by David Goree

The brilliant thinkers that wrote our Constitution had it right… They had just fought a war to overthrow an oppressive government, and they had won it by having similar technologies to this oppressive Government and tactics more suitable to the type of war they were fighting. These geniuses wrote the Second Amendment to ensure that this balance continued for the future of this great Nation.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
 
- The Second Amendment to the US Constitution

There is a story from my wife’s family that makes this so perfectly clear…

“During the year 1780 Lord Dunmore conducted a campaign against the forces of Revolutionary General Andrew Lewis, who was placed in the area of Mathews County. Dunmore’s assault was by sea up the Pianketank River and by landing party via Point Pleasant. This placed Milford Haven, home of Houlder Hudgins, was directly in the line of battle. Enraged by this, Houlder Hudgins fitted out one of his fleet, the brigantine ‘Queen Charlotte’ as a war vessel, manned it and presented it to General Lewis to repel the invaders. There ensued the Battle of Gwynns Island, at the end of which the attack was thwarted and the forces of Lord Dunmore dispersed.”

An account of the above incident appeared in the July 10, 1812 issue of The Virginia Argus follows;

“Houlder Hudgins, Esq.; was a member of the Gloucester County Committee of Safety, and in 1780 fitted out, manned and presented to General Andrew Lewis a vessel called ‘Queen Charlotte’ which played a critical part in The Battle of Gwynns Island in which the forces of Lord Dunmore were decisively defeated. Mr. Hudgins was the owner of a fleet of vessels trading to and from the West Indies. His home was situated directly in the line of attack of the Dunmore forces. It was a natural and patriotic action for him to assist in the destruction of the enemy by driving him from the shores of his own country and his very home.”
 
A 21st Century Houlder Hudgins, faced with an Aegis cruiser in his backyard would have no such option. Imagine for a moment, walking out your door to find an M1-A2 tank outside. Can you own anything that can do more than annoy a tank? No, you cannot. Can you own anything that can even reach an F-16? No, you cannot. The FBI or BATF would knock on your door within hours if you tried to order such an item, or even discussed it with any intent. (Attention all Federal agents…this is all discussed as a matter of potential future interest, not a plot to overthrow the Government today…ya got it….?)

So…what must our 21st century Houlder Hudgins do to free his home from a future oppressive Government? Simple…Vote Libertarian!

The Libertarian Party is the only political party that is totally committed to the principle of the Second Amendment. In a Libertarian society Government would be so small and limited in power and authority that it would be terribly unlikely for Government to get out of control. The People however must always have the ability to make Government fear the people rather than the People fear the government as so many do today.  

I thank the geniuses that wrote our Constitution, as well as patriots like Houlder Hudgins for giving us the gift of Freedom! We cannot allow our generation to be the one that watches it slip away. Vote Libertarian!

Originally Published in Liberty For All March 22, 2002.

by SAF staff

The Second Amendment Foundation today renewed its pledge to sue Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels if he pushes through a proposed rule that would ban legally-carried firearms in city Parks and Recreations Department facilities.

The proposed rule change was announced Friday morning. SAF founder Alan Gottlieb quickly noted that this rule would violate Washington State’s long standing firearms preemption statute, first adopted more than 25 years ago. That law has become a model for similar state laws all over the country.

“This must be Greg Nickels’ desperate parting shot at gun owners who worked hard to make sure he did not survive the primary election last month,” Gottlieb observed. “He has already been advised by Attorney General Rob McKenna’s office that he has no authority to impose gun laws that are more restrictive than state statute, and under state law, private citizens may legally carry concealed handguns on public property if they’re licensed to do so.

“Public property does not belong to Mayor Nickels,” he added, “it belongs to the people.

“If this rule is adopted,” Gottlieb said, “it is our intent to immediately file a lawsuit against the city with our sister organization, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. I guarantee there will be lots of people lining up to become plaintiffs.”

Nickels came in third in last month’s primary, effectively ending his reign in the mayor’s office. He has been threatening to ban guns on all city property since June of last year.

“Evidently,” Gottlieb stated, “the mayor wants to be a two time loser, once at the ballot box and once in the courtroom.”

Copyright © 2009 Second Amendment Foundation, All Rights Reserved.

Second Amendment Foundation
James Madison Building
12500 N.E. Tenth Place
Bellevue, WA 98005
Toll Free: 800-426-4302
Email: InformationRequest@saf.org

by Jessica Peck Corry

There are times when it hurts that your predictions comes true. It’s especially painful when it happens again and again, and its Colorado’s working families and small businesses who must shoulder the burden.

This week, as the Regional Transportation District is finally being forced to admit it has royally messed up its FasTracks light rail project, it is metro-area taxpayers who will suffer.

As the transit agency prepares to ask taxpayers for billions more in financial support, it concedes it has underplanned, overspent, and mismanaged construction timelines to the tune of $2.3 billion.

At the Independence Institute, where I am a policy analyst, we predicted such problems years ago as our president, Jon Caldara, launched a valiant though unsuccessful grassroots effort to stop RTD’s dreams of a massive light rail system. At the time, in 2004, he was harassed, belittled, ridiculed, and mocked. He was taunted as a regressive curmudgeon who hated the poor, the elderly, the environment, and the entire state of Colorado. But, as history has proven, his previous experience as RTD board chair gave him the foresight and the expertise to see that that RTD was selling taxpayers a false bill of goods upon which it could never honestly deliver. In the end, it was Caldara who was looking out for you.

Unfortunately, he was outmatched by a multi-million dollar campaign supported by chambers of commerce, beloved Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper, the Denver Post editorial page, leading liberal Republicans, and your tax dollars in a campaign that painted a pretty vision of a car-free utopia where every mother, father, and child could live within the glorious walking distance of a light rail station.

If only FasTracks were the first time voters had been sold a false bill of goods. But again and again, Caldara has been proven right in his opposition of multi-million dollar campaigns devoted to raising Colorado taxes by billions. Take 2000’s Amendment 23. That year, backers-including the always affluent Colorado Education Association, inundated voter mailboxes with glossy full-color propaganda proclaiming that this constitutional amendment would save Colorado schools from certain fiscal demise-all without ever jeopardizing the state’s other top fiscal priorities, including transportation, health care, higher education, and prisons. The measure was the pride and joy of current state Treasurer Cary Kennedy, benefiting from a Denver Post endorsement, and the adoration of top University of Colorado economists. In reality, the measure-which mandated annual spending increases for education without consideration of incoming tax revenue-has devastated the state budget by forcing cuts to our college campuses, our jails, and our roads. While CU leaders once hailed its passage, they are now counting pennies on a campus that faces millions in budget shortfalls.

When it turned out that Amendment 23 funded schools at the expense of sound fiscal policy and that our students weren’t any better off as a result, the unions and their allies once again told taxpayers that schools needed more of our money. In 2005, they spent over $10 million to successfully convince just over 50 percent of voters to support Referendum C, another constitutional amendment that has taken nearly $6 billion from taxpayers and yet, our government’s appetite for our hard earned dollars only grows stronger.

In each of these campaigns, Caldara and his grassroots allies have been outspent by millions. We’ve had our perspective largely shut out of the newsroom, and we’ve been mocked by editorial writers. In a political environment where out-of-state unions were dumping millions into campaign coffers and bussing in paid “volunteers,” it appeared we couldn’t catch a break.

But in 2009, the tide is turning.

Over the last several months, exasperated small business owners and frustrated taxpayers have, by the thousands, taken to the steps of the state Capitol in Denver to protest government waste and endless tax increases. And they keep coming back. While liberal pundits have turned to cable news channels to mock such events as “Astroturf” manifestations of deep-pocketed capitalist conspirators, such spin just isn’t going to work this time. At a Denver protest held Saturday as part of a national movement that drew hundreds of thousands of Americans out to public squares to similarly demonstrate their displeasure with America’s ever-growing, out-of-control deficit spending, Independence Institute organizers sold out of 600 flags in just three hours. Thousands of people stood in the rain waiving their homemade placards.

And to think, three years ago, Caldara would have been lucky to get 50 people to show up. On a sunny day that is.

Times, they are a changing.

Now, you can argue that I’m just writing this to serve the interests of my organization. But if you saw my paycheck, you’d know that Caldara doesn’t pay me enough to buy my devotion. Like everyone in our humble little organization, we’re committed to fighting for the little guy because it’s the right thing to do. Unlike the government contractors or the public officials ranking in seven-figure deals as a result of the tax increases discussed above, not a single one of us is getting rich off this deal. We aren’t in bed with corporations, as is sometimes alleged, (though Caldara often proclaims he wishes we were; we could definitely use the money) and we aren’t just trying to protect our fictitious seven-figure nest eggs.

It can be exhausting entering every election cycle knowing you will be outspent by those who have permanent access to the public microphone and taxpayer pockets. But as America now faces a debt so enormous that it threatens the livelihood of workers who won’t be born for another fifty years, we have a choice. We can finally hold our government accountable or we can sink along with it. In 2009, David has found his microphone and this time Goliath has no choice but to listen.

This originally appeared in the Denver Post’s Politics West blog, September 18th, 2009.

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

by George Phillies

Mind you, when you aren’t up to publishing the newsletter regularly, threatening to take it away loses savor as a threat.

A motion now before the LNC, would amend the Policy Manual. In the following quote, Sections 2, 4, and 5 are new as worded.  The motion, which has not been widely circulated, takes away fundamental rights of the Sustaining Membership.

For starters, Sustaining Members no longer get to be called “Sustaining Members.”  Instead, for most of the Membership Rules they will have an “Association Level” of “Basic.”

For next, the motion makes up in complete violation of the By-Laws the notion of “benefits lapse date,” after which you stop receiving the Newsletter (which, of course, the LNC mostly fails to publish).  The claim of the new motion is that when you first give $25 you establish a day and month on which your membership expire, and you cannot extend your membership by giving more money *except in response to a membership renewal request*.

That is, if you renew your Sustaining Membership by sending in $25 a bit too early, your newsletter subscription will not extend, contrary to every understanding of many years as what it means to be a sustaining member.  Unless, of course, the staff gives you special privileges.

The Bylaws actually say  ” ‘Sustaining Member’ is any Party member who has given at least $25 to the Party in the prior 12 months, or who is a life member.”

“Prior 12 months” is almost completely unambiguous, and those of you who heard the Judicial Committee debate over the Wrights expulsion will remember there was a disagreement as to whether “12 months” was 365 days or the 12 past named months, but not whether it was “12 months.”

The new Motion would, of course, legitimate the effort to remove Lee Wrights from the LNC, namely, Wrights never received any membership renewal requests.

