More Liberty

Beltway Libertarians

There is something terribly wrong with (Beltway) libertarians.

The CATO Institute has a new study on corruption in Hugo Chavez's Venezuela, which calls for Chavez's removal from office.  Now, I have no doubt that Chavez is a crook and a thug, but why, out of all the many politicians around the world is Chavez worthy of a CATO study highlighting his offenses?  This would not be an attempt to curry favor with the neocons by lending support to the attempts to  remove Chavez from office?  Again, I am sure Chavez deserves the scorn of any friend of freedom, but for a libertarian think-tank to explicitly call for the removal of a foreign leader seems to at least raise questions about that institution's commitment to a non-interventionism. 

Instead of criticizing the neocons latest hate figure, perhaps CATO should spend more time on the US government's assault on liberty.  As James Bovard pointed out recently, CATO all but ignored the controversy over the US use of torture.  CATO was also largely silent in the recent debate on the bill authorizing military tribunals, suspending habeas corpus, and allowing the president to designate American citizens as enemy combatants.  Maybe they'll be more outspoken when Hillary designates all opponents of socialized healthcare "enemy combatants." 

"The Torturous Servility of Washington Think Tanks"  James Bovard, 11/17/06

Richard Wilkins

Gingrich: Trading Freedom for Security

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich's service on the infamous "Continuity of Government" commission showed he had no respect for the structure of republican government created by the drafters of the Constitution.  Now Newt reveals he has no respect for the Bill of Rights either.

Speaking in New Hampshire on Monday, Newt proposed creating a "different set of rules" regarding free speech in order to stop terrorists from using the Internet to find new recruits.  However, plotting terrorists acts or recruiting "volunteers" to join terrorists groups are already illegal and are not considered constitutionally-protected speech.  So why does Newt think we need to change the First Amendment?  Perhaps a clue is found when he says the Internet can be used by potential terrorists to "get their message out."  Thus, Newt appears to be saying the government should have the ability to censor political speech that is associated with terrorist organizations.

The potential this gives the government to silence critics of government policy is staggering.  Under the Newt doctrine, critics of the Iraq war could be silenced since terrorists also oppose the war.  A future liberal administration could also use this to silence pro-lifers on the grounds that criticizing abortion helps bombers of abortion clinics ("domestic terrorists") gain new recruits. These concerns are all the more valid considering the PATRIOT Act's broad definition of "terrorism" could easily encompass peaceful political activities and how federal authorities have been spying on anti-war protesters. Ironically, Newt's remarks where made at a dinner celebrating champions of the First Amendment!

Looks like the "groundswell" Gingrich hopes to create to propel him into the White House will bury what remains of our liberty and constitutional government.

"Gingrich raises alarm at event honoring those who stand up for freedom of speech"  Union Leader, 11/28/06

Richard Wilkins

P.S.  Separated at birth?

      

Federal Judge is WRONG!

Paper Money is Bad for Everyone – Not Just Blind People

By keeping all U.S. currency the same size and texture, the government has denied blind people meaningful access to money, a federal judge said Tuesday.  U.S. District Judge James Robertson said the Treasury Department has violated the law, and he ordered the government to come up with ways for the blind to tell bills apart.  Of the more than 180 countries that issue paper currency, only the United States prints bills that are identical in size and color in all their denominations," Robertson wrote.  "More than 100 of the other issuers vary their bills in size according to denomination, and every other issuer includes at least some features that help the visually impaired. The fact that each of these features is currently used in other currencies suggests that, at least on the face of things, such accommodations are reasonable," he wrote.  He said the government was violating the Rehabilitation Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in government programs.  The opinion came after a four-year legal fight.

Of course, the real problem is not with the unitary size of the paper money.  It is the tragedy of paper money unbacked by any real commodity that should be occupying the minds of treasury officials. Absent paper money being tied to some commodity, government is free to print it cheaply and devalue and destroy existing money in circulation.  In other words, if you think counterfeiting U.S. notes is tough, try alchemy.

"Rethinking the Draft"

"Conscription is wrongly associated with patriotism, when really it represents collectivism and involuntary servitude."

"Ronald Reagan said it best:  'The most fundamental objection to draft registration is moral.'  The notion of involuntary servitude, in whatever form, is simply incompatible with a free society."

Congressman Ron Paul, 11/27/06

Quote of the Week

The quote of the week comes from former House speaker and possible 2008 presidential candidate, Newt Gingrich:

"I'm going to tell you something, and whether or not it's plausible given the world you come out of is your problem," he tells Fortune.  "I am not 'running' for president.  I am seeking to create a movement to win the future by offering a series of solutions so compelling that if the American people say I have to be president, it will happen."

