Second Amendment film debuts tonight

"MOLON LABE - How the Second Amendment Guarantees America's Freedom" will have its world premier tonight in theaters and online.

Featuring Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan, Alex Jones and G. Edward Griffin, this documentary explores the reasons Americans not only have the right to "keep and bear arms," but the duty to "keep and bear arms" as part of their state militia responsibilities.

You can watch online beginning at 8 p.m. here:

• Alex Jones' InfoWars (www.InfoWars.com)
• Chuck Baldwin Live (www.ChuckBaldwinLive.com/premiere)
• The Daily Bell (www.TheDailyBell.com/premiere)
• Gun Owners of America (www.GunOwners.org)
• Oath Keepers (www.OathKeepers.org/oath/premiere)
• Your Precinct Project (www.YourPrecinctProject.com/premiere)

Filmmaker James Jaeger (FIAT EMPIRE, CORPORATE FASCISM) teamed with constitutional attorney Edwin Vieira Jr. and producer Richard Iott (BEAUTIFUL BOY, CARJACKED) on MOLON LABE, which was inspired by The Sword and Sovereignty, a book by Vieira.

The movie notes how the duty to keep and bear arms, as well as the concept of the militia, are often misunderstood. As a result a "gun-control lobby" has been eroding the original intent of the Founders by passing unconstitutional laws establishing self-defense prohibition zones and destroying the 300-year-old militia system established by WE THE PEOPLE, the press release for the movie states.

You can view the trailer here.

Marcy Kaptur owes us an explanation for voting against an audit of the Federal Reserve

I rarely agree with Marcy Kaptur. She first appeared on the ballot the first year I was able to vote and she's been my representative in Congress for all of my adult life.

She's a Democrat - and one of the most liberal ones - so it's no surprise that I disagree with her positions, policies and votes.

But I agreed with her support of a bill to audit the Federal Reserve. She co-sponsored legislation in 2009 to authorize an audit, though that bill was never brought before the House for a vote.

So it was a welcome relief when she co-sponsored H.R. 459 - a bill to 'audit the Fed' - that is essentially the same as the 2009 bill.

Last week, the House voted on H.R. 459 and it passed by a vote of 327-98. The 98 against the bill included one Republican and 97 Democrats.

Imagine my surprise when I learned that Kaptur - a sponsor - voted AGAINST the bill.

She's railed against the lack of transparency and the collusion of the Federal Reserve with the 'evil banksters' for years now. Why in the world would she vote against a bill she's supported for at least three years?!?

She wasn't alone - seven other Democrats, also sponsors, voted no as well. Dennis Kucinich, the primary opponent she defeated, remained consistent and supported the bill. I can only wonder what his supporters will say about this.

None of the eight flip-floppers have provided a statement.

Regardless of our political affiliation, one thing constituents should be able to count on is consistency in the positions of those we elect - even when we disagree.

Marcy Kaptur owes all of us an explanation and we should demand it now.

Here is a link to her contact page. Her Washington telephone number is (202) 225-4146. Her Toledo telephone number is (419) 259-7500. She also has a toll-free number (800) 964-4699.

If you find out why she flipped on this issue, be sure to let us know.

Interesting interviews with Ron Paul

In this interview with Bill Steigerwald, Rep. Ron Paul demonstrates again why so many people identify with him.

Q: For those who don't know the difference between a “classical liberal” and (the late) liberal New York Democrat Daniel Patrick Moynihan, can you tell us the difference?
A: Well, the classical liberal, or the libertarian, or the constitutionalist, believes that government is designed to protect our liberties and to allow people to solve their own problems. It is not designed to regulate the economy, nor our personal lives.
Under the classical liberal viewpoint, government was there to restrain force and to allow people to use their own creative energy to solve their problems. Today, the modern liberal -- and many conservatives -- believes government has a much bigger role in telling us what to do, how to live and involvement in our personal lives, as well as regulating the economy.

Q: Who are your favorite classical liberals?
A: In the economic sense, and for the 20th century, my favorite is Ludwig von Mises, because he has done the best job in explaining how a free-market economy can work if we allow it to work.

Of course, I also like John Locke. And of course, the one who in a very simplistic way influenced a lot of the modern day libertarians was Frederic Bastiat. He wrote the book "The Law," which simplifies the whole debate so succinctly. It's easy for everybody to read and understand, the principle being that government should never do anything that you, yourself, can't do. And if it's illegal for you to steal from your neighbor, it should never be permissible for you to send the government to steal from your neighbor in order for you to have some material benefit.

