Statist Vultures and the Demise of Liberty, Part 2
By: Matt K.
July 7, 2015
This is part 2 on The Liberty Eagle (TLE) (or rather, the Statist Vulture), following up on ‘Statists in Libertarian Eagle Feathers.‘ I will cover the last 12 assertions, as well as some other problems with STV I’ve noticed. As always, the burden of proof is on TLE to prove they are “defending liberty”, and a good first step, is to renounce Statist beliefs. I don’t expect TLE to become anarchists like myself and Shane, just to be consistent and honest in their claim of wanting to put liberty on the top of the objective list as their #1 cause. I believe The Liberty Eagle can be salvaged, if they truly believe in liberty, they must change their Facebook political platform to be as consistent with liberty as possible. This doesn’t require censorship for the problematic Statist pictures, keeping them around would be a testament to The Liberty Eagle’s future transition into a serious liberty-oriented group. Perhaps that’s expecting the belief in liberty to surpass Statist ideology, but I provide my dissident opinion in the hopes that if some folks are unsatisfied with TLE, Liberty Under Attack is ready to embrace newcomers who believe in consistent libertarian axioms: self-ownership, and the non-aggression principle. As mentioned in part 1, my objective herein is to lay out the Statist assertions on TLE’s Facebook page, and call them out for their hypocrisy in their mission statement of “fighting for liberty.” This conclusion of the 2 part series will include the final 12 points on the FB pictures (11-22) and conclusions from the author.
Decide among yourselves, is The Liberty Eagle truly for liberty, or is it Statist?
To resume this debunking of Statism on behalf of TSV, I think it would benefit the group to reassess their claimed devotion to liberty, here is the conclusion of this 2 part series:
#11 – “Don’t lose touch with the Liberty Eagle because of Facebook changes! If you don’t interact with our page, eventually you won’t see us in your feed anymore. Try to like a pic, share an article or join a conversation daily. Don’t lose touch with us because of Facebook changes!”
Nothing indicates that the group has suffered due to FB changes, a steady amount of page “likes” (currently over 37,000+ people back The Liberty Eagle). While this has nothing to do with Statism, it implies a faux “drowning” and pleading to the general public that’s unnecessary for the page to continue functioning. While there is good advice to Facebook users with regards to keeping the page on their feed, it should be common sense and shouldn’t even require an “emergency public notification” picture to announce. A basic Admin message can have the same effect, without the claimed urgency that the page is in some sort of immediate danger of censorship, or worse. As far as I can tell Liberty Eagle has faced no substantial problems of that sort, this is almost equivalent to committing fraud (or negligence would probably be a better description) to the very people that support your organization, good thing I don’t have strong adherence to Statist “laws.” That’s another point that shall be discussed at the end of this article. Because I’d like to see Liberty Eagle stand consistent to its declared mission of “fighting for liberty”, I’ve no desire to hypocritically call upon the powers of the government to enact financial liability costs, attorney fees, or punitive damages on The Liberty Eagle, despite its brazen Statist hypocrisies that have been named in part 1. I’m not sure what may be arguably deemed a sort of false advertising on a social media podium would really qualify as fighting for anybody’s liberties either, it’s just a nuance and contrivance distraction from “the cause” of your page.
#12 – “Bibles aren’t allowed in schools anymore but are encouraged in prisons. If kids were allowed to read it at school, they may not end up in prison.”
First and foremost, if you are AGAINST government intervention in the private lives of citizens (certainly that’s against liberty!), you’ve no reason to make it a religious objective to impose religious texts into government-backed, public education curriculum’s. That isn’t “fighting for liberty”, unless you’ve redefined liberty to mean “achieving a Theocratic State.”
