Northern Illinois Campaign for Liberty

The political world, or at least the right (as in right vs. left, not right vs. wrong) part of the political spectrum is all abuzz with news about the “Mt. Vernon Statement.” I guess it doesn’t occur to some people that even non-politicians don’t always do as they say, and simply signing a “statement” is not going to change anything.

But, that’s not what I meant to say…I intended to point out some anomalies in the Mt. Vernon Statement. I found out about this from Fox News, not always a libertarian’s best friend (I suspect that a dog could easily be a libertarian’s best friend over Fox)…but I digress. Here’s the link for yourself, so you can read the article, and send me raging emails about how wrong I am, or, if you prefer, you may email me with letters extolling my clarity, honestly, and ability to see through facetious scams put on by the neo-cons.

So, by now you’re wondering if I have a point, and frankly, I am wondering too. So I’ll try to get down to business. The Mt. Vernon Statement is suppose to determine “Who’s Who” in the conservative circle. I think they could more truthfully say the Mt. Vernon Statement is supposed to determine Who’s Who in the neo-con circle.

From the Mt. Vernon Statement, “The conservatism of the Declaration asserts self-evident truths based on the laws of nature and nature’s God. It defends life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It traces authority to the consent of the governed. It recognizes man’s self-interest but also his capacity for virtue.”

I apologize, but I didn’t realize they had conservatives back in the 1770’s, I thought they had the Patriots and the Tories, and of course, the undecided.  But that’s rather irrelevant, so I’ll move on.

Conservatism asserts life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, according to the Mt. Vernon Statement. How nice, (I really am serious here), that conservatives are always defending life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Then perhaps it was a malicious hacker who added these words, “It supports America’s national interest in advancing freedom and opposing tyranny in the world and prudently considers what we can and should do to that end.”

“Advancing freedom?”

Do you know what that means?

The War in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We’re advancing freedom by fighting two unnecessary wars in the Mideast.

We’re asserting life by killing innocent civilians.

We’re defending liberty by taking away our own freedoms to fight these wars that will take away their freedom as well.

We’re protecting the pursuit of happiness by helping to embroil the Mideast in long, bloody, violent, and unhappy conflicts.

Uh-huh…or should I say, “yeah right”?

By Jacob Hornberger

In preparation for the two recent back-to-back blizzards, D.C. residents were emptying the shelves of neighborhood grocery stores. Notwithstanding the pre-blizzard panic buying, what’s interesting is that no one was freaking out about whether the stores would be adequately stocked after the blizzards.

So, how in the world do grocery stores get stocked without government planning or direction? How is it that so much food appears, almost by magic, within a day or two after most of the shelves have been emptied? Indeed, how do grocery stores manage to have more than enough food for people throughout the year given that no government department or agency is doing the planning and issuing food directives?

Click here to read the complete article.

As most people should know by now, Sen. Joe Lieberman has declared that the U.S. must plan a preemptive attack Yemen, to find the dangerous terrorist cells that threaten the existence of America. Sen. Lieberman claims that a U.S. official he spoke with while visiting Yemen said, “The war in Iraq was yesterday’s war. The war in Afghanistan is today’s war. The war in Yemen is tomorrow’s war.”  And I suppose that means we must embrace the future?

I am not sure how many people are familiar with Emmanuel Goldstein. You probably have never met him, I am fairly confident of that. Emmanuel Goldstein was a key character in Orwell’s novel, “1984.” Goldstein, however, was unique because he never actually appeared in the book. He was “heard of”  but never heard. He did, however, serve a very important purpose for the Ministry of Truth, and Love, and Peace, and all the other lovely virtues that the totalitarian government claimed to stand for.  Goldstein’s existence, or supposed existence, drew all the people together. Every day those who served in the government were united by the “2 Minutes Hate”…where everyone gathered around the telescreen (TV and surveillance tool) to see an alleged picture of Goldstein and stand screaming at the screen. “As usual, the face of Emmanuel Goldstein, the Enemy of the People, had flashed onto the screen. There were hisses here and there among the audience. The little sandy-haired woman gave a squeak of mingled fear and disgust. Goldstein was the renegade and backslider who once, long ago (how long ago, nobody quite remembered), had been one of the leading figures of the Party, almost on level with Big Brother himself, and then had engaged in counterrevolutionary activities…” Suffice to say, Goldstein was used to unite the people, so they were constantly engaged fighting this unseen enemy and didn’t think about committing acts of treason against Big Brother. And the reader is left at the end of 1984 suspecting, but not knowing for certain, that Goldstein wasn’t real, and was created by the Ministry of Truth to be used for their purposes. Of course you never find out, but after reading the book, there’s a certain “gut feeling” that Goldstein wasn’t real.

