The Liberty ViewsLetter for 05/30/2009

Managing Editor
Chuck McGlawn contact chuckest@aol.com
Contributing Editors
Walter Clark/Paula Clark
Dan Fernandes
Paul Blumstein
Chuck McGlawn

LibertyViews
Must Read This Week Exploding debt threatens America 05/27/09by John Taylor Financial Times

"Standard and Poor's decision to downgrade its outlook for British sovereign debt from 'stable' to 'negative' should be a wake-up call for the US Congress and administration. Let us hope they wake up. Under President Barack Obama's budget plan, the federal debt is exploding. To be precise, it is rising -- and will continue to rise -- much faster than gross domestic product, a measure of America's ability to service it. The federal debt was equivalent to 41 per cent of GDP at the end of 2008; the Congressional Budget Office projects it will increase to 82 per cent of GDP in 10 years. With no change in policy, it could hit 100 per cent of GDP in just another five years."

I would invite, encourage, entice, influence, pressure, persuade, cajole, coax, plead, request can I demand? Or would a threat of bodily harm move you to read the FULL ARTICLE at http://tinyurl.com/r5yozp This is important basic INFORNATION, making it a MUST READ. GET THE FACTS CONTAINED IMPRINTED ON YOUR MIND. THEN YOU WILL UNDERSTAND AND BE READY TO PRESENT COGENT INFORMATION ABOUT THE PENDING DOLLAR CHRISES, and then FORWARD IT TO EVERYONE ON YOUR E-MAILLIST.
*********************************
We agree if you are also opposed to government hospitals paying for ANY baby deliveries. In fact, I am opposed to all government hospitals, especially Veterans Hospitals. Our servicemen put their lives on the line for US, (however misguided) and they deserve better, MUCH BETTER, than is served up in those mid-fifties death traps called Veterans Hospitals.
**********************************
We agree If you believe Federal taxes are ok if they are used exclusively to carry out Federal Government's singular purpose, that being to “Protect Life Liberty and Property”.
We need to stop giving away our tax dollars to every nation in the world that asks for it. Money that is not earmarked to see above should stay in the pockets of taxpayers. If THEY CHOOSE TO AID A FOREIGN COUNTRY it's OK, it’s their money.
**********************************
The only freedom, which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. — John Stuart Mill
**********************************
The Rule of Lore By Sheldon Richman 05/29/09
“This is a nation of laws not of men (and women).”
We will be hearing a lot about that in the coming weeks. The nomination of a Supreme Court justice occasions much public debate over exactly what judges are supposed to do—and not do. Thus we will hear that it’s Congress’s job to make the laws and the Supreme Court’s job to interpret them, along with the Constitution. Or, to put it in the shorthand: judges should not make the law.
It seems like a tidy division of labor, but there is a certain problem—namely, that the line between making and interpreting law is exceedingly fine—if it exists at all. Read the FULL STORY at http://fee.org/articles/rule-lore/


*********************************
What's the worst thing a wife can get on her 25th wedding anniversary?Morning Sickness.

Promise only what you can deliver. Then deliver more than you promise
**********************************
The Socialist Bailout of Wall Street, Part 1 by Jacob G. Hornberger 5/1/09 While most politicians and mainstream pundits are viewing the bailout as a necessary “reform,” it is imperative that we place this “reform” in a much wider and deeper context. In doing so, we need to return to first principles. Our nation was founded on the most unusual set of economic principles in history. Imagine: No income tax, no capital-gains tax, and no estate tax. For the first time in history, people were free to accumulate unlimited amounts of wealth, and there was nothing the federal government could do to prevent it. People were free to pursue occupations and trades and enter into mutually beneficial economic transactions without any government supervision. Charity was voluntary. If people wanted to help others, they were free to do so. Imagine: No immigration controls. People from all over the world were free to come to the United States. Education was left to the free choices of families and individuals.
Let’s examine the economic system under which Americans live today.
Extremely burdensome progressive income taxes, capital-gains taxes, and estate taxes. An enormous regulatory scheme in which government bureaucrats have the power to supervise, monitor, and control people’s financial and economic activities. A massive welfare system. An enormous and complex plan for immigration. Plus -- Plus -- Plus Read the FULL ARTICLE at http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0812a.asp

*********************************
Vitality shows in not only the ability to persist but the ability to start over.

If a man is bald at the front, he's a GREAT thinker. If he's bald at the back, he's a GREAT lover If he is bald in the back and the front then heTHINKS he's a great lover.
**********************************

Sotomayor Pick Not Based on Merit by Ilya Shapiro May 27, 2009.
In picking Sonia Sotomayor, Obama has shown that identity politics matter to him more than merit. While Judge Sotomayor exemplifies the American Dream, she would not have even been on the short list if she were not Hispanic. She is not one of the leading lights of the federal judiciary, and far less qualified for a seat on the Supreme Court than others on the list. Partly because Sotomayor isa daughter of working-class Puerto Ricans raised in Bronx public housing projects, diagnosed with diabetes at 8, losing her father at 9, accolades at Princeton and Yale Law, ending up on the federal bench. At Cato.org several writers covering this nomination from as many perspectives. Start at http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10249

*********************************
My next house will have no kitchen --- just vending machines.

Warning: Housework done properly can kill.
**********************************
Audio/Video Views Indefinite detention? Shame on you... Obama
Rachel Maddow MSNBC At the risk of promoting this out spoken leftist, watch her U-Tube excerpt, and then pass it along to friends. [A small disclaimer about Rachael Maddow: “Even a broken clock is right twice each day. Rachael Maddow was swept into this “Top Job” position at MSNBC from a radio talk host position on the failed Air America Network on the coat tails of Obama. After it was clear that Obama would get the Dem. Nomination, he could do or say no wrong in her eyes. Maddow defended his every word, his every proposal. She was on the radio every day spinning his many “egg on the face” situations into a palpable omelet for listener consumption.] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uuWVHT1WUY
*********************************
We agree if you believe Bill Gates has every right to keep every penny he made and continue to make more. If that ticks you off, go out and invent the next operating system that's better and put your name on the building.

