Preserving Freedom

Leon Panetta Says the Government May Kill US Citizens Without Due Process

2012-01-30T20:12:00.000-06:00

Defense Secretary was interviewed on 60 Minutes by Scott Pelley. Panetta asserted the claim that the US Government may kill US Citizens without Due Process as long as they are labeled by the US Government as a Terrorist.

From Glenn Greenwald:

Panetta’s answers are suffused with dubious and even factually false claims. It is, for instance, false that the U.S. provides due process to everyone apprehended for Terrorism. To the contrary, the Obama administration has been holding dozens of Terrorism suspects without any charges for years, and President Obama just signed into law a bill codifying the power of indefinite detention for accused Terrorists. But even if it were true that all Terrorism suspects who are detained were entitled to receive due process, that merely underscores how warped it is to assert the power to target them for execution without due process. After all, how can it be that the Government must prove guilt merely to imprison Terrorists but not to execute them?

But this is one of the towering, unanswerable hypocrisies of Democratic Party politics. The very same faction that pretended for years to be so distraught by Bush’s mere eavesdropping on and detention of accused Terrorists without due process is now perfectly content to have their own President kill accused Terrorists without due process, even when those targeted are their fellow citizens: obviously a far more Draconian and permanent abuse than eavesdropping or detention (identically, the very same faction that objected to Bush’s radical whole-world-is-a-Battlefield theory now must embrace exactly that theory to justify how someone riding in a car, or sitting at home, or sleeping in his bed, in a country where no war is declared, is “on a battlefield” at the time the CIA ends his life).

RTs Alyona Minkovski comments on the false arguments used by Panetta:

Always Question Authority: Lies the Government Tells You

2012-01-30T19:13:00.000-06:00

In light of the Seal Team Six rescue of hostages in Somalia, Lionel reflects on the lies governments have told us over the years and how the news media blindly repeats them. Do you remember Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch?

Minority Report Comes to Life

2012-01-30T18:23:00.002-06:00

Lionel comments on the police department in the city of East Orange, New Jersey installing red spotlights to remotely shine on those police believe are about to commit a crime.

From the AP:

Gingrich Would Be Worse Than Obama

2012-01-30T17:17:00.001-06:00

Lew Rockwell, appearing on Freedom Watch with Judge Andrew Napolitano, discusses Newt Gingrich's lie about supporting Barry Goldwater when he really worked for Nelson Rockefeller, Gingrich's declaration that conservatives must support FDR and why Gingrich has got the 'crazy bug'.

Rockwell says a Gingrich administration would be worse than another term for Obama.

We Don't Think in Those Terms

2012-01-29T12:59:00.000-06:00

Ron Paul interviewed on CNN's State Of The Union 01/29/12.

Russell Means Discusses Barack Obama and Endorses Ron Paul for President

2012-01-28T10:51:00.000-06:00

Russell Means discusses Barack Obama and endorses Ron Paul for President.

Ron Paul at the CNN Florida Debate1/26/2012

2012-01-28T08:52:00.000-06:00

Ron Paul Sign Wave at Jacksonville Debate

2012-01-28T08:04:00.002-06:00

Why Get Worked Up Over Super PACs?

2012-01-26T20:10:00.000-06:00

From Reason TV:

Everybody and their brother -- even Stephen Colbert - is freaking out about "super PACs," which are an outgrowth of the Citzens United decision in 2010.

Traditional political action committees (PACs) are subject to federal limits on how much money donors can give in specific election cycles. Super PACS allow groups such as nonprofit corporations and unions to spend unlimited money on political speech as long as they don't coordinate their activity with the official campaign of a given candidate.

But for all the bellyaching, here are three good reasons not to get worked up over super PACS.

1. Billionaires don't need them to influence elections.

In the wake of an anti-Mitt Romney documentary from Winning Our Future, a group tied to billionaire Sheldon Adelson, The New York Times fretted that the film -- which has had little or no effect on Romney's candidacay -- "underscores how [Citizens United] has made it possible for a wealthy individual to influence an election."