A reasonable man would propose that support of the following motion is Advocacy of Theft — of your membership rights — and Fraud — publishing public Bylaws that are contradicted by the widely unavailable Policy Manual — in the sense these phrases are meant in the Party Statement of Principles.

And here, folks, is the motion:

“Section 2.05 MEMBERSHIP POLICIES

1) Membership Forms Membership forms produced by the LNC shall include a membership statement that meets the requirements of Article 5, Section 1 of the Party Bylaws. Any new wording for the membership statement shall be subject to the same review process as all other Party Literature.

2) Association Levels The following levels of association are recognized by the Party:
o Basic $25 annual dues payment
o Regular $50 annual dues payment
o Supporting $100 annual dues payment
o Sponsor $250 annual dues payment
o Patron $500 annual dues payment
o Torch Club $1,000 in dues or contributions prior twelve months
o Chairman’s Circle $5,000 in dues or contributions since last convention

3) Life Membership Status A member who contributes at least $1,000 during any twelve-month period shall be granted life membership in the Party.

4) Benefits Non-member contributors shall be provided all benefits provided to member contributors, except for those rights specifically granted only to members or sustaining members by the Party Bylaws or this Policy Manual.

A member or non-member contributor with a future benefits lapse date shall be entitled to the following basic benefits:
o Customized Party membership card, updated annually, identifying the individual’s level of association and lapse date
o Subscription to LP News Those maintaining Torch Club status shall also be entitled to the following benefits:
o Special mailings
o Invitation to the Torch Club event at the convention. Those maintaining Chairman’s Circle status shall also be entitled to the following benefits:
o Special mailings
o Invitation to the Torch Club event at the convention
o Invitation to the Chairman’s Circle event at the convention
o Participation in special conference calls with the Chair Staff shall have the discretion to create and bestow additional benefits.

5) Benefits Lapse Date An individual’s benefits lapse date is independent of the sustaining membership lapse date defined by the Party’s Bylaws.

Individuals making a first contribution shall have a benefits lapse date established one year from the date of receipt. Individuals who remit the required amount of dues in response to a membership renewal request shall have the benefits lapse date extended by one year from the existing lapse date or one year from the date of receipt, whichever is later. Contributions in response to other than a membership renewal appeal shall not as a policy extend the benefits lapse date, however Staff shall have the discretion to extend a contributor’s benefits lapse date up to one year from the last contribution date, if failure to do so would damage donor relations.

Notwithstanding the above, an individual who has contributed an amount sufficient to have qualified for life membership status shall be entitled to lifetime basic benefits.

Section 3.03 AFFILIATE RELATIONS
2) Data Sharing with Affiliates LPHQ will provide all officially recognized state-level affiliates with a list of Constituents residing in the area covered by that affiliate, within the first 5 business days of the month to the affiliate chair, or his designee. Such list shall include the following data elements (where available and applicable):
o A unique ID
o First, Middle and Last Name
o Postal mailing address
o Home and work phone and email address
o County of residency, if that information can be obtained via commonly available sources within reasonable cost
o Join and Expiration Dates
o Donation classification level (basic, life, etc)
o Existence of signed certification
o Sustaining membership status
o Other data elements, at the discretion of LPHQ

The affiliate chair may request that additional people receive copies of the constituent list. LPHQ will establish and publish formal procedures for state chairs to follow in this regard.

The LPHQ will endeavor to provide the list in the file format requested (PDF, Excel, CSV, etc), but is under no obligation to do so, as it cannot guarantee that all file formats will always be available.

Should the LPHQ desire to change the quantity or order of the data elements, it will provide one month’s notice of such change.

The LPHQ makes no further guarantees regarding the format, method of delivery or structure of the data.

All official communications regarding the database export format will be made via the state chairs e-mail list and a moderated database announce e-mail list to be administered by the LNC and that it is the responsibility of the affiliate chair to make sure the appropriate database contacts are on the database announce e-mail list.

i Authorized by Bylaw 5.2.
ii Qualifications for sustaining membership are defined by Bylaw Articles 5.3 and 5.5.”

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

by Peter Orvetti

The world’s oldest profession is back in the headlines, and this time it’s not just because a hard-ass prosecutor turned governor got caught with his pants down, or because a moralizing southern senator forgot a couple of his commandments.  No, this time it’s because the least-convincing pimp since Doctor Detroit, and a street walker who happened to be a contributor to the conservative website TownHall.com, took down the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, by getting the group to help them with their business — and by getting it on tape.

Prep school pimp James O’Keefe, and Hannah Giles, who presented herself as a hooker called “Eden”, were told by ACORN personnel to lie about their enterprise in order to get a loan.  “Eden” was told to say she was a “performing artist” or a “freelancer”.  When they asked for advice on how to handle the 13 underage girls from El Salvador they would be importing for their brothel, ACORN workers told the duo that they could declare some of them as dependents to receive child tax credits.

In other salacious solicitation news, Rhode Island is considering making prostitution illegal.  Yes, that quiet little state has a legal sex trade — as long as you keep your business inside.  In 1980, while amending an existing law against prostitution in order to expedite prosecutions, legislators accidentally deleted the section that addressed the actual prostitution itself, leaving just street solicitation against the law.  The result: Prostitution is legal in the Ocean State, so long as it takes place indoors.  Officials estimate there are at least 40 legal brothels operating in Rhode Island.  The loophole went unnoticed for more than two decades.  In 2003, an attorney representing several prostitutes acknowledged that they had offered sex in exchange for money to undercover police — but then pointed out that the state no longer had a law against that.  The case was dismissed.

Legislators are now planning to close the loophole, partly in response to the so-called “Craigslist killing”, in which a woman who advertised on the “exotic services” section of the popular website was murdered by a client in Massachusetts.  But Rhode Island’s semi-legal prostitution has some defenders.  American Civil Liberties Union Rhode Island Affiliate Executive Director Steven Brown said, “If individuals are engaged in consensual sexual conduct, it shouldn’t be the state’s business.”  Dr. Penelope Saunders of the Best Practices Policy Project, which advocates for sex workers in both legal and illegal businesses, said, “In our experience, the criminalization of prostitution forces women, men and transgender [people] who engage in commercial sex to the margins, away from service providers and advocates who could help them.”  An August letter signed by 50 academics said that prostitutes who work indoors are less likely to be assaulted or raped, and less likely to abuse drugs, than those who solicit on the streets.

Still, it seems likely that Rhode Island House Bill 5044A and Senate Bill 0986A will pass, meaning prostitution will be left legal in just 12 rural Nevada counties.  All this begs the question: Why is it illegal at all?

The ban on the voluntary exchange of sexual services for money is our dumbest prohibition — more so even than drug prohibition, in that it is even less consistent.  Possession and use of heroin, for example, is illegal no matter how you acquire the drug.  But prostitution is legal in many ways — we just call it different things.  To wit:

You cannot be paid for sex.  However, you can be paid for sex if someone is filming it for public distribution.  You can also trade goods or services for sex — after an expensive dinner date, or in order to woo a wealthy suitor.  This is fine, so long as the suitor does not actually give you cash.  You can also legally trade money for sex so long as you agree to a long-term commitment, namely marriage.  It is perfectly legal to become a trophy spouse to someone whose only attractive feature is her or his bank balance.  For this sort of arrangement, it is also legal for your friends or even your parents to play your pimp.

More than 350,000 Americans are in jail today for victimless or consensual crimes, with 1.5 million more on probation for such “offenses”.  The annual cost of arresting and punishing people for these consensual crimes is more than $50 billion.  And like drug prohibitions, the ban on prostitution does not stop the trade - it just makes it less safe for those involved.  Forget the hookers.  When it comes to foolish prohibitions, the folks who write the laws are the real pros, and they’re turning their tricks against you.

Peter Orvetti was an early political blogger in the United States, running his Orvetti.com political news report from 1997 through 2002. He is a past editorial writer for the Cato Institute, served as Deputy Director of Communications for the Libertarian Party in the lead-up to the 2000 party convention, and has published commentaries in several major newspapers. Contact Mr. Orvetti at peterjorvetti@gmail.com.

by Larken Rose

* * The Meaning of “Please” * *

Imagine a slave who, while being whipped, cries out, “Please, massa, no more!” What message does such a plea for mercy convey? Obviously, it conveys a desire for the beating to stop, but it also conveys another message-albeit an unstated one: “Master, I accept that it is up to YOU whether I am to be beaten or not.”

The word “please” is short for “if it pleases you.” In many contexts it is a polite thing to say, implying that it is up to the listener (not the speaker) to decide whether to do something or not. “Please pass the gravy” is a request, not a demand. “Please donate to this charity” is an invitation, not an order. Such uses of the term are both polite and proper. However, the term is not appropriate when the listener has no right to be the one making the choice to begin with. For example, someone confronting a purse- snatcher who just robbed a little old lady should not say, “Please give the lady back her purse.” Rather, the message should be, “Give it back or else!” In most situations, deferring to the listener’s pleasure (implied by the term “please”) is civilized and charitable, but it is not appropriate when the listener is about to harm an innocent person. Then, what’s called for is a command.

* * Begging for Freedom * *

The point of this linguistic lesson is this: The majority of what the “freedom movement” does essentially consists of the victims of tyranny saying to the tyrants, “Please stop oppressing us!” Whether one is lobbying for “legislation,” or trying to get a certain candidate elected, a dual message is being sent to those in power: A) “We want government to stop doing this to us,” and B) “we accept that the choice of whether to stop doing it is government’s (not ours) to make.” Consider just two examples (out of hundreds that could be used):

1) When one lobbies for lower “taxes,” it conveys a two-fold message: A) “We’d like to keep more of our money,” and B) “We accept that it is up to you, the politicians, to decide how much we can keep.” (Contrast that with what was done at the “Boston Tea Party.”)

2) When one lobbies against so-called “gun control,” both messages are again implied: A) “We’d like to keep our guns,” but B) “we agree that we need ‘legal’ permission from you politicians in order to have the right to do so.” (Contrast that with what happened in Lexington, with the “Shot Heard ‘Round the World.”)

While such requests certainly appear, on the surface, to be pro- freedom in nature, in a very real sense they are NOT. The underlying implication of all such petitions to those in government is that it is up to them, not up to the people, what “rights” the people will have. But such an implication completely contradicts the entire concept of individual rights.

* * Unalienable Rights * *

The Declaration of Independence expresses the idea that an individual’s right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is not derived from any man-made law or any government, but is intrinsic to all people, having been “endowed by their Creator.” The very term “unalienable” implies that such rights cannot be taken away by any “legislation,” or any other act of man. (Such rights can, of course, be violated, but they still do not cease to be rights.)