**********************************
More LibertyViews: We limited ourselves to around four or five LibertyViews, there are more, many more, here are just a few.
Where have all the millionaires gone? by JD Tuccille 05/27/09Disloyal Opposition http://tinyurl.com/n67amg
Intimidation won't further non-proliferation by Thomas Gale MooreAntiWar.Com "Do threats, bullying, sanctions, and threats work to rein in a rogue state? (05/29/09) http://tinyurl.com/mjh6f5
Cannabis tax and deregulation -- cutting out the middle man 05/28/09 by Brock Lorber Freedom's Phoenix"For decades illicit drug producers and suppliers have enjoyedgovernment protection from competition. http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Editorial-Page.htm?Info=0058202
Flags of caution over Sotomayor by John C. Eastman 05/27/09Christian Science Monitor But there are red flags in Sotomayor's record http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0527/p09s03-coop.html
A victory for marriage and democracy by Thomas Messne 05/27/09Hawaii Reporter [editor's note: The court's ruling was a "victory" for marriage apartheid in the same sense that Pearl Harbor was a "victory" for Dai Nippon. Yes, it produced a lot of casualties, but I predict that less than four years from now there'll be a signing ceremony marking the bad guys' final defeat - TLK] http://tinyurl.com/kjugla

*********************************
The sign said "breakfast at any time."So I ordered French Toast during the Renaissance.

Mike Tyson cries during sex, mace will do that to you.
**********************************

NewsViews
CA: Couple ordered to stop holding Bible study without permit Fox News "Pastor David Jones and his wife Mary have been told that they cannot invite friends to their San Diego, Calif. home for a bible study -- unless they are willing to pay tens of thousands of dollars to San Diego County. ... the couple received a written warning that cited 'unlawful use of land,' ordering them to either "stop religious assembly or apply for a major use permit," the couple's attorney Dean Broyles told San Diego news station 10News. But the major use permit could cost the Jones' thousands of dollars just to have a few friends over. ... The couple is planning to dispute the county's order thisweek." (05/28/09) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,522637,00.html

*********************************
You can't always get what you want. But if you try, sometimes you'll find what you need

Stupidity got us into this mess - why can't it get us out?
**********************************
Foreclosures, mortgage delinquencies climb at record rate (05/28/09)McClatchy News "A record 12 percent of all U.S. mortgages were at least one payment behind or in the foreclosure process during the first three months of this year, a report said Thursday. The nation's economic problems aren't going away anytime soon, the report also found that the foreclosure rate on prime fixed-rate loans to financially healthy borrowers has doubled in the past 12 months." http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/69014.html

*********************************
Late one night in DC a mugger wearing a ski mask jumped into the path of a well-dressed man and stuck a gun in his ribs. "Give me your money," he demanded.
Indignant, the affluent man replied in a huff, "Why you can't do this to me, I am a United States Congressman!"
"In that case," replied the robber, "give me my money!"
**********************************
Why Democrats relent [sic] on gun issues Christian Science Monitor"Democrats are looking down the barrel of a gun as they vie to keep their power in Washington. Poised after last year's election to push back against the National Rifle Association's heavy firepower, the Democrats have in rapid order conceded ground on the gun issue. They've allowed concealed-carry weapons in national parks, considered easing gun restrictions in the District of Columbia, and turned back a campaign pledge on gun-record transparency. The moves, which tended to be riders to other bills, have given Republicans a rare sense of success as a minority. ... For Democrats, reluctance to take on the gun lobby is tied to a desire to hold onto their majority in Washington as they pursue a progressive agenda on issues ranging from the economy to healthcare." [editor's note: The absurdity is how oblivious this "reporter" is to how ineffectual the NRA and its cronies have been in preserving any part of the 2nd Amendment in all this! - SAT] (05/28/09) http://tinyurl.com/lro273

*********************************
Plan to be spontaneous tomorrow.

Foreign aid is money taken from poor people in a rich nation and given to rich people in a poor nation.
**********************************

UK: Farmer kills himself after legal battle with bureaucrats (05/29/09)Independent [UK] "A farmer who bankrupted himself in a legal battle with the National Trust committed suicide yesterday by inhaling rat poison. Bob Dearnley took his own life after being told that he was facing imminent eviction from the rare breeds centre into which he had sunk his life savings. ... Mr Dearnley, who had moved into Burpham Court in 1992 as a tenant of Guildford Borough Council, was due to attend a court hearing in two weeks' time to learn whether he would be evicted by the local authority. He had previously vowed never to leave because repossession would result in the slaughter of the animals on the farm, including 50 rare breeds of sheep and a collection of llamas. The farmer declared himself bankrupt in 2006 after he lost a bitter court battle involving the National Trust, Guildford council and the Environment Agency over claims that the Trust was responsible for flooding his land and spreading disease because of repair work to a weir on an adjacent river." http://tinyurl.com/nnjvyj

*********************************
We agree if you believe the children of parents that are here in this country illegally should not be ENTITLED to an educated in government schools.