This is far from the first time Newt has shown traces of megalomania.  Remember when it was discovered he made drawings meant to depict the future of Western civilization which featured him at the center as the transformational figure who would save civilization?

"Gingrich '08:  The stealth candidate"  Fortune,  11/21/06

Richard Wilkins

Conservatively Correct

Conservatives have criticized and mocked the left for attempting to silence views that did not meet the litmus test of "political correctness."  Yet, a form of political correctness has invaded the Heritage Foundation, one of the major pillars of the modern conservative movement.  Instead of the left's obsession with race and gender, a desire to silence all criticism of President Bush and the neocons is the animating feature of this right-wing PC. 

First, Heritage fired foreign policy analyst John Hulsman for writing a book questioning whether the neocon crusade for democracy was either good for the nation or representative of a true conservative approach to foreign affairs.  Then, last week, Heritage reneged on a commitment to host the November meeting of the Prosperity Caucus when it leaned the featured speaker was Ryan Sager.  Sager, a moderate libertarian journalist has written a book criticizing the Bush administration for neglecting the libertarian wing of the conservative collation in favor of pandering to the most extreme faction of the Christian Right and attempting to buy votes with new welfare programs and pork-barrel spending.  Finally, it appears Heritage refused to invite Bruce Bartlett to a dinner commemorating the 25th anniversary of Reagan's tax cuts, even though Bartlett worked for Jack Kemp at the time and thus played a major role in the tax cut, because of Bartlett's criticisms of the Bush Administration.  Bartlett's outspoken criticisms of the Bush Administration already cost him his job at the National Center for Policy Analysis. 

To be fair, Heritage is a private organization that can hire and host whoever they please. However, Heritage bills itself the center of conservative thought in DC, a place where conservatives of all stripes can come to together and debate the issues of the day.  For them to continue to claim to be open to all conservatives while attempting to silence those who criticize Bush from the right is a case of false advertising and something Heritage's principled donors might be concerned about. 

Heritage was also outspoken in their criticism of the Bush's Medicare prescription drug plan and his fiscal irresponsibility.  However, opposing the biggest opposition of the welfare state since the Great Society should be a no brainier for conservatives, not a sign of valor.  However, Heritage was also a major source of inspiration and intellectual support for Bush's other major expansion of the welfare state:  No Child Left Behind.   

Considering how political correctness turned the left from a significant force in American politics into a brain-dead national joke the rise of a similar phenomenon on the right does not bode well for the future of the conservative movement.  Especially since this right-wing PC is devoted to denying a platform to conservative and libertarian critics of an increasingly unpopular president. 

The Conservative Thought Police

"Sager BANNED at Heritage?"  Alabama Liberation Front, 11/21/06 

Richard Wilkins

Black Civil Rights Leader Wants to Restore Slavery

According to the Associated Press, civil rights activist and U.S. Congressman Charles Rangel from the 15^th District of New York, will introduce a bill when the 110^th Congress reconvenes to reinstate the draft. Apparently lost on the self-proclaimed civil rights leader is the text of the slavery-banning 13^th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which reads, in part: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. It seems that either Congressman Rangel doesn’t equate being conscripted into the military as “involuntary service” or he somehow believes slavery is dandy, so long as it is government that is the slave owner. Neither is tenable.

It is self-evident that forcing citizens to register and be conscripted into the military is both an extreme form of servitude and certainly most involuntary. In these days of ongoing U.S. foreign global interventionism, one would hope that the rounding up of young men by warlords, only to have them shipped off to unfamiliar and dangerous lands against their wills might strike a disharmonious chord -- especially among those forever loudly claiming strong ties to their cultural heritage, their history, and those still seeking reparations.

Or, can it be that in Mr. Rangel’s mind, because it is government rather than private individuals assuming ownership of the enslaved that this “military slavery” is somehow innocuous? From his voting record it is apparent that Mr. Rangel believes generally that collective ownership and control of property is preferable to self ownership and individual liberty. He apparently also fails to understand that, for a good number of reasons, government-owned-and-operated slavery is necessarily and decidedly worse even than that of a system of private or monarchial slavery.

Reinstate the Draft!

Representative Charlie Rangel (New York):  Reinstate the Draft!  All Youth Must Serve the Glorious Homeland!  Sieg Heil!

According to John Heilprin, Associated Press Writer, Rep. Rangel will seek to reinstate draft:

"Americans would have to sign up for a new military draft after turning 18 under a bill the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee says he will introduce next year.  Rep. Charles Rangel, D-NY., said Sunday he sees his idea as a way to deter politicians from launching wars.

