United Liberty

CNN is out with a new poll that shows Americans don’t trust the government when it comes to safeguarding their rights, and rightfully so:

A majority of Americans think the federal government poses a threat to rights of Americans, according to a new national poll.

Fifty-six percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Friday say they think the federal government’s become so large and powerful that it poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens. Forty-four percent of those polled disagree.

The survey indicates a partisan divide on the question: only 37 percent of Democrats, 63 percent of Independents and nearly 7 in 10 Republicans say the federal government poses a threat to the rights of Americans.

Some would say that this is paranoia, but it’s not. Over the last several years, we’ve seen a dismantling of the Bill of Rights through restrictions on speech, attempted restrictions on the Second Amendment (Heller was a rare victory), a running over of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, which guarantees the right to privacy, due process and private property. There is also no protection of economic liberty by government anymore.

During a recent event sponsored by the University of Chicago Law School’s Federalist Society, former US Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA) and John Yoo, whose legal opinions paved the way for the Bush Administration to subvert the Constitution and Bill of Rights, squared off for a debate on national security and individual liberty during wartime.

Here is the debate in its entirety:

Way back in July of 2003 Ron Paul wrote an article entitled “We’ve Been Neo-Conned” in which he laid out facts showing that the “Neo-Con” philosophy had taken over the foreign policy of the USA (For a quick primer on the Neo-Conservative movement please click the link above). As I was reading this article one question kept repeating in my head:

“How did it come to this?”

The only place to start I believe is with the American person (notice I didn’t use the plural “people”). I will use myself as an example since I believe my story is common to many modern-day libertarians and members of the Liberty movement.

In short, I was raised a Reagan Republican, became a Neo-Con after 9/11, converted to a Goldwater conservative after the invasion of Iraq and became a full-fledged libertarian after finding the writings of Murray Rothbard(OK, maybe every libertarian didn’t become one because of Murray but I think many have a similar story).

But here is what I believe is key in my story and the reason why there aren’t more capital “L” Libertarians: I didn’t get their foreign policy. Like many I actually referred to myself as libertarian on social and monetary issues, but not when it came to our “enemies”. I hear the same from freedom loving people over and over again, especially in the wake of 9/11.

The reason the Neo-Cons were able to seize power is FEAR. I am not putting anybody down because of it. I can certainly relate, but we still have to figure out why the American person is allowing our government todrop bombs and declare war on anybody they want to while we cheer them on. When does fear translate to lunacy?

Editor’s note: In the interest of debate on our nation’s foreign policy, we are offering a point/counter-point on the “surge” Afghanistan. Jeff Scott is arguing the needs for an increased presence sans a timeline for withdrawal. Brett Bittner will argue the case to bring our troops home.

President Obama on Tuesday night went to the United States Military Academy at West Point (described as the “enemy camp” by Chris Matthews) to announce his strategy for Afghanistan. He gave a speech with over 4,600 words, and none of those words were either “victory” or “win.” In fact, there was nothing in the speech that should give anybody any confidence that the President is interested in actually winning in Afghanistan.

This is not to say that the United States could not win in Afghanistan; only that we will not win when we plan our retreat before we start. There is a big difference between the United States’ efforts in Afghanistan and the oft-cited Soviet efforts there. The Soviets were trying to conquer and occupy Afghanistan (I still have not figured out why they were interested in it; after all, it has always been a third-world hellhole with no natural resources). The United States is not trying to conquer or occupy; only to prevent Afghanistan from once again becoming a safe haven for Islamic terrorists to set up a base from which to attack the United States again. Granted, that is a very difficult goal to achieve; it requires a government that is not tolerant of the Islamic terrorists being in their country that also has the popular support of the Afghan people. The key to having the Afghan people support the government is to create a middle class that actually has something to live for, which does not currently exist in Afghanistan.

In The Atlantic, Andrew Sullivan sums up neoconservatives as essentially advocates for an Israel-centered American foreign policy:

Blackwater, the contractor that has the blood of innocent Iraqis on its hands, has changed its name:

Blackwater Worldwide, the contractor that emerged over the last few years as Exhibit A for ugly Americans in Iraq, has decided that the best response is to … change its name.

And check out the name they picked: “Xe.” (Apparently it’s pronounced like the letter ‘Z.’ Raising the question: Why not just call it “Z”?)

They’ve also renamed Blackwater Lodge & Training Center, the subsidiary that does much of their controversial overseas operations. It’s now the “U.S. Training Center Inc.” (Which doesn’t exactly mesh with “Xe,” but whatever.)

It looks like hearts and minds aren’t the only body parts America is trying to win:

 

In their efforts to win over notoriously fickle warlords and chieftains, the officials say, the agency’s operatives have used a variety of personal services. These include pocketknives and tools, medicine or surgeries for ailing family members, toys and school equipment, tooth extractions, travel visas, and, occasionally, pharmaceutical enhancements for aging patriarchs with slumping libidos, the officials said.