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 Joseph Margulies

Days after the thwarted Christmas bombing, the Rasmussen Group took a poll. They asked whether the failed bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, should be tried in civilian or military court. Seventy-one percent said military.

They also asked whether he should be waterboarded to extract information about his connection to terrorism. In a sign of the times, 58 percent of respondents said yes, even though he had already confessed.

By themselves, the numbers are alarming but not surprising. Other recent polls have consistently shown substantial support for torture and considerable skepticism about the use of civilian courts to prosecute terror suspects. And this despite the empirical proof: after eight years, there is no evidence that information secured by torture could not have been secured by lawful means, and despite the hysteria, we have successfully prosecuted terrorists in civilian courts for many years with no complications.

Click here to read the complete article

by Savannah Liston

The title of this piece is taken from the Broadway Musical based on the book by Victor Hugo, “Les Miserables.” In the musical, the protagonist sings, “Who Am I?” because he is caught between two identities, one being his respected life as the mayor of a town, and the other being his former life as a convict. He struggles between being Jean Valjean and “24601”—his prison number. The prison number is an artificial identity, given to him by the state because of his alleged crime of stealing bread for his sister’s starving child. Yes, he was guilty of theft, but as all of France was starving, and it was probably caused by government interference, the 20 years hard labor punishment to Jean Valjean seems cruelly inappropriate.

The inspiration for the theme of this essay, however, is from the classic holiday film, “It’s a Wonderful Life.” George Bailey, the main character, owns a loan and building business, and takes responsibility for missing funds which will bankrupt the business if they cannot find the money misplaced by his uncle. Bailey grows increasingly disturbed and worried over what would happen to the bank—and what would happen to him as the person responsible for the money. He takes out his frustration on his family, which leads him into even more anxiety and depression. At last he considers suicide as his only option for escaping the trouble that will befall his business and family. However, just before jumping into the river, Clarence—an angel sent by God to protect Bailey—jumps over the bridge instead, and Bailey instinctively jumps into the river, not to kill himself but to save Clarence. Later, after Bailey rescues Clarence, they are sitting together drying off and Clarence questions Bailey and his motivations for considering suicide. Clarence is desperate to show Bailey that his life is very important, that he has made an enormous difference in the world, and despite Bailey’s own feelings, the world is better off because of him. So Clarence decides to try a new idea, and shows Bailey what it would be like if he had never been born. Bailey and Clarence go to the local bar for a drink, only to discover that the bartender doesn’t recognize Bailey now, and eventually the two men are thrown out of the bar. By this time Bailey is confused and worried, he still doesn’t realize what Clarence has done. He rummages frantically through his pockets to show Clarence proof that he is George Bailey. But his pockets are empty.

George says, “Then if I wasn’t born, who am I?”

Clarence replies, “You’re nobody. You have no identity.”

“What do you mean, no identity? My name’s George Bailey.”

And Clarence reminds him, “There is no George Bailey. You have no papers, no cards, no driver’s license, no 4-F card, no insurance policy…They’re not there, either.”

And yet we see George Bailey—he is standing there next to Clarence, talking to Clarence, moving, acting, speaking, thinking…we know, as viewers, that Bailey does in fact exist. It is interesting how Bailey’s identity is stripped from him. Bailey does exist, but not as George Bailey, just as a nameless person.

The setting of this scene in “It’s a Wonderful Life” is the early 1940’s, the war is ending, and George’s brother Henry is coming back from Europe a hero. In the modern state, ushered in by Progressive Era ideas and President Roosevelt’s New Deal programs, personal identity is granted by the state itself. Bailey has no driver’s license…a card given by the government. Currently, it is very difficult to do anything without a driver’s license. The system is so set up as to force a person to obtain a driver’s license or similar identification card if they want to do anything.

In this new era, without government approval and permission, a person does not exist. The definition of existence and of society has changed, and George Bailey was a victim of it. Society does not accept people who have no official government cards. When a child is born, their identity is inextricably linked to the Social Security number issued to them.

Bailey has “no papers, no cards, no driver’s license, no 4-F card…” and cannot prove his identity without it. We are to assume the papers and cards Clarence refers to must be some type of government identification, for what else could be used to identify George Bailey? The 4-F card is part of military classification. Bailey was unable to be drafted into military service because of his impaired hearing. The 4-F card identifies an individual as being not qualified for military service under the established physical, mental, or moral standards. All of this is given to a person by the government and without it they have no identity, as Bailey discovered.

While Bailey’s loss of identity was caused by angelic interference, I suspect that if the government took away anyone’s personal identity, it would not be quite so heavenly. Whatever the government can give, they can also take away. If the government can give identity, and “belongingness” to a person, they can also refuse or repeal it. Our identity and place in society would depend entirely on the government’s whims.

So the question comes down to, does the state give identity? If I had no government papers, no official cards, nothing—would I still be who I am? Or would I be a nameless person, excluded from society, from human interaction, if I had no government identification? Who am I? A creature of the state? Or a person given life by God?