'There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the Administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way,' Rangel said.
....

'If We're going to challenge Iran and challenge North Korea and then, as some people have asked, to send more troops to Iraq, we can't do that without a draft,' Rangel said."

Rangel is truly living up to the ideal of the Democratic party's mascot. The one thing the neocons don't have enough of is cannon fodder, and this monumental ass of a Democratic "leader" wants to give them just that –- all the cannon fodder they can order up, by enslaving people who otherwise have the good sense to not enlist when our nation's foreign policy is under the control of a cabal of chicken-hawks with a fetish for "pre-emptive" war and empire.  Does Rangel really think a draft would have stopped the neocons from invading Iraq?

As for the notion that politicians will hesitate to go to war with a draft in place because it means kids from their own communities will have to fight, Rangel is presuming that Congress will even be consulted.  Under the 2001 AUMF, and the broad grant of power Bush has claimed it gave him, he does not think he needs a vote from Congress to go to war.  Bush is more likely to send in the troops first, and then ask for Congressional "support" after.  And even if the President did ask Congress what it thinks prior to just starting a war, warhawks in Congress have already demonstrated, with a volunteer military, that they don't give a damn about sending kids from their own communities off to die in some sand-pit.  Why should they care more about draftees?  Does he really think the politician's own children will actually be drafted and sent off to fight and die? What a fool.

So why is Rangel is so hot for a draft?

He said having a draft would not necessarily mean everyone called to duty would have to serve.  Instead, "young people (would) commit themselves to a couple of years in service to this great republic, whether it's our seaports, our airports, in schools, in hospitals," with a promise of educational benefits at the end of service. (Emphasis added.)

Ah, there is Comrade Rangel's real motivation; his real wet dream -- a communist-style nationalization of all us unwashed masses -- the worker bees -- for compelled national "service to this great republic" wherever he and his fellow travelers at Party Headquarters think we are best utilized as their resources. 

Lenin, Stalin and Mao would be so proud.  Of the ten planks of the Communist Manifesto, number eight was "Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture" and part of plank ten was the "Combination of education with industrial production." 

Keep your eye on this totalitarian idea of "national service" -- with all of our kids enrolled at eighteen into an American version of the Hitler Youth -- it is not going away anytime soon.  Would-be slave foreman Rangel is not alone in his desire that the federal government own the means of production -- your kids.  As William Grigg noted back in 1997, in a New American article responding to a similar idea during the Clinton Administration, the idea of National Service is a staple of statist regimes throughout history, whether they be communist (international socialist) or fascist (national socialist) in orientation.

Egg Noodles and Ketchup

Murray Rothbard famously urged people to view the state as a "criminal gang."  In fact, we should view the American political system as a rivalry between two criminal families fighting over who gets to control the loot gained from their criminal activities.  Of course, the gangs will collaborate when necessary to protect the welfare-warfare state that enables their systematic plunder.  This cooperation among thieves is the real meaning of the "bipartianship" the establishment media is always clamoring for. 

The behavior of many GOP "elected representatives," staffers, and lobbyists certainly bears a closer resemblance to a gangster movie than the idealized picture of government presented in high school civics.  In return for free meals, sporting tickets, and trips members and staffers allowed lobbyists to shape the legislative agenda and even write the bills.  I have heard from reliable sources that the Republican staff of the House Financial Services Committee regularly showed lobbyists draft legislation weeks before the committee even bothered informing the average members that the legislation has been added to the committee's agenda.  The committee staffers also used government resources to promote briefings by their favorite lobbyists on the pretext that members and staffers needed the perspective of the "business community." 

The Financial Services Committee also took the "K Street" project to new, thug-like heights when they threatened an industry with unfavorable treatment unless they hired a Republican lobbyists. 

I can think of no better eulogy for the GOP Congress than Henry Hill's lament on leaving the gangster lifestyle for the wittiness protection program at the end of Goodfellas:

Everybody had their hands out.  Everything was for the taking. And now it's all over...After I got here I ordered spaghetti with marina sauce..and I got egg noodles with ketchup....I get to live the rest of my life like a schnook.

Couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch of schnooks.

For more on culture on Capitol Hill see:

"K Street grumbles about an entitlement culture"  The Hill, 06/27/05
"The Road to Riches Is Called K Street"  Washington Post, 06/22/05
"K Street Faces Changing of the Guard"  Capitol Hill Blue, 11/16/06

Richard Wilkins

Congressman Paul on Milton Friedman (1912-2006)

"Milton Friedman was a strong advocate of economic liberty who opposed government intervention in both the purely economic and broader social spheres of our society.  He believed not only in laissez-faire capitalism, but also the larger cause of individual liberty in the political sense."

