We need your help to join an amicus brief to the Supreme Court arguing that the right to keep and bear arms is not only a right to self-defense against criminals, but also against tyrannical government.
Statism is the belief that politicians and bureaucrats should have broad powers to use force against citizens. In its most virulent forms Statism killed more people in the 20th Century alone than all of the individual non-governmental murderers in the history of the world, COMBINED!
Not even the Black Death of the Middle Ages, or the Flu epidemic of 1918, can approach these numbers, even if you combine the totals from those two epidemics and reduce the estimate for the total number of murders committed by governments.
But the terrible statistics for Statist murder still only tell part of the story. We must add to them the statistics for the mass theft, imprisonment, and torture committed by governments against innocent people. These measurements of State criminality are even more vast, so much so that they are literally incalculable.
The State, and the belief-system that fosters its criminality — Statism — are the great scourges of human existence, against which no other source of death and destruction can remotely compare.
Of course, in reaction to all of these blood-curdling facts the fool argues that such things could never happen in this country. The same foolish belief was held by people in Russia, Germany, China, Cambodia, and a hundred other places, before such things DID happen in those countries. But such naivety is also exposed by one other crucial fact . . .
Murderous and violent crimes by the State have already been committed by our government, on a massive scale. A partial list would include . . . Read More »
Maybe we all should be asking ourselves what is the purpose of our interventionist foreign policy? What makes us think we can help (I use that term loosely) Afghanistan where others have failed miserably?
We’re lost — that’s how I feel. I’m not exactly sure why we’re here,” said Specialist Raquime Mercer
The soldiers’ biggest question is: what can we do to make this war stop. Catch one person? Assault one objective? Soldiers want definite answers, other than to stop the Taleban, because that almost seems impossible. It’s hard to catch someone you can’t see
The chaplains said that many soldiers had lost their desire to help Afghanistan. “All they want to do is make it home alive and go back to their wives and children and visit the families who have lost husbands and fathers over here. It comes down to just surviving,” said Captain Masengale.
What an interesting discussion Judge Napolitano had with the wonderful Robert Higgs on Freedom Watch last Friday. They discuss how Barack Obama is more easily compared to Herbert Hoover than FDR.
One book near the top of my must-read list is Thomas DiLorenzo’s Hamilton’s Curse. Having previously read The Real Lincoln and listened to DiLorenzo speak in person and on talk shows like Baltimore’s Ron Smith Show, I am already a fan. Today at the Future of Freedom Foundation, George C. Leef references DiLorenzo’s book as he gives his own scathing rundown of how Hamilton and his legacy has greatly ruined this country. Here’s a small piece:
…Hamilton looks pleasant enough in his portrait on our $10 bill, but he was an arrogant egomaniac.
Hamilton was a determined opponent of Jefferson’s laissez-faire philosophy at every turn. When it came to trade, he demanded high protective tariffs because he thought, in the mercantilistic tradition, that if a nation produced “its own” goods rather than purchasing them from “other countries” it would become stronger. Mercantilism was inseparable from economic nationalism — the foolish and destructive idea that political boundaries have great economic significance. (We still suffer grievously from this idiocy, of course.) Individual American consumers would be harmed by artificially high prices for items they might have bought less expensively from producers in other countries, but Hamilton was not concerned about the problems of individuals. His obsession was with “strengthening” the nation.
In the early years of the United States, Hamilton battled against Jefferson’s reading of the Constitution as placing severe limits on federal authority. To Hamilton and his Federalist allies, the wording of the Constitution, especially the enumerated powers of Congress, meant nothing more than an intellectual game of trying to invent interpretations that gave the government “inherent” powers that it was not specifically given. Contrary to the sensible, restrictive reading of the Constitution defended by Jefferson, Hamilton insisted that the General Welfare and Commerce Clauses were meant to give the federal government almost limitless powers.
Leef then goes on to discuss the traitorous presidencies of Lincoln, Roosevelt, and disasters in the form of the 17th Amendment, the income tax, and the Federal Reserve Act. I highly recommend reading the entire article.
Judge Andrew Napolitano takes a look at the Wilson fiasco from a different angle than most of the mainstream media, which tends to focus on the “respect” that the [office of the] President of the Unites States “deserves”. The Judge points out that Wilson shouted “you lied!” while the president was claiming that illegal aliens would not receive health care benefits under the “public option” proposal, and then examines this with respect to the Constitution’s “Equal Protection” provision.
The Constitution imposes on the government numerous burdens that we as individuals do not have. For example, I can tell my nephew to keep quiet at the dinner table because I don’t like what he said about grandma, but the First Amendment prevents the government from keeping him silent on a street corner when he criticizes it. Similarly, I can give a gift to some of my nephews and nieces because they are great kids, but I don’t need to give gifts of equal value, since I can spend my money on gifts however I wish. But the government has some burdens here that individuals do not. The Constitution requires that the government treat all persons similarly situated in a similar manner. This is the essence of “Equal Protection,” which the Constitution requires of the states and the federal government.
