Let’s consider each amendment in turn.

The First Amendment says that “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.” Government officials, however, have insisted that they can gag recipients of “national security letters” and censor broadcast ads in the name of campaign finance reform.

The Second Amendment says the people have the right “to keep and bear arms.” Government officials, however, make it difficult to keep a gun in the home and make it a crime for a citizen to carry a gun for self-protection.

The Third Amendment says soldiers may not be quartered in our homes without the consent of the owners.  This safeguard is one of the few that is in fine shape — so we can pause here for a laugh.

The Fourth Amendment says the people have the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. Government officials, however, insist that they can conduct commando-style raids on our homes and treat airline travelers like prison inmates by conducting virtual strip searches.

The Fifth Amendment says that private property shall not be taken “for public use without just compensation.” Government officials, however, insist that they can use eminent domain to take away our property and give it to other private parties who covet it.

The Sixth Amendment says that in criminal prosecutions, the person accused is guaranteed a right to trial by jury. Government officials, however, insist that they can punish people who want to have a trial—“throwing the book” at those who refuse to plead guilty—which explains why 95 percent of the criminal cases never go to trial.

The Seventh Amendment guarantees the right to a jury trial in civil cases where the controversy “shall exceed twenty dollars.” Government officials, however, insist that they can impose draconian fines on people without jury trials.

The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishments. Government officials, however, insist that a life sentence for a nonviolent drug offense is not cruel.

The Ninth Amendment says that the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights should not be construed to deny or disparage others “retained by the people.” Government officials, however, insist that they will decide for themselves what rights, if any, will be retained by the people.

The Tenth Amendment says that the powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states, or to the people. Government officials, however, insist that they will decide for themselves what powers they possess, and have extended federal control over health care, crime, education, and other matters the Constitution reserves to the states and the people.

Thank goodness we still have Amendment #3! The Cato Institute also posted a little video as well:

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Is there still a Bill of Rights?

The recent meeting of the Austin Airport Advisory Commission to discuss the upcoming installation of “Advanced Imaging Technology” (AIT) at Austin-Bergstrom International Airport has prompted me to revisit some of our earlier reporting about these devices. Reviewing our previously posted article, I found that, at least for the time being, the Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune’s news report was unavailable. It was time for some hunting…

TSA officials were scheduled for an early morning panel hearing of the House Oversight committee on March 16th – and they didn’t show up. They rescheduled for early afternoon and then testified before the committee.

The Hill reported on the subcommittee hearing that Rep. John Mica (R-FL) called the TSA’s scanners “thoroughly useless.”

"The equipment is flawed and can be subverted," House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman John Mica (R-Fla.) said. "Our staff has subverted it. (TSA Administrator) Pistole said ‘GAO is very clever.’ Well what the hell does he think a terrorist is?"

The Hill covered the hearing very well, but much more was said that they did not mention about the scanners. John Mica in particular had biting criticism for the TSA’s scanning technology. You can watch the entire hearing on Youtube (more links here).

During the 29th minute of the linked Youtube video, you can hear Rep. Mica say that the Government Accountability Office report he had commissioned described the “extensive failure rate” of the AIT systems. I tried to track down any reference to this report at the GAO’s website to no avail; apparently it is still classified.

Mica also lambasted the deployment plan for the AIT systems saying, “The initial deployment of portals [security checkpoints with AIT] was a joke,” and “Even a seventh grader could come up with a better plan.” 

Even though Mica was one of the original House members to help establish the TSA, this is not his first time to take a shot at the TSA’s monstrous activities. He has repeatedly called upon the GAO to examine their policies and has routinely called attention in the media to their incompetence. In a press release issued in June of 2010, Mica said, “TSA’s failure to complete these critical risk assessments further demonstrates this bloated bureaucracy’s inability to respond effectively to the nation’s transportation security demands.  Even with more than 7,000 supervisors and administrative staff across the country and over 1,000 more in Washington, GAO confirms they can’t seem to get it right.” A month before Mica called for a complete reorganization of the TSA once again (even though they went through five administrations in the previous five years).

Here are some of the links to GAO reports that ought to disturb you to no end. All were either commissioned by Mica or recommended by Mica in the March 16th, 2011 hearing.

• Homeland Security: Better Use of Terrorist Watchlist Information and Improvements in Deployment of Passenger Screening Checkpoint Technologies Could Further Strengthen Security (http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-401T)
• Aviation Security: TSA Is Increasing Procurement and Deployment of the Advanced Imaging Technology, but Challenges to This Effort and Other Areas of Aviation Security Remain (http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-484T)
• Aviation Security: DHS Has Taken Steps to Enhance International Aviation Security and Facilitate Compliance with International Standards, but Challenges Remain (http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-238T)
• Transportation Security: Additional Actions Could Strengthen the Security of Intermodal Transportation Facilities (http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-435R)

Again, the most important report that shows the TSA’s blatant disregard for safety standards and human rights has been hidden from us. We know it exists, watch the video of Mica.

Time and time again, we see that the TSA is a joke and a fraud, and the joke is on us for accepting their word for anything of value at all. Further, they clearly make the Federal Government’s claims about the major threats of terrorism look more and more like a joke every passing day, even while they force us to be exposed to radiation or get groped if we refuse. Why trust these phonies?

