Tag Archives: indefinite detention

Why I am Voting For Ron Paul

Posted on by
Reply

With the presidential race well underway and Super Tuesday looming ever nearer, I felt it appropriate to share what has been on my mind for several months. First, I am a personal supporter of Ron Paul. I am not alone in this. A lot of people have come to see the reason in his ideas. However, many Americans will not cast a vote for Ron Paul, simply because they do not wish to “waste” their vote. Again, they agree with his message. The media has just convinced them that he is unelectable and they have accepted it.

This is not a sufficient reason to go against principle. Many who believe in Ron Paul’s message feel as passionate about the defense of the Constitution as they do towards their religious beliefs. Indeed, they are nearly inseparable. Our rights are God-given and protected by our governing document. Furthermore, if we are to preserve our religious freedom, it must be through the preservation of our Constitution. We have a government that is daring enough to suspend the right to trial and mandate that churches pay for medication that is diametrically opposed to that church’s beliefs. They seem to be backing off the Catholic church for now, but what assurance do we have that they wont try again? Religious freedom (or any freedom for that matter) can only be had by the promotion of the Constitution as the Founding Fathers intended. If that is the case, we can only support freedom by supporting the Constitution.

Perhaps you do not see this situation as I do–a time to either support the Constitution, or to abandon it and admit that there may be another way to save this nation. I am very much an absolutist. However, examining the other three candidates, I could not justify casting my vote for them even if I knew for certain that my first choice could not win the nomination. Most people feel that Romney is most likely to win. If voter fraud is any indication, the Republican party is certainly doing all they can to make him the candidate. But if he became the candidate and even won the presidency, what have we gained? I have yet to find a significant issue where Romney is at odds with President Obama. He told us all to our faces he would have signed away our right to trial with the NDAA (See my earlier article, “Romney’s Latest Opponent:Liberty.”). He has shown himself to be in favor of socialized medicine and he seems to support just as much war as the current administration.

Santorum claims to oppose socialized medicine and is more likely to do something about Obamacare than Romney. His voting record is pro-big government, though. He’s voted for bailouts, tax increases, etc. In terms of foreign policy, he is just as much a hawk as Romney.

Gingrich appears to have very little chance of winning the nomination at this point. His one good attribute is that he can debate well. If you are interested in his record, see “The Real Newt Gingrich” in the Current Issues tab.

Ultimately, there are three candidates that are very similar to our current administration. Ron Paul represents what many of us want, but we are told he can’t win–just like Reagan couldn’t win. Isn’t it worth the risk of “wasting” your vote to give it to the candidate that isn’t going to simply pick up where Obama left off? The greater risk is certainly giving it to the one the Republican party has chosen for you and hope he has your best interests at heart.

(Thomas Woods wrote a similar article to this. “26 Things Non-Paul Voters Are Basically Saying.”)

Communism in America: A Series – Private Property

Posted on by
Reply


The Communist Manifesto calls for the abolition of private property rights as its first plank. These rights are some of the most fundamental to maintain a free society and, without them, we are one step closer to Communism. This being said, it follows that we ought to understand what private property rights are and whether, in our day, they are intact.

We have an unalienable right to own property. This refers not only to land, a home and vehicle, but also to our own body and the work we preform with it. All of this is inherently ours and no one has the right to take it from us. In short, we have the right of ownership. It should be obvious that once we own something, we determine what we will do with it. If I desire to build a castle on my land, that is my prerogative. If I don’t want you, or anyone else on my land, that is also my prerogative. No one can walk on my property, or come into my house, or drive my car without my express permission. The only way I do not have a right with regards to my property is when I am using those rights to step on the rights of another. Your right cannot destroy the right of another person. That is when your rights stop. The right to property is the very root of every right we claim.