Nonetheless, much of what is done by those claiming to be pro- freedom advocates consists merely of asking the politicians to either support or oppose this or that legislation, thereby giving their “legal” PERMISSION for the people to be free. In doing so, even some of the most ardent, well-meaning freedom activists are inadvertently conveying one message loud and clear: “We do NOT believe in unalienable rights!”

To REQUEST that one’s “rights” be honored by those in power is to concede that it is up to the discretion of “government” whether to allow the rest of us to do something or not, which in turn implies that we have no rights at all. (A “right” is, by definition, something that one does not need “government” permission to do.) On the other hand, to DEMAND that one’s rights be honored, whether those in “government” want to or not, and whether “the law” allows for it or not, is perfectly consistent and in keeping with the concept of “unalienable” rights. But how many people dare to make such a demand?

* * An Uncomfortable Position * *

The reason so many liberty advocates end up doing little more than begging for freedom is quite simple, and quite understandable. First, it is a scary thing to demand something from any large, heavily armed gang (”government” or otherwise), especially when that gang thinks it has the right to run your life. To engage in resistance against such a gang-whether by forceful or passive means-is a very dangerous undertaking. But there is a deeper issue as well.

Almost all of us, since back before we can remember, have been trained to respect and obey “authority,” and to obey whatever commands “authority” may give us. As a result, most people have a very hard time, for example, disobeying a police officer, not only due to fear of being arrested, tasered, etc., but also because, as a result of our upbringing and authoritarian indoctrination, it feels very uncomfortable, and even immoral, to not “do as you’re told.” As a result, and as odd as this may sound, most people have a very hard time viewing “the police” as mere mortals.

Most Americans are quick to comply with any request a “law enforcer” may make, even in situations where the same request, if made by an average citizen, would be responded to with anger, or even violence. When, for example, a police officer asks, “May I search your car?” the average American will, without hesitation, give his consent, even if he has done nothing wrong, and even if there is no reason to SUSPECT that he has done anything wrong. But if the average man on the street made such a request of a stranger (”May I search your car?”), he may very well get a response more along the lines of, “Of course not! Get away from me or I’ll slug you!”

The difference is that nearly everyone has been trained to bow to “authority.” (Anyone who wants to see just how profound, and how dangerous, the effects of such training are should study the experiments conducted by Dr. Stanley Milgram, as described in his book, Obedience to Authority.) Nearly everyone, when dealing with “law enforcement,” has an attitude of, “I am good, and therefore I cooperate with the police.” As a result of our conditioning, receiving the approval of “authority” feels good, while being the target of “official” condemnation feels bad. As a result, even mustering the mental strength to refuse to consent to an unjustified search, or to refuse to answer the questions of a perceived “authority”-even in situations where the police openly acknowledge one’s right to do so-is extremely difficult for most people.

How much more difficult, then, is it for the average person to even begin to consider the possibility of openly, intentionally disobeying the so-called “laws” of those who claim to be our rightful masters (i.e., “government”)? What good person would willingly take upon himself the label of “law-breaker” and “criminal”? Right here and right now, the answer to that question is: anyone who actually believes in freedom.

* * “Tolerating” and “Demanding” * *

Activists are constantly opining that we should “demand” that politicians do this or that, and that we should not “tolerate” the rampant corruption and oppression we see today. But, to be perfectly blunt, most of them don’t really mean it.

To “demand” something does not simply mean to beg for it; it means to insist upon it, backing up that insistence with a serious “or else” clause-a THREAT. Likewise, to not “tolerate” something means to not allow it to happen, which implies that one will use any means necessary to stop it from happening. So what do those in the freedom movement mean when they talk about “demanding” things of those in government, and not “tolerating” what government is doing? What, exactly, will they do if government ignores their “demands,” or does what they say they will not “tolerate”?

Most of the time, the only threat is that in a few years, the people “demanding” things might VOTE against those currently in power. However, when the next election rolls around-if they still even remember their “demands” by then-the voters will have a choice between voting for someone who will lose (from a third party), or voting for someone who will preserve the status quo (any Democrat or Republican). Either way, the same ruling class remains in power, the “demands” dissolve, and the people are stuck with the very situation that they said they refused to “tolerate.”

As a result, such “demands” are really not demands at all. Some people get outraged, jump up and down and shout a lot, and then, exhausted and defeated, they go back to being oppressed, without having changed a thing, and tyranny continues on its merry way. Is it any wonder that most people don’t bother to try?

* * It’s All In Your Head * *

The truth of the matter is that, as vicious and destructive as “government” can be, the real problem resides, NOT in Washington, but between the ears of several hundred million Americans. The only way a few hundred politicians can continually extort and control several hundred million citizens is by first convincing them that such extortion and control is legitimate. By labeling oppression as “law,” and condemning as “criminals” any who disobey any of those “laws,” tyrants-throughout the world and for thousands of years-have successfully trained the peasants to enslave themselves. As long as the common folk measure their goodness by how well they obey their masters, they will never be free, and oppressing them will be very easy.

And that is exactly what people do when they express pride in being “law-abiding taxpayers”: they are BRAGGING about handing over the fruits of their labors to politicians (being good “taxpayers”) and blindly obeying whatever arbitrary commands the politicians may issue (being “law-abiding” citizens). They take pride in their own subservience, and view as the scum of the earth any “law-breakers” who don’t.

* * Condemning Runaway Slaves * *

Sadly, and ironically, many people who call themselves advocates of freedom seem more than eager to demonize and chastise those few people who call for actual resistance to tyranny. They insistent that we must “work within the system” to achieve freedom, and proudly proclaim that they would never resort to “illegal” means to do so. What that literally means is that they do not believe that they should exercise their individual rights, or live as free human beings, unless and until “government” gives them PERMISSION to do so. Why beg that a “law” be changed unless you feel an obligation to obey such “laws,” even when they’re unjust?”

Petitioning those in government to “legislate” freedom is akin to trying to talk a carjacker into agreeing that you should be allowed to keep your own car. In addition to the very small likelihood of such an approach being effective (as unlikely as voting or lobbying is to result in freedom), such an approach also implies something absurd: that you need the carjacker’s CONSENT before you would have the right to keep your own car. Not many people would be silly enough to take such an approach, and yet most people, including most people in the freedom movement, do something equally silly, when they act as if they need the CONSENT of politicians in order to exercise their unalienable rights (which itself is a contradiction in terms).

However, those who do not play such pointless, ineffectual games-those who refuse to play by the tyrants’ rules-are often shunned as “extremists” by most conservatives, Constitutionalists, and even many libertarians. Any talk of “illegal” resistance to tyranny-in other words, any type of resistance that hasn’t received the tyrants’ written approval-is almost always met by harsh condemnation from those who claim to be proponents of individual liberty. This is no different than having a bunch of slaves who continually lament the injustices of slavery, but who then immediately condemn any slave who actually tries to escape the plantation.

There are only two options: either we are all the property of the politicians, and therefore our only legitimate recourse is to beg our owners to change their ways, or we own ourselves, and do not need anyone’s permission to be free. Sadly, the vast majority of Americans, including most of the people in the freedom movement, hold the former mindset, and regard as “fringe kooks” any who hold the latter mindset. As a result, even those who claim to be zealous advocates of liberty keep their activism within the confines of the game set up by the tyrants: the game of elections and legislation, which leeches away an enormous amount of time, effort and money from well-intentioned citizens, without giving them any positive results.

* * The Solution * *

There is also good news, however. Just as the PROBLEM is in your head (and the heads of several hundred million others), so is the solution. The solution is not any political party, any political campaign or movement, any lobbying effort, or any petition or protest, all of which play right into the notion that our only recourse is to ASK the tyrants (”the system”) to please let us be free. No, the solution is for you (and everyone else) to understand that you own yourself, whether the politicians’ “laws” acknowledge that fact or not. If Americans understood that one, simple, obvious truth, their outlook and their actions would drastically change. And they would achieve freedom without a revolution, and without any election or “political action” at all.

Imagine if people thought they had the right to keep what they earn, instead of believing that politicians have the moral right to forcibly take a portion of it, via “taxes.” If the people did not view such extortion and robbery as legitimate and “legal,” there is no way that IRS agents, who are outnumbered TWO THOUSAND to one by those whom they rob, could continue to collect. In fact, if the people didn’t view such robbery as legitimate, ending the “federal income tax” wouldn’t even require any sort of forcible resistance; universal “non-compliance” (i.e., many millions of people doing NOTHING) would make the entire scheme unenforceable.

The same is true of other sorts of tyranny, including citizen disarmament (”gun control”), drug prohibition, and all manner of oppressive “regulation” and “taxation.” If the general public understood that each person owns himself, and that no one owns anyone else, any initiation of violence against any individual-even if the aggressor calls himself “authority” and calls his attacks “law”-would be viewed as immoral and illegitimate, and would be resisted. And if there was universal disobedience to such oppression, tyranny would simply evaporate into thin air, without so much as a whimper. (Remember, all of the authoritarian enforcers-police, military, and the hordes of government bureaucrats-are people too, and enforce the decrees of politicians only because they view them as inherently valid and legitimate, and view disobedience to such “laws” as immoral. That is why they constantly use violence in the name of “the law,” in situations where they never would have used violence if they were acting only on their own behalf.)

Of course, if only a few people, or even a few thousand, understand the idea of self-ownership, and everyone else remains deceived, those few could not openly disobey the state without being crushed by its mercenaries (who would deem their violence to be righteous). The focus must, therefore, be on spreading the concepts of self- ownership and unalienable rights to as many minds as possible. But that is no easy task, since almost all of us have been taught, not only by the schools, media and government, but even by our families and friends-even those in the freedom movement-that obeying “authority” is the highest virtue, and disobeying is the worst sin.

None of these comments are intended to impugn the motives of those who are trying so hard, “within the system,” to achieve freedom and justice. They should be commended for their concern about the state of society today, and for their personal willingness to do something about it. But the truth is, it is not only ineffective, but self-contradictory to try to advocate liberty by way of “the system.” Focusing efforts on those who wear the label of “government” will never bring about freedom. The people who seek “high office” do so because they love to dominate others, and the widespread belief in “authority” gives them the opportunity to do so, in a way that even most of their victims view as legitimate.

Once the people stop viewing themselves as slaves, and stop viewing the politicians as masters, voting and lobbying will end, and the people will stop saying “please” to those who claim the right to rule them. Only then will freedom defeat tyranny.

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

by CCRKBA staff

Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) is once again demonstrating her disdain for gun owners and their rights by opposing an amendment to her Amtrak funding legislation that would allow firearms to be carried in baggage aboard trains, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.