Congressman Ron Paul, 11/20/06

Enemy Combatant and the Military Commissions Act

Understanding Enemy Combatant Status and the Military Commissions Act

Part 1:  Enemy Combatant Status, No More Pernicious Doctrine

Note: This article was first published in the Summer 2005 edition of The Warrior, the Journal of Gerry Spence's Trial Lawyers College.  This article serves as a short summary of my research and analysis of "enemy combatant status" as it is being used in the so-called war on terrorism.  The recent Military Commissions Act is simply codification of this doctrine - of the ongoing violation of the Bill of Rights that both the executive branch and the judiciary have engaged in for years. As discussed in this article, the sell-out of the Bill of Rights, as a matter of modern constitutional law, happened in 2004, with the Supreme Court's Hamdi decision.  For a more detailed analysis of the history and case-law that has created this very dangerous legal doctrine, please see my full length research paper, Solving the Puzzle of Enemy Combatant Status, which won the 2004 Yale Law School William E. Miller Prize for best paper on the Bill of Rights. -- Stewart Rhodes, U.S. Army Airborne Class of '83

Introduction: No Greater Threat

No greater threat to our Constitution and our Bill of Rights has ever existed than the current doctrine of "Enemy Combatant Status" (also known as "unlawful combatant" status).  This doctrine is like a toxic, poisonous weed that, if not pulled out by the roots, will grow to choke and kill the tree of liberty.  It threatens to wipe out our Bill of Rights and plunge us into a nightmare of military supremacy over the civilian power and unchecked executive rule by decree, where the courts, rather than serving as defenders of liberty, are mere willing administrators of a new Kafkaesque system of indefinite military detention and trial.  We must fight this doctrine or see our freedoms perish, and with them, the last restraints on the U.S. war machine.  To fight it, we must know the facts of its illegitimate birth and silent nurturing at the hands of politicians, generals, government lawyers and complicit judges.  We must be willing to acknowledge that Lincoln, FDR, the New Deal Court, and now even the liberals on the current Court have all been willing midwives to this monstrosity.  As Patrick Henry said, "Whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, [we must be] willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it."

Your Tax Dollars at Work

"Audit shows US funds were often spent on items like chocolate and cashmere sweaters."

Christian Science Monitor, 11/16/06

Solving the Puzzle of "Enemy Combatant" Status

Introduction to Paper
Linked below is the extensive research paper on enemy combatant status which I wrote over the winter of 2003 and finished by May, 2004, while a student at Yale Law School.  This paper won the Yale Law School Judge William E. Miller Prize for best paper on the Bill of Rights.

For a shorter summary of this research, see "Understanding Enemy Combatant Status and the Military Commissions Act, Part 1:  Enemy Combatant Status, No More Pernicious Doctrine."  That shorter paper is also available on this site under the subject heading "Enemy Combatant Status."

The doctrine of enemy combatant status has formed the basis for all of the Bush administration's extreme claims of unlimited executive war powers: from his claim to be exempt from the constraints of the Bill of Rights, and thus free to spy on Americans without warrant, detain them without indictment or trial, and to be free to try them before his own hand-picked military tribunals; to his claims to be able to black bag anyone in the world and use extraordinary rendition to have them spirited off to secret CIA prisons and "pressured" into talking; and to his claims of exemption from the Geneva Conventions, which lead directly to the abuses at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere.

The recent enactment of the Military Commissions Act is merely legislative support and codification of this same sweeping doctrine that holds that anyone on this planet may be placed into a new, second category of "the enemy" in a war that is not against a state, but against a tactic - terrorism.

Turn Iraq Over to the Arab League

A Rational Alternative to the Nutty-Neocon Stark Choice of an American "Total Victory or Total Defeat"

Way back in President Bush's December 18, 2005 address on the Iraq War, he declared that "now there are only two options before our country:  victory or defeat."  By "victory," Bush meant our troops staying until the Iraqi military and police are strong enough to defeat the insurgency/resistance, however long that takes, and by
"defeat," Bush meant withdrawing before that point.  The president declared that such withdrawal "would hand Iraq over to enemies who have pledged to attack us...."  To retreat before victory would be an act of recklessness and dishonor, and I will not allow it."

