Why Liberty Is Dangerous

By Tom Rhodes 2/16/2018

There has been another violent tragedy in the USA leaving 17 innocent children dead. Once again leftists are using it as an excuse to try and take away the rights we cherish. Because as a nation we established a government that valued individual liberty over security, preventing mad men who’ve committed no prior crimes from heinous acts is impossible, PERIOD!

The USA is unique among all the nations, our Preamble is a slap in the fast to every ruling elite who has ever lived. Saying: We The People … to secure the blessings of liberty … do ordain and establish our government. Creating a government with divided powers and very limited powers and specifics defining fundamental rights the government was prohibited from infringing upon.

Three keys to the USA that don’t exist in the rest of the world and are the basis for our government are the Rule of Law, Presumption of Innocence, and Fundamental Rights. To talk about gun laws, arresting the mentally ill, and what we can do, we must first understand and define these principles.

Fundamental Rights

Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognized by the Supreme Court as requiring a high degree of protection from government encroachment. These rights are specifically identified in the Constitution (especially in the Bill of Rights), or have been found under Due Process. Laws encroaching on a fundamental right generally must pass strict scrutiny to be upheld as constitutional.

The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment are considered Fundamental Rights. These rights include:

The right to due process

The right to freedom of speech

The right to freedom of religion

The right to privacy

The right to marry

The right to interstate and intrastate travel

The right to equality

The right to assemble

And the right to keep and bear arms

Presumption of innocence

The presumption of innocence, sometimes referred to by the Latin expression Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies), is the principle that one is considered innocent unless proven guilty. One of the most sacred principles in the American criminal justice system, holding that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. In other words, the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, each essential element of the crime charged.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the legal principle that law should govern a nation, as opposed to being governed by arbitrary decisions of individual government officials. It primarily refers to the influence and authority of law within society, particularly as a constraint upon behavior, including behavior of government officials.

Because we all are endowed by our creator with Fundamental Rights, and we insist and restrict our government to follow the Rule of Law, and are all considered Innocent Until Proven Guilty; we are all in danger of mad or evil people committing gross acts of violence. Due Process given to all to protect their liberty, means that the government must prove, before a jury, where the accused can present witnesses and bring on experts, before any fundamental right can be restricted.

The USA is unique, We the People do not have to seek permission from the government to exercise our rights, rather the government must first prove individuals, through their actions, should have those rights restricted. Being reasonable some restrictions on the means of exercising our fundamental rights serve a compelling interest to We the People. Your fundamental right to travel, doesn’t obligate the government to supply you with the means of travel, nor does it grant you the right to operate a 2 ton rolling motorized carriage without demonstrating your ability to do so. The requirement for a driver’s license is not restriction is not on your right to travel, only on the means you choose to travel. It is reasonable to restrict operating a motor vehicle to those old enough to do so safely, and those who understand how to do it safely, and who have demonstrated the ability to do so.

We the People specifically included the Fundamental Right to keep and bear arms in the Bill Of Rights, not to allow pioneers to have a rifle to shoot deer, and protect themselves from brigands. Rather the government was purposefully restricted from infringing upon that right so that We the People had the tools to stand up against and overthrow our government should it become tyrannical. We’ve already allowed the government to restrict individuals far more than the purpose of the second amendment allows.

We have a choice. Be free and enjoy Liberty, or be secure. History has repeatedly shown that those who sacrifice liberty for security, end up with neither. Unfortunately there is evil in this world, and there will always be a few who will abuse their rights. The idea that we should give up due process, have to prove we are innocent to exercise a Fundamental Right; the idea that there should be laws for people in the government and different laws for mere citizens; the idea that we should sacrifice our Fundamental Rights for the security of the state, or for individual safety; should all make us cringe in horror.

Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death, doesn’t mean except for access to XXXXX because it might scare others or somebody thinks it dangerous. The freedom to access guns, drugs, fast cars, bicycling without a helmet, etc. comes with accepting the fact that Liberty is Dangerous. The alternative is to give up our Fundamental Rights for the appearance of security. As the mass shooting in France at the Bataclan theater clearly demonstrate, laws restricting fundamental rights don’t keep us safe from mad or evil men.