There is nothing guaranteeing that the reading of Biblical literature will provide young, impressionable, minds already formed to Statist whims will become less violent individuals and less statistically plausible to enter any form of imprisonment from the very same State (ironically) that would feasibly permit such theological indoctrination’s in the first place. Presumably, I guess, The Liberty Eagle would espouse New Testament reading as the desired material for children in public school. Alright, let’s follow this hypothetical scenario to its questionable conclusion. If a teacher tells student’s about Jesus’ declaration that he must be loved before the family of the student’s themselves [Luke 14:26], what does that mean when these students arrive at home? Do they snitch on their parents for being nonbelievers in Christ? Let’s kick it up a notch, what if the teacher in question educates these young minds that Jesus said those who don’t believe in him are predestined for damnation [John 3:18]? What moral lesson can be taught on these young minds that won’t result in violence or future imprisonment? These questions, and the burden of proof, falls upon The Liberty Eagle to find some answers to such a troubling conundrum. Despite being ‘Constitutional’, the schools in question (undoubtedly public, government-enforced) are also Socialist.
The ‘Constitutionality’ of education is a 10th Amendment subject, reserved for each State to define on their own terms or “the people.” Using Texas as a suitable example, Article VII § 1 of the Texas Constitution and the Texas Election code both endorse “public free schools.” In Murray Rothbard’s “Education: Free & Compulsory“, he says:
“The issue which has been joined in the past and in the present is: shall there be a free society with parental control, or a despotism with State control? We shall see the logical development of the idea of State encroachment and control. America, for example, began, for the most part, with a system of either completely private or with philanthropic schools. Then, in the nineteenth century, the concept of public education changed subtly, until everybody was urged to go to the public school, and private schools were accused of being divisive. Finally, the State imposed compulsory education on the people, either forcing children to go to public schools or else setting up arbitrary standards for private schools. Parental instruction was frowned on. Thus, the State has been warring with parents for control over their children.”
This reinforces the Socialist takeover of all forms of education by the State, and isn’t a pretty picture for everybody’s liberties.
If you truly believe in defending everybody’s liberties, I don’t see how seeking a religious monopoly upon a Socialist educational environment will subvert the school-to-prison pipeline. Will other religious literature be tolerated, such as the Quran? And what about students that have no interest in religious forms of education, isn’t that an infringement on their freedom of choice and therefore liberty itself?
As mentioned in part 1, at least Thomas Jefferson (you guys love the Founders, right?!) in his own classical liberal-esque, somewhat secularist, fashion made it clear that no authoritarian doctrines should be supported, whether the individuals in question are religious adherents or not. The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom would be an excellent guiding force in keeping The Liberty Eagle consistent to its self-proclaimed goal of “fighting for liberty.” I don’t agree with Constitutionalism, as an anarchist, but I can certainly respect ideological consistency to some degree.
I’ve no personal experience with seeing Bible’s censored in public education, and all the school rule books I’ve read have indicated that private literature (even religious) can be read on the spare time of students between classes, during lunch time, or whenever leisurely exercise is readily available. That doesn’t indicate a conspiracy to thwart Christianity in education, but rather keeping it, and other religious adherence, at the minimalistic level possible where it doesn’t infringe upon the beliefs of non-Christian students, staff members, or anything of that variety. I have witnessed a student loudly reading the Bible in a public school hallway, and far as I know, she faced no punishments for doing so. I know anecdotal evidence is flimsy, but trust me, if the State or school board went after her and she alerted me to it – you’re damned right I’d defend her liberties as that would affect the rest of the student body, despite our differences on the subject of religion. I’d make a rally banner out of that Statist infringement upon individual liberty, I wouldn’t tolerate it, even for those I respectfully and strongly disagree with.
#13 – “‘Separation of Church and State’ was intended to provide Freedom OF Religion, NOT Freedom FROM Religion. It was intended to PROTECT the CHURCH from the STATE, not the other way around.”
Separation of Church and State lends credence to the authority of the State that must be used as a tool (or weapon) of the political parties to resolve societal difficulties. In this way, anarchy addresses the nature of the State but doesn’t give a free pass to Church authoritative abuses either. If you consistently wish to “fight for liberty”, it would be paramount to reject ALL infringements upon it by either the Church, the State, or worse: Both put together. If your goal is absolute freedom, acknowledging that the State must exist for one goal or another, even for a case of power separation, is acquiescing to it’s fictitious “legitimacy” to rule over the affairs of the ‘governed.’ I don’t see “Separation of Church and State” as a cause for liberty, whether you split it down the middle for Church or State offenses, because NEITHER are preferable to the other and both are exceptionally capable of endangering liberty itself. That’s the first problem.