I further believe that children of parents that are here legally should not be ENTITLED to an education in government schools.

**********************************
More NewsViews We limited ourselves to around five NewsViews each week but there are many many more, here are just a few.
IL: State Senate approves medical marijuana bill The Illinois Senate voted 30 to 28, and the bill now goesto the Illinois House. 05/28/09 http://tinyurl.com/nfgggu
Report: Iraq prisoner abuse photos depict torture, rape USA Today Iraqi prisoner abuse graphic photos of rape and torture that Obama does not want released. 05/28/09 http://tinyurl.com/o8ahts
Gates to press for Far East unity on North Korea threat Dallas Morning News (05/28/09) http://tinyurl.com/m3ev68
Taxpayers could lose billions from General Motors revamp ABC NewsTaxpayers could end up providing an additional $30 billion with no guarantee of repayment. 05/28/09 http://tinyurl.com/ntl7bp


*********************************
Just think of it, the mayfly lives only one day. And sometimes it rains that day.

Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea.
**********************************
WordViews Walter Clark
public opinion noun: the aggregate of individual attitudes or beliefs held by the adult population of some culturally unifying area, as in “A man must know how to fly in the face of public opinion; a woman to submit to it.” Madame de Staël
Synonyms:
· belief would have exactly those words to define it, but is much more personal and specific. Public opinion has more to do with what involves other people.
· consensus is a collective opinion that may not be the most popular but one that has the least objections to it.
· bipartisan consists of, or supported by members of the two dominant parties, and considered as universal truth as if there were only those two ways of thinking.
· culture is public opinion plus the arts, beliefs, and the institutions; the totality of socially transmitted behavior. It is everything that is us that we were not born with.
Wordwise:It is public opinion that maintains the value of the dollar. Even when it was backed by gold, it was public opinion that gave gold its value. The free market is the mechanism whereby public opinion shapes our world; not just establish value of the currency. Geology may make mountains, but look around you. Your world is manmade. The “man” is in this case not an individual, but an infinitely complex web of human interaction. The body of rules of this interaction is our culture, our public opinion. The fact that some cultures have more stuff than others is proof that some cultures are superior to others if “stuff” is the measure of superiority. Most people acknowledge that self-interest is the primary force in that interaction, but libertarians are unique in recognizing it as good and not something to control, let alone be ashamed of. Most libertarians, certainly the anarcho-capitalists among us find stability when nobody’s in charge; when public opinion dominates loyalty to the law. The big fear most liberals have is that without control, superior cultures will exploit the inferior cultures. The conservatives fear that without control our superior culture will be diluted with the weaker ones. Notice in this carefully worded aphorism by Walter Lippmann how much he fears anarchy: “Where mass opinion dominates the government, there is a morbid derangement of the true functions of power. The derangement brings about the enfeeblement, verging on paralysis, of the capacity to govern. This breakdown in the constitutional order is the cause of the precipitate and catastrophic decline of Western society.” Notice that his entire world is the power of the state. If public opinion dominates, the state won’t be able invent new laws. The conservative’s fear of public opinion is that whether a rich person is to be executed and his money distributed or not, may be a matter of majority vote. But the miracle of the free market is that it is a larger part of our world than government. Another miracle of the free market is that the only voting has to do with goods and services and the only people voting are those that know the most about any particular transaction.

This is not the end it is The Beginning
Begin to share some of this information with others.

Proposal for a New Nation

An American Libertarian argument for founding a new Country

By Will Otey

There sometimes comes a point in a relationship when the bonds that have sustained and held that relationship together have become so strained by willful force, so damaged by betrayal, so corroded by acts of brazen dishonesty and malfeasance that the bonds of that relationship have become (for all intents and purposes) like shackles.
Many of us who have been devoted to individual Freedom, Liberty, the Constitution, and to our Country, now find ourselves in the unenviable position where laws and Rights have eroded and deteriorated to the point where they no longer insure the protection of the individual, restrain the State from unjustly imposing it’s will upon citizens and guard against the tyranny of the masses.
It is at this point when reasonable and freedom loving persons must face the undeniable fact that all the wrongs, all the damage and all the misdeeds cannot be reversed or undone; that bonds which have grown out of loyalty and love of Nation are no longer viable because of the continuous treachery of those in power and by an electorate that either cannot or will not stop the degradation. Many of us have reached that point and recognize that only the complete dissolution of those bonds will free us from the tyranny of our misguided Countrymen and allow us to return to a place of sanity where individual Freedom and Liberty are held up as unassailable Rights and guarded with uncompromising allegiance.
The United States government no longer even remotely operates within the bounds of the U.S Constitution which was supposed to be the Birth Right of all American citizens. The acts of circumvention, defiance and out right rejection of clearly written Constitutional law by Federal politicians and judges are almost too numerous to record with any reasonable economy. These acts of treason on the part of government officials are so blatant in their defiance of the innumerate Rights of American citizens and so injurious to clearly delineated Constitutional legality that they call into question the actual legitimacy of the current standing government itself.
For the sake of brevity we have listed bellow some of the more egregious criminal acts perpetrated by top Federal officials compiled here so that the reader can verify and so that any suspicion of false or grandiose claims can be fully investigated.

