Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

It's Time for Substance

Recs

17

October 13, 2011 – Comments (11)

DavidKretzmann.com: In the 2012 presidential election corny phrases like, “Let’s get America working again,” or, “Jobs, jobs, jobs,” are passed off as well-reasoned statements. Is this how the American people want to be treated? Are we so shallow that we can’t even spend a little time to educate ourselves why the economy is in miserable shape, the dollar is continually devalued, and sensibly consider why the U.S. is seen as an imperialist state overseas? We are not dealing with minor issues; the bulk of the government as we know it is out of control, diminishing liberty domestically and abroad.

The federal government is now threatening to seize the property of individuals selling state-approved medical marijuana in California.

The federal government is preventing the sale and consumption of raw milk; even forcing dairy farmers to dump their raw milk rather than sell it.

An American citizen, after being placed on a CIA hit list, was assassinated by the federal government without any legal procedure before or after the assassination. So much for the due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.

Are we so naive to think that these are mere one-time abuses from the federal government? People are yearning to make their own choices, take responsibility of their lives, and bring true change to their communities, America, and the world as a whole. Yet what has the federal government done? It has prevented the peaceful exchange of products here in America, such as raw milk. It taxes us and expects us to pay for record debt and deficits accumulated by both Republicans and Democrats. The federal government taxes us, prints money through the Federal Reserve, and borrows funds from China to fund endless invasions and unconstitutional wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, and Libya.

People are fed up, yet somehow still expect redemption from politicians who promise to merely tinker around the edges. These politicians promise to maybe, someday, balance the budget. They promise that maybe, one day, the wars will be brought to an end. They promise that maybe, somehow, the Federal Reserve will stop manipulating the economy at the expense of the common people. How many times do we need to go around in circles before we realize that we need an intellectual revolution to change this notion that a bloated government knows best? How many more innocent lives need to be lost overseas before we recognize that our foreign policy is one of an authoritarian empire, not a constitutional republic?

Mitt Romney boldly states, “It’s time to focus on jobs. Let’s get to work.” Romney supportedthe TARP Bailout in 2008, but promises today that he would never support new bailouts of private institutions.

Herman Cain says, “It’s time to renew the U.S.A.” Cain’s “bold” 9-9-9 tax plan focuses on throwing out the current tax system, only to replace it with a corporate income tax, personal income tax, and a new national sales tax (all at 9%). Not to mention that in 2010 Cain stated an audit of the Federal Reserve was unnecessary.

Rick Perry ever so boldly states, “It’s time to get America working again.” It’s too bad the candidates can’t patent these masterful slogans. Let’s not forget that Perry also strongly urged Congress to pass the “economic recovery package” which was, of course, the TARP Bailout.

Ron Paul is the only candidate who stays principled and consistent regardless of which crowd he is speaking to. Paul tells the truth regardless of how it may impact his popularity. Isn’t it time that we recognize the value of such a presidential candidate? We cannot continue to dance around the fact that the U.S. is going broke due to an overextended foreign policy, unaccountable Federal Reserve, and domestic spending and regulation that know no limits. If we really want true change, we have to do more than chant, “Change!”

Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate who has the candor to treat us like adults and speak about issues of tremendous importance with far-reaching and revolutionary solutions. He does not speak in dumbed-down slogans; he does not slick up his speech to sound “presidential;” he simply tells the truth and stays principled in his beliefs. It’s time we support a candidate who’s primary focus is to uphold individual liberty and the rule of law.

“We’re going to be forced to make changes. There is no reason we can’t make positive changes. We can get out of this, but we have to change policy. We cannot do it with the same monetary policy, the same economic policy, and the same foreign policy… We don’t have a budgetary crisis, we have a crisis in our understanding of what the role of government ought to be.” — Ron Paul; 10/5/11

“At home the war on poverty, terrorism, drugs, or foreign rulers provides an opportunity for authoritarians to rise to power, individuals who think nothing of violating the people’s rights to privacy and freedom of speech. They believe their role is to protect the secrecy of government, rather than protect the privacy of citizens.” — Ron Paul

“Liberty built civilization. It can rebuild civilization. And when the tides turn and the culture again celebrates what it means to be free, our battle will be won. It could happen in our time. It might happen after we are gone from this earth. But it will happen. Our job in this generation is to prepare the way.” — Ron Paul

11 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On October 13, 2011 at 7:13 PM, APJ4RealHoldings (34.00) wrote:

Amen.