Those calling for “gun control” are fear mongers who want to be taken care of and don’t value their liberty, they believe that it is better to be safe and secure. They hate the idea that the average person should, without the approval of their betters, be allowed to own guns, choose to ride a bike without a helmet, smoke, eat red meat, own a big truck, sell lemonade from their front lawn before the big game, feed the poor in their neighborhood, scares them. They believe others should dictate how the masses should live. That is tyranny and evil. Statists, as exemplified by the Democrats, will use every evil act that occurs as an excuse to exercise more control and attack liberty. As for the Republicans, they will always sacrifice rights after whining, as they are cowards and won’t stand for anything, the past 50 years have proven they won’t conserve anything.

If you want to further restrict arms for the average citizen, there is an easy process. You can have the limits placed on government from infringing upon our right to keep and bear arms removed. Just pass an amendment. But know if you try, there are 100,000,000 gun owners who will fight you and that process. We prefer Dangerous Liberty Over Peaceful Slavery.

LP Platform – Abortion Plank

By Tom Rhodes, 2/25/2014

The veritable “Third Rail” is Abortion. The LP’s position on abortion is illogical, contradictory, unlibertarian, and divides and hurts the LP. The fact is the fastest way to start a argument and keep libertarians from working together on productive issues is to bring up abortion. Not even the Republicans and Democrats fight over abortion more than libertarians. The abortion plank of our platform should not be changed, it should be eliminated. The fact is good libertarians disagree on the issue of abortion, regardless of a person’s position on abortion they should be welcome in the Libertarian Party.

Libertarians as a whole are extremists, if they weren’t they’d be in the Republocrat or Demican party. Because we are extremists some fail to see what they think of as moderate position as being extreme. Consider the wording of the abortion plank in the LP Platform, which reads: “Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.” Many libertarians consider this to be a moderate non-confrontational position. Others see it as an extreme position that makes murder legal in some situations.

As libertarians we all believe that every human has the same rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The LP has adopted and accepted liberal anti-liberty vocabulary to justify its position. Because of this honest open debate on abortion does not happen. Adopting such language tat calls the termination of a fetus as “health care” targets those who don’t agree as being against “health care.”

Half the people, or more, rightly believe that pregnancy is not a disease but is the outcome of behavior initiated by people other than the unborn baby. Half the people, or more, believe life begins at conception. Half the people, or more, believe that the unborn are people. That means that half, or more, of the people believe the LP position is that there should be no laws restricting a woman from murdering her child prior to it reaching some arbitrary stage of its life.

The science is settled, at conception a unique person genetically distinct from its mother is created as a result of specific behavioral choices of the sire. It’s really simple, regardless of the stage of development, from one cell to birth, the cell(s) aren’t dead they are alive. All the arguing isn’t going to change the reality, and no-abortions are initiated on babies before their heart is beating. So talking about blastocysts and very early stages of development are meaningless, a diversion, and a lie meant to cover up the fact that abortion is the killing of a unique humans who are developmentally far too young to protect themselves. Just because politics resulted in changing definition of what is a life to justify abortions doesn’t make the unborn less than human. The definition of cellular life used to be pretty simple. If the cell(s) respirate, take in food, expel waste, divide, and respond to stimuli, it’s alive. If the DNA is human and the cells are alive it is a living human being – PERIOD!

What justifies the initiation of force against that human who has not and cannot initiate force against another? The abortion plank tells every Libertarian who for scientific or religious reasons believes life begins at conception to fuck off. We won’t suffer the consequences of our life choices, and libertarian principles be damned.

Saying that a woman’s body is her own is fine. She should be free to defend herself from others who have initiated aggression against her. If she is pregnant because of her voluntary actions, it is clear her baby did not initiate any aggression against her, but is there because of the woman’s choice. She does not have the right to kill the baby and cannot claim self-defense. If she is pregnant involuntarily because of aggression against her she has good cause to seek reparations and even punishment against the aggressor, not the innocent third party. The baby did not initiate any aggression against her. Murdering the baby because the mother was raped is killing an innocent bystander who initiated force against nobody, and is not justice.