Such a black and white, all or nothing decree from The Decider is what we have come to expect.  True to neocon form, there was no room whatsoever for the involvement of anyone else in that decision, other than the president and his unitary executive cabal. Also true to neocon form, in that stark choice there was no room on the ground in
Iraq for anyone else other than the U.S. (and its Western allies) and the fledgling Iraqi puppet "government."  The message to the Arab world was "stand back, swarthy brown people, we Anglo-Saxons will sort this out for you!"  This is precisely the plan the U.S. had for winning in Vietnam (and we all know how well that turned out).

Bush has stubbornly stuck to this all-or-nothing plan ever since.  But now many of the neocon rats have jumped from the sinking U.S.S. Bush, or, in the case of Rumsfeld, have been forced to walk the plank, and the G.O.P. has been sent a pretty clear message from the voters – in the form of a boot out the door for many of them – that the voters are not at all amused.

And so, there has been a "softening" of that stark choice, and Bush is now turning to the pragmatists from that band of old-school insiders known as the Iraq Study Group for a way out of this mess.  The Iraq Study Group is headed up by Republican former Secretary of State James Baker, and Democrat vice chair of the 9/11 Commission, Lee Hamilton.  Other insiders in the group include Lawrence Eagleburger, Edwin Meese III, former Clinton White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta, and even former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.  In fact, Bush appointed a member of the group, former Director of Central Intelligence Robert M. Gates, to replace Rumsfeld as secretary of defense.

Stewart Rhodes Interviewed Today

Stewart Rhodes will be interviewed by Mark Dankof today from 12
p.m. to 2 p.m. ET.  To listen, go to http://www.rbnlive.com for information on how to connect live via the Internet or at 12.180 shortwave.  The show will be archived at http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Dankof06.html

Ron Paul Tribute to Helen Chenoweth-Hage

Congressional Record [Page: E2005] 
SPEECH OF HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2006

Mr. PAUL.  Mr. Speaker, with the passing last month of Helen Chenoweth-Hage, America has lost one of its true champions of liberty and constitutional government, and I have lost a valued friend and colleague.  When Helen served in the House of Representatives, she gained a national following for her principled and uncompromising defense of private property, the Second Amendment, American sovereignty, and limited federal government.

Unlike all too many people who come to Washington, Helen never forgot the principles that inspired her to seek office.  I was honored when Helen became the first member of Congress to join my Liberty Caucus.  She understood the importance of creating a support system to help members of Congress resist the constant pressures to "go along to get along."

I will always cherish my memories of the time Helen and I served together in the House, and I thank the Lord for enriching my life and the lives of so many others by granting us the opportunity to know Helen.  I hope that knowledge of how many freedom-lovers across the country join Helen's family in mourning her loss provides some measure of comfort to Helen's family.

"Demographic Reality and the Entitlement State"

"The Government Accountability Office, or GAO, is an investigative arm of Congress charged with the thankless task of accounting for the money received and spent by the federal government. As you might imagine, people who spend all day examining the nitty-gritty realities of federal spending and deficits might not share the voters' enthusiasm for grand campaign promises."

Congressman Ron Paul, 11/13/06

Sham Marriages in Virginia

"Hunch Unravels Immigrant Wedding Scam"  Washington Post, 11/13/06

Attack of the Neocon Water Carriers

Newsflash!  Rush Limbaugh reveals he is still a real conservative.  He was only pretending to be a neocon.  Turns out that Rush was just lying to his audience.  He was "carrying the water" for the G.O.P. these past five years for the good of America.

Speaking of liars, Rush Limbaugh has finally come clean after the elections and admitted he has been lying to his listeners for years by defending as "conservative" actions by Republicans that Rush himself knew were anything but.

I feel liberated, and I'm going to tell you as plainly as I can why.  I no longer am going to have to carry the water for people who I don't think deserve having their water carried.  Now, you might say, "Well, why have you been doing it?"  Because the stakes are high.  Even though the Republican Party let us down, to me they represent a far better future for my beliefs and therefore the country's than the Democrat Party and liberalism does.

....

There have been a bunch of things going on in Congress, some of this legislation coming out of there that I have just cringed at, and it has been difficult coming in here, trying to make the case for it when the people who are supposedly in favor of it can't even make the case themselves -- and to have to come in here and try to do their jobs.  I'm a radio guy!  I understand what this program has become in America and I understand the leadership position it has.  I was doing what I thought best...."

What a relief!  Rush was just a water carrier!  I was beginning to think Rush was actually a true believer, Jack-Booted, Big-Government neocon.  Turns out that Rush was still a small-government conservative all along, though he defended every big government, anti-liberty measure that came down the pike.