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…

Okay, perhaps it is a little early to say I am truly “vindicated” but that is certainly the way things are looking. Remember my recent post about Human Rights and the Gitmo Detainees? I said, “Once we start saying that some people don’t have the right to a speedy and public trial, we’re on a dangerous road. Don’t forget that only last spring most of these readers were labelled ”right-wing terrorists” in a MIAC report. So if the “regular” terrorists don’t have a right to a speedy and public trial, it is only a short step to denying right-wing terrorists their basic rights, and pretty soon all American citizens are being tried in kangaroo courts…”

And you thought I was crazy (well, maybe you didn’t, but that sounds better, you know)…and now look–the Supreme Court just ruled that any person that the President or his administration labels a “suspected enemy combatant” will no longer be considered a human. That’s right. “They will simply cease to exist as a legal entity.”   And what scares me is that these “non-existent” persons are only suspected enemy combatants…nothing has been proven yet, but their rights are stripped from them. And don’t you think that the conservatives, the libertarians, the right-wing extremists of America are the true enemy of the government?

Anyways, if you don’t believe me, you can read the article here.

And I promise that I will not make a habit of vindicating myself and my opinions, because heaven help me if I sound even remotely similar to Rush Limbaugh.

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 Don Cooper

There was once a small village in the heart of country “US”called village A. Village A was the source of a river that flowed to another small village, village B. Both village A and village B had all the fresh water supply that they needed.

There was another village though, village C, that didn’t live near a river so they got the government to reroute the river running between village A and village B to run through village C as well. Even though the project was drastically over budget and schedule it was eventually completed and the government was hailed as good and righteous. Unfortunately, the government didn’t know that village C sat right on top of a fault line. One day the fault moved and opened up a large hole in the earth right underneath the river cutting off the water supply to both village C and village B.

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.

If you don’t know this about me already, you’ll know now. I have a habit of challenging everything that those around me take for granted as being right. Example, there was recently an uproar about the Gitmo prisoners being brought to Thomson IL, which I don’t think is more than 90 miles from where we live. Within only a couple days, many conservatives came out against it, including Rep. Manzullo. That’s fine, I understand the concern, especially since there is at least one, maybe more, nuclear plants in this area…it would make an ideal target for terrorists, if you’re going to go along with that story. But with the prospect of having terrorists as near neighbors, I’ve observed the common attitude towards them, and I couldn’t just agree with everyone, I had to do some research.

People around here at least, and I suspect around the country, think that the Gitmo detainees are somehow almost “sub-human.” The media certainly doesn’t do anything to correct this feeling. Have you noticed that there’s only one picture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed used in most mainstream newspapers? And it is one of him looking nearly sub-human, his hair tangled and wild, and a “brutal” scowl on his face. Now, I am sure most people don’t even think about this, they just go along with whatever is the popular thought. I am here to say, that will not do. That is not enough. Let me explain.

As I learned from listening to a lecture on the history of natural rights, there are various schools of thought when it comes to where our rights come from. This isn’t a discussion about the origins of natural law, so I’ll spare you the complications. But I tend to align myself with the school of thought that teaches that there are some basic rights that are inherent in human beings, and when you deny people these rights, you are denying their humanity. There’s debate over what these rights are, but certainly it includes the right to life and liberty.

So here’s my point, in case you were getting worried I didn’t have one.

In my opinion, to deny these prisoners the right to life and liberty without due process of law and a fair trial is to deny their humanity.

From what I’ve learned about the Constitution, I’ve realized that the Constitution doesn’t give any rights, it only protects rights that already existed. Maybe some people have some sort of racial/cultural idea about rights, that one group of people have inherent rights and others don’t. But for myself, I believe that every single person on this planet has the right to life, liberty, and property, and that only by proving their guilt in an open and fair court can their rights be taken away.

I am not challenging the guilt of these terrorists, I am only saying that they deserve a speedy and public trial, not because I have a fondness for terrorists, but because of the principle behind it. Once we start saying that some people don’t have the right to a speedy and public trial, we’re on a dangerous road. Don’t forget that only last spring most of these readers were labelled ”right-wing terrorists” in a MIAC report. So if the “regular” terrorists don’t have a right to a speedy and public trial, it is only a short step to denying right-wing terrorists their basic rights, and pretty soon all American citizens are being tried in kangaroo courts, which reminds me of what happened in Europe during, oh, maybe around the 1930’s through the 1960’s…but I won’t name any names here.

So, there’s my take on it. I still don’t like the idea of the terrorists coming to reside in Thomson, but I don’t think we should send them to any penetentiary to sit for years on end, occasionally waterboarded and interrogated.  They should all go to court. If they’re guilty like everyone thinks, there should be enough evidence to prove it. If they’re not guilty, then shame on us for wanting to keep them detained for who know’s how long, just because we can.

You know our government well enough–give an inch and they take a mile. So we give them the inch and let them detain and torture these terrorists indefinitely, and then it might happen to us.