When two individuals — who are adept thinkers, writers, speakers, researchers and philosophers — come together for a melding of minds, the result is almost always synergistic beyond what you might expect; in a way that can make us see the world from a fresh perspective.

Adam Kokesh and Alex Jones are two great and influential men of our time, inspiring a spirit of freedom and individualism in everyone who will give their message a chance. Every day they put themselves out there to speak of what they feel is the truth, despite being seen as politically incorrect by the vast majority of loud voices in our society such as the government, media and major political parties.

Today I had the good fortune of stumbling across a fantastic discussion, between Alex Jones and Adam Kokesh, on a set of topics which really crystallized for me what will be the lasting challenges for the post-millennial generations. These challenges include: the challenge of recognizing the violence inherent in statism, overcoming statism and establishing a truly free society with free markets and individual liberties.

“We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our selection between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat in our drink, in our necessities and comforts, in our labors and in our amusements, for our callings and our creeds…our people.. must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live.. We have not time to think, no means of calling the mis-managers to account, but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow suffers. Our landholders, too…retaining indeed the title and stewardship of estates called theirs, but held really in trust for the treasury, must…be contented with penury, obscurity and exile.. private fortunes are destroyed by public as well as by private extravagance.

This is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of society is reduced to mere automatons of misery, to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering… And the fore horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression.”

–Thomas Jefferson

There are many common threads between Liberals and Libertarians, such as the desire for personal liberties; but the areas where they differ are somewhat significant. In a nutshell, Liberals are passionate about personal liberties such as freedom of speech; but they tend to have little concern for our economic liberties. Generally they will turn a blind eye to the loss of property rights, if their ends are achieved in the process.

Liberals stood by while the health care bill was rammed through Congress, taking away our ability to choose how and where we spend our own money and forcing us to purchase health insurance from the very insurance cartels they claimed to be opposed to. All of this, despite the fact that, when implemented on a state level in Massachusetts, their program failed miserably; raising premiums and claim denial rates far above what they were prior to the reforms.

Liberals supported Cap and Trade legislation, which taxes and regulates virtually every single aspect of our lives, by attaching a tax to the generation of Carbon Dioxide. This also invites government inspectors into our homes, to make sure that we’re using “government approved” designs for everything from our appliances, to light bulbs, windows and insulation.

When faced with conflicting opinions on humanity’s contribution to climate change they parrot the Al Gore stance that the debate on climate change is finished; pretending that everyone who matters has voiced their opinion and they have all unanimously favored their position that humanity is the primary cause of changes in our climate.

They are even going so far as describing dissenters as “climate denialists,” using the same kinds of ad-hominem attacks used against individuals who have a critical view of the historical accuracy of the generally accepted view of the Holocaust.

One of the fundamental differences I find between Libertarians and Liberals, is the Liberals’ faith and trust in the national government to tax, redistribute wealth and regulate enterprise. All of which are based on enormously flawed social and economic theories, which history has shown, with countless examples, to create widespread poverty and destroy capital formation.

• Excessive taxation/regulation helps to create the very poverty they seek to eliminate, by making small businesses less competitive and more encumbered. These are the very businesses individuals would have jobs with, thus keeping them off the dole.
• Redistribution of wealth inherently has a trickle up effect, with the successful middle class entrepreneur being robbed by the redistribution and advantages given to large organizations in the process. The redistribution rarely even touches the very wealthy, because they tend to have their wealth structured in trusts and other vehicles which shield them via loopholes in the code. In fact it benefits the wealthy because the government spends what they have taken on their crony corporatist friends.
• The government has a terrible record for regulating just about anything. Typically when the government sets out to “regulate” something, it only means that the legislators are going to write regulations which are detrimental to small enterprises; while the lobbyists busy themselves crafting loopholes for anyone in larger enterprises who can afford them. These regulations inherently damage the fairness of the business environment in favor of large businesses who can afford to either purchase a loophole or absorb the increased cost of adopting the changes.

The financial reform bill is a wonderful example of Liberal “regulation” of problem corporations.

source: seeking alpha

I posted an 11-page summary of Senator Dodd’s financial reform bill yesterday.

After receiving input from one of the top experts on credit rating agencies and various other smart people, I have now formed an opinion about Dodd’s bill.

