Northern Illinois Campaign for Liberty

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.

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 Lew Rockwell

But the problem is that the capacity to imagine freedom — the very source of life for civilization and humanity itself — is being eroded in our society and culture. The less freedom we have, the less people are able to imagine what freedom feels like, and therefore the less they are willing to fight for its restoration.

Click here to read the complete article

By Jeffrey Tucker

Part of the difficulty of understanding Mark Twain’s political outlook is due to terminology and the tendency of politics to corrupt the meaning of everything. As often as you see him called a liberal, he is called a conservative, and sometimes both in the same breath. Critics puzzle about how one person could be champion of workers, owners, and the capitalist rich, while holding views that are antigovernment on domestic matters, antislavery, and antiwar. They often conclude that his politics are incoherent.

Click here to the 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?

by Karen Kwiatkowski

Andrew Bacevich describes America as an “unserious empire.” He corrected his PBS interviewer who had offered the more commonly heard phrase “reluctant empire” as a way to think about our country. Evidently there is concurrence of American political thought that America is indeed an empire, legitimate debate limited only to the qualifier.

Before examining our unserious empire, it might be interesting to see why it is that being “reluctant” is more acceptable toAmericans at war than being unserious. If I am a reluctant bride or a reluctant student, the implication is that I am forced to do something by the stronger party in a husband/wife or teacher/student relationship. “Reluctant” implies that the doer of the deed wants something different, and in marshalling their limited autonomy, is trying to avoid the sin perceived.

Clearly, the United States is in no way a reluctant empire.

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…

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