Q: What kind of Republican are you?
A: I call myself a constitutional Republican. Some others call me a libertarian Republican., which is OK too, because I believe the Founders were very libertarian. They wanted a very limited government and they emphasized individual liberty. In many ways to me that’s a traditional Republican, because there was a time when Republicans stood for smaller government and actually they stood for nonintervention overseas. They argued always against the Democrats starting wars. They argued in the past for sound money and civil liberties. It’s just that they’ve lost their way and Republicans and Democrats are pretty much the same these days.

John Stossel also has a series of columns on the candidate:

My Interview with Ron Paul
Ron Paul on War
Dr. No, R-Texas
Ron Paul on Immigration
Live and Let Live, Says One Candidate

From the last column:

"Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul opposes things like prostitution and drug use, but he says the federal government has no business trying to stop adults from engaging in them. Freedom of choice, he says, shouldn't just be restricted to choices he approves of. It's the job of the federal government, says the congressman, to protect us from external threats, but it should not try to protect us from ourselves." ~ Stossel
...
"I think when you defend freedom, you defend freedom of choice. You can't be picking and choosing how people use those freedoms. I don't believe government can legislate virtue. I can reject (vice) personally and preach against it, whether it's drugs or prostitution, but my solution comes from my personal behavior and how I raise my children. Whether it's personal behavior or economic behavior, I want people to have freedom of choice." ~ Ron Paul

Chuck Muth on Ron Paul and the Libertarian Party

The following is a column by Chuck Muth - very interesting scenario on the 2008 presidential election...

Libertarians Rising
By Chuck Muth
December 16, 2007


Personally, one of my favorite Ronald Reagan quotes is this: "If you analyze it, I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom - and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is. I think that libertarianism and conservatism are traveling the same path."

With the limited-government philosophy in mind, people coming across libertarianism for the first time often ask what the difference is between the two. The cynical answer, especially when you look at the last few years of GOP control of government, is that libertarians really believe it. That's why they refer to themselves as The Party of Principle.

Another thing the average voter doesn't usually know is that there are two political "libertarian" entities. There's the "small l" libertarian governing philosophy referenced by President Reagan, and the "big L" Libertarian Party.

The limited-government, leave-us-alone "small l" philosophy is clearly the one closest to the heart of Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the Founding Fathers - with the notable exception of Alexander Hamilton, the nation's first big-government liberal. There is much to recommend in said philosophy, and it's shared by many folks in varying degrees in both the Democrat and Republican parties.

On the other hand, there's the "big L" Libertarian Party (LP), the nation's oldest and largest third-party. Alas, the primary purpose of political parties - which, by the way, the Founders called "factions" and disdained with a passion - is to elect its members to political office. To that extent, the LP has been woefully unsuccessful at the ballot box in its 36 year history.

All of which could change this election cycle. Dramatically. Indeed, both the philosophy and the party are enjoying a bounty of riches as Democrats and Republicans continue running the country into the ground with their efforts to increase the size, scope and expense of the federal government.

Small "l" libertarianism as a philosophy is suddenly "cool," thanks in large part to the Republican presidential campaign of Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. And while Paul is currently a registered Republican running for the GOP presidential nomination, he is also a card-carrying member of the Libertarian Party - and was that party's presidential nominee back in 1988. Most voters don't realize you can be registered to vote with one of the two major parties, but also be a dues-paying member of the LP. Kinda like eating your cake and having it, too.

The most controversial issue surrounding Paul's campaign is his anti-war message, which many perceive as being dangerously naïve in this modern era of terrorism, jihad and dirty bombs. But even as you may disagree with him on Iraq, you can't help but acknowledge that his position is rooted squarely in line with the nation's first president, George Washington, who famously cautioned against involving ourselves in foreign entanglements.

Also, Paul's biggest problem with the "war" is that it's not really a war unless Congress fulfills its constitutional responsibility of declaring it a war. Congress has thus far ducked that responsibility. So let's not shoot the messenger.

The bottom line here is that the war issue among libertarians is about as controversial as the abortion issue is among Republicans. That's actually a sign of philosophical rigor, not weakness. It's a legitimate issue where limited-government believers of good conscious can agree to disagree.