1) THE ALIEN AND SEDITION ACT OF 1798: John Adams signs into law The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 ; The Adams administration sought to suppress dissent at home by passing the Alien and Sedition Acts. Passed in 1798 the acts flew in the face of the Bill of Rights, flagrantly ignoring the first amendment.

2) UN-CONSTITUTIONAL SUSPENSION OF HABEAS CORPUS IN 1861: Abraham Lincoln suspends habeas corpus in defiance of (U.S. Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 1). (U.S. Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 9). In the words of Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase who served during the Lincoln administration, habeas corpus is "the most important human right in the Constitution ... the best and only sufficient defense of personal freedom,"

3) SEPARATE BUT EQUAL RULING, 1886: The Supreme Courts deplorable and un-Constitutional Plessy versus Ferguson ruling in a 7-1 decision allowing legal segregation of American citizens. This decision stood for nearly 60 years. The only dissenting Justice of that Court said this; “The present decision...will not only stimulate aggressions, more or less brutal and irritating, upon the admitted rights of colored citizens, but will encourage the belief that it is possible, by means of state enactments, to defeat the beneficent purposes which the people of the United States had in view when they adopted the recent [the 13th and 14th] amendments of the Constitution.”—Justice Harlin

4) THE SEDITION ACT OF 1918: Woodrow Wilson signs into law The Sedition Act of 1918 in clear defiance of the First Amendment. The passing of this act forbade Americans to use "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language" about the United States government, flag, or armed forces during war. The act also allowed the Postmaster General to deny mail delivery to dissenters of government policy during wartime.

5) CIRCUMVENTION THE U.S CONSTITUTION, 1937: To achieve the social welfare state Franklin Roosevelt threatens to stack the Supreme Court. The Court was striking down many legislative acts including social security because they are un-Constitutional. After the threats and unceasing pressure, one Justice retires and another capitulates and changes his position. This action, along with many others by Roosevelt, helped to firmly establish and perpetuate the gargantuan, illegal expansion of the Federal government, the enormous shift of power and money into the hands of politicians and bureaucrats as well as special interest lobbyists in Washington D.C. See especially Acts (48 Stat.11s17)-yr.1933 through (53 Stat.1362)-yr.1939

6) UN-CONSTITUTIONAL SUSPENSION OF HABEAS CORPUS, 1942: Franklin Roosevelt suspends habeas corpus and sends over 100,000 legal American citizens to internment camps with no due process. No vote in the U.S congress was taken. Forced to carry on their lives under harsh conditions and unfamiliar surroundings, the exiles took up residence in the internment camps. Leaving behind their homes and businesses, they were scattered all over the interior West in isolated desert areas. Most were demoralized and humiliated. Many were financially ruined. It was as if their Rights never existed.

7) CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION ABRIDGES FREEDOM OF SPEECH 1949-1987: The “Fairness Doctrine” brought about by the U.S government to force radio and television station owners into presenting opposing views on controversial subjects or editorial positions. A ‘chilling effects” on free speech was the decades long result. The Supreme Court upheld this legislation and has never reversed itself. The FCC rescinded the law in 1987.

8) VIETNAM WAR STARTS WITH FABRICATIONS, 1964: Lyndon Johnson starts a long, costly and bloody war in Viet Nam with a lie based on the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. 58,000 Americans die.

9) CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION ASSAULTS FIRST AMENDMENT, 2002: McCain-Feingold, The so-called campaign finance reform legislation passed by congress, signed into law by George Bush and later ruled Constitutional by the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision. This legislation is a blatant abridgment of the First Amendment. It grants government the power to restrict the most important speech of all-- political speech. The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights states clearly “Congress shall make no law--abridging the freedom of speech” Now, apparently, Congress shall make “some laws abridging the freedom of speech.”

10) SUPREME COURT ALLOWS UN-CONSTITUTIONAL SEIZURE OF PRIVATE PROPERTY, 2005: Eminent Domain ruling by the Supreme Court (5-4) in Kelo v. City of New London now allows government to seize private property for commercial monetary gain. This ruling is a radical reconfiguration of U.S citizens property Rights and a tragic perversion of the Fifth Amendment.

11) ILLEGAL U.S GOVERNMENT ACTIONS BRING ABOUT ECONOMIC CHAOS, 2008: The American government creates an economic crisis and then un-Constitutionally seizes property and uses tax payer money to try and undo what they are responsible for bringing about.