Secondly, you die-hard Constitutional law-adoring lovers should really enjoy this one: The Federal judiciary has ruled that on individual rights, an implication exists on their exercise, the exercise in question is VOLUNTARY, and this means that a citizen may choose NOT to exercise a liberty. Any Constitutional “right” you can name, includes the option NOT to exercise said right. A good example for this may be American association of people with disabilities v. Herrera & Beare v. Smith both testify the right “NOT to vote” as opposed to its opposite expectation that voting is a positive obligation that “must” be enforced, the “right to vote” somehow (falsely) equivocates to the liberty-infringing demand that voting “has to” be forcibly extracted out of an apolitical, nonvoting, or disinterested individual during elections, referendums, or whatever the hell reformist else.
Third and finally, the author recommends Jefferson’s letter to the Banbury Baptist Association. His interpretation of the Free Exercise & Establishment clauses in the First Amendment establish a wall of separation.
To quote Jefferson’s own words:
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.”
Clearly, he’s saying that natural rights shouldn’t be infringed upon, and I couldn’t agree more – whether by the Church and State seperated, or together. That would certain endanger the liberties that The Liberty Eagle so damned Crusading, is supposedly “fighting to defend.
#14 – “The 2nd Amendment: America’s original Homeland Security.”
Despite this author’s skeptical reservations about the picture, he has been told it was meant in facetious, satirical manner. I can accept good humor, and if that was among the objectives for this picture on The Liberty Eagle’s behalf, I can laugh it off with them. Nonetheless, I believe my points deserve to be made, and here they are: (1) It assumes the natural right to self-defense requires a Constitutional or government basis, that’s quite erroneous and certainly doesn’t bode well for the “fight for liberty.” (2) Using the words “Homeland Security” seems to indicate some sense of legitimacy to be granted to the government’s actual DHS.
I’m not here to word police, or claim the picture must be censored for “social justice”, but I think it’s fair to create alternative or stronger forms of satire. Perhaps: “The NAP: Everybody’s security culture.” As I mentioned in part 1, while The Liberty Eagle hasn’t explicitly proclaimed to be libertarians, it would be equitable for the purposes of “defending liberty” to at least recognize the twin libertarian axioms and apply them for the cause of “fighting for liberty”: Self-ownership, and the non-aggression principle. If I could participate in a voluntary association in providing advisory opinions to keep The Liberty Eagle focused on their mission statement, I will happily reach out to fulfill such a position. Otherwise, this road to Statist adherence on the organization’s behalf will literally be its own downfall. An avoidable fate. My contact information will be available at the end of this article, just like part 1.
#15 – “Always takes the credit never takes the blame.”
There is something childishly ironic and hypocritical about this little devil of a picture. It’s Washington Consensus deception: ‘the other guy is SATAN, we’re sinless.’ Give me a fucking break guys! Do I know Obama is a sleazy political that doesn’t take personal responsibility for his failures but takes credit for questionable accomplishments? Certainly. Can I name GOP Presidents, Congressman, or Senators that haven’t behaved the exact same way? Sure can! The best place for the objective in “fighting for liberty” would be to give the partisan politics the finger and walk away entirely. Focus on practical applications for the cause of liberty, rather than comparing one hypocritical politician to another as a measure of Republican “success” over the Dems. Breaking away from the voting reforming and focusing on truly substantial ends-means consistency will be a glorious saving grace to The Liberty Eagle, if it will just let go of its Statist Vulture Mr. Hyde alternative persona.