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

The “Extensive Failure” of Full Body Scanners and the Politics Behind It

Active Christians need an objective in carrying out their civic duty. In America, Christians need to have a vision of what an ideal republic would look like, along with some specific objectives of social transformation in order to achieve that republic. A fallen world can be improved by a Christian’s efforts, but his efforts need to be focused.

In terms of political activism, a useful starting point for thinking about ideals is facilitated by considering society without any political structure, as well as considering the actions of fallen men in establishing it. The natural state of society is anarchy —not in the sense of untrammeled chaos but in the sense of having no established civil authority. Yet the sinful tendencies of men have led them to create states— parasitic power structures that devour social order and bring chaotic social conditions. As bad as society under anarchy may be it is always preferable to life under a state.

Therefore, Christians must be active in promoting a limited government that improves the social conditions that exist under anarchy. But they must also help to develop the means to check the power of government so that this predominant social apparatus is not transformed into a virulent and lethal state. They must establish institutions that secure and guarantee fundamental rights through the collective self defense of limited government, the strict application of the rule of law, and completely free markets.

Jury nullification is one such method for American Christians — from the ordinary to the most sophisticated—to work out a proper civic duty. Through jury nullification Christians can apply God’s principles to criminal or civil cases and quash a wayward judge’s penchant or defy a foul decree of the legislative or executive branches. To promote this concept, the American Jury Institute was founded.

Their website candidly and lucidly states:(¹⁾ “Juries protect society from dangerous individuals and also protect individuals from dangerous government. Jurors have a duty and responsibility to render a just verdict. They must take into account the facts of the case, mitigating circumstances, the merits of the law, and the fairness of its application in each case…Jurors, as the representatives of the people, hold no personal agenda during any trial and most certainly not the government’s agenda(²⁾… and are, in fact, the only truly objective individuals in the courtroom. The role of our jurors is to protect private citizens from dangerous, unconstitutional government laws and actions.” By doing so, jurors react against tyrannical states.

The republic that Christians should vie for is one based on the need for reactive public policy.(³⁾ Reactive policies are those policies which pertain to limited government: protection from predators foreign and domestic, seen and unseen (including hazardous microorganisms), and the establishment of law and order. Conversely, proactive policies seek to change or restrict the behavior of people or to redistribute social wealth via welfare state programs or by granting monopoly privileges to business interests.

What exactly does it mean to have a republic limited to reactive public policy? Local criminal courts, along with an appeals system, a military and some police forces to protect us from predators, a health department to combat epidemics, a statistics and elections section, some apparatus for engaging foreign policy including a consular system, border control, and passport issuance would be all that is required. A federal court system would deal with constitutional and inter-jurisdictional matters. The sheriff and judges from each county would be the highest civil authorities to ensure domestic tranquility. All other modern state functions would be privatized.(⁴⁾

Having this kind of republic also means the elimination of proactive policies: welfare and poverty programs, Social Security, federal grants, public education, agriculture, homeland security, borrowing, empire-building, foreign aggression, and wage and price controls. There would be no regulation of business whatsoever. There would be no state-granted monopoly privileges for business interests: tariffs, patents, copyrights, licenses, or permits. All welfare would be performed by private charities and churches.

Consequently, taxes would be very low and almost entirely indirect and voluntary through lotteries and use fees. There would be no need for payroll deductions or income taxes. Real property would be fully allodial(⁵⁾ or absolute with no property taxes, regulation, or eminent domain. Government would have few tasks and society would have greater peace and prosperity as a result of individuals enjoying more liberty. People would also have greater personal responsibility for their own actions and would thus have to help ensure that the rights of others are not violated. This ideal or vision of civil society, paring off some 90% of the current behemoth state (and the proportionate amount of taxes it requires), is what Christian activists should contend for as their proper civic duty. And with such clear objectives in mind Christians can effectively work to improve this fallen world.

⁽¹⁾ See http://www.fija.org/ and http://www.americanjuryinstitute.org. Their mission is: “to inform all Americans about their rights, powers, and responsibilities when serving as trial jurors. Jurors must know that they have the option and the responsibility to render a verdict based on their conscience and on their sense of justice as well as on the merits of the law.”

⁽²⁾ The site also adds: “Let us not forget that the prosecutors, judges, arresting officers—and the forensic investigators in most cases—are all a part of and receive their paychecks from government, with personal power bases to build and personal careers to protect through the ‘productivity’ of successful prosecutions resulting in convictions. Jurors have no such stake in the outcome.” Plus, “The recognition of the authority and right of jurors to weigh the merits of the law and to render a verdict based on conscience, dates from before the writing of our Constitution, in cases such as those of William Penn and Peter Zenger. Should this right ever be suppressed, the people will retain the right to resist, having an unalienable right to veto or nullify bad and oppressive laws, and in fact then would be morally compelled to do so.” And, “Many existing laws erode and deny the rights of the people. Jurors protect against tyranny by refusing to convict harmless people. Our country’s founders planned and expected that we, the people, would exercise this power and authority to judge the law as well as the facts every time we serve as jurors. Juries are the last peaceful defense of our civil liberties.”

