by Alan Gottlieb and Joe Waldron

Writing in the Boston Globe, reporter Susan Milligan noted that the Democratic Party, “long identified with gun control, is rethinking its approach to the gun debate, seeking to improve the chances of its candidates in Western states where hunters have been wary of casting votes for a party with a national reputation of being against guns.”

Later, she notes that a spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence “acknowledged that gun control supporters have done a poor job of framing their arguments in ways that do not make lawful hunters fear their lifestyle is under attack.”

Milligan’s well-written piece, unfortunately, did not explain that the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting, nor did it say that Democrats are changing their opinions about guns and the people who own them. Not surprisingly, gun rights activists who frequent KeepAndBearArms.com - the busiest firearms rights website in the country - were quick to pick up on this. Wrote one correspondent: “It’s always ’seeking to improve the chances of its candidates’. Notice exactly whom that serves…OK, contrast it to ’seeking to better understand their constituents’ needs’.”

Throughout the Globe article, there were repeated references to hunters, but the vast majority of law-abiding gun owners in this country aren’t hunters. They own firearms for personal protection, competition, recreational shooting and collecting. Even hunters own guns for other purposes. Many gun owners simply like to tinker with firearms the way car buffs spend hours under the hoods of their high-performance sports cars.

Democrats will not acknowledge that they really aren’t changing their underlying philosophy about guns, they’re simply trying to repackage the message to make it less offensive to the tens of millions of Americans upon whose gun rights they want to infringe. They stopped calling it “gun control” and now call it “gun safety,” but the product is always the same: Some new scheme that ratchets down on a citizen’s right to own a gun. Sometimes, as reported by the St. Petersburg Times recently, they shy away from the gun issue altogether, terrified to admit that theirs is the party of restrictive gun laws.

Brady spokesman Peter Hamm said gun owners are wary that efforts to ban so-called “assault weapons” are actually aimed at taking someone’s hunting rifle. No, that’s not the problem, Peter. The problem is that semi-automatic rifles and shotguns used by hunters operate the same as the ugly black guns targeted by such bans. The problem is that Democrats treat the right to bear arms as a privilege, subject to myriad regulations and the whims of Congress and state legislatures.

Gun owners understand this is about a Constitutional right, equal in standing to the right of free speech, press and religion. It is no less important than the right to legal counsel for those accused of crimes, or the right to be secure in one’s person, house, papers and effects against unreasonable search and seizure.

The firearms community knows that if Congress can ban one kind of firearm, it will be easier to ban other kinds of guns later on.

Democrats just don’t get it. Gun owners aren’t stupid. They know what’s at stake. Gun owners are a rather independent lot. They value their liberty. They frame the issue as not being one about guns, but about control, of their property and their lives. And, they are right.

If Democrats really want to impress gun owners, they can stop pushing laws - and repeal those now on the books - that strip people of their gun rights for something foolish they may have done 30 years ago as a youth. They can restore funding to allow the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to once again conduct investigations to restore a person’s gun rights. They can oppose laws that allow police to seize someone’s firearms merely on “suspicion.” They can endorse a national concealed carry law. They can vote to overturn the Washington, D.C. gun ban.

But that’s not what Democrats want or believe in, and they know it. They just can’t bring themselves to admit it. Instead, they worry about how to reinvent themselves.

Chameleons do that, but gun owners understand that chameleons, no matter what they look like, are still reptiles.

Alan Gottlieb is founder of the Second Amendment Foundation. Joe Waldron is executive director of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

by Kevin Tuma

“There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.”

-Henry David Thoreau

An Open Letter to Ron Paul:

Mr. Paul, you have served the cause of individual liberty superbly, and honorably, in your role as the last living statesman remaining in the United States Congress.

You have recently gone on to score great rhetorical victories-and achieve much fame in the public eye-in the debates, where you have so adroitly told the world The Emperor Has No Clothes.

You have earned the respect of virtually every libertarian in America, as well as every true conservative.

You have served your country well, and, I might add, proudly represented the fine state of Texas. You have taken your oath of office seriously, in an age when other politicians have only chosen to serve the twin gods of Marx and Mammon.

I have one question for you, Mr. Paul, and it’s a very important question:

After your GOP presidential candidacy ends, because the neo-conservative elites–and their cronies in the media–push you out, in one manner or another, will you do one more great thing for the cause of Liberty?

Will you, in turn, announce that you are officially switching your party affiliation to the Libertarian Party?

Thereby helping this small, struggling Third Party land its first high-profile presidential candidate, its first sitting US Congressman—and giving the party a much-needed shot in the arm for future benefits from federal matching funds?

The reason the GOP bigwigs, and the elite classes who control them, have rushed to embrace Rudy Guliani is because that particular authoritarian, establishment liberal is the quintessence of a modern-day Republican. Modern-day GOP ‘conservatives’ are only distinguishable from Democrats by “virtue” of their lust for aggression, warfare, and bombs. In almost all other respects, the two parties are now fully synonymous, as you well know.

You have already aroused the anger of the neo-con GOP establishment by challenging its police state and its imperial war mania. They will, in all likelihood, attempt to undermine your seat on Capitol Hill, to take you out of the equation. They did so with sitting Senator Bob Smith, after he caused the party much embarrassment in 1999. They abandoned Alan Schlesinger when he ran against Democrat Neo-con lackey Joseph Lieberman. They will quite likely make some sort of snide, underhanded move to put you out to pasture in the near future, no matter how loyal your past affiliation to the old school GOP platform. The neo-cons expect more than just an “R” after your name–they demand fealty to their military-industrialist Bush throne. Instead, you have been speaking inconvenient truth to power—lecturing pro-war candidates about blowback, protesting the status quo, and generally reminding them all of their complete apostasy to the Constitution.

The elephants will not forget. I can assure you they are currently kicking themselves for not having given you the bum’s rush years ago. And they are almost certainly planning to try it in the near future, when your next bid for re-election begins.

Why not steal their thunder, and declare yourself, now and always, to be officially a Libertarian?

The Libertarian movement needs you, Mr. Paul. Badly. Your candidacy has already proven that–while there are still a great many real conservatives extant in the public grassroots—in the circles of power, there are no “real Republicans left”.
The Libertarian Party is not perfect. It stretches too diffuse a big tent between anarchists and paleoconservatives. (Anarcho-capitalists, while having many intriguing ideas, don’t belong in a political party, any more than pacifists belong in an Army.) The Libertarian Party, historically, has also been too hung up on domestic social issues, like the War on Drugs, and not focused enough on encroachments in more serious areas. Especially since 9-11, the party has been much too soft-spoken toward the Executive Branch, and too lax toward the state’s grotesquely unconstitutional anti-terror acts.

However, the Libertarian Party is unique in the sense that (a) It is benign, seeking out no monsters to destroy; (b) It recognizably exists on the radar screen of the body politic; and (c) It is classically liberal (or paleoconservative—whichever terminology one prefers).  These qualities make the Libertarian Party a good home for a strong leader motivated toward the cause of Liberty.

There is only one true conservative, and one libertarian, left in Washington in the public eye.  That man is Ron Paul. Whenever you leave Washington, Mr. Paul, for whatever reason, there will be no more conservatives left–only a multitude of Neo-con socialists who treat the Constitution as toilet paper. Hence, when you leave our nation’s capital, constitutionalist conservatism will be dead and officially extinct.

Unless you ignite a powerful political brushfire in your wake. One capable of storming the barricades via the Ballot Box. Become a Libertarian Congressman, and run again in Fall 2008 as the Libertarian Party’s presidential candidate.

It is time to shatter the hegemony of the Two Party system. Of all the evils facing America today, there is none that supercedes the corruption of the Two Party system. With only a simple duality of political parties, it is simply too easy for ambitious men to overthrow and poison the waters of an open system. Extreme voter apathy–caused by the ludicrousness of two very similar football teams forever playing one another in the Super Bowl of politics–just exacerbates the problem, by increasing the public’s ignorance, and thereby tolerance, of government intrusion.

If America is to have any hope of surviving its current constitutional crises, Americans who believe in the Bill of Rights and individual responsibility need a party they can support. And the disillusioned youth of America, cynical almost to the point of misery, need a party that they can believe in.

Mr. Paul, you are the long-needed galvanizing public figure who could bring that party to life. By abandoning the GOP when the spotlight shines the hottest, you could energize a potent political movement, and jam the monkey wrench of an effective Third Party into the greased wheels of America’s corrupted, decadent political system.

It’s just the sort of move I believe Dr. Franklin would make.

The cause of freedom does not have to advance only by means of pyrrhic victories, martyrs, or Quixotism. Sometimes, expediency is the best course…especially when it comes at exactly the right time.

Strike the root, Mr. Paul. Millions of libertarians stand ready to follow you.

Originally published at Liberty For All May 28, 2007.

Kevin Tuma is a political cartoonist and an Internet columnist.

His work has been published at Ether Zone, LibertyForAll.Net, Sierra Times, The American Conservative, and regularly appears in the pages of Regulation-The CATO Review of Business and Government.

Kevin Tuma may be contacted at kevintuma@yahoo.com.

by GOA staff

We have reached the point in the battle over ObamaCare which will decide whether we win or lose.

The details of Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s bill are in, and they can be seen at here.

The bill (H.R. 3962) is 1,990 pages long and weighs over 20 pounds.  And even though a search of the bill will not reveal the word “gun” or “firearm,” that doesn’t mean the bill is neutral in regard to your Second Amendment rights.

For starters, this bill will — like all the ObamaCare versions before it — most likely result in all of your gun-related health data being dumped into a government database that was created in the stimulus bill.  This includes any firearms-related information your doctor has gleaned… or any determination of PTSD, or something similar, that can preclude you from owning firearms.

The bill will also create special “wellness” programs in section 112 which would allow the government to offer lower premiums to employers who bribe their employees to live healthier lifestyles — and nothing within the bill would prohibit rabidly anti-gun HHS Secretary Sebelius from decreeing that “no guns” is somehow healthier.

