Let Florida Go To Pot (and Liberty)

Greetings.

This Tuesday, November 4th, as Americans head to the polls, initiatives to legalize cannabis for medicinal purposes will be on the ballot in three states: Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. While minor distinctions may exist between the three states' bills, at issue is essentially whether or not Americans in these states will vote to continue keeping cannabis legally inaccessible for medicinal purposes or vote to make it available.

For today's entry, I want to focus on my home state of Florida and its Amendment 2 that is up for decision. Essentially, this amendment, if it receives sixty percent or more of the vote, would require the state to set up a medical marijuana dispensary system under regulation from state agencies.

Not every one is happy about this possibility. One web site in particular, dontletfloridagotopot.com, has come out with some rather outlandish justification for why Florida voters should vote against Amendment 2. Chief among their concerns is the possibility of minors getting access to marijuana outside of parental notification.

Specifically, the website claims,

"The amendment allows a teenager to get a recommendation for medical marijuana without the consent of a parent."

This statement is completey misleading. While the actual amendment does not specifically regulate how a minor could be given a recommendation for marijuana, it should be noted that the language of the bill is constructed this way on purpose. This is mainly so that the state of Florida can write the rules regarding minors at a later time, should the amendment pass. States across the union that have passed marijuana legalization bills have, in many cases, HEAVILY regulated use by minors once their respective measures cleared with a vote. California is a great example (http://www.canorml.org/medical-marijuana/patients-guide-to-california-law).

Another deceptive claim is that Amendment 2 is dangerous because "no prescription is required to obtain medical marijuana." Factually, it is true that no prescription is currently required to obtain medical marijuana. However, the reason for this is because it is currently illegal under federal law, due to cannabis still being a Schedule I drug, for physicians to write an actual prescription for it. Thus, under current conditions, a physician's recommendation is the only legal way to obtain medical marijuana in states where it is legal. Thus, to use lack of "prescription language," so to speak, as an argument against marijuana legalization is disingenuous.

The website operators also complain about the likelihood of doctors issuing recommendations for marijuana to patients in order to treat illnesses that are commonly addressed with existing legal medications. My response to this is: so what? If a trained and certified physician believes that marijuana can be legally added to a patient's treatment plan, then why shouldn't it, especially if it has been proven to help with the particular ailment?

Other objections are as follows:

Marijuana is addictive!

The website claims that "1 in 6 kids who try marijuana will become addicted to it." Not only is that statistic inaccurate but, ironically enough, the very source referenced as proof by the website itself actually REFUTES the statement (rather than back it up). The actual figure of children who become addicted as a result of marijuana use is closer to 9%, not 17% (http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh24-4/201-208.pdf).

It is also worth noting that this figure is well below the 15% of (legal) alcohol addicts and below the 11% of those addicted to stimulants other than cocaine, such as caffeine (also referenced in the same study).

Esssentially, the above study backs up what other honest researchers have said for years: that marijuana is FAR less addictive than many other substances that can be found on store shelves across America.

Marijuana causes mental illness.

For this objection, the website relies on a study of Swedish military conscripts from 1969-1970 in backing up their claims. While it acknowledges the increased risk of schizophrenia in its participants who used cannabis, the study also states repeatedly that actual causation cannot be determined strictly based on cannabis use and can also be attributed to usage of other drugs (i.e. - amphetamines) as well as factors such as personality, etc.

Long story short, the results of this (much older) study hardly give us reason to believe that cancer patients worldwide will soon find themselves in rooms with padded walls as a result of their marijuana-based pain treatment.

Marijuana is marketed to children, causes impairment while driving, and will keep rehab centers open...

...are just a few of the other seemingly breathless claims made by the anti-potters. And they are ridiculous. That is unless of course, these individuals are ready to argue for a categorical ban on alcohol, tobacco, fatty foods, chemical-laden foods, prescription medications, and other products that are also "marketed to children," "cause impairment while driving," and "keep rehab centers open." Legal marijuana (medical or otherwise) would logically call for regulations similar to those imposed upon literally HUNDREDS of legal products currently on the market.

On a separate note, as far as the website's claims regarding children are concerned, one can't help but wonder where personal responsibility and parental accountability factor into their thinking. In other words, do the website administrators really believe that parents are so unable to regulate what sort of advertising schemes and controlled substances their children are exposed to that more laws against them are needed? Are they convinced that people today really are unable to think for themselves to the degree that government has to place more bans on inanimate objects and substances? If that is the case, then I submit that we have MUCH larger problems than a simple bill that would legalize a plant.

Amendment 2 and bills like it should be passed overwhelmingly if for no other reason than because, as I have argued repeatedly, our government has no constitutional authority to ban any substance, object, or other nonviolent behavior. Thus, what is at stake on November 4th is not limited to "marijuana" or "no marijuana." Rather, it is a choice between individual liberty and a further encroachment of government upon our right to determine how we nonviolently choose to live our lives. And it is not a choice that should be made lightly. If government can outlaw marijuana today, then there literally is no limit to what they might choose to ban, with the right amount of persuasion, in the future.

Please choose wisely, Florida.

Live Free!

-Warren Brisbane

Monetary Policy, Spending, and Taxation

Greetings.

It's been a couple of weeks since my last post, but it's good to be back.

This week's post will be a short one, as I have come across a video that, in my estimation, is perhaps the most well-done and informative look at our current monetary policy, tax policy, and spending policy that I have ever encountered. Please give it a look and please feel free to share it with as many people as you can.

http://themindunleashed.org/2014/01/biggest-scam-history-mankind-debt-ceiling-truth.html

We are living in perilous times, despite what many well-meaning and glib people would have you believe. In a land that is supposedly "free," our government and those who profit most handsomely from it, have instituted for us a system of enslavement that we would do well to awaken to.

And I pray that we do.

Again, please watch the video and please disseminate as widely as you can.


Praesant Libero!

-Warren Brisbane

Ferguson, MO: Despair and Hope.

Greetings.

By now, it's almost old news, but the town of Ferguson, MO, this past week, was brought to within one errant bullet (or other hostile action) of being engulfed in a full-scale riot.

Here's what we know: Michael Brown, an 18-year old young man, was shot and killed by an officer of the Ferguson Police Department after he was suspected of robbing a convenience store. From there, things snowballed as outrage and peaceful protests materialized in some areas of town while non-peaceful looting and destruction of property took place elsewhere.

Police squads were soon called upon and then proceeded to repel the peaceful crowds with tear gas, rubber bullets, and other brutal tactics...all while being decked out in full military gear.

As of last night, it has been reported that Missouri Governor Jay Nixon, a Democrat, has appointed the Missouri Highway Patrol to oversee the peaceful protests even as law enforcement continues to prevent further destruction to private property in the area.


Now for some observations:

1) We will likely never know what really happened concerning Michael Brown and Officer Darren Wilson, who shot him. Speculation about a video, allegedly containing footage of Brown robbing a store, has been rampant, as have plenty of other rumors. The only facts about the initial incident that anyone can be sure of is that a young man is dead and a community has been outraged as a result.

2) The Ferguson police department and other departments called in to assist them in the immediate aftermath should be investigated; both for use of excessive force and for violating the First Amendment rights of the very citizens they have been sworn to protect. Clear video footage of police officers, decked out in full military gear and riding in what look like military assault vehicles on American streets, is in no short supply; nor is footage of these same police officers firing tear gas, rubber bullets, and using other brutal measures in seeking to repel the peaceful crowds of protestors. The citizens of Ferguson would thus do well to file a lawsuit against every department that participated in such actions and see to it that justice is done on their behalf.

3) At the same time, every thug that participated in looting, destruction of property, and any type of physical assault during the Brown aftermath should be arrested and prosecuted as well. There's plenty of blame to be shared here. Any undue violent action perpetrated by law enforcement is absolutely NOT a justification for private citizens to engage in the same behavior against their neighbors. Raising one's voice in peaceful protest and solidarity with a community is one thing; violating the property of a private property owner who is innocent of any wrongdoing is unacceptable, unlawful, and indecent. And it should be punished.

4) Governor Jay Nixon, Captain Ron Johnson, and the Missouri Highway Patrol deserve credit and praise for seeking to bring a peaceful end to the threat of destruction of their city. Governor Nixon, a Democrat, made the announcement last night that he would authorize the Highway Patrol to oversee security of the peaceful protests happening in and around Ferguson. In doing so, he essentially eliminated any further threat posed by an over-militarized police force and ensured that the State police, headed by Captain Johnson, who grew up in Ferguson, would ensure that their neighbors didn't hurt each other. THIS is how law enforcement should be done; locally and with an eye toward individual communities caring for and protecting one another as they exercise their civil rights. Kudos to Governor Nixon.

Oftentimes, it is truly amazing how one violation of life, liberty, or property leads to so many more on such a grander scale; when, all the while, common sense dictates the opposite. Thankfully, however, it appears at least for the moment that common sense and cooler heads have prevailed in Ferguson, MO. Hopefully, a return to normalcy will soon be on the horizon for the peaceful citizens of this small town.

For those of us who are serious about essential liberty, we must always be vigilant and ready to raise our voices in solidarity with those whose liberty is put in peril in any way, shape, or form.