⁽³⁾ Jury nullification is one of the main means that Christians have to achieve predominantly reactive public policy. Christians may also participate in voting, local political meetings, letter-writing to congressmen, liberty-advocating political action committees, and drives to petition government for a redress of grievances are other means of attaining and retaining reactive (rather than proactive) public policy.

⁽⁴⁾ State functions to be privatized include building inspectors, public works projects (e.g., roadways, bridges, railroads, and dams), civil procedure, marriage and divorce, product safety, mining, space exploration, transportation and occupational safety, securities and insurance markets oversight, controlling banking and the nation’s money supply, national parks, food and pharmaceutical grading, institutional accreditation, medical and disability insurance, small business development, postal services, firefighting and most policing services, and retirement savings (e.g., Social Security) plans.

⁽⁵⁾ For further discussion of allodial property and allodial policy, see John M. Cobin (1997), Building Regulation, Market Alternatives, and Allodial Policy (chapter 4, “An Overview of American Allodialism”) and John M. Cobin (1999), A Primer on Modern Themes in Free Market Economics and Policy (chapter 15, “Allodialism as Economic Policy”), both published by Alertness books.

Originally published in The Times Examiner on November 2, 2005.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

The Christian’s Political Objective

All Christians should be activists, although what each individual Christian decides to do politically should be left to the liberty of his conscience. Christians can make a difference through many means, such as petitioning the government for a redress of grievances, voting, participating in public meetings and informational lectures, writing to elected officials, and participating in jury duty. All of these activities are costly to Christians, not only in terms of incidental expenses incurred but also in terms of time. Accordingly, engaging in some political activities might seem to make no sense—at least theoretically—unless we begin to view them in a different light.

For example, voting is always futile in the sense that there is virtually no chance that any individual vote can change the outcome of a major election. The expected cost exceeds the expected benefit. Yet voting makes more sense for a Christian activist once other accrued benefits are considered. Economic efficiency is reached when the benefits of activism are elevated in our minds through exalting the importance of spreading the truth, standing up for principles, and transforming our society by heralding the fundamental rights that America’s Founders held dear. To the extent that voting can help accomplish these things or encourage virtue it becomes a net benefit to a Christian (i.e., the benefit exceeds the cost).

Of course some political action remains out-of-bounds. For instance, Christians should generally not be involved in working for immoral state bureaus including welfare distribution, public education, and agencies that defy fundamental rights. By and large, Christians should not back any proactive policy either by working for a bureau that implements such policies or by voting for their creation or extension. The same restriction applies to working for or patronizing most public enterprises and state-run industries.

Nevertheless, Christians have warrant to exercise political rights when it is expedient to do so. The Apostle Paul used his political clout as a Roman citizen both when he employed his rights and when he “appealed to Caesar” (Acts 16:37-38; 22:25-26; 25:11; 28:19). Christians may thus likewise make use of political means to declare and affirm that the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and property (or the pursuit of happiness) are fundamental rights,(¹⁾ derived antecedent to the existence of the state. They can advocate that the state does not grant such fundamental rights. On the contrary, the primary reason that government is formed is to protect these rights. The American Founders clearly understood that no man holds his fundamental rights at the pleasure of the state.

Christian activists should work to spell out these fundamental rights in particular. First, all human beings share equally in the right to life, and the state may not abridge the right to life of any particular human being (or class of human beings) “without due process of law” and subsequent conviction of a capital offense. Second, all human beings share equally in the right to liberty, and the state may not forcibly enslave, conscript, or incarcerate a human being “without due process of law” and subsequent conviction of a crime. Third, all human beings share equally in the right to hold and enjoy property, so long as their pursuit of happiness does not infringe upon the rights of others, and the Constitution prohibits government from taking private property “for public use, without just compensation”.(²⁾

Since Christians are required to “overcome evil with good” (Romans 12:21), they should be at the forefront of the battle to save their fundamental rights from being taken away by the wayward state and its evil policies. Accordingly, American Christians might choose to organize or participate in First Amendment protests to that end. They might also “break the law” in order to preserve life. (A strong case can be made from Proverbs 24:11-12 (3) that justifies abortion clinic protesting with groups like Operation Rescue.)

And here’s another biblically-based maxim apropos to Christian social conduct: The truth is never owed to a criminal. Accordingly, any statute requiring the disclosure of privileged information may be violated by Christians in order to prevent the state from committing crimes. If a robber enters your home and demands to know if you have any gold you do not have to tell him the truth. If Hitler’s men ask you if you have any Jews you do not have to tell them the truth. If an extortive taxing authority that accomplishes evil policies hopes for voluntary disclosure of your earnings (that you can avoid by some means), you do not have a duty to tell them the whole “truth” about your income.

The taxpaying requirement set forth in Romans 13:6-7 refers to circumstances in which paying a tax is demanded by the state on-the-spot, and where noncompliance would inevitably expose a Christian to facing the state’s “wrath” — not to mention cause him much anxiety. Note that Jesus Christ was not worried about His tax liability (Matthew 17:27), even though (being God) He knew it existed. He might even have opposed paying taxes (Luke 23:2). He certainly manifested no qualms over avoiding taxes.

Christians overcome evil with good by proclaiming the truth and living a life that glorifies the Lord. On occasion, being valiant-for-truth involves exercising political rights or even breaking the state’s rules. Yet God is honored as Christians spread goodness and expose or cast out evil state policies.