Among the issues the GOP demigod Reagan reportedly flip-flopped on (Reagan’s flip-flops: He’d rather switch by Ted Knap, The Pittsburgh Press – Oct 11, 1980): Federal aid to NYC and Chrysler; U.S.-Taiwan relations; federal aid to education; litmus tests for judges; Soviet grain embargo; boycott of Moscow Olympics; minimum wage; federal health and safety regulations; anti-trust on unions and “Davis Bacon” (law prescribing wage rates on federal construction projects); Social Security and TVA; previously a New Deal Democrat.
The darling irony of this whole historic reflection is that Obama’s a regular Reaganite in his own respect, and by that standard, the GOP Liberty Eagle should be enjoying his Presidency with elation and euphoria like their Democrat party counterparts. Obama has followed in Reagan’s electoral process footsteps: Claim positive agendas to voters one day, and change positions the next. As long as you’re ruler gets their place on the throne, who give a damned what happens afterwards, right? To hell with all this Washington Consensus rubbish!
The crux of the issue is that those in rulership over others “never take the blame” (personal responsibility?), therefore it’s counter-intuitive for The Liberty Eagle to openly endorse one bunch of would-be or actualized “rulers” over others to perpetuate the lack of personal responsibility from those in power by believing Statism rather than making the so-called “fight for liberty” their top priority and being genuinely serious about such ends.
#16 – “I would rather die standing on my two feet supporting our Constitution than live a lifetime on my knees in tyranny.”
The sweet nectar of hypocrisy & irony never runs out with Statist proclamations, an endless fountain of hilarious absurdity. Enough boasting, I apologize…or not. I’m quite fed up with all these OPENLY Statist pictures from an organization that’s supposed MISSION is to “fight for liberty.” It’s like Animal Farm-levels of crazy rhetoric: “WE must have more liberties than you, WE will achieve this through the STATE, which by its very existence endangers liberty itself.” That is blood boiling outrageous bullshit, and I’m here to call it out for exactly what it is: double standards. That’s enough ranting for now, onto whatever politeness I can spare.
Number one, by supporting ANY form of government you’ve already sacrificed your life to the tyranny of the Federalist ‘Founders’ the STV loves praising so much. By embracing Statism without question, dissent, or the slightest bit of skepticism no “fight for liberty” has been achieved. The tyranny of a fantasy government that will never do wrong to the governed is just that, an illusion. A ‘Constitutional Republic’ isn’t exempt from that rule. Refer back to the Konkin quote cited in part 1. All the tyrannical elements are in place. The Constitution doesn’t save you or anybody else from Statist tyranny, but a munitions box would’ve certainly served you a better chance in “fighting for liberty.”
Kyle Rearden’s Restoration Trilogy would be an apt lesson for interested folks over at The Liberty Eagle to denounce reformist failures altogether. Liberty Under Attack welcomes anyone whose for the cause of truth and freedom, and sponsors to keep a genuine, serious, commitment to liberty will prove mutually beneficial to all concerned parties.
Lysander Spooner would certainly disagree with any naiveté regarding the Constitution lacking any tyrannical infringements upon liberty, and with good reason. For more on Spooner, a link is available in part 1.
#17 – “Never forget 9/11/01. Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America.-George W. Bush.”
If we’re to never forget 9/11, we must also remember the consequential negligence or blatant support of terrorists that made it feasibly possible to accomplish in the first place. I recommend reading my Q&A series, the terror industrial complex & you. According to Agorist theory, Bush endorsed a “pink market” (war), while denouncing “red market” (terrorism) activity. As proven in my Q&A series, the pink market has done NOTHING to substantially reduce the red market, and has actually strengthened it in several notable examples. The Global War on Terror’s supposed objective of “stopping terrorism” has met no substantial successes, either because the goal isn’t really to “stop terrorism” or because the counter-terrorism policies are ineffective. Either way you slice it, challenging the “red market” to ‘shake the foundation’ of America is provocative for future blowback. Rather than reducing terrorism in any serious CBA (cost-benefit analysis), Bush’s words and actions had turned a bad situation several thousand fold worse. Obama has only followed in Bush’s footsteps, and I doubt whoever his successor is will alleviate the decade-long suicide pact between State terrorism and international terrorist groups across the world to target cities.
