Liberty Blog

Why Civil Liberties Should Matter to the Tea Party

Posted in Uncategorized by Phil Russo on May 16, 2010

There is a very important and interesting conversation taking place amongst tea party groups right now. It can sometimes be uncomfortable and awkward but we, as tea partiers, are not afraid to tackle big issues. The conversation going on is about civil liberties and how important they are since the creation of the Constitution.
When I wrote about the Times Square bomber and how his rights should have been read to him, I expected to be blasted by my fellow tea partiers but I wasn’t. Most people agreed that Senator McCain was wrong. I have also heard others talking about the Obama decision to assassinate American citizens and how unconstitutional it is. Finally, the talk about denying people on the terrorist watch list their second amendment rights even though they have not been charged with, let alone convicted of, any crime. The progress being made on the right with respect to civil liberties is very encouraging.
Other tea partiers ask me how we can reach out to younger people like me and I have been telling them that many younger people are with us on economics; it is when we get to civil liberties that they look at the GOP and they see big government, Big Brother, unconstitutional hypocrites. One of the reasons Ron Paul’s following was so young was for this exact reason. Young people don’t want higher taxes or bigger government. They believe in free markets. What they don’t want are things like a national ID card, no matter how many times Republicans say it is needed to “fight terrorism”. Young people don’t want to give up their constitutional rights, period. I am with Patrick Henry, “I know not what course others may choose but as for me, give me liberty or give me death”! A lot of people my age, who would vote Republican on economic issues, look at the constitution and don’t see anything about gay marriage. They see no power granted to Congress to create a Federal Reserve Bank. They see no power is Article 1 section 8 giving congress the power to regulate marriage. Similarly, they see no power in Article 1 section 8 giving Congress the power to prohibit pot smoking.
There is a thick libertarian streak in the under 30 crowd and especially in the under 20 crowd. If we tell them that freedom means the government staying out of the economy they think that the government should stay out of their homes, personal lives, and bedrooms. They also think that the bill of rights should apply to every American citizen regardless of the charges against them. This should make sense even to my post-40 tea party friends. If we allow the government to assassinate an American citizen overseas the next step will be assassinating American citizens on our own soil. If we allow the government to ‘eliminate’ American citizens accused of “terrorism” the next step is allowing them to assassinate anyone accused of being a “threat to national security”. Imagine if Obama had decided to murder the members of the “Christian” militia that was busted a few
months back. They were “terrorists”, they were going to use a bomb to kill a police officer and then set of more bombs along the funeral route. That’s a tactic straight out of Osama’s playbook. Should these men be held without charge in Gitmo and tried before a military tribunal?
I don’t speak for all young people but I do talk politics with a lot of them. There are few neo-cons that are under 30, less under 20, and they think that if you have brown skin and the government (that they claim to distrust so much) deems you are a terrorist, it is ok to suspend your constitutional rights for “national security”. I find this particularly ironic since these neo-cons claim to hate socialism and collectivism so much but then they preach about the “greater good” which is textbook socialism talk. Giving up our constitutional rights in the interest of security is no different from the commies that used to say “better Red than dead”. If we really want to reach the younger crowd we should continue this conversation about civil liberties and we should not shy away from it because it makes us uncomfortable.
When I think of my favorite Founding Fathers I see those men more in Ron Paul, and Barry Goldwater than I do in George W Bush, or John McCain. If we present young people with a consistent message of economic and personal liberty and if we elect people who follow the constitution and repeal the tens of thousands of pages of laws that are unconstitutional we need to convert young people into capitalists, will make the choice themselves, naturally.

FYI: We Are Not on The Same Page, Sir!

Posted in Uncategorized by Phil Russo on May 9, 2010

Yesterday, after the show, I got the lamest answer ever out of someone running for Congress. He was telling me how opposed to socialism he is and how Obama is a socialist. So I asked him, “If Obama took over an entire private industry and put all of the private businesses in this industry out of business and made the federal government the only option for a service, what would you call that?” his answer was “Communism!” follow-up question: “When George Bush took over the airline security industry and created the TSA was this communism too?” his reply: “No, they have the power to do that under the interstate commerce clause of the constitution”. I reminded him that he is defending the TSA the same way Obama defends Obamacare “Interstate commerce!”. So not only was this candidate defedning a socialist idea, he was doing it the same way Obama defends his socialist ideas! But what’s more, his logic was horribly flawed, the so called “interstate commerce” clause says Congress has the power to regulate commerce between the states. What they meant by this was not that government could regulate all commerce that travels between two states it was meant to regulate commerce between two or more states. Florida and Georgia are in a commercial deal, Congress can regulate it to ensure both states get a fair deal. This was mainly used for sharing rivers and bays that were available to two states. Then the candidate tried to remind me of supreme court case law that has allowed the government to regulate private industry and yada yada yada. It make me puke in my mouth a little bit. I reminded him that the supreme court has also said that the constitution contains a right to murder children. That doesn’t make them right. The supreme court thinks social security and the new deal is constitutional. So let’s recap: candidate X defends the taking over of an entire industry by the federal government, uses Obama’s “commerce clause” defence, and then tells me that the unelected, baby-murdering supreme court has said it’s ok! Thanks for clearing that up, sir! We did have former New Mexico Gov. Garry Johnson on for the whole first hour. He was awesome. Look him up on YouTube.

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/bork-troy.htm

Boy is This Going to be Unpopular

Posted in Uncategorized by Phil Russo on May 4, 2010

I can already hear everyone I know bitching at me about this blog post. This will, to me, prove who really stands for liberty and who is ready to sell out the Constitution when it suits their needs. The phrases like “don’t tread on me” and “give me liberty or give me death” can only mean so much if, when called to defend the Constitution, we let fear come between us and liberty.

The guy they arrested for the attempted car-bombing in Times Square has a foreign sounding name but he is an American citizen. John Mccain is out there saying he shouldn’t have been given his Miranda rights and I’m sure many people reading this agree. He is, after all, a terrorist, right? Weren’t Tim Mcveigh and the Unibomber? I am sure they were read their Miranda rights. They were taken to civilian courts with a jury for sure. And why wouldn’t they be? They are American citizens.

If they want to try this bastard for treason and have him drawn and quartered that is fine by me. But please don’t tell me that an American citizen, arrested on the streets of one of our cities, shouldn’t be given Miranda rights. I’ll bet if he were an illegal immigrant Mccain would have no problem with him. If they can do it to this guy, they can do it to any of us. If Obama decides that some tea party organizer is a “threat” to national security can he arrest them and not give the Miranda warnings and take them to a military court? We are not talking about someone found fighting our soldiers in Iraq or some foreign national; this is an American citizen just like all of us.

I hope people understand that this is where the tea party folks need to stand up for the Constitution even though it is uncomfortable. If they can take one of his rights away, they can take all of his rights away. If they can take away his rights, they can take away our rights. People that are citizens of other countries do not need to be read Miranda rights. People caught fighting us in Iraq should not be given Constituional rights. American citizens, arrested in America deserve Constitutional rights. End of story.

Tagged with: , , ,