David Neff at Christianity Today wonders if an evangelical meeting to anoint a presidential candidate is a bad idea.

Three articles at Antiwar.com caught my attention this week: Who Wants War With Iran?, Blood On Whose Hands, and Another Reason Not to Go to War So Often.

William Grigg writes about the current crop of presidential candidates who think state murder is a “moral enterprise.”

I mentioned this article yesterday but I would like to highlight again Anthony Gregory’s piece on LRC about why the left’s excuses for not supporting Ron Paul are ridiculous.

Doug Bandow writes in the Huffington Post about that perennial question, Who Would Jesus Vote For? Should we even ask?

Ron Paul Schools Santorum:

I heard about Word Dynamo from my colleagues at UT, and I have to say it is super fun. If you enjoy wordsmith-ing around, you’ll love this site.

If you have interesting news you would like to share, make sure to post in the comments below!

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

News of the Week, January 15-21, 2012

In the field of Republican candidates sans Ron Paul, you essentially have a bunch of ideologically identical bozos. On all the issues that matter, they are essentially the same (or worse) than Obama himself. Take health care, for instance. Can any candidate, other than Paul, offer one piece of substantial evidence that they do not want to replace Obamacare with some form of Republicare? As the wise sage Yoda once said, “Size matters not.” Republicare may be a smaller version of Obamacare in the details, but never forget that in principle there is no difference.

The candidate’s positions on health care should be proof-positive that none of them care about the free market. Only Ron Paul has consistently defended the free market and demands that the federal government stop interfering in health care and otherwise. But there is more to the story.

Regarding taxation, the candidates (sans Paul again) completely miss the point. Of course they all want to cut taxes, this is the bread and butter of Republican rhetoric (other than pro-life language). But taxation itself is not the only variable in the equation. In fact, it doesn’t matter if you cut taxes without cutting spending, because any deficit incurred by the government is simply delayed taxation.

All candidates (sans Paul) advocate essentially the same kind of spending spree that Obama has been on the past three years, and Bush II for the previous eight. For what it’s worth, Barack Obama is essentially the continuation and logical conclusion of George W. Bush, and the current candidates (sans Paul) are in their essence the continuation and logical conclusion of Obama. Again, only Ron Paul has provided a plan to substantially reduce the actual size and scope of government power and to substantially reduce taxes in tandem.

So on these key issues, Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich are no different than Obama, and Paul is left standing. Why, then, do conservatives, and especially “conservative” Christians, avoid Ron Paul?

It probably has to do with their devotion to war. In that case, however, the conservative case against Obama must be abandoned. Every ounce of Obama’s dubious anti-war leanings touted during his campaign has been completely ripped to shreds, yet we still hear that Obama is “anti-military” for some reason. Christian warmongers should be proud of Obama.

Interestingly enough, if you want to see who troops support you should once again look to Ron Paul. Just as in 2008, military donors prefer Ron Paul over other candidates. Their second choice, interestingly enough, is Obama. What does the right – especially the Christian right – think that means?

Furthermore, I continue to be amazed at how much the right says they care about spending, yet turn a blind eye to the trillion dollar Iraq War and repeatedly call for military action against Iran. Which pocketbook do they care about?

On every issue of spending, the other three candidates are fundamentally and ideologically no different than Obama. Yet they still hate Obama.

On every issue of defense, the other three candidates are fundamentally and ideologically no different than Obama. Yet they still hate Obama.

On every issue of spending and defense that supposedly matter to Republicans, only Paul can lay claim to a realistic solution. On every issue that matters*, Ron Paul has been right and the other candidates wrong. Again, how can anyone claim a dime’s worth of difference between Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, and Obama? It certainly isn’t enough to write home about.

Yet “conservatives” and Christians still flock to crooks, liars, and at least one pathological adulterer. Why is this?

Wanting to get rid of Obama is fine, but don’t kid yourself. When you love war more than liberty, you will make crooked compromises. When you begin to truly appreciate what liberty means, I think you will find more than just your views on the free market changing.

This post was inspired in part by Anthony Gregory’s piece regarding the left on the LewRockwell.com Blog.

* One caveat: immigration. I am not 100% on board with Paul’s views on immigration, but they are still much better than anyone else in the field.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Weighing Political Planks and the Obama Dilemma

Jack Hunter reports in the Daily Caller that Rand Paul blocked an unanimous consent vote that could have had big effects:

Last week, while most senators were focused on the important national issues of war funding and Americans’ constitutional liberties, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) seemed more concerned with the fate of a foreign country. Behind the scenes, Rubio moved to have a unanimous consent vote that would have hastened Georgia’s entry into NATO. The unanimous consent vote never happened because Senator Rand Paul single-handedly prevented it.