Interesting how liberals, statists, and feminists, in just about everything from income to education, will use dissimilar outcomes based on race and other demographics to prove racism, sexism, etc. You are not allowed to use those same methods to look at abortions. Income inequality between white and black people is because of systemic racism, but overwhelming inequality between blacks and white babies being aborted is somehow not. Liberals and statists and feminists won’t say it out loud, but the history and actual application is clear. The reality is abortion is a eugenics program marketed to the dumb and minorities to convince them to voluntarily reduce their reproduction. Look at the raw numbers, compare them to education level, race and other demographics. Abortion is kept legal and marketed in a fashion designed to minimize populations of ”undesirables.” It's a sick fact, prove it to yourself. Look at where planned parenthood puts its clinics and compare that to the demographics.

Obviously I’m anti-abortion for a lot of reasons. In fact I’m not alone, a lot of Libertarians are anti-abortion. A lot of Republicans, who would be Libertarian if not for the abortion plank remain stuck in the statists Republican Party. The LP claims to believe “that people can hold good-faith views on all sides” of the abortion issue, yet boldly proclaims that view of one side should not be accepted. Obviously the LP doesn’t respect or tolerate the views of those who believe that the government was instituted to protect everybody’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, if that person believes life begins at birth.

If the LP truly makes its platform plank “Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides” then it should have no position on abortion and welcome pro-life and pro-choice libertarians equally. Currently pro-life libertarians who believe that the government should protect the life of all people from aggression by others, even their mothers, are not welcome in the LP. The polls show that more than half the country is pro-life. Why do we have a plank that is so divisive, so easily demonstrated to violate the non-aggression principle, and clearly makes us unpalatable to more than half the country. Considering that the pro-choice crowd generally hates our fiscal planks, our platform pretty much excludes everybody.

Plank 1.4 of the LP Platform on abortion should be eliminated. If we must have an abortion plank why not a truly libertarian plank that reads: : “Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, the LP will not drive a wedge between Its members and encourages each member to freely vote their conscience and actively work to achieve the political goal they think best protects liberty without condemnation.”

Constitutional Questions

In a recent Editorial Judge Andrew Nepalitano asks a series of questions, starting with "What if the Constitution no longer applied?"

All Americans should look at our government and look at the questions the good judge asks. Then also ask ourselves, after answering these questions, is this the kind of government we want?

Here are all the questions he asks:

What if the whole purpose of the Constitution was to limit the government? What if Congress' enumerated powers in the Constitution no longer limited Congress, but were actually used as justification to extend Congress' authority over every realm of human life? What if the president, meant to be an equal to Congress, has become a democratically elected, term-limited monarch? What if the president assumed everything he did was legal, just because he's the president? What if he could interrupt your regularly scheduled radio and TV programming for a special message from him? What if he could declare war on his own? What if he could read your emails and texts without a search warrant? What if he could kill you without warning?

What if the rights and principles guaranteed in the Constitution have been so distorted in the past 200 years as to be unrecognizable by the founders? What if the states were mere provinces of a totally nationalized and fully centralized government? What if the Constitution was amended stealthily, not by constitutional amendments duly passed by the states, but by the constant and persistent expansion of the federal government's role in our lives? What if the federal government decided whether its own powers were proper and constitutional?

Don't miss the judge's latest Constitution-defending book, "It Is Dangerous to Be Right When the Government Is Wrong: The Case for Personal Freedom"

What if you needed a license from the government to speak, to assemble or to protest the government? What if the right to keep and bear arms only applied to the government? What if posse comitatus – the law that prohibits our military from our streets – were no longer in effect? What if the government considered the military an adequate dispenser of domestic law enforcement? What if cops looked and acted like troops and you couldn't distinguish the military from the police? What if federal agents could write their own search warrants in defiance of the Constitution? What if the government could decide when you weren't entitled to a jury trial?