Praesant Libero!

-Warren Brisbane

The Federal Government, Clean Water Act Authority, Property Rights, and You.

Greetings, Patriots.

As Americans (at least those of us who are paying attention) are fixated on 24-hour news coverage about the deteriorating situations in Iraq and Gaza, I believe that we cannot allow ourselves to be distracted from what's happening back here at home. This is especially true as it pertains to a development that has surfaced recently concerning the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), cattle ranchers and other land stewards throughout the nation, and the very resources that these ranchers and landowners depend upon to sustain their operations and provide for themselves and their families.

I'm talking about water and, legislation-wise, I'm talking about the Clean Water Act. This piece of legislation has, for decades, given authority to the federal governemnt (particularly the EPA) to enforce rules and regulations governing the many water sources on U.S. soil. Since it was originally passed in 1972, like many pieces of legislation, it has been abused and utilized as a means to trample the very private property rights that have served as the cornerstone of this nation's greatness for so long.

In the latest chapter of this particular sad saga, the EPA and ACOE are now seeking to expand the definition of "Waters of the United States." Specifically, the new rules being proposed by federal regulators would, with a few EXTREMELY VAGUE exceptions, require cattle ranchers and landowners to get permission from federal authorities before they could utilize any sources of water on or around their land. Essentially, these new regulations would confiscate authority directly from the hands of property owners and locally-elected and appointed regulators and put it in the hands of federal bureaucrats with no direct connection to the communities which this new regulation directly affects.

A couple of things. First, regulations like these stand to severely hurt the agricultural industry across the country. Farmers and cattle ranchers depend on natural resources in order to preserve their livelihoods and this usually depends on them getting the right resources (i.e. - water) to the right places at the right time. Burdensome regulations will only serve to disrupt that schedule and jeopardize the health of farms and ranches across America.

Secondly (and more importantly), as I've already alluded to, at most this should be a local and state issue...and not a federal one In other words, states and local government, elected by the people, should have jurisdiction over their locally owned and operated natural resources. There is absolutely NOTHING in the United States Constitution that gives a federal entity authortiy to take for itself the kind of power now vested in EPA and ACOE. There is absolutely NOTHING that gives the federal government permission to hold hostage the very essence of the well-being of thousands of people in the name of some vague environmental agenda that will only hurt the environment and the people living in it. As Americans, we should be outraged and we should be moved to action.

And here's how to do it. The link below will take you to a web page with instructions on how to leave a comment with the EPA and ACOE. Make your voice heard and do not let them get away with implementing this despicable rule without hearing from you first.

http://cqrcengage.com/beefusa/app/write-a-letter?0&engagementId=47396

Additionally, however, there are other ways to protest; one of which is to unite and join together to legally challenge this rule. If you are a landowner and are upset about this, then I urge you to find people of like mind and of similar livelihood who can come alongside you to help bring about an end to this tyrannical measure. Remember: strength in numbers.

Finally, you can practice civil disobedience. How specifically? I cannot say. I am neither a landowner nor a cattle rancher and, in all honesty, this does not directly affect me. I am passionate about it because I am passionate about private property rights and don't want my own rights to be threatened at some point some day. I also believe very strongly that the most potent weapon that each and every human being on this earth possesses is the one between their ears. My strong recommendation, then, is that you THINK about creative ways to get around this burdensome regulation and that you go as far as your conscience and circumstances will allow in protesting it via civil disobedience. Get creative and live free!

In closing, I should probably reiterate that, even as we are calling attention to the federal government's abysmal actions in this instance, we should not neglect to ignore what's happening overseas. Gaza, Iraq, ISIS...all of it is important. All I will say here, for purposes of brevity, is that we should pray and hope that none of these disintegrating situations taking place will eventually lead to a mobilization of America's fighting men and women. We simply cannot afford it, in blood or treasure, and it is not our place to intervene in the first place. Our country is still reeling from over a decade of perpetual warfare to the point of possibly destroying itself as we know it. Thus, we must remain vigilant and loud if we are to prevent further sacrifice of our own national life blood.

Until next week.

Praesant Libero!

-Warren Brisbane

Government "care"

Greetings, Patriots.

My regards for not posting last week. Times have been busy.

I want to start off this week's post with a recollection from my young adult years. Just over a decade ago, I had the opportunity to travel and live abroad. Specifically, I lived in an eastern European, post-Soviet bloc country that was still very much in the throes of its transition from an oppressive communist system of government to a more western, "capitalist" (if it could be called that) system.

To say that being overseas was an "eye-opener" for me, especially as a young person in my early twenties, would be an understatement. There were many aspects of the culture in which I now found myself that I found quite shocking, even as I observed the growing number of similarities that it bore to the American culture from which I had just traveled.

In particular, I will never forget visiting a popular place that was close to the town square and seeing just how filthy, decayed, and decrepit that a certain part of it had become. And I remember thinking how incomprehensible it was that anyone could allow their property to become that unkempt and sullied and downright painful to look upon. As I aired my observations out loud (which I'm known to do regularly), I was then told WHY the town center had become so unclean.

It's well known to many people that during the Soviet era, government controlled most everything; the economy, property, much of human behavior, et cetera. As a result of this, government also found itself largely responsible for the CARE of everything as well. As most liberty-loving people are aware, this is often a recipe for disaster since government is usually good at only one thing; namely, punishing violators of individual liberty and property rights. Be that as it may, however, many people during the Soviet era looked to their central planner overlords as "groundskeepers" in addition to their plethora of additional roles.

When the Soviet Union came crashing down in 1989, however, much of the government went belly-up and, with it, many of the services that it had once provided...to include property upkeep. Hence, the graffiti and other forms of blight that I witnessed shortly after my arrival.

"So what?" you might ask. What does this story have to do with anything? In truth, there are perhaps several lessons that we can draw from this short illustration. However, for purposes of this blog, probably the chief lesson for us here is that government, despite its best intentions, often does its constituents the greatest disservices when attempting to conduct the most noble services that are outside of its most fundamental role. In this case, government did its people a disservice by taking on the responsibility of civic upkeep, thus disincentivizing private citizens and enterprises to take on that role themselves...which likely would have resulted in a better job of keeping the grounds clean and healthy-looking. Instead, government control and care led to poorer quality.

The list of examples goes on, too. When we entrust our health care (Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare), our retirement (Social Security), our environmental well-being (EPA), our housing market (Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac), and other aspects of our existence to a centrally planned bureaucracy, two things happen: 1) We lose liberty, and 2) We are less motivated to care for and steward those life aspects ourselves thanks to government's empty promises to care for and steward them for us.

Government's legitimate function is two-fold: 1) Protecting life, liberty, and private property rights; and 2) enforcing contracts between private parties. When it goes beyond that two-fold function, as we have allowed it to here in America, it becomes an enemy of the people, rather than an ally.

Our only option at that point, as free people, is to disobey the unjust laws that are hostile to the cause of liberty. Because, too often, as John Adams once stated: "Liberty, once lost, is lost forever."

Let us fight then, whether by repealing unjust laws or by disobeying them, to preserve the cause of liberty and live free. The fabric of our great nation depends on it.

Praesant Libero!

-Warren Brisbane

To Protect and To Serve?: Trust in Government and the Human Condition

Greetings.

Recently, I was shown a video clip taken from the reality television series, "What Would You Do." For those not familiar, the show is essentially a series of mock situations that actors perform which lead bystanders to believe are really happening, when in fact they are not. The objective of these mock situations is to determine what kind of responses people would likely have if a real-time situation (like the one being acted out) actually took place.

This particular clip that I was shown was filmed at a New Jersey oceanfront bar. The two actors were posing as a drunk attractive female (celebrating her 21st birthday) and a young man trying to pick her up and take advantage of her. Needless to say, the object of the clip was to determine if anyone would step in, put a stop to it, and stand up for the young woman who, in a real-time situation, likely would have ended up being sexually assaulted.

Thankfully, as you can see in the video, several bystanders DO step up to protect the young woman. Among them are two gentlemen and several women.

Unfortunately, however, those NOT among the alert bystanders are two off-duty police officers who not only don't step up to assist the potential sexual assault victim, but can be heard in the video egging the predator on and even suggesting where he might take the young woman to carry out his crime.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QcLs98NeJY

(Note: The entire video is worth watching, but to see the actual portion with the two off-duty cops, watch 6:45-8:15).

It gets worse. After the producers come out and reveal that the entire set-up is a hoax, the off-duty cops are then asked why they didn't intervene. Their response is simply that they didn't want to "complicate" things by stepping in.

Some observations should be made here. First of all, obviously NOT ALL police officers are like this. Many are fine, upstanding citizens who are every bit as principled and sincere as they come. They are great family men who love and invest in their communities and, as such, are to be commended.

On the other hand, though, incidents like this can teach us plenty; not just about law enforcement and government, but about human nature as a whole. And that's simply because ALL OF US are susceptible to the same flawed human condition that lead to misdeeds of commission and omission like the ones that we witness in the video. Police and government officials are certainly no exception to this. But yet, we continue to place a disproportionate amount of trust in our "of the people / by the people" government, often not realizing that "of the people / by the people" necessarily implies that the same people who are just as susceptible to crime as the rest of us will end up representing and protecting us.