In modern times, our private property rights are trampled in a thousand different ways. I will take the time to address three.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM)-In New Mexico, the BLM attempted to acquire a massive amount of land, some of which belonged to rancher Walt Anderson. Before they could have it, though, they had to designate it ACEC (area of critical environmental concern). It’s a clever process. First, they send out what is known as a scoping letter. It gives the land owners a period of time (usually 30 days) to submit any questions, or comments regarding the redesignation before it happens. Most people, upon receiving such a letter don’t understand its importance until the time expires. At that point, there is little the landowners can do about it. If the landowners ask no questions and raise no concerns about it, BLM proceeds to designate the land ACEC. This restricts what landowners can use their own property for. In Mr. Anderson’s case, they intended to manage the land as “roadless.” He said that this would, in effect, classify the land a wilderness, making it unusable as a ranch. At this point, if landowners had refused to sell to BLM, they would have no choice. It would be useless to them and they would have to take whatever price the Bureau offered. Once the land is designated ACEC, selling to private entities is out of the question.

Mr. Anderson was able to win, for the time being. He got the local government involved as well as the soil and water conservation district. This, he says, is a vital step to beating the BLM. Many are not so fortunate. Landowners all over the country have lost their land, or the rights to use it as they wish. The BLM is only one of the agencies that does this. Others include ICLIE and the EPA. Together, these agencies undermine this fundamental right to own and use property.

Taxes-I will address the issue of unlawful taxation in a later article. The progressive tax is the second plank. Here, I will draw your attention to another power assumed by the government, because of taxation. Since we are talking about owning property, what is the definition of ownership? Is it reasonable to say that, once you have fully paid for a piece of property, that it is completely you own? Wouldn’t it be ludicrous to pay for something and then pay rent on it for the rest of your life? It would! What is the difference then when we buy property and then pay taxes on it so the government doesn’t take it from us? Is there any difference?

Like I said before, this article isn’t about taxes, but should we allow the government the right to seize the property we’ve paid for because of a tax?

The Patriot Act & Indefinite Detention-In the beginning of this article, we discussed the rights we have regarding our property. In the case of land, the landowner may deny entrance to anyone they wish. This includes law enforcement and any other appendage of government: members of the FBI, CIA, EPA, BLM, and any other bureaucrat with a fancy acronym has no right to be on your property unless you give them permission. Even then, we call that a privilege. The one and only exception is when they have probable cause and a search warrant signed by a judge. Legislature like the Patriot Act greatly undermines our fundamental property rights. The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) with the provision to allow indefinite detention is the latest offender.

With the government seizing such great powers as indefinite detention and even seizing private property, we can no longer sit back, confident that our liberty is safe. It is not. One day, the Constitution of the United States will be restored. It will not happen because of Washington. It will happen because the free men and women of this country started paying attention to the rights their government was snatching away. It will happen because a greater number educated themselves about what freedom ought to mean and then sought after it.

Our government is hard at work installing this, the first plank of the Communist Manifesto. Consider: how many of the other planks are already in place?

Romney’s Latest Opponent:Liberty

Posted on by
2

In the recent GOP debate held in South Carolina, we saw a few interesting events. The one I found most disturbing was Governor Romney’s answer to the question:

“When President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act into law, he enacted a provision allowing him to indefinitely detain American citizens in U.S. Military custody. … Governor Romney, as president, would you have signed the National Defense Act as written?”

Romney replied, without hesitation that he would have and that he believes that it is “appropriate in our nation to have the capacity to detain people who are threats to this country, who are members of Al-Qaeda….”

He went on to acknowledge that this power could be abused, but that he would not abuse it and does not believe that President Obama will abuse it.

Well, that’s comforting. Our current president, supposedly, will not abuse it and neither will one of the presidential candidates. What about after that? I was sort of hoping that America would still be around after that. We cannot give away rights like Habeas Corpus and simply trust that they will come back. Nor can we give such powers to a government that has shown itself to have little, or no regard for the Constitution.

It is appalling that a presidential candidate, claiming to be conservative, can tell the American people that Indefinite Detention is “appropriate.” First Romneycare and now this. Aside from the fiscal policy that we are all assured is conservative, what has he done to show us that he isn’t as much of a nightmare as Obama?