Such intellectual constitutional debate is exactly the fire Ron Paul's candidacy has lit under a significant and growing number of American voters. People are rediscovering the Constitution. They're discussing the proper role of the federal government. They're pulling a page from Sen. Barry Goldwater's book (you know the one I mean) and are asking not whether bills are good ideas, but whether or not they're constitutional. Indeed, people are embracing an idea being put forth by Congressman John Shadegg which would require that every piece of federal legislation include "a concise and definite statement of the constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment." Amen!

Now here's where all this gets complicated for the Libertarian Party.

An important rule of Politics 101 is that you win races by addition, not subtraction. Whether identified as "conservative" or "libertarian," Republicans lost enough of the limited-government vote in 2006 to lose its governing majority. Deservedly so. To the extent that the Libertarian Party can pick up sizable chunks of that disenfranchised vote, it could enjoy ballot-box success at the presidential level in 2008 beyond its wildest expectations.

Those expectations aren't the same for the LP, however, as for the two main political parties. For the LP just snaring over one million popular votes in the presidential election nationwide would be unprecedented and a clear sign that they are finally making a difference in the minds of the electorate.

Yes, those million-plus votes could definitely result in swinging the race to Hillary (if nominated). But it's not the obligation of limited-government voters to vote against Hillary; it's the obligation of Hillary's GOP opponent to earn the support of limited-government voters. If the GOP candidate does so, he can win. If not, he could very well go down in flames next November, ushering in The Horror. And if the Arkansas Hill-Bill'ies return to the White House, don't blame the LP; blame the Republicans who blew off the "small l" libertarian vote and sent it to the Libertarian Party.

But how, pray tell, could the LP possibly exceed its historical track record at the polls next November? Simple. By nominating Ron Paul, again, to be its presidential nominee.

As Yogi Berra might say, while such consideration may be premature, it's not too early to think about. And the LP leadership is clearly thinking about it. Hard.

First, of course, Ron Paul would have to lose the Republican Party's nomination. Not much of a stretch there. I know it drives the Ron Paul crowd nuts when I say he's not going to win the nomination, but the problem isn't Ron Paul. The problem is the Republican Party primary voters. Way too many of them are, in fact, big-government "compassionate" conservatives who believe government can "do good" for the people as long as they're the ones running the government. That kind of thinking is what brought us things like No Child Left Behind.

On the other hand, Paul has raised a tidy amount of money for his presidential run - and will likely pocket a few million more today with his "Boston Tea Party" online fundraiser. And he isn't spending it like, well, a drunken Republican or a Democrat. If his campaign continues to spend conservatively, if you'll pardon the pun, he could still have a sizable war chest at his disposal after Super-Duper Tuesday in February, when the GOP nomination could well be wrapped up.

At that point, Paul will have a tough choice to make. Will he continue campaigning for the already-decided GOP presidential nomination in order to continue getting his limited-government message out, or will he switch tracks and consider running again as the Libertarian Party candidate?

Indeed, that's a very real possibility since the LP provides another have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too opportunity here. While the Democrat and Republican nominees will probably be chosen in February, the Libertarian Party won't choose its nominee until May at their national convention. So even if he loses the GOP nomination, Ron Paul would still have the opportunity to pursue the LP nomination and thereby continue campaigning all the way through the general election.

Clearly, this should be attractive to Paul. After all, the man is no spring chicken. The reality is that this is his last presidential hurrah. After 2008, it will be time for Paul to turn the pro-liberty banner over to a new generation of candidates and activists. So taking his message all the way to November rather than hanging it up in February is not something he can dismiss easily. And the calls for him to do just that by the growing legions of Ron Paul supporters could prove to be too strong to resist.

Obtaining the Libertarian Party nomination for president this year would be good for Ron Paul, but it would also be extremely beneficial to the Libertarian Party and its future viability.

Never has the LP enjoyed having a nominee with such high public name recognition. Never has it had a candidate with such national real-life campaign experience. Never has it had a candidate with such credibility, rooted in Paul's long experience as an elected member of Congress. Never has it had a candidate capable of mobilizing such a huge army of grassroots supporters. And never has it had a candidate capable of raising as much money from small-dollar donors. A Ron Paul candidacy as the Libertarian Party nominee would be manna from heaven for the Libertarian Party.

In the past the Libertarian Party has acted much like the Republican Party under such circumstances, never blowing an opportunity to blow an opportunity. But the LP has "grown up" considerably in recent years and appears ready to "play the game" without compromising its philosophical principles.