This explains how Rush could dismiss the Abu Ghraib torture, murder, and sexual humiliation as equivalent to fraternity hazing pranks.  Rush did not actually believe that nonsense.  He was simply pursuing an ingenious long-term plan to preserve true conservative values by temporarily carrying Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld's neocon water.  Such a long-suffering patriot!  Such a good actor!  He gave a true Oscar performance.  It must have been so very difficult for Rush to "get into character" as a Big Government neocon before each show.  I can picture him pacing back and forth, shaking out his hands, taking deep breaths, talking to himself, "OK Rush, you can do this, you can do this...you're a radio guy!  That is what you do!" as he turns frantically to ask an assistant "what's my motivation?"  No wonder Rush was popping so many pills.  Such pressure.  Such performance anxiety.

No Liars in Washington

Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post comments today about President Bush and other presidents who tell an "untruth."  He observes that reporters "by nature shy from pinning the 'liar' label on any political leader."

It's funny how folks here in Washington (politicians and bureaucrats, along with their staffs, and lobbyists and yes the media) go to such pains to avoid calling one of their own a liar.  Instead, they use words such as disinformation, falsehood, untruth, misleading, etc.  But using the word "liar" seems to be bad manners here in Washington.

Kent Snyder

"President's Evasion Raises Truth Issues"  by Howard Kurtz, 11/10/06

Tom DeLay on GOP's Defeat

Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said in a televised interview this morning on Fox News that the reason Republicans got a "real Texas whipping" was because they forgot their principles.  "Forget your principles...you lose," DeLay remarked.  He was asked what "principles Republicans in the House should get back to?"  DeLay answered "limited government," among a few others.

Let's think for a moment...Tom DeLay while he was House majority leader twisted arms to pass the Medicare prescription drug bill, the largest expansion of the federal government since the creation of Medicare itself; the PATRIOT Act, the harshest attack on our civil liberties in our country's history (second only to the Military Commissions Act passed afterwards); and No Child Left Behind, the complete federal takeover of public education.  In addition, Mr. DeLay's "principled leadership" gave us an explosion in the number and cost of earmarks or pork projects.  Under Mr. DeLay's reign of principle, our national debt reached an all-time high, while the size, scope and power of the federal government increased beyond FDR's grandest ambitions.

Mr. DeLay, you say Republicans lost because they forgot their principles.  You should know!  You led that amnesia of principle in the U.S. House; the house you and your buddies were booted out of yesterday.

Kent Snyder

At The Polls

Today is election day.  Americans will have the opportunity to choose between two cults:  Republican or Democrat.  Choose wisely.

Kent Snyder

On Election Day . . .

Remember, remember, this 7th of November,
Why of our freedom they cared not;
In this political season, we know the reason
Their souls by power were bought.

Stewart Rhodes

Neocon Rats Jumping Ship!

Video of Cheney on ABC News

As reported on Rawstory.com by Mike Sheehan and David Edwards on November 3, 2006, the arch-neocons behind the throne are starting to turn on the Bush administration:

Vice President Dick Cheney appeared tonight in an exclusive interview with ABC News' George Stephanopoulos, in which he appeared perplexed when told of new neocon criticism of the Iraq war and the Bush administration. 

Stephanopoulos told Cheney of criticisms from key neoconservatives Richard Perle, Ken Adelman and others that had just appeared in a new Vanity Fair article released that afternoon, in which they said, among other things, that "they would not have supported the invasion if they knew how incompetent the administration would be in handling it."

This comes as no surprise.  The neocons, originating as former Trotskyites who then defected from the Democratic Party during the Cold War, have no permanent allegiance to the Republican Party, as I noted back in March, 2006 here, and as Congressman Ron Paul warned Congress back in 2003.  Rep. Paul explained very thoroughly how neocons are not conservatives at all, how they loath libertarians and thus also loath all constitutionalists and have utterly no respect for the Constitution of the Founders.  But Congress did not listen, and was truly neo-conned.   

The neocons now realize that the Bush administration is going down in Iraq, with Bush blissfully standing at the helm, like a demented Mr. Magoo, "staying the course" though the rudder has long since sheered off.   

But the neocons are not going down with the ship.  Those crafty rats are now jumping off, blaming the incompetence of the Bush administration rather than the stupidity of their own crazy ideas.  Anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of military history who was not blinded by a will-to-power ideology would have known that invading Iraq would lead to a guerilla war of resistance against foreign occupiers and then to a civil war.  But then perhaps that was what the insidious neocons wanted all along, to further some dark, Machiavellian long-term strategy.  Either that, or they are monumentally stupid.  In any case, the neo-crazies are obviously at least smart and sane enough to know when it is time to jump off a sinking stinker and swim for dear life.   

