• Brian4Liberty

      by Published on 09-29-2014 01:55 PM

      Nearly 1 In 4 Americans In Their Prime Are Not Working
      By Rachel Stoltzfoos

      Nearly one in four Americans of prime working age are not working, even as the president boasts of falling unemployment numbers and other indicators show economic growth.

      Since the recession began in 2007, the number of Americans ages 25 to 54 who are not working has grown by more than 3.5 million to 28.9 million, according to an analysis Bureau of Labor Statistics data conducted by Senate Budget Committee Republicans...
      by Published on 09-29-2014 12:20 PM

      Seven Awful Reasons for Bypassing Congress on ISIS
      The Constitution is clear on war powers, and yet Congress may not weigh in until next year.
      By W. James Antle III • September 29, 2014

      Maybe if we’re lucky, Congress will vote on the war against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria—already underway—sometime next year. While a few brave souls are calling for a vote before then, the midterm elections seem to overrule the Constitution.
      Yet some people don’t think Congress should have to vote at all. More than a few defenders of expansive presidential war powers say they are conservatives.

      Why do people who (rightly) oppose the president usurping the power to determine when the Senate is in recess so he can fill a National Labor Relations Board vacancy believe it is fine for him to flout the Constitution’s clear language that Congress shall have the power to declare war?

      Several reasons for this are often given, all of them deeply problematic.

      1. The War Powers Act says it’s okay (at least for 60-90 days)...
      2. Presidents do foreign policy. You can’t run a war by committee with 535 commanders-in-chief...
      3. It is antiquated for Congress to declare war...
      More: http://www.theamericanconservative.c...gress-on-isis/
      by Published on 09-24-2014 01:55 PM

      Obama Bombs Blind
      Why Americans are still in the dark over the 9/11 Commission's view of the Saudis.
      By Scott McConnell • September 24, 2014

      By bombing ISIS units in Syria, the United States has turned a new page in its long-running conflict with the Arab world. I share the pessimism of those who predict the bombing won’t work, in which case this president or the next will come under intense pressure to commit ground troops in order to avoid a humiliating defeat.
      But armed with our ignorance, we are embarking on a multi-billion dollar campaign that will kill thousands of people—most of them, quite innocent—for reasons we have not thought through at all. Indeed, there seems to be something like an official government policy on not asking too many questions.
      A substantial part of the Saudi ruling family is “bin Ladenist”—perhaps not surprising for a group with piles of money and no responsibility, almost invariably a recipe for bad behavior. Not only were most of the hijackers Saudis, but Bin Laden raised most of his money through Saudi charities and individuals. These observations are included in the publicly released 9/11 Commission report. Not included are some more specific points, including facts which raise the possibility that two of the hijackers were in rather more direct contact with and given substantial assistance by officials affiliated with the Saudi embassy. Many of the loose threads are gathered up and detailed in a 28-page segment of the 9/11 Commission report.

      Curiously, President Bush ordered those 28 pages classified, so that no one without extremely rare security clearances could read them. Former Senator Bob Graham of Florida is one person who has read them, and who then pressed hard for deeper investigation of the Saudi role. ... “If the twenty-eight pages were to be made public, I have no question that the entire relationship with Saudi Arabia would change overnight.”

      There is a presently a House bill to declassify the 28 pages, introduced by Walter Jones and Stephen Lynch; it is bipartisan and now has 17 cosponsors. Perhaps the ISIS crisis will generate some curiosity about what those pages say.
      Or perhaps we should just go ahead and bomb first, then ask questions about who or why later. The Obama administration has already made its choice...

      by Published on 09-23-2014 06:00 PM

      The opposite of libertarian is authoritarian
      By Jack Hunter - September 23, 2014

      ...From its earliest days, the modern conservative movement has always emphasized liberty and fidelity to the Constitution. Barry Goldwater thought we should be extreme in our defense of liberty. Ronald Reagan believed that where “government expands, liberty contracts.”

      Conservatives have also believed it is the job of government to defend the nation and protect citizens. In this balance between liberty and security, conservatives have traditionally erred on the side of liberty.
      The opposite of libertarianism can be fairly described as authoritarianism. If a preference for liberty over authority (government) is what defines libertarians, it is not unreasonable to say that those who prefer authority to liberty have an authoritarian bent. Authoritarianism, like libertarianism, exists on the left and right.
      Concerning ISIS, libertarians (whether they believe military action should be taken or not) all agree that the president must follow the Constitution in declaring war by consulting Congress. Authoritarians do not believe this, preferring a strong executive that governs beyond constitutional limits. The same dynamic extends to debates over the Fourth Amendment and due process, where libertarians have gone to great lengths to remind everyone of constitutional parameters and authoritarians have insisted there aren’t any.

      When we learned that the National Security Agency had been spying on every Americans’ private information, libertarians cried foul. Authoritarians defended the NSA without reservation or hesitance. For libertarians, Edward Snowden did Americans a service despite breaking the law. For authoritarians, Snowden was the equivalent of a terrorist who undermined the integrity of the federal government...
      by Published on 09-23-2014 04:55 PM

      Going to war is a decision too important to be left to the President
      By W. James Antle III - September 23, 2014

      “War is too important to be left to the generals.” This is a paraphrase of a quote attributed to the French statesman Georges Clemenceau.

