| No human being has the right -- under any circumstances -- to initiate force against another human being, nor to threaten or delegate its initiation. The Zero Aggression Principle |
| |
|
|
Looking for Freedom?
|
June
04 , 2007 Libertarian
Commentary on The News, 27
May - 02 June 2007 African
horror and collapse: Sudan responded by threatening to cut off supplies of one of the ingredients of Coke and Pepsi – even though Chad is the main supplier. Sudan isn’t interested in doing anything but continuing to kill their own people, and they don’t know world economics – shucks, they sound like a typical government, don’t they? Mama's Note: As usual, governments cut off trade and the ordinary citizens will pay the price. These "sanctions" have been used in Cuba, Iraq and all over the world... but I can't remember one of them having the effect offered as the excuse for them, only more starving, sick people - especially children! (Read the rest here) Two pages, as usual.
Out
of Chaos comes Control President Franklin Roosevelt stated:"[i]n politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way." Every time there is a crisis, real or contrived, the solution is always more government. When government senses a potential crisis on the horizon, or manufactures one, the next step is to allow the crisis to degenerate to the point where the people demand immediate action irrespective of the consequences. In the author's opinion, the flood of illegal aliens pouring across our southern borders is a classic example of this principle. The problems caused by this invasion were not some unforeseen event outside of the control of government. It has spiraled out of control because it was planned that way. (Read the rest here)
Bush,
The Bible And The War On Terror When he was running for president in 2000, GW Bush was asked what philosopher had the most influence on him. He answered: "Jesus Christ... He touched my heart." Based on just these few words, millions of Christians drank Bush's Kool-Aid. I am not talking about those people who voted for him because they thought he was just slightly less repulsive than Gore. I am talking about all those church zombies who, in the words of one observer, want to add him to the Holy Trinity. However, if they were to refer to the Bible, they would quickly find that neither the Iraq War nor the War on Terror have any basis there. (Read the rest here)
Immigration
‘Compromise’ Sells Out Our Sovereignty What is seldom discussed in the immigration debate, unfortunately, is the incentives the US government provides for people to enter the United States illegally. As we know well, when the government subsidizes something we get more of it. The government provides a myriad of federal welfare benefits to those who come to the US illegally, including food stamps and free medical care. Is this a way to discourage people from coming to the US illegally? Additionally, one of the most absurd incentives for people to come to the US illegally is the promise of instant US citizenship to anyone born on our soil. That is why when Congress returns next week I will be re-introducing my Constitutional amendment to deny automatic citizenship to individuals born on US soil to parents who are not US citizens or who do not owe permanent allegiance to the United States . (Read the rest here)
Matriarchs, Pop Tarts, and Unparented Children By my reckoning, the United States officially became a matriarchy on January 20, 1993. That's the day Hillary Clinton moved into the West Wing. Soon she prevailed on Bill to establish the President's Interagency Council on Women, the group that railroaded feminist-inspired policies and programs throughout the federal government. Matriarchy refers to a society in which feminist beliefs have become entrenched in the government, mass media, and other institutions. And the cornerstone of feminist belief is the dogma that patriarchy is an unrelenting, pervasive threat to women's well-being. (Read the rest here)
From
The Archives If you have ever asked yourself the above question, the answer is---it has been replaced by Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution for the United States, commonly known as, the Commerce Clause. This provision grants Congress the power “[t]o regulate commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” During the past 70 years Congress has used this clause to circumvent the limitations placed on its powers by the Constitution. That body has taken the phrase---“to regulate commerce…among the several States,” and transformed it into the “constitutional” basis for a multitude of federal regulatory schemes for everything from civil rights to gun control. It has also been used to unconstitutionally expand the federal government’s criminal jurisdiction over the people of the several States. In addition, the expansion of federal power through the Commerce Clause has all but nullified the Tenth Amendment. (Read the rest here)
The
Independent Institute The Bush administration has failed to capture or kill Osama bin Laden or to win the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Now, the administration has also missed the chance to maintain a stable nuclear-armed Pakistan. Like the U.S. policy toward the Shah’s Iran in the 1960s and 1970s, the Bush administration, despite a rhetorical commitment to spread democracy around the world, has put all of its eggs in the basket of an autocrat unlikely to survive—in this case, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf. Although Musharraf has used the U.S. war on terror to play the United States like a fiddle, the Bush administration believes there is no better alternative. Unfortunately, backing Musharraf could create a nuclear-armed Pakistan controlled by radical Islamists. (Read the rest here)
The
Future of Freedom Foundation June 1 is the 227th anniversary of the birth of Carl von Clausewitz, the influential Prussian military theorist and historian. Clausewitz is best known for writing in his book, On War, "War is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means." These words come to mind whenever I hear conservative enthusiasts for the Iraq occupation complain about political interference with military operations. They don't understand the most basic fact of war: it is a government program. So why aren't people who claim to be suspicious of other government programs suspicious of war? I can see only two reasons, neither of them flattering: power lust or nationalistic zeal. (Read the rest here)
Individual
Liberty - 101 A major demand of the environmental movement, put forward as essential to combating global warming, is the imposition of a massive rollback in global emissions of carbon dioxide accompanied by a freeze on such emissions at the sharply reduced level imposed. In this spirit, Britain's Stern Review, published in the fall of 2006, seeks a reduction of 25 percent by the year 2050. Going considerably further, the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has urged a 60 percent reduction. (Read the rest here) (Read the entire article at the source website. Use the back button to return.)
External Articles And now we find out that the major reason for the extent of harmed responders was no less than Hizzoner Rudy Giuliani himself. According to the Times’ Ground Zero Illnesses Clouding Giuliani’s Legacy, “The city ran a generally slipshod, haphazard, uncoordinated, unfocused response to environmental concerns.” This is their quote from David Newman, an industrial hygienist with the New York Committee on Occupational Safety and Health, a labor group. The Times adds “City officials and a range of medical experts are now convinced that the dust and toxic materials in the air around the site were a menace.” No kidding. Two 500,000-ton Towers were pulverized, vaporized into that mist. (Read the rest here) (Read the entire article at the source website. Use the back button to return.)
Property, and all else follows from that Kenny
Johnsson interviews Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., for The Liberal Post Johnsson: Do you consider yourself a libertarian? Rockwell:
Most certainly. What are the choices? Conservative is obviously out, even
though the media describe us this way. The term's heritage dates to the
Tory party in Britain, the very mercantilist-landowners who resisted change
in the Corn Laws. This group opposed capitalism as socially destabilizing.
They didn't like the merchant class to making more money than the old
families –meaning that they didn't want to lose their privileges.
In the US, the term conservative came about after World War II. It had
no meaning, really, other than to refer to the general desire to be prudent
in public affairs, in contrast to the revolutionary tendencies on the
left. The problem is that it amounted to a defense of the status quo,
and, after Buckley, it was irretrievably wrapped up with the Cold War
cause. (Read
the rest here) (Read the entire article at the source
website. Use the back button to return.)
From The Libertarian Enterprise
Visit the Rational Review News Digest - Subscribe to the daily email edition and listen to the podcase!
Do
you know a good liberty centered blogs? Wyoming - Living Free, One Day At A Time!! Mama has her own blog now!!!
Click
Here for the Archives
Friends
of Liberty Links
Special
Feature! Add your signature to the
Contact
The Price of Liberty Editor MamaLiberty
is the owner, publisher, writer, chief cook and bottle washer for The
Price of Liberty. |
Our
Writers No longer active contributors:
Editors And Staff
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