⁽¹⁾ These rights are set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Fifth Amendment (Bill of Rights) to the Constitution.

⁽²⁾ Such public uses include highways, dams, bridges, government office buildings, military installations, and similar public projects. Other uses such as increasing local tax revenues, clearing urban blight, removing church buildings, promoting urban development, and similar proactive “public interest” or “public welfare” schemes are not contemplated in the phrase “for public use”. The phrase “just compensation” refers to market value based on comparable properties, and would not preclude the government from paying relocation expenses. Of course, such loopholes are constitutional matters, but in terms of a Christian ideal there should be no eminent domain policy at all. If the government needs real property for some project then let its bureaucrats go to a realtor like other people do. Christian activists might shoot for the ideal of eliminating eminent domain. At the same time, they might fight to at least preserve the constitutional restrictions, in light of the dangerous popular “living interpretation” of modern courts.

⁽³⁾ Proverbs 24:11-12: “Deliver those who are drawn toward death, and hold back those stumbling to the slaughter. If you say, ‘Surely we did not know this,’ Does not He who weighs the hearts consider it? He who keeps your soul, does He not know it? And will He not render to each man according to his deeds?”

Originally published in The Times Examiner on October 26, 2005.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

The Christian and Political Activism

Thank you for this opportunity to speak to you tonight, it is my honor to address such an esteemed group of people whom I can truly call my friends in the struggle for liberty. What I’d like to do tonight is tell you the story of our battle against the TSA: how it began, the opposition we faced, and why we gained a victory despite not getting a bill passed.

Everything began in the fall of 2010, when two public trends began to catch my attention. First was the increasing rate at which the TSA was subverting our civil liberties and right to travel through the x-ray and millimeter wave scanners. Second was the growing interest in the principles of nullification. So, having already developed a rapport with newly elected representative of the Lockhart area of Texas, David Simpson, we launched a conversation. Little did we know where it would take us.

I started with this: “What do you think about giving the TSA a swift kick in the rear?”
He said, “Tell me more…”
And so it began.

We formed a team of activists from all over Austin and beyond to formulate our strategy, research the issues, design the bills, get the word out, and build a coalition of groups to make this issue HUGE. We had students, lawyers, aids, web gurus, politicos and more involved with the singular goal of building our case against the TSA and getting the Texas government to take action.

By the start of the legislative session we were almost ready. We wrote a bill altering the statutory law regarding sexual assault to ban invasive patdowns. We wrote a bill that banned the full-body scanners straight away. We wrote a resolution outlining the legal precedent for stopping these searches, so that prosecutors would have a clear guide to exactly how the Texas and United States Constitutions defended our positions. All of these bills were team efforts, the guiding hand of many could be seen in each one.

All the while, grass-roots activists were building momentum as well. A huge coalition of groups from the entire political spectrum joined together as a chorus of voices, including We Are Change Austin, the Republican Liberty Caucus, multiple county-level Republican parties, the Libertarian Party of Texas, Texans Uniting for Reform and Freedom, various Tea party groups, the American Civil Liberties Union, and of course Texans for Accountable Government. I don’t know of any issue in recent memory that has brought such a strange and diverse group of political groups together.

New strategies for spreading the message were developing that seriously surprised me as well. Morgana Gallaway, Jerri Ward, and others developed presentations to give to local service groups and community groups, like Rotary Clubs, the Austin Breakfast Club, campus groups, and more. They would attend their meetings and talk to them about the principles of freedom in the context of the ever-creeping tyranny of the TSA, and what they could do to resist peacefully. Through their efforts, many friends were made to our cause, and influence and credibility in the Austin community was won. I encourage us all to look to these kinds of opportunities in our future endeavors.

The activity on the internet was unparalleled, and I’m not sure I’ve seen any single issue that has quite matched the furor in recent years. A few examples: TSATyranny.com delivered critical updates about the latest abuses of the TSA, informing the public here in Texas and beyond. Wesley Strackbein’s work is superb and deserves great credit. SupportDignity.org was a great hub of information about the bills and other legislative developments. The LoneStarReport kept up with the breathtaking pace of the news better than almost anyone. A website I helped develop, StopAustinScanners.org, focused on educating people about TSA’s lack of standards and the health risks of the scanners themselves, and then finally activating people through a unique system I developed that allowed people to email the entire Texas legislature in one fell swoop. More on this later, but in short we were becoming a Statist’s worst nightmare.

None of these efforts went unnoticed. It didn’t matter where you looked, all over the country people were talking about the TSA in Texas. We were in the news constantly, from the Washington Post to the Orange County Register. We made the big headline of The Drudge Report no less than four times. But hilariously, the mainstream media seemed to keep asking themselves over and over again, “Can they even do this?”, as though they were wondering if mere peons could resist a Leviathan rising. And we answered confidently in their favorite politician’s own words, “Yes we can!”

Back on the legislative side, David Simpson was pouring everything he had into defending liberty in this issue and more. We were set back when the scanner bill and resolution got stuck in committees, but David did not lose heart. He worked tirelessly to build support for the legislation, bringing on over 100 co-authors to the original patdown bill. It whizzed through every house committee reading with unanimous support, and then it passed through the House by a unanimous voice vote. We were winning!

