Liberty Maven

Here is some rhetoric from the past, as in before today. Who said it?

The currently favored instrument of collectivization is the Welfare State. The collectivists have not abandoned their ultimate goal– to subordinate the individual to the State– but their strategy has changed. They have learned that Socialism can be achieved through Welfarism quite as well as through Nationalization. They understand that private property can be confiscated as effectively by taxation as by expropriating it. They understand that the individual can be put at the mercy of the State– not only by making the State his employer– but by divesting him of the means to provide for his personal needs and by giving the State the responsibility of caring for those needs from cradle to grave. Moreover, they have discovered– and here is the critical point– that Welfarism is much more compatible with the political processes of a democratic society. Nationalization ran into popular opposition, but the collectivists feel sure the Welfare State can be erected by the simple expedient of buying votes with promises of “free” hospitalization, “free” retirement pay and so on….

I do not welcome this shift of strategy. Socialism-through-Welfarism poses a far greater danger to freedom than Socialism-through-Nationalization precisely because it is more difficult to combat. The evils of Nationalization are self-evident and immediate. Those of Welfarism are veiled and tend to be postponed.

No it’s not Ron Paul. It was Barry Goldwater from his 1960 classic, “The Conscience Of A Conservative“.

Read More »

Bob Barr talks with Doug McIntyre on KABC Los Angeles in a very good interview. They cover the standard questions like his spoiler role, but also delve into the issues like the Iraq War, Protecting the border, recent Supreme Court decisions, federalism, etc.. Very good interview. The final question was an interesting one about Wayne Allyn Root and whether he is “serious” as a VP candidate.

Listen/Download the interview here.

Here is Bob Barr’s press release following the Supreme Court, Heller DC Gun Ban decision.

Washington, DC - Today the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the individual right of Americans to own guns in District of Columbia v. Heller.  The ruling “will go down as one of the Supreme Court’s most important rulings on behalf of liberty,” says Libertarian Party presidential candidate Bob Barr.

Until today, the Court had never held that the Second Amendment directly applied to individuals. “Today’s decision marks a new era for gun rights in America,” explains Barr, who is a member of the Board of Directors of the National Rifle Association.  Barr also drafted the Libertarian Party’s amicus curiae brief in Heller.  “By protecting an individual’s right to keep and bear arms, the Second Amendment ensures that all Americans are able to participate in sporting activities, hunt, and protect themselves and their families,” he explains.

The right to self-defense is particularly important for women and minorities in a city like Washington, D.C.  “Where crime rates are high, a gun may be the only means for law-abiding citizens to safeguard themselves and their families,” Barr notes.  “Lawful gun ownership deters an untold number of crimes every year.”
But the Court’s ruling, though welcome, is not enough.  “It is important to have a president who also supports the right of Americans to own firearms,” says Barr.  “Sen. Barack Obama says that he believes in such a constitutional right, but he supports the District of Columbia’s ban, which gives criminals an advantage over law-abiding citizens,” notes Barr.

Read the rest at BobBarr2008.com

The Supreme Court ruled a few minutes ago that the Second amendment protects an individual’s right to own a firearm. This is great news for gun rights activists. From the Supreme Court blog:

The Court has released the opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), on whether the District’s firearms regulations – which bar the possession of handguns and require shotguns and rifles to be kept disassembled or under trigger lock – violate the Second Amendment. The ruling below, which struck down the provisions in question, is affirmed.

Justice Scalia wrote the opinion. Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg. We will provide a link to the decision as soon as it is available.

Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm.

Get all the information at the SCOTUS live blog here, including the opinions.

Tomorrow is a huge day for Second Amendment gun rights loving Americans. After releasing four opinions this morning the Supreme Court announced they would deliver the rest of the decisions for the term tomorrow (Thursday) morning at 10am Eastern. This includes the “DC vs. Heller” Second Amendment case. If you haven’t heard of the Heller case then read all about it here.

At the close of Wednesday’s public session, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., announced that the Court will issue all remaining decisions for the Term at 10 a.m. Thursday. The test case on whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a gun is among those remaining (District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290). (Source: SCOTUSblog)

This is likely to be a great win for gun rights activists and a sour day for gun control nuts. Yes, I switched around the usual rhetoric you read which is: “gun control activists” and “gun rights nuts”. Maybe after the decision tomorrow my first description will become the norm?

Ron Paul gave a regretful statement on the House floor regarding the recently passed warrant-less wiretapping, telecom immunity FISA bill. He was regretful that he wasn’t there to vote “No”.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that due to the unexpected last-minute appearance of this measure on the legislative calendar this week, a prior commitment has prevented me from voting on the FISA amendments. I have strongly opposed every previous FISA overhaul attempt and I certainly would have voted against this one as well.

The main reason I oppose this latest version is that it still clearly violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution by allowing the federal government to engage in the bulk collection of American citizens’ communications without a search warrant. That US citizens can have their private communication intercepted by the government without a search warrant is anti-American, deeply disturbing, and completely unacceptable.

Read his entire statement on FISA here.

Bob Barr issued a press release recently advocating pro-choice for education. He touts current private scholarship programs along with state and local voucher programs while denouncing using federal tax payer money to expand and maintain the federal Department of Education.

Atlanta, GA — The federal Department of Education is spending almost $70 billion this year on a function not even mentioned in the Constitution.  “The Department should be closed down and the money left with the American people to use for education at the family, local, and state levels,” says Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party presidential nominee.

While spending so much money on programs that should not exist, in 2003 the Congress created a small voucher program started for students in Washington, D.C., which has some of the worst schools in the nation.  Now the Democratic majority is planning on killing the initiative, putting nearly 2000 students back into the failed public school system.  “The only federal education program Congress wants to get rid of is the one doing the most to help poor kids,” observes Barr.