The real question is when will conservatives wake up from the neocon wormtongue trance and become real conservatives again, who actually give a damn about the Constitution and limited government?  Likely not until they are completely out of power.  Then perhaps they will rediscover the virtues of those checks and balances, those limits on federal power, and that dusty old Bill of Rights.  And perhaps, just maybe, they will realize that the Constitution is not just some damn piece of paper, even though we live in a "post-911 world."  I hope.

Stewart Rhodes

John Yoo: Neocon Treason and Plot

John Yoo and the Neocon Treason and Plot -- A Freedom-Lover's Version of the Guy Fawkes Poem

Happy Guy Fawkes Day!

Remember, remember the 29th of September
Military Commissions Act, assault on the Bill of Rights by a vile lot;
I see no reason why the Neocon Treason
Should ever be forgot.

John Yoo, John Yoo,
'Tis his intent
To give us a King and a Parliament.
By stroke of a pen or by rubber stamp, his Leader will throw
you into a camp.
Complicit judges and Congress in tow
Our Constitution to overthrow.

John Yoo, John Yoo,
He goes to bed,
With visions of crushing children’s testicles in his head.
Enemy combatants all around,
Grab them, bag them, board them till they drown.

You’re an enemy combatant!
I’m an enemy combatant!
We're all enemy combatants if his Leader says so;
We the People are We the Enemy don’t you know!

But this is land of the free, home of the brave
Not land of the scared, home of the slaves;
Weimar Germany, Russia, or China this is not
We won’t forsake the Republic our forefathers wrought.

We remember their flag to April's breeze unfurled;
Where once the embattled farmers stood;
and fired the shot heard round the world.
The same defiance burns in us till our last breath
Their battle cry still echoes
Give us Liberty or Give us Death!

Holloa boys, Holloa boys, let the bells ring
Holloa boys, Holloa boys, We have no King!
Hip hip Hoorah!
Hip hip Hoorah!

A stale MRE to feed ol' Yoo,
Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the shrubbery too.
A session of water boarding to rinse it down,
A lit cigarette to burn them.
Put their nuts in a vice,
Don’t make us ask twice!
Confess! Confess! Tell us their crimes,
What they knew, when they knew, and why;
But before we find out the reason,
We will give them what they deny us
A jury trial for their high Treason.

© 2006 E. Stewart Rhodes

About the Poem

This poem is loosely based on the Guy Fawkes poem.  But whereas the original poem was about a man who plotted to blow up Parliament, this poem it is about a man, and his neocon co-conspirators, who are plotting to destroy our Constitutional Republic.  This is my second version of such a poem.  You can read the first version here.  This second one is closer in style to the original.

"GOP Must Go"

The American Conservative says, "On Nov. 7, the world will be watching as we go to the polls, seeking to ascertain whether the American people have the wisdom to try to correct a disastrous course.  Posterity will note too if their collective decision is one that captured the attention of historians—that of a people voting, again and again, to endorse a leader taking a country in a catastrophic direction.  The choice is in our hands."

Nov. 20, 2006 Issue

Frist Building "White House"

Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee fancies himself as president of the United States.  So much so that he is building his new home in Nashville to feed his fantasy.

"Looking Presidential at Home in Nashville, Whether He Runs or Not"  N.Y. Times, 11/03/06

Kent Snyder

Radio Interview

Jonathan Emord host of Health, Law and Politics will interview Kent Snyder today at 5:00 p.m. ET.

Pork: Sweet or Sour?

"'Earmark' became an increasingly dirty word during the 109th Congress, with certain members, including convicted ex-Rep. Randy 'Duke' Cunningham (R-Calif.), being investigated for their ties to lobbyists and contractors who have benefited directly from these projects and many other lawmakers taking heat for the explosion of federally funded projects, such as Alaska’s much-maligned 'Bridge to Nowhere.'

"Despite that stigma, vulnerable incumbents, particularly Republicans in the majority, argue that their ability to secure this money is a legislative advantage that constituents would miss if voters boot them from office."