What if the government could take your property whenever it wanted it? What if the government could continue prosecuting you until it got the verdict it wanted? What if the government could force you to testify against yourself simply by labeling you a domestic terrorist? What if the government could torture you until you said what the government wanted to hear? What if people running for president actually supported torture? What if the government tortured your children to get to you? What if the government could send you to your death and your innocence meant nothing so long as the government's procedures were followed? What if America's prison population, the largest in the world, was the result of a cruel and unusual way for a country to be free? What if half the prison population never harmed anyone but themselves?

What if the people had no rights except those the government chose to let them have? What if the states had no rights except to do as the federal government commanded? What if our elected officials didn't really live among us, but all instead had their hearts and their homes in Washington, D.C.? What if the government could strip you of your rights because of where your mother was when you were born? What if the income tax was unconstitutional? What if the states were convinced to give up their representation in Congress? What if the government tried to ban you from using a substance older than the government itself? What if voting didn't mean anything anymore because both political parties stand for Big Government?

What if the government could write any law, regulate any behavior and tax any event, the Constitution be damned? What if the government was the reason we don't have a Constitution anymore? What if you could love your country but hate what the government has done to it? What if sometimes to love your country, you had to alter or abolish the government? What if Jefferson was right? What if that government is best which governs least? What if I'm right? What if the government is wrong? What if it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong? What if it is better to perish fighting for freedom than to live as a slave? What if freedom's greatest hour of danger is now?

The Government Owns You!

Wow, that’s a sensational title for this article. How dare I make such an outlandish claim? Simple, it’s true. You no longer own yourself, but are the property of the government. True the government doesn’t choose to exercise total control over you, its property, but it does lay claim to you as property.

The government is slowly but surely doing away with private property rights, including the most precious property right, the right to yourself. The very idea that you can secure property and use it as you see fit, so long as you don’t use it to infringe upon the rights of another, is the heart of the beliefs that formed this nation. If you want to purchase a motorcycle, and ride it around your land, your free to do so, you can fuel it with alcohol or gasoline, you can take care of it or store it under a tree, you can even ride it up a ramp do a back flip and crash it into your own pond (thus destroying or damaging your motorcycle). That motorcycle is your property, you can crush it, throw it away, do whatever you want with it so long as you don’t infringe upon somebody else’s rights. Nobody would argue that, as you own it.

Now you don’t own your body, the government has laid claim to it, and for the protection of their property not only determines what you can and can’t do with it, what you can and can’t voluntarily feed it, but even what you can and can’t know about your own body. Because they have claimed ownership of you, they claim the right to protect their property (your body) from you.

In the words of Alabama Rep. Parker Griffiths, "It's very difficult to protect the public from itself and its desire to be healthy." It seems the position of the Federal Government through the Food and Drug Administration is that your own genetic code is a controlled substance. Because of that the FDA has the controlling authority and as such determined that you must be prevented from receiving any information without first going through an FDA-approved authority. At least that’s what Alabama Rep. Parker Griffiths said in the 2010 congressional hearing into the direct-to-consumer genetic testing industry. The government says it has authority over what information about yourself, you may be permitted to acquire.

Consider laws that infringe upon you right to yourself. The FDA now claims the authority to not just require that the information be available so that you know what is in what you are eating, but actually control the contents of what you choose to purchase just because you may not choose to eat what the FDA has determined is in your own best interest. The government now accepts the idea that the FDA’s job is to "protect the public from itself."

Does the idea that the of government as controller of what kind of light bulb you must purchase to illuminate your living space, what you are allowed to eat, right down to what you know about yourself, disturb you at all?

What moral or political basis is there to justify the government determining what information about your own body that you should be permitted to acquire? The only moral or political reasoning that could justify such a position is based on the assumption that the government has a greater right to you than you do yourself. In essence this assumes that the government owns you and can determine, what it thinks you should and shouldn’t know.