But on May 24th, the day the patdown bill was to be first read in the Senate, the insidious State struck back. The United States Department of Justice delivered a letter to the legislature threatening the State of Texas with legal action if they passed this bill:

“If HR 1937 were enacted, the federal government would likely seek an emergency stay of the statute. Unless or until such a stay were granted, [the] TSA would likely be required to cancel any flight or series of flights for which it could not ensure the safety of passengers and crew.”

Basically, the Federal Government threatened to make Texas a no-fly zone if they could not sexually assault us in order to “ensure our safety.”

During the hearing, Senator Dan Patrick, one of the Senate bill’s sponsors, defended HB 1937 and denounced the DOJ’s actions as insulting. Patrick, taking a great line from Texas history, called this a “Come and Take It” moment in front of the entire Senate.

Unfortunately, the Senate was spooked by this new involvement from Washington. The bill was not voted on that hearing. But we did not stop. Instead, we leapt into action once again and used the momentum we had for a HUGE surge. We pushed the “Come and Take It” Moment everywhere, especially at StopAustinScanners, and supporters from all over the US began using our site to deluge the Senate with emails. In a mere two days, over 1500 people used our email forms, resulting in over 30,000 emails sent to Texas Senators, and uncountable phone calls and faxes.

This push, and Rep. Simpson’s incredible effort, were a few of the major reasons for the continued support of the bill by an overwhelming majority of legislators. Eventually, the bill was placed on the agenda for the special session. But despite our best efforts, the machinations of the party leadership — Speaker Strauss, Lt. Gov. Dewhurst, and Gov. Perry — managed to thwart the passage of the patdown bill. As they have in the past, these corrupt individuals showed their true allegiances once again — demonstrating to the public that the State is not to be trusted.

Now, what have we learned from all of this. Let me sum up this story first by saying that despite not getting a bill passed, this is still a victory to be celebrated. We have sent serious tremors through the system, and we have yet to see where they will resonate in the future.

Practically speaking, this was one of our first forays into the legislative process for many of us, and boy did we learn a lot about that process. One of things we learned is that we were actually quite fortunate to get a bill in at all. Because of the relative shortness of the legislative session, most of the time the preparatory work for bills is done LONG before the session even starts – as in the summer before the session. We now know that we need to work out our agenda incredibly early and be ready to hit the ground running on the first day of the session.

Second, we learned what it takes to move a legislature. We need a friend in the legislature to get things done, and we need to learn to take cues from him or her as well. Without David, this issue would have gone nowhere. Also, we now know how to build web structures that activists can use to spread the word farther than before. From StopAustinScanners, we now have a baseline of the tons of data from our email projects that can help us understand what moves the legislators. We can gauge public support and know how effective we are at spreading the word at any given time. I anticipate that we will use this powerful tool to great advantage in the future.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, I want us to remember that the meta-issues are just as important as the legislation efforts. What is a “meta-issue”, you ask? It is the principle of liberty we want to convey to everyone as we publicly take on the State. Our goal is not merely to get a law changed, but to change the hearts and minds of the people. This is why we build coalitions, and demonstrate, and give presentations. This is why I wanted to take on the TSA in the first place, it is a wedge issue that everyone could get behind. And in the process of getting behind the issue, we can hold high the banner of principled liberty and win them over.

In the spirit of Murray Rothbard (and of loose quotations),

We are out to build a movement of knowledgeable libertarians, of men and women who will be deeply committed to hard-core libertarian principle.

We build single-issue coalitions where the issue advances the cause of liberty, like the TSA. In this way, our effectiveness will be multiplied, and the consciousness of our allies will be widened to see the consistency and merit of the broader libertarian perspective.

This strategy is of course a long-range one, but it is the only one that can possibly succeed. There are no shortcuts, no quick victories, it IS about thoughtful application of principle.

So, think about the things that made our efforts a success, ask yourself which tactics worked and which didn’t. Obnoxious slogans yelled through a megaphone? Or, carefully coordinated efforts built by us to share a new vision of liberty.

You made this work by deciding that making friends was more important than merely making a ruckus. Our chorus of voices made the message heard.

To conclude, let me offer one final word of encouragement. Consider for a moment the fight that State gave us. On our first attempt, it took a corrupt Lt. Governor, a corrupt Speaker of the House, a corrupt Governor, and the entire US Department of Justice to stop us, and yet we still won in the court of public opinion. Imagine what we can accomplish when we come back for round two.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

The Texas TSA Bill Story – What Really Happened

Perhaps I am just an idiot, but I would never have thought that this event would be covering the news with joyous jubilation in the way that it has. Hardly a sober consideration has crossed my computer screen via Facebook, Twitter, or otherwise. Even Chris Preble of the generally libertarian Cato Institute begs to differ:

“All Americans celebrate the news that we have been waiting to hear for over nine and a half years: Osama Bin Laden is dead. The operation that resulted in his demise is a credit to the prowess and professionalism of the men and women in our military, and our intelligence and law enforcement agencies. All Americans — and the world — owe them a huge debt of gratitude.”