This is not a triviality. Make no mistake: Bringing Georgia into NATO could lead to a new military conflict for the United States, which is why any move that would facilitate Georgia’s entry into the alliance should be publicly debated. Rubio’s attempt to push this through by unanimous consent — that is to say, without any formal debate or vote — is highly suspect and calls into question the senator’s better judgment.

You may remember that the small country of Georgia, which is on the border of Russia, nearly got the United States into a smoking conflict just three years ago. There is more information in the Daily Caller article and I recommend reading it. The American people are, for the most part, incredibly ignorant of foreign policy these days. I highly doubt that most could even find Georgia on a map, or even know that Georgia is a country at all. Nonetheless, this rogue government continues its imperialist ventures behind the people’s backs, ignoring the costs and building its hegemony day by day.

However, just reporting the facts in this blog post is only part of the point…

Rand Paul made a good move here, no doubt. But, we need to remember such events do not prove that politics is the be-all-and-end-all of the liberty movement as well. Rand, I am sure, knows that if the government wants a war, they can get one. The importance of Rand’s block is that it brings attention to the inner workings of the State. If the consent vote had gone through, hardly anyone would have noticed until another conflict was underway. Then, of course, boobus Americanus will fall in line, trusting that their deified overlords got it right just like they did Iraq, and Afghanistan, and Libya, and etc.

It is our job to expose the evils of the State, not “reform” them. Libertarian politicians like Rand and Ron Paul can only do so much to “fix” anything at all. Ultimately, the willingness of the people to turn a blind eye is what allows the State to thrive. We should take events like Rand’s vote as opportunities to talk to people, to teach them about liberty. Without changing the culture, any good a libertarian politician might accomplish has every possibility of being washed away the moment he leaves office.

I support Ron Paul, but it is up to us to carry things forward in the long run. I’m not Ron Paul, you are. Think about it.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Rand Paul may have prevented conflict with Russia, but what does it mean?

It has now come to light that, like the Commission that governed the American Mafia, the Obama administration has a secret panel of senior government officials that places the names of individuals on a hit list and then notifies Obama the capo di tutti capi. There is no congressional oversight or judicial review.

This very real death panel was behind the decision to add American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki to the hit list and take him out by CIA drone strike in Yemen last month.

The evidence that al-Awlaki actually killed anyone is nonexistent, unlike the following Americans who actually kidnapped, tortured, raped, and killed other Americans.

John Couey, a convicted sex offender, abducted Jessica Lunsford, aged nine, from her home in Florida in 2005, raped her, and buried her alive. He was tried, found guilty, and sentenced to death for kidnapping, rape, and murder. He died in prison before the sentence could be carried out.

Timothy McVeigh detonated a truck bomb in the Oklahoma City Bombing in 1995, killing 168 people. He was tried on eleven federal offenses, convicted, and sentenced to death. He was executed in June of 2001.

Charles Manson and his "family" committed the brutal Tate/LaBianca murders in California in 1969. Except for Linda Kasabian, who was given immunity in exchange for her testimony against the "family," Manson, Patricia Krenwinkel, Charles Watson, Leslie Van Houten, and Susan Atkins were tried for murder, found guilty, and sentenced to death. Their death sentences were commuted to life imprisonment in 1972.

Ted Bundy was a serial killer who confessed to murdering thirty people in seven states from 1974-1978. In Florida, he was charged with killing two FSU students and a twelve-year-old girl. He was tried, found guilty and sentenced to death. He was executed in January of 1989.

John Wayne Gacy raped, tortured, and killed thirty-three young men in Illinois between 1972 and 1978. He buried twenty-six of his victims in the crawlspace of his house. He was tried, found guilty, and sentenced to death. After spending fourteen years on death row, he was executed in May of 1994.

Jeffrey Dahmer killed fifteen young men between 1978 and 1991 after raping many of them. This was followed by dismemberment, necrophilia, and cannibalism. He was tried, and found guilty of fifteen counts of murder, and sentenced to fifteen life terms. He was beaten to death by a fellow prisoner in November of 1994.

None of these Americans – as reprehensible as their actions may have been – were executed without trial even though there was no doubt as to their guilt.

When Lee Harvey Oswald was suspected of killing the president of the United States in 1963, he was captured and held for trial before being killed by Jack Ruby, a private citizen.