So you’re asking…why did you bring up Goldstein? A fictional character who probably didn’t even exist in fiction?

I would like to know why Goldstein comes to mind every time I hear anything about Osama bin Laden, or “The War on Terror.” Maybe there is a real danger to America. In which case, it would be good for us to step back, look at our actions in the Mideast, look at our mistakes and imperialist acts of aggression, and show the world we’re reading to be a beacon of liberty to world–without shoving the beacon down the throats of every other country in the world. Or maybe there is no real threat to America from terrorists. Maybe most of this is made up and fabricated by the government to unite America. Look at how after 9-11 Americans mutely swallowed The Patriot Act “to protect our country.”

You don’t have to believe me, I am just saying…

By Chuck Baldwin

Anger and opposition to Washington’s policies and edicts–no matter now egregious–hardly ever translate into anything beyond words of frustration. And Washington politicians don’t pay much attention to rhetoric–not even their own.

You see, the wizards in Washington and on Wall Street have us figured out. Along with their compatriots in the propaganda press corps, they know that no matter how loudly we scream, how much we protest, or how angry we become, the system is rigged to protect them. The best we the people can seem to come up with is “throwing the bums out” every two or four years. BUT NOTHING CHANGES–at least, not in terms of restoring the fundamental principles of freedom and constitutional government…

Click here to read the complete article.

By Anthony Gregory

December 15 is neglected by most Americans for its historical significance as the anniversary of the Bill of Rights. Even worse, American politicians neglect the actual Bill of Rights on a day-to-day basis.

Whether or not the Bill of Rights can ever be an effective means of limiting the government is open to debate. However, the Bill of Rights does offer a fairly good outline of a free society, and it shows how far our country has strayed.

In an America with a full respect for the Bill of Rights, there would be no Federal Communications Commission regulating the airwaves and forbidding certain speech, no Federal Election Commission limiting how much Americans can donate to political candidates or what they can say in independent political ads, no Food and Drug Administration harassment of pharmaceutical and wine producers regarding their commercial speech, no federal laws that have anything to do with religion whatsoever, and no federally established “free-speech zones.”

Click here to read the complete article.

By Tom Mullen

Like the Patriot Act, the TARP bill, and the coming Climate Treaty, The U.S Constitution was conceived and drafted in an atmosphere of panic that was created by proponents of big government for the express purpose of using fear to win support for a massive expansion of government. Also like TARP or the Patriot Act, it was debated in secret by a convention of delegates that were told that unspeakable horrors awaited America if they did not pass it immediately. Like most expansions of government power, its proponents did not get everything that they hoped for, but they got a lot more power than they had. Most importantly, the next debate over the size and scope of government started from there. The seeds of America’s multi-trillion dollar welfare-warfare state really lie in this seminal expansion of government power.

Click here to read the complete article.

By David McKalip, M.D.

This blatant redefinition of common vocabulary, ending of the truth and bureaucratic takeover of medicine to benefit the state at the expense of patients can stopped. But only if Floridians open their phone book and call their Senators and tell them: “Vote No” on government run medicine. Because the only perennial truth is that politician’s highest goal is to be re-elected and they will vote “no” if they know you are going to hold them accountable for their actions. Then we can have an honest debate about how to lower costs and cover those in need of medical care in rational ways that don’t violate our individual liberties.

Read the complete article here.

By Becky Akers

It’s been fun watching the alleged Constitutional scholar make a complete fool of himself on one of the most basic of Constitutional points, hasn’t it? It would be even more fun if liberty in general and the lives of five men in particular didn’t hang in the balance.

Read the rest of the article here.

by Sheila Dean

Washington can simply make new laws tomorrow. That is what they do in Washington – make laws. The biggest difference here should be in who they make the laws for: individual citizens or public-private interests competing for the taxpayer dollar.

Read the complete article here.