Napolitano goes on to cite case-law in which the Supreme Court has ruled that states may not deny people the right to an education based on citizenship status, and undoubtedly “an education is in the same class of social benefits as providing health care.” He points out that Obama with all his collegiate accolades certainly must know this.
Can anyone really suggest that the Harvard Law School-educated University of Chicago-employed professor of constitutional law did NOT know the law when he contended that the Congress can keep universal health care away from illegals? He must have known that, short of amending the Constitution to re-define “persons” and “Equal Protection”, whatever the Congress makes available by way of social services to the general population, it must make available to all persons.
There is no question that under the present law, Congress simply cannot pick and choose which “persons” to whom it will afford social benefits and to which “persons” it will not. How could the president not have known that?
I was lucky enough to acquire an advanced copy of the movie. It went straight from the mailbox into my DVD player. You are going to adore this movie. In fact, you are going to EVOL this movie.
Without revealing too many details (I don’t want this to be a spoiler) it covers all of the major grassroots events, efforts, and activists that were the essence of the Ron Paul Revolution. It begins right around the time Ron Paul announced his candidacy and culminates with the Rally for the Republic.
The creators utilize the “Walk4Freedom” (perfectly I might add) as an avenue to tie the “story” together. The story is told by the grassroots activists themselves, individuals such as Michael Maresco (Walk4Freedom, Ron Paul Rider, Ride For Honesty), Lawrence Lepard (Full Page Ron Paul Ad purchaser and organizer), Trevor Lyman (Money bomb promotion, Ron Paul Blimp), and many others.
Rand Paul was kind enough to participate in an email interview with us earlier this week. Tomorrow he celebrates his father’s birthday with a money bomb of his own. Organized by grass roots supporters and dubbed the “Run Rand Run” money bomb, it aims to raise $1 million for his Senate campaign.
Yesterday a new scientific poll was released showing that Rand Paul trails the establishment GOP candidate by only 11 percentage points. Rand showed up with 26% to Trey Grayson’s 37%. This is a very strong showing for an anti-establishment candidate challenging a career politician. There are still 9 months to go before the May 2010 GOP primary in Kentucky. This poll proves the viability of Paul. Grayson now has to prepare himself for a dogfight. A lot can happen in 9 months.
Here is our short interview with Rand Paul from earlier this week.
LM: Starting off with a bit of a personal question, what was it like growing up in the Ron Paul household? Was he as strict with his children as he is with following the Constitution?
Rand Paul: All the kids were into sports. My older brother was a nationally ranked swimmer and my younger brother played baseball in college. I swam for a non-scholarship program at Baylor. My earliest memories are of discussing politics with my father’s friends. I always gravitated to the adult conversation.
This week let’s start off with some interesting comments by radio talk show host Jason Lewis. A caller discusses the now infamous New Hampshire Town Hall gunman’s appearance on Hardball with Chris Matthews. Lewis uses the opportunity to bluntly say that the gunman identified himself as a Ron Paul supporter and is the Ron Paul supporters who are “leading the charge on taking the country back.” Listen to the excerpt 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.
The Left is attempting to minimize the dissent running rampant at “town halls” across the country. Now a chain email has been initiated by the White House to debunk what they call “lies” about health reform efforts. To this I ask what happens when these so-called lies turn out to be true? Haven’t we had enough denying economic reality? Supporters of this kind of health reform argue that it’s not a single payer plan and that the government’s public option will compete fairly with private insurance companies.
In the wake of last year’s Heller decision the question of incorporating the 2nd Amendment to the states has seen some play in the U.S. circuit court system. What is “incorporation” and should the 2nd Amendment override state law?
First, here is some audio from Guntalk, a weekly radio show hosted by Tom Gresham of Guntalk.tv, a wonderful resource for all gun-owners.
Gresham reveals the details of the previous incorporation-related cases and a new development that could have a bearing on whether or not the Supreme Court takes up the question. Before it was a no-brainer for the high court to hear the case, but now the 9th Circuit Court appears to be trying their hardest to make it a “brainer”. Listen to Gresham lay it all out in the audio 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.
Originally, the Constitution and Bill of Rights were a set of restraints on the federal government. The states pretty much had free reign on the laws they could enact. The states were governing themselves prior to the ratification of the Constitution. Our Founders (for the most part) tried to avoid trampling on states’ rights to self-govern. The amendments passed following the Civil War, particularly the 14th, set the stage for the trampling to begin.
Liberty Maven
Judge Andrew Napolitano takes a look at the Wilson fiasco from 
Follow LM on Twitter