“Patty Murray evidently has a short memory span,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “Has she already forgotten what happened to her friend, Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels, in the primary because of his extremist anti-gun philosophy? Surely she knows about Tuesday’s primary election results in New York City, where anti-gunner Richard Aborn came in last in a three-way race for Manhattan prosecutor by running on his gun control record.”

Murray is opposing an amendment, added to her Amtrak bill by Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS), that would allow train travelers to transport firearms in their luggage, provided the guns are declared at check-in and they are locked up for transport. This is no different than flying with firearms, Gottlieb noted, “and people do that every day.”

“The amendment passed 68-30,” Gottlieb noted, “and Murray’s opposition shows she is way out of the mainstream on this issue. Even Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid supports the measure. People used to take firearms on trains all the time. Someone should tell the senator that constitutional rights don’t end at the Amtrak boarding platform.”

Murray argues that the amendment would be too costly and time-consuming, because Amtrak would have to create a process for checking and tracking guns.

“That’s a bogus argument,” Gottlieb countered, “and she knows it. The Transportation Security Administration already has that process down pat. There is no need to reinvent the wheel. That option has apparently not occurred to her, or maybe it has and she just can’t get beyond her narrow gun prohibitionist viewpoint.

“Amtrak has been losing money for years,” Gottlieb concluded. “Maybe it’s because American gun owners won’t travel with a carrier that treats them like outcasts. Maybe gun owners will return that sentiment when Murray runs for re-election next year.”

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 CCRKBA staff

Yesterday’s [09/15/09] primary defeat of career anti-gunner Richard Aborn in his race to become Manhattan’s District Attorney shows that even residents of a city with some of the strictest gun laws in the nation reject the gun control philosophy espoused by Aborn and those who supported him, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said Wednesday.

Aborn, a former president of Handgun Control Inc. - now known as The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence - ran primarily on his gun control record. He collected only 26 percent of the vote.

“Keeping guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens may appeal to demagogues like New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy,” noted CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, “but it doesn’t play well with average citizens who are tired of being victimized, not only by criminals, but by the very laws that people of Aborn’s ilk have forced on them.

“Richard Aborn had the endorsement of the Brady Campaign, Million Mom March, New Yorkers Against Gun Violence and other anti-gun-rights organizations,” he added. “We hope that his rejection sends a message to other gun control extremists that voters have had enough rhetoric and are fed up with restrictions on their gun rights.”

Gottlieb said Aborn’s last-place finish in the three-way race, which was won by attorney Cy Vance, is a repudiation of the gun prohibitionist philosophy he has represented over the past 17 years.

“Aborn’s defeat should be a signal to other politicians that an endorsement from the Brady Campaign or any other anti-gun group is a political kiss of death,” Gottlieb observed. “This defeat shows that there is no room in politics, especially in a prosecutor’s office, for anyone harboring the kind of extremist opinions about gun rights and gun ownership that Richard Aborn has wanted to enforce as public policy.”

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 Danny Brooks

Workers should be able to invest their own retirement funds.

When Social Security began in 1935, the age that people would draw benefits was, not coincidentally, the same as the average life expectancy.  In 1950, 16 workers provided benefits for each retiree.  In 1996, the ratio was 3.3 to 1 and in 2030, projections are less than 2 to 1.  What began as 1% from employee and employer has reached nearly 8 times that amount.  In the not too distant future, Social Security will collapse.

Complaining about Social Security is easy.  The system is political in nature - taking from some to give to others while promising more to everyone. It’s propelled by taxing and spending rather than saving and investing.  I would like to share the Libertarian proposal to eliminate this albatross once and for all.

For starters, everyone would simply stop paying into this Ponzi scheme. Images of the elderly and disabled being evicted from their homes and forced to rummage through dumpsters for food may spring to mind.  And that’s probably what would happen…if there was no other plan in place.

The 7.65% of your income that the government confiscates, plus the matching
7.65% that your employer pays, would be turned over to you.  Those under the age of 50 could invest this 15.3% in any manner they see fit.

A 25-year-old with a salary of $25,000, putting aside 15% and earning only
5%, would retire with a monthly income of $4,510 and an estate of over $1 million to leave to his heirs.  Compare this to a maximum monthly income of $1,600 and no estate with Social Security.

Would there be some irresponsible people who would blow that money? Absolutely.  These same people think they can retire on Social Security.  Let them be a financial burden to their family or churches, but not society’s responsibility.

Under the Libertarian plan, people over 50 would receive privatized annuities in their names.  Politicians would no longer threaten their retirement and claim that a vote for a conservative opponent would result in reduced benefits.  Most everyone knows this is a shell game, with current recipients paid by money collected from current workers.  It’s also common knowledge that the entire Social Security fund consists of nothing more than IOUs.

I would prefer a formula whereby everyone who has been a victim of this federal shakedown would get something back, even dollar for dollar.  But like most of my generation, I honestly don’t expect Social Security to be there when I retire.  That’s why I invest in my company’s 401(k) and stock purchase plans. When people stop depending on the government for their retirement, perhaps they too will take responsibility for their own futures, resulting in less of a burden on society.  Another benefit would be less political power in Washington.

You may be wondering how we can set up private accounts for people without increasing taxes, drastically cutting benefits or raising the retirement age. The answer is simple: Sell government assets!  The federal government has trillions of dollars worth of assets they have no business owning - 29% of all land in the U.S., commodities, power companies, pipelines, oil and mineral rights, unused military bases, and over 400,000 buildings that serve no constitutional purpose.  And thanks to asset forfeiture laws, you can add homes, bank accounts, cars, boats, practically everything imaginable.

Before Congress closed a loophole in 1983, municipal governments could opt out of Social Security.  In 1981, three Texas counties, including Galveston, voted to break the federal shackles of Social Security.  The results have been astonishing.  According to a 1996 report, 65-year-old retirees with 40 years in the system and salaries of $20,000, $30,000, and $50,000, would have personal accounts worth $383,032, $573,782, and $956,303, respectively.  This is money that Uncle Sam can’t touch; it belongs to the retiree.

They could opt for a lump sum, as outlined above, or choose from several annuities.  Other statistics:

* A retired $20,000-per-year worker would receive $2,740 each month, compared with Social Security benefits of $775 per month;

* A $50,000 salary would yield $6,843 from this plan as opposed to $1,302 from Social Security.

* Life insurance under this plan is three times the retiree’s salary, from $50,000 to $150,000, compared to the one-time Social Security death benefit of $255.

* Disability under this plan pays 60% of the worker’s salary until age 65 and is easy to qualify for, while Social Security disability is no where close to this amount, often times requires an attorney, and in unavailable for younger workers.

There are many alternative plans that could easily replace Social Security, which other countries are doing.  Partial privatization isn’t the answer.  The first dip in the markets would cause that plan to be scrapped.  The flow of money needs to be turned off immediately and permanently.  Besides, isn’t government investment in business simply socialism?

Originally published in Liberty For All August 18, 2003.

by GOA staff

Earlier today, Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) offered an amendment to the 2010 Transportation-Housing & Urban Development Appropriations bill.

Sen. Wicker’s amendment will allow law-abiding gun owners to safely and legally transport firearms when they travel on Amtrak.  A nearly identical amendment, also offered by Sen. Wicker, passed the Senate in April by a vote of 63-35.

Current Amtrak regulations prohibit firearms in both checked and carry-on baggage.  Sportsmen who wish to use an Amtrak train for a hunting trip, therefore, cannot include a shotgun even in their checked luggage.

Likewise, travelers who have a permit to carry a concealed firearm cannot include a self-defense firearm in their checked luggage, even if they are allowed to carry in both the states of origin and destination.

But if such travelers were to take the trip by air, they could check a gun onto the aircraft by simply declaring the firearm and transporting it in a prescribed manner.

Of course, very few people use Amtrak — and many question why that entity receives any tax payer money.

Regardless, a transportation entity that receives billions of federal taxpayer dollars should not be allowed to prevent law-abiding citizens from hunting or defending themselves when they travel on vacation or personal business.

Sen. Wicker’s amendment prohibits any federal taxpayer funding of Amtrak if it does not allow gun owners to transport firearms on trains in a manner similar to that of airlines.

Under this amendment, travelers would be able to transport a firearm from Amtrak stations that accept checked baggage as long as the firearm is declared and carried in a hard-sided, locked container.

Americans should not be denied their Second Amendment rights when they travel by Amtrak.

It’s bad enough that law-abiding citizens are disarmed onboard a train, where there is usually no law enforcement present and where they may be subject to criminal attack.  But it is just plain absurd not to let American citizens simply transport a firearm in checked baggage.

ACTION:  Please urge your Senators to vote for the Wicker amendment to protect the rights of gun owners.  This vote could occur as early as Wednesday afternoon. You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your legislators the pre-written e-mail message below.

—– Pre-written letter —–

Dear Senator:

As you are probably aware, Sen. Roger Wicker offered an amendment to the 2010 Transportation-Housing & Urban Development Appropriations bill — an amendment that will allow law-abiding gun owners to safely and legally transport firearms when they travel on Amtrak.

A nearly identical amendment, also offered by Sen. Wicker, passed the Senate in April by a vote of 63-35.  I am urging you to vote for this Wicker language, as well.

Current Amtrak regulations prohibit firearms in both checked and carry-on baggage.  Sportsmen who wish to use an Amtrak train for a hunting trip, therefore, cannot include a shotgun even in their checked luggage.

Likewise, travelers who have a permit to carry a concealed firearm cannot include a self-defense firearm in their checked luggage, even if they are allowed to carry in both the states of origin and destination.

But if such travelers were to take the trip by air, they could check a gun onto the aircraft by simply declaring the firearm and transporting it in a prescribed manner.

The Wicker amendment would close the pernicious loophole that discriminates against Amtrak riders.  Please vote in favor of the Wicker language.

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://gunowners.org

by R. Lee Wrights

As I resumed my rather hectic schedule during the aftermath of the World Trade Center tragedy, two questions were asked of me more than any others during my travel.  First, why would an airplane full of people allow a handful of men, armed only with box cutters, to take over the aircraft and fly in into one of the world’s tallest structures?  And, what would have happened if only one or two of the passengers or crew members on those doomed flights had been armed for self-defense?  Funny how one question kind of answers the other.

I had little trouble answering the first question; although, it did require some analysis.  So why would a group of people, that obviously had the advantage of numbers, not put up a fight and over power their knife-wielding assailants?  It is more than likely that the reason is they were taught all their lives to not defend themselves in such a situation.  Now, before you sit down and start writing that dubious poisoned-filled missive about how I am claiming the victims are at fault for their own deaths, at least examine my reasoning before you pass final judgment on my character.

