Selected Blogs
- Details
- Written by Alex Pugliese
- Category: Selected Blogs
Whenever I hear critics of a non-interventionist foreign policy speak, they always attack those who hold this view as “isolationists.” They claim that non-interventionists want to isolate themselves from the globe, that they want to create a bubble between them and the outside world, not engaging in any interaction with the foreign world. That characterization is false and very-very-dishonest.
A non-interventionist foreign policy is the belief in “peace, commerce, honest friendship will all nations,” and “entangling alliances with none,” to use the bold words of Thomas Jefferson. It is the belief that all nations have the right to engage of freedom of trade and freedom of exchange, that all nations should be friendly to one another, but that no nation should involve itself in the quarrels of other nations or in another nation’s political and social disputes. This was the foreign policy position of the U.S. for 100 years. It was rejected in 1898 when President William McKinley and Congress decided to go to war with the nation of Spain over Cuba. Since then, the U.S. has been following an interventionist path and has caused the U.S. to become the world’s busybody, not to mention the world’s policeman. This interventionist policy has also caused the U.S to get entangled in alliances with dictators and despots not only in places like the Middle East but elsewhere. It has caused populations in other nations to hate the U.S. because of these alliances.
- Details
- Written by Alex Pugliese
- Category: Selected Blogs
The assassination attempt on Democratic Arizona Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, and the death of six other people, including a federal district court judge, was a heinous act. What was even more despicable was the fact that there were members of the mainstream press that wanted to assign blame not to a mentally ill gunman, but to others.
- Details
- Written by Alex Pugliese
- Category: Selected Blogs
In 1964, at the Republican National Convention in San Francisco, Republican Presidential Candidate Barry Goldwater stated in his acceptance speech that “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no Vice” and that “Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” When it comes to defending freedom, liberty and supporting the causes that I believe in, I must confess that I am an extremist. However, one thing that I am not, nor will I ever be, is a fanatic. There is a big difference.
- Details
- Written by Bob Ingle
- Category: Selected Blogs
New Jersey has unusually strong — some say stupid — gun laws, and while it's debatable how much safer it makes us, in the case of one young man the way the law was applied is a disgrace to the legal system and the state.
Brian Aitken, a native New Jerseyan and Rutgers grad, moved to Colorado, where he purchased two handguns legally. When his marriage broke up, his ex-wife and son moved to Toms River. To be closer to his boy, Aitken sold his house and returned to the Garden State.
In January 2009, when he was visiting his parents' house, his mom became concerned about Aitken's mental state after he had been denied a visit with his son three times in two weeks. His mom, Sue, told Dennis Malloy of 101.5 FM radio she had been trained to call police in such cases. She hung up after dialing 911 without talking to anyone but the cops showed up anyway. She told them her concerns and the police called Brian en route to his Hoboken apartment and asked that he return to his parents' house. He did.
- Details
- Written by Alex Pugliese
- Category: Selected Blogs
In 1920, the U.S. was facing an economic depression. It came in the aftermath of World War I and after the progressive administration of Democrat Woodrow Wilson. Republican Warren G. Harding replaced Wilson in the Oval Office.
To fight the depression, Harding and members of Congress supported a policy that would usher in the Roaring 1920s. The policy was to cut taxes by 50% and cut spending by the same amount. The policy brought about more revenues to the government and brought about 10 years of economic prosperity.
- Details
- Written by Alex Pugliese
- Category: Selected Blogs
After September 11, 2001, there has been this argument put forth by political pundits, politicians, attorneys and others that claim that in order to win the War on Terror, the rethinking of civil liberties must be done. That Americans, in order to win, must give up some freedoms in order to obtain protections. Even some civil-libertarians such as Alan Dershowitz agree with this argument. I personally find it faulty.
Let’s say for argument’s sake that this is done. When the war is over, will our liberties be restored? The answer is “no.” When government obtains a power it rarely relinquishes it. Not without a fight. Therefore, when anyone says that Americans must surrender some liberties to get the protection of the government, I get very weary.
Ben Franklin had it right when he stated that those who give up essential liberty in order to obtain security deserve neither.
- Details
- Written by Alex Pugliese
- Category: Selected Blogs
The forrth amendment to the U.S. Constitution states the following: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the person to be seized.”
Since 2001, with the passage of laws like the Patriot Act and with new and intrusive technologies like body scanners at airports making its way in to the light, one must wonder if the forth amendment is still applicable today. Sadly, there are many politicians, judges and political pundits (Progressives, “moderates,” liberals and conservatives) that are saying that it does not. These people, all of them, state because of the war on terror, because of safety and because of the need of government to generate revenue, all this trumps the Bill Of Rights. I find this to be very much wrong.
If the Constitution is the law of the land, then it must be treated as such. There can be no digression, no cutting of corners and no setting aside of the law for any purpose, noble or evil. Therefore, the choice is clear to me: follow the law or be ruled by fiat. I choose to follow the Constitution which is and always will be law.