Specifically, Dodd’s bill – while sounding good – is really an all-out attempt to save the current, broken system.

Dodd’s bill contains a number of concepts and catch-phrases that sound like reform. But the bill would actually:

• Keep the current Federal Reserve system, even though it is a wholly-failed system (see this, this and this). True, the bill would take away some of the Fed’s regulatory oversight powers, but the Fed has never used them anyway, so it is really maintaining the status quo
• Keep the current NRSRO credit rating system – maintaining Moody’s, S&P and Fitch as a government-endorsed rating monopoly – even though that is a wholly-failed system
• While saying it “ends too big to fail”, the bill would actually make sure that attempts to immediately break up the giant insolvent black holes dragging our economy down – such as Senator Sanders’ bill – will be killed

We can go on and on, as the bill – while using a lot of nice language – attempts to prop up just about every aspect of the current system, while appointing (“trust us, we’re different”) regulators to oversee things. It does nothing to try to prevent future forms of looting (which Congressmen Grayson, Clay and Miller attempted to do in their bill).

But we cannot be sure that such regulators won’t be subject to the same regulatory capture as all of the current regulators have suffered. Or that Senator Dodd has suffered, for that matter.

Only by taking away monopoly power from the too big to fails, and the NRSROs, and the Fed can we ever have a stable economy.

In addition, the economy cannot recovery until trust is restored in the financial system, and trust will not be restored unless the fraud behind the financial crash is prosecuted. Dodd’s bill ignores past fraud.

I also find it interesting and even comical to see that Bill Maher fancies himself a libertarian.

source: lewrockwell.com
“…Ironically, Bill Maher claims himself to be a Libertarian. Smoking pot and bashing President Bush alone do not make you a Libertarian. It takes strong convictions and faith in the concept of Liberty to stick to Libertarian principles in a town like Ancient Rome (that I sometimes refer to as modern day Washington D.C). Dr. Paul has proven the mettle by proving his loyalty for Libertarian principles while surviving the cut-throat D.C atmosphere for over three decades…”

Here’s an interesting excerpt from a Bill Maher show, where he voiced his stance on others who do not share his views on Cap & Trade.

“Shut the fuck up while I slap your face for making noise! Now pass the cap-and-trade law, you stupid bitch, and repeat after me, ‘global warming is real.’” [applause]

Maher’s quote speaks volumes of the Liberal hubris associated with global warming. I have seen this sentiment echoed by a variety of liberal voices; few of which seem to be interested in having a genuinely scientific debate on this phenomena.

It’s very difficult to have a discussion with someone who is so violently opposed to even the notion of questioning their views. I’ve often found it quite difficult to discuss politics and often science with die-hard Liberals. They tend to fancy themselves the hero of the common man; but most of their solutions are superficial and actually hurt the common man whom they are so concerned with helping.

If more Liberals would just look into things, deeper than the phony partisan rhetoric, I think their movement would be much more effective at achieving their ends. They need to understand that there are more than two views to every issue; it isn’t just Democrat or Republican. There are often hundreds of possible solutions; while only two are seen as viable by the controlled left-right dialectic.

Getting caught up in the left-right dialectic is the road to folly; because it keeps you from realizing the wide range of alternative possibilities which are available to solve problems. Solutions which don’t necessarily require more government programs, rules and regulations. Perhaps, god forbid, solutions which are actually constitutional and preserve, not only personal liberties; but also economic liberties.

Do you consider yourself a sovereign human being with all of the rights and responsibilities that go along with this? Many of us are quite well versed in our rights, often from an early age; neglected are the responsibilities we must attend to, in order to preserve our rights.

If we fail to attend to our responsibilities, then our liberties are continually at risk and we are in jeopardy of becoming permanently dependent on the shaky infrastructure of state-funded safety nets.

This dependancy can be true whether we are rich, or poor; it is not just for those of us who are on welfare. There are plenty of systems in place in the developed world to allow rich people to be, pretty much, non productive consumers, if they so choose; the same can be said for many of the poorer people.

The many complex and interleaved layers of society, have left room for a good many non-productive activities; it has, in effect, made non-productivity sustainable. The sustainability of this non-productivity, only lasts as long as the layers of society remain in tact and in relative harmony. When this harmony becomes materially interrupted, chaos is likely to result, with a subsequent loss of liberty for the non-prepared among us.