Many of the legal and Constitutional precedents that have been established as a result of transgressions listed above and are now deeply entrenched within the legal system and the social fabric of society (see #5 above, the social welfare state, as an example). The possibility that these precedents might be rolled back would require a leap of faith that many of us can no longer rationally undertake. Patterns of unethical behavior in all branches of the American government have become deeply rooted as the result of a succession of unlawful misdeeds and Constitutional annexations that have grown worse and more frequent over time. Furthermore, the motivations for what has taken place are as various and peculiar as the people who have committed the violations. But what has become abundantly clear is that many of us can no longer tolerate the endless abridgments of our Rights, the vast, unceasing concentration of money and power into the hands of politicians at the central government level and what that portends for our future.
Thomas Jefferson wrote in The Declaration of Independence, “When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
What we submit here is that the possibility to “throw off such Government” in the United States of America is no longer a realistic possibility for reasons outlined within this paper. We therefore propose that the only possible course of action for those of us who wish to secure and perpetuate our Rights and Liberty’s is to form a new and completely separate and sovereign Nation.
People flocked to North America for centuries because they sought to escape tyranny and repression of all sorts and also to find freedom. Unfortunately, history has a way of repeating itself and the same sorts of abuses and deplorable behavior that caused people to flee their original homelands have now become manifest in a land that once held such great promise for the independent and free-minded persons of the World.
What we propose is not just the formation of a new Nation for disenfranchised citizens of the United States, but the formation of a new Country where freedom loving people from around the world can make a new beginning for them selves while escaping the despotism that invariably creeps into being from the shadowy depths of the very worst aspects of human nature; namely the tendency and course need of some to dominate others and to fall into the grip of corruption.
It may well be inherently true (and history seems to bear this out) that man-made institutions have always tended toward ruin. It is because of this unfortunate inclination that we also submit that there is an imperative necessity to provide “new Guards” for the future of a self governing people who wish to remain unencumbered by the rank failings of corruptible persons who all too often rise in various societies.
To this end, we offer here a short list of what we believe to be strong and decisive measures that might be considered for a new Constitution (to perhaps be modeled after the best aspects of the U.S Constitution) and to be implemented for the purpose preventing another sad and tragic degeneration of government.
Term limits: on all federal office holders. The framers of the U.S Constitution debated this issue rigorously and with a great deal of soul searching but did not install this safeguard within that document. Career politicians have become an enormous liability wherever they have come to power.
The specter of being put on trial: for any judge at any level within the judiciary including the Supreme Court if that Jurist has ruled in ways that are clearly in conflict with written law. One possible sentence if convicted would be expulsion of that judge from the home Country for life.
Constitutional precedent: this area of law has been extremely problematic in the U.S and has been an impediment to Courts that need to consider overturning past rulings that are clearly un-Constitutional. One example of this is the second ruling by the U.S Supreme allowing un-Constitutional welfare legislation during the term of Franklin Roosevelt. This second and illegal ruling occurred after Roosevelt threatened to stack the Supreme Court.
Strict and clear language: in the new Constitution that will absolutely state the limits of what a President, Congress and judges can and cannot do. These office holders should more easily be brought to trial if they overstep in any serious and deliberate way the boundaries that have been precisely stated and written into law. Conviction for overstepping those boundaries in any way could be punished by expulsion from the home Country for life.
Committees of oversight: to be elected on a regular basis by the people from the general population to oversee each branch of government. These committees would have no political power other than to scrutinize the three branches and report to the people on a regular basis. All government records and actions would be available by law to these committees. All oversight committee activities would be made public by Constitutional requirement on a regular basis.
The number of Supreme Court justices: to be set in the Constitution and could not be changed by the president or congress. The number would be odd so that no tie ruling could clog the docket.
No Executive Order: many abuses of this presidential power have occurred (see Roosevelt #6 above as one example) in the United States. If such a power is deemed necessary by the Framers of a new Constitution, clear language should spell out the limits of that power. Congress should be compelled by law to immediately review the actions of the president so that they can, if necessary, rescind the Executive Order if it does not meet clearly stated limits of that authority.
Note: these and other guards should be seriously debated by representatives of a new government long before the writing of a Constitution.
In order to build a new Nation, land would have to be purchased and treaties would have to be signed to insure the sovereignty of the new Country. Many will say that this task is impossible or that there is no more land on which to build such a Nation. But new Countries have been formed continuously throughout history and there is land within the borders of existing Nations that goes relatively untouched. Many governments are deeply in debt and the proposition of obtaining new land is far from settled. The question of where and how to obtain that land is one that we believe should be taken up as our organizations grows. We have created this organization with the goal of reaching as many like-minded individuals as possible from around the world and to call upon those individuals to join us and to help us in this cause. We are, at this stage, simply seeking to take the first step in a long journey by bringing people together who share a common hope for the future. Many stages of development would have to be accomplished in order for success to be fully realized. It has been said that America was the last great hope for humanity. But many of us no longer consider this to be true. We believe that the world needs a new beacon. Please contact us and help us to achieve the vision of building a new Nation that is founded upon and dedicated to individual Freedom, Liberty and the unassailable Rights of its citizens. Written by William Otey E-mail him at willotey@cox.net