The bill purports to cut Medicare by $500 billion — in a move which will result in massive rationing for seniors, while ultimately adding hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit.

The bill will mandate that you purchase expensive government-approved policies and will (according to some studies) triple your insurance premiums through taxes and government requirements.

Of course, this all means that you will have less money to spend on pursuing your real passions — like providing for your family and purchasing guns and ammunition!

ACTION:  Write your Representative.  Tell him or her to oppose this bill.  Don’t be discouraged by reports in the liberal media which have tried to tell us — since January — that this battle is hopeless.  We can win, and, with your help, we will win.

You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send a pre-written message to your Representative.

—– Pre-written letter —–

Dear Representative:

The Pelosi health care bill, sponsored by Rep. Dingell, has now been made public.

For starters, this bill will — like all the ObamaCare versions before it — most likely result in all gun-related health data being dumped into the government database that was created in the stimulus bill.  This includes any firearms-related information that doctors have gleaned… or any determination of PTSD, or something similar, that can preclude a person from owning firearms.

The bill will also create special “wellness” programs in section 112 which would allow the government to offer lower premiums to employers who bribe their employees to live healthier lifestyles — and nothing within the bill would prohibit rabidly anti-gun HHS Secretary Sebelius from decreeing that “no guns” is somehow healthier.

The bill will, according to some studies, triple insurance premiums through taxes and government requirements — while mandating that Americans purchase expensive government-approved policies.

But, perhaps most instructively, there is this:  Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid promised to produce a $900 billion bill which would not add “one dime” to the deficit.

This bill will cost $1.3 trillion and will increase the deficit by AT LEAST $150 billion.

The only way Pelosi or the Congressional Budget Office can continue to pretend to the contrary is to take $247 billion in bill costs and slip them through in separate legislation.

In short, this process is fraudulent.

I have many issues with this legislation.  And so I urge you to oppose this legislation and keep the government from inserting itself even more into my everyday life.

Sincerely,

——————————————————————————–

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

by CCRKBA staff

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms today condemned Washington CeaseFire President Ralph Fascitelli for capitalizing on the murder of Seattle Police Officer Timothy Q. Brenton by announcing a plan to lobby for a ban on so-called “assault weapons” using Brenton’s killing as a launch pad.

“Over the years,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, “I have watched as anti-gun extremists rushed to exploit violent crimes to push their agenda, but this case, as reported by Nina Shapiro in the Seattle Weekly, signals a despicable new low in behavior. Fascitelli is essentially dancing in Officer Brenton’s blood, and he ought to be ashamed.”

According to the Seattle Weekly article, “Even though police say they have not yet determined what type of weapon was used, Ralph Fascitelli, president of Washington CeaseFire, says he plans to cite Brenton’s murder when lobbying for the bill in the next legislative session.”

“A police officer has been murdered and the killer or killers remain at large,” Gottlieb said. “A police department is mourning, and a family is grieving. A memorial service has not even been held. This is hardly the time to be exploiting Saturday’s cowardly crime to advance a political agenda.

“If we are to judge any movement by its leadership,” he observed, “the citizens of Washington State and especially its state legislators should be outraged at the callousness now being exhibited by Washington CeaseFire. Frankly, I am appalled.

“The Citizens Committee and Second Amendment Foundation extend their sincere sympathy to Officer Brenton’s family and to the Seattle Police Department,” Gottlieb stated.

Copyright © 2009 Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, All Rights Reserved.

Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
James Madison Building
12500 N.E. Tenth Place
Bellevue, WA 98005
Toll Free: 800-426-4302
E-mail: InformationRequest@ccrkba.org

by Ari Armstrong

What was the total cost of your last doctor’s visit? If you’re like most Americans, you have no idea, because somebody else is paying most of the bill.

Patients directly pay only about 14 percent of medical bills. The rest comes from insurance or government. This is the fundamental reason why health costs have skyrocketed. Patients have little incentive to monitor costs and look for good value, and sending routine expenses through third parties adds paperwork and administrative costs.

When somebody else pays the bill, many doctors think of their client as the insurer, not the patient. Likewise, insurers cater to employers, not you. The patient often gets cut out of the medical loop.

While Barack Obama pretends that insurance companies are at fault, the reality is that federal tax distortions drove insurance into the expensive, non-portable, employer-paid system. This tax distortion explains why Americans tend to use insurance as pre-paid health care, rather than to cover unexpected, high-cost treatments.

Even as Obama demonizes the insurance companies that federal policies have coddled and favored, his policies expand political favoritism. Obama wants to force you to buy politically controlled insurance, on penalty of huge fines.

If you want to control your health care, you should advocate free- market reforms that expand medical competition, not more political controls. The experiences my wife and I have had with a Health Savings Account (HSA) and high-deductible insurance illustrate the benefits.

We pay $148 per month for high-deductible insurance. We buy it directly, not through an employer. It’s not ideal insurance, but it’s as good as we could find in today’s politically stifled market. We save money for routine care through our pre-tax HSA.

I select my doctor based on who best serves my needs, not who my insurance company happens to like.

My doctor, who came highly recommended by friends, gives me a 20 percent discount for paying at the time of service. I paid $128 for my recent physical, an outstanding value for her high level of care.

Not only does my doctor knowledgeably answer all my questions, she’s also sensitive to my budget. For example, she wanted to see blood tests for my cholesterol readings and glucose levels. Rather than order up expensive tests, she looked at my cholesterol readings I got at no cost at King Soopers just weeks ago. She suggested that I get follow-up blood work in three months.

That is not to say that cheaper is always better. In 2006 I paid my Boulder dentist $925 for a gold onlay for a back molar. I could have paid somebody else less. But I love and trust my dentist, and his onlay is a work of art worth every penny.

In health care, as in much of life, you get what you pay for. If you advocate taxes and insurance premiums for politically controlled medicine, don’t act surprised when politicians and their insurance stooges call the shots. If you want quality care from your doctor, then fight for your right to pay your doctor directly for the routine care you receive.

The article originally appeared in the Colorado Daily, October 1st, 2009.

by Rhys M. Blavier

There are many archetypes for the father figure. The most disturbing one is probably the domineering task master whose “love” comes at a cost that can never be paid. That cost is absolute deference, obedience, compliance and respect and, to him, deference, obedience and compliance are the proof of proper respect.

He finds humor in ‘jokes’ which categorize and belittle others because they support his own view of his natural superiority over “lesser” (i.e. - different) people. This archetype believes that his children also begin their life owing him a debt that can never be paid back, life itself. As such, his children are his property; chattel that he has paid for. He sees himself as all-knowing, all-powerful and always right. He is focused on rules and control. He will not tolerate backtalk or even being questioned. He not only wants to instill fear in his children, he wants them to fear that, even if they somehow do something that he sees as wrong without his knowing about it, they will still face retribution and punishment for eternity from a vengeful God; the same God who gives the father-figure his authority by giving him children.

This father-figure believes that his right to have power over others is given to him directly by God; that his power and authority cannot be questioned or limited by anyone, and that few in the world are his equals. His God has also given him the ultimate power, the power to banish to the wilderness those who violate his given order. What he gives, he can (and will) take.

This archetype is what the Republican Party has become.

Like most political observers, I have watched with fascination the Republican Party’s rapid descent into madness throughout the course of the year. In fact, that breakdown has been so spectacular that even people who DON’T widely follow politics or news are aware of it, whether they recognize it or not. While I have heard much discussion of what they are doing, I have not, however, heard anyone pinpoint a single core cause of that breakdown. We have plenty of “what” being talked about but little to none of “why”. As I have spoken of before, people are focused on the “symptoms” of a disease without identifying the “disease” itself. Two recent incidences with my own brother gave me a clue about what that “disease” actually is. The core of the Republican Party is simply an authoritarian “father” who is mad that their “dependents” (the American People) aren’t respecting or listening to them anymore. They are angry because they have no control over their “children” and authoritarians THRIVE on being in control.

The Authoritarian Personality was a 1950 book written by UC-Berkeley psychologists Theodor W. Adorno, Else Frenkel-Brunswick, Daniel Levinson, and Nevitt Sanford. In their book, they first described the “authoritarian personality” theory of personality. Their research lead them to the conclusion that this personality is developed by psychodynamic, childhood experiences which make them predisposed to follow the dictates of a strong leader and traditional, conventional values. They identified nine traits, which they hypothesized were clustered together as a result of those experiences, which identified this personality type:

*Anti-intraception
*Authoritarian Aggression
*Authoritarian Submission
*Conventionalism
*Destructiveness and Cynicism
*Exaggerated Concerns over Sexuality
*Power and “Toughness”
*Projectivity
*Stereotyping and Superstition.

In 1981, Canadian psychologist, Bob Altemeyer, gave us a refinement of the authoritarian personality theory, which he introduced as the concept of “right-wing authoritarianism”. Altemeyer found that only three of those nine traits correlated together:

*Authoritarian Aggression (a general aggressiveness directed against “deviants”, out-groups, and other people that are perceived to be targets according to established authorities.)

*Authoritarian Submission (a high degree of submissiveness to the authorities who are perceived to be established and legitimate in the society in which one lives.)

*Conventionalism (a high degree of adherence to the traditions and social norms that are perceived to be endorsed by society and its established authorities, and a belief that others in one’s society should also be required to adhere to these norms.)

The “right-wing” in right-wing authoritarianism does not necessarily refer to someone’s politics, but rather to their psychological preferences and personality. It means that the person tends to follow the established conventions and authorities in society. In theory, the authoritarian personality could have either conservative or liberal political views.