Deep dependency comes at a great cost, for a variety of reasons. When the supply of goods and services, provided by the welfare/warfare state, becomes interrupted; individuals who have become deeply dependent on the layers of society will likely lose their rights very quickly.

Whereas those who are responsible, productive and well prepared, will better maintain those rights; because they will not need to rely so much on outside help from the state. The more layers of state-funded assistance we build; the more people will tend to become complacent and non-productive; further exacerbating the problems our society faces.

Anyone who has ever visited a Native American reservation can attest that the years of U.S. government payments to these individuals, has by and large, not made their lives any better. It has instead made an entire society of, mostly impoverished individuals, dependent on checks from the government; many of whom have barely adequate living conditions. While it was likely a well meaning act to provide these individuals with assistance, it has merely put off the inevitable day, when they will have to figure out their own way of providing a living for themselves.

I want to share with you a podcast by Jack Spirko of thesurvivalpodcast.com, in which he goes into this topic in great detail. He further explains what I have outlined above, as well as what we can do to ensure our rights are protected, whether or not the government is protecting them for us.

Episode-411- Rights – Responsibilities and Dependence

Listen to Survival Podcast Episode #411

Today we discuss the myth of the “safety net” that is touted by the media. In doing so we will come to understand how deep dependence is among both the extremely affluent and extremely poor segments of society. We will go deeper though and come to understand how the disconnect between rights and responsiblities are the root of the program.

Join me today as we discuss…

• Free medical care is not enough – wait till you hear this!
• Want a free cell phone get on Medicaid, Section 8, etc. yes it is true
• What the Medicaid program shows us about what will come from Government Health Care
• Why in the future the sheeple who resisted the “Public Option” will beg for it
• People in NYC who use ovens and refrigerators for closets – yes really!
• The full court media press against “states rights”
• The lies about states rights and when the Federal Government is required to intervene
• Why each “right” must come with responsibilities
• What responsibilities come with the “right to life”
• What responsibilities come with the “right to liberty”
• What responsibilities come with the “right to the pursuit of happiness”
• Why understanding responsibilities and rights leads automatically to preparedness

Here is an interesting interview in which Congressman Ron Paul is asked about his notion that healthcare, as well as other goods and services are not rights. He explains this in detail and shows that making goods and services “rights” violates the rights of others; because the government has to take from somebody else in order to hand out goods and services to people who don’t have them. Taking of goods and services from one person to give to another is not the hallmark of a free society.

RT: “You’ve said before that you feel that healthcare is not a right. Can you justify that?”

Ron Paul: “I think very easily: you have a right to your life, you have a right to your liberty and you ought to have a right to keep what you earn in a free country; but you don’t have a right to ‘stuff’. You don’t have a right to services or things like a house or a job; because, in order to get that, the government would have to take it from somebody else.

If somebody claims you have the right to a car and they don’t have one and the government gives them a car; they have to take the money or the car from someone else, so it’s a contradiction in terms. If somebody claims that they have a right to something; they have to violate somebody else’s right.

So the most you can expect in a free society is for the government to make an attempt at protecting rights, not to try to redistribute wealth; if you do that, all people lose their rights.”

Ron Paul: “…What I’ve tried to do in the past is offer something that would replace government programs; because there’s lots of ways you can deliver services and good other than through government mandates and government spending; because inevitably that fails…”

John Tate | Campaign for Liberty

After a lone Nigerian would-be terrorist tried to detonate explosives in his underclothes Christmas Day on a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit, TSA immediately grabbed for even more invasive power over American citizens.

Most disturbingly, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) wants to implement full-body scans at the nation’s airports-allowing unelected bureaucrats to virtually strip-search and gawk at kids, moms, grandmothers, grandfathers — you and all other American passengers — through your clothes.

Predictably, misinformation on the graphic nature of the images and ability of TSA personnel to copy, photo, and save the images poured forth from TSA flaks.

I have included direct contact information for the TSA at the end of this post. Call them today and let them know how disgusted you are with their latest plan to invade our privacy.

It’s a peeping tom’s dream, and a nightmare for those of us who believe in the great American principles of liberty, restrained government, and privacy.

