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.

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.

Read the full article at c4ss.org...

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.

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.

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.

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.

The below article was recently published by Newsweek. I heard it being discussed on Free Talk Live this weekend. During their discussion they didn't seem to realize that it was written as satire in the vein of Jonathan's Swift famous article on how to deal with poverty. It shows how unlibertarian it would be to increase the power and size of government along our borders.

by Christopher Dickey

Immigration and IDs: A Modest Proposal

All Americans-whether brown, white, or black-should be required to carry a passport showing they are red, white, and blue.

"As an American, I cannot go to Arizona today without a passport," declared Los Angeles City Councilman Ed Reyes, one of the sponsors of a resolution to boycott Arizona's businesses because of its new immigration law. "If I come across an officer who's having a bad day and feels that the picture on my ID is not me, I can be…deported, no questions asked," the hyperbolic Reyes told the Los Angeles Times this week. "That is not American.''

As it happens, when I was in Arizona for a conference last month I carried my passport everywhere I went. Not that I really expected to be asked for it: I was born in Tennessee and my Scots-Irish, English, German, and Danish forebears got me an exemption from such tribulations, even in Arizona, simply because they were all white. The fact is, I always carry my passport. After years living and working in Europe, the Middle East, and Central America, I've grown used to the idea that cops can ask me for my "papers" any time they choose.

Read the full article on Newsweek.com

Whenever I see a public opinion poll, and it shows what the majority opposes and supports, I sometimes ask this question: Can a majority of the people be wrong? If one were to look at history, the answer would be at times "yes," the majority can be wrong.

• There was once a majority of people during the 18^th and 19^th centuries that believed that women should not have the right to vote. They further believed that women should not go to law school nor should they be allowed to inherit or buy property. It was not until the late 19^th century and early 20^th that the people realized the fallacy of this belief and worked hard to change it.