And then there is Jared Loughner, who publicly killed six people and shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in the head in a shooting rampage in Tucson, Arizona, earlier this year. He is awaiting trial even though fifty people saw him commit murder.

Heck, even in wartime, if an enemy soldier – who may have been trying to kill you for days – comes out of the woods waving a white flag or raising his hands above his head, he is supposed to be taken prisoner, not killed.

And then, according to Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention, POWs are protected from the time of their capture until their final repatriation. And if there is any doubt as to whether an "enemy combatant" is in fact a legitimate POW, he is to be treated as such until his status can be determined. In Article 3 is prohibited "the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."

Twenty-four Nazis were put on trial in Nuremberg, Germany, from 1945 to 1946, for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Twenty-two of them were found guilty. Twelve defendants were sentenced to death by hanging, which was carried out in October of 1946.

Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann, who had escaped to Argentina, was captured by Israeli intelligence in 1960, taken to Israel, tried with defense lawyers and witnesses for both sides, convicted after deliberation, and allowed to appeal before he was hanged in 1962.

If the perpetrators of World War II and the Holocaust were tried before their executions, then any American who commits any crime should be tried likewise.

Was Anwar al-Awlaki a bad guy who inspired and motivated others to want to commit acts of terrorism against America and Americans? Certainly. Should he have been killed by a CIA drone pilot acting simultaneously as prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner? Certainly not.

The killing of an American citizen without trial sets a terrible precedent. As Congressman Ron Paul has well said: "If the law protecting us against government-sanctioned assassination can be voided when there is a ‘really bad American,’ is there any meaning left to the rule of law in the United States?"

Dozens of U.S. citizens are thought to be on the government’s hit list. Will you be next?

Originally published on LewRockwell.com on October 24, 2011.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Murder Inc.

You can see the full details of the plan here, or you can download a PDF. Here are some of the high notes:

Spending and Entitlement Programs

The Paul budget cuts $1 trillion in the first year of his presidency, including complete evaporation of the Departments of Energy, Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Commerce, Interior, and Education. Finally, a Republican who actually wants to abolish the wretched DOEs (both of them)! Ending foreign wars provides most of the cuts in this category. Spending returns to 2006 levels within a year (not enough, in my opinion, but a good start).

The plan provides for preservation of existing Medicaid and other welfare programs for the time being, but more importantly allows people to opt out! Considering that I no ZERO people, libertarian or not, who expect to receive a cent back from what they pay into Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security this is a godsend.

Taxes

Paul’s plan lowers the corporate tax rate to 15%, which is down from around 40%. The USA has one of the highest corporate tax rates out there and it is one of the many reasons for the declining industrial economy here. All of the Bush tax cuts remain (one of the few good things Bush ever did) and the Death Tax is abolished. Ends taxes on personal savings, allowing families to build a nest egg.

Regulation

ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank, and Sarbanes-Oxley will be scrapped, thank goodness. Not really a surprise, of course, because these monstrous regulatory devices are easily some of the most destructive mandates in recent years.  The report also says, “President Paul will also cancel all onerous regulations previously issued by Executive Order.” Hopefully by “onerous” he means almost everything.

Monetary Policy

The Federal Reserve, of course, will get a full audit, exposing the government banksters’ fraud and deception forced upon the world. Gold may not be made official money yet, but this is the best start you can hope for.

Conclusion

All this being said, as an abolitionist I would be remiss to point out that this budget does not go far enough, for three reasons. First, why are certain departments, like defense, seeing nominal increases in spending after the major cuts year on year? If the plan is to drill down the size of government, I wouldn’t expect to see any department or program see increases over the years. And no, I don’t think that inflation-adjusted numbers should count. I don’t get a raise just because my money is worth less, and neither should the government.

Second, unless I missed it then why on earth is the income tax not eliminated on day one? Has that not been a pretty important point of Paul’s message from the beginning? Would somebody correct me please?

Third, why stop here with the cuts? There are plenty more departments to eliminate, bureaucratic orgs to eradicate, and government waste to incinerate. Never rest on your laurels, strike the root! Now, I grant that, while comprehensive, this plan is not written on stone tablets. Ron probably would love to do more, but in such a publication as this you must nail down the essentials rather than write every detail you can. So, kudos to the Paul campaign for putting forward a good plan.

Again, you can check out the full plan here.

I hear there is another major money bomb coming up, called Black This Out. If you support this plan, perhaps you should consider donating?

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Ron Paul’s Plan to Restore America

Just as all the clowns aren’t in the circus, so all the Republicans aren’t in the 2012 presidential race.