Please visit The New Nation Foundation at newnationfoundation.org

The Two Fatal Flaws of Liberalism

(A Libertarian View) By Will Otey

It has long been my suspicion that even the most ardent and self-confident liberal understands at some level that their ideology is gravely flawed. I have seen many times when in serious discussion with left-wing people, that worried wince, that slightly guilty flashing of the eye, the almost imperceptible recoiling when peacefully confronted with facts and truths that run contrary to long held and deeply cherished beliefs. When I see these manifestations, it does not cause me to question the sincerity, honor or the patriotism of my friends on the left, but it does strengthen my understanding that this ideology is sadly and ultimately antithetical to the principals upon which our government was founded.
As a person who profoundly believes in the wisdom and genius of the Constitution, I am all too aware of the numerous inequities of liberalism. As someone who at a very young age was almost completely immersed in left-wing idealism, I believe I understand the impulses and motivations that are at the heart of its ethos. I know the feelings of compassion and the desire for justice that beckons the heart toward the goal of bringing about good. But I have also grown deeply aware of the fact that in this world, the best of intentions far too often pave the road to hell.
My own liberation from a liberal ideology was a slow and difficult passage. It started with me questioning many of my own beliefs and then challenging a host of assumptions that I had simply taken for granted. But over the course of time I slowly and painfully began to perceive what I believe to be the two most brazen and insidious elements of a very well intentioned, but nonetheless dangerously misguided political mindset.
The first is simple. There is no Constitutional authority for a large portion of social programs that the Federal government created and now administers. Any serious study of the document in question will yield no provisions for a great deal of the social legislation that our government has enacted either now or in the history of the United States. There have been quite a lot of references over time regarding the infamous line in the preamble to the Constitution that states “promote the general welfare.” This reference in regards to social legislation, however, rings hollow. James Madison, who was the chief architect of the Constitution, was asked about this matter and addressed it boldly. His answer was clear and concise. “With regards to the two words “general welfare,” I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” Here is another quote pertaining to that part of the preamble and proffered by the author of The Declaration Of Independence: “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” --Thomas Jefferson. There is no doubt that the issue of an extremely limited central government was one of the most salient and paramount concerns of the founding fathers. The Bill Of Rights stands as a monument to this truth. Article five of the Constitution provides for amendments that might alter the role of the Federal government. There have never been amendments that allow for (just for instance) corporate welfare. As far as I have been able to determine, this means that our government has been and is now taxing Americans for the administration of programs that it has no Constitutional right to be engaged in controlling.
To many of us, this in itself is a frightening reality. The majority of these programs were brought about during a time of economic depression. But this does not change the facts or the Constitutional ramifications. It simply means that public sentiment during a time of hardship, and a determined President were able to cause many people who should have known better to turn their heads the other way. This is nothing terribly new in the annals of history, but it does not bode well for any collection of people that believe in a rule of law and expect that they will be able to retain that rule of law. Constitutional amendments have come about on many occasions and have been produced over far more frivolous needs concerning the people. I would submit the eighteenth amendment prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages as an example.
Still, there is a deeper and more disturbing by-product built into this circumvention of our most important guiding document. There has been a horrifying precedent that has been established. It is a precedent that I believe has been onerously overlooked by most of my liberal compatriots. If the left wing of our leadership can bypass the Constitution during difficult economic times, what is to stop the right wing from doing precisely the same thing in similarly difficult, or perhaps, under even more arduous circumstances? I have never received anything close to a satisfactory answer from my Liberal friends on this matter. In fact, there is usually no reply at all.
The second major problem with Liberalism is that it is burdened with a great deal of hypocrisy. I have long listened to voices from the left speaking passionately about keeping government out of our bedrooms, away from a woman’s right to choose and of keeping religion out of public schools. And I have to say that I agree with them because I understand that all of these things are none of the governments business. What I don’t understand is how these same people can be against governmental intrusion concerning these issues on the one hand, and on the other hand, be for politicians reaching into all our pockets to support an unconstitutional welfare system that many of us disagree with fundamentally. Many on the left seem to want the rest of us to be perfectly tolerant of the kinds of freedom that they deem to be off limits. But when I object to having my money confiscated for the purpose of funding dubious social engineering schemes that endlessly tinker with the fabric of a society we all have to live in, well then it is another story. One of the great beauties of limited government is that it allows for people to live and let live without interference from a meddling, overarching or ideological central authority. It supports the notion that we can agree to disagree and make just about all our own decisions concerning the governance of our own lives. If the answer to this is that: “the people have decided.” I would ask those who would make this assertion to remember that at one time the majority supported slavery and that the Supreme Court upheld it as the law of the land.
I believe that the basic intentions behind Liberalism are essentially good and honorable for the most part. I started off leaning in that direction myself. At the ripe old age of nineteen, I once referred to myself as a Democratic Socialist. But I rallied, and eventually I got better. For this reason I do not look down with disdain upon those who see the world from that particular view. I know the world from that view. But one of the things that eventually jarred me to my senses was that I began to see the great wisdom of maintaining a limited government. I realized that the framers knew precisely what they were doing because they understood human nature and history. What history told them was that the greater the concentration of money and power into the hands of the ruling elite, the less freedom there will be in the hands of the individual. Benjamin Franklin wrote: “Those who give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Liberalism has concentrated vast amounts of money and power into the hands of the government because it has sought to cure the ills of society through legislation that has raised trillions of dollars in tax money and expanded the role of the politician to a level that was unforeseen by the people who designed our system. It has weakened the freedom and liberty of the individual because an enormous amount of the welfare programs brought about by the left were instituted without any clear Constitutional authority. When Franklin Roosevelt’s first began to push through his sweeping social legislation, much of it was struck down by the Supreme Court. He then began threatening to stack the court. Finally, one member of the Court resigned ( Willis Van Devanter) and another Justices (Owen Roberts) capitulated because of unceasing pressure. This enfeebled, deluded and undermined perhaps the greatest document that man has ever given to himself and has placed everyone’s liberty at great risk. A precedent has been established because of those actions, that leaves the door wide open to virtual tyranny. If the Constitution has no great power of restraint upon the whims of a temporary and fleeting government, then I wonder what will happen when things get really difficult. Will the baby once again get thrown out with the bath water?
It may be important for all of us to remember that Franklin Roosevelt sent over one hundred thousand U.S citizens into interment camps during World War II without any due process whatsoever. And though the Constitution allows for Congress to suspend Habeas Corpus under certain extreme and specific conditions, none of those conditions were even remotely met during that time. Roosevelt simply decreed that it be so. Many of the people incarcerated were irrevocably damaged. Some of them were ruined completely. It was as if their legal and Constitutional rights simply never existed.
Liberalism has made enormous inroads into our system of government since the nineteen-thirties. Literally trillions of dollars have been amassed and redistributed through social legislation. The Courts have been stacked by various Presidents with political ideologues who legislate from the bench without regard for the written word of the Constitution and the express intent of the Framers. The size and scope of the federal government has expanded accordingly. The dependency of the people upon politicians has grown to an extent that would have been unimaginable just a hundred years ago. I do not think it is an unfair question to ask how much good this has truly brought about. Lawmakers now have an enormous reach into the lives of the average American citizen and each year they legislate toward more. Their next main objective seems to be to take over the American healthcare system (about 1/7th of the entire U.S economy) and make it safe for all the people. James Madison once wrote, “There are more instances of the abridgment of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by any sudden usurpation.” There is no doubt that Liberalism has gained a tremendous foothold within our political system and also within the lives of the American people. In this sense it has been a success. An important question to ask, however, might be “what is the ultimate cost?”