      The Founding Fathers certainly thought war was too important to be left to the president.

      “The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it,” wrote James Madison, frequently called the Father of the Constitution. “It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the Legislature.”

      Despite the plain language of the Constitution, many today argue that presidential wars are perfectly permissible. In fact, they ridicule the very idea that anyone who isn’t a judge should be concerned about what is constitutional at all.
      Should a lawmaker simply defer all constitutional questions to the judiciary?...
      by Published on 09-23-2014 03:50 PM

      Back to Failure in Iraq
      By Peter Van Buren • September 23, 2014

      The Sons of Iraq

      Sometimes, when I turn on the TV these days, the sense of seeing once again places in Iraq I’d been overwhelms me. After 22 years as a diplomat with the Department of State, I spent 12 long months in Iraq in 2009-2010 as part of the American occupation. My role was to lead two teams in “reconstructing” the nation. In practice, that meant paying for schools that would never be completed, setting up pastry shops on streets without water or electricity, and conducting endless propaganda events on Washington-generated themes of the week (“small business,” “women’s empowerment,” “democracy building.”)

      We even organized awkward soccer matches, where American taxpayer money was used to coerce reluctant Sunni teams into facing off against hesitant Shia ones in hopes that, somehow, the chaos created by the American invasion could be ameliorated on the playing field. In an afternoon, we definitively failed to reconcile the millennium-old Sunni-Shia divide we had sparked into ethnic-cleansing-style life in 2003-2004, even if the score was carefully stage managed into a tie by the 82nd Airborne soldiers with whom I worked...
      by Published on 09-20-2014 12:45 PM

      Civil Forfeiture Allows Cities to Seize Private Property from People Never Charged with Crimes
      By Tommy Creegan

      The Institute for Justice is leading a class-action lawsuit against the city of Philadelphia and its’ civil forfeiture practices. This litigation comes in light of the city seizing a family’s home because unbeknownst to the parents, their son made a drug deal on the property worth $40.

      Civil forfeiture laws allow police departments to seize private property, sell it, and use the proceeds to fund their operations. The real owners of seized property do not have to be convicted or even charged with a crime to lose their property. Government can seize property, such as a car or home, if it’s found to “facilitate” a crime. In essence, the government sues the property itself.
      Visit the Institute for Justice’s website http://endforfeiture.com to learn more about civil forfeiture.

      Tell Your Senators: Support Rand Paul's FAIR Act and Uphold the 5th Amendment
      by Published on 09-19-2014 04:02 PM

      The U.S. finally gets a foreign policy agenda—from Rand Paul
      Merill Matthews - September 19, 2014

      After five years in the White House, President Obama’s only foreign policy principle seems to hinge on whether taking some action (or inaction) will help or hurt Democrats’ chances in the upcoming election.

      Senator Rand Paul has tried to counter this confusion by delivering a speech on the Senate floor focusing on the current mess in the Middle East—a mess he believes is largely of our own making—and outlined at least five important principles that should guide U.S. foreign policy decisions.

      1. Well-intended interventionism has unintended consequences
      2. The U.S. should only go to war when vital U.S. interests are attacked or threatened
      3. The burden of proof that U.S. interests are at stake is on the pro-war advocates
      4. When America goes to war it should only be to win—and win quickly and decisively
      5. A president needs to get congressional support before sending troops to fight
      by Published on 09-19-2014 01:08 PM

      Rand Paul vs. The Cowards
      By David Harsanyi - September 19, 2014

      If arming Syrian rebels is such a great idea, why was everyone in D.C. so terrified of a standalone vote on the issue?

      Before Senators voted 78-22 to pass a continuing resolution that would fund government through Dec. 11 and avoid a government shutdown, Rand Paul asked that question – and some other uncomfortable ones – on the floor. Call him is an isolationist if you like, but it’d be nice to hear some coherent answers.

      You won’t get any from prominent Republicans, who are more interested in hitting the administration for its fecklessness on ISIS. Certainly there was little genuine dissent from Democrats, who aren’t interested in debating another Middle East intervention for reasons of political expediency. “Leaders,” according to a Wall Street Journal piece from a few days ago, are unwilling to debate ISIS and Syria now “because of the risks involved in taking such a tough vote before the elections.” The real risk, right? Political careers. So what we had was a craven bipartisan plan to intervene in a sectarian war in the Middle East using a $1 trillion spending bill as cover.
      by Published on 09-19-2014 12:04 PM
      Article Preview

      Alleged ISIS Photo Controversy Engulfs Sen. John McCain
      by Matthew Boyle - 18 Sep 2014

      Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and his aides swear the Syrian “rebels” he was pictured last year with weren’t ISIS members or supporters, and the mainstream media is by and large buying the 2008 GOP presidential nominee’s story.
      But a closer look at the situation tells perhaps a different story than McCain’s office or the mainstream media have pushed.
      Just last year, however, McCain’s office had no clue who the senator met...

      http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...en-John-McCain ...
      Page 1 of 12 12311 ... LastLast
    • Follow us on Twitter! Like us on Facebook! Subscribe to our top news RSS Feed! New! Subscribe to us on YouTube!

    • End the Fed Coin