For those of us, like myself, whose level of trust in government is often tentative at best, the take-away here is simple: YOU are ultimately responsible for your own security, provision and other life needs. Yes, government has a legitimate role in society; namely the protection of life, liberty and property. Yes, the police need to be involved to a degree when a violent act occurs. But relying on government 100% of the time to have the moral fortitude to do what is right is a dangerously flawed and misguided approach to securing one's life and person. And as sovereign citizens, we, first and foremost, must be prepared to take responsibility for ourselves, our families, and for our communities.

Again, I have no doubt that there exist plenty of fine, upstanding men and women who wear a badge and would have wasted no time in stopping what they thought was a sexual assault in progress, had they been given the chance. But because exceptions to that rule exist, it is incumbent on individuals to ensure that their rights and property are protected and secure at all times. It is YOUR responsibility. And it starts with YOU.

Videos like this one can be hard to watch, but they serve as stark reminders of why we should place trust in anyone (government included) with a great deal of reserve and hesitancy. My hope is that all of us will do that. And that you will live free in an unfree world.

Praesant Libero!

-Warren Brisbane

Don't Fence Us In - The Border Crisis and Essential Liberty.

Greetings.

Been another eventful week as we have seen plenty of activity in our world. Threats to liberty abound, as always. Fortunately, so do liberty-loving patriots like yours truly and, presumably, those of you who read this blog.

This week, coverage of the ongoing crisis at the southern border of the United States has been continual. For those paying attention, towns all along our border with Mexico have been virtually overrun with immigrants as young as five years old. These children, we are told, are seeking nothing more than to be reunited with their parents and, as such, should be allowed in and not deported. On the other side of the ideological debate, angry calls for immediate deportation have been equally plenteous.

As with any major event, there has been no shortage of anger, opinions, protests, cable news interviews, and plenty of calls for government officials to "do something" in the wake of what has transpired. In particular, renewed and reinvigorated calls for increased border security abound, especially pertaining to building a "wall" along our southern border with Mexico. Arguments in favor of this, predictably enough, are usually infused with such terms as "national security," "safety," "economic health," and "eliminating welfare dependence."

How should those who value essential liberty respond to all of this? I suggest the following:

1) We should be compassionate. This nation was founded on limited government, but what often gets left out of the discussion is the fact that our founders sought limited government in part so that individuals and private enterprises could care for their neighbors according to their needs. Government cannot do this, so we, as sovereign individuals, must. Extending care and concern for these children is a moral imperative.

2) Building a fence is not the answer. It never has been. The only thing a tall fence will create is demand for slightly taller ladders. Granted, I speak hyperbolically here, but the principle is the same. Using government force to keep people out may solve the problem for a time. But it will not ultimately solve the problem long-term. People will find a way to get into the country regardless of how many armed guards and miles of fence are placed at the Mexican border.

3) Immigration reform should be simplified and should focus on knowing who is here and why. Lest we forget, we are a nation of immigrants. Our society was built by those searching for a better life than what they found in their native countries, very much like many of the immigrants who cross our borders today (to include, yes, SOME of those who do so illegally). Our immigration process should be simplified so that anyone who wants to come here, work, be productive, and contribute to society can do so without the specter of expired papers and possible deportation looming over them.

4) Welfare reform and government spending are ultimately the means to solve the border crisis. Let's not kid ourselves: our growing welfare state is what is attracting many (though certainly not all) immigrants here in the first place. While welfare and perpetual poverty are often inextricably linked here in America, many of those coming here illegally still see our system as a way out of the third-world hell-holes they are coming from. And thus, they are all too happy to cross the border illegally, live off of our system, and enjoy the benefits of "enhanced poverty," as it were. Making welfare as localized and limited as possible would disincentivize those whose aim is to be a life-long beneficiary of, and not a producer within, our society. It's time we got serious welfare reform and justice for the individual taxpayer.

As always, both conservatives and liberals are missing the point here. The solution is neither to "deport and militarize" our border, nor is it to perpetually provide a taxpayer-funded haven to those who have come here illegally. As with every other issue our nation faces, individual liberty, for the immigrant and for the taxpayer, should be front and center in finding a solution.

Praesant Libero!

-Warren Brisbane

Happy 4th of July from The Brisbane File

Greetings, readers.

No lengthy post this week in observance of Independence Day. Have a blessed weekend and remember the spirit of rebellion against tyranny that gave birth to this great nation. And practice it when necessary.

Live Free!

-Warren Brisbane

World Cup (of Hurt): How Property Rights are Violated by Major Sporting Events

Greetings.

It goes without saying that this past week has been a wild one in the world of sports, thanks in no small part to the fervor that has gripped the World Cup soccer tournament. For days now, televisions, computer screens, and iPhones have been tuned in to the din of loud-mouthed announcers and even louder-mouthed crowds in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Monopolizing most of the headlines have been countless updates on standings, statistics, and even an occasional instance where players attempt to bite each other.

However, while successive matches have followed each other and while news about the tournament continues to dominate the sporting world, a less thrilling and far more abysmal story has been quietly unfolding in the shadow of that immaculate stadium. It is a story that, while geographically limited to Rio de Janeiro and Brazil, should concern us all and remind us why liberty and, specifically, private property rights matter.

I'm referring to the fact that many impoverished Brazilians have lost their homes to make room for the World Cup and the thousands of people travelling to Rio de Janeiro to see the tournament.

Thanks to an an insightful article written by Anthony Ling from the Daily Caller, we learn that many residents of the "favelas" (or slums) around Rio, ahead of the World Cup, have been forced out of their places of residence for one reason or another; be it to make room for the actual stadium, or for upgraded infrastructure, or for any other economic or public necessity in preparation for the tournament. Many are living on the street with only a make-shift mattress and the clothes on their back as their only remaining possessions.

In all fairness to the Brazilian government, Ling does explain that some of the evictions taking place have been against Brazilians living on PUBLIC land. This fact is significant as it exempts these residents from claiming any homesteading right to the land itself. At the same time, however, Ling is also very clear about the fact that MOST of the evictions are occurring in actual, privately-owned neighborhoods that should have been recognized and given title a long time ago. Because they never were, however, the result has been the Brazilian government claiming the right to seize the land, bulldoze the homes, and do so often with little to no prior notice given to the residents themselves. Consequently, residents have been treated to the sight of bulldozers suddenly showing up one day to destroy their homes and leave them to deal with the armed police whose job it was to ensure that the peasants left peacefully. If they did not, the consequences were brutal.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/10/brazil-is-using-the-world-cup-to-destroy-communities/

Adding insult to injury, these Brazilians were given "reparations" to compensate for the loss of their home. While, on the surface, this may seem like a just measure, the reality is much more stark. On average, the amount of money given out per household was roughly 10,000 real (about $4,566). The average price of these homes: about 100,000 real ($45,662).

Some observations:

-This is nothing new. There have been many examples throughout recent history of governments running roughshod over the private property rights of individuals in pursuit of the revenue stream that a major sporting event brings.

-Brazil, to hear its own citizens talk, is worse than most when it comes to property rights violations. This is only the latest example.

-Most importantly: governments, however well-intentioned, are often the enemy of the very basic, fundamental right to own property that they are ideally created to protect. And it is our job as citizens to stand up against them when they do so; regardless of how futile our efforts may turn out to be. As long as we are unwilling to confront them when they perpetrate evil of this magnitude, we are complicit in their violation of our liberty and rights. We must stand up to them.

My intention here is not to bash the World Cup, or sports, or even the fans who blithely cheer on their teams from their stadium seats and remain oblivious to the grim reality that resides just beyond those majestically-constructed walls. Rather, my intention is to call YOU, the reader, to vigilance and remind you that what is happening to the poor people of Rio de Janeiro who have lost their homes due to infrastructure upgrades and remodeling can happen to anyone. While this particular instance seems mostly confined to Brazil, let's not kid ourselves or make any mistake: our property rights are only as secure as we're willing to make them.

Until next week: stay vigilant.

Praesant Libero!

-Warren Brisbane

Dangerous Times

Greetings, Patriots.

At a White House event on Wednesday, President Obama took questions from "Tumblr" users. These questions ranged from his plans post-White House to what he would say to graduates completing their studies. Among the many presidential sound bytes offered up during the event was the following:

"if you had to choose any moment to be born in human history, not knowing what your position was going to be, who you were going to be, you’d choose this time. The world is less violent than it has ever been. It is healthier than it has ever been. It is more tolerant than it has ever been. It is better fed then it’s ever been. It is more educated than it’s ever been."
(bold lettering, mine).

On Tuesday, the day before these remarks were made, the President spoke following yet another tragic school shooting (this time in the state of Oregon) and had this to say:

"My biggest frustration so far is the fact that this society has not been willing to take some basic steps to keep guns out of the hands of people who can do just unbelievable damage. We’re the only developed country on earth where this happens. And it happens now once a week. And it’s a one-day story. There’s no place else like this."