The transformation started a few years ago when a guy named Joe Seehusen was hired as executive director of the Libertarian Party. Seehusen systematically began to do "political" things which the LP hierarchy had heretofore avoided like the plague. He started attending and even sponsoring various conservative events - such as the huge Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in DC - in an effort to elevate the LP's profile and image, showing folks that Libertarians weren't just a bunch of dope-smoking, open borders, hippie peaceniks. Joe's efforts bore much fruit; and Joe's successor, Shane Cory, has continued the successful outreach.

In addition, the LP recruited former Republican Congressman Bob Barr over to their side. Barr is now a member of the LP's national committee - and to a lot of Republicans, if someone with the "street cred" of Bob Barr can find a comfortable home in the LP, why not them? Convincing Barr to join their party was a major coup for the LP last year.

That being said, the Libertarian Party is the party of liberty, and so is Ron Paul. Philosophically, they are of the same mind - kinda like Spock and Dr. McCoy at the end of Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan.

The problem for the LP is that Paul, at least at this time, is a registered Republican seeking the GOP nomination for president. And, well, it's just not generally allowed for one party to nominate as its candidate for president the candidate of another party. Especially when there are other candidates of their own party running for the nomination. It's just not done. However, exhibiting a high level of political maturity and street sense, the Libertarian National Committee last weekend unanimously adopted the following resolution:

"In the event that Republican primary voters select a candidate other than Congressman Paul in February of 2008, the Libertarian National Committee urges Congressman Ron Paul to seek the presidential nomination of the Libertarian Party to be decided in Denver, Colorado during the Memorial Day weekend of 2008."

Smart. Very smart.

But that presents another potential problem for the LP, and here's the Root of that problem.

The Libertarian Party already has an unusually charismatic and energetic leading candidate running for the party's presidential nomination this year. His name is Wayne Allyn Root, a very successful businessman, author ("Millionaire Republican"), sports handicapper and television personality. He's also a dynamic speaker who "wowed 'em" at this year's Conservative Leadership Conference in Nevada.

Root - one of those disenchanted former Republicans - is much younger than Ron Paul and represents the next generation of Libertarians and libertarians. Would the LP's invitation for Ron Paul to seek their party's nomination alienate their leading candidate already in the race? Nope.

In fact, in an exceptionally classy move, Root sent out a press release this week in which he stated that he "wholeheartedly supports" the LP's invitation for Ron Paul to join the Libertarian presidential race. "Libertarians believe in competition," Root wrote. "Just as in business, life and education, competition in politics brings out the best in all of us. Competition breeds success."

Indeed.

Root and Paul may have some disagreements on certain issues which deserve debate and discussion in an LP competitive nomination race. But in the end, the older, more experienced, better funded, better known Paul would likely win the presidential nomination. At which point, he and the party would be well-served in selecting Root as their vice presidential nominee. This would be a dynamic pro-liberty ticket, combining youth with experience, which would certainly capture the nation's attention, even if not the White House.

Such a ticket would expand and add to the LP's numbers, as well as give Root a level of experience at Paul's side which would prove politically invaluable for a future run. This is a golden opportunity to build not just their party, but their philosophy as well. And if the GOP doesn't get its limited-government act together soon, the party that replaced the Whigs could well end up going the way of the Whigs.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Interesting column from Ron Paul

Congressman Ron Paul does a weekly column on various topics of interest. I thought this week's column, primarily a response to the criticism of his statements during the South Carolina debate, to be quite interesting.

He lays out his belief that Congress abdicated its responsibility to declare war and that the U.S. should have never gone to war to enforce U.N. resolutions.

He also says:

"This week I plan to introduce legislation that will add a sunset clause to the original authorization (Public Law 107-243) six months after passage. This is designed to give Congress ample time between passage and enactment to craft another authorization or to update the existing one. With the original objectives fulfilled, Congress has a legal obligation to do so. Congress also has a moral obligation to our troops to provide relevant and coherent policy objectives in Iraq .

Unlike other proposals, this bill does not criticize the president’s handling of the war. This bill does not cut off funds for the troops. This bill does not set a timetable for withdrawal. Instead, it recognizes that our military has achieved the objectives as they were spelled out in law and demands that Congress live up to its constitutional obligation to provide oversight. I am hopeful that this legislation will enjoy broad support among those who favor continuing or expanding the war as well as those who favor ending the war. We need to consider anew the authority for Iraq and we need to do it sooner rather than later."

I do not yet know if I support his position - but I cannot fault his emphasis on abiding by the Constitution...if you'd like to read the full article, click here.

Just a Thought or Two...