 

Report this comment
#2) On October 13, 2011 at 7:40 PM, devoish (97.30) wrote:

Without any legal proceding, before or after?

Good lord kid, you know better and you're going to repeat that crap anyway.

To quote the judge, 17 months before Aulaqi was killed.

Plaintiff offers no meaningful response to the fact that his son - an operational leader of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) - could avoid the alleged threat of lethal force at issue in this case by coming forward peacefully. Plaintiffs argument boils down to an assertion that Anwar al-Aulaqi should be entitled to the benefits of the Justice system without making any effort to access the courts on his own behalf.

It seems this Judge takes personal responsibility seriously.

Very sadly,

Steven

Report this comment
#3) On October 13, 2011 at 8:01 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

What judge?

David

Report this comment
#4) On October 13, 2011 at 8:09 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

Great stuff, David K.

I had an argument with fellow Fool Betapeg a while back.  I think awallejr was involved as well.  I asked when would they admit that America was on the slide toward a Police State.  I didn't even go so far as to ask when they would know that America had become a Police State (because of course at that point, it would be too late, right?)  I believe Betapeg said that when the government started killing American citizens without due process. 

Well, I'm sure like any good statist, he'd have a way to weasel out of that. (See Comment #2, for example.)

On the 10th anniversary of State Failure Day, (SFD is of course the day when 19 hijackers, 15 of whom were Saudi Arabian, outwitted the FAA, CIA, NSA, FBI, NORAD, and whatever other bureaucracies were charged with American safety), it was reported that somewhere in the range of 50 people were illegally pulled off American planes and detained without charges due to anonymous tips.

Not only was there no criminal activity to speak of, it became rapidly obvious to the bureaucrats that arrested these innocent Americans (4 hours is quick in Bureaucrat Time) that this was all a big waste of time.

Of course, none of these innocent Americans were allowed to face their accusers. None of them were allowed to contact their families.  All of them were subject to full body searches, the in depth kind you get at the prison yard.  All of them were treated inhumanely.  All of them lost their liberty.

And for some bizarre reason, this doesn't make me feel any safer.

David

Report this comment
#5) On October 13, 2011 at 11:09 PM, devoish (97.30) wrote:

 Enjoy some substance, something sadly lacking from your post.

The Court's conclusion that Anwar Al-Aulaqi can access

the U.S. judicial system by presenting himself in a peaceful manner implies no judgment as to

Anwar Al-Aulaqi's status as a potential terrorist. All U.S. citizens may avail themselves of the

U.S. judicial system if they present themselves peacefully, and no U.S. citizen may

-18-

Case 1:10-cv-01469-JDB Document 31 Filed 12/07/10 Page 18 of 83

simultaneously avail himself of the U.S. judicial system and evade U.S. law enforcement

authorities. Anwar Al-Aulaqi is thus faced with the same choice presented to all U.S. citizens.4

- Judge Bates

No honest Libertarian, not David in Qatar, not even Pencils2 can make the claim that Aulaqi did not get the same due process, or have the opportunity to avail himself of his 5th amendment rights under the US Constitution. Aulaqi refused his day in court and his due process, President Obama and the US Justice system did not refuse him.

Lying Libertarians are just as bad as any other lying politician. I don't feel safe when such liars seek the helm. 

Best wishes

Steven

 

Report this comment
#6) On October 13, 2011 at 11:49 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

Steven, 

Please tell me you voted for George Bush, that you never ever ever railed against his abuse of power.  Please tell me that you are at least consistently in support of authoritarianism.  Tell me you actually voted for John McCain.  I'll respect you more.

So who is Judge Bates?

Oh yeah, the guy appointed by George W. Bush to District Court.

