Earlier today Judge Andrew Napolitano was the guest host on the Glenn Beck show. Four liberty-loving guests appeared on the show with the Judge. Peter Schiff, John Stossel, Ron Paul, and Rand Paul all appeared. When the Judge hosts Beck’s show it almost turns into an episode of Freedom Watch.
If you don’t know what Freedom Watch is then please check out http://freedomwatchonfox.com/. It’s an online only show hosted by the Judge catering to freedom-loving people everywhere.
Check out the excellent discussions from the show today below.
I saw a bumper sticker today that said, “I Love Sarah”. I assumed it meant Sarah Palin and not Sarah Jessica Parker, but I can’t be sure. Last month Palin was echoing Ron Paul on the role of the Federal Reserve in America’s economic crisis. I encouraged her (not that she gives one moose about what I think) to echo Ron Paul on foreign policy as well.
Yesterday it became quite clear that she was never in danger of becoming a foreign policy non-interventionist like Paul.
Palin published a note on her Facebook page Tuesday that encourages President Barack Obama to grant a request for the tens of thousands of additional troops reportedly requested by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in the country.
“Now is not the time for cold feet, second thoughts, or indecision,” Palin wrote on the site. “It is the time to act as commander-in-chief and approve the troops so clearly needed in Afghanistan.”
Noting the possible consequences of not helping to build up Afghanistan’s institutions, the former Alaska governor also wholeheartedly endorsed McChrystal’s counterinsurgency approach to continued U.S. military presence in the country.
“We can win in Afghanistan by helping the Afghans build a stable representative state able to defend itself. And we must do what it takes to prevail. The stakes are very high. The 9/11 attacks were planned in Afghanistan, and if we are not successful there, al Qaeda will once again find a safe haven, the Taliban will impose its cruelty on the Afghan people, and Pakistan will be less stable.”
She is just confirming that she never was and never will be a libertarian, especially when it comes to foreign policy. Don’t let the new designation (or Eric Dondero) fool you. The Palin-Cons are the same old Neo-Cons.
Fox News legal commentator Judge Andrew Napolitano’s Internet program Freedom Watch is one of the most fascinating phenomena in the history of the libertarian movement. There’s never been anything like it and if it were to break out to the Fox News television channel, it would constitute nothing less than a revolutionary development in American politics.
Take a look at the guests that Napolitano has been having on his show: Lew Rockwell, Bob Higgs, James Bovard, Paul Armentano, Ron Paul, Roger Pilon, Tom Woods, Pete Eyre, Nick Gillespie, David Boaz, Peter Schiff, Walter Block, and many more. Every one of them is a major figure in the libertarian movement. I myself have been on Napolitano’s show twice.
How many times have you seen any of these guests on the mainstream television talk shows or even on the cable television talk shows? My hunch is that your answer is “Rarely, if ever.”
For years, conservatives and liberals have played their little games of pretending to have debates over policy, acting as if there were fundamental philosophical differences between the two. In actuality, the debates have always been over which form of statism is preferable — conservative statism or liberal statism.
I attended a FFF sponsored event at George Mason University last night. Robert Higgs delivered one of the best speeches I’ve heard yet. He compared and contrasted the Great Depression with our current economic woes. Look for the video later this week. You don’t want to miss it.
About a week ago, John Stossel announced on his blog that he’s leaving ABC and the primetime show 20/20 and will be starting up a new hour-long, prime time, weekly program on the Fox Business Channel.
As for the content of the program, Stossel states:
In my new job, I want to dig into the meaning of the words “liberty” and “limited government”. ABC enabled me to do some of that, but Fox offers me more airtime and a new challenge.
I’m still considering what I will do with my own show, one hour each week. Economics certainly. Exercises in understanding libertarianism. My “take” on the issues of the day. Kind of like this blog. In fact, maybe we’ll call it, Stossel’s Take?
In fact he asks for your ideas if you care to submit them. I look forward to his program, since it appears he won’t be hampered as much by the whims of the ABC editors and producers. At least, his new program will be less likely to be pushed out by Michael Jackson news.
Rand Paul, son of Ron Paul, announced his candidacy for the U.S. Senate yesterday on the Neil Cavuto show. There were reports he would announce on the Glenn Beck show but that didn’t work out. He also appeared on Happy Hour on the Fox Business Channel along with Peter Schiff and Judge Napolitano discussing why he’s running as a Republican vs. an Independent as Cody Willard wishes.
He is also scheduled to be on with Glenn Beck this morning on Beck’s radio show.
This week I’m wondering, once again, why believing in and following the Constitution is considered by many to be radical extremist behavior? America’s founding document should be more than some piece of old paper that tourists come to gawk at while visiting our nation’s capital. It’s like America has become an atheist nation and the Constitution is the Bible.
The power culture in DC ignores the Constitution because it is in their best interest to do so. Perhaps our founders were stupid for expecting a unit of law-making force and power (the government) to remain restrained by a document (the Constitution) that those (the citizenry) who are bound by the laws are supposed to enforce. No, it’s not perfect, but it has worked, more or less, for over 200+ years. The big question of the current generation seems to be how do we keep it from slipping away completely? Will America be America in 10 years? The writing on the wall says ‘no’, but it is our duty to do everything in our power to change that writing to say ‘yes’.
Michael Maresco has done more than most in this effort. Last week he completed his most recent journey across America via bicycle in an effort to raise awareness about America’s road from freedom to fascism. To me and many others he is the ultimate liberty hero. People like Michael give me hope. Please check out the site dedicated to his ride. Read through his travel log, look at the pictures, and be inspired by what you witness. He shows us all what is still great about America through the people he met and the places he’s seen. See LibertyRider.com.
Now a quick note on the name of this web site. I want to make it clear that I never intended to be dubbed THE Liberty Maven. I’ve been called that and I get uncomfortable every time it happens. The truth is that the domain name was available when we (Mike Miller and I) were trying to come up with a name for the site and it sounded good, so we got it. The intent of the name is to let everyone know that it is they who need to become liberty mavens. Having a country of liberty mavens is the goal. That goal may not be attainable, kind of like the “pursuit of happiness”, but always reaching for it is the important thing. I also want to thank you for continuing to read Liberty Maven. We don’t thank our readers enough. It is because of you that the site still exists and remains a passion for me and our other contributors. Thank you.
I was thinking about the recent news regarding the agreement between Obama and Medvedev on reductions in nuclear warheads and missiles. How does this coincide with a Libertarian frame of mind?
So afraid was I that I’d fall into that tired Republican claptrap about a “weak America” that at first, my reaction was, “Great! We and Russia can lead by example in reducing our nuclear arms, hopefully lending other nations to relax their nuclear programs.” But was that reaction correct?
As Libertarians, we take the Constitution seriously. We understand the importance of the Second Amendment:
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
But does this apply to our government and the protection of us as a nation? I thought I might find a rebuttal in Article I, Section 8 somewhere, regarding standing armies and such, but none of those apply, in my opinion.
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.
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.
Liberty Maven
Follow LM on Twitter