Actually, it's always been legal for rich people to spend what they want as long as they make "independent expenditures" that aren't coordinated with official campaigns. Billionares don't need super Pacs to get their message out. But super PACS may just let the rest of us have our say.

2. Super PACS Go Negative -- and That's a Good Thing!

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), whose campaign finance legislation was rendered moot by Citizens United, complains that super Pacs not only flood elections with money but flood it with negative messages. McCain, who lost a run for presidency, admits that negative campaigning works, but doesn't like the tone.

Yet study after study shows not only that negative advertising works with voters, but that negative ads actually contain more information than gauzy paeans to American and the virtues of the candidates who pay for such spots.

3. Super PACS Take Power Away From the Parties.

There's no question that super PACs seek to benefit some candidates by taking aim at others. Adelson, the moneybags behind the anti-Romney documentary, is known to be a Newt Gingrich fan.

But as long as super PACs don't coordinate with candidates or official party apparatchiks, they take messaging out of the hands of party leaders and spread it around elsewhere in a way that has got to be more representative of more views of more voters.

Super PACs are the latest casus belli in the push for controlling specifically political speech in the name of making elections fairer. There's no doubt that they are a loophole arising from the last round of campaign finance reform and the attempt to limit the amount of money politicians would have to raise to get their message out.

It's time to recognize that the only way to stop creating new loopholes is by ending the always ineffective laws designed to lower the cost office-seekers need to spend to buy our votes.

School Choice is Growing

2012-01-25T20:10:00.001-06:00

From Reason TV:

"We take for granted in our lives, choice, in every other area, whether it's Pop Tarts or cereal or cell phones. But really education is the most important thing," said Reason's Director of Education Lisa Snell, "Especially as a parent, you want your kids to have a solid education."

Snell makes the case that school choice is now at a tipping point. In the United States, more charter schools are cropping up, while tax dollars and voucher systems are now allowing the money to follow the child. Snell says that there is evidence supporting that these new educational options are effective, and less costly, in improving the quality of K-12 education.

"Kids in America have more choices today than they've ever had before," said Snell, "Every empirical study shows a positiive effect, and no study has found a negative effect."

National School Choice Week is Jan. 22-28, and has hundreds of events scheduled promoting these ideas.

TSA Detains Dangerous Terrorist Rand Paul

2012-01-24T18:34:00.000-06:00

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul discusses his recent experience with the security theater of the TSA.

Forcing People to do Useless Things

2012-01-22T07:57:00.000-06:00

Who is the government protecting with this law?

From the Institute for Justice:

Verlin Stoll is a 27-year-old entrepreneurial dynamo who owns Crescent Tide funeral home in Saint Paul, Minn. Verlin has built a successful business because he offers low-cost funerals while providing high-quality service. His business is also one of the only funeral homes that benefits low-income families who cannot afford the high prices of the big funeral-home companies.

Verlin wants to expand his business, hire new employees and continue to offer the lowest prices in the Twin Cities, but Minnesota refuses to let Verlin build a second funeral home unless he builds a $30,000 embalming room that he will never use.

Minnesota's law is irrational. Embalming is never required just because someone passes away and the state does not even require funeral homes to do their own embalming. In fact, it is perfectly legal to outsource embalming to a third-party embalmer. Minnesota's largest funeral chain has 17 locations with 17 embalming rooms, but actually uses only one of those rooms.

Why is Minnesota forcing Verlin to waste $30,000 on a useless embalming room as a condition of expanding his thriving business?

So that the big, full-amenity funeral-home businesses can benefit from a law that drives up prices for consumers and operating expenses for competitors such as Verlin. Verlin's basic services fee is only $250, which is about 90 percent lower than the $2,500 that the average Twin Cities' funeral home charges. Verlin's business model is built on minimizing fixed costs, which is why he does not have a hearse or chapel, and this law—to the advantage of his competitors—stands in the way of him expanding his low-cost, high-quality approach.