Wow! Talk about a quantum leap from peril to peace! Let's make sure we have this straight: on Tuesday, the world (particularly the U.S.) is in grave danger because of guns being in the hands of people who do damage with them. But on Wednesday, miraculously, the world is suddenly "less violent than it has ever been." How on earth are we to explain such a paradigm shift?

Could it be that the President was simply using a horrific tragedy in order to play politics with our God-granted, Constitutionally-protected liberties once again? Naaaah! Just ask the countless devotees to Obama who mindlessly and smirkingly assure us time and time again that NO ONE (least of all our beloved President) is out to take our firearms. And if we dare to believe or question otherwise, well, then, we're just paranoid, or hateful, or...wait for it...racist!

In all fairness, there may actually be some merit to what Obama's supporters are saying; specifically with regard to the government not wanting to directly confiscate our firearms at THIS time. However, lovers of liberty would be remiss in ignoring for a moment the reality that the Obama administration is not about to let a crisis go to waste; particularly not the recent spate of shootings that have once again rocked this nation to its core.

President Obama has made no bones about the fact that his inability to get tighter restrictions on privately-owned firearms passed is one of the major disappointments he's had during his two terms in office. And make no mistake, he and his cohorts simply will NOT stop until they've done SOMETHING to stop guns from being used in violent crime.

And therein lies the rub. Violent crime, whether we like it or not, is a part of our fallen and at times, downright evil, human condition. It will never stop. Bad / crazy / violent people will ALWAYS commit violent acts against their fellow man, and guess what? They'll ALWAYS find a weapon of some kind with which to carry it out. On top of that, they'll also find a way around any law that government imposes upon society in order to stop them, whether the law be increased background checks, more "gun-free zones" or even technology that facilitates tracing firearms from the scene of a crime.

Peaceful citizens, on the other hand, always find themselves, as a result of anti-second amendment legislation, increasingly unable to acquire firearms with which to protect themselves, their loved ones, and their property. Their endgame is simply disarmament and victimization as a result of simply wanting to defend themselves from the very violent and insane people against whom gun laws are intended to protect them in the first place.

Anti-gun statists might very well bring our nation to a point where private firearm ownership no longer exists. At that point, however, what they plan to do about other weapons that could be used in violent crime (blunt objects, sharp objects, even gravity [i.e. - throwing people off of a roof]) remains unclear.

For now, the battle against firearms and freedom rages on. One can only hope that the victories won and strides made by liberty loving citizens will persist and that we will continue to not only hold our ground, but advance toward freedom and against the insidious specter of oppression.

In the meantime, may we stay ever vigilant and ever ready to defend liberty by any means necessary.

Praesant Libero!

-Warren Brisbane

Unchecked Power: Bowe Bergdahl, Prisoner Exchange, and the Rule of Law

Good afternoon, Patriots.

It's almost old news now, but the saga surrounding Army service member Bowe Bergdahl and his release from Taliban captivity is still ongoing and is likely to remain so for some time. At this point, there figures to be plenty more media coverage and no small amount of speculation regarding every aspect of the entire ordeal. Topics ranging from the timeline between Bergdahl's disappearance to when he was released, whether or not he actually was a deserter, why he did so if he did, and the release of five previously incarcerated Taliban members have already been covered ad nauseum and that's not likely to change anytime soon.

I've often complained in the past that when a major scandal or other news story breaks, the media (and hence, many of the American people) tend to ignore what I believe should be front and center concerning the news story. For example, on the minimum wage debate, few people talk about inflation. In my estimation, however, inflation is the main driver of higher costs and the subsequent need for higher wages in the first place. Concerning Benghazi, the focus has usually been on what the President knew and when he knew it, or what he did or did not do. My argument, in contrast, has been that our presence and meddling in that region of the world in the first place is the root cause of atrocities like Benghazi.

You get the idea. There is a disturbing tendency to ignore what matters most in many news stories that break every day across America and the world.

Thankfully, however, that doesn't appear to be entirely the case concerning the Bergdahl story. Recently, it came to light that President Obama and his cabinet failed to properly and lawfully notify Congress ahead of his brokering the deal with the Taliban for Bergdahl's release. This was a direct violation of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2014, specifically with regard to Section 1033 concerning Counterterrorism. This section specifically mandates that the Secretary of Defense notify Congress at least thirty (30) days ahead of any prisoner transfer from Guantanomo Bay, Cuba; where the prisoners were being kept. The President's cabinet did not do that.

Once the story broke, I was pleasantly surprised to see not only the media shining a bright light on the entire sordid subject, but also plenty of outrage on both sides of the political aisle from several key members of Congress; most notably from Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). Sen. Graham has even gone so far to threaten impeachment proceedings if the President repeats his actions in this manner again.

Once again, the story here is not Bergdahl, his dereliction of duty, his beliefs, his family, or even the five Taliban prisoners who were released from captivity. The issue here is the rule of law and the fact that the President clearly broke it in pursuit of his own unilateral agenda. President Obama and his Secretary of Defense are bound by the rules found in Section 1033 of NDAA, yet when it came time to pose as a hero for the cameras, all of that went out the window. The President broke the law to which he was bound, and in doing so, put the nation's security at risk.

Of course, if we really want to broaden this topic, we could frame the question like this: why do we, the American people, keep putting up with it? Why don't we take a stand against tyranny by either 1) voting OUT of office the very tyrants who keep pursuing actions like this, and/or 2) resisting with an armed response if necessary? Why are we often all too happy to go right along with whatever unconstitutional action or law the government takes or imposes upon us minus any effort to say "hell no!" on our part? Where is our breaking point?

Bowe Bergdahl will soon be yesterday's news, but the propensity for wealthy politicians in the highest offices of power to basically thumb their nose at the very laws meant to constrain them and their power will likely never be.

It is our duty to resist such tyranny at every turn.

Praesent Libero!

-Warren Brisbane

Operation Choke Point: Choking the Free Market and Breathing Life Into Tyranny

Greetings.

Let's talk about Operation Choke Point. First of all, what is it? Essentially, it is a Department of Justice (DOJ) program that is aimed at putting pressure on banks and other lending and financial institutions to dissuade them from doing business with so-called "high-risk" or "reputation risk" industries. These industries include, but are not limited to:

-ammunition sales
-gun sales
-fireworks sales
-prostitution and escort services
-dating sites

It should be pointed out from the get-go that most, if not all, of these services are legal, if not morally wholesome or socially desirable. Banks thus have a protected right to do business with them.

It should also be pointed out that, as of today, the United States House of Representatives, in an increasingly rare moment of actually representing the people who elected them, has voted to defund Operation Choke Point as a whole. While the likelihood of this measure clearing the Senate and getting President Obama's signature once it reaches his desk is pathetically low, the U.S. House should be applauded for its fortitude and honorability in doing the right thing.

http://www.conservativeactionalerts.com/2014/05/house-defunds-doj-choke-point-bullying-operation/

Predictably, conservatives and other right-leaning citizens will look at this and immediately be outraged over the fact that the firearms industry is being targeted; and rightfully so. Any infringement on the Second Amendment, to include targeting gun sellers and their banks, should be met with no small measure of righteous indignation.

However, there is also another aspect of this that every American, regardless of their position on guns or any other single issue, should be equally outraged over. I speak of the power, usurped by government, to target any industry with any set of arbitrary regulations for the purpose of "choking" that industry out of existence by over-regulating its financiers.

From top to bottom, "Operation Choke Point" is about as tyrannical as it gets. First of all, nowhere in the U.S. Constitution nor in any founding document nor in any written piece of parchment by a Founding Father, is government given ANY authority to use arbitrary regulation and targeting to effectively stifle any legal industry. But yet that is exactly what is happening here.

Second of all, and perhaps even more importantly, who decides which industries are "high-risk" and which aren't? What is the criteria for such a determination? Can the term "high-risk" be applied to any industry that the government deems fitting? What if the right (or wrong) government officials wake up one morning and suddenly determine that industries like organic food producers, religious service providers, book publishers, dairy farmers, and other contributors to society are suddenly "high risk" for one reason or another? Who makes these determinations? Do we, as supposedly "free" citizens, REALLY want one person or even a group of people to have the kind of power to dictate to us what is good for us by crushing industries that they might not find desirable or wholesome?

If the answer to that last question is "no," then here's another question: at what point do we, the people, draw the line and tell government to stop dictating to us, explicitly or implicitly via activities such as Operation Choke Point, what is good for us? Because that is what this is ultimately about. We are ceding more and more of our liberties every day all in the name of safety and security when all it takes is a cursory look at history to point us back to the path of liberty. Benjamin Franklin said it best: "They that would sacrifice essential liberty to purchase a little temporary security deserve neither and will lose both."

And yet we ignore his words.

It's time to take a stand and, in this particular instance, stand with Congress. Write your Senators and encourage them to pass the resolution when it hits the Senate floor. Let's do all we can to preserve economic liberty while a modicum of it still exists.

Let your voice be heard!

Praesent Libero!

-Warren Brisbane

The USA Freedom Act, Justin Amash, and Principled Leadership

Greetings, patriots.

Regrettably, I was unable to write or post anything last week due to a hectic schedule. However, it is good to be back this week, as there is plenty to be covered.