I have worked with local grassroots organizations all my life.  I have attended numerous Neighborhood Watch meetings; and, countless city council, school board, and county commissioners meetings.  I have listened to law enforcement officials of every rank tell citizens the same thing over and over again when they are asked, “What is the best course of action when faced with an armed assailant?”  They all advise that you “give the attacker what he/she wants and call the police at the next opportunity.”  That’s right, if a man with a gun wants your car, give him your car.  If a man with a knife wants your wallet, give it to him and call 911 as quick as you can.

Instead of telling people to fight back, they caution us to just surrender.  Instead of instructing people to arm themselves by mastering the use of a weapon, they are taught to cow down to the weapon when it is held upon them.  Instead of urging individuals to be responsible for themselves, they are programmed to be dependent on a justice system that everyone admits cannot protect them.

It is sad but they just didn’t know any better than to sit back and hope the hijackers would land the aircraft and begin negotiations for their release.  No one ever taught them the philosophy of self-defense, much less the necessary skills with which to exercise it.  After all, no hijacked airplane had ever been flown into an occupied skyscraper before September 11th, so they had no reason to believe they would not land in some destination other than they had originally intended. Again, in today’s civilized society we are taught to give in to aggression in the hopes of government rescue, rather than, to defend our property and our lives with the force equal to, if not exceeding, the amount of force being perpetrated against us.  What can be worse than finding yourself in a gunfight with nothing to fill your hand? 

Which brings us to the second question, “What would have happened if one or two passengers or crew members had been armed on these tragic flights?”  While we can do nothing more than speculate on the outcome of any event when applying hindsight, it is safe to say that the World Trade Center would still be standing today had only one person aboard those doomed airliners been properly armed for self-defense.  Had two people been carrying weapons on those flying missiles, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that the hijackers could have been subdued without firing a shot.  Box cutters become a lot less menacing the moment a pistol is produced.  Yes, the present of firearms on those ill-fated flights would have more than likely resulted in dead or injured hijackers being turned over to the authorities after a safe emergency landing.  Passengers would have been inconvenienced but still alive; and, no property would have been destroyed.  I wonder how many of those poor folks that flew over New York that day wished they had a gun as they faced death at the hands of madmen?

So, what is to be learned from the greatest terrorist tragedy in the history of the world?  It is clear and simple, to me at least. Do not be a victim!  Do not fall for the hype that police are actually able to protect us.  Do not travel in a man-made mechanical container where you are not allowed to defend yourself should the need arise.  Do not give into aggression because of fear and uncertainty.  Educate yourself in the necessary skills it takes to defend your life, and insist you be allowed to exercise your Constitutional right to arm yourself accordingly in every situation. Forget the liberal mantra of, “If we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.”  Do you really want to live in an America where only outlaws and government agents have weapons?  Buy a gun, the life you save may be your own or mine!  Enough is enough, do not be a victim.

Originally published at Rational Review February 16, 2002.

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 Richard C. Evey

A federal judge has made a ruling that could change the way that law enforcement treats “We the people”.

The judge granted that the plaintiff has liability under the Fourth Amendment and that law enforcement does not have immunity. In my opinion, a major victory for liberty and freedom.

The case: St. John v Alamogordo Public Safety, U. S. District Court of New Mexico, No. 08-994 BB/LAM.

Mr. St. John went into a movie theater openly carrying a holstered handgun. New Mexico has no law forbidding the open carry of a handgun.

The theater owner called Alamogordo Public Safety. Four law enforcement officers (LEO) approached Mr. St. John and with force removed him from the theater, took his handgun and patted him down. After checking, found out that the handgun was legal and that he was not a criminal, returned his handgun and let him go back to the movie but without his handgun, which he placed in his vehicle.

 Mr. St. John filed suit in state court but the case was moved to a federal court because Mr. St. John alleged that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated and also asserts his rights under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act.

The undisputed fact is that Mr. St. John seizure was unreasonable. He had not committed a crime, was not committing a crime and was not about to commit a crime.

The court stated that “the firearm alone did not create a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity”. The court went on to state that the “Defendants (LEO) had no legitimate reason to engage Mr. St. John in the first place”, also the “Defendants (LEO) had no reason for seizing Mr. St. John”, “Mr. St. John had done nothing to arouse suspicion”.

The judge did rule that the Defendants (LEO) did violate Mr. St. John’s Fourth Amendment rights.

Lastly and the best part of this case was that the judge stated that the “Defendants (LEO) motion for summary judgment is denied with regard to qualified immunity”.

In short, the LEOs can be sued. I hope that Mr. St. John also sues the theater owner. The theater owner could have asked Mr. St. John to leave the theater or could have put up a sign; instead he acted like a jerk and called in the Gestapo.

This ruling means that the law enforcement officers will have to think about what they are doing and begin to make sound judgment and not act on impulse. They will have to take responsibility for their action and/ or maybe face a lawsuit. Law enforcement officers, sometimes, have to make quick decisions but without taking any responsibility and with immunity. But the judicial system tells us, the citizens, if we do the same thing we will be held accountable and liable. Now things have changed, law enforcement officers will be held accountable and without immunity. Change I can live with!

This case is not over, it will be appealed and could go to the U. S. Supreme Court and with the people they have on that court, I think that the outcome will be a lot different.

But for now, We the People can claim a victory.

by Peter Orvetti

“I’m going to pray that he dies and goes to Hell,” minister Steven Anderson told his Arizona congregation last month.  “I’d like to see him die of natural causes.  I don’t want him to be a martyr; we don’t need another holiday.  I’d like to see him die, like Ted Kennedy, of brain cancer.”  Anderson said these things about a “socialist devil murderer” who happens to be president of the United States.  The minister, who brags on his website that he “holds no college degree but has well over 100 chapters of the Bible committed to memory,” was delivering a sermon called “Why I Hate Barack Obama”.  That must have made for a heck of a church sign.

“You lie!” shouted Rep. Addison Graves Wilson during a joint session last week, when Obama asserted that a plan that would not finance the health care of illegal immigrants would, well, not finance the health care of illegal immigrants.  Wilson was also in attendance at another joint session of Congress six years ago, when another president said, “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”  That actually was a lie, but there was nary a peep from “Joe”.

An Oklahoma state senator said of Obama’s bland address to returning students, “It gives the appearance of creating a cult of personality.  This is something you’d expect to see in North Korea or in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.”  The head of the Florida Republican Party said the speech was a sly attempt “to spread President Obama’s socialist ideology.”  One member of the school board in suburban - and solidly Democratic - Montgomery County, Maryland, said one parent complained, “This is Marxist propaganda.”

An attendee at a “TEA Party” rally, interviewed by CBS News, said of Obama, “I think his agenda is to actually destroy this country.”  Like the “birthers”, she seems to think the president is a sort of Mombasian Candidate, sent to infiltrate America from Darkest Africa in order to turn us into… France.

Obama is also being compared to Hitler, doubtless making him the 13th consecutive American president to be tastelessly compared to the vilest man who ever lived.  (Well, maybe Gerald Ford avoided the link.)  Obama has been tarred as Adolf because he wants to expand the government’s role in health care.  I guess comparing him to former Canadian Prime Minister Lester Pearson doesn’t pack the same punch.

Making wild accusations against those in power, and tossing crazed slurs their way, is a great American tradition.  It dates back at least as far as the claims in the Philadelphia Aurora, a newspaper edited by Benjamin Franklin’s grandson, that President John Adams was plotting to crown himself king.  But in the age of cable television and the Internet, the tradition has grown uglier.  Bill Clinton was accused of drug-running; George W. Bush was accused of planning and profiting off of 9/11.  Bush was booed by Democrats during his 2005 State of the Union address - not over the emotional issue of the war in Iraq, but over his plans to reform the government pension system.

This sort of thing is cleverly stoked by the professional agitators of both left and right.  Ann Coulter, a supporter of “sending liberals to Guantanamo,” says “a baseball bat is the most effective way” to talk to a liberal.  The woman who said U.S. military power should be used to invade Muslim countries to “kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity” once said, “My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building.”

On the other side, Michael Moore called Bush “a deserter, an election thief, a drunk driver, a WMD liar, and a functional illiterate.”  He wrote in 2003 that these “bastards who run our country are a bunch of conniving, thieving, smug pricks who need to be brought down and removed and replaced with a whole new system that we control.”  On September 12, 2001, Moore said the victims of the attacks the day before “did not deserve to die” because they lived in “the places that voted AGAINST Bush.”

As Penn Jillette said in 2004, “The problem I have with Michael Moore is the problem I have with a lot of people who are fanatical and push really hard on things, which is not being willing to say the other side is wrong.  They have to be evil.”  Progressive columnist Molly Ivins, a veteran Bush critic, wrote of her bête noire that “he is by and large perfectly affable.  You would have to work at it to dislike him personally.”  Ivins sardonically added, “Did you know that it is quite possible not to hate someone and at the same time notice their policies are disastrous for people in this country?  Quite a thought, isn’t it?  Grown-ups can actually do that — can think a policy is disastrous without hating the person behind it.”

All four of the major party presidential and vice presidential nominees last year are folks I would not mind having as neighbors.  Obama is a smart guy who is devoted to his wife and daughters, John McCain is witty and good-natured, Joe Biden is an avuncular man known for being committed to his friends, Sarah Palin is energetic and fun-loving.  They are all good people.  I did not vote for any of them.

But for many angry Americans on all sides, the political has become far too personal.  A supporter of Obama’s health care proposals bit off the finger of an opponent earlier this month in California.  Protestors are showing up at Obama events toting guns - perfectly legal, but an odd and aggressive act.  One man who brought two guns to an Obama speech in Arizona is a member of Steven Anderson’s congregation.

Obama is offering sweeping proposals that would substantially alter American life, but he is not inviting Armageddon.  We should debate these proposals on their merits, as the founders of the Republic intended.  As Ivins said, we need to be grown-ups.

Peter Orvetti was an early political blogger in the United States, running his Orvetti.com political news report from 1997 through 2002. He is a past editorial writer for the Cato Institute, served as Deputy Director of Communications for the Libertarian Party in the lead-up to the 2000 party convention, and has published commentaries in several major newspapers. Contact Mr. Orvetti at peterjorvetti@gmail.com.

by Kevin Tuma

by Larken Rose

These days I get more and more messages from people expressing one sentiment: “Okay, so government sucks, but without it, how would we protect ourselves from crooks, thieves, gangs and invading armies?” In fact, it seems that the worse “government” gets, the more some people scream that NOT having one at all would make things even worse. And some insist that even if we did away with the “government” we have now, another one–probably even worse–would just grow in its place. Scary gangs would take over, and grow into new tyrannies.