The Hill, 11/01/06

Goodbye GOP

Longtime libertarian-conservative activist and former GOP candidate for the Maryland statehouse Mike Griffin, has had it with the GOP and is making his disgust public with a letter to the editor of the Aegis in Bel Air, Maryland.  I suspect Mike speaks for a lot of people who may wish to take Mike up on his "leaving the party party" or his other activities for disgruntled supporters of limited government instead of voting Republican on November 7.  Here is Mike's letter:

Dear Editor,
     For years, conservatives have put up with an appeasing RNC leadership, with GOP elected officials and party leaders who renege on key principles to satisfy their obsession to get re-elected.  Since the Republican Party has left me by moving to the left, I have registered independent.  As a conservative, I have expended more energy fighting Republicans who believe big government can be run better by them than by liberals.
     For example, Harford county executive Harkins and county council raised taxes, TWICE--during boom revenue years!  GOP Governor Ehrlich has quietly squelched my gun rights, appointed Democrats to key positions and inflicted a brand new "flush tax."  President Bush and the Republican leadership have: 1) reneged on a pledge to veto the campaign finance bill, 2) created another Great Society prescription drug program while Medicare and Social Security are scheduled to go broke, 3) frozen any further advance of our gun rights, 4) tried to buy votes with porkbarrel earmarks, 5) devoted record spending on federal education mandates which are being cheated on by the states.
     We are tired of Party leaders lecturing that we must vote for the lesser of two evils.  That things will get better under more government intrusion.
     Therefore, I have put together a list of Things Conservatives Can Do While Staying Home On Election Day:

Cut and Run? We Must.

"We must cut and run tactically in order to succeed strategically." -- Lt. General William E. Odom (retired)  10/31/06

George Allen's Thugs, pt. 3

"Police Investigation Begins for Allen Rally Incident"  NBC 29 News, 11/01/06

George Allen's Thugs, pt. 2

Mike Stark, the man who was wrestled to the ground by Senator George Allen's campaign staff, writes to NBC 29 News of Charlottesville, Virginia:

My name is Mike Stark.  I am a law student at the University of Virginia, a marine, and a citizen journalist. Earlier today at a public event, I was attempting to ask Senator Allen a question about his sealed divorce record and his arrest in the 1970s, both of which are in the public domain.  His people assaulted me, put me in a headlock, and wrestled me to the ground.  Video footage is available here, from an NBC affiliate.

I demand that Senator Allen fire the staffers who beat up a constituent attempting to use his constitutional right to petition his government.  I also want to know why Senator Allen would want his staffers to assault someone asking questions about matters of public record in the heat of a political campaign.  Why are his divorce records sealed?  Why was he arrested in the 1970s?  And why did his campaign batter me when I asked him about these questions. 

George Allen defends his support of the Iraq war by saying that our troops are defending the ideals America stands for.  Indeed, he says our troops are defending our very freedom.  What kind of country is it when a Senator's constituent is assaulted for asking difficult and uncomfortable questions?  What freedoms do we have left?  Maybe we need to bring the troops home so that they can fight for freedom at George Allen's campaign events.  Demanding accountability should not be an offense worthy of assault. 

I will be pressing charges against George Allen and his surrogates later today.  George Allen, at any time, could have stopped the fray.  All he had to do was say, "This is not how my campaign is run.  Take your hands off that man."  He could have ignored my questions.  Instead he and his thugs chose violence.  I spent four years in the Marine Corps.  I'll be damned if I'll let my country be taken from me by thugs that are afraid of taking responsibility for themselves. 

It just isn't the America I know and love.  Somebody needs to take a stand against those that would bully and intimidate their fellow citizens.  That stand begins right here, right now. 

W. Michael Stark

Stewart Rhodes

George Allen's Thugs

Candidate Thomas Rankin should consider himself lucky that Congresswoman Barbara Cubin of Wyoming does not have her own cadre of Brownshirts to punish wayward constituents as does Senator George Allen of Virginia.  Apparently, Allen is a more sophisticated politician -- he has someone else do the slapping.  And thus, the media blandly notes that Allen was safe, while the condition of the "troublemaker" is unknown.

Video

Stewart Rhodes

Wrath of Cubin: Another Example

U.S. Representative Barbara Cubin of Wyoming recently told one of her opponents, Libertarian Thomas Rankin, that she would have slapped him if he weren't in a wheelchair.  (Mr. Rankin has multiple sclerosis.)  Mrs. Cubin did publicly apologize for her outburst, but apparently not to Mr. Rankin personally.

On March 2, 2006, I also felt the wrath of Cubin; not in Wyoming, but in Washington, D.C.  A few days later, I described my encounter in "A Royal Response."  I did not mention Mrs. Cubin by name at the time because my point was not about the behavior of Mrs. Cubin in particular or any other individual member of Congress.  My general point was to simply tell the public about the arrogance of their elected "public servants" while they are in Washington away from home.

But Representative Cubin's behavior towards me in Washington and later towards Mr. Rankin in Wyoming shows a pattern of behavior that Mrs. Cubin herself has now made into the point.

Kent Snyder

"Cubin tells challenger, 'I'd slap you'"  10/24/06

"Wyoming rep apologizes for 'slap' remark"  10/24/06