In his 1996 paper, The Authoritarian Specter, Altemeyer reported that his research indicated that right-wing authoritarians tend to exhibit cognitive errors and symptoms of faulty reasoning. Specifically, they are more likely to make incorrect inferences from evidence and to hold contradictory ideas that are the result of compartmentalized thinking. They are also more likely to uncritically accept insufficient evidence that supports their beliefs, and they are less likely to acknowledge their own limitations. The RWA-scale reliably correlates with political party affiliation, reactions to Watergate, pro-capitalist beliefs, religious orthodoxy, and acceptance of covert governmental activities such as illegal wiretaps. Altemeyer found that those who scored highly on the RWA-scale are likely to exhibit several common traits. These personalities tend to:

*Be Highly Nationalistic
*Have Conservative Economic Philosophies
*Not value Social Equality
*Oppose Abortion
*Oppose Gun Control
*Support Capital Punishment.

In role-playing situations, Altemeyer found that authoritarians tend to seek dominance over others by being competitive and destructive instead of cooperative. In his study, sixty-eight authoritarians played a three-hour simulation of the Earth’s future entitled the “Global Change Game”. While a comparison game played by individuals with low RWA scores resulted in world peace and widespread international cooperation, the simulation by authoritarians became highly militarized and eventually entered the stage of nuclear war. By the end of the high RWA game, the entire population of the earth was declared dead.

Research by D. J. Narby, B. L. Cutler & G. Moran (1993) found that authoritarians are generally more favorable to punishment and control than to personal freedom and diversity. For example, they are more willing to support the suspension or abolishment of constitutional guarantees of liberty such as the Bill of Rights… at least where those guarantees protect others who they, themselves, have judged to be inferior. They are also more likely to advocate strict, punitive sentences for criminals. Researches by J. Duckitt & B. Farre (1994) and by M.B. Goodman & B. Moradi (2008) found that people with high RWA scores report that they obtain personal satisfaction from punishing those who they perceive as criminals, and that they tend to be ethnocentric and prejudiced against racial and ethnic minorities, and homosexuals.

The modern Republican Party has been dominated by individuals who are not just authoritarian personalities; they are right-wing authoritarian personalities. Since the period following the War Between the States, they have moved steadily away from being a populist party to being a party focused on being able to exert their will on others, even while in the minority. Money, power and political manipulations made them a corrupt party of “elites” who viewed themselves as being superior to those they “governed”. They used demagoguery as a strategy to gain political power by appealing to the public’s prejudices, emotions, fears, and expectations. They mastered the use of impassioned rhetoric, propaganda and abductive reasoning, often through the use of nationalistic, populist, moralist and / or religious themes.

The current schizophrenic behavior of the Republican Party began, in my opinion, with the almost worshipful attitude of the conservative and Christian far-right to their mythology of Ronald Reagan. They see him as their Moses, who was leading them to their conservative “Promised Land”. In 1994, this Promised Land seemed to be within sight with their takeover of both Houses of Congress. Suddenly, the Republican Party was filled with average, everyday people who not only viewed themselves as being elite, but also as being responsible for “fixing” what they saw as the broken soul of America. The big problem is that, by definition, average, everyday people cannot BE elite. This was the political equivalent of the common people of France deposing their nobility and establishing their “committees of the people” to rule instead. As happened in France, once they were in power, they also eventually turned on those among themselves who they did not see as supporting the orthodoxy or dogma of their revolution. Their equivalence was creating the label “Republican In Name Only”, or RINO. With that label they would work to purge their own ranks of those who were not “pure enough” in their belief in the “correct” orthodoxy, essentially removing the very real existence and accomplishments of the historical moderate and liberal wings of their party from their mythology.

Regardless of what the Republicans “promised” in their infamous Contract With America, once they gained the power and positions they believed were ordained for them, they moved to solidify their control over our government by making the Party (rather than the individual elected members) the dominant feature of American Government. They changed rules for determining committee chairs from being based on seniority to being based on how well members followed the dictates of the party. They collectivized their party to minimize the power of individual members and maximize the power of the party itself. Again, the similarities (in action, if not degree) to the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror are remarkable. At this point, they became “Daddy”, saying to America “Do what I tell you to do or I will punish you.”

Following in the footsteps of their mythology’s greatest human hero, Ronald Reagan (under whose administration, for example, federal funds and tax dollars were withheld from states which would not comply with federal demands for conformance on issues like drinking, drugs, speed limits, etc. - essentially blackmailing the states), the Republicans controlled Congress with a view to its own dominance, power, and control over the “misguided” states and the people who did not want to do what “Daddy” told or expected them to do. They also envisioned an America under their rule in perpetuity (Karl Roves infamous “permanent majority”). Regardless of their often espoused support of states’ rights (an idea which is not found in The Constitution, contrary to the beliefs of many), they only want the states to be independent of their federal government when the states are ruling as the Party wants them to. In all other cases, they believe that their obligation as the “rulers” of our federal government is to impose THEIR will upon the states when the states aren’t “competent enough” to agree with them.

Even with the 1995 Republican majorities in both Houses of Congress, their first since 1955, they were still “impeded” in their movement towards creating the America they envisioned by having a moderate Democrat, Bill Clinton, as President. Thus, much of their effort was to limit, if not remove altogether, political resistance against their power, including their impeachment of Clinton. In 2000, however, all of their wet dreams seemed to be on the verge of coming true with elevation of George W. Bush to the Presidency. Not only did they get a majority in the House, once seated, on January 20, 2001, Dick Cheney, as President of the Senate, turned an evenly split Senate into one with a majority controlled by the Republican members. During this period, there was, of course, no talk or consideration of working with the members from the Democratic Party and their ideal of bipartisanship was of the Democratic members doing what their Republican masters wanted them to do. This, of course, went so well that Republican Senator Jeffords (Vermont), holding the Senate seat that had been continuously held by Republicans for the longest period in American history (144 years), quit the party and became an Independent who caucused with the Democrats. This was the first time we, as a nation, got to see how the modern Republican Party would react to being challenged in its holding political dominance and absolute power. How many of us remember THAT little brouhaha?

Starting in 2003, the Republican Party did have complete control of the Presidency and both Houses of Congress… and they had their eye on having the opportunity to also stack the Supreme Court with those who shared their vision of America. I won’t rehash what those of us who opposed Bush and the far-right conservatives believe about how he governed and what was done to damage The Constitution under their period of dominance. Suffice it to say that we welcomed the slight shift in power which gave the Democrats narrow control of both Houses of Congress a mere four years later. It was at this time that “Daddy” really started to go seriously insane. What happened in 2008, of course, drove “Daddy” completely over the edge of reason.

What I see now in the Republican Party is the equivalent of Cole Oyl, Olive Oyl’s father in the Popeye cartoons and movie, running around telling everyone “You owe me an apology!” The Republican Party has become politically impotent and its impotence has caused rage among the far-right wing of the Party. They are trying to find something, ANYTHING to latch onto to demonstrate to others that they aren’t impotent. Their quest, however, keeps getting more and more trivial, pedantic and ridiculous with each passing week. They are so blinded by their impotent rage that they are once again attacking those among their own ranks who question the power that they believe is their divine right by not ascribing to the “proper” orthodoxy, dogma and “tenets of faith” as the “true believers”. Like any angry, old authoritarian confronted with their impotence, they are searching for a political orgasm.

Yes, that is what I believe it comes down to… they can’t get themselves off politically. That is, in my opinion, the only explanation for their increasingly erratic and dangerous actions… impotent rage. They have a collective need to not only feel that they are vibrant and virile but also that they can reproduce. I believe that all sociological creations of Man (governments, clubs, businesses, etc.) can be viewed and understood by seeing them as living organisms. They all have the same needs and desires of a living organism and, as a living organism, the far-right Republicans see themselves being replaced by other organisms that do not come from their own seed; they suddenly see themselves as mortal and approaching an ignoble end. Unfortunately, there is no little blue pill that they can take to compensate for their “electile” dysfunction.

Like a once vibrant and dominant man reduced to wearing diapers and drooling; like an alpha-male pack animal who has lost his teeth, those members of the Republican party who are making ever greater fools of themselves are filled with rage against those who robbed them of what they see as their rightful place in American life. In their rage to reclaim their “rightful” place in society they will use any and every means at their disposal to destroy what they can’t have for themselves. If they can’t be in control of our country then they will reduce it to ashes so that there won’t be a country for anyone else to be in control off. It is an attitude that the world has seen before. That is the final lesson that “Daddy” has to teach his errant and ungrateful children… that it is easier to destroy a nation than it is to build one.

Vive’ la Revolution.

Rhys Blavier’s passion is studying government, politics and The Constitution from an historical analysis perspective and then imagining how government can be changed to better serve its people.  He also believes that government should serve all of its people rather than just corporations and the wealthy. His personal motto is “Truth, Justice, and Honor… But Above All Honor” because, he says, you can have truth without justice or honor, you can have justice without truth or honor, but you cannot have honor without truth and justice. He also believes that there is nothing so sacred or controversial that it cannot be questioned and/or laughed at.

by Tessa Rose

I’m an anarchist because I believe that every human being has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I’m an anarchist because I believe that every human being belongs to himself, and belongs to others only by choice. I’m an anarchist because I believe that violence is allowable only in defense of life, liberty, or property. I’m an anarchist because I believe that the only legitimate government is by the consent of the governed. My political philosophy is probably stated best by this section of 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, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

But you might wonder why, being an anarchist, I would use the words “legitimate government” and refer to a piece of the Declaration that mentions “government.” Isn’t anarchism the opposite, or the absence of government?

Well, yes and no. Anarchism is the absence of government as we know it, or government by a ruling class that claims the exclusive right to use aggressive force to achieve its ends, and claims the right to control everything and everybody within its “jurisdiction.”

But the term “government” can also be used to describe a set of rules and methods of enforcement that regulate some types of social relationships and are agreed upon by everyone to whom they apply. A government instituted by mutual consent to protect everyone’s rights is not a government-as-we-know-it; it is, in fact, well organized anarchy.