#18 – “If you want a rebel flag, nothing beats the original.”
If The Liberty Eagle believes in a rebel flag, then they must coherently embrace the Articles of Confederation instead of the Federalist’s 87′ Constitution, that would at least be fucking consistent. The Betsy Ross predates the 87′ Federal Constitution. If The Liberty Eagle supports the Federalist Constitution, it also celebrates the hypocrisy of George Washington towards the Whiskey rebellion. So, just what kind of “rebels” does the Statist Vultures support? The “rebellion” of one Statist regime over another (Federalists vs. British Empire) or the rebellion of Americans to live without a hypocritical whiskey tax? As mentioned in part 1, the burden of proof remains on The Liberty Eagle to show that they are consistent in “fighting for liberty” over their adherence to Statism. Taking #11 out of the equation still leaves a resounding 21/21 pictures of Statism vs. liberty in the most not-so-subtle pictures I could find within the Facebook page itself.
The Liberty Eagle has held the spot light in part 1, and here in part 2 it’s casting a VERY LONG shadow of Statism, instead of the “fight for liberty” it claims to uphold as a mission statement.
#19 – “’It is our duty of our Christian to select and prefer Christians for our rulers.’ -John Jay, First Chief Justice U.S. Supreme Court.”
The picture doesn’t really do the full quote any justice, so here it is:
“It certainly is very desirable that a pacific disposition should prevail among all nations. The most effectual way of producing it, is by extending the prevalence and influence of the gospel. Real Christians will abstain from violating the rights of others, and therefore will not provoke war. Almost all nations have peace or war at the will and pleasure of rulers whom they do not elect, and who are not always wise or virtuous. Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” (John Jay, letter to John Murray, October 12, 1816).
I’ve enough problems with the Federalist asshole Jay in my ‘Anarchist Odyssey of the Federalist Papers’ series, this quote just gives ammunition to solid reasoning for my anger at this despotic Statism that doesn’t even attempt to shy itself away with subtlety or linguistic deception. By admitting Americans have “rulers”, Jay has admitted that Democracy and Constitutional Republicanism are crystal clear lies. If The Liberty Eagle supports separation of Church and State, it CANNOT reconcile that with a belief in Theocratic rulership over the American nation. As mentioned in part 1, Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli contradicts any assertions that America is a “Christian nation.”
How is endorsing a Theocratic State, believing in “rulers” in general, or submitting yourselves to the whims of Supreme Court adjudication (cultists in black robes to dictate the lives of others), “fighting for liberty“? As an anarchist, I have no qualms telling you, NONE of those rotten things qualify for the security and well-spring of liberties proliferation in America or throughout the world. By accepting the ‘authority‘ of the Supreme Court over the liberties of your fellow citizens, you’ve openly shaken the hands of Statism.
#20 – “The problem with a Godless political party is they don’t believe in a power higher than themselves.”
Since The Liberty Eagle seems to have no problem embracing the “higher power” of the State, I’d say that certainly endangers the liberties they proclaim to “fight for.” I’ve seen little evidence to the contrary, a lot of worship and adoration has been afforded to the State as a “God”-like figure. Political parties don’t do huge favors for the cause of liberty, they are detrimental to it, so it doesn’t matter if it’s the GOP, Democrats, Partyarchy LP, or whoever the hell else — you’re all displaying adherence to anti-libertarian principles. Political parties are inherently a collective infringement on individual liberties, and that sure as hell isn’t “fighting for liberty.”
#21 – “I want a Supreme Court that upholds our Constitution!”
By supporting the Supreme Court and Constitution, aren’t you infringing upon the liberties of others, instead of fighting for them?
Obamacare is a “Constitutional” tax penalty, consistent with the taxing and spending clause (article 1, sec. 8) via the enumerated powers of Congress.