But since education is not a federal responsibility, “a better way to promote educational opportunity is at the state level,” explains Barr.  There are now 22 different choice programs in 14 states.  Some of those initiatives provide vouchers; others create tax credits.  “I commend Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue for recently signing into law legislation creating a state income tax credit for individuals and companies that donate to groups which provide private scholarships for students,” said Barr.

In fact, “private scholarships have become an increasingly important choice mechanism across the nation,” Barr notes.  Examples range from the District of Columbia’s Washington Scholarship Fund to Portland, Oregon’s Children’s Scholarship Fund.  “In this way average people who want to improve education can avoid the political obstacles to reforming the public schools,” he adds.

We couldn’t agree more Mr. Barr. Read the full press release here.

We here at Liberty Maven are excited to have the opportunity to interview a true patriot candidate who some have called “Ron Paul Jr.”. His name is William “B.J.” Lawson and upon reading his answers to our first segment’s questions it is obvious the Constitution forms the backbone of his beliefs and his campaign to represent North Carolina’s 4th District in Congress.

If you haven’t heard of B.J. Lawson until now and you are a lover of liberty you are in for a treat. If we could cast a spell on every single person in the country to donate and help out with Lawson’s campaign we’d do it. In that vein please enjoy the first interview segment below and then head over to LawsonLibertyFund.com and pledge $5 or $300 to help out with his Ron Paul style money bomb on June 29th.

LM: What was your motivation for running for Congress? You are facing an incumbent Democrat David Price in an overly Democratic district; however back in 1994 a Republican unseated Price thanks to the “Contract With America” effort at that time. Does that previous defeat of Price give you hope for victory over him this time around?

Lawson: My motivation running for Congress is to advance a Constitutional federal government, and to question the “politics as usual” that is bankrupting our country and eviscerating our freedoms. Today’s political process is simply broken: we have legislators who don’t read bills before they vote, we have Congress delegating rule making to unelected bureaucrats and lobbyists, we have legislators piling special favors into legislation that is deemed likely to pass, and few even question if proposed legislation is the Constitutional role of the federal government. These are symptoms of a political process that no longer represents the people.

While Price was defeated once with the 1994 Republican landslide, this year’s environment is much different. The Republican party is adrift, and lacks a clear platform after the past eight years. Furthermore, our district is a strongly Democratic. However, the vast majority of voters know we need change — and David Price, as a 22 year incumbent, personifies the status quo.

It’s not so much his 1994 defeat that gives me hope for victory, but more what he’s done since his 1996 re-entry into Congress: not much. Rep. Price is an Establishment candidate whose voting record reflects the party line, and shows little leadership or concern for the critical questions facing our nation: out of control inflation, unsustainable government spending and entitlements, declining civil liberties, and failed interventionism abroad.

The voters are demanding change, and this year they have a choice for principled leadership advocating a Constitutional federal government.

Read More »

Bob Barr was interviewed by Al Rantel today on KABC Los Angeles radio. This was a decidedly friendly interview where Barr was able to make his points and get almost wholesale agreement from the host. The host seems to be exactly the type of voter Barr is trying to reach. The interview lasts just over 15 minutes.

Listen to or download the interview here (mp3).

Much has been made amongst the Ron Paul faithful about who Ron Paul will end up endorsing for President. The only thing they all seem to agree on is that it won’t be John McCain. It seems that the sentiments are evenly split between Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin. The truth is it doesn’t really matter who wins his endorsement. Anyone who has followed Ron Paul knows what issues represent true liberty. They don’t need Ron Paul’s expressed approval to know which candidates support liberty and which do not.

For those that don’t already know here is a refresher. If your last name is Obama or McCain you are anti-liberty and don’t understand the Constitution even though you will swear to defend and uphold it when you take office. If your last name is Barr or Baldwin you are pro-liberty and you understand that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. That is really all you need to know. Ron Paul has De-facto endorsed both Barr and Baldwin. It is unlikely Paul will officially endorse either candidate.

Why is it unlikely that he endorse one or both of them officially? The answer is simple. He’s a sitting Republican Congressman. If he were to publicly and officially endorse someone from another party he could be committing political suicide. He could lose his committee memberships. He could lose his seniority. It is important for Paul to walk this political line in order to help return the Republican Party back to its “Old Right” principles. He could not do so if he loses his status as a senior Congressman. He would be jeopardizing his ability to directly question the Federal Reserve Chairman about monetary policy. That is something he seems to relish so much, as do his supporters.

The only other evidence that can be given to support the argument that he will not endorse a non-Republican candidate is that he has played politics with his endorsements over the past year. He refused to endorse against any incumbent Republicans even when the challenge came from a liberty minded Ron Paul Republican. To this day he still has not endorsed against any incumbent neo-conservative Republican. The only motivation for doing this has to be maintaining his Congressional status on committees and other relationships. This runs at odds with his rhetoric of castigating the party for its neo-con ways. He won’t put his endorsements where his mouth is.

So stop waiting for Ron Paul to endorse Bob Barr or Chuck Baldwin. Pick one to endorse yourself then go out and campaign for your choice. When you do so you know you are campaigning for liberty whether Ron Paul gives his endorsement seal of approval or not.

We support Bob Barr over Chuck Baldwin, but supporting either is a victory for liberty. Writing in Ron Paul is a victory for your own conscience but it won’t help liberty win. However, supporting Barr, Baldwin, or writing in Ron Paul is infinitely better for liberty than voting for Obamccain.