If your first thought is: “but the whole purpose of government and law is to force people to do things they don’t want to do and not do things they want to do,” then you have hit the nail right on the head. That is exactly the purpose of government-as-we-know-it, and it is by its very nature nonconsensual.

I reject the common belief that social order, peace, cooperation, organization, and beneficial collective actions are impossible without a ruling class specially endowed with the right to use aggressive violence. In fact, I believe that all these good things are much easier to achieve when aggressive violence is consistently shunned by everyone as a matter of principle.

I am not a starry-eyed utopian, either. I am an anarchist because I see both strength and weakness in human beings. Our strength is our intelligence, ingenuity, compassion, and ability to work together to achieve common goals. Our weakness is our desire to dominate others and promote ourselves at their expense. Given our nature, I believe it’s very dangerous to give one group of humans permission to use aggressive force to control another group of humans: This permission is like the Ring of Power in Lord of the Rings, of which Gandalf says:

“I would take this ring with the intention of doing good, but through me it would wield a power too terrible to imagine.”

Thousands of years of human history is testament to the truth of this, and we have but recently left the bloodiest century in the long, bloody, cruel history of mankind. Despite this, I dare to believe that humans, at heart, are becoming more humane. The horrors of the 20th century were not due to the degeneration of human nature, but to the addition of advanced technologies to the ancient arts of slaughter and domination.

I am an anarchist because I love my fellow man. And how does one express love toward six billion human beings? I cannot hug them all. I cannot feed them all. I can affect only a small fraction of humanity in a positive way. But for everyone else on the planet, the best thing I can do is to respect them and leave them in peace. I can simply refrain from demanding and advocating the enslavement, imprisonment, or death of others for my benefit. I can personally grant everyone their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness without any interference from me.

That’s why I’m an anarchist.

Tessa Rose is the wife of tax heretic/anarchist writer Larken Rose, with whom many of you are familiar. Find out more about Tessa at http://tessa-rose.blogspot.com/.

by Mark Hillman

Our ongoing debate about government’s role in health care is proving worthwhile because it forces people to focus on the real tradeoffs in a system mandated - if not directly operated - by government, rather than one selected by individuals or their employers. Today, our system is a dysfunctional hybrid.

To the extent that we cannot choose the health care coverage we want today, those restrictions are almost always the result of previous government interventions - tax incentives that make it easier for employers to buy insurance than for employees to purchase their own or laws requiring us to purchase coverage we may not need or cannot afford.

President Obama says all insurance policies will be required to cover preventive care and early screening for various maladies, as if he can force insurance companies - or doctors - to give us something for nothing.

Well, he can’t do that anymore than he can require restaurants to serve a free lunch every Thursday. Even under Barack Obama, Americans cannot be compelled to do business at a loss; they always have the right to lock the doors and close up shop.

That’s why there’s no free lunch - or free health care. Politicians aren’t “giving” us these services; they are forcing us to buy them - and to pay more than the actual cost.

It never ceases to amaze when politicians who demagogue against “greedy” insurance companies will, in their next breath, require us to buy things through an insurance company that we could purchase less expensively if we simply paid out of pocket.

If both you and your doctor know that you need a colonoscopy, how can it possibly be cheaper for you to send your payment to an insurance company, while the doctor files a claim with that insurance company, and the insurance company processes the claim and issues payment - rather than for you to simply pay the doctor?

Yet ObamaCare would establish a mandatory list of insurable procedures as well as maximum deductibles. For those with money-saving high-deductible plans and health savings accounts - like the one I’ve had for 12 years - the President’s promise that we can keep the plan we have just doesn’t wash.

Americans who are understandably frustrated by health care costs are recognizing that the more control you give to government the more control you give to government.

Today, if you, your doctor and your insurer agree on a procedure, you make an appointment and “get ‘er done.” And if you can’t agree, you are free to pursue other procedures that you can pay for yourself. (After all, what good is an extra $50,000 in your retirement account if you’re dead?)

But if no one practices those alternative procedures because omnipotent health care bureaucrats won’t pay for them, you are out of luck.

The larger point is this: Why is it government’s business how much you pay, what doctor you see, or what treatment you receive, so long as you are paying the bill?

Health care, like any commodity or service, will always be limited by economic reality. Government health care programs are responsible for more cost-shifting than all of the “uninsured.” Yet despite paying below-market prices, Medicare will be insolvent in just seven years and has amassed all by itself a deficit of $37.8 trillion.

If the government is empowered to supervise everyone’s health care, then only two outcomes are possible: either everyone’s health care is rationed to control costs or no one’s health care is rationed and the cost of government health care finally breaks the camel’s back, ushering in a worthless dollar, runaway inflation and skyrocketing interest rates.

In either case, our impoverished children and grandchildren will forever curse our self-centered, shortsighted generation.

There can be no health care utopia any more than everyone can enjoy all they want to eat or live in the home of their dreams. Sooner or later, someone must choose between what we want and what we can afford.

Who do you want to make those tough choices - yourself or someone in government?

Mark Hillman is a Colorado native, farmer, and a “recovering journalist.” He was elected two terms in the Colorado State Senate and served as Majority Leader, as well as Colorado State Treasurer. In 2008, Mark elected to represent Colorado on the Republican National Committee.

© 2009 The Independence Institute
13952 Denver West Parkway, Suite 400
Golden, CO 80401
303-279-6536
www.independenceinstitute.org

by Kevin Tuma

by Sean Haugh

The mission of the Libertarian Party is to move public policy in a libertarian direction by electing candidates of the Libertarian Party to public office.

To fulfill our Mission Statement, Libertarians have long debated whether it is better to run as many candidates as possible, or take care to only run good candidates. I have always asserted the obvious answer is “both!” This has been a false dichotomy from the beginning.

Well, now I have rock solid proof that I was right all along. Specifically, the truth is that running as many candidates as possible naturally leads to running candidates of high quality. But that’s only the beginning of the benefits you’ll receive by pursuing a full slate strategy.

Here in North Carolina in May, we had a lobbying day for our Electoral Fairness Act (EFA). The EFA would lower our ballot access signature and retention requirements to a quarter of what they are now, moving NC from one of the three hardest states for ballot access (according to Ballot Access News) to the national median.

Little did I know that I would receive a powerful revelation on this particular trip to Raleigh.

I knew it was a big deal when we ran 145 candidates last year, including 13 of 14 Congressional seats and a majority of seats in both houses of our state legislature. And I knew it was an even bigger deal when we won six races in 2002. But until that Tuesday, I still had no idea just how big all that was.

Our performance last year completely revised how we are perceived by the powers that be. They all know now that we can no longer be dismissed out of hand. They have got it through their heads that we are going to stay on the ballot no matter what, and there’s nothing they can do to stop us. They have grudgingly accepted that we are a permanent player at the table. They hate it, but they can no longer deny it.

One thing that struck me is that damn near everybody in that General Assembly building knows who I am. Not just legislators, but staffers, media, and lobbyists too. People I had never laid eyes on looked at me and greeted me by name - and they even knew how to pronounce it properly.

They all also know our Chair, Barbara Howe, and I think by now most all of them know our Ballot Access Director and chief EFA lobbyist Dave Goree. Our county parties have made themselves well known to their local legislators. Remember, the majority of these people also had to deal with a Libertarian opponent last election. And of course, our Press Secretary Rachel Mills (Ladies of Liberty) is an international superstar. We are now members of the club.

Actually, not all of them hate it. In fact, lots of the legislators and bureaucrats rather like us. We are actively pursuing a number of ways to get EFA in through the back door. The front door was slammed in our faces by the House co-speakers, but that story can be found in Ballot Access News.

Frankly, we are now in the interesting position to negotiate with three or four different factions within state government and make it clear that whomever makes the first deal wins. Part of it is because we have always played nice. Our years of practicing courtesy and respectful is paying dividends.

But another part of it is, they know that can’t beat us, so now they’d rather join us. Both wings of the Demopublican party, and the subfactions within them, are waking up to the fact that working with us helps them beat the other side. And hey, if Demopublican fratricide is the goal, we’re all too happy to help!

No matter how hard it may be, we know that ballot access is the necessary first step to accomplish anything as a political party here in NC. We would not be anywhere near this stage in our development if we hadn’t had ballot access and worked it as hard as we possibly could continuously since 1996. This can never be taken for granted.

Filling the ballot with every willing name you can scare up produces dramatic results. If you don’t believe me, look at other rapidly growing state parties like Florida or Indiana where this is also the practice. Or even an example like Alabama, where the reaction from the legislature has been much more negative, but where this tactic definitely snapped the powers that be to attention.

In NC, we have reached the next decision point, of having to make sure that the people we field in winnable races met a higher standard than simple willingness to run - because there are now winnable races in NC.

Yet the problem neatly provides its own solution. By running so many candidates in years past, we have already put most everyone who is at all interested through a naturally rigorous screening process, and have identified dozens of very well qualified future elected Libertarians.

Despite our newfound fame and respect, the prospects for the EFA still appear dim. We’re looking at the real possibility that we’ll have to start the cycle of collecting 95,000 or so signatures once again in 2004-05. The neat thing is that we know we can do it, and furthermore now everybody else knows it too.

And now so do you. If we can consistently beat one of the top three ballot access obstacles in the country, well, what’s stopping your state party? Look at Georgia, they have some really screwy ballot access obstacles, but they are figuring out how to beat them with equally novel solutions. And wouldn’t you know it, Atlanta is beginning to pay attention too.

The LPNC has developed a great wealth of ballot access know how, which we would be very happy to share with any of our fellow state parties who yearn to have their chance to fulfill the Mission Statement.

Changing public policy by electing Libertarians is what we’re all about. Personally, I’m looking forward to finding out just how much more profound our influence becomes when we start winning State House races.

Originally published in Liberty For All June 02, 2003.