- Details
- Written by Alex Pugliese
- Category: Selected Blogs
I am a strong supporter of the Tea Party movement. I believe the movement is correct when it says that the federal deficit and the astronomical spending done by the government are both unsustainable. I agree with the movement when it calls for cutting government down to constitutional size. Where I part company with the Tea Party movement, is when the movement says that entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid should be left alone. Considering that these programs are facing financial difficulties and are unsustainable under their present forms, and the fact that these programs are 39% of the U.S. Budget, to not reform them and ignore the problems that these programs face would be wrong and dangerous to the fiscal health of this republic.
Cutting the deficit and cutting spending will require tough and painful choices. It will require the United States to make tough decisions to get back on the road to solvency. These decisions cannot be put off for another day or for another generation. To do that, would be nothing more than passing the buck and taking the easy way out. No man, woman and no politician likes to make tough choices, but if it is for the better, it must be done to ensure better futures.
- Details
- Written by Jay Edgar
- Category: Selected Blogs
Marjorie Cohn blogs at http://www.marjoriecohn.com. She is the immediate past president of the National Lawyers Guild and a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law. She is the author of Rules of Disengagement, and the editor of The United States and Torture. |
In their Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert effectively demonstrated how the media hypes fear. They brought out Kareem Abdul Jabbar to show that not all Muslims are terrorists. A couple of musical numbers dealt with the wars we are fighting. But neither Stewart nor Colbert mentioned Iraq or Afghanistan and how those wars are allowed to continue by the hyping of fear.
Like his predecessor, President Obama also hypes fear - by connecting his war in Afghanistan to keeping us safe, even though CIA director Leon Panetta recently admitted that only 50 to 100 al Qaeda fighters are there. Hoping to put the unpopular Iraq war behind him, Obama declared combat operations over, although 50,000 U.S. troops and some 100,000 mercenaries remain.
Tragically, both wars have largely disappeared from the national discourse. On October 22, Wikileaks released nearly 400,000 previously classified U.S. military documents about the Iraq war. They contain startling evidence of more than 1,300 incidents of torture, rape, abuse and murder by Iraqi security forces while the U.S. government looked the other way. During this time the Bush administration issued a “fragmentary order” called “Frago 242” not to investigate detainee abuse unless coalition troops were directly involved. U.S. authorities failed to investigate hundreds of reports of torture, rape, abuse and murder by Iraqi soldiers and police. Manfred Nowak, the United Nation’s Special Rapporteur on Torture, called on Obama to order a complete investigation of U.S. forces’ involvement in human rights abuses.
- Details
- Written by Wes Benedict
- Category: Selected Blogs
WASHINGTON - In response to the recent Republican "Pledge to America," Libertarian Party executive director Wes Benedict released the following statement:
Instead of a "Pledge to America," the Republicans should have written an "Apology to America." It should have gone something like this:
"We're sorry, America. Sorry we grew the federal government budget from $1.7 trillion to over $3 trillion. Sorry we added $5 trillion to the federal debt. Sorry we doubled the size of the Department of Education. Sorry we started two incredibly costly foreign wars. Sorry we supported the absurd and costly TARP bailouts. Sorry we created a huge and costly new Medicare entitlement. Sorry we did nothing to end the costly and destructive War on Drugs. Sorry we did nothing to reform the federal government's near-prohibition on immigration. But hey, at least we helped you by shifting a lot of your tax burden onto your children and grandchildren."
- Details
- Written by John Paff
- Category: Selected Blogs
QUESTION:
My municipal government does not obey the law and does not care that it does not obey the law. For example, state law, specifically N.J.S.A. 40A:9-139, requires each municipality to pass an ordinance providing for the appointment of a municipal attorney. Despite this law, my town doesn't have such an ordinance and refuses to enact one. My complaints to the Attorney General, County Prosecutor and various state agencies haven't helped and I don't have money to hire an attorney. What can I do?
ANSWER:
- Details
- Written by Guest Author
- Category: Selected Blogs
Originally published on Cop Block, republished under Creative Commons agreement.
I know we need to protect our children – there is no greater loss than losing a child. Though the state of New Jersey is taking it to far. They have just fined a novelty company $70,000 for selling a toy that is less dangerous than a Yo-Yo, it’s a Yo-yo waterball.
New Jersey has just won a settlement against the Yo-yo waterball distributor Kipp Brothers for selling the banned toy, although it’s nothing more than a rubber ball filled with liquid attached to a rubber cord.
Could you imagine watching the police come and arrest your child for playing with this.
Think back to when you were a child and some of the toys you used to play with. When I was growing up I remember playing with a chemistry set that was filled with harmful chemicals and I was never injured. I might have singed my eyebrows off once or twice, but that’s part of growing up.
- Details
- Written by Pat Dixon
- Category: Selected Blogs
I remember when the Iraq war protests began. Protesters would march up Congress Avenue and surround the Capitol announcing their opposition to this war.
As time went on, I noticed how the protests evolved. I would start to see people joining these protests carrying signs opposing capitalism, environmental policy, global trade and all manner of policies that had little to do with the war. I also noticed how angry these people were, and the display of signs that showed President George W. Bush depicted as a Nazi.