Really? A debt of gratitude? For cleaning up one dirty spot amidst the colossal mess they themselves created? No way. Bin Laden was hardly a threat to me personally. If he was a threat to anyone, it was largely because of United States foreign policy to begin with. Instead of rejoicing at his death, perhaps the USA could consider the laws of cause and effect, reflecting on the concept of “blowback” from interventionism in other countries.

To make matters even stranger, the military buried Bin Laden at sea. What was the purpose? According to the White House, they wanted to bury him within 24 hours in accordance with Islamic customs. This seems somewhat ironic, since the military seems unconcerned about burials in accordance with Muslim tradition or anything else with the multitudes of innocent people who have died as a result of American interventionism.

On a different note, you’ve got to love how the timing of this event was near perfect. Certainly this will help Obama’s desperately low approval ratings. Make no mistake, he’s going to bring this up in the 2012 race. I can see it now…

Republican candidate: “I am tough on terrorism. We need a president who stops coddling terrorists.”
Obama: “Uh, I’m the one who caught Osama – remember how you guys failed to do that for ten years?”

Of course, Ron Paul would say: “Don’t forget, the CIA trained Bin Laden. He is a monster of our own creation.” Zing.

It looks like the Vatican has the best perspective on this deed:

“Faced with the death of a man, a Christian never rejoices, but reflects on the serious responsibility of everyone before God and man, and hopes and pledges that every event is not an opportunity for a further growth of hatred, but of peace.”

Truly, Bin Laden leaves a dark legacy in America, with wounds running deeper than 9/11 can approximate. We should not cheer or rejoice in this evil man’s death, but contemplate what has been lost in the meantime.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Should I be thanking God that Bin Laden is dead?

———

StopAustinScanners.org calls to action all supporters of civil liberties today!

There are two bills in the Texas House of Representatives right now that need our help. First, the bill proposing to ban body scanners (HB 1938) has the votes in committee to be moved to the floor, and likely has a supermajority to pass the house on its first reading, but it appears that it is being bottled up in committee under pressure from the speaker.

The "pat-down" bill (HB 1937) is currently tied up in the calendar committee for similar reasons.

We need YOU to do two things TODAY:

(1) Call and email the Calendars Committee and tell them to place HB 1937 (the “pat-down” bill) on the Calendar for a House vote.

(2) Call and email the Transportation Committee and demand for a committee vote on HB 1938 (the “scanner” bill) immediately!

Below, we have provided for you the names, phone numbers, and email addresses for the committees. It is ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL to do something TODAY. If you had time to read this email, you have time to email everyone on this list. You can even cut-and-paste the emails in the comma-separated list below so that you can email them all at once.

We also encourage you to use our fantastic Write Your Representatives Tool (http://stopaustinscanners.org/write/state-legislature/) at StopAustinScanners.org to email-blast every single representative and senator in the state of Texas all at once. Please take five minutes and use this amazing resource.

Calendars Committee:

• Todd Hunter (Chair)(REP) 512-463-0672, todd.hunter@house.state.tx.us
• Dennis H Bonnen (Vice Chair) (REP) 512-463-0564, dennis.bonnen@house.state.tx.us
• Dan Branch (REP) 512-463-0367, dan.branch@house.state.tx.us
• Garnet Coleman (DEM) 512-463-0524, garnet.coleman@house.state.tx.us
• Byron C. Cook (REP) 512-463-0730, byron.cook@house.state.tx.us
• Charlie L. Geren (REP) 512-463-0610, charlie.geren@house.state.tx.us
• James L. Keffer (REP) 512-463-0656, jim.keffer@house.state.tx.us
• Tracy O. King (DEM) 512-463-0194, tracy.king@house.state.tx.us
• Lois W. Kolkhorst (REP) 512-463-0600, lois.kolkorst@house.state.tx.us
• Eddie Lucio III (DEM) 512-463-0606, eddie.lucio@house.state.tx.us
• Allan B. Ritter (REP) 512-463-0706, allan.ritter@house.state.tx.us
• Eddie Rodriguez (DEM) 512-463-0674, eddie.rodriguez@house.state.tx.us
• Burt R. Solomons (REP) 512-463-0478, burt.solomons@house.state.tx.us
• Vicki Truitt (REP) 512-463-0690, vicki.truitt@house.state.tx.us
• John Zerwas (REP) 512-463-0657, john.zerwas@house.state.tx.us

Comma-separated email list for Calendars Committee: todd.hunter@house.state.tx.us, dennis.bonnen@house.state.tx.us, dan.branch@house.state.tx.us, garnet.coleman@house.state.tx.us, byron.cook@house.state.tx.us, charlie.geren@house.state.tx.us, jim.keffer@house.state.tx.us, tracy.king@house.state.tx.us, lois.kolkorst@house.state.tx.us, eddie.lucio@house.state.tx.us, allan.ritter@house.state.tx.us, eddie.rodriguez@house.state.tx.us, burt.solomons@house.state.tx.us, vicki.truitt@house.state.tx.us, john.zerwas@house.state.tx.us

Transportation Committee:

• Larry Phillips (Chair) (REP) 512-463-0297, larry.phillips@house.state.tx.us
• Drew Darby (Vice Chair)(REP) 512-463-0331, drew.darby@house.state.tx.us
• Dennis H Bonnen (REP) 512-463-0564, dennis.bonnen@house.state.tx.us 
• Yvonne Davis (DEM) 512-463-0598, yvonne.davis@house.state.tx.us,
• Allen Fletcher (REP) 512-463-0661, allen.fletcher@house.state.tx.us,
• Linda Harper-Brown (REP) 512-463-0641, linda.harper_brown@house.state.tx.us,
• George Lavender (REP) 512-463-0692, george.lavender@house.state.tx.us,
• Armando A. Martinez (DEM) 512-463-0530, armando.martinez@house.state.tx.us,
• Ruth Jones McClendon (DEM) 512-463-0708, ruth.mcclendon@house.state.tx.us,
• Joseph C. Pickett (DEM) 512-463-0596, joe.pickett@house.state.tx.us,
• Eddie Rodriguez (DEM) 512-463-0674, eddie.rodriguez@house.state.tx.us,

Comma-separated email list for Transportation Committee: larry.phillips@house.state.tx.us, drew.darby@house.state.tx.us, dennis.bonnen@house.state.tx.us, yvonne.davis@house.state.tx.us, allen.fletcher@house.state.tx.us, linda.harper_brown@house.state.tx.us, george.lavender@house.state.tx.us, armando.martinez@house.state.tx.us, ruth.mcclendon@house.state.tx.us, joe.pickett@house.state.tx.us, eddie.rodriguez@house.state.tx.us,

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Action Alert: Support measures to criminalize TSA abuses TODAY

This has also led me to begin the process of forming a “Frequently Asked Question” section of LCC, which you will see in the near future. In the meantime, if you have any burning questions on your mind and you want a plumbline libertarian, or Christian libertarian, answer, feel free to drop me a line using the Contact page.

The Question:

Where do you and other libertarian Christians stand on gay rights?  I assume you supported the repeal of sodomy laws before the Supreme Court declared them unconstitutional, but if you really support separation of religion and state (which I assume you do), do you also believe that the marriage license is a secular, nonreligious document and contract that should be available to same sex couples?  If not, why not?  And if not, what form of relationship recognition for same sex couples do you support?  In my view, your stand on this issue is really the chief indicator of where you and other self-described Christian libertarians really stand on the separation of church and state.  Thanks for your thoughts.

The Answer:

There are multiple issues at hand in your question, and I’ll try to address each as best I can.

(1) Where do libertarian Christians stand on gay rights? Homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else. Just as other libertarians have said, your rights do not change based on your sexual preference. Correspondingly, you also do not get special rights because you are homosexual. An individual or government cannot, for instance, force a minister to perform a wedding ceremony against his will. This is simply a re-statement of the non-aggression principle.

Had I the opportunity, yes I would have supported the repeal of sodomy laws before the US Supreme Court declared them unconstitutional. Any activity between consenting individuals should not be punitively punished by the state.

(2) Do libertarian Christians believe that the marriage license is a secular, non-religious document and contract that should be available to same-sex couples? Libertarians in general should not think marriage “licensing” is any better than occupation licenses, and are not within the purview of governmental power. If government has any purpose at all in this arena of life, it is to be a storehouse for consensually agreed upon contracts, of which Christian marriage or other arrangements such as those between homosexuals could be included. However, it is not up to the state to decide how to regulate such contracts.
Christian marriage is an institution of the church, not that of the government. Therefore, the government should have no power to tell churches what they can and cannot do regarding Christian marriage.

Similarly, it is not the right of Christians, regardless of their view of homosexuality, to tell others how they are to arrange their own consensual contracts. Therefore, if a homosexual couple wishes to file a contract and they want to call it a “marriage contract,” then that is their prerogative and I have no right to forbid them from doing so. If they want to call it a “civil union” instead, that’s fine as well. With regards to any tax benefits, of course I support any and all measures to reduce the sum total that the government steals from people, provided that spending is also reduced in corresponding measure rather than the shortfall being printed out of thin air. Taxation and government spending are always bad.

However, not forbidding certain behavior should not be conflated with not approving of certain behavior. Being permissive of lifestyle choices does not entail me agreeing that the lifestyle choice is morally right before God. Such non-agreement is my religious perspective, and thus cannot be used as a rationale to coerce others. To me, this is the essence of being socially tolerant: though I disagree with a behavior I shall not raise an aggressive hand against it. I would use a similar argument to defend any non-aggressive behavior even if I believed it to be wrong.

Most importantly, and I think this is the key point, all of this is only an issue not because of our lack of “separation of church and state” (though I certainly want the government out of the church, it’s far too corrupt) but because we have a state in the first place that constantly infringes upon our civil liberties. Power to regulate personal relationships in any way, including marriage, should never be given to the state. The beauty of the free society is that we can still live at peace with each other even if we do not agree with certain lifestyle choices that others make. What I am proposing in the above paragraphs is simply that restoring civil liberties involves getting the government out entirely.

Thus, there are differing levels to how Christian libertarians must handle this “rights” issue with the state we encounter today:

1. As it pertains to the United States, we should never condone the Federal government handling any kind of marriage issue. Such legislation would not be Constitutional. Instead, we should promote the elevation of individual rights always superseding the government.
2. At the state level, Christian libertarians should not support further government intrusion into marriage in general. This is unacceptable power given to the government. For example, I do not think it right for state governments to pass marriage amendments that either legalize or make illegal the practice of “gay marriage.”
3. Christian libertarians should, in general, support the recognition of all consensual contracts, including those of the “civil union” type. This is especially reasonable considering that any money the government does not steal is a good thing.