Sean Haugh is assistant editor for Liberty For All. Sean is married to longtime Libertarian Pam Adams, and they have a family of three dogs and five cats.  Besides them, Sean loves God, Liberty, and Oklahoma Sooners football.  Write to Sean at seanhaugh@mindspring.com.

by Jessi Winchester, author of From Bordello to Ballot Box and America: The Final Chapter

“A man’s worth is estimated in this world according to his conduct”

- Jean de La Bruyere, French Author; 1645-1696

I stood in awe before our most anticipated vacation destination.  Before me, in massive grandeur, were four presidential faces deemed important enough in our nation’s history to receive a place of honor on Mt. Rushmore … Washington, Jefferson, Roosevelt and Lincoln.  All four were, after all, only human beings with all the virtuous as well as flawed traits of any man, yet each of the easily recognized likenesses before me had accomplished something extraordinary that made them stand out from others.  I contemplated the characteristics that made them human but was most interested in the principal achievements each had accomplished to be honored in such an impressive manner.

The somber face of George Washington seemed to convey the heavy burden he shouldered as the first leader of the new Republic.  A celebrated war hero who presided over the Constitutional Convention, he took on the difficult task of forging a blueprint for the Office of President of a new nation.  Despite evidence Washington allowed elitist Alexander Hamilton to have too large an influence on decisions Washington made as president, the mere fact Washington was the first to occupy the top office of the land makes him a natural choice for residency on the mountain.

Thomas Jefferson earned the honor of having his likeness engraved on Mt. Rushmore due to his passionate advocacy on behalf of liberty and the every day citizen for whom the U.S. Constitution was designed.  He drafted the Declaration of Independence and became a staunch defender of states’ rights, fiercely opposing a controlling centralized government which made him a respected patriot and ally of the common citizen.  His professional record is so unblemished that one of the few damaging pieces of information appears to be personal rather than professional.  Jefferson believed slavery was morally wrong, yet DNA research shows he fathered several children by one of his slaves.  By today’s standards, that is a shocking revelation but for that time period it was not so unusual.  Regardless of his personal decisions, Jefferson still remains one of the most ardent defenders of personal freedom and limited federal government and as the author of the Declaration of Independence, he fully deserves his place among the presidents.

Theodore Roosevelt had youth and a zest for life that energized the Presidency and made him a charismatic favorite.  Despite being born into wealth, he was committed to safeguarding the rights of the common American and striking an equal balance between the classes.  Raised in the East, he nevertheless spent a great deal of time on his beloved ranch in the Badlands of the Dakota Territory so his likeness is right at home overlooking the land he worked as a cowboy.  Roosevelt’s appetite to propel the U.S. into a position of world power sometimes took an unorthodox path, however.  One example was his determination to build a strategic waterway to create a shortcut that could quickly transport the American Navy between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.  Achieving that goal meant going to war with Spain in order to secure the Caribbean and establish military control over the region in which he wanted to build the Panama Canal.  Some feel he crossed over the line by promoting the Spanish-American War in order to achieve his own agenda.  Nevertheless, his primary accomplishments as president rest in the areas of strong foreign policy, progressive reform, conservation, construction of the Panama Canal, and promoting American involvement in world politics.

Abraham Lincoln has undoubtedly received the most hype of the four faces etched in granite and was the most controversial inclusion.  He is considered the “Father of the Republican Party” and his humble beginnings inspire those who pursue grand purpose.  As a person, however, Lincoln was complex and little understood.  The Civil War period was the most destructive in American history and Lincoln has been criticized for approving General Sherman’s plan to wipe out southern cities despite civilian casualties which included women and children in an effort to attain victory for his cause.  This forever divided the country rather than uniting it.  Lincoln may have grown up poor but he became an elitist who felt he had the right to circumvent the Constitution by centralizing power within the federal government at the expense of Tenth Amendment states’ rights.  For these reasons there was considerable opposition from the public regarding the inclusion of Lincoln on Mt. Rushmore.  Recent books such as ‘The Real Lincoln,’ by Thomas J. DiLorenzo reveal a dark side of his presidency seldom acknowledged by historians.

Even in stone, the presidents continue to protectively look out over the land for which each had their own unique brand of impact.  Regardless of the positives and negatives associated with the four faces on Mt. Rushmore, one can’t help but be awestruck by the sheer majesty of the monument, the history of what it took to bring it to reality, and the feeling of pride as one looks upon the faces that helped shape America - the land we love.

Copyright © Jessi Winchester 2004 All Rights Reserved

by Lance Newman

The use of public surveillance cameras to fight crime has been a heated topic for quite some time. The issue was reignited last August when the city of Denver used federal funds to purchase an additional fifty High Activity Location Observation (HALO) cameras from the original thirteen cameras at $25,000 a pop to fight crime. Increasing the number of surveillance cameras may create a marginally safer environment, but at a significant cost to civil liberty.

The pervasiveness of security cameras throughout the city of Denver is creating a growing concern for individual liberty. The ACLU has taken up the public surveillance issue, saying that HALO cameras are a violation of the Colorado Criminal Justice Records Act. The activities recorded by the cameras are used exclusively by public safety and law enforcement officials. Hard working Coloradans contributed their time and money in the form of tax dollars to make the camera installations possible. Therefore, it would only be fair for contributors to have the option of seeing what they paid for. But, that’s the not the view held by many government officials.

In response to a records request made by CBS4 in February, the Denver Department of Safety refused to hand over video recordings of a brawl that erupted in downtown Denver on February 14. A representative for the Department of Safety was quoted as saying “Because you are not affiliated with a public safety or law enforcement agency, your request for access to any videotapes obtained from a HALO camera is accordingly denied.” So HALO recordings can be viewed solely by the government? Because someone does not work for public safety or law enforcement, they somehow don’t have the credentials to view what they diligently worked for? Equal rights? Well, if someone can tell you that you can’t reap the benefits of something that YOU rightfully paid for, contrary to your wishes, then that would make some people “more equal” than others. John Edwards was half correct when he said there are two Americas. Not the Edwards version of the rich and the poor, but rather the governed and those who govern.

What type of message does the Department of Safety’s response send to society? Is the Denver Department of Safety under the assumption that government has the divine authority to watch our every move simply because it MIGHT reduce some crime? Having cameras in private homes might reduce crime as well. Maybe the Denver government can do us all a favor by installing a few cameras in each of our homes so that we’re deterred from playing loud music too late. The ubiquitous surveillance power Denver is pursuing will simply widen the gap between the two classes in society, the government and the citizenry.

If you need any more evidence, you don’t need to look any further than the case of Great Britain. Great Britain has one camera for every seven citizens. Last October several British newspapers reported that Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s government was working on a plan to monitor every phone call, website visit, text message, and email in the country, entering the information into an enormous database that would be used to catch terrorists, pedophiles, and scam artists.

The Revolutionary War was fought because Americans wanted to break away from a government that trampled civil liberties, not create one. Adding more HALO cameras will undoubtedly transform our nation into a much more regulated one. If we want to preserve what limited civil liberties we have left, the government should seriously consider thinking twice about installing additional cameras. Ensuring that HALO recordings are more readily available to the general public would also be a considerable step toward ensuring that public surveillance is being used only for legitimate public safety reasons, and the preservation of individual freedoms.

Lance Newman attends college at SUNY Buffalo and was a summer intern at The Independence Institute.

© 2009 The Independence Institute
13952 Denver West Parkway, Suite 400
Golden, CO 80401
303-279-6536

by Roderick T. Beaman

Over the past few weeks it emerged that Rush Limbaugh was to be part of a group of investors in the St. Louis Rams. The firestorm was as intense as it was predictable.

Weighing in were the Reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. It always amusing to see those two in action. They’re to politics what Nehru Jackets are to fashion. Bell bottoms and platform shoes may come back. Neither Jackson nor Sharpton can get over that their days have passed. Al Sharpton called Limbaugh divisive. This is a man who gave us that Tawana Brawley hoax and never apologized for it. He’s put himself at the center of just about every possible event that could even be remotely considered racial.

Tawana Brawley was the teenager in Wappingers Falls, New York who claimed that she was kidnapped, raped and sodomized by a group of white men, among them a part-time cop who would commit suicide. Investigators found that, at the time of the claimed event, he was in the company of Assistant DA Steven Pagones and State Trooper Scott Patterson. Sharpton then accused Pagones of being one of the participants and that Pagones had murdered cop to silence him and that the report of a suicide was part of a big cover up. Nothing is ever below Al Sharpton.

The case caused a media sensation and the usual suspects lined up to exploit it; Phil Donahue, Louis Farrakhan and Bill Cosby. Despite occasional lapses into reason, Cosby usually resides in the fever swamps of the lunatic left. Sharpton was eventually sued, successfully, by Pagones but he resisted paying anything until he was bailed out but some heavy duty black millionaires.

Jesse is another case. Jesse is a part-time minister, part-time politician and full time publicity seeker. Knowing that Martin Luther King, Jr.’s assassination would leave a leadership void, he embellished his role at that terrible event. Afterwards, I read several accounts that disputed his version, he somehow never got called on it. Nor does Jesse ever get called on anything.

Particularly appalling were the events after the suicidal death of Raynard Johnson, a black teenager in Kokomo, Mississippi in June, 2000. The local and state police ruled it a suicide. The autopsy showed no signs of a struggle that would be expected from a lynching. The despondent parents turned to Jesse for help and he, of course, agreed to go to Mississippi to fund the truth.

It was a majority white town and it turned out that he had been dating a white girl who had just broken up with him hours before he was found hanged with a braided belt that his parents said he didn’t own. A video from a convenience store showed that he was wearing a belt similar to the one he was hanged with.