When the Libertarian Party of Illinois lit the match that became the tea party bonfire, the idea was to promote the principles of the Libertarian Party in protest of continued growth of government, bailouts, a nightmarish taxation system and other policies promoted by Republicans and Democrats.
It now has evolved to include protesters on immigration policy, gay marriage, foreign policy, abortion and all manner of policies that do not match those of the Libertarian Party. We also see angry signs depicting President Barack Obama as a Nazi.
Movements like these are not easily controlled. They can evolve and splinter such that they no longer reflect their origins. This is also true of the tea party.
- Details
- Written by Guest Author
- Category: Selected Blogs
Last week New Jersey Governor Chris Christie endorsed providing $875 million in state financial aid for the Xanadu entertainment and retail complex in the Meadowlands.
For those unfamiliar with Xanadu, Wikipedia has a representative picture of its ugly gigantism. The complex rises from the horizon appearing to be the result of a giant child who threw something together using mismatched Lego blocks. The gigantism is reminiscent of Marxist regimes trying to show off their grandeur in ways they don’t realize are ironic. If the project is ever completed, it will be one of the largest malls in the world.
- Details
- Written by Alex Pugliese
- Category: Selected Blogs
Some years ago, on the Sean Hannity radio show, Mr. Hannity was interviewing KABC Los Angeles libertarian talk show host Larry Elder. Mr. Hannity asked at the time why was it that Libertarians, when running for political office, only get 3% of the vote. Mr. Elder was quick in his reply “The reason is because people fear freedom.” I was taken aback by that statement, but now I fully accept it. Americans, sadly, do fear freedom and what it entails.
- Details
- Written by Alex Pugliese
- Category: Selected Blogs
On the Fox Nation blog, a question was asked about the Founding Fathers. The question went like this: "What would the Founding Fathers think of Independence in America Today?" In my humble estimation, they would be very disappointed and rightfully so.
If they were alive today, the Founding Fathers would be saddened that the U.S. Constitution and other founding documents are not taught in schools anymore. They would be disappointed that the federal government has grown tremendously in size and scope. They would be disappointed that the United States has a federal income tax. They would be disappointed that the U.S. has career politicians. They would even be more disappointed that true liberalism has been replaced with a cancer known as progressivism.
- Details
- Written by Alex Pugliese
- Category: Selected Blogs
It bothers me tremendously whenever I hear a politician, a Hollywood celebrity or other refer to the United States as a "Democracy." While the U.S. may have some democratic traditions, it is not a "Democracy" whatsoever. The Founding Fathers had a great loathing and disdain for democracy. In fact, it was John Adams that said it best, "There is no Democracy on earth that has not committed suicide." What the Founding Fathers gave the United States was a Federal Republic. The U.S. did not start calling itself a "Democracy," until the presidencies of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. From that time on, every elected official has followed suit.
A Democracy, while respecting the rights of the majority, has no respect for minority rights. In a Democracy, you can vote to raid the treasury without regard whatsoever to the fiscal health of the state. When I look at how Democracy is working in Europe and elsewhere, and in the United States, there is no question or doubt in my mind that we all are walking toward a slow and painful suicide. The trend, however, can be avoided if we go back to the wisdom of our founders and back toward constitutionally limited government.
- Details
- Written by Joe Siano
- Category: Selected Blogs
I usually read a few verses before retiring each evening. Last night I came across this:
Naboth the Jezreelite had a vineyard in Jezreel next to the palace of Ahab, king of Samaria, Ahab said to Naboth, "Give me your vineyard to be my vegetable garden, since it is close by, next to my house. I will give you a better vineyard in exchange, or, if you prefer, I will give you its value in money."
- Details
- Written by Jeffrey Miron
- Category: Selected Blogs
Jeffrey A. Miron is Senior Lecturer and Director of Undergraduate Studies at Harvard University and Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute. Miron blogs at http://jeffreymiron.com and is the author of Libertarianism, from A to Z, from Basic Books. |
Arizona's new immigration policy, which requires aliens to carry immigration papers and directs the police to detain "suspected aliens," has re-ignited debates over how to reduce illegal immigration. Most of this debate involves wishful thinking: the claim that stricter border controls or Arizona-like measures can make a real difference. The reality is that only four policies can significantly reduce illegal immigration.
The first is allowing more legal immigration. This point is obvious but worth emphasizing. The United States has an illegal immigration problem because it restricts legal immigration. So long as large wage differences persist between the U.S. and other countries, especially Latin America, the desire to immigrate will persist and occur illegally if it is not permitted legally.
Legal migration, moreover, is good for America and rest of the world. Immigration allows people in poor countries to seek a better life here, bringing ideas and energy with them, and it shows the world that many people still regard America as the land of opportunity. Many immigrants are far poorer than the poorest Americans, so helping them makes far more sense than operating a generous welfare state.
Restrictions on immigration are also costly, since they create black markets, generate violence, and spawn corruption. Fences and borders patrols are expensive, and they do not seem to reduce the flow of illegal immigrants. So any attempt to reduce illegal immigration should eschew enhanced enforcement and instead increase legal immigration.