I can't help but wonder if any of our representatives in Congress bothered to think past the next election cycle when it comes to the fiscal impact of adding 12 million people to our social security/medicare system? (re: proposed agreement on illegal immigration)

Nope - probably not, as that would require logic, reason and common sense - all of which seem to be severely lacking in the realm of politics.

***

And what was Michigan GOP chairman Saul Anuzis thinking when he said he will circulate a petition among Republican National Committee members to ban Cong. Ron Paul from more debates? Since when did the Republican Party become the party of censorship? Perhaps this is just another demonstration of how far party leaders have come from the core principles of our party.

If you don't like his positions, don't vote for him. But we defend a person's right to speak - especially when we disagree with them. Shame on you, Mr. Anuzis.

Political Dream Team

The following is from Chuck Muth's DC Confidential newsletter from today...it's more information about Congressman Ron Paul and his potential run for the presidency. If you're a listener of WSPD, you may have heard one of the several interviews Chuck has done.

Rep. Ron Paul, Texas Republican, is far from a household name to the general population (for now), but to limited-government libertarian/conservatives, he's the patron saint of their philosophy. He is the congressional embodiment of Barry Goldwater's belief that an elected representative's job isn't to determine if something is "needed" before determining if it's constitutional. And for that reason, whenever you see a vote in Congress that goes 434-1...the "1" is usually Congressman Ron Paul.

Which why he is reverently to many, derisively to a few, referred to as "Doctor No."

Many people were thrilled this week to learn that Paul is mulling a second presidential bid in 2008, recently opening an exploratory committee for such a run. His first pursuit of the presidency was in 1988, when he ran as the Libertarian Party candidate.

This time he'll be running a similarly uphill, if not impossible, battle as a Republican. His odds are long, but his grassroots support from around the nation will likely surprise a LOT of people. Many of us are dying for a leader we can vote FOR, someone who actual believes the Constitution means what the Constitution says.

By the way, although Rep. Paul is a committed, self-described, card-carrying libertarian...he's also pro-life and has impeccable credentials on the illegal immigration debate.

Which brings us to a new rumor; that Rep. Paul may ask illegal immigration's fiercest warrior, Rep. Tom Tancredo, Colorado Republican, to be his running mate (or vice-versa). In addition to his illegal immigration bona fides, Tancredo also sports a strong libertarian-leaning streak while remaining a staunch, pro-lifer with impeccable social conservative credentials.

In a GOP field which so far boasts so many flawed candidates who so many libertarian/conservatives are having trouble stomaching, let alone supporting, a Paul/Tancredo or Tancredo/Paul "Dream Team" would be a huge shot in the arm which would force discussion on SO MANY issues which heretofore in recent years have been swept under the carpet, mostly by Republicans (including the current president).

Not only would a lot of ignored issues suddenly get prime-time exposure, a much-needed, long-awaited Goldwateresque public policy debate over the appropriate, constitutional role and nature of the federal government would finally take place.

So let it be written; so let it be done.

Rep. Ron Paul to run for President

If you've read my blog regularly, you've seen reprints of Rep. Ron Paul's (R-TX) columns. He's a devoted follower of conservative/libertarian ideals when it comes to the role of the federal government. In looking at his record, you will find that his votes reflect his philosophy, especially when it comes to him billing himself as the "taxpayer's best friend."

The Houston Chronicle is reporting that Rep. Paul has filed papers to form an exploratory committee for President and is expected to make a formal announcement in the next couple of weeks.

Obviously, I'm a big fan of Rep. Paul. I was honored to have some time with him for a discussion about the competing interests of rejecting pork spending versus advocating for your district for federal funds. His perspective was solid, based upon his limited government, low taxation principles and his advice to me on the issues I faced as county commissioner was invaluable.

Rep. Paul was the Libertarian Party's candidate for President in 1988, but he's been elected to congress 9 times as Republican. Because of his Libertarian past, he's not enjoyed much financial support from the GOP's traditional donors. This may actually help him with some of the grass-roots Republicans who've become disenchanted with some of the GOP leaders.

Recently, Ken Blackwell had a column in Reason Magazine (see full column here) where he stated that: "Conservatism in America is in need of leaders who demonstrate fidelity to principle." Such fidelity is present in Ron Paul.

I've not been excited about any of the names that have been bandied about for the GOP candidate for President, ... until now. I'll be watching closely to see his platform, and if it is consistent with his votes/positions to date (which I do not doubt), I'll look forward to helping elect him President.

For more information on Rep. Paul, go here .