Jesse arrived to great fanfare and many cameras (I apologize for stating the obvious. Jesse always arrives to great fanfare and many cameras) and announced he’d find who were responsible for the evil deed. Jesse said the boy’s throat had been cut. It wasn’t. Jesse must have left the state in the middle of the night because he has never been heard from again regarding the unfortunate matter. I rarely listen to Rush Limbaugh although I have in the past. I used to find him interesting and funny but have come to find him annoying. I rarely listen to him anymore. But these were two of the people lined up to oppose Limbaugh. Sterling credentials, the two of them, don’t you think.

Many liberals have called him racist, bigoted & sexist, saying that he ridicules blacks, minorities and women. I have never found that. He satirizes liberals and that is what has made him such a pariah to the Left.

Bill Raspberry was always one of my favorite columnists. Black and liberal, he was never one to dismiss conservatives as bigots etc. He would always listen.

One time, he referred to Limbaugh as a racist or some such. Someone challenged him and asked if he’d ever listened to Rush Limbaugh. He admitted he hadn’t and then tuned him in for a while. His conclusion, Rush Limbaugh was not a racist.

He wrote that Limbaugh didn’t ridicule blacks, women and minorities. He ridiculed liberals. Raspberry went on to say that it was a reversal of the usual, where liberals would satirize all things conservative but that suddenly, when the shoe was on the other foot, the liberals showed that they could give it but couldn’t take it.

Quite so. I have found that all of my adult life. The most intolerant people I have ever met have been liberals. The most judgmental people I have ever met have been liberals. Further, the most racist and bigoted people I have ever met have been liberals.

When I went to college at New York University, the assumption was that if you even went to college, you had to be liberal. As William Buckley once observed, liberals feel that it is impossible to be simultaneously intelligent and conservative. He also once observed, liberal intolerance was exhibited by the astonishment that there even was another opinion.

Judgmentalism was another matter. If you told a liberal you admired either Barry Goldwater or William Buckley, they just about handed you a set of sheets and a swastika armband to wear. Bigotry may be the most surprising to readers but it was there among liberals, far more than among conservatives. The very same people who were waving the flag for the various civil rights bills of the 1960s were the most upset when blacks moved into their comfy upper middle class enclaves of Great Neck and Manhattanville. 

The misrepresentations of Limbaugh’s statements have been equally appalling. O’Reilly has stated, repeatedly, that his researchers have been unable to find any record that Limbaugh ever said that slavery wasn’t all bad. Yet that persists.

I can assure every reader, that I have seen personally, how things get distorted, in and by the media and by viewers and readers. I have been present when stories were planted and have been quoted with things I never said. (Even though the latter incident was in a college newspaper, it nevertheless is illustrative. For dramatic illustration of the problem, see the excellent first 30 minutes of the otherwise mediocre Paul Newman/Sally Field movie, ‘Absence of Malice’.)

Rush Limbaugh has been a football aficionado for years. His problems really emerged from his remark as a football analyst about the Philadelphia Eagles and Donovan McNabb. He said that it was the defense that had been carrying the team and he wondered whether the accolades that were being heaped on Donovan McNabb were due to the media’s wanting an outstanding black quarterback.

As it’s turning out, McNabb is a very good quarterback. It was a valid question but in these days of political ultra-correctness, such discussions aren’t permitted. Thus, we have now a black president and former President Jimmy Carter and others state that criticism of him arises from the innate racism at the heart of America. (Oh yes, mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa, Jimmy. In my heart, I know I’m a racist.) And no one is permitted to wonder whether some promotions of minorities are due to their being minorities and that maybe society should examine all of these programs. Somehow, it seems the answer is no.

The Obama Administration is now waxing apoplectic over executive salaries of companies that took TARP money. Why can’t we raise the same questions about Affirmative Action?

Can anyone of us entirely eliminate from ourselves racial awareness? I strongly doubt it. At this late date in my life, the first thing I notice when I meet a black person, is that he is black and it remains an issue throughout any exchange. I hate that about myself. Do blacks have the same problem? I don’t know but think so.

But if we can’t view hold all politicians, sports figures and beneficiaries of public policies up to the light of critical examination, we are the losers.

Dr. Roderick T. Beaman is an osteopathic family physician practicing in Jacksonville, Florida. Born in New York City, he attended New York University as an undergraduate. A recipient of a 2003 Ron Paul Liberty in Media Award, he has had dreams (delusions?) of becoming a writer. He has written a novel that he has given up hope of ever getting published and so has made it available for the asking through TheFreedomBeam@comcast.net. Comments on his columns are welcome also.

by George Phillies

Dues-paying National Libertarian Party Member Joe Kennedy is running for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts. He’s running in our January 19 special election to replace the late Senator Edward Kennedy.  You can count on national media attention.

Take a look at Joe’s web site. Read his stands on issues like the war on Iraq, Afghanistan, marijuana, gun control, welfare, and education.  Time after time, you’re going to read sensible libertarian ideas presented effectively to a wide audience.

Joe is a real libertarian, running on our sound libertarian ideas. That’s why the Libertarian Association of Massachusetts endorsed him: Joe is a real Libertarian.  That’s why the Libertarian Association of Massachusetts put $1000 of our treasury into his campaign: Joe is a real Libertarian.

Joe Kennedy writes of his politics:

“In College, I would have considered myself a Democrat. I would not have considered myself active in politics at the time, however, I did work on Tom Harkin’s run for presidency by collecting signatures for him in New Hampshire.

“At different points in my life I have been registered as both a Democrat and as an Independent. Over the past 5 years I have become more and more concerned about spending in Washington and taxation in general. The extensive spending on Wars, Bailouts and Social Programs in both the current and previous administrations have expanded the deficit at speeds we have never before witnessed. These costs will have to be paid by us in the short term through tax increases, or by our children. These concerns have pushed me more and more to a Libertarian way of thinking.”

Libertarians are all too familiar with corrupt ballot access practices shutting our candidates away from the ballot.  Massachusetts is no different.  When I heard that we were having a special election, my reaction was: This year, we have major party status.  We don’t have a candidate who can front the $60,000 or more we will need to get onto the ballot on the Libertarian Party line.

For once, we lucked out.

On August 5, Joe was registered as an independent.  That meant the he could petition for ballot access under our minor party rules.  Instead of $60,000, his campaign can reach ballot access for perhaps $15,000. If Joe can raise the money, and he is almost half way there, we will have a real Libertarian on the ballot speaking up for libertarian issues, speaking up when his is the only election the press can cover.

Then we lucked out again.

Like any honest man, Joe is running under his own name.  He happens to have been born with a fine Irish name, a name that many Massachusetts voters will find comfortable rather than unfamiliar.  In Massachusetts politics, that’s a real plus, the sort of thing that will help voters hear his ideas and decide this is a man they can trust.

Libertarians across America have a choice:  You can support a real libertarian.  Or you can close your checkbook, skip donating through PayPal, and wonder why there’s no libertarian in the race.  If you want another political campaign in which the voice of liberty remains silent, you have but to do nothing.  If you want a political campaign in which the silver song of freedom rings gloriously from coast to coast, go to http://JoeKennedyForSenate.com and give generously. (I already have!)

George Phillies is a contributing editor for Liberty For All. You can contact Dr. Phillies at phillies@wpi.edu.

by Larken Rose

It’s inefficient, it’s corrupt, it’s horrendously expensive, and it’s bad at almost everything it does, not only failing to solve problems, but constantly making them worse, and making new problems at the same time. Yet so many people still insist that this thing called “government” is needed, even if only for a few particular tasks.

So what, exactly, does “government” add to society? What can it add? If we start with lots and lots of people, living on a big piece of dirt, what does “government” have to contribute to the equation? Well, it contributes no talent or skill, no knowledge or ingenuity–things which come only from individual human beings. “Government” is merely an organization of people, imagined to have the right to rule everyone else. It can’t have any abilities or productivity to offer that could not already be found in the people of whom it consists. Calling a group of people something different (i.e., “government”) can’t possibly add any talents or qualities that the people in the group didn’t already possess.

Every “law” and “program” administered by “government” is administered by people. Since organization, cooperation, ingenuity and creativity are all possible without “government”–since those all come from people–how could we possibly need “government” for anything? Since it’s just a group of people, how could there be anything which people could do as “government,” which those same people, with all the same talents and know-how, couldn’t do without it?

There is one thing, and only one thing, that “government” adds to society: immoral violence. Because people imagine it to have the RIGHT to rule, and the right to use force in situations where you and I would have no such right, all it does is add UNJUST VIOLENCE to society. (And how many people, looking around, say, “Ya know, what this country needs is more unjust violence!”)

Yes, some things are more convenient if you are allowed to ignore morality. For example, a supermarket would have an easier time if it could COERCE its customers to show up and pay whatever the store wants them to pay, instead of having to compete for voluntary customers. (The result, of course, would be really expensive, worthless products and services–which is what “government” specializes in.) It’s easier to get your way if everyone thinks you have the right to send men with guns to make everyone else behave the way you want. But is that ADDING something to society, or taking something away?

Every time someone initiates force against someone else, whether they do it on their own or in the name of “government,” they are SUBTRACTING something from society. They are REMOVING options and choices from people who should be free. They are LIMITING what people can do, what they can create, and what they can accomplish.

We can easily see this with a common crook. The guy who steals the old lady’s purse adds nothing of value to society, and deprives the lady of all the possibilities of what she could have done with that money. In the case of a kidnapper or a murderer, the example is even more significant: to steal some or all of a person’s life is to deprive not only that person, but the rest of the world, of whatever that person could have created or produced, whether in terms of physical wealth, emotional support, or anything else.

The same is true of the state. Every “law” is a threat of violence, and the vast majority of them target people who have committed no force or fraud. As a result, the vast majority of “laws” do nothing but LIMIT what people can accomplish and REMOVE options and choices. How can drastically LIMITING possibilities, with the use of force, contribute to society?