“(E) Special rule for members of the Armed Forces, etc. (i) In general. In the case of the disposition of a principal residence by an individual (or a cessation referred to in paragraph (2)) after December 31, 2008, in connection with Government orders received by such individual, or such individual’s spouse, for qualified official extended duty service – (I) paragraph (2) and subsection (d)(2) shall not apply to such disposition (or cessation), and (II) if such residence was acquired before January 1, 2009, paragraph (1) shall not apply to the TAXABLE YEAR in which such disposition (or cessation) occurs or any subsequent taxable year.” (..) “Sec 3. Extension of first-time homebuyer credit for individuals on qualified official extended duty outside the United States. (a) In general. Subsection (h) of section 36 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended – (1) by striking: “This section” and inserting the following: (1) In general. This section, and (2) by adding at the end the following: (2) Special rules for individuals on qualified official extended duty outside the United States. In the case of any individual who serves on qualified official extended duty service outside the United States for at least 90 days in calendar year 2009 and, if married, such individual’s spouse – (A) paragraph (1) shall be applied by substituting “December 1, 2010” for “December 1, 2009”, (B) subsection (f)(4)(D) shall be applied by substituting “December 1, 2010” for “December 1, 2009”, and (C) in lieu of subsection (g), in the case of a purchase of a principal residence after December 31, 2009, and before July 1, 2010, the taxpayer may elect to treat such purchase as made on December 31, 2009, for purposes of this section (other than subsections (c) and (f)(4)(D)).” (..) “Sec 4. Exclusion from gross income of qualified military base realignment and closure fringe. (a) In general. Subsection (n) of section 132 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended – (1) in subparagraph (1) by striking “this subsection) to offset the adverse effects on housing values as a result of a military base realignment or closure” and inserting “the American Recovery and Reinvestment TAX ACT OF 2009)”, and (2) in subparagraph (2) by striking “clause (1) of”. (..) “Sec 5. Increase in penalty for failure to file a partnership or S corporation return. (a) In general. Sections 6698(b)(1) and 6699(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 are each amended by striking “$89” and inserting “$110”. (b) Effective date. The amendments made by this section shall apply to returns for TAXABLE YEARS beginning after December 31, 2009.”
ACA is ‘Constitutionally’ implemented via Article 1, Sec. 8 and the taxation is annually applied to taxpaying homes of armed forces members, tax-based “credit” is given to homeowners for extended duty of armed forces members outside The States, taxation to keeping housing on military bases intact, and 110$ tax penalty for “failure to file corporate return” via IRC of 86′. If you love the Constitution, then you should have no problem with HE 3590 (the ‘original’ Obamacare act of 09′). Plus, given the documentation cited above, and you can confirm this yourself, it seems to legally provide Americans with military relatives or in-service members with political privileges over those seeking employment elsewhere. A hierarchy of violence is thus established, in parallel to the violent nature of IRS taking taxation from the average homeowner in The States. Annual taxation is ‘Constitutionally’ implemented by the above legislative nonsense, upheld by the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court cases endorsing Obamacare:
- King et al. vs. Burwell, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al.
- National Federation of Independent Business et al, v. Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al.
The court held that:
“(1) The Tax Anti-Injunction Act does not apply because the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA)’s labeling of the individual mandate as a “penalty” instead of a “tax” precludes it from being treated as a tax under the Anti-Injunction Act. (2) The individual mandate provision of the ACA functions constitutionally as a tax, and is therefore a valid exercise of CONGRESS’S TAXING POWER. (3) Congress exceeded its Spending Clause authority by COERCING STATES into a transformative change in their Medicaid programs by THREATENING TO REVOKE all of their Medicaid funding if they did not participate in the MEDICAID EXPANSION, which would have an excessive impact on a state’s budget. Congress may withhold from states refusing to comply with the ACA’s Medicaid expansion provision only the additional funding for Medicaid provided under the ACA.”
