Where is the Civil Liberties Party?

Recently, I posted an article that was leveled against the 2-party system.  My wife was kind enough to point out that I was much harder on the Republican party than the Democrat party, so with this in mind I decided to attack the question from the other side as well.

For years, the American voter has been sold into the idea that the 2-party system is a method of limiting government. For instance, most people assume (by believing the WORDS that come out of politicians’ mouths, rather than observing their ACTIONS – Perhaps they only pay attention during election time?) that the ‘left’ strengthens civil liberties, and the ‘right’ strengthens property rights. This battle is sold as if respective liberties will steadily advance via this battle! But one has only to look back over the last 30 years to realize of the fallacy of that sale!

Surely the Democrat party is true to their word when it comes to the size of government? For instance, they seem to be almost monolithic in their calls for pro-choice policies. Whenever they’re in power, they consistently advance higher taxes on the “rich.” They also support increasing dependency of the poor on state-sponsored welfare entitlements and are opposed to any policy that will require any responsibility for the individual! In general, they err on the side of addressing every problem of society with more and more government largess. All of these policies are in keeping with their rhetoric. It’s always baffling to me how they can ever be elected after carefully considering these policies, but I guess some people still need a Mommy even after they’ve moved out of the house.

Details

Solutions!

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/movie/

InfoWars Nightly News interviews Jason Rink, producer and director of Nullification: The Rightful Remedy.

What do we do when the Federal Government steps outside of it’s constitutional boundaries? Do we ask federal bureaucrats in black robes to enforce the limits of it’s own power? Thomas Jefferson and James Madison didn’t think so, and neither do we. The rightful remedy to federal tyranny rests in the hands of the people and the several States. It’s called “nullification” or “interposition.” It’s an idea whose time has come.

Details

Should Pres. Obama be Detained for Violating the NDAA?

Originally published at The New American Magazine

If President Obama is supporting al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces, should he be subject to indefinite detention under the terms of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)?

As The New American has chronicled since it was first proposed, the NDAA purportedly authorizes the president of the United States to deploy the armed forces to apprehend and indefinitely detain anyone suspected of providing support to terrorists. Section 1021 of the NDAA reads in relevant part:

Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C.1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

And, finally:

Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

A plain reading of Section 1021 reveals, then, that anyone who is found to have “substantially supported” al-Qaeda or associated forces can be detained by the military until the end of the War on Terror. Now, the relevant question becomes: Has President Obama substantially supported al-Qaeda and if so, how? 

Details