I love it when Steven goes all neocon and shows us his true colors.  No wonder Steven didn't give us his name in the first comment.  He was embarrased that he had to stoop to parroting a Bush lackey to justify Obama's actions.  Classic!

So if I refuse to show up in court, the US government can assassinate me?  Hmm, my understanding of due process is a bit different than yours, Steven.

"From an authoritarian perspective, that’s the genius of America’s political culture.  It not only finds ways to obliterate the most basic individual liberties designed to safeguard citizens from consummate abuses of power (such as extinguishing the lives of citizens without due process).  It actually gets its citizens to stand up and clap and even celebrate the destruction of those safeguards." - Glenn Greenwald

http://www.salon.com/2011/09/30/awlaki_6/singleton/

I'll go with the real Progressive, Glenn Greenwald, on this one.  He's no warmonger like you.

David

Report this comment
#7) On October 14, 2011 at 7:18 AM, dbjella (< 20) wrote:

 devoish

After reading numerous blogs and comments from you it is odd that you support the assination.  He could have been a bad guy and probably was, but this smells bad.  But I wouldn't be naive to think the US gov't doesn't sanction these type of killings all over the world and it goes unreported.

Report this comment
#8) On October 14, 2011 at 8:40 AM, TMFPencils (99.79) wrote:

Hey Steven,

I appreciate your feedback. Why is the Administration refusing to submit the evidence it has against Aulaqi? You give the government the benefit of the doubt; I don't. David gave a great response to you that I look forward to seeing you address.

You seriously have no issue with the CIA having a hit list that includes American citizens? This is certainly not constitutional procedure.Why is it that you're supporting Bush's assassination policy being carried a step further with Obama?  

I am not a Libertarian, I am libertarian. I know I've told this to you before. Please respond to David's question: if an American citizen refuses to go to court, the government has the right to assassinate them? 

Feel free to address the other points regarding raw milk and medical marijuana as well. 

Best,

David 

Report this comment
#9) On October 14, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Schmacko (54.18) wrote:

If your raw milk video is in reference to the Rawesome food raids the milk was dumped because they were selling the milk without a permit and because it hadn't been inspected to see if it met the standard for public consumption.  Basically they were running an illegal operation.

The medical marijuana issue is that fed drug law trumps state drug law.  You might not like it and it might change in the future but for right now that's the way it is.  If you go into the medical marijuana dispensing business you do so running the known risk that federal authorities are within their current legal right to shut you down.

From a legal theory perspective the Anwar Al-Alwaki assassination is your best (maybe only real) example of legal civil liberties being infringed upon.  I know that's a big libertarian rallying point lately but I can't help feel that brining him up is really just preaching to the internet libertarian choir.  I think the vast majority of Americans just see a terrorist got killed, shrug, and then go about their day.  Meaning if the purpose of your blog is to actually try and influence non-libertarians into voting for Ron Paul I think you need better examples.  If your purpose is to get other libertarians to pat you on the back, well mission accomplished.

"if an American citizen refuses to go to court, the government has the right to assassinate them? "

This is a little dishonest since it tends to imply that if you miss your traffic court date you're up for assassination.  Which might be the slippery slope argument but obviously isn't what is implied by the ruling. 

The judge is saying the alleged terrorist obviously knows his been green lit and if he feels he's innocent he should turn himself in and go through the full blown due process that you feel he was denied. If he actually is a terrorist he obviously isn't going to turn himself in, he's going to take his chances.  The gray area would be a man who is innocent (or at least not as guilty as proclaimed) who just doesn't trust the court system to give him a fair shake and so takes his chances abroad.  If thats the case here he gambled and lost.

The reverse side of the argument you present is that an american-citizen terrorist would be free to commit what ever act against america he wanted without real fear of retribution as long as he/she hid out overseas.  In a lot of cases it's just not logistically feasible to send a special ops team just to go "arrest" someone.  Also there is a lot more risk involved with a boots on ground insertion than just dropping a missile on somebody.  If your argument is that assassination in general is wrong that is a moral debate and not a legal one. 