I think that Mike Huckabee – former governor of Arkansas, ordained Baptist minister, 2008 Republican presidential candidate, host of the TV show Huckabee and the radio program The Huckabee Report, chairman of the political organization HuckPAC, widely sought-after public speaker, and bestselling New York Times author – made a wise political decision by not entering the 2012 presidential race. The Republican field is large, and the Democrats have the incumbency advantage. True, twentieth-century incumbents Bush Sr., Carter, Ford, Hoover, and Taft were defeated for reelection, but incumbents Bush Jr., Clinton, Reagan, Nixon, Johnson, Eisenhower, Truman, FDR, Coolidge, Wilson, and Teddy Roosevelt were victorious in their bid to return to the White House.

Although Huckabee is not a candidate this time (born in 1955, he is young enough to run in the next few presidential elections), I decided to review his book anyway because it emits the typical Republican hot air that we are hearing from the major Republican presidential candidates right now (except, of course, for the truth machine – Ron Paul).

The first thing I noticed about the book (aside from its high price – $26.95 for a 238-page, small [5.5 x 8.5] hardcover book), is that Huckabee and/or his editor[s] couldn’t decide when the book was actually written. In the introduction, Huckabee says that he is writing "in the fall of 2010." The introduction closes with "Mike Huckabee, October 2010." But on page 207, he says that he is writing "just a few days after the election" while six House seats "are still unconfirmed," which would be November 2010. We know that Huckabee finished writing the book before Congress voted to extend the Bush tax cuts (December 17), because he often refers to the tax cuts expiring and the tax rates going up in January of 2011.

After the introduction, the book has twelve chapters, an epilogue, acknowledgments, notes, and an index. Each chapter has a particular theme (family values, local government, taxes, spending and debt, health care, education, the environment, immigration, and faith in the future), except for chapters 9-11, which I call the warmongering chapters.

Most conservatives and libertarians would agree with many things that Huckabee says in chapters 1-8. Some conservatives and most libertarians would disagree with most of what Huckabee says in chapters 9-11. Chapter 12 is just fluff.

Huckabee disparages redistribution of wealth, public assistance, abortion, Obamacare, out-of-wedlock births, public employee unions, government debt and deficits, tax increases, the estate tax, and government stimulus programs. He talks about the Tenth Amendment and local government. He maintains that "states are increasingly enslaved to the federal masters." He wants Congress to "define all spending as discretionary." On Social Security, Huckabee even calls for raising the retirement age, cutting benefits, delaying payments to the elderly by giving them tax incentives to keep working, and offering those who don’t need Social Security the option of a tax-free, lump-sum benefit payable at their death to their chosen beneficiary in lieu of collecting Social Security benefits. On Medicare, he calls for raising the age of eligibility.

Yet, Huckabee falls short of labeling Social Security and Medicare what they really are – redistribution of wealth schemes that he condemns – and calling for their elimination. This is the problem with Huckabee and most Republicans and conservatives – they fall short, too short and too often.

So, out of one side of his mouth Huckabee can disparage the things he does, but out of the other side he can support government-funded school breakfasts, "the right of every citizen to a free public education," vouchers for Medicare recipients, elimination of the home mortgage interest deduction, the FairTax with its public-assistance, wealth-redistributing prebate, the Race to the Top federal program, a "reasonable deficit" of no more than 3 percent of GDP, and "hefty fines and prison time" for employers who choose to hire whom they wish.

I note also that Huckabee gives some dubious health advice on PSA tests, colonoscopies, mammograms, and cholesterol. (See LRC articles by Dr. Miller, Dr. Mercola, Dr. McDougall, and Bill Sardi).

The worst part of Huckabee’s book is, of course, the three chapters on terrorism, the military, and foreign policy. As mentioned previously, they are the warmongering chapters. Here Huckabee basically calls for perpetual war and defends drone strikes, the TSA, Guantanamo, a European missile shield, and preemptive war while disparaging Miranda rights, the Geneva Conventions, and FISA. Like he did in chapters 1-8, here Huckabee also talks out of both sides of his mouth. He says we should stay out of the Israel/Palestinian conflict but "provide Israel all the moral and military support she needs and deserves." So much for staying out of it. What Huckabee actually believes is that the United States "cannot give up on the wars in the Middle East until we’ve definitively finished the job there." Huckabee maintains that Bush "was only half right when he said that we have to fight them there so that we won’t have to fight them here." He says we should "fight them here, there, and everywhere."