Supreme Court case rebuking Obamacare: In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 2014, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 against the contraceptive mandate implemented by US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) vis a vis the “Affordable Care Act”. Holding: “As applied to closely held for-profit corporations, the Health and Human Services (HHS) regulations imposing the contraceptive mandate VIOLATE the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). HHS’s contraceptive mandate substantially burdens the EXERCISE OF RELIGION under the RFRA. The Court assumes that guaranteeing cost-free access to the four challenged contraceptive methods is a compelling governmental interest, but the Government has failed to show that the mandate is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.”
Perhaps the problem isn’t the Supreme Court does or doesn’t “uphold the Constitution“, but that they even exist in the first place, as infringements upon liberty. Perhaps the Supreme Court has “upheld the Constitution” consistency since the start, and therein lies your problem, Constitutionalism and the Supreme Court itself are DANGEROUS TO LIBERTY – as all governments are. Consider that, folks at The Liberty Eagle, things may just be working precisely as they were designed to. The Supreme Court can make damned near anything “legal” and/or “illegal”, and that arbitration of power threatens the liberties of all Americans.
#22 – “’Poor people have been voting Democrat for 50 years, and they’re still poor.’- Charles Barkley.”
I don’t mind a little walk through history on the issue of poverty in America. Sure, let’s take that journey together: LBJ, a Democrat did implement a so-called “war on poverty” as part of the ‘Great Society’. A Republican-Democrat consensus is what passed the likes of: the Social Security Act 1965 (Congress: 248 Dems, 64 Repubs, Senate: 59 Dems, 14 Repubs), Food Stamp Act of 1964, The Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 (Senate: 16 Dems, 30 Repubs), and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (Senate: 16 Dems, 30 Repubs, Congress: 204 Dems, 22 Repubs). All of which retained bipartisan support in the Congress and Senate, by the GOP and Democrats alike. Neither political party generally has displayed genuine compassion for the prosperity of the average American in any serious length, and by working within the State to reinforce such “caring”, they have actually been count-intuitive. The “godless” worshipers of the religion of The State both were/are complicit in making the warfare-welfare state. (H.R. 6675, H.R. 6675, Senate Vote #151)
Any Republican President following LBJ could’ve used the ‘Recommendation Clause’ or adjourning Congress to promote a Congressional appeal on previous legislation, which the President would themselves have the Constitutional power to sign and execute as a matter of “law.” (Wikipedia: Food Stamp Act of 1964). Either for fear of losing their constituents, or securing political power over the heads of average Americans, maybe even both. Republicans are no less dirty in their government antics as their supposed Democrat “opponents.”
The Screeching Kettle, Three of the US government’s longest and most expensive wars are shameful failures (February 2014):
“Survey data exclusive to The Associated Press finds four out of 5 US adults struggle with joblessness, near-poverty or reliance on welfare for at least parts of their lives; Almost 6 million young people are neither in school nor working, according to The Opportunity Nation coalition. The coalition also finds that 49 states have seen an increase in the number of families living in poverty and 45 states have seen household median incomes fall; In 2010, about 46.2 million Americans were living in poverty, or about 15.1% of the US population; One in five families with a member holding a fast-food job has an income below the poverty line, and 43% have an income two times the federal poverty level or less; The United States ranked 34th out of 35 countries in child poverty and welfare rankings; In 2011, there were 17 states where at least half of all public school students came from low-income families, up from just four in 2000. Across the whole country, 48% of kids qualified as low income, up from 38% a decade earlier; Food stamp participation since 1980 has grown the fastest among workers with some college training, a sign that the safety net has stretched further to cover America’s former middle class; According to Oxford University Press, economic insecurity among whites is more pervasive than is shown in the government’s poverty data, engulfing more than 76% of white adults by the time they turn 60; The poverty rate has followed a hilly path that reached as low as 11.1% in 1973 and hit a high of more than 15% in 1983, 1993 and 2010, and it’s still at that level today.”
Searching for government “solutions” to poverty has led to questionable and worse conditions, and both the Republicans and Democrats should be held accountable for this disaster on American lives.