What all such predictions and concerns fail to take into account is that today, oppression is about 5% the result of the thugs who claim to act on behalf of “government,” and 95% the result of what is in the minds of the oppressed.

Don’t believe me? Imagine you were a nasty guy, and were given the following challenge: You would get 100,000 thugs to do your bidding, and a bunch of money, and you had to rob 100,000,000 people of half of what they earned, over and over again, year after year.

Already the odds are hugely against you: your intended victims outnumber your thugs a THOUSAND to one. This won’t be easy. (Even Navy Seals wouldn’t like those odds.) But wait, it gets worse. Only 10,000 of your thugs have any weapons. And the other 90,000 are not only unarmed, but most of them are overweight middle-aged women, or 90-pound office nerds, who aren’t really excited about the job to begin with. Now what are your chances? Oh, and by the way, about HALF of your intended victims are armed.

So, think you could do it?

Not a chance. UNLESS…

If you can somehow dupe your victims into feeling a moral OBLIGATION to hand over their money–if you can make them perceive your demands as somehow legitimate, and make them view disobedience to you as a sin–then you might be able to pull it off.

And then you’d be called the “Internal Revenue Service.”

The power of “government” to oppress does NOT come from brute force alone; it comes from the indoctrination of the masses into believing that the tyrants are “authority”–that they have the RIGHT to rob (”tax”) people, the RIGHT to boss people around (”regulate” them), the RIGHT to kidnap (”imprison”) people who disobey, and so on. Without the VICTIMS of oppression imagining their own oppression to be “legal,” and therefore justified, it would take a LOT more brute force to keep them in line–far more brute force, in fact, than could be funded by what was stolen from them.

The notion of “government” is the belief that certain people have the RIGHT to steal, assault, harass, control and murder. As long as that belief exists in the minds of the public, then yes, removing any particular gang calling itself “government” would accomplish nothing. A new group of thugs would take its place, and become the new “authority.” But if you remove the BELIEF–which is what I and others are trying so hard to do–tyranny is FINISHED.

There are somewhere around 90,000,000 gun owners in this country. That number is 30 times bigger than the entire Chinese army. Armed civilians here outnumber all “law enforcement” and military personnel by a huge margin. The American people CANNOT be ruled by brute force alone, not by any foreign power, not by any local gang, not by anyone on this planet. The ONLY way to oppress them is by doing what the American tyrants do today: convince the people that the oppression is legitimate, by calling it “law” and “authority.” And if you can make your victims think that you have the RIGHT to rob and control them, it doesn’t matter at all how strong they are, what weapons they have, or how many of them there are.

Without the myths of “legality” and “authority” legitimizing their actions, the current tyrants here could never in a million years force compliance. If the people as a whole didn’t believe in the notion of “taxes”–legitimate theft which is immoral to resist–the IRS would be gone tomorrow. A few might get beaten up or killed, and the rest would immediately resign.

Likewise, if the people as a whole didn’t imagine that “law” legitimizes what the DEA and ATF do, those agencies would also be gone tomorrow. (If you doubt it, imagine a non-”government” gang of a few thousand thugs going around doing armed invasions of houses to take away all alcohol. How long do you suppose that would last? Try to get between Americans and their beer, and things will get ugly.)

Ever since the advent of firearms, the thing that most determines whether tyranny will occur is how the tyrants’ victims PERCEIVE the situation. If the victims perceive their attackers to be “government” and “authority,” and perceive their demands to be legitimate “laws,” the victims will feel a moral OBLIGATION to be victimized. Then they will talk about how PROUD they are to have been victimized! (That’s exactly what Americans do when they brag about being “law-abiding taxpayers.”)

But if the intended victims do NOT view the attacks as legitimate, the tyrants are finished. In a land where that many people have guns, even though isolated incidents of robbery and assault are still possible, brute force alone could NEVER be used to oppressive the people on any large scale, or for any significant amount of time.

The American people already have the MEANS to resist, but as long as they believe in “government,” they will not have the WILL to resist the biggest thugs around. As long as the belief in “authority” survives, there will be a never-ending supply of evil bastards ready to fill the void. But once the “government” myth falls–once the people no longer hallucinate some robbery and assault to be LEGITIMATE (because it’s “legal” and done by “government”)–then tyranny is dead, and no amount of brute force could ever rebuild it.

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

by Liz Michael

I know a lot of liberals. Hell, some of my best friends are liberals. And to those liberals, who so often favor gun control and gun confiscation, I have just one simple question….
Have you lost your bloody minds?

Let me tell ‘ya a little story ’bout a man named Adolf. In the 20’s the National Socialists were heavily armed (heavily for that day, anyway). The Bolsheviks were also somewhat armed, not to the degree of the Nazis. They were both probably better armed than the regular army, which was through the Treaty of Versailles, rendered next to useless.

German gun control didn’t begin under the Nazis. It began in large measure because of the Nazis. They did not demand it, though. It was being aimed AT them. Yes. You heard me right. Check your history. The political establishment of the Weimar Republic wanted gun control to control undesirables in the population. To disarm them. They all thought it was a peachy idea.

It didn’t work. German gun control was aimed at the Nazis and the Bolsheviks, the radical parties of the day. Because the National Socialists weren’t about to obey laws that were not in their interest, gun control only wound up disarming what little armory was already in public hands.

What happened? One of the groups who refused to disarm ultimately took over the country. And there was absolutely nothing their opponents could do about it. Because they were without an army and without many firearms.

Now, the Weimar Republic is not a direct comparison to today’s United States. But fast forward to today. There are a lot of people, most of them liberals of some type, who say one of the major reasons they want to disarm Americans is because of guns in the hands of “them crazy rednecks”, like me. (Even though I’m Black, Indian and Jewish) Well, let’s assume for a minute you get your wish. Let’s say that HCI and the Brady bunch get everything they want in their political agenda passed into law. Who is and is not willing to obey those laws is of prime strategic importance to the liberal agenda.

Under a gun confiscation, who will likely surrender arms and who will utterly refuse to, cuts sharply across political lines. The liberals will probably cooperate, for the “good of the children”, or “the environment”, or whatever pabulum of the day they’re being fed. Maybe a few radical anarchists won’t. But most of your mainstream Democrats will comply. After all, theyTRUST the government to take care of them.

However, the groups who will not are the conservatives and the libertarians. The conservatives, who prominently feature the Religious Right caucus. The Patrick Buchanan anti-immigration caucus. The anti-gay caucus. And the libertarians who plain and simply represent the “leave me the hell alone” caucus. The libertarians who would if they had their way gut asmany liberal government programs as they possibly could.
Of course, the criminals will not comply. Not ever. They never do. They will, of course, profit from the illicit traffic from those who feel the need to have a weapon without the permission of a government bureaucrat or local police official. But I’m not really talking about the criminalshere.

So what would happen under strict gun control is that the political groups most likely to be armed to the teeth are the conservatives and the libertarians, and the Religious Right and Buchananites with them. To a distinctly disproportionate degree.

Now, if you are a liberal, ask yourself this question…. do you reallyfeel comfortable about that. Do you really WANT the conservatives to have significantly more guns than you? Because that group of armed individuals will be able to throw out any election they wish: you all complain Bush stole the 2000 election. Well, son, under strict gun control, you ain’t seen NOTHIN’ yet!!!

And they would likely, in the case of an armed insurrection of any serious import, be the people who take over the government. Either that, or a very organized somewhat fascist element within the government will defeat them, and take power themselves. Where would the liberals fit in the picture? Disarmed, with no power, no agenda and no voice, with their pet programs likely in shambles, with both camps of a civil war who hate them.
The SINGLE STUPIDEST thing that liberals could do for their causes ispass gun control. They would be writing their own death warrant, just asthe Weimar Republic did.

I reiterate the question. Does anyone here want their activist movement fully disarmed, and completely trusting the other side in power withoutthe check and balance of the potential for armed revolt?

Let me guess: some of you reading this right now, are thinking withyour gut. And your gut is telling you: “the more I read of your essays, Liz, the more I see the need for strict gun control. So people like YOUwon’t have guns.”

People like ME won’t have guns.

That’s a real belly laugh.

People like me, understand, as Mao understood, that power flows from the barrel of a gun. So people like me will NEVER not have guns.

Your gut feeling is the same gut feeling the Weimar Republic had aboutthe Nazis. I’m not going to challenge your feeling. If you understand my politics, REALLY, it’s in fact, nearly laughable, as someone like Hitler or Stalin is practically the diametric opposite of myself.. But let’s go with your feeling for a sec. Say I am the danger. Me and my “conservative libertarian anarchist radical antigovernment whatever” thugs are going to march down and destroy America. So what then…. “WE GOTTA TAKE EVERYBODY’S GUNS!”, you say. And let’s pretend for a bit that you manage to get legislationto that effect. Who will obey it and who won’t?

I’ll tell ya, who, my liberal friends. You will obey it. The liberalswill dutifully obey.
I won’t obey it. The libertarians won’t. The radicals won’t. The conservatives won’t. The religious right won’t. The gayhaters won’t. You may think they will but you don’t know them like I do.

I won’t obey it because in the end, in addition to saving my own ass,and the asses of people who think like me, I may have to save YOUR assesas well.

Who will have more power, liberal friend, at that point? Who will have more power? The liberals or the conservatives? The left or the right? Because at that point, my side, and whoever happen to be my allies, whatever you think of my side, will have all the guns. Yes, the government will have them, too. But do you really think that the government agencies with the most arms give a rat’s ass about the liberal agenda? Do you REALLY think the GOVERNMENT… do you really think that government agents at this point in time, care about benign things such as gay rights, women’s rights, racial minority rights and human dignity?

At that point in time, the only real battle left will be between thegovernment and the conservatives and their allies. Unless, the conservatives take the government and consolidate absolute power, which Hitler did. So you either will have a government dominated by the conservatives, or dominated by FBI-CIA-DEA types…. or you will have a government in shambles due to a domestic rebellion…. and remember that libertarians LIKE to see governments in shambles. And you will have encouraged the only Americans willing to oppose these people to disarm themselves.

At that point in the equation, liberal friend, unless your side is armed, your side won’t count. Your side will not only be irrelevant, but to quote former California Governor Pete Wilson, it will be “fucking irrelevant.” And if you disarm Americans, remembering that we won’t disarm, you will have no power, and we might very well have all of it.
In the light of what I’ve just written, liberal friend, let me ask youagain. Do you want to disarm the American people so that they will not be able to fight back against a tyrannical government? Or do you want to trust whomever comes to power to not be a tyrant. Germany did the latter and got the Third Reich. What will YOU get?