Most notable, I think, is the recent passage of HR 3361, also known as the "USA Freedom Act" (or "Freedom Act" for short). It passed in the U.S. House of Representatives two days ago and will now be headed to the Senate for a vote and, if adopted, will then head to President Obama's desk for signature. Here is a copy of the bill's text.

http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/3361

Many are already applauding this measure as a step in the right direction for NSA reform, reining in of the 2005 Patriot Act, and a return to constitutional fidelity pertaining to the Fourth Amendment. And in some ways, this is accurate. However, in no way should this be looked at as a final step toward righting the wrongs perpetrated on the American people and their liberties since 9/11.

For one, the bill does not go far enough. Governments can still gain access to phone records as long as they do not do it in bulk and only, for example, limit data collection to a specific geographical area. This is a classic example of an "end run" strategy around the law. "We may not be able to get ALL the data from across the country," a government official may reason, "but we can certainly get all of it from a particular area code in the Pacific Northwest." Additionally, the bill extends the life of the Patriot Act through 2017, as opposed to 2015, as the original bill stipulated.

I suppose it would be easy, at this point, to adopt a "gloom and doom" mentality in the wake of these developments. And indeed anytime a curtailment of liberty takes place, it is a cause for some consternation. However, in my estimation, there is reason to be optimistic here; most notably because of the principled leadership and conviction being demonstrated by Representative Justin Amash (R-MI), who co-sponsored the original bill. Amash has made no bones about his opposition to the version that the House just passed, calling it "shameful" and drawing a clear distinction between it and the original text. His remarks can be seen in their entirety here, as well as on Amash's personal Facebook page:

http://personalliberty.com/co-sponsor-justin-amash-slams-house-approval-watered-nsa-reform-bill/

In short, while lovers of individual liberty should be unhappy about passage of the USA Freedom Act, we should also simultaneously draw our attention to the words and actions of leaders like Justin Amash. At 34 years of age, Amash is certainly one of the younger members of Congress and, thus, someone who, in years to come, is likely to be a prominent figure within the Republican Party, if not Congress as a whole. His devotion to policies that favor limited government and individual liberty is matched only by a level of transparency only rarely seen from any political figure. Amash regularly posts his votes to his Facebook page and, at this point, seems thoroughly committed to actually REPRESENTING and serving the people who sent him to Washington, D.C.

To be clear, this is not a wholesale endorsement of Justin Amash. Granted, he has only been in Congress a short time and, let's face it, Washington, D.C. has a way of corrupting people. Thus, one can only hope that Amash stays on the path that he's been on so far and will go the way of Ron Paul, rather than that of John Boehner. However, his personal stand taken against NSA, the Freedom Act, and government curtailment of individual liberty should be applauded and watched closely. If he continues to do what he has been doing, he could very well be the face of the liberty movement going forward; which could be a tremendous shot in the arm for those of us who value freedom.

These are dark days for liberty, but the future may be brighter than we think, thanks to men like Justin Amash.

Praesant Libero.

-Warren Brisbane.

Benghazi: Why It Matters And Why It Will Likely Happen Again.

Good Afternoon.

As I type this, Republicans in Congress, along with a few Democrats, are forming a bi-partisan panel to investigate the events following the tragic attack on the U.S. Consulate and CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012. For those not aware, the attacks perpetrated by Islamic militants claimed the life of five men, one of whom was Ambassador Chris Stevens, our chief diplomat in the region. It was, and is, a tragedy that will not soon be forgotten by the American people.

Much has been said, written about, and argued over in the nearly two years since Benghazi happened; most of it aimed at assigning blame to one side of the American political aisle or another. Indeed, "Benghazi" has conspired to divide Republicans and Democrats quite evenly along party lines, as is the case with most issues nowadays.

On one side of this divide, Republicans, conservatives, Tea Partiers, and others closely associated with them are quick to assign blame to President Obama, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and other prominent figures within the Obama administration for their alleged lack of awareness and commitment to secure and protect the consulate and its personnel. Other arguments go even further in accusing the President and his cabinet of actually KNOWING IN ADVANCE about the attacks and refusing to do anything about it.

Not to be outdone, Democrats, liberals, and the like have been quick to redirect this criticism at the right-wingers by arguing that it's actually THEY who are to blame, given the alleged funding cuts authorized by Republicans in Congress. They argue that "draconian" spending cuts have affected base security in places like Benghazi and have made our embassies more vulnerable to attack.

I will not dedicate this space to lobbying for one camp's argument or for the other's. And my reasoning behind this is simple: per usual, both sides' respective arguments have completely missed the big picture and do not take into account the underlying cause of this tragedy and others like it.

What is the underlying cause of the tragedy surrounding Benghazi? My argument is simply that the chief responsibility for tragic events like Benghazi lie directly at the feet of our nation's foreign policy.

Documented sources abound of our involvement in the 2011 Libyan Civil War that saw the ouster of Col. Muammar Gaddafi, the nation's brutal dictator. Additionally, our efforts to gather intelligence and target al-Qaeda affiliated militant groups throughout the region during that time are also well-recorded. Some sources even point to our efforts to actively FUNNEL WEAPONS to other rebel groups of our own choosing during major hostilities taking place at the time.

Some questions: is it any surprise then that we would be attacked by those rebel groups who DIDN'T get weapons from us or otherwise benefit from our presence there? Is it any surprise that those groups who were in fact on the OPPOSITE SIDE of the one we picked in this conflict would seek to do harm to our personnel? Can any of this come as a surprise to anyone who considers that, on a larger scale, our military presence in the Middle East, consisting of over forty (40) installations, is an affront to those who consider the land we occupy to be "Muslim land"? Most reasonable people would say no.

Put simply, our involvement in conflicts that have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on our own national security interests should be opposed for these very reasons. Also, I personally cannot help but wonder what would happen if the shoe were on the other foot and it was the UNITED STATES that was embroiled in a Civil War that a foreign government was trying to influence. What if, on top of that, a foreign entity had placed its own intelligence operatives and warfighters on our soil to help pick and choose winners? Would there not then be a Benghazi-style attack on those entities as well?

I should point out here that it is not my intention to demean or trample upon the memories of Ambassador Chris Smith, Tyrone Woods, or any of the other honorable men who lost their lives that day. I question neither the purity of their motivations for action nor their patriotism. Rather, it is the political and corporate entities who profit from the very foreign policy that got men like Smith and Woods killed that I find fault with. It is the idea that the United States of America has an international obligation to serve as World Police that I oppose. And it is the notion that Benghazi is the mere result of either failed leadership at the top ONLY or lack of taxpayer dollars ONLY that I find most absurd.

Make no mistake: our continued presence in the Middle East and our involvement in conflicts that do not concern us is ultimately why Benghazi happened. And it's why we can expect it to happen again (somewhere) until real foreign policy reform takes place on the part of our elected officials.

And that starts with us. Let's continue to demand answers about what happened in Benghazi on that fateful September day, let's continue to seek justice and punishment for those who deserve it, and let's get to the bottom of it.

But let's also remember the root cause of the problem and seek to put real reformers into office during the next election; honorable men and women who will focus our national security resources where they belong; namely, on defending our borders here at home and not overseas.

Praesant Libero.

-Warren Brisbane.

Minimum Wage: What All Politicians (And Most People) Are Missing.

Good afternoon, folks.

Hope everyone's ready for the weekend and the week ahead.

This week's Brisbane File is going to focus briefly on the topic of increasing the minimum wage in America. It's been brought to the forefront of American politics once again this week and many people have weighed in on whether or not low-wage workers should get a government-mandated raise. While one side of the debate focuses on the supposed "crippling effect" that such a move would have on private businesses, the other side makes the case for so-called "workers' rights." Naturally, this topic has inflamed passions in both of its respective camps, just as it has on the previous occasions where efforts to raise the minimum wage have (often successfully) been made.

As for me, I certainly agree that this particular topic is important and thus bears examination and discussion, though I would also be quick to point out that the entire topic itself goes much deeper than simply how much a minimum wage worker should receive for his or her efforts. Instead, I would argue that the issue of wages is connected to a broader topic that is getting very little to no mention by much of anyone involved in the discussion right now, least of all our elected officials.

The topic I speak of is inflation.

First of all, what is inflation? Simply put, it is the rate at which prices for goods and services rise, and, subsequently, purchasing power falls. This can happen at various times for a number of reasons, but for the U.S. dollar, it has happened a LOT over the past century and much of it can be traced to one particular event that took place in 1913; namely, the establishment of the Federal Reserve.

What is the Federal Reserve? Simply put, it is the central banking system of the United States responsible for controlling and regulating our nation's monetary supply and policy. Specifically, the chief duties of "the Fed" involve ensuring that enough cash remains circulating throughout the economy at all times and also ensuring that inflation remains moderate at all times. While the Federal Reserve is privately-owned, it is responsible for the currency of an entire nation.

Milton Friedman once said that "the first rule of economics is that there is never enough of anything to satisfy everyone; and the first rule of politics is: ignore the first rule of economics." This is never more true than when we take a cursory look at our nation's monetary policy. At one time, our currency, the U.S. dollar, was backed by real wealth as measured in gold. Obviously gold is scarce and so our currency, as a result, enjoyed purchasing power that was quite strong as a result of having been anchored to the gold standard. Consequently, prices were kept relatively low and relatively stable.