(Before you try to use the example of police stopping a murderer, think carefully. Defensive force is justified without any “law” or special “authority,” so the protection of the innocent requires no “government.” What makes them “police” is that people imagine them to have the right to use violence in situations where “normal” people don’t. What “law enforcement” adds to society is, therefore, not safety, but robbery, assault, kidnapping and murder, all done in the name of the “law.” In other words, by definition “government” does NOT add any right or ability to PROTECT rights– which the people already had; it adds only the ability to VIOLATE rights.)

To put it bluntly, the reason statists really want “government” is because they aren’t content to allow people to solve problems through voluntary interaction and cooperation; they want to FORCE everyone to do things their way. If the statists are scared of foreign invaders, they want to FORCE everyone else to pay for an army (even those who don’t think it’s necessary, or who morally oppose it). If statists think the poor might go hungry, they want to FORCE everyone to be “charitable.” If they are concerned about kids not being educated, they want to FORCE everyone to pay for schools, whether the people want them or not.

“Government” is always a cop-out, advocated by people who don’t want to let people be free, but want to COERCE them into making the “right” choices and funding the “right” things. Then, not surprisingly, it turns into a giant political free-for-all, fighting over the question of WHO gets to decide what everyone else should pay for and how everyone else should behave. An honest statist would have to sum up his position thusly: “We need government because otherwise some people wouldn’t support what I want them to support, and wouldn’t make the choices I want them to make.” That is the ONLY reason anyone ever advocates “government,” and that’s why the ONLY thing that “government” “adds” to society is limited choices, fewer possibilities, and lots of unjust violence.

Allow me to be blunt to the point of rudeness: It’s true that, if the whole world isn’t forced to do things the way YOU think it should, you might not always get your way. But don’t pretend you have some noble, altruistic motive for wanting “government.” You want it so it can do what you know that YOU have no right to do: FORCE all your neighbors to conform to YOUR beliefs and ideas. Don’t pretend you want “government” to “protect” people, or to contribute something to society that free people couldn’t create– you want it because you want CONTROL over everyone and everything else; you want to FORCE your ideas and “solutions” upon everyone else.

Well, the rest of the world has no obligation to think what you think, or to fund your ideas (whether they’re brilliant or stupid), or to bow to your will. You own yourself, but you don’t own anyone else. If that’s not enough for you, go jump in a lake. Stop advocating violence in the name of humanity.

Find out more about Larken Rose at http://www.larkenrose.com

by Randall G. Holcombe

TARP, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, is a year old now. On Sept. 19, 2008, former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson announced the need for a $700 billion program to purchase toxic assets held by banks to prevent a financial meltdown, and after some modification Congress rapidly approved TARP on Oct. 3. Looking back after a year, was TARP necessary? Did it work?

The answers are No, and No.

To look at the first question, consider what TARP was designed to do. Secretary Paulson said interbank lending had dried up because banks had toxic assets (mortgage-backed securities) clogging their portfolios. Because nobody knew what they were worth, banks were uncertain of the financial security of other banks. This uncertainty caused a reluctance to lend and prompted the financial markets to lock up.

The solution, Paulson argued, was to approve TARP and use $700 billion to buy the toxic assets. Replacing the assets with Treasury securities would fortify bank balance sheets and interbank lending would resume.

It is easy to say the program wasn’t necessary, despite Paulson’s arguments, because the TARP money wasn’t used to buy toxic assets. TARP money was instead used to buy preferred stock in banks, shoring up their balance sheets by giving the federal government part ownership of the banks.

Nine of the largest banks were forced to issue stock to the Treasury, paid for with TARP money, even though several of the banks tried to opt out. Secretary Paulson said that if some of the big banks participated and others didn’t, it would identify their varying levels of weakness, which Paulson believed was undesirable.

Instead of buying up toxic assets, the TARP money was used to partially nationalize the banking industry. It was also used for a federal takeover of AIG (after it was initially rescued by the Fed) and the bailout of Chrysler and General Motors.

When the auto companies initially approached Secretary Paulson for a share of the money, he said it was only to be used for the purchase of toxic assets from financial institutions. But when Congress wouldn’t bail out the auto industry, Paulson changed his tune.

Was it necessary to appropriate $700 billion to buy toxic assets? In hindsight, we can see the answer is No, because the money wasn’t used that way. Are we any better off for having used it instead to partially nationalize financial institutions and manufacturing firms? All TARP did for Chrysler and GM was delay their bankruptcies for six months and buy the government its ownership interest.

As for the banks, it may be that some of them would have failed without the money, but that is not a bad thing. When firms take risks, they must balance the potential profits from success against the potential losses from failure, and the TARP support removes the last part of that balancing act. There may have been some dislocations in the short run from bank failures, but in the long run allowing them to go under preserves the incentive structure that fuels a market economy.

Banks are financial intermediaries that match up borrowers and lenders. When a bank goes under, it does not reduce the amount of money available to borrowers, or prevent savers from providing money that can be lent. Other financial intermediaries are available to borrowers and lenders to replace the activities that failed banks would have performed.

Ultimately, what TARP did was provide funds for the government to take an ownership interest in private firms. Nationalizing our financial and industrial firms is not in the public interest. The federal government now owns 80 percent of AIG and 61 percent of GM. TARP was not necessary. It didn’t work. And what it actually did was undesirable.

Randall G. Holcombe is co-editor of the book Housing America: Building Out of a Crisis (Independent Institute, 2009) and DeVoe Moore Professor of Economics at Florida State University.

by R. Lee Wrights

“A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”

- George Washington

Anyone who has known me for any length of time knows of my great respect and genuine affection for the founding fathers of this country. I not only admire the men and women of the American Revolution as individuals; but moreover, I admire what they stood for and what they were willing to sacrifice in order to become free individuals governing themselves. I am loathe to criticize them at all because I honestly believe they did the very best they could with what they had, even to the point of risking fortune and life to achieve what they coveted most - precious Liberty. However, in my opinion there is one glaring mistake that the framers of the Constitution made when they collective ratified the first ten amendments in a document that would come to be known to all Americans as the Bill of Rights. They put the wrong amendment first.

Now, I understand why the founders of our country made the right to free speech the First Amendment to their newly-penned Constitution. After all, for as primitive as they lived by today’s standards the founding fathers considered themselves to be some of the most civilized men in the world. And as far as they were concerned, civilized men talked out their disagreements and only resorted to violence under the most extreme necessity. They looked upon themselves as enlightened individuals, as they certainly were indeed. Reason and logic were their preferred weapons of battle, and the gun was only to be used if both of those failed and life, liberty and freedom were at stake. So, it only seems natural that the right to free speech became the first amendment of ten included in the Bill of Rights.

Although I can certainly understand and even respect their reasoning, I still disagree with founders’ choice for the First Amendment. Even 250 years ago being first meant it was the most important, and while I agree that the individual’s ability to speak his/her mind is essential to a society dedicated to those precious siblings Liberty and Freedom, no rights at all can be guaranteed, much less preserved perpetually, without the Second Amendment - the right to keep and bear arms.

“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed–unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

- James Madison, the Federalist Papers No. 46

If you cannot protect your life and property you cannot be free, for surely some tyrant will come along, with an army to support him, and strip your birthrights from you. If you do not have the means by which to defend yourself from oppression, someone will always be around who wants to “shut you up” and will stop at nothing to make sure you are silenced. History has taught us this sad reality - at some point the right to keep and bear arms is the “only” thing that will perpetually preserve individual freedom. It is clearly, at least in my mind, the most important right we have and therefore should have been number one in the Bill of Rights.

While we can only speculate as to exactly how freedom of speech got top billing over the right to keep and bear arms, there can be no doubt that each and every one of the framers of the Constitution knew of the importance of the Second Amendment. They themselves were a living example of how important being well-armed is to any individual who wishes to remain free. After all, the various states had been petitioning the king for years trying to get their concerns addressed over taxes, trade agreements, land boundaries, etc. only to face even further transgressions upon their rights. 

Even when words would not work, they tried words again and again and again hoping beyond all hope to avoid an all-out war. They tolerated more and more taxes while being forced to open their homes to quarter the king’s men as they resisted armed revolt. No real fighting occurred until British forces marched on Lexington and Concord to take the towns’ arsenals. When the king’s army came to take away their weapons the people rose up and America’s Revolutionary War began. As I said, there can be no doubt that the framers of the Constitution knew all too well how important the right to keep and bear arms is to a nation of sovereign individuals yearning to be free.

“The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that… it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”

- Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright [1824]

Now don’t get me wrong. There is no bigger First Amendment advocate than I. I believe, as the founders believed, that reason and logic are preferable to violence when it comes to settling differences of opinions. Dispassionate debate, charged with facts not emotions, should be the rules of engagement among civilized individuals. However, we need look no further than our history books or the daily headlines to see that words alone will not make freemen out of slaves. The only deterrent to tyranny is a well-armed citizenry. The founders knew this and still they made freedom of speech first in the Bill of Rights. Was it a deliberate attempt to solidify, and even codify, the enlightened belief that words are preferable to bullets? I cannot imagine it was anything else. A noble and honorable attempt indeed.

No matter how much I admire a noble attempt by the founders of this country to emphasize and reinforce the notion that words are indeed preferable to war, my own life experiences have shown me the greater importance of being able to defend myself properly. When I was a youngster, growing up in the turbulent ’60’s, I learned quickly that self-defense was the most basic instinct instilled in mankind. I discovered, mostly out of necessity, that there is nothing stronger in human nature than the drive for self-preservation. I also learned defense of self cannot be trusted to the hands of others who share the same natural disposition of self first. I learned that rarely was anyone in a position of authority around when I really needed them. In other words, those who were charged with my safety proved incapable of rendering the service. In every instance of my life when I needed protection I have taken the initiative of self-defense because without it there would have been no defense at all. It has been from necessity not desire that, at times, I have had to abandon words and physically defend my person, my property and my rights. If life is indeed its own best teacher, then the right to keep and bear arms must be recognized as the number one naturally-endowed right of the whole human race.