By the way, lest anyone have a cow, I do not believe conservatives andlibertarians can possibly be equated with the Nazis. But I’m comparing the Weimar Republic to America of today, in one aspect, and one aspect only, and that is exposing the fallacy that the political enemies of the ruling government can be successfully disarmed by disarming the society at large, which is what we’re really talking about. I am responding specifically to people who say that the NRA, the GOA, myself, and many of our allies are so dangerous that we need to be disarmed, and that that could be accomplishedby disarming the populace as a whole.

Targeting the most military styled political enemy you have in a nation with general gun control against everyone actually strengthens the political enemy.

I can also use Weimar Germany and probably a 100 other examples to demonstratethat in most conflicts, that when the “gunphobics” decide to square off against the “gun lovers,” the gun lovers almost always win. To beat us, you have to become just like us. Ultimately, to successfully disarm us, you will have to pick up a gun and make it so. Or hire someone and paythem to do the same.

This is why I am so adamantly against the gun controllers. Because I know that. I know ultimately that for them to win, they will have to turn into far worse than whatever they perceive we are. You still think you all will simply talk us out of it or legislate us out of it, but I know better. I know that either you will lose to us or you will beat us by becomingmonsters. And I know there will be no other choices.

Remember what I said, people. Nothing you do will cause the hardcore conservatives and libertarians to disarm. Probably, gun control will only cause more of us TO arm. Because we know what happens next if we don’t.

Governments in the 20th century have killed 100 million people. Almostall of those governments had one thing in common….. they stripped their eventual victims of firearms. Almost every people who have tried to appease a tyrant have lived to regret it. There is a more important spiritual lesson, in your zest to avoid the sword, that some of you have forgotten…. “Put not your trust in princes.” By disarming, you are trusting the princes.

I don’t trust the princes. Do you?

Hitler probably would have come to power anyway in Germany. However, with a disarmed populace, he came to power with a minority of the vote, and without a check and balance against his power. Had there been an armed populace, he might not have been able to consolidate absolute power. Probably no World War II. Probably no Holocaust. Guns in the right hands could havestopped it all.

Anyone in today’s political climate personally strike you as dangerous?
It doesn’t really matter who it is, or what party they belong to. Just understand this: gun control strengthens their hand. YOU personally disarming strengthens their hand.
Again, I’ll reask the question of those who support gun control. Haveyou lost your minds?

Copyright, 2001, LizMichael.com, Permission to reprint granted so long as the website and the copyright remains referenced. No exclusivity may be retained by any individual or press entity which reprints.

 
Originally published in Liberty For All April 09, 2001.

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

“Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it …. when a long train of abuses and usurpations [occur] … it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government …”

- U.S. Declaration of Independence

Barack Obama is ruining America.  This is a man who won’t even produce his Certificate of Live Birth to prove to the American public that he is constitutionally eligible to be in the Oval Office.  A man who has praised Marxist Daniel Ortega, endorsed Bolivia Socialist Evo Morales, told the Mexican president that the United States is responsible for the violence in their country, apologized to the world community for America’s world leadership, assured Europe through his National Defense Advisor that Israel is on their own, praised Jimmy Carter for siding with Hamas against Israel, appointed a Homeland Security Chief who feels returning military veterans are a ‘danger’ to society, ordered the word ‘terrorism’ eliminated and the description of ‘man made disasters’ to be used instead, intends to replace the official designation of ‘Patriot Day’ for September 11th to instead be called the ‘National Day of Service,’ and completely ignores the voice of the American people regarding their outrage over his so-called ‘health care’ bill.

He has spent this country into oblivion with no brakes in sight and created a national deficit that can’t be repaid EVER.  He has spent billions in bail-outs and a stimulus package that failed.  He micro-manages everything and feels all decisions should go through the White House.  He has appointed dozens of Czars to be in place over everything from food to electricity so that steps are in place when he wants to ’shut the country down.’  Never in the history of this nation have we experienced this type of power grab and un-American activity.  The degree of lunacy and destruction begs the question of this president’s mental stability and fitness to govern.

In just seven short months as president, he has created chaos from which we may never recover.  And its fourteen LONG months before the 2010 mid-term elections.  Can you imagine how much more damage he can generate in that time?  It’s a lifetime when it comes to his brand of policy.  A lifetime where we may not even have an election if he becomes dictator, or where ACORN and its cronies simply stuff the ballot box and send their radical pals into the halls of congress.

It is an extremely frightening time; a time where citizens can feel something dreadful in the air but are not quite sure what it looks like.  All we know from seven months in office is that it isn’t good.  This president has appointed not only tax evaders to high office, but an avowed Communist as well.  Doesn’t appointing a known Communist violate his Oath of Office by “aiding and abetting the enemy” and constitute treason?   His past mentors are radical Marxists and he is supportive of a Socialist way of life in his own books.  Many who were blindly enraptured with him on the campaign trail and helped to vote him into office despite knowing precious little about the man - are now experiencing buyers remorse. 

Americans are now pinning their hope for recaptured sanity and freedom on the 2010 mid-term elections.  They are hoping the president’s plummeting approval ratings and outrageous disdain for the people’s voice will result in a Republican Congress so we will at least have a check and balance that does not exist at the present time.  Those elections, however, are fourteen months away.  If ACORN doesn’t stuff the ballot box with predictable results … it is also possible Obama may be in complete control by that time and eliminate the election altogether. We may not have the luxury of waiting fourteen months.

USMC (Ret.) Lt. Col. Oliver North authored a thought provoking column in the October 2009 Soldier of Fortune magazine when he outlined the story of Manuel Zelaya who won a four-year term as Honduran president in 2005.  Zelaya intended to ignore the term limit and remain in office and consulted regarding the issue with his mentors, Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega, both anti-American dictators.  Consequently, he issued an executive decree to rewrite the country’s constitution in time for the presidential election.  Since the Honduran Constitution required a two-thirds vote for amendments during two consecutive sessions, the Honduran Congress, Supreme Court, commissioner for human rights, and electoral tribunal declared the referendum unconstitutional.  Ignoring these representatives, Zelaya printed ballots and declared an election would take place, at which time the Honduran Attorney General took the case to court.  The Supreme Court ruled the referendum to be illegal and ordered the ballots to be confiscated.  Zelaya immediately ignored the Supreme Court and ordered the army to distribute the ballots.  The chief of staff of the military did not distribute them and instead, asked for a legal opinion.  Zelaya fired the military chief of staff and the Supreme Court ruled the firing illegal and reinstated him.  In response, Zelaya seized the ballots and directed that polling sites be set up.  The attorney general went to the congress, which was controlled by Zelaya’s own party, and was successful in obtaining an investigation into Zelaya’s mental state and ability to govern.  The Supreme Court issued a warrant and the army arrested Zelaya and sent him into exile to Costa Rica.  The Honduran Congress confirmed Zelaya’s exile and, in accordance with the Honduran Constitution, named the president of the congress to temporarily replace him.

Lt. Col. North observed that Obama just doesn’t “seem to grasp that simply holding an election does not guarantee a democracy.”  He points out that Adolf Hitler, Hugo Chavez, and Fidel Castro were all ‘elected’ but the people are the ones that suffer when tyranny rules.  It’s a timely history lesson that every freedom loving American would do well to contemplate.  It’s also a guideline should we ever need it.

Copyright © Jessi Winchester September 2009 All Rights Reserved

by Jonathan David Morris

You know what we don’t need? State birds. If you can convince me we need state birds, I will give you a dollar.

This dare germinates from a visit I made to “Visit PA” the other day. Visit PA is the online home of Pennsylvania’s tourism board, which can be found at visitpa.com. While there, I came across a page of “facts and interesting tidbits.” I wasn’t so sure it was interesting, honestly, but I was willing to take a look. I’m trying to get into this whole moving-to-Pennsylvania thing. That’s why I visited Visit PA in the first place. Pennsylvania will never match New Jersey, for me. New Jersey’s love is like bad medicine. But I’d like to believe you can love two states at one time.

So anyway, the “interesting tidbits” page starts off with some fairly standard stuff-real textbook material, the kind of info only dorks like me care about-such as the state seal, the state flag, the state motto, etc. It also explains why the state isn’t a state, but rather a commonwealth. (It derives from an Old English term, “common weal,” which means “well-being of the public”-or as Marx called it, “communism.” It’s much different than a “state,” you see, which, if memory serves, is loosely defined as “fooling all of the people, all of the time.”)

But then the “facts” take a turn towards the absurd.

It begins with Visit PA’s introduction to the state bird, the Ruffed Grouse. It’s all downhill from there.

“Settlers relied on this plump, red-brown bird with the feathery legs as part of their food supply,” Visit PA explains, without ever explaining why PA needs a state bird to begin with. “Sometimes called a partridge, the Ruffed Grouse is still a familiar sight in Pennsylvania’s forests.”

So they claim.

Now, look, I’m a good sport. You want to have a state bird? Have a state bird. Be my guest. I don’t care. I’m not sure the Ruffed Grouse is a very good one, to be quite honest. I’d much sooner go with the Common Loon, like Minnesota, because if you’re going to have a state bird, you might as well have one that makes the whole state sound like it’s out of its freaking mind. But the point is, if you want a state bird, you can have a state bird-I won’t get in your way.

But I still don’t think it’s necessary.

For one thing, I fail to see where having a state bird benefits the tourism board, in particular. How many families actually take this into consideration when planning the annual summer outing? “Well, kids, your mother and I have it narrowed down to two choices for this year’s vacation. Either we can go to South Dakota to see Mount Rushmore –” [insert the sounds of childlike groaning here] “– or we can go to Pennsylvania to see the bird that’s sometimes called a partridge.” Hooray!

Secondly, in what way do state birds benefit residents? I’ve lived in Pennsylvania for the better part of half a year now. I’m a taxpayer. The Ruffed Grouse has done precisely nothing for me. If we stopped having a state bird altogether, I wouldn’t get dejected and call up my friends, like: “I don’t know about Pennsylvania, man. I liked it at first, but now that there isn’t a state bird anymore… it’s just so embarrassing.” In fact, if there wasn’t a state bird, I probably wouldn’t notice.