Over time, however, as elected leaders sought to divest our currency from the gold standard in the name of "increasing the monetary supply," the dollar's purchasing power plummeted as prices on goods and services rose. In other words, inflation happened. It happened because the gold standard was removed and the Federal Reserve then had the authority to print more and more money out of thin air that had no real value or purchasing power at all.

According to Michael Smith ( http://www.comparegoldandsilverprices.com/dollar-devaluation-since-1913/ ), the dollar has lost over 96% of its value since 1913, the year the Federal Reserve was established. While, once again, we cannot affix all of the blame for this on the Fed, it would be foolish of anyone to not give it the lion's share. When anything, the dollar included, becomes more numerous, it loses its value. When something loses its value, it cannot be as easily exchanged for another good or service. This is why goods and services cost more today than they did in 1913 and it is why clamoring for a higher minimum wage is essentially a band-aid solution to an amputation-level problem such as inflation.

Sadly, however, none of us are likely to hear this explanation from anyone with a say in raising the minimum wage (or not) anytime soon. While I won't delve into conspiracy theories here, I will say that it is telling that no one on Capitol Hill is talking about it. Furthermore, it should not surprise anyone to learn that politicians on both sides of the two-party aisle having a vested interest in keeping our monetary policy in a privately-owned, unelected banking structure with no accountability to the American people. Instead, it is likely much more expedient (and personally profitable) for these individuals to keep haggling over whether or not to apply a band-aid solution to an amputation-level problem.

Thus, it is highly unlikely that inflation, which is the root cause of issues like minimum wage levels, will be resolved anytime soon. And this is unfortunate.

In the meantime, those of us who wish to see a long-term permanent solution to this problem ought to take seriously the topic of inflation and our flawed monetary policy and continue lobbying for change. This can happen if the right people are elected. Thus, it behooves us to pay attention and, when possible, do all that is in your power to draft, support, and cast your vote for candidates who will fix the flawed system as it currently stands.

Until next week, live free.

-Warren Brisbane

The National Popular Vote (NPV) Bill - A Muzzle for the States, a Defeat for Liberty

Greetings.

This past week, I came across something that ought to spur to action every concerned patriot who values states' rights and individual liberty. I am referring specifically to the National Popular Vote (NPV) Interstate Compact.

In summary, this is an initiative that would essentially change the way electoral votes are allocated and given by individual states to presidential candidates in an election year. Whereas most states have traditionally awarded their electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes statewide, this new initiative, if enacted by state legislatures and signed into law, would enable states to award electoral votes based on the NATIONWIDE popular vote, as opposed to at the state level.

So far, NPV has been implemented by ten jurisdictions comprising 136 electoral votes (Rhode Island, Vermont, Hawaii, Washington, DC, Maryland, Washington, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Illinois, and California) and is being considered by 33 chambers in 22 other states.

Let's understand something first: individual states have EVERY right to set their own law as it pertains to allocating and awarding electoral votes. Article II, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution make this very clear. However, this particular initiative would have dangerous ramifications for the American people as well as for the cause of liberty and fair elections.

Let's take California, for example. As many are aware, the Golden State has been a reliably blue state for many years. Under NPV, however, a Republican presidential candidate who takes the nation-wide popular vote would be awarded every one of California's electoral votes over the will of the voters. On the flip side, if traditionally red states like Georgia or Louisiana or Texas were to implement this initiative, a Democrat would claim the electoral votes of each of those states were a Democrat to claim the nationwide popular vote.

Can anyone with common sense seriously claim that either of those scenarios is a fair scenario?

Many proponents of this initiative have sought to justify NPV by making arguments against the current system, some of which are justified. One such argument is that the current system enables presidential candidates to "ignore" states in which they aren't likely to win and, instead, focus on ones that favor them as well as swing states that are up for grabs. Perhaps this is the case and perhaps candidates would do well to devise creative ways in which to campaign in those particular states. However, it is also absurd to think that a better strategy involves giving one state's entire electoral vote count to the candidate for whom the people did not vote.

A better argument in favor of NPV is the classic "popular vote" argument; in other words, because the winner of the popular vote DID NOT WIN in four out of our previous fifty-seven presidential elections, NPV (or something like it) is needed. Again, this is a fairly solid argument. After all, if elections are decided by the voters, then why shouldn't the popular vote carry more weight?

The Presidential election is a bit of a different animal, however, and with good reason. Historically, our country's method of electing a president did not involve a popular vote because of the remoteness and disconnectedness of most of the country at that time. In other words, it made more sense for Congress to meet in order to elect a president rather than have every citizen vote for a candidate for whom he or she might have never even heard of. While that is hardly the case today, thanks in no small part to technological advancement, it is still necessary for the President to be determined by electoral votes granted by the states based on THEIR popular vote. This is simply because individual states are to be SOVEREIGN and largely self-governing entities. Any measure that takes the electoral votes away from the determination of states' voters is a virtual muzzle for the states' voters and amounts to an almost unfathomable loss of voice and loss of liberty.

True patriots and those who are passionate about individual liberty ought to pay close attention to what is happening here and waste NO time in contacting your elected state representatives and state senators immediately if you discover that your state is considering adopting this measure. The right to vote, the right to have your voice heard and your vote count is invaluable and could very well be lost if NPV is passed by your state legislature.

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/explanation.php

Act today. And live free.

-Warren Brisbane

Good Friday and The Bundy Ranch aftermath

Hello, Patriots.

A few important observations in the wake of the latest news out of Nevada.

As many are already aware, BLM agents have stood down in the face of increasing tensions surrounding the immediate area of the Bundy Ranch. Citing deep (and legitimate) concerns about the potential for armed conflict, the federal government has directed its law enforcement assets to not pursue any further action against the Bundy family or their property at this time. In and of itself, this is good news.

However, claims have surfaced in the aftermath that this is somehow a definitive "victory" for Cliven Bundy and his supporters, and it should be pointed out that this is a terribly misguided conclusion to jump to right now. While we should applaud and affirm the fact that there likely isn't to be a violent resolution to the Bundy affair in the short term, the reality is that NO ONE should assume that there won't be at some point down the road. In NO way should the federal government's recent actions be perceived as "backing down" or conceding victory to Cliven Bundy and those of us who affirm individual liberty and property rights.

Anyone who does perceive the government's actions this way should take special note of remarks by Senator Harry Reid made late this past week when he overtly and blatantly referred to Bundy supporters as "domestic terrorists." Such an arrogant, misguided, not to mention hypocritical, statement should tell those of us who are awake and paying attention all we need to know about where this situation currently stands; as well as where it might be headed.

Bottom line: we are still at a cross-roads between revolution and peaceful slavery. Whether the matter gets resolved peacefully or via violent means remains to be determined. But supporters and defenders of liberty should still regard Cliven Bundy and his ranch as a flashpoint for the battle for individual rights. And we must continue to stand ready to support courageous individuals like Cliven Bundy whenever the need may arise; to include taking up arms against tyranny, if necessary.

On a separate note, as Easter weekend approaches, I pray that those of us that adhere to the Christian faith will take time to commemorate the ultimate act of defiance and rebellion; that of Jesus Christ when He defied Satan and gave His life so that mankind could live free from the tyranny of sin. For those of us who do NOT adhere to the Christian faith, however, my hope and prayer is that the message of the Cross will resonate with you nonetheless and that you too will be moved to continue fighting against tyranny in its every form.

Christ is ALIVE!!! Matthew 28:5-6.

Until next week, stay vigilant!

-Warren Brisbane

The Bundy Ranch and the Fight for Liberty

Hello, readers.

This week's edition is focusing on the struggle for property rights taking place right now in southeast Nevada.

For those not already familiar with the story, a cattle ranch owned by the family of Cliven Bundy is now surrounded by federal agents who have made multiple threats to confiscate his cattle over a public lands dispute that has been festering for over two decades.

First, some background information: Bundy's ranch has been in his family for over a century. Additionally, according to Bundy himself, his forebears worked the same land surrounding the ranch that is now considered public land and on which Bundy has enjoyed grazing rights for his cattle for decades. Until recently. Thanks to a decision by the federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and a ruling by a federal court judge, the land is now a protected habitat for the Desert Tortoise and, thus, off limits to Bundy's cattle. This decision was made despite the fact that Bundy has for years paid the exorbitant fees required to maintain his grazing rights. To the federal government, however, none of that matters anymore.

Bundy, however, in an example of civil disobedience that should someday be in every civics textbook in every American classroom, has refused to comply with the new law and has continued to allow his cattle to graze on the public land.

Now the real fun begins. Federal BLM agents have surrounded his property, threatened to confiscate his cattle, and have actually been witnessed inflicting physical violence on his family members and other individuals who have shown up in support of Bundy. As a result, people on both sides of the issue are increasingly concerned about an outbreak of armed violence and rightfully so.