Voting in party politics hasn’t resolved poverty, I doubt the GOP is any more trustworthy. And if millionaire Barkley doesn’t believe in charitable action to alleviate poverty for his fellow Americans, that’s his own manner of self-reflection to deal with. “In 2014, his estimated net worth is $30 million.” According to mediate.com, Barkley allegedly hasn’t seen a poor neighborhood in 20 years.
History tells us that neither the Democrats nor Republicans are reliable to resolve the issue of poverty, much less voting as a supposed miracle cure.
On intellectual property and copyright:
“There is a long tradition of opposition to patent and copyright. Modern opponents include Rothbard, McElory, Palmer, Lepage, Bouckaert, and myself. Benjamin Tucker also vigorously opposed IP in a debate in the nineteenth century individualist-anarchist periodical library. These commentators point out the many problems with conventional utilitarian and natural rights arguments given to justify IP rights.”-Against Intellectual Property by Stephan Kinsella, page 18-19.
If The Liberty Eagle wants to be consistent to it’s mission of “fighting for liberty”, I believe giving up copyright and intellectual property would steer them in a direction of ends-means consistency. I’m not expecting a miracle however, given the blatant adoration of Statist ideology. One of the few things The Liberty Eagle can be complimented on is their allowing of other dissident opinions on the Facebook page that don’t adhere to the Christian-GOP demographic. An atmosphere is given with regards to some other pictures that aren’t mentioned in this 2 part series, because, truly enough – they are consistent in allowing a “marketplace of ideas” as it were, on their own FB organization page. That’s one of the few positive notes this author can attest to The Liberty Eagle, but they are a long way from seriously “fighting for liberty” when upholding Statism.
Creative Commons, copyleft, and public domain are alternative options that could prove beneficial to The Liberty Eagle. Instead of embracing the status quo copyright/IP Statism position, they would actually be “fighting for liberty” by at the very least changing their business policies surrounding this subject.
To their small credit, The Liberty Eagle does have some alternative pictures on their Facebook page that aren’t nearly half as bad with the 22 examples found in this 2 part series. However, let’s name all the Statist beliefs that have been espoused and how they aren’t “fighting for liberty”: Believing a certain color scheme on a federal public building must be forcibly implemented on. Authoritarian dictates are contrary to liberty; supporting a different head of state from a foreign country is vitriolic Statism, and does nothing in liberties defense; endorsing the whiskey tax of George Washington (founding father & President); strong belief in Statist flags; Constitutional ‘authority’ over natural liberty; obedience to the Constitution is adherence to minarchy (minimal statism), NOT liberty; enforcing your religious beliefs through the State for holiday purposes isn’t consistent with liberty; supporting a violent, coercive, terrorizing police state endangers liberty; belief in “political privileges” granted by the State that non-Americans go without is an infringement on everybody’s natural liberties, even those that want nothing to do with the Constitution; adherence to Statist “borders” and “laws” are strongly believed in by embracing the police state mentioned previously; belief in the Washington Consensus false dichotomy (Republicans and Democrats); Theocratic enforcement of religious texts into Socialist education isn’t defending liberty, but infringing upon the liberties of others; refusal to acknowledge positive liberty on “separation of Church & State”; belief that amendments come before natural liberties (2nd amendment); embracing Reagan’s hypocritical flip-flopping, while criticizing Obama’s flip-flopping is just plain hypocritical; belief in the “pink market” (war), which haven’t dismantled the “red market” (terrorism), but has empowered it; contradictory notions on the Federalist Constitution and Articles of Confederation and the whiskey tax; embracing rulers because they are “Christian” isn’t liberty-oriented, as much as any so-called “rulers”; belief in party politics is contradictory to the purpose of liberty, due to the “authority” of the collective party over individualist free will; accepting the authority of the Supreme Court; belief that voting will resolve economic or social issues in any substantial liberty-oriented manner, when voting has actually led to INCREASED drugs, poverty, and terrorism enforced by the State instead of prevalent liberty; belief in copyright & intellectual property; and finally, a mission statement that says “fighting for liberty” DESPITE all the above.
If The Liberty Eagle would like to turn themselves around in a serious devotion to liberty, they can contact the author: [email protected]