The government should not force Minnesotans to do useless things. That is why on January 19, 2012, Verlin and the Institute for Justice challenged the law in state court.

The Minnesota Constitution protects every Minnesotan's economic liberty, which means that it protects entrepreneurs from being burdened by legal requirements that are either useless or designed to suppress honest competition.

A victory here will not only free Verlin from an unconstitutional restraint on his economic liberty, but protect entrepreneurs across the state from pointless laws and bureaucracy.

Business as Usual: Goldman Sachs

2012-01-22T06:41:00.000-06:00

Change again? Or more of the same as always.

CNN Southern Republican Debate: Ron Paul Highlights

2012-01-21T15:36:00.000-06:00

Ron Paul highlights from the CNN South Carolina debate.

Al Qaeda, the CIA, Saddam Hussein and Blowback

2012-01-21T10:21:00.000-06:00

A video on the role of US foreign policy and actions that have led to blowback. The US at various times has been allied with Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. Saddam Hussein was our ally in the 1980's. There is a price to pay for interfering in other nations and we have been paying it for a long time.

Sex and the President

2012-01-21T09:25:00.000-06:00

Lionel comments on the Newt open marriage "issue". Lionel says it's no big deal considering what most
Presidents routinely do.

Ron Paul's Chances in the South Carolina Primary

2012-01-19T19:04:00.000-06:00

Reason's Nick Gillespie discusses Ron Paul's chances in the South Carolina primary and in the larger presidential race with Judge Andrew Napolitano.

SOPA and PIPA Explained

2012-01-19T18:44:00.000-06:00

The Khan Academy explains the dangers of SOPA and PIPA.

The Genie is Out of the Bottle. Stop SOPA and PIPA

2012-01-19T05:54:00.000-06:00

Lionel comments on SOPA, PIPA and government's efforts to control and monitor the Internet.

Lawrence O'Donnell Defends Ron Paul

2012-01-18T21:28:00.000-06:00

Kudos to Lawrence O'Donnell for defending Ron Paul against the distorted hit piece put out by the AP.

We Don't Have to be Doing This Right Now

2012-01-18T21:05:00.000-06:00

An interview with Carol Paul.

If You Wanted to Destroy a City's Housing - Short of Bombing - the Best Way to do it is Rent Control

2012-01-18T20:58:00.000-06:00

Cato legal associate Trevor Burrus discusses rent control in New York City.

From Reason TV:

While most cities in America long ago got rid of rent control, New York remains a bastion of government-mandated limits on what landlords can charge renters. About 50 percent of New York's rental market is affected by rent control or rent stabilization, policies that keep rents artificially low and produce housing shortages, higher overall housing costs, and all sorts of corruption.

The court case Harmon v. Kimmel may finally bring an end to rent control laws that have been on the books in one form or another since the 1940s. James D. Harmon owns a building in Manhattan where the tenants are paying rents that are about 60 percent below the going market rate. After losing various legal battles at lower levels, Harmon has petitioned the Supreme Court to hear his argument that rent stabilization is a form of takings that should be prohibited under the Constitution. The Court has not yet announced whether it will hear the case but has asked the state and city of New York to respond to Harmon's argument.

Cato's Burrus wrote a friend of the court brief on the case and explains why rent control and rent stabilization are bad at promoting affordable housing and abridgments of economic freedom.

Ron Paul Highlights at the Fox News South Carolina Debate

2012-01-17T19:14:00.000-06:00

Texas congressman Ron Paul at the Fox News South Carolina debate.

Mainstream Media You Still Don't Understand

2012-01-17T05:56:00.001-06:00

Ron Paul explains his position of real defense, not empire building at the Fox News South Carolina debate.

South Carolina State Senator Tom Davis Endorses Ron Paul

2012-01-16T17:46:00.000-06:00

South Carolina State Senator Tom Davis discusses his endorsement of Ron Paul.