Assume you’ve amassed some wealth, paid every dime of taxes the government wants, and you decide that you want to leave the country with a million dollars in gold coins, can you? The answer is No you can’t. Since you can’t, is it truly your property? Do you own your house, or is it the government’s property, and they allow you a “title” in exchange for annual rent (property taxes)? If it’s truly your property, not the governments, then why do you have to pay for it every year?

Slave owners determine what their slaves are taught, what they can be exposed to, what they eat, what they can wear, etc. To keep a slave happy and productive, certain freedoms are allowed but controlled. According to the World Dictionary a slave is a person legally owned by another and having no freedom of action or right to property. According to the U.S. Government, you don’t even have the right to knowledge about your own body, or the right to choose what food you want to use to fuel your own body. If you don’t have the right to yourself, self-ownership, and although we are allowed some freedoms to keep us happy and productive, are we actually slaves of the Federal Government, our masters.

Maybe it’s a bit extreme to say slaves; serfs may be a more apt description, but liberty, freedom, and self ownership are not words that can be used in a description of a people that must get their masters permission to learn what’s in their own DNA.

Our inviolable right to self-defense

by Phil Elmore
March 10, 2011 © 2011

The state in which I live, New York, is contemplating a law that would register and tax every firearm in the state. Already ruling the state most hostile to gun owners, New York's Democrats wish to enact a precursor to confiscation that is not just transparent in its intensions, but onerous in its financial burdens. What is often lost in debates over laws of this type is what they truly say to the citizens they affect. A law that restricts the technology of self-defense is a law that criminalizes self-defense itself. It is a law that violates your civil rights. It is a direct affront to you as a human being.

The Founding Fathers of the United States indicated their acceptance of, and based the United States Constitution on, the concept of natural rights. For the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't matter if you believe in God or not. Most deists and theists believe rights are God-granted, while others believe natural rights come from nature. Natural rights exist regardless.

Because you are a discrete biological entity, you are an individual. Every group of people can be broken into individuals. No group of people can exist as a single living organism because they simply aren't one, any more than a parking lot full of cars can be a single automobile.

Because no human can be another human, no one can live another's life. By virtue of your nature as an individual, you are born with the inalienable property right to yourself as a person. This means that no human being has a claim on your time or your effort without your consent. Think about it. If you do not own you, who does? If you are anything but your own property, you belong to someone else, which makes you that someone's slave. Are you a slave?

Your property right to your person extends to a general right to possess legally acquired property, for no human can exist without property of some kind. This is an axiom of existence. You cannot exist in space unconnected to all other existents, the sole resident of an empty bubble of space-time. This does not mean you have an automatic claim to someone else's property by virtue of your need for it, however. This means that you necessarily have the right to possess property if you can indeed acquire it. Claims to the contrary made by Marxists, collectivists and Michael Moore are empty. If you have no right to possess property once you have obtained it, those making this assertion must be making it naked while floating in empty rooms from which even air has been evacuated.

Your property right to yourself and your effort can be used to obtain rights to real property (land). He who first "mingles his labor with the land" earns a property right to it. What of land (or other property, for that matter) whose acquisition is disputed as being illegitimate? The longer an illegitimate claim goes uncontested, the more the passage of time legitimizes it – because the passage of time increases the possibility that an attempt to correct the illegitimate acquisition would harm parties who themselves have acted in good faith and who have committed no immoral actions. When redress of wrongs creates more wrong than it cures, it is not credible.

What is a property right, anyway? A right to property is the right to its use. If property belongs to no one, we have none, which contradicts the necessity of property. If we say all property belongs to everyone, we have a problem, because we would then only be able to use property with the mutual consent of every member of society. Because this is impossible, some delegation of humans within society would have to make this determination – and it would then be those people, not all the people, who hold the property right.

This points to a critical issue concerning rights. Either you recognize that you have sole dominion over your person, as does each human, or you do not. If you do not, you are saying either that all of society – the Collective, the State, whomever – has first right to you as property, or that some other person does.

A right is, by definition, unquestionable, and not dependent on some responsibility on your part. Many times, those who support some infringement on your natural rights will appeal to the idea that "With rights come responsibilities." This is not true. A right carries with it no concomitant responsibility, because it is, by definition, inviolable. Responsibilities, by contrast, are accepted, not imposed.

