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
Friday, July 4, 2014
Friday, June 27, 2014
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
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
Friday, June 13, 2014
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
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
Friday, June 6, 2014
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
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
Friday, May 30, 2014
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
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
Saturday, May 24, 2014
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.
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.
Friday, May 9, 2014
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)