Unless we stop this outrage, TSA agents will be snooping at the undergarments of such “threats” as American kids, grandmothers, and grandfathers. And if you or they refuse? You will be physically searched by TSA employees just like a criminal after being arrested.

The TSA’s dirty little secret is the agency has been pushing for full-body imaging since 2002 and even introduced the technology at a handful of airports in 2007-without ensuring that passengers knew they were being watched in this manner.

As Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) said, “Nobody needs to see my wife and kids naked to secure an airplane.”

Despite self-serving assurances from the TSA, these full-body scans are an unconstitutional, unacceptable intrusion into the privacy of American passengers nationwide.

Last year, Campaign for Liberty Director of Development Steve Bierfeldt sued the TSA for detaining him for carrying cash. Because Steve so strongly stood up to them, the TSA backed down from its unconstitutional searches of passengers’ non-terrorism-related property.

But such victories for liberty are rare in today’s America and must be fought for by a vigilant public jealous of its liberty.

We now risk losing the gains we have made against the surveillance state, all because of the “systemic failure” of the federal government-as Obama himself called it. Now the TSA wants to know far more about us than just the amount of cash we’re carrying.

Use the numbers below to contact them today as we show the TSA that the freedom movement will not sit idly by in this fight.

Just as Big Brother advocates jumped on the intelligence failure of 9/11 to nationalize airport security, they once again want to use their own failure as an excuse for more power.

But we know that this latest move will not keep us safe. So far, it has been passengers and flight crew who have stopped such incidents as this and the attempted “shoebombing” of December 2001.

They can keep stripping away our privacy and liberty, all to foil the last attack, but the terrorists will continue to circumvent any of their freedom-crushing “security” measures.

As Judge Andrew Napolitano has explained, “Airline travel is safer today because pilots have guns, cockpit doors are like bank vaults, and the passengers have become courageous. All this was done by individuals in the private sector, not by the government. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, if the feds had not stripped us of our natural rights to keep ourselves safe-by keeping and bearing arms-9/11 would never have happened.”

If we want to diminish the threat of terrorism and fly more safely, we can restore the Second Amendment, hand airline security back to the private sector, and end our government’s policy of foreign interventionism.

Contact the TSA’s “Office of Civil Rights” by phone toll free at 1-877-EEO-4-TSA (1-877-336-4872) or (800) 877-8339 (TTY) and by email at TSA-ContactCenter@dhs.gov.

Benjamin Franklin said, “Those who give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Let us do our part to show Washington and the TSA that Americans not only deserve and want both, but that we will not stop until our privacy and all our other freedoms are secure.

One of the biggest problems in America today derives from the fact that most of the people, from the boomer generation on, haven’t a clue of the purpose of the Constitution of the United States of America. They tremble in fear at the thought of law abiding citizens possessing guns; while they have no objection at the 100,000+ federal government officials who have guns and use them to compel people to conform to questionable laws, which often undermine the Constitution and the protections afforded to the individual under law.

The original purpose of the second amendment was to protect the individual from possible tyranny of the Congress. If you need any confirmation of what happens when the people are disarmed; just look at Iran, China and the U.K. In all of these situations the people are severely limited in their ability to exercise free speech; their liberties are also curtailed to such an extent that life has become quite difficult to live without government intrusion.

Indeed, we are headed in the same direction as the countries mentioned in the United States of America; but I firmly believe the pace is slowed and the lines are drawn, by the fact that the citizenry are well armed and there is a facet of the population, however small, who understands the need to safeguard liberty from all enemies foreign and domestic.

The fact is, these leftists (and there are leftists on both sides of the aisle), while they may be well meaning in many cases; they are undoing what took centuries of struggle and bloodshed to achieve. If only they would read and understand the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and the other writings of the founding fathers; they wouldn’t dare attempt to curtail liberty and build a larger and more invasive government.

Alas, they do not understand the protections afforded to an individual, or the reason for them; they are content in their self-righteous crusade to abolish the protection of the individual by undermining the original intent of the founders of the republic. I find it truly disheartening to see intelligent people supporting universal health care, gun controls, cap and trade energy taxes and the like; I know from these policies that they have not a shred of understanding of why the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were authored; or why the founding members of our society sought to fight off the influence of the red coats.