You are born into society accepting, by virtue of your existence, exactly one clause of the "social contract" – the agreement not to infringe on the natural rights of your fellow human beings. Humans who operate according to this guideline obtain what they require from other humans through exchange to mutual benefit. They are traders, giving value for value received. No human being has a claim to your life or your assets simply because you are born into his society. Your property rights to your person remain intact and inalienable regardless of the circumstances of your birth.

Given these facts of existence, the only legitimate role of government in a free society is the protection of individuals' natural rights. That is why governments are instituted among human beings – or at least, that is why they should be.

When a government denies its citizens' rights or actively seeks to infringe on these rights, it subordinates the individual to the state and injures that individual in the name of the community. By what right is this done? By what right is this force initiated and this theft made? How dare New York's commie libs steal the right of self–defense through their burdensome taxes and their obvious schemes for future confiscation? They have no right to do this; there is no justification for it.

Self-defense is an individual right and, as such, is inviolable ... no matter what lies Democrats tell.

---

Phil Elmore is a freelance author, technical writer and publisher of the self-defense e-zine The Martialist. This article originally appeard at WND.com

Betrayal, Principles, and the GOP

On Monday November 1, 2010 I wrote The Republicans Will Betray the TEA Party. When I was held down and asked to predict when this would first be proven, I said February 2011. I was right. I wish I wasn’t but I was. Republicans like the Democrats have only one principle, staying in power. The TEA Party was backed approximately 40 congressmen. Of those 31 voted to extend what are arguably unconstitutional provisions of the so called “Patriot Act.”

These votes are the beginning of the systematic betrayal of the TEA Party. Boehner will continue to work at expanding the Federal government following in Pelosi’s footsteps. He will use different rhetoric, but his actions will be to promote more government and reduce the liberty and freedom of individuals. The Republicans have in their power, to completely stop the excessive spending and expansion of government in Washington. All they have to do is vote no on extending the debt ceiling. This will force the government to cut back. They don’t need a single Democrat vote or a single vote in the senate of any kind. Just by refusing to vote for allow the government to go further into debt they can stop the growth of government. They will vote to expand government not hold themselves or any branch of government fiscally responsible.

The GOP talks of its principles but exactly what principles do the actions of their votes show: A spineless accommodation to Wall Street and the the military-industrial complex? Empty promises to “limit government” while voting for its expansion? Wrapping Corporatism in flowery patriotic rhetoric?

Take the GOP foreign policy, We’ve sent some $70Billion dollars to Egypt over the past few decades, only to find $40Billion of it in a dictators savings account. Could somebody in the GOP please explain why I’m going in to debt and placing my children and grandchildren into debt to make a dictator of a foreign country obscenely wealthy? Yes he was a “friendly” dictator, but billions of US dollars in his private account is hard to justify. We spent $14.3Billion supporting the governments of Bangladesh, Bolivia, Bosnia, Columbia, Egypt, Ethiopia, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Israel, Jordan, Kenya, Liberia, Pakistan, the Palestine Authority, Peru, Russia, and Ukraine last year alone. Some would say that compared to our total federal budget it’s not significant, but that is more than the total social security payments for well over a million senior citizens.

The basic American principles that are associated with the GOP in recent history, are not actually practiced by the GOP. They play lip service to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” but the principles that the Republicans actually practice, and the habits they have adopted in pursuit of their cushy Capitol Hill jobs, do not match their rhetoric. The GOP is the definition of hypocrite – talking “less government” while ever expanding it. Expanding government slower than the Democrats is not less government. They have never actually given us what they promise and have repeatedly betrayed those who vote for them. At least Obama is honest in his rhetoric, he won’t call himself a socialist, but he clearly says what he means, and he means to expand government, limit individual liberty, and punish those who are successful and redistribute the wealth so that nobody gets more than what he feels is fair (well accept for his friends and the elite who know what everybody else should do). He has said that the Constitution of the United States is a barrier to getting what he wants done, so ignores it. The Democrats under Obama are taking us down the wrong road, but at least they are doing what they said they would do. The Republicans, are taking us down the same road just at a slightly slower pace, and are lying about where we’re going.