While there are many implications and subplots surrounding this ongoing situation, the most important question has to be: what does Cliven Bundy's ranch mean in the grand scheme of things? And the answer, I think, is simple. As Americans, we have watched over the centuries as our civil liberties and individual rights have been, one-by-one, trampled on by an unaccountable government at the federal, state, and local levels. And we have done nothing...until now. The reality of the matter here is that people (at least those who are awake and paying attention) will tolerate only so much oppression and tyranny before they react...violently if necessary.

Attention should be given to this potentially explosive situation. Time will tell if it continues to escalate, even to the point of armed conflict and (dare I say it) revolution, or if it ends up at a peaceful outcome. In either case, engaged patriots should take note of the actions of Cliven Bundy and seek to embody his spirit of civil disobedience whenever necessary and whenever possible. I have said before and I will say again: commitment to essential liberty is best measured not by flags and slogans, but by one's willingness to defy, quietly if necessary, unjust and oppressive laws and dictates.

In the meantime, let's stand with Cliven Bundy and stand ready to support him, financially or in spirit or otherwise, however necessary.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=armAcbEO1PE

Until next week, stay vigilant!

Muzzling the Watchdog

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; OR ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH; OR OF THE PRESS; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." - First Amendment, United States Constitution.

Recently, news broke that there were enough votes in the United States Senate to pass a bill that would "protect" journalists from having to reveal their confidential sources. This bill no doubt originated in the aftermath of one particular journalist (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/10/fox-news-jana-winter-not-reveal-sources-aurora) being threatened by the government with fines and/or imprisonment after she refused to reveal her own information or sources during her coverage of the Aurora Colorado movie theater shooting back in 2012.

On the surface, giving such protection to journalists sounds like a good thing. After all, if those who report on current events and who break stories of historical significance are constantly having to look over their shoulders to see if government agents are threatening to punish them, a de facto stifling of the First Amendment is at that point a reality.

However, this bill should be seen for the Trojan Horse that it is. Specifically, according news sources, its language is such that it applies to "professional" journalists only; in other words, “'covered journalist,' defined as an employee, independent contractor or agent of an entity that disseminates news or information." While it could potentially be argued that such a definition could apply to free-lance writers and the like, the reality is that in all likelihood this bill would fail to cover anyone not working for an official publication of some kind. In other words, if I, as a blogger, come across information that has far-reaching implications in a trial or investigation and am asked to keep my sources confidential, then the government can coerce me to divulge my sources and essentially shut me down as an independent reporter. And this constitutes a blatant violation of the First Amendment.

Professional journalists serve a valuable purpose to a free society; at least those who take seriously their duty to report and inform. However, the First Amendment does not just apply to those that the government determines are covered by it. It applies to all.

My hope, therefore, is that this bill will be defeated soundly in either the Senate or the House and that people will continue to speak freely in defiance of any law that seeks to muzzle them. Free speech is integral to a free society.

Until next week. Live Free

-Warren Brisbane

NSA spying - Why Real Change Is Needed

Greetings.

As NCAA bracketology, missing Malaysian flights, and plenty of other news stories that are "fit to print" prominently took center stage this past week, Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD) and Rep. Mike Rodgers (R-MI) began an attempt to convince the American people that ending National Security Agency spying on the American people is a TOP PRIORITY of theirs.

Specifically, these two congressmen, from two different sides of the political aisle, are preparing to co-sponsor a bill that would, in effect, end the NSA's program aimed at gathering and storing, in bulk, metadata belonging to the American people. However, those that would hail this new development as a "victory" for the Fourth Amendment and a sound defeat of anti-privacy laws and practices should not be so easily deceived.

This latest legislation is a smoke-and-mirrors act for several reasons.

First of all, the law being proposed wouldn't go far enough. While intelligence agencies, under the Ruppersbarger-Rogers legislation, would no longer be permitted to directly gather metadata from the cell phones of Americans, they would still have a green light to legally access the records of private service providers in order to get what they were going after. Basically, this new law would simply redirect (to companies) the unconstitutional efforts of the federal government, rather than shut them down.

Secondly, it is practically absurd to expect anything but these types of legislative theatrics from the likes of Ruppersbarger and Rogers. According to sources, both Rogers and Ruppersbarger have been the recepients of campaign donations (numbering in the six figures) from intelligence contractors since 2005.

Can it be hoped, then, that either of these men will see the egregious violations of Americans' Fourth Amendment-protected liberties for what they are? Not likely...at least not as long as their reelection efforts and financial bottom lines depend on it. Even less likely is the possibility that our government as a whole, to include all three branches, will ever these unconstitutional violations for what they are and take steps to ELIMINATE (not simply "improve" or "decrease") them from the national landscape.

John Adams once famously said, "...a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever."

I am afraid that we are well past the point of individual liberty being a mainstay in the national conscience. However, I am not convinced that this is grounds for any sort of permanent pessimism on our part. We must continue to fight. This can happen in a number of ways.

1) Stay active, involved, and LOUD. Never pass up an opportunity to make your voice heard, especially with regard to your elected officials. While many are beholden to special interests and lobbyists, that is still no reason to keep silent. Stay engaged.

2) Disobey when necessary. Civil non-compliance is the best way to effect change on the national landscape. History bears this out and our future as a free society mandates it. Always count the cost, but always be ready to defy unjust and tyrannical laws.

3) Stay assembled. Always look for ways to associate with like-minded individuals who share your values of freedom and liberty. Remember: strength in numbers.

The politicians may not listen to us now, but our numbers are growing.

Live free.

-Warren Brisbane

Civil Disobedience in Connecticut.

Greetings.

Many of you know about the tensions rising in the state of Connecticut in recent weeks as a result of tighter gun laws aimed at so-called "high-capacity" magazines and weapons. For those that do not, here's a quick re-cap: The Connecticut legislature passed, and CT governor Daniel Malloy signed into law, a bill that prohibited sales of certain types of weapons and which also now mandates that those already possessing such weapons register them with the government.

To sum up, the people are refusing. After only a short time since the law passed, a large number of gun owners numbering in the hundreds of thousands have yet to comply with the law. While not for certain, it could be assumed that they have no intention of doing so...and for that, they should be applauded.

Indeed, while there are several intriguing elements to this ongoing saga, I want to call specific attention to the element of civil disobedience in this particular case. I am afraid that it is fast coming to a point in our history for free citizens everywhere where we no longer have the option of obeying our government if we wish to remain free. And thus, stories like the one coming out of the Constitution State should be refreshing to those of us who do wish to live free.

It has already gotten to the point where police forces in Connecticut, too many of whom have been hell-bent on enforcing this latest piece of legislative tyranny, are actually SCARED of what may happen if they do try to enforce. More can be read about that at the following link.

http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/03/threats-connecticut-police-escalate-following-connecticut-cops-gun-confiscation-comments-pro-gun-veteran-asked-help-cool-things/

For free citizens who, for too long, have had to live in fear at the thought of losing their liberties on a whim, thanks to onerous government overreach, this too should come as a breath of fresh air. The fact that the government now seems to be the one running scared (albeit to a degree) should be welcomed as a much-needed turning of the tides. As Thomas Jefferson observed, "Where people fear their government, there is tyranny. Where the government fears the people, there is liberty."

The flip side, however, is that there is indeed a sense in which this is tragic. No free citizen should want bloodshed. I certainly do not; many of the libertarian-minded, peace-seeking people who share my ideology do not; not even our Founding Fathers wanted to see war in their day. But desperate times call for desperate measures, and if the current situation in Connecticut is any indication, those desperate times may be upon us sooner than we think.

In the meantime, it is important for us all to stay vigilant of the events transpiring in Connecticut as well as elsewhere. Support those who choose to live free and seek to disobey unjust laws whenever possible.

Until next week, live free.

-Warren Brisbane

No Country for Free Enterprise

Greetings.

It has been just over two weeks since I last contributed to this; a fact that I am deeply regretful over, but which leaves me all the more motivated to get back to writing and discussing the issues that are currently foremost on our culture's landscape.

One of the most hot-button topics in the news lately (at least concerning news that matters) over the last couple of weeks is a law that was recently vetoed by Governor Jan Brewer. This law would have given a layer of protection to small businesses that refuse service to homosexuals on the grounds of religious conviction and religious liberty. What is unique about this issue is that it has managed to divide not only the usual mix of ardent conservatives and hard-core liberals, but also even a few libertarians (amongst ourselves) as well.

On one side, there is the crowd that (rightly, I believe) thinks that business owners should have the right to refuse service to anyone on religious grounds. On the other side, there's the anti-discrimination crowd which argues that discrimination is not only unkind, but is also against the law...though few are very specific about which law is being violated when service is refused.

Personally, I fall on the side of the "religious liberty," crowd. However, my argument doesn't just end at religious liberty. Not only do I believe that businesses have every right to refuse service to anyone on religious grounds, they also have the right, I think, to do so on ANY grounds they choose. This is simply by virtue of the fact that it is THEIR business. They own the property and the inventory, not to mention the stewardship and responsibility for the success (or failure) of their enterprise. Thus, it is they, and not a government from Phoenix or Washington, D.C., that get to determine how their business will operate. Period.