From Ownership Society to Owned Society

by Chuck McGlawn
Bush takes office for his first term soon thereafter he begins laying the ground work for what would become known as the "Ownership Society". Now, every Republican worth his salt knows that property owners, compared to renters overwhelming vote Republican. So Bush has Congress from “I George W. Bush” In 2001 there were steps to greatly increase the number of people that would qualify for the loans necessary to buy a home.

Follow me on this. The very “liberal” first two years of the Clinton administration spawned a movement that produced, a Conservative dominated Republican majority in Congress. Notables of that group are Newt Gingrich and Bob Barr. Add to that the resounding echo of Perot’s call for a “balanced budget”, combined with the huge success of a welfare reform adopted by beleaguered Michigan brought on by its dying auto industry and the concomitant reduction of tax revenues that was forced onto the Clinton Administration. Now add to all of those curbs on government expansion, a Dot Com boom unprecedented in America’s history with the possible exception of the “Industrial Revolution”, resulting in balanced budgets and a gradual rise in the standard of living, and a true increase in home ownership.

Enter from stage left George Bush jumping in front of this already significant move toward home ownership, saying, “The Bush Administration wants to make homeownership easier and more accessible to all. It sounds like he is going to expand the already growing homeownership. And, “sounds like” is where it ends. What he really meant, as it turns out is that the Bush Administration would “Own Society”. Now how long these plans were in the works before Bush took office I do not know. However, in 2001 there were thousands, tens of thousands perhaps even hundreds of thousands of families nearing the threshold of home ownership. These families were saving their money to participate in the American Dream of owning a cottage home with a white picket fence. At that time, the Maestro (name or group unknown) began to orchestrate events with the precision of a metronome. The Dot Com Boom went bust, and to keep America on an even keel the real estate bubble is launched. With each tick downward of the interest rate brought on by an increase in the money supply brought more and more people closer to that magic threshold of home ownership.

Lower interest rates made the “Stated Income” loan, where the borrower with a sufficient down payment can qualify for a loan, at a slightly higher interest rate, without having to verify or document the family income. This step coaxed tens of thousands to plunk down their life savings. Pushed ever closer by being allowed by the government to borrow against their IRAs and 401Ks.

Each of these steps was artificially pushing up and up and up the price of homes. Now everyone wants a piece of the action. The final inducement is unveiled in late 2000. It is a plan where the buyer can name his own interest rate (as low as 1%) for the first five years. This innovation (trap) causes a stampede of buyers, driving home prices through the roof.

Real Estate Agents eager for commissions told buyers, “Even if you do not get the needed raises on your job to be able to afford the payments when the rate adjusts, at the end of five years the house will have increased enough in value that you can sell for a hefty profit.” Needless to say, when the glut of homes coming on the market after five years popped the housing bubble, there was a huge transfer of wealth. People had invested their life savings, their IRAs and 401Ks. Others had been encouraged to refinanced and take equity out of their homes to install swimming pools, room additions or buying big SUV or paying for exotic vacations, often times found themselves out of a job and facing foreclosure. More houses on the market driving housing prices even lower.

Who will end up owning these homes? Well surprise surprise it will be the very same investment bankers that we are bailing out right now.