As if state birds weren’t enough, Visit PA then informs us that Pennsylvania’s state tree is the Hemlock. This is because: “The Hemlock was a sturdy ally to the state’s first settlers.” Well, gee, you know what this sounds like? Take out the “first settlers” part. It sounds like a stump speech for part-time Pittsburgher John Kerry. Say, he carried the Commonwealth this year, didn’t he? Can’t we make him the state tree instead?

The list goes on and on. There’s the firefly, for instance, which is Pennsylvania’s state insect. To me, that’s a no-win situation; no matter which insect represents your state, you’ve still got an insect representing your state. Haven’t we got enough bloodsuckers in government as it is? And, of course, what state would be complete without a state beautification plant (Crownvetch), a state fossil (Phacops Rana), and a state steam locomotive (K4s Steam)? These are very important things. I mean, God only knows where Ohio would be today, were it not for its state flower, the scarlet carnation.

Finally, we arrive at Pennsylvania’s state beverage, which is milk. That’s right. Milk.

“This designation is a fitting tribute to one of the Commonwealth’s leading farm products,” says Visit PA. “It also salutes the state’s gentle dairy cows who each produce a generous 22 quarts of milk a day.”

“Generous”? “Gentle”? Geez. If this were any more touchy-feely, it’d be downright uncomfortable.

And what’s with this “fitting tribute” stuff? A “fitting tribute” to what-milk? Don’t get me wrong. I’m sure milk appreciates the recognition it’s getting for its many contributions-cooling tongues, strengthening bones, searching for lost boys-throughout the years. And no doubt, milk’s got a lot on its mind right now, what with the election and “Ocean’s Twelve” both happening this year. So it’s good to give a little something back-this much, I’ll grant you. But it’s still a poor choice for a state beverage. In fact, of all the state symbols I’ve mentioned, it’s probably the poorest choice of all.

“Even poorer than Phacops Rana as the choice for state fossil?” you ask.

Yes, even poorer than Phacops Rana as the choice for state fossil. (Everyone knows Joe Paterno is a much better fit.)

Why? Because plenty of states have milk. It’s everywhere. If you’re going to have a state beverage, you should have a state beverage synonymous with the state-a native drink. Pennsylvania has something just like this. It’s brewed in America’s oldest, and fifth-largest, brewery. Its name is called Yuengling. And it tastes darn good.

That’s the thing I don’t get about state symbols. I can live with having them (not like I have a choice; I’m not in charge here), but they really ought to at least represent the people of the state in some unique way. I mean, I wouldn’t even know a Ruffed Grouse was a bird-let alone the state bird-if I didn’t look it up. And for all I know, they don’t even exist. I’ve never seen one. All I’ve seen are the birds that keep soiling my windshield. That, and whacked out drivers signaling right to go left. You want my opinion? A much better state bird would be the middle finger I keep having to give these people on the roads every morning.

At least then the state bird would stand for something.

Jonathan David Morris is a contributing editor for Liberty For All.  You can contact Jonathan at readjdm@yahoo.com.

by Jessica Peck Corry

Four years have passed since that heated summer of 2005 when the U.S. Supreme Court shocked our national conscience by declaring that government can forcibly condemn a family’s home simply to make way for a more lucrative private development. While Colorado lawmakers responded by banning such a practice here, new threats to property ownership emerge every day.

Property rights are the nation’s least sexy - and most often forgotten - civil right. As Americans, we take for granted that when we purchase a home, no one can take it from us, except in rare exceptions based on overwhelming proof of public need. But in too many cases, this simply isn’t true.

Put simply, eminent domain, or the government’s taking of private property for a public use, is allowed under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but only upon just compensation being provided to the displaced property owner. Unfortunately, this clear mandate has been chipped away at through cases over the last half-century, culminated in Kelo v. New London, a case out of Connecticut, where the government attempted to bulldoze a series of homes to make way for a private pharmaceutical giant’s new headquarters. Until the very end, the case’s lead plaintiff, Suzette Kelo, fought tirelessly to save her little pink cottage in New London’s blue collar Fort Trumble neighborhood.

While the final outcome was not in Kelo’s favor, legislatures across the nation, including Colorado, subsequently voted to prohibit eminent domain for economic development purposes like those upheld in the case. In an ideal world, it could be argued that one woman’s sacrifice spared countless Americans from a similar fate.

But, of course, we don’t live in an ideal world. Over the past four years, southern Colorado has played host to a series of its own property rights battles. In 2006, thousands of families descended upon the state Capitol in Denver to successfully curb an effort to condemn thousands of properties to make way for a proposed private toll road known as “Super Slab.” Momentum behind this movement helped elect Marsha Looper, a Calhan Republican, to the state House.

Southern Colorado is also host to the ongoing debate over whether the military should be permitted to take working ranches outside Trinidad to make way for expanded military training. This process is particularly painful as it pits against each other two of America’s greatest symbols of our fighting spirit - the western cowboy and the American soldier.

And of equal importance: while the downturned economy has meant that government has less of our hard-earned tax dollars to use toward land redevelopment experiments, it also means that property owners targeted for condemnation face an even greater uphill battle. In at least a few cases coming out of Denver’s suburbs, property owners being moved out to make way for the Regional Transportation District’s light rail expansion have been offered compensation lower than the assessed value or mortgaged value of their properties.

While RTD can claim that current real estate realities affect almost all property owners adversely, those targeted with eminent domain have lost the option to wait out the downturn and recoup the full investment value of their properties.

During a recent Colorado Springs visit, I was encouraged by the response I received from three of the region’s most committed policy makers, Sen. Bill Cadman and Rep. Kent Lambert, and retired Senate Republican leader Andy McElhany. In addition, all Coloradans have a property rights champion in state Rep. Corry Gardner, a Yuma Republican, who has continuously taken on special interests to protect against unjust condemnation.

As these legislators spend these next several months developing their policy agendas for the 2010 session, we can only hope property rights don’t take a back seat to other pressing economic needs. After all, and even as real estate prices continue to slump in the short term, home ownership remains the single most important tool we have to promote the ability of citizens to forge their own path toward long-term financial independence and sustainability. Inevitably, it is too often poor, elderly, and minority communities victimized by abusive condemnation.

The most dangerous threat today comes from our courts, including the Colorado Supreme Court, which took a serious swipe at property rights last summer by ruling that government can condemn property - even if outside its own jurisdiction - for open space purposes. The decision has already emboldened local governments to more aggressively threaten condemnation for such purposes.

Just imagine if instead the court had ruled that local governments could exempt themselves from civil rights statutes prohibiting race and gender discrimination, freeing governments to use taxpayer dollars to promote racially segregated lunch counters or classrooms. People would be justly rioting in the streets.

Colorado property owners concerned about their fate must take a stand. If one woman in a little pink cottage was able to force the entire nation to wake up to property rights abuses, so can you.

This article originally appeared in the Colorado Springs Gazette, August 27th, 2009.

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

by Peter Orvetti

Friday will mark eight years since 2,974 people were killed in terrorist attacks on the United States.  The best way for President Obama to mark the solemn anniversary would be for him to declare his intention to withdraw all U.S. forces from Afghanistan.

Obama, addressing the annual Veterans of Foreign Wars conference last month, said of Afghanistan, “This is not a war of choice.  This is a war of necessity.  Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again.  If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which Al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans.”  Continuing to channel his predecessor, Obama said, “This is not only a war worth fighting.  This is fundamental to the defense of our people.”

But September 2009 is not September 2001, and Afghanistan can no longer be called a war of necessity.  Richard Haass of the Council on Foreign Relations argues that so-called wars of necessity involve a threat to “vital national interests” as well as a “lack of viable alternatives to the use of military force to protect those interests.”  Eight years ago, that may have been the case in Afghanistan.  Today it clearly is not.

The U.S. government’s vague definition of “success” in Afghanistan entails the establishment of a strong democratic government friendly to the West and in control of most or all of the country’s territory.  As the farcical Afghan presidential elections prove, this is far from a reality.  But even such “success” could be achieved, so what?  The only true U.S. interest in Afghanistan is the reduction of future terrorist threats.  No matter how stable the government in Kabul becomes, radicals will still find safe havens in the border regions, slipping in and out of Pakistan where their grassroots support is strong.

Last week, conservative columnist George Will penned an important column calling for U.S. withdrawal.  “The war already is nearly 50 percent longer than the combined U.S. involvements in two world wars, and NATO assistance is reluctant and often risible,” Will wrote.  He says Taliban forces “can evaporate and then return, confident that U.S. forces will forever be too few to hold gains.”  Counterinsurgency theory, Will warns, “indicates that, nationwide, Afghanistan would need hundreds of thousands of coalition troops, perhaps for a decade or more.”  As for the U.S. effort to end heroin production in a country where a major drug trafficker is about to be elected vice president, Will suggests it be dubbed “Operation Sisyphus.”

U.S. commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal says he needs more troops to do his job, and if he really intends to do it, then he is absolutely right.  McChrystal has been charged with creating a Switzerland out of a Somalia, taking a lawless failed state and turning it into a stable member of the community of nations.  It cannot be done with the 21,000 troops Obama is adding to the 47,000 Americans already there.  Britain’s 9,000 troops may not stay much longer — the war is vastly unpopular in the U.K., and as embattled Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s relations with Obama get worse and worse, he will probably decide to pull them out in a last-ditch attempt to keep his party in power.  That means even more American troops will be needed just to maintain the same level.

The war is not working.  In his New York Times column Sunday, Nicholas Kristof wrote that a “group of former intelligence officials and other experts is now reluctantly going public to warn that more troops would be a historic mistake.”  The group, which includes former CIA station chiefs in both Afghanistan and Pakistan who helped organize the anti-Soviet Mujahedeen insurgency in the 1980s, warns, “The more troops we put in, the greater the opposition.  We do not mitigate the opposition by increasing troop levels, but rather we increase the opposition and prove to the Pashtuns that the Taliban are correct.  The basic ignorance by our leadership is going to cause the deaths of many fine American troops with no positive outcome.”

Barack Obama does not want this “war of necessity.”  He wants to focus his presidency on domestic policy, not on a conflict that will make Iraq look like Granada.  Continuing this unnecessary war does not keep Americans safe from future attack.  Rather, it creates a recruitment opportunity for Al Qaeda.  Osama bin Laden, after all, got his start in that same Mujahedeen insurgency the CIA helped create.  Obama can keep Americans safe and save lives by making the choice to end this war of choice.

Peter Orvetti was an early political blogger in the United States, running his Orvetti.com political news report from 1997 through 2002. He is a past editorial writer for the Cato Institute, served as Deputy Director of Communications for the Libertarian Party in the lead-up to the 2000 party convention, and has published commentaries in several major newspapers. Contact Mr. Orvetti at peterjorvetti@gmail.com.