I imagine this view could garner much criticism from the Christian community at large, but I find it to be rational and I expect that any Christian who considers himself a libertarian would, upon careful inspection, find this argument to be rational as well.

Thanks for your email, let me know if I have been unclear in any way and I’ll try to rectify it.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Gay Rights, Marriage, and Government Intervention

Hey Jon, didn’t I promise you Bush 3.0? You may not be a libertarian now, but keep this up for long and you may end up, oh I don’t know, like John Stossel or Andrew Napolitano…

But I’m still curious, why do “conservatives” want to oust Barry? Seriously, he behaves exactly like Republicans should want: he gives corporate handouts, he passes socialized medicine (remember Bush’s “Prescription Drug Plan” plus some), he encourages education (No Child Left Behind!), and most of all he ratchets up every war effort possible. What’s not for a conservative to love?

Oh wait, I get it. He’s a Democrat stealing the thunder of Republican big-government programs. That’s why.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Jon Stewart Crushes Obama on Civil Liberties

When you were born, your parents or guardians gave you a name. At the same time (assuming you were born in a hospital), the government assigned you a number. Government actors view individuals as just that: faceless numbers. Many countries assign individuals an identification number so the government can track them from cradle to grave; the number is used to file taxes, seek public services and engage in financial transactions. Some countries have made a national ID card compulsory, such as Turkey. Some, such as Sri Lanka, even require individuals to carry them at all times. One government—Nazi Germany—even went so far as to tattoo a number on those it deemed undesirable to track them like cattle as they were sent to work in death camps. Here in the United States, the latest chapter in this saga takes the form of the REAL ID Act, passed in 2005. The Act mandates that state-issued identification cards and drivers licenses contain specific data about the person which will be accessible to the feds and other state governments via an interlinked database. REAL IDs will be required of you when you board an airplane or enter a federal facility Also, when issuing the ID, states are required to verify and store copies of each document that is presented as part of the application, such as birth certificates, immigration papers, and utility bills. Passed under the auspices of “protecting us from terrorists,” make no bones about it—it is a de facto national ID.

Why we oppose “REAL IDs”:

REAL IDs violate individual rights. You should be free to move about as long as you do not violate someone else’s rights. Even though the REAL ID act does not require you to obtain a REAL ID card (not yet!), if you want to travel by plane or enter a government building, you will need one. Also, when (if) you renew your drivers license you’ll be forced to upgrade. So, the REAL ID Act effectively violates your right to travel and your right to petition the government and raise grievances in face-to-face meetings with government officials and elected representatives.

REAL IDs do not provide greater security. The REAL ID requirement will not stop criminals and terrorists because they don’t obey laws! A REAL ID can still be forged, or obtained by bribing the bureaucrats issuing or checking them. Alternatively, terrorists could recruit people with valid REAL IDs to carry out attacks, or steal someone’s identity. Storing application documents electronically or physically, making cards machine-readable, and the creation of interlinked state databases will make identity theft easier. And it’s no secret that the government has a terrible record of preventing identity theft.

REAL IDs are a burden. The Act requires states to verify all documents presented as part of a REAL ID application. They will also have to make changes to their database systems, and hire and train new employees to deal with the workload. Consequently, billions of dollars will have to be expended to implement the Act’s provisions, which will be forcibly redistributed from individuals via taxation or application fees to enrich government contractors; initial estimates of the cost of implementing the Act range between $9.1 and $12.8 billion. This is one reason why many state legislatures have passed legislation expressing their unwillingness to cooperate despite the fact the Act took effect in the spring of 2008. Plus, the verification requirement also substantially burdens individuals who have no birth certificate and immigrants who cannot obtain passports from their country of origin’s government. Going to the DMV is a hassle now, but thanks to the REAL ID Act you will have to spend even more time there, facing longer lines and more bureaucratic problems to get your new REAL ID-compliant drivers license or state ID.

REAL IDs are a slippery slope. As our Public Choice friends have proven, the propensity of government is for it to continually expand. The REAL ID Act will facilitate further intrusions on individuals’ liberty and privacy. It is not farfetched to think that in the future the phrase “Your papers, please” will be commonplace. The Supreme Court opened that door when it stated, in United States v. Drayton, that “even when law enforcement officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may…ask for identification…provided they do not induce cooperation by coercive means.” Does anyone feel uncoerced in the presence of a uniformed, armed officer asking for identification? Further, the information government collects from you and stores in a central database as part of REAL ID will most certainly not remain the last information gathered about you.

Think of all the transactions for which you normally need to produce identification: working, opening a bank account, applying for credit, purchasing a phone contract, flying, renting a car, seeking medical attention etc. The government will almost certainly try to collect all that information as well. In fact, the feds have already made such attempts with the Total Information Awareness Program, which sought to link together databases containing transactional records, medical data, and physical information including fingerprint, scars, DNA and iris scans for easy government access.

Previous | Next | All Memes

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

I Am Not a Number