adequately explain his support of unconstitutional bills in his past.

I agree with him on the first 2½ points, but when he and other people continue to say that Bob Barr has done nothing to alleviate the concerns of those who question his part, I strongly disagree.  In every interview I’ve seen where people question his past support for the Patriot Act, the Drug War, etc., he has admitted his mistake, and explained how he seen the light and actually worked hard to reverse these things.  What else can the man do?  Only time will tell whether or not he is sincere or just being political expedient, but that’s not part of this argument.  Bob has worked tirelessly for the past 5 years against the Patriot Act and it’s successors, FISA, and has even joined up with the American Civil Liberties Union and the Marijuana Policy Project in support of medicinal drug use.  What else can the man do to alleviate concerns? If you simply choose not to trust him, that’s one thing.  But to say that he’s done nothing is simply ludicrous.

Thiessen concludes by predicting Barr will get less votes in November than Badnarik’s 397,000 in 2004, which I feel is quite astonishing.  I certainly hope this won’t be the case.

Read the article at NolanChart.com here.

“All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”
– attributed to Edmund Burke

Subject: We got a big response on the REAL ID campaign — it points the way to the future

Our message yesterday about the exchange between Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff and Governor Schweitzer of Montana got a big response. So many DC Downsizers tried to take action all at once that it overwhelmed our website. Some people had trouble sending messages as a result. We’ve fixed part of the problem, and our capacity is about to get better as we install our new servers.

This is a good problem to have. Thank you to everyone who took action yesterday.

The fight against the REAL ID Act points the way to the future. It used to be that the American people just rolled over and submitted every time Congress passed a bad law. No more. Now the American people are fighting back.

We must do the same thing with regard to the vote on the FISA warrantless spying bill that we lost recently. Congress may think the issue is settled, but we must make sure that it is not settled.

We are in negotiations with our coalition allies about the best strategy for overturning the warrantless spying law. Many of our allies are already taking action on the legal front, preparing to mount lawsuits. But there will be a grassroots strategy too.

We’re pushing the idea that we ought to pursue a broad-based legislative attack on all aspects of the Bush-era assault on the Constitution. We have a perfect vehicle to use for this approach, Congressman Ron Paul’s “American Freedom Agenda Act.” This bill was created by a number of progressive and conservative organizations and introduced by Ron Paul. This bill would . . .

* Repeal the “Military Commissions Act of 2006” and thereby restore the ancient right of habeas corpus and end legally sanctioned torture by U.S. government agents
* Restore the ”Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act” (FISA) and thereby outlaw warrantless spying on American citizens by the President of the United States
* Give Congress standing in court to challenge the President’s use of “signing statements” as a means to avoid executing the nation’s laws
* Make it illegal for government agents to kidnap people and send them abroad to be tortured by foreign governments
* Provide legal protection to journalists who expose wrong-doing by the Federal government
* Prohibit the use of secret evidence to label groups or individuals as terrorists for the purpose of criminal or civil sanctions

We’re contemplating a number of new tactics to push this bill forward. These tactics would serve to put Congress on the spot, much as Governor Schweitzer put Secretary Chertoff on the spot. But the first step is to start a steady drumbeat of messages hammering members of Congress to become co-sponsors of the “American Freedom Agenda Act.”

Please start that drumbeat today, by sending your elected representatives a message. You can do that here.

Please also consider making a contribution to further our work. You can do that here.

Thank you for being a part of our growing Downsize DC army.

Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h
is the official email list of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation

Listen here

(NOTE: If you link to the audio, please include a link to this article as the source. Thanks)