My suggestion to leftists who don’t care for the original intend of the Bill of Rights, is to spend some time in countries where there are no protections for individuals; in fact, move there if you like tyranny so much.  Instead of trashing the liberties and the economy of the last great stronghold of liberty, just move to a place that has already been sacked like England, where you can be watched from dawn ’till dusk on CCTV cameras and you can wait months to get treatments using the “free” health care.

The Liberal Fear of Guns

By Jacob Hornberger | Campaign For Liberty

Liberal columnist David Sirota is scared, and he believes that the First Amendment is intended to eliminate his fear. In a column entitled “Freedom from Fear — and the Second Amendment,” Sirota argues that because some people get scared when they see guns and think that the gun owner is going to shoot them if they say the wrong thing, the Second Amendment is a threat to the First Amendment. Read the rest of this entry »

We must maintain our liberties. We must fight corruption wherever it lie. We must help others to realize that the Constitution of the united States of America must remain true to its original intent.

Our predecessors fought off the forces of the British crown, while our contemporaries kneel down and kiss their rings. They wrongly confiscate our monies through “income taxes” and “inflation,” then send it to the wall-street elite, who cannot produce anything of real value.

This America of today is overrun with minions, doing the bidding of the king. Grateful to him as they beg him to relinquish every liberty and every form of real wealth they hold dear. If there isn’t a real change, some day in the near future, we may find that all of our choices are made by the ruling government authorities; and we are not able to venture off on our own and live the way we choose.

We’re losing a little each day, of what made us a great people. The saddest part is the mind numbing complacency, as the people of today watch it all go away; seldom a word is said in condemnation.

The solution to this dilemma is quite simple, we needn’t fear nor hide. All we must do is uphold the Constitutional values of our founders, and realize that liberty lives in each of us; as we are the sole enforcers of the Constitutional law that forms the foundation of our people.

The meaning of the Constitution was never meant to be decided by an elite court, a president, or a body of politicians. The meaning is plain and clear, on the document itself. It defines the role of government and how we can best conduct our affairs, to ensure the protection of the individual, above all; not special groups or professions.

So, it is incumbent upon us all, to enforce the Constitution, by refusing to go along with corrupt practices, that violate these founding principles.

At one time men would die for liberty. Did it ever occur to us today, to gain an understanding, of why the preservation of liberty is so essential?

Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death

Listen to the Audio Version of this Speech

March 23, 1775
By Patrick Henry

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the house. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the house is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at the truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the numbers of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it. Read the rest of this entry »

Finally, true spritual freedom, at least for the Santo Daime.

For awhile there, I was thinking that we only had the freedom to have a “religion,” but not the spiritual aspect of it, if it happened to interfere with the prohibitions of the powers that be. Religion without spirituality is missing something essential, the real nectar, so it is essential that one be allowed to practice all aspects of their particular belief, including drinking of Ayahuasca tea if one is so inclined.

I am pleased to see that this is changing, though it remains to be seen if other spiritual practices will be removed from the prohibition list.

Federal Judge Owen Panner rules in favor of the Santo Daime Church!

“. . .I conclude that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C.
§ §
2000bb to 2000bb-4, requires that plaintiffs be allowed to import and drink
Daime tea for their religious ceremonies, subject to reasonable
restrictions. I will enter a judgment and permanent injunction.
These are my findings of fact and conclusions of law after

the court trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 52 (a). . .
”
“. . .Plaintiffs have established their prima facie claim by more than a preponderance of the evidence.
Plaintiffs have established that they are sincere in their religious beliefs, and that the ceremonial use of the Daime tea is essential to their religion. It is obvious that prohibiting the use of Daime tea would substantially burden the exercise of plaintiffs’ religion. . .”

“. . .The government has failed to show that outright prohibition of the Daime tea is the least restrictive means of furthering its interests. . .”

And finally:

“. . .Plaintiffs are entitled to relief under RFRA. Judgment will be entered for plaintiffs in accordance with this opinion.”

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 18 day of March, 2009
Owen M.
Panner
US District Judge

Just when you thought it couldn’t get any worse here in the united States of America, the government makes a move to show that it can get far worse. In a dastardly move, the U.S. Senate passed an “immigration reform” bill that will require all Americans to gain “approval” from the Department of Homeland Security in order to work. Read the rest of this entry »