The principles that made this country great: the rule of law, equal protection under the law, protection of individual unalienable rights, once called liberal, now called libertarian are the principles most Americans value. Both parties, the Democrats openly, and the Republicans covertly, are working at destroying those principles. Under those principles the people, have power and cannot be so easily oppressed, taxed, and used.

The Libertarian Party is the party of principle, more closely associated with the values of our forefathers than either of the “major” parties. Because it is a party of principle, the LP would and does lose elections and acceptance rather than compromise those principles. The LP is often mistaken as an anarchist or libertine organization that is an amoral haven for drug users and antisocial types. This is because it is a party of principle, foremost being that all people should be free to act as they wish so long as their actions do not infringe upon the rights of another, a principle which neither the Republicans nor Democrats believe in. Both believe that they have the right to dictate to the masses how they should live.

As I predicted the Republicans betrayed the TEA Party within a month of being in office. They have fairly successfully co-opted the TEA party. Because the TEA Party has no true leadership and is a true grass roots response of the people to too much government, I believe that the betrayal of the GOP provides an opportunity for the TEA Party, and all of America to take a fresh look at principles, and specifically the party of principle, the Libertarian Party.

Fundamental Questions

Here are some fundamental philosophical questions that I'm curious as to other peoples opinions.

1) Are rights "unalienable" or are they privileges granted by the government?

2) Should laws and rights insure equal treatment or equal outcome?

3) Do groups have rights that supercede individual rights?

4) Do individuals have the right to the labor or property of other individuals by means of force?

5) At what point does an individual have the right to use force against another individual?

6) Should the "rule of law" be applied to everybody equally, or does "might make right"?

7) Does society have the right to force individuals to be charitable?

8) Is there a right for individuals to use force to protect themselves, their family and their property?

9) Obedience to the Government

Should all laws be obeyed?

Is civil disobedience justifiable?

Should jury's be allowed to acquit the accused if they believe the Law is unjust?

10) Knowing that you could lose your life, be injured, or imprisoned:

Would you fight to protect your basic rights and liberty?

Would you send your child to fight for basic rights and liberty?

What rights would you fight for?

What rights would you abandon before fighting for?

Fairness vs Liberty

Start of Ben Shapiro's article Titled The 2nd French Revolution

"Every old ideological conflict eventually becomes new again. So it is with today's battle between the forces of socialism, called "fairness" by its advocates, and the forces of capitalism, labeled "liberty" by its supporters. What we are witnessing is an ancient struggle between those who believe in the rights of the individual and those who believe in a sort of "general will." Those of conservative bent ardently hope for a second American Revolution; those of the left wish desperately for a second French Revolution.

This is not mere rhetoric. Look at the history of the first American Revolution, and you will see the fundamental principles that animate Rush Limbaugh; look at the history of the first French Revolution, and you will see the spirit that animates President Barack Obama."

Please go read all of Ben Shapiro's artilce, he clearly defines the battle between going on for the political future of this country.

I love the quote he uses in John Adams' Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, ratified in 1780, provides the basic framework for American governing philosophy: ""All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness." The purpose of the government is to secure these rights.

Where do you stand on liberty vs fairness?

Free Speech – Only if you agree with the establishment.

Central Connecticut State University Prof. Paula Anderson reportedly assigned students in her communications class the task of presenting a discussion on a “relevant issue in the media.” Student John Walhberg and two other students suggested that the Virginia Tech massacre could have been mitigated or stopped altogether if students or professors had been armed. Shortly after professor, Paula Anderson, filed a complaint with the CCSU Police against her student. Wahlberg also touched on the controversial idea of free gun zones on college campuses. Wahlberg wound up being quizzed by police about firearms he owns and where they are kept. http://therecorderonline.net/2009/02/24/professor-called-police-after-student-presentation It’s pretty bad when simple discussing the second amendment will get you hauled in front of the police.