Report this comment
#10) On October 14, 2011 at 7:27 PM, devoish (97.30) wrote:

Dbjella, David and the Hopeless Politician,

All of the questions you raised, the concerns for me you expressed, I make pretty clear in Pencils2's post revealing libertarian hypocrisy. http://caps.fool.com/Blogs/the-hypocrisy-of-barack-obama/651514 

If you really want to read my answers to your questions please feel free to quote me as accurately as your integrity permits. I'll check back.

Post your questions, and copy the words you refuse to read from the earlier post.

Schmacko,

This post was not interested in anything but political power, you can probably save your fingertips. They have not yet even acknowledged the existence of a judge, or the trial. They wish to go on harping about liberty, but not the substance of what that liberty entails, as you did.

Best wishes,

Steven

Report this comment
#11) On October 16, 2011 at 1:55 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

Schmacko,

If your raw milk video is in reference to the Rawesome food raids the milk was dumped because they were selling the milk without a permit and because it hadn't been inspected to see if it met the standard for public consumption.  Basically they were running an illegal operation.

God forbid we are allowed to make free choices without a government bureaucrat giving us a license.  You write this as if it is perfectly sane to demand that a person needs a license to sell milk!  ROFL, think about this for a second.  Raw milk customers have been doing this for a long time.  There's not a raw milk customer that doesn't know what it means.  

It is actually insane to prohibit raw milk sales.  It's beyond bizarre.  Humans have been drinking raw milk for how long?  Raw milk from cows for about 5,000+ years?  

So this is the left and corporations become married.  The corporate powers push for these ridiculous anti-human laws that keep out competition, hire kept scientists that exaggerate the medical concerns, and then they get a bureaucrat to regulate it for our safety.  And the liberals eat it up.  It's quite ironic.

http://mises.org/daily/5692/The-Freedom-to-Buy-and-Sell-Raw-Milk

I can't believe we have to argue that one should have the freedom to sell milk. MILK!  But the state is insane and their supporters believe everything they say.

The medical marijuana issue is that fed drug law trumps state drug law.  You might not like it and it might change in the future but for right now that's the way it is.  If you go into the medical marijuana dispensing business you do so running the known risk that federal authorities are within their current legal right to shut you down.

Fed law does not trump state law.  I don't like it because it's not legal.  The individual States are sovereign.  Where do you learn this nonsense that Fed law is sovereign?  The Constitution and Federalist Papers are online.  You can read them anytime.

From a legal theory perspective the Anwar Al-Alwaki assassination is your best (maybe only real) example of legal civil liberties being infringed upon. 

This is nuts.  Wiretapping American citizens without a warrant?  Pulling Americas off planes on anonymous tips and giving them full cavity searches without due process is not illegal?  Runnign torture prisons?  

Wow, this dude is in serious denial.

I know that's a big libertarian rallying point lately but I can't help feel that brining him up is really just preaching to the internet libertarian choir. 

And what are you doing?

I think the vast majority of Americans just see a terrorist got killed, shrug, and then go about their day. 

So the majority is right?  Who cares what the majority of Americans think.  Either something is moral or it is not.  Either it is Constitutional or it is not.  Either it is philosophically sound or it is not.

Meaning if the purpose of your blog is to actually try and influence non-libertarians into voting for Ron Paul I think you need better examples. 

If these examples are not good enough, you are not worth convincing.  Go on your way.  Believe that the dollar is sound, that it never loses value, that the wise overlords only want to protect you.

In the words of Brittany Spears, "I think we should just trust our president in every decision he makes and should just support that, you know, and be faithful in what happens."

If your purpose is to get other libertarians to pat you on the back, well mission accomplished.

Snark.

"if an American citizen refuses to go to court, the government has the right to assassinate them? "

This is a little dishonest since it tends to imply that if you miss your traffic court date you're up for assassination. 

It's not dishonest.  That's actually what happened.  Seriously, you are slightly more intelligent than Spears.  What kind of shill are you?

OMG, I can't go on.

Schmako, is there anything the government has ever done that you thought was dishonest or immoral?  Because if you don't see anything right now, I have to wonder if you work in Washington DC.  They're the only people I've ever met this clueless.

David

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement