The following is a discussion, by a die hard supporter of liberty and freedom, on the absolute necessity of liberty and the difficult road that lie ahead, for anyone who seeks to preserve liberty and freedom.

Nick Bradley | LewRockwell.com
June 11, 2007

Contrary to popular belief, history has repeatedly shown that societies do not need full-time, government-funded militaries to defend themselves – a heavily-armed populace will suffice. Let us look at Switzerland. Since 1291, Switzerland has defended itself through the use of a heavily-armed populace and a robust militia. Throughout the past 800 years, the Swiss citizenry has defended their liberty against threats both foreign and domestic. Read the rest of this entry »

The Judge decided to file the appeal for Ed and Elaine Brown, the same appeal that he denied several months ago. I wonder what kind of a stunt he is trying to pull now.

from Ed and Elaine’s MySpace Blog
We had a call come in this morning. Sorry that I have taken so long to get this to you all…

If you have been reading the blog here then you already know that the judge filed the appeal on Ed and Elaine’s behalf.

The sources that came in today tell us that the judge realizes that he misjudged the lawfulness of the IRS and the federal income tax. Which is why he, himself (the judge mind you!), filed the appeal for the Browns’ case. Read the rest of this entry »

Mac Johnson | HumanEvents.com

Tragedy struck leftists all across America last week when a federal appeals court reviewing the District of Columbia’s handgun ban, ruled that the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed upon by the District. The court’s inexplicable ruling was based on a “radical” interpretation of the recently rediscovered 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which reads:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

According to the Washington Post, which upon hearing of the decision had a small editorial seizure it called “A Dangerous Ruling,” the court’s plain reading of the Bill of Rights has given “a new and dangerous meaning to the 2nd Amendment.” Apparently, when the Post reads the amendment according to the ancient and safe interpretation (which goes all the way back to the 1970s) all it sees is:

The Population of the nanny State, being composed of irresponsible rednecks, rejects, and retards, must not be allowed to have Arms.

“[T]his radical ruling will inevitably mean more people killed and wounded as keeping guns out of the city becomes harder,” the Post continued, sagely foreseeing a day in the near future when the district might not be the safe gunfree enclave of sanity that it now is. One wonders if D.C. might someday even become the murder capital of the United States without its protective cloak of gun control disarming its law-abiding citizens. Read the rest of this entry »

Plainly put, the Honorable Ron Paul is America’s last hope for a nonviolent end to the oppressive and suicidal policies that have been set in motion in the last few generations by leaders who amount to little more than glorified demagogues. He is a congressman from Galveston, Texas who has proven his regard for the Constitution, The Bill of Rights and his love of the founding principles upon which these United States are built upon.

He has recently announced that he is running for President in the 2008 elections, he will be running in the Republican primaries so that he can, perhaps, get a chance at the Oval Office. If you are not familiar with him, I hope you will take a minute to review a few short talks by Congressman Paul. I think you will see, as many others have, that he is a fine statesman and a natural leader. Read the rest of this entry »

Visit any shopping center, sporting event or restaurant and think about what you see there. Do you think that, as long as these people are contented with games and food, that they will care about the gradual erosion of liberty and the incremental increases in the power of the president?

After a rare stroll through the shopping mall yesterday, I came to this conclusion; nobody knows or cares about what is happening. Those who do find it necessary to pay attention, are generally caught up in the phony left-right paradigm and fail to see that the government is using this paradigm to destroy the constitution and bill of rights. Read the rest of this entry »

In this excerpt, Bushladin uses the constitution to justify illegal wire taps. He also confuses Osama Bin Laden with Saddam Heussein.Lets see now, which manufactured enemy am I referring to in this answer, aha!

The American people take in this Orwellian double speak without questioning… What is the motivating factor behind all of Bush’s reasons? FEAR.

He always says September 11 this, September 11 that, we have to protect our freedoms from others who want to harm us…

9/11 doesn’t give this man the right to abrogate the constitution. Where in the document does it give the president the authority to order wiretaps without court approval? Why doesn’t he cite the amendment? Are there now “secret” amendments, sort of like the “secret” provisions of the patriot act?

The fact is, these wiretaps are strictly forbidden; Bush is using classic Orwellian doublespeak to mask this and make himself seem officially “correct.”

In George Orwell’s novel, 1984, there are no laws; people are simply taken away for whatever reason the government sees fit. It appears as if this may be happening in the United States; indeed it is a plague which is sweeping through the western world.

Press Conference of the President

…
Question: Mr. President, thank you, sir. Are you going to order a leaks investigation into the disclosure of the NSA surveillance program? And why did you skip the basic safeguard of asking courts for permission for these intercepts?

THE PRESIDENT: Let me start with the first question. There is a process that goes on inside the Justice Department about leaks, and I presume that process is moving forward. My personal opinion is it was a shameful act for someone to disclose this very important program in a time of war. The fact that we’re discussing this program is helping the enemy.

You’ve got to understand — and I hope the American people understand — there is still an enemy that would like to strike the United States of America, and they’re very dangerous. And the discussion about how we try to find them will enable them to adjust. Now, I can understand you asking these questions and if I were you, I’d be asking me these questions, too.

But it is a shameful act by somebody who has got secrets of the United States government and feels like they need to disclose them publicly.

Let me give you an example about my concerns about letting the enemy know what may or may not be happening. In the late 1990s, our government was following Osama bin Laden because he was using a certain type of telephone. And then the fact that we were following Osama bin Laden because he was using a certain type of telephone made it into the press as the result of a leak. And guess what happened? Saddam — Osama bin Laden changed his behavior. He began to change how he communicated.

We’re at war, and we must protect America’s secrets. And so the Justice Department, I presume, will proceed forward with a full investigation. I haven’t ordered one, because I understand there’s kind of a natural progression that will take place when this kind of leak emerges.

The second part of the question is? Sorry — I gave a long answer.

Question: It was, why did you skip the basic safeguards of asking courts for permission for the intercepts?

THE PRESIDENT: First of all, I — right after September the 11th, I knew we were fighting a different kind of war. And so I asked people in my administration to analyze how best for me and our government to do the job people expect us to do, which is to detect and prevent a possible attack.

That’s what the American people want. We looked at the possible scenarios. And the people responsible for helping us protect and defend came forth with the current program, because it enables us to move faster and quicker. And that’s important. We’ve got to be fast on our feet, quick to detect and prevent.

We use FISA still — you’re referring to the FISA court in your question — of course, we use FISAs. But FISA is for long-term monitoring. What is needed in order to protect the American people is the ability to move quickly to detect.

Now, having suggested this idea, I then, obviously, went to the question, is it legal to do so? I am — I swore to uphold the laws. Do I have the legal authority to do this? And the answer is, absolutely. As I mentioned in my remarks, the legal authority is derived from the Constitution, as well as the authorization of force by the United States Congress.