Furthermore, history teaches that the free market is a much more effective enforcer of social justice, not to mention a much more effective picker of winners and losers, than a centralized, tax-funded bureaucracy housed in a capital building. Again, let's take the Arizona example. Suppose enough people get really angry at this business owner for what they are calling "discrimination." What will the business man (or woman) do if left to his or her own devices when confronted with these angry consumers? Will he 1) ignore them and continue his business practices only to see his business fail and be replaced by a more "gay-friendly" enterprise? Or will he 2) change his business practices, stop refusing service to homosexuals, and save his business?

The answer, obviously, is that we do not know. Either way, however, the problem is solved either by way of the business owner going out of business or by way of the business owner changing his ways to attract new business. And this is a classic example of an unrestricted, minimally-regulated, free market can solve the societal ills that too often divide and trouble us.

The flip side of my argument is that while I do not think Governor Brewer made an entirely prudent decision in her decision to veto, I also do not completely buy that this turn of events completely spells certain doom for small businesses owned by people of faith. Could it make the lives of faith-based small business owners a bit more difficult? Absolutely. Could these small business owners have benefitted from the layer of protection afforded by this new law? Certainly.

However, it is important to remember that any lawsuit filed against a business for refusing service could easily be defended on First and perhaps even Fourteenth Amendment grounds. Free speech and equal protection counter-arguments could (and should) be made forcefully on behalf of small business owners should they be taken to court in the wake of these events. And liberty lovers everywhere would then do well to support these enterprises by donating to their defense funds wherever they may be found.

That's all I have for this week. Until next time, live free.

-Warren Brisbane

The Stealth Tax

Greetings.

I hope everyone's week has been a blessed one. Plenty going on in the world, per usual, which makes it difficult to narrow it all down to just one topic per week (which is my intent). Olympic events, government crackdown on protestors in the Ukraine, and dozens of other newsworthy stories across the wire are competing for ratings and viewership. However, I would like to call our attention this week to (somewhat) lesser known news story that perhaps hasn't gotten as much press as it should , but CERTAINLY affects our life nonetheless in about as profound a way as could possibly be imagined; way more so than the Olympics or happenings in Kiev.

I'm talking specifically about the possibility of (yet another) minimum wage increase at the federal and state levels as a means to combat, in the words of President Obama, "income inequality." While the jury is still out which way any vote in Congress is likely to go, we can probably be fairly certain that any vote will likely divide both houses along party lines.

However, rather than debate one side of the issue from the legal or ideological angle of whether or not the minimum wage should (or should not) be raised, I would prefer to look at one significant (and overlooked factor) that has in fact been driving up the minimum wage for decades since its inception in 1938. Specifically, I'm referring to inflation, also unofficially referred to often as the "stealth tax." Ever since President Franklin Roosevelt essentially confiscated Americans' privately-owned gold and shifted America's monetary policy away from the gold-backed standard that was used for our currency in 1933, the value of our dollar has decreased. So bad has it become, in fact, that, according to www.usinflationcalculator.com, it would take $2,362.79 today in order to purchase goods that were worth $100 in 1913.

This is due largely to the authority given to the Federal Reserve to basically print money out of thin air and "quantitatively ease" the financial hardships of Americans as more paper money is injected into the economy. Problem is, more fiat money (as it is called, since it's not backed by a real valuable commodity such as gold) results in less purchasing power due to the dollar's diminishing value.

Fast-forward to 2014. As the dollar's value is reduced due to its not being tethered to gold or another commodity, that means that more paper dollars are needed in order for Americans to afford the goods and services they rely upon and want. That, of course, leads to a need for higher wages and pay just to so Americans can make up the difference between higher costs and their own earnings. And this is what essentially drives the entire discussion of hiking the minimum wage again and again.

People complain about taxes driving up the cost of goods and services, and they do. But there's a reason inflation is often referred to as "the Stealth Tax." Simply put, it rarely gets much press, but has steadily been eating away at the earnings of Americans at every income level for decades. We need a return to the gold standard.

The only problem is, neither major party is even hinting at the possibility of making such a drastic move. Whether its fear of their own constituents and potential loss of power, or whether they simply don't understand or believe in basic economics and sound money we may never know. The bottom line is that our money will continue to lose value as long as our monetary policy remains as unsound as it has been for the better part of a century.

It is incumbent upon us as citizens to lobby our elected officials at the local, state, and federal level to push not only for a more sound monetary policy, but also to push for the elimination of laws against legal tender. Free citizens should be allowed to barter and trade with their fellow man as they see fit, rather than be tied to a federally-created, federally-controlled, and federally-mandated paper currency that is killing their purchasing power and robbing them of their wealth. My encouragement thus is for you to get involved and stay involved and vigilant. It is your future.

Until next week, live free or die.

-Warren Brisbane

Government Force - "A Loaded Gun" (Inaugural post)

Welcome to the Inaugural Post of "The Brisbane File."

Here, I hope to educate, as well as discuss, principles of liberty with any and all people who wish to interact and who are concerned about the current trajectory of this once-great nation. It almost goes without saying that these are perilous days for individual liberty, as well as for the United States Constitution, and as such, it is incumbent upon patriots (aka - liberty-lovers) everywhere to get involved, pay attention, and take action wherever necessary and possible. My hope is that this blog will assist in that effort somehow.


For this inaugural post, I would like to start out by telling a little bit of my own story; specifically about how I became a libertarian, but on an even more fundamental level, about how I learned that affirming and living by the principles of liberty goes beyond any particular party affiliation. In truth, it goes right to the heart of human dignity. If men are not free to pursue their own nonviolent interests free of the shackles of other men, then at that point, their quality and essence of life can only be diminished. On the other hand, if men are free to live, work, and create, there is hardly any limit to their potential.


With that being said, let me begin. I am an ordained and licensed Christian, Protestant, Southern Baptist minister. Some people find that surprising when they also learn of my political and philosophical beliefs. Indeed, I have not found many like-minded people in my immediate professional sphere of influence. And that is okay. My path is my own and I am happy to walk it with as many or as few people as are willing to join me. I cannot coerce anyone into thinking like I do or believing how I do, anymore than they can coerce me. And truthfully, I would have it no other way.


I suppose at this point I could go into detail about how my views on politics gradually shifted as Barack Obama was elected president back in 2008 and how I began to see just how political power given to a government can be used against ANYONE (including myself) once it's been granted. But I won't. Instead, I'll simply say that government power is probably best regarded as a loaded gun. What do I mean by that? Well, who wants to find themselves standing in diametrical opposition to the muzzle of an operational firearm? And yet, we cheer our government officials onward as they continually point the loaded gun of unconstitutional and arbitrary power at citizen after citizen, not realizing that that same gun can be (and often is) eventually pointed directly at each and every one of us.


For example, I can recall reading an excerpt from a DHS memo some time ago that suggested that gun-owners and veterans (two categories that fit me) might be subject to closer scrutiny by the government simply because there may be individuals within that demographic that would want to take hostile action against the State. This of course was years after the Patriot Act had been passed, and had given the President and other federal officials broad powers to warrantlessly spy on American citizens (mostly of Middle Eastern heritage) in an effort to prevent terrorist activity. THIS I had no problem with. Of course, they should be spied upon, I reasoned. They attacked us on 9/11. As long as that loaded gun is pointed elsewhere, why should it concern me?


Now it was being pointed at me, as a gun owner and as a military veteran.


Another example is gay marriage. As a Bible-believing minister, I will NEVER preside over the union of a homosexual couple. However, does that mean I have to support our DEEPLY flawed marriage-licensing system which results in higher taxes and fewer legal benefits for one group of people...just because I may disagree with their lifestyle? I don't think it does. Furthermore, and just to once again reiterate the "loaded gun principle," I believe that the history of marriage licensing should tell us all we need to know about the practice of marriage licensing itself.


During Reconstruction following the Civil War, marriage licensing was used as a means to DENY freed slaves and whites the right to intermarry with one another. Now, while there may be a few surviving people who still disagree with interracial marriage for one reason or another, I doubt many people would want to see a law put back on the books that mirrors what was done during the middle of the 1800s. And yet, such a thing is possible, isn't it? Why is it possible? It's possible simply because we have left the power to define marriage (or "protect" it, if you're a social conservative) in the hands of government, rather than leave that authority in the hands of individuals, communities, and places of worship, where it belongs. And with that being the case, is it entirely unreasonable that government might one day choose to train its "marriage cross-hairs," if you will, on the same heterosexuals who have so vehemently pushed for those cross-hairs being trained on other groups?


Issues like this are essentially what have sparked my transformation from a fairly staunch Republican to someone who simply wants the government's gun unloaded and put away until legitimate threats to life, liberty, and private property surface (which they often do, only to be ignored by this very same government of ours).


I could go on, but I'll stop here. There is plenty more to be said and plenty more to discuss. My hope is to have the opportunity to do both. For the time being, however, I'll summarize: goverment power, much like a loaded gun, can be used against anyone. The best way, therefore, to ensure that a society operates justly with the best interest of all at heart, is to allow men to live, work, and produce freely as long as their actions don't injure the well-being or property of another. Then, and only then, should government force be applied.


Thanks for reading.


Until next week, live free!


-Warren Brisbane