It Could Happen!!!

by Chuck McGlawn
Let me pose a hypothetical on which you can chew. In 1851, Maine was the first state to introduce prohibition, which was not quickly repealed. It turned out to be an outstanding success. By 1855, A dozen other states had joined Maine in becoming what is known as being "Dry State". These were the first successful alcohol Prohibition laws passed in the United States. In 1880, after the Civil War, women joined the dries and soon the temperance movement was back in full force. The WCTU was formed and the Prohibition Party became more powerful. By 1900, more than 50% of the continental United States had become dry. A loophole was found, the postal service. Because the federal government instead of the state government ran the postal service, liquor could be mail ordered from a wet state. In 1913, the Interstate Liquor Act was passed, preventing mailing liquor to any dry state. This got rid of all possible legal methods of getting alcohol therefore opening up new avenues for illegal methods. Control of liquor distribution went to crime syndicates. See, http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/5-27-2006-97505.asp

Here is the hypothetical; suppose, this trend continued until every State was dry by 1920 except North Dakota, New Mexico, Washington, Georgia and Kansas. It is my belief that if the other States remained dry, Life in North Dakota, New Mexico, Washington, Georgia and Kansas would take a turn for the better. Being spared the effects of probation would have its benefits. Criminal elements would begin migrating to Dry States for the profit potential of illegal alcohol. The wet States would not experience the rise in deaths cause by the drive by shootings from gang wars over territory, or deaths caused by the sale and consumption of bad booze. The wet States would not experience the increased taxes to support a growing law enforcement to respond to increased crime. The wet States would not feel the effects of graft and the corruption of their judicial system. Moreover, begin to experience a rise in property values relative to the dry States.

Wet States would become huge exporters of good booze, unemployment would drop, major distillers, breweries and vintners would move to the wet States, the tax base would broaden, investment money would begin to flow into those wet States. The end-result would be a general rise in the population and standard of living. More importantly public pressure from Dry States to follow the prosperity would increase and the US would have learned an important cause and effect lesson.

A Voting Strategy for the Presidential Election 2008

by Chuck McGlawn
If you vote Libertarian you are “Throwing your vote away”. You have been told that so often that you are reluctant to even mention your Libertarian leanings during political discussions. Do not let them get away with that charge. Because this year, gentle reader, you can turn the “Throwing your vote away” onto your Rep and Dem friends. We will show you how to make the case that your voting friends are indeed throwing away their vote by voting Rep or Dem. Conversely, your vote cast for the Libertarian Bob Barr and his running mate Wayne Allen Root, will actually be counted twice.
Let me explain, supposed you are a voter that is concerned with the growth of government, the increase in taxes and regulation. (And who isn’t these days?) When you vote for the Libertarian Bob Barr and his running mate Wayne Allen Root your vote is counted twice. It is counted once by the Obama team, and then again by the McCain campaign.
However, in California if you are just one of the 11 million votes for the Dem candidate, who cannot lose, or if you are just one of the 9 million votes for the Rep candidate, who cannot win, who will give any thought about your vote? You have essentially thrown your vote away by voting Rep or Dem.
Take this strategy to your Rep and Dem friends. Ask them to send a message to the other parties they are for smaller government, less taxes and more freedom, by Voting LIBERTARIAN.

A Philosophical Libertarian on Immigration by Chuck McGlawn

Before we build the Berlin Wall across our southern border with Mexico. Answer this question “What harm does Juan do when he comes to the US and takes a job?” I can hear the answers now. They include the following:

• Their children overload our educational system. They lower our educational standards and test scores. They force tax payers to cough up more money to build additional schools.
• They overload and cause the closing of our Hospital emergency rooms.
• They qualify for Social Security benefits and threaten to destroy the system.
• They qualify for and sign up for the IRS “Low income tax credit, to list just a few.

Please note that these are the very institutions and systems, government schools, taxpayer paid medical services, Social Security and the IRS, that the conservatives and the right wing have been trying to dismantle for decades.

If you ask the question, “What harm does Juan do when he comes to the US and takes a job?” make sure the answer given is harm that Juan does, and not a harm that WE THE PEOPLE have built into our system.

Another question I would ask is, “What is it that makes a rat-trap anything other than just a piece of wood and some wire?” The answer is the cheese. If we take away the cheese, we stop attracting RATS. As for Mexicans who have marketable skills, like the ability to repair refrigerators, or transmissions, or can build fences, lay brick, or even mow and make our yards look better, and can save us money in the process, money that we go out and spend on other things that create other jobs, then I say welcome neighbor.

The opposition is quick to jump in with, “but we need to protect the jobs of our skilled laborers”. That protectionist policy has all but destroyed our automobile and steel industries. Tariffs that reduced the importation of these items, forced the extra-national auto and steel companies to become more efficient to make their product even more attractive, while giving our domestic producers a free pass on meeting competition. This continued until the disparity in the respective products became so great that the pressure to reduce tariffs swept through Congress to the detriment of the domestic producer.

Just like protectionist tariffs harmed American buyers, forcing higher prices. A wall or fence or more border guards will cause Americans to pay higher prices than is available for labor, and will have the same effect.

If you ask the question, “What is it that makes a rat-trap anything other than just a piece of wood and some wire?” Make sure the opposition still wants to limit immigration after we have removed all the cheese.

My own unique approach is based on my interpretation of the Declaration of Independence. I take the Declaration as the Mission Statement of the US Government. To paraphrase it, all humankind has the right to move about the planet in “pursuit of happiness”. Therefore, the National government does not have the authority to limit immigration. States, on the other hand, can put limitations on immigration. This step would answer the question as to whether immigration is a net gain or a net loss. I believe the Mexicans with marketable skills would migrate to the states that provide opportunity, and the RATS would migrate to the States that provided the cheese, and the US would get a huge lesson in “cause and effect”.

Lastly, when I hear someone say, “But we are a nation of laws, I am not against legal immigration, if they would just follow the LAW.” I have this powerful urge to ask that person, “If a law were passed that made stupid a crime would you turn yourself in for prosecution?