The most disgusting statement in the book is found on page 176. With Huckabee being a Baptist preacher, one would think that he might call for missionaries to go to Iraq and Afghanistan and convert Muslims to Christianity instead of calling for U.S. soldiers to go and kill them:

We’ve had too many of our troops spending too much of their time painting schools and digging wells. They should be allowed to focus on killing Islamic extremists who want us all to die.

Mike Huckabee is a simple-minded warmonger; that is, he is indistinguishable from Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann. Although it would be sad if he ever ran for president again, even worse is the fact that millions of Christians would vote for him.

Originally published on LewRockwell.com on September 20, 2011.

You might not want to read Huckabee’s A Simple Government, but there are plenty of other great books out there for you. Check out LCC’s latest book list and the recently updated LCC bookstore, and support LCC by clicking through a link to Amazon.com. Thanks!

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

A Simple-Minded Warmonger

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

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Remember this during the next election cycle

I’ll be tweeting from @dougstuart during the debate, and we’ll be posting the entirety here at LCC once the debate is over.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

GOP Debate Liveblog tonight

Giffords was shot on January 8 in Tucson, Arizona, along with eighteen other people, six of whom died. After her brief trip to Washington, Giffords returned to Houston to continue her therapy.

Giffords was elected to Congress the first time in 2006. She took office on January 3, 2007. She was reelected in 2008 and 2010. She is the only member of Congress whose spouse is an active duty member of the military.

Although I wish her well and hope she makes a full recovery from her horrific head injury, I equally wish that she would stay home and not cast any more votes in Congress.

The following is a list of all the congressional appropriations that include war-related funding from the time that Giffords took office until the time she was shot:

• FY2007 Continuing Resolution, H.J.RES.20, P.L. 110-5, 2/15/07, $1.8 billion
• FY2007 Supplemental, H.R.2206, P.L. 110-28, 5/25/07, $98.7 billion
• FY2008 Continuing Resolution, H.J.Res.52, P.L. 110-92 9/29/07, $5.2 billion
• FY2008 DOD Appropriations Act, H.R.3222, P.L. 110-116, 11/13/07, $11.6 billion
• FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, H.R.2764, P.L. 110-161, 12/26/07, $73.2 billion
• FY2008 Supplemental Appropriations Act, H.R.2642, P.L. 110-252, 6/30/08, $163.2 billion
• FY2009 Continuing Appropriations Act, H.R.2638, P.L. 110-329, 9/30/08, $4.0 billion
• FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act, H.R.1105, P.L. 111-8, 3/11/09, $1.1 billion
• FY2009 Supplemental Appropriations Act, H.R.2346, P.L. 111-32, 6/24/09, $82.5 billion
• FY2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act, H.R.3288, P.L. 111-117, 12/16/09, $8.2 billion
• FY2010 DOD Appropriations Act, Title IX, H.R.3326, P.L. 111-118, 12/19/09, $127.3 billion
• FY2010 Supplemental, H.R.4899, P.L. 111-212, 7/27/10, $34.2 billion

With the exception of the smallest appropriation, $1.1 billion in the FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act, Rep. Giffords voted for all of these war-related appropriations. Judging from her voting record in Congress, I see no reason why she voted against this omnibus bill. It certainly wasn’t because she opposed the $1.1 billion in funding for war-related foreign operations of the State Department.

On the other hand, that champion of peace and nonintervention in the House, Rep. Ron Paul, voted against all of these war appropriations, with the exception of the first one, on which he didn’t vote.

I am often criticized for condemning U.S. soldiers for fighting unjust and immoral wars like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is the politicians that send our troops to war, I am told, that I should be criticizing. Although I refuse to exclude the troops since, after all, they are the ones doing the actual fighting, I have nothing but contempt for the architects of these wars, the president who instigated these wars, the president who continued these wars, the neocons who welcomed these wars, the conservatives who defend these wars, the Christians who support these wars, and the Congressmen who continue to fund these wars.

Every member of Congress – Gabby Giffords and every Democrat and Republican – who voted for the above and any of the other war funding has blood on his (or her) hands – the blood of thousands of U.S. soldiers who lost their lives fighting senseless foreign wars. (Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of foreigners killed by U.S. bombs and bullets, but what war supporter cares a whit about them?)

Although not as important as lives lost and ruined, appropriating taxpayer money on senseless and unnecessary wars is the height of fiscal irresponsibility. Any talk of cutting spending to reduce the deficit that doesn’t include cutting off funding for foreign wars is ludicrous. But of course, we are dealing with the U.S. Congress – one of the largest collections of crooks and creeps on the planet.

Originally published on LewRockwell.com on August 4, 2011.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Stay Home, Gabby, Stay Home