Bureaucrats who feel the need to control this country do not like this. They prefer to control our lives and tax our earnings so that they can maintain and expand their own power. They believe that they know what is best for society and how we should lead our own lives and conduct business. Over the centuries they have expanded their influence into almost every aspect of American society, both socially and economically. However, the internet is one entity that they have yet to seize control over...so far.

Given the level of importance that we place on the internet, the consensus remains that Americans are not willing to let the government begin to control our precious internet freedom--similar to the way in which Americans cherished freedom in everyday life, prior to the presidency of Herbert Hoover/Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1929-1945). These presidents were able to gain control over American society in the midst of "crises". In the event of a crisis, citizens have a tendency to surrender their freedom in exchange for "security" as offered by the government. It is through this very same means that the government will begin to infiltrate, and gain control over, the internet.

The day has yet to come, but once a major problem occurs through the use of the internet, power-hungry bureaucrats will be certain to exploit this opportunity in order to gain control. Some of the potential examples are as follows:

-A terrorist infects a U.S. government database with a virus and therefore the government should expand its control over the internet in order to continue fighting terrorism.

-Children are exposed to too many evils on the internet and therefore the government must step in to prevent this.

-Intellectual property is not thoroughly protected on the internet and therefore the government must take over in order to enforce these laws.

-A war. It may be a war with another nation. Or our government may concoct a new misleading slogan similar to their "war on terror", "war on drugs", "war on poverty", etc.

It is very easy to blame the internet (the communications medium) and to claim that if only we had, say, an "internet security" system in place our children would be "safer". In response, a large national movement will take place blaming "the internet" and "freedom".

A president will then go on to launch an aggressive push to begin control over our once-beloved internet. Many of the scared parents across the nation will then demand that the government protect their children from the evils of society that "infect the internet". Concurrently, the many industries and businesses that have suffered, due to better competition online, will lobby in support of the president. The defense contractors who profit from increased defense measures will also lobby on behalf of the president. For added strength, the many power-hungry politicians such as long-time senators Joe Lieberman and John D. Rockefeller IV will also get behind the president under the guise of "security".

In fact, many of these actors have already begun their attack on the internet through gimmicks such as government regulated "net neutrality". All they need now is the right "crisis" to appear. In a testimony to congress, Rockefeller defined "cybersecurity perpetrated through the internet as the #1 national hazard of attack on the homeland]]> http://www.campaignforliberty.org/separating-ideas-from-individuals http://www.campaignforliberty.org/separating-ideas-from-individuals#comments Fri, 23 Mar 2012 15:58:32 -0400 http://www.campaignforliberty.org/separating-ideas-from-individuals Ideas change the world, not people.

Throughout the centuries, people have exchanged ideas. Some ideas have brought benefits to the world. Other ideas have been damaging. While certain ideas are constantly expanded upon. Throughout history, many of the well-known philosophers engaged fellow citizens on ideas such as religion, god and the proper role of government in society. Even as philosophers and various religious figures no longer exist; it is their ideas that are very relevant to this day and are topics in books, documentaries and everyday discussion.

Chinese Communist Party Chairman, Mao Ze Dong could not have succeeded in maintaining power for so long if he did not control the ideas that circulated in society. The government controlled the media, education and communication lines. The idea that permeated society was that of communism -- all things are done for the greater good of the community. If people held the idea that Mao ruled for his own personal interest the entire base of Chinese society would have been completely different during his time in rule. Mao did not create the idea of communism. If he did not utilize the idea of communism it is very possible that another Chinese person would have. This is only one example of the countless ways that people have used ideas in order to affect society.

We currently live in a world where people often associate ideas with people. They often state that figures like Stalin and Hitler were evil because of their acts of genocide, rather than condemning genocide itself. They condemn Thomas Jefferson for having immoral views on slavery in his early years while discrediting all of the positive ideas that he upheld and fought for throughout his lifetime. In fact, many of the ideas that Jefferson promulgated were not even his own but derived from other figures such as John Locke.

John Locke was one of the pioneers in framing the concept of a Constitutional Republic. The basis of this philosophy assumed that those in power have a tendency to abuse their power. Therefore, the government shall be restrained by the people through a Constitution. The Constitution is an agreement between the people and the government. If the government violates this agreement the people must hold the government accountable. It is a rather simple concept and in no way should be interpreted as a reflection of John Locke, as an individual.

Locke also emphasized the importance of protecting liberty. Many of those in modern-day society who do not value liberty as highly as Locke have a tendency to attack individual proponents of liberty rather than attacking the idea itself.

This common argument is a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad homine.

Argumentum ad homine is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater. The relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid.

Unfortunately, much of our modern-day media and publications are plastered with this type of logical fallacy. One MSNBC pundit, Keith Olbermann, is notorious for attacking individuals rather than ideas. He regularly hosts a skit entitled "The Worst Person in the World" during which he perpetually attacks individuals rather than having any sort of discussion about the ideas at hand. In an early July 2010 episode, he drew attention to Rand Paul]]> http://www.campaignforliberty.org/ron-paul-vs-alexander-hamilton http://www.campaignforliberty.org/ron-paul-vs-alexander-hamilton#comments Fri, 23 Mar 2012 15:58:11 -0400 http://www.campaignforliberty.org/ron-paul-vs-alexander-hamilton On the 200 Year Anniversary, The Real Debate Begins Again

In January 1811, The First Bank of the United States (BUS) was brought down. Two hundred years later, The Federal Reserve Bank has gradually become the central point of most political discussion in America. For added fuel to the debate, Congressman Ron Paul has just been appointed Chairman of the Domestic Monetary Policy Subcommittee of the House of Representatives, effective January 2011. In many ways, Ron Paul represents the tradition of Thomas Jefferson who was the most outspoken opponent of the BUS, while our current Treasury Secretary could be compared to Alexander Hamilton who was the most outspoken advocate of a central bank.

As in modern times, it was not only a monetary debate but an ideological conflict that consisted of two camps -- Jefferson supporters and Hamilton supporters. Those who followed Hamilton had a tendency to side with greater authority for the central government, while those who sided with Jefferson supported a view that revolved around the notion of protecting the liberty of citizens. As part of this ideological debate, Hamilton advocated a need for the central government to control the monetary system; while Jefferson propounded that government control of money is anathema to a free society. The purviews of these two ideological goliaths were crystallized around the debate over the bank -- the nucleus of their debates indeed. President Washington often had to mediate over this issue.

Jefferson's assumptions rested on his empirical understanding of the way in which the British Empire had become corrupted by financiers closely tied to the central bank. Other parts of Europe had identical experiences. Jefferson devoted extensive time to studying the collapse of past empires such as the Romans who saw the government's gradual debasement of their currency over centuries.

Hamilton's worldview was diametrically opposed to Jefferson's as he was largely influenced by Hobbes, who emphasized a need for a strong central government in his famous book Leviathan. Hence, control over money should also rest in the hands of the central government. As a child in the Caribbean, Alexander Hamilton led a life of hardship where one tragedy followed the next. He saw many of the evil things that man is capable of. He carried a negative view with him to New York where he then experienced many years of war reaffirming his cynical view of human behaviour. Perhaps it was a lifetime exposed to man's crueller elements which led him to the view that men must be controlled -- to prevent all of the evils of society from occurring.

Thomas Jefferson was raised in much different circumstances. Jefferson was part of the most affluent echelon of society. He was provided with the best education available. He had servants and people in his life whom he could trust and count on. Jefferson was largely influenced by John Locke who was viscerally opposed to all forms of central government. Locke loathed all forms of coercion and held that the primary function of government is to protect property. Perhaps Jefferson's life of fortune had a major influence in forming his view that man is capable of benevolence and altruism when left free from government coercion.

Regardless of the root of their opposing views, Jefferson and Hamilton debated vehemently. In 1791 Hamilton won the debate by successfully establishing The First Bank of The United States. Jefferson later conceded that this was the most tragic defeat of his entire life. Even though Jefferson lost this battle to Hamilton, as President he later went on to push for its abolishment. In 1811, after he had left office, Jefferson openheartedly witnessed the Bank's charter removed -- victory at last.

As the story goes, monetary policy remained at the forefront of all political debate throughout the next century, until a Federal Reserve Bank was established in 1913. Since that time, monetary policy has been pushed to the side in mainstream political discussion. Although many perceive the bank as a branch of the Federal government this body has been able to operate free from any oversight by the American people, in a very secretive manner. In stealth, the Federal Reserve has averted all of the necessary criticisms it has deserved over the decades, as the principal culprit in creating the business cycle. Having evaded public scrutiny for way too many years, the Fed is now the focus of the public's eye, in light of the recent economic catastrophe it created.

As the one man in DC that has spoken out against the Fed for decades, Ron Paul has just been nominated as The Chairman of the Domestic Monetary Policy Subcommittee in the 112th Congress. Congressman Paul will certainly keep this debate at the forefront of public debate as it was in the early years of America. Despite his growing support, Ron Paul cannot abolish The Federal Reserve in one swift swoop as was done in 1811 or 1836; however the debate will certainly move back to its original position -- at the center of public debate. Let's get started.

Copyright ]]> http://www.campaignforliberty.org/the-machiavellian-states-of-america http://www.campaignforliberty.org/the-machiavellian-states-of-america#comments Fri, 23 Mar 2012 15:57:52 -0400 http://www.campaignforliberty.org/the-machiavellian-states-of-america Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) was the preeminent political philosopher of his time, whose immeasurable influence still resonates today, perhaps even moreso than ever. His book, The Prince, has remained as a very widely read book throughout the globe for the past century, and before. In fact, it was the advent of the printing press, which came to existence just before his time, which helped disseminate his political philosophy across Continental Europe into the hands of Kings, Queens and major philosophical figures. In modern times, although many people have not read his works or are even aware of his existence, it is the political philosophy of Machiavelli and his descendants which has permeated the mentalities of many Americans and citizens across the globe.

Machiavelli's worldview and writings were quite extensive and impossible to summarize in this brief article but a few of his main focal points are extremely relevant today and deserve re-examination by the American people.

In Niccolo's most well-known book, The Prince, a strong emphasis is placed on the need for The Prince (or the governing body) to abandon principles and act immorally on occasion in order to achieve a particular objective (or to maintain/expand power). The Prince constantly posits a view in terms of power which is not necessarily relevant to this article--the focus of this article is the notion of abandoning principles to achieve a desired goal or objective. This is unfortunately the sentiment that has not only become embodied by our "representative government" but also much of the population. Members of our government carrying the labels (R) and (D), along with members of the numerous vestigial federal bureaus that surround our National Capital, can be found guilty of this Machiavellian practice.

As according to The Prince, a leader must always protect his reputation and be willing to act immorally on certain occasions. "Immorally" can be defined as committing acts of brute force, aggression, deception or even large scale unjustifiable attacks. As seen during America's invasion of Iraq in 2002, most Americans can now all acknowledge that our government was guilty of Machiavellian tactics indeed, by deceiving the public and aggressively attacking a defenseless country through brute force. Afterwards, the American public hardly criticized the government, at all.

The American public's willingness to accept this invasive attack committed by our government is evidence that either: a) a large segment of our population is Machiavellian, or b) our government has complete authority and the people must accept whatever the government does without any repercussions from us, the people. Either one of the above scenarios is not a good sign of things to come. Are the majority of American citizens "Machiavellians" or will they eventually become fed up with the arbitrary decisions made by our government and scale back the haphazard political system they have created?

Another, more recent example of Machiavellian-style government abuse is the increased security measures at airports. Although the security measures are blatant violations of the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution, many of those who support the increased measures nonchalantly shrug their shoulders at this blatant overreach of Federal authority as they believe that "it keeps us safe"--in their view, the ends justify the means. Proponents of every constitutional violation, often use a Machiavellian justification for their stance.

Machiavellian tactics are by no means a rare angle played up by modern-day politicians but are in fact the norm among most members of our Legislative and Executive Branches. "That trillion dollars of taxpayer money was spent because if it wasn't there would have been a catastrophe." "We are deeper in debt than any other country in history because of dire circumstances." "The government passed the Patriot Act and now spies on citizens in order to keep everyone safe from terrorism." The list goes on and on without an end in sight to the reckless and out-of-control Machiavellian politicians in America. Meanwhile, The US Constitution does not provide our government with authority to engage in most of what it has been doing for many decades.

The constant disregard for The US Constitution essentially gives our government an open ticket to do whatever it wants without any obligation to the people. Many of those who disregard The Constitution consider it an antiquated document that is not fit for addressing "modern-day" problems. On the contrary, The Constitution was specifically written with the intention of addressing the largest "modern-day" problem--restricting an abusive and out of control government in order to protect individual liberty.

As citizens, our authority derives from The Constitution--not our "democratic rights", especially considering that recent US Presidents have acted in a much different way than the platforms that they campaigned on. If we vote for one outcome and realize a different outcome, how legitimate is our democratic authority?

To rest all of our confidence on politicians who abandon principles and disregard The Constitution in order to achieve their desired objectives is quite discouraging as a means to create a "change" in our political system. On the contrary, the nationwide disapproval for our current political system, coupled by historically atrocious economic conditions, is proof that the American people should return to The Constitution as an alternative option for correcting our political system rather than depending on Machiavellian-style politicians that have been running this country for so many decades.

Copyright ]]> http://www.campaignforliberty.org/will-america-shrug http://www.campaignforliberty.org/will-america-shrug#comments Fri, 23 Mar 2012 15:57:27 -0400 http://www.campaignforliberty.org/will-america-shrug Since the time The United States of America was established its independence almost 235 years ago, the way that citizens view their government has changed significantly. Initially the government was intended to serve the people; whereas, in modern times, a large majority of Americans accept the role of government as a force that we have no control over except once every 4 years when we elect a president. Otherwise, most Americans pass through their everyday lives watching the news and the decisions of their elected officials without making any sort of attempt to influence the actions of their elected officials -- who were put in place in order to serve us, the people.

In Thomas Paine]]> http://www.campaignforliberty.org/views-from-abroad http://www.campaignforliberty.org/views-from-abroad#comments Fri, 23 Mar 2012 15:56:54 -0400 http://www.campaignforliberty.org/views-from-abroad

Having spent almost six years living in various parts of Asia and traveling to over 50 cities, I always made a deliberate effort to absorb as much of the local sentiment as possible. Sometimes this is very difficult given time constraints, language barriers, etc.; however, certain aspects of my travels were very clearly spelled out and remain very vivid to this day.

When I found myself engaged in meaningful discussions with people who understood their society and seemed genuinely connected to their society, I would always ask "what do you think is the biggest problem in society?". From my time spent in places like Philippines, India, Vietnam and China, the overwhelming majority of times, I received a similar response--"Government".

They would cite off numerous examples of how the government forcibly took away peoples' land or how they manipulated elections or how people were given the death penalty for reasons that many citizens could not justify. They explained the fact that it is difficult for an individual to succeed professionally without exploiting relationships to the government. Politicians use their political power in order to grow rich. Politicians corruptly do favors for other people or companies in order to maintain their political status or position. Another major complaint that I often received is that the government constantly wasted money.

The latter issues are easy for most people around the world to acknowledge and identify with whether it be citizens of Sweden who can identify countless wasteful government spending projects or citizens of Afghanistan who lived under the rule of warlords who killed their fellow citizens for reasons difficult to justify. Obviously, from one country to the next, there are varying degrees of government corruption, injustice and inefficiency. Nonetheless, there is no denying the fact that governments are corrupt and inefficient.

How does this relate to American society?

American politicians are not much different than politicians in the rest of the world. Politicians in America do favors for others; they constantly waste money; and they constantly make decisions in order to maintain/increase their own power/wealth. The Obama Administration has even begun to justify the assassination of American citizens when accused of being affiliated with terrorism.

Yet given our understanding for government and politicians, many Americans still continue to place trust in this government and grant more power to this government while dis-empowering the individual. They would rather voluntarily handover the freedoms granted to them, especially in times of crisis or extreme circumstances. Is a crisis a justifiable reason to abandon rules and principles? Wasn't America intended to be "The land of the free"? As Americans continue to give up their freedom and expand the role of government in society, what makes our nation any different from the rest?

In 2010, Americans still genuinely believe that this is "The land of the free". They still perceive us as different from other nations. Some even mistakenly believe that we were attacked on 911 because of our freedom.

Unfortunately, all Americans must come to the reality that America is not nearly as free of a nation as it once was. The role of government in society is bigger now than ever before. Therefore the level of corruption, inefficiency and wasteful spending is also at an all-time high.

Conclusion

Corruption and inefficiency levels obviously vary from one nation to the next but why would we voluntarily empower and expand authority to a group of corrupt and inefficient bureaucrats? Are we no longer capable of governing ourselves and managing our own lives? Unlike many parts of the world, we have the democratic right to choose which direction to move in; more government or less.

Although I met many Barack Obama enthusiasts during my travels, the majority of these people supported Obama because of his antiwar message, which we now know was pure rhetoric. However, when I explained to these people that Obama wants to expand the size of the government they often became puzzled, "But politicians and government bureaus are corrupt and wasteful, why would you want more of them?"



Copyright ]]> http://www.campaignforliberty.org/the-proposed-enemy-expatriation-act-sending-american-citizens-into-exile http://www.campaignforliberty.org/the-proposed-enemy-expatriation-act-sending-american-citizens-into-exile#comments Wed, 25 Jan 2012 23:15:35 -0500 http://www.campaignforliberty.org/the-proposed-enemy-expatriation-act-sending-american-citizens-into-exile Sparked by the nation's so-called war on terrorism, the government has been charging full-throttle into another war -- a war on liberty.  Drawing on its almost limitless technological arsenal, the government surreptitiously tracks and spies on our every movement, places under surveillance our internet and cell phone communications, and screens our bodies and personal effects. 

Instead of standing for the people against these law enforcement abuses of our liberty, Congress has enacted laws such as the USA Patriot Act that undermine, rather than protect, the Bill of Rights.  And to a large extent the American public are bystanders, watching this erosion, if not destruction, of American liberty, while being manipulated into believing that the loss of a few rights won't matter to them.

The destructive march against the constitutional ramparts securing our freedoms continued recently with the National Defense Authorization Act, wherein Congress has granted the president unchecked discretionary powers to detain indefinitely American citizens suspected of aiding acts of terrorism, without a warrant, jury trial or any other constitutional safeguards.

James Madison warned the people to be vigilant and take note of the first experiment with our liberties.  But we have already allowed the government far beyond the first encroachment, with only minimal public outrage and opposition.  The founders would be ashamed of the passivity of millions of "patriotic" Americans.

Things may now be going from very bad to even worse.  This January, Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Congressman Charles Dent (R-PA) introduced legislation to empower the federal government to dispossess citizens of their citizenship and send them into stateless exile.  The fact that reliable weathervanes of the liberal House GOP establishment like Frank Wolf (R-VA) have co-sponsored this bill confirm that this bill is not an outlier.

Introduced as S. 1698 in the Senate and as H.R. 3166 in the House of Representatives, the Enemy Expatriation Act is expressly designed to "add engaging or supporting hostilities against the United States to the list of acts for which United States nationals would lose their nationality."

These bills are inconsistent with current law and Supreme Court precedent.  They appear to be tailored to cow the American people, without regard for the 14^th-Amendment guarantee prohibiting Congress from divesting an American citizen of his citizenship.

On their face, S. 1698 and H.R. 3166 make it appear that any citizen "engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States" would lose his citizenship.  This is unlike current law, which also requires proof that the citizen does so "with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality."  Thus, the new bills would make it much easier for the government to strip a dissenting citizen of his citizenship.

Six of the seven expatriating acts in the current law require proof of formal actions -- either a direct renunciation of citizenship, or a similar act unmistakably demonstrating a change of allegiance to another country.  These bills would require neither.  Rather, they describe a newly minted offense, the commission of which may give rise to the inference of an intent to renounce citizenship, but without requiring any direct evidence of such an intent.

To be sure, current law provides that the commission of treason or other serious acts may justify an inference of renunciation of citizenship.  However, before such an inference can be made, the person previously must have been convicted beyond a reasonable doubt of one or more specified criminal acts.  Under the proposed bills, the government could take away a person's citizenship in a civil action without that person having been previously convicted of a crime in a court governed by traditional procedural safeguards of trial by jury, confrontation of witnesses, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Under the new bills, the government would be required only to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a person "engag in, or purposefully and materially support hostilities against the United States" with the intent of relinquishing his citizenship.  Further, "hostilities" is defined as "any conflict subject to the laws of war" -- as if this definition narrowed the grounds upon which a person could be deprived of citizenship.  The American people are constantly being reminded that the nation is at war against terrorism, albeit undeclared by Congress, and against an as-yet-to-be-defined enemy.  Anyone voicing opposition to the war in Afghanistan, or contributing to an Islamic charitable organization, is thus in jeopardy of being charged with committing the expatriating act set forth in these two bills.

At the height of the Cold War, the Supreme Court rashly decided Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44 (1957), which held that "Congress has the constitutional authority forcibly to take away a person's citizenship, regardless of his intention not to give it up."  However, a decade later in Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253, 254 (1967), the Court corrected its error, holding that United States citizenship, once vested by birth or naturalization, may not be "take away ... without assent: 'In our country, the people are sovereign and Government cannot sever its relationship to the people by taking away their citizenship'" (Afroyim at 257).

This remains the law of the land.  As a unanimous Court ruled in 1980, "n the final analysis, expatriation depends upon the will of the citizen rather than on the will of Congress and its assessment of his conduct" (Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252, 260).

Unfortunately, the Court ruled in that same case that the Constitution required the government to prove by only a "preponderance of the evidence," a standard of proof acceptable in civil cases.  But charging an American with committing an act with the intention of relinquishing one's citizenship is not an ordinary civil matter.  Rather, as dissenting Justice Thurgood Marshall pointed out, " expatriate has lost his right to have rights.  This punishment is offensive to cardinal principles for which the Constitution stands ... He may be subject to banishment, a fate universally decried by civilized people.  He is stateless, a condition deplored in the international community of democracies" (Terrazas, 444 U.S. at 271).

Justice Marshall was right.  Expatriation is not just a civil matter; it is a serious criminal punishment.  Any American citizen charged with having voluntarily renounced his citizenship should be entitled to all the criminal procedures secured by the Bill of Rights.  Nothing less will satisfy due process of law.  S. 1698 and H.R. 3166 move the nation in just the opposite direction, adding more uncertainty where more precision is needed.  If American citizenship is to be protected against involuntary forfeiture, government officials must be reminded that in America, the People, not the government, are sovereign.

Originally published in American Thinker, republished with authors' permission.