“To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

- George Mason

Originally published at Liberty For All April 29, 2007.

R. Lee Wrights is a writer and political activist living in North Carolina. He is the co-founder and editor of the free speech online magazine Liberty For All. Contact Lee at rleewrights@gmail.com.

by Melinda Pillsbury-Foster

WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small “inside” group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.

How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle? Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few — the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.

And what is this bill?

This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations.

For a great many years, as a soldier, I had a suspicion that war was a racket; not until I retired to civil life did I fully realize it. Now that I see the international war clouds gathering, as they are today, I must face it and speak out.”

Smedley Butler died in 1940. Many believe he was assassinated while in the hospital. Smedley Butler was the most popular military figure in America when he was asked to carry out a military junta on behalf of wealthy businessmen. The planned coup d’état failed because Butler exposed them. Variously known as the “Business Plot,” the “Plot Against FDR” and the “White House Putsch” took place in parallel with Hitler’s move towards power in Germany.

Imagine a group of the corporate greedy, many of whom like the Bushes, have investments there, seized with the excitement of emulation. Greed begets more greed, as we have learned to our sorrow.

The corporates have not changed, but they have become more efficient, skilled and organized in planning their disinformation campaigns and in their abuse of power.

Today you see Newt Gingrich posturing. Standing with the woman he finally married, seeing their happy smiles remember the woman Newt abandoned to die of cancer, the mother of his children who made his career possible. They want to tell you how to be a Christian. Does this seem odd? Samuel Adams was not the last of the Puritans, those who saw the real vision of Christianity, the coming together as one people. Descendants of the Puritans brought you the Abolitionist Movement, the Suffrage Movement, and today continue to work for peace, justice and care of the Earth. I know, my family was there, not selling supplies to the British.

The list of those employed by the corporations to pull the wool over your eyes is long. How they spin the world into cotton candy by Monsanto to destroy your health, steal the power of the people, and convert our institutions into tools of oppression is both complex and simple. But once you see it, you are immunized against their lies.

Read this site before you consider having a vaccination. Think about the motives and methods of those who would force you to comply. Read the book, visit the links, your survival depends on it.

Melinda Pillsbury-Foster is the author of GREED: The NeoConning of America and A Tour of Old Yosemite. The former is a novel about the lives of the NeoCons with a strong autobiographical component. The latter is a non-fiction book about her father and grandfather. Melinda is an associate editor for Liberty For All and can be reached at the.melinda@yahoo.com.

by Jessica Peck Corry

Dr. Keith Smith is a proud capitalist. The anesthesiologist often helps poor patients obtain surgeries at no cost while managing to keep his Oklahoma-based practice afloat.

Speaking recently to a roomful of American reporters at a Vancouver hotel, Smith could have easily relied on lazy clichés to point out how Canada’s system fails its critically ill. Instead, he talked about something much more important to most Americans: how our system is failing us.

“The Canadian system is a Ponzi scheme that is just a little further along than ours,” he said, condemning what he called a “cartel” between U.S. hospitals and insurance companies, and condemning the lack of consumer choice present in both countries.

While speaking ill of the health care establishment, one of America’s most powerful political lobbies, might be enough to spell the demise for most medical professionals, Smith remains undeterred, accusing the two industries of often exaggerating each other’s expenses to generate greater public sympathy and more taxpayer funding.

“In the hands of a good surgeon, a tonsillectomy can take 10 to 15 minutes,” he said. “It’s criminal that this is billed out at $9,000.” He also expressed outrage that not-for-profit hospitals in his hometown made profits of up to $100 million in the last year alone and that more than 50 cents of every dollar spent on U.S. health care comes from taxpayers.

Smith is taking his campaign to lower medical costs directly to the public. As one of 40 doctors who together own and manage a successful outpatient surgery center that performs up to 60 procedures a day, he diligently works to keep costs low, providing savings to patients of up to 80 percent. His center is also the first in the nation to post prices for surgery packages directly on its website. “If we’re wrong on the total cost, the patient doesn’t eat the difference,” he said. “We do.”

Smith’s center succeeds without ever accepting any federal money. While his model is frequently attacked as one that can only benefit the wealthy, Smith disagrees, saying that more competition in the system will drive down costs for everyone.

A handful of Canadian patients benefiting from Smith’s services also took to the podium in Vancouver to share their firsthand accounts of participating in a cross-border experiment that is improving health care not only for Canadians, but also for a growing number of Americans willing to travel to other states to receive more timely and less expensive treatment.

“My hope is that Americans will start asking important questions,” said Smith. “They’ll start wondering, ‘Why did my insurance company send me down the street to that competitor, where the same procedure costs five times as much?’ ”

Partnering up with Smith is Rick Baker, a Canadian entrepreneur. The duo helps match Canadian patients with American surgeons, and to raise funds to cover the costs of travel. The partnership has been so successful it now includes similar centers in 13 other states.

Together, Smith and Baker send 450 Canadians to treatment every year. According to their estimates, meanwhile, at least 1 million Canadians currently linger on waiting lists for essential medical treatments.

Canadian patients persuasively spoke of horrors they were subjected to under Canada’s socialist system. All clearly expressed their belief that Canada’s system is great most of the time. It’s just when you’re really sick that things start to fall apart.

Ultimately, both the U.S. and Canada suffer from excessive costs and discouraging access rates. We should take the lead of a handful of innovative medical entrepreneurs, who together are improving health care one patient — and, if all goes as planned, two nations — at a time.

This article originally appeared in The Denver Post, October 8th, 2009.

Jessica Peck Corry (Jessica@i2i.org) serves as director of the Independence Institute’s Campus Accountability Project.

by Mike Krause

Colorado lawmakers’ long-running devotion to the War on Drugs has helped push state prison spending to unsustainable levels. In the meantime, illicit drugs remain readily available throughout the state. This year, the Colorado Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice (CCJJ) has broken down into several sub-groups including a Drug Policy Task Force, to take a hard look at the state’s drug laws and sentencing policies.

This is an excellent opportunity for fiscal conservatives to take the lead in bringing some much needed scrutiny and restraint to corrections spending in Colorado.

In 1992, Colorado lawmakers surrendered their prerogative to write the state’s criminal law and enacted the Uniform Controlled Substances Act, written by drug war bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., and designed to bring state drug laws in to conformity with federal drug laws. The act, among many other things, created numerous new drug offenses, and sentencing enhancements for those offenses.

And the result?

Over the last several decades, the percentage of inmates whose most serious sentencing offense is a drug offense has quadrupled to around 20 percent of Colorado’s prison population. Drug offenders are by far the single largest category of new admissions to Colorado prisons at around 23 percent of annual admissions.

There are more drug offenders in Colorado prisons today than the entire prison population 25 years ago when the state’s inmate population was around 3,500.

Given this, you might think a drug-free Colorado is close at hand. You would be wrong.

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration’s 2008 State Fact Sheet for Colorado notes that heroin is not only “available in the major metropolitan areas of Colorado,” but “various law enforcement and treatment indicators suggest that heroin use and availability may be on the rise in Colorado.” As for cocaine, “Enforcement activities reflect a steady supply of cocaine coming into and through Colorado.”

Crack cocaine is “available in the larger metropolitan areas of Colorado, generally in street level amounts.” And marijuana, according to DEA, “is available throughout Colorado.”

One of the main policy goals driving the mass incarceration of drug offenders — the supply-side strategy of disrupting illicit drug availability — is a long-running failure.

It costs around $31,000 per year to keep someone in prison. A June 30, 2008 snapshot of the state’s prison population showed just under 4,500 drug offenders. So Colorado’s failed attempt to incarcerate away the drug issue costs taxpayers roughly $140 million per year just for prison beds.

Colorado’s often irrational drug policies are a major diving force behind decades of run-away prison spending that has pushed Colorado’s corrections budget from less than 3 percent to almost 9 percent of general fund spending, or from around $97 million to over $675 million of general fund appropriation. For years, budget hawks in the legislature have turned a blind eye to one of the most extreme spending sprees in state history. It is well past time to bring prison spending under the same annual fiscal scrutiny as the rest of the budget.

Overuse of criminal sanctions for drug offenses also inflicts huge indirect economic costs on the state, because drug offenders who are given a felony conviction (note that in Colorado, simply being in possession of an amount of illegal drugs weighing less than an American nickel is a felony crime) will have a much harder time getting jobs and becoming productive, tax-paying citizens in the future.

A core problem is the irrationality of treating drug offenses like violent and property crimes.

For instance, incarcerate a serial burglar or strong-arm robber and not only is a string of crimes solved, but untold numbers of future crimes are prevented (at least for as long as that criminal is incarcerated).

But the imprisonment of one drug dealer (or even an entire network) only temporarily disrupts the flow of illegal drugs. As soon as one supplier is gone, another quickly moves in to take his place. Basic economic laws of supply and demand say that as long as there is a demand for a product, a market will make that product available.

Using incarceration to try and halt the availability of drugs can only be achieved by imprisoning every drug user and addict (who constitute the majority of the small-time dealers) and everyone willing to break the law in return for financial reward (dealers in the upper levels of the drug world).

The cost to taxpayers of Colorado’s failed experiment in the mass incarceration of drug offenders has simply become unsustainable. Fiscal conservatives, both Republican and Democrat, should be urging the CCJJ to present legislative recommendations to significantly pare back the War on Drugs in Colorado.

This article originally appeared in the Denver Huffington Post, October 7th, 2009.

Mike Krause directs the Justice Policy Initiative at the Independence Institute. He is a graduate of the University of Nebraska, and served in the United States Coast Guard from 1987-1991, which included search and rescue operations in the North Atlantic Ocean and joint agency drug and immigration patrols in the Caribbean Sea.

© 2009 The Independence Institute
13952 Denver West Parkway, Suite 400
Golden, CO 80401
303-279-6536
www.independenceinstitute.org