Liberty Blog

Why The Tenth Amendment Center is so Important

Posted in Uncategorized by Phil Russo on January 10, 2011

Since the begining of time political movements have come and gone. Some have had bigger impacts than others. Some have been movements that supported violence, some advocated a particular issue, but few have been focused on education and empowering the electorate. That is what gives the Tenth Amendment Center (TAC) such staying power. The Tenth Amendment Center is not focused on a single issue insofar as the 10th Amendment covers a range of issues. The TAC does not tell people what to think or for whom to vote. They are focused on educating the people so that we, the people realize that the best government is the one closest to home.

We all know, well most of us, that the 10th Amendment says that the powers not granted to the Federal Government by the Constitution are reserved to the states and the people. What the TAC does is offers perspective and empirical data that shows how to apply the 10th Amendment. Why is this so important for our country and, more specificlly, the Tea Party movement? The answer is: ideological consistency. Nobody likes a hypocrite and, moreover, nobody is going to listen to someone who contradicts themselves. You lose the moral upperhand in political debate when you apply your principles inconsistently. Some in the Tea Party and 9-12 movement talk about limited government and strict interpretation of the Constitution until the argument gets to an issue in which they want the government involved.

This is particularly clear when the discussion is about marijuana or marriage. The Constitution says nothing about either issue, yet, many “constitutional conservatives” want the Federal Government to enforce drug prohibition and define marriage. Since the Constitution does not give these powers to the Federal Government they are, via the 10th Amendment, reserved to the states or the people. People become so emotional when talking about these issues they proclaim that anyone supporting this viewpoint wants to legalize marijuana, which is not the case. Just because I do not think the Federal Government has the constitutional authority to outlaw marijuana does not mean ipso facto I want marijuana legalized. It simply means that the power to make those decisions rests in your statehouse not in Washington, D.C.

There exsists a range of issues like this, some much less controversial than pot and marriage. For instance, the Real ID Act. This law, signed by George W. Bush in 2005, creates, for the first time in our history, a national ID card. The problem is, the Constitution does not give the Federal Government the power to issue an ID other than a passport. That is why drivers licenses and ID cards have always been issued by the states and each state has had different requirements that must be met to obtain a license or ID card. Lots of “constitutional conservatives” will argue that the Real ID is needed to prevent terrorism but that is just a red herring. Thankfully, many true constitutionalists disagree and elected officials like Senator Russell Pearce of Arizona, the author of SB1070, and Governors like Mark Sanford of South Carolina, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Sonny Perdue of Georgia, Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, and Sarah Palin of Alaska have passed legislation that made it illegal for their state to take part in the Real ID program. Thanks to the courage of these elected officials and their states the Real ID has effectively been nullified.

The Tenth Amendment Center is playing an important role in elucidating these issues to people to ensure that we follow the Constitution every time, not just when it fits with our political ideology. The TAC is showing people that sometimes liberty is uncomfortable. Sometimes we are going to disagree with the choices that other individuals make but that doesn’t mean the Federal Government has the power to force them to make different choices. Sometimes liberty might make us a little less safe, but better to be less secure and preserve our Republic and our Constitution than to turn in to the USSR. I would rather have liberty with danger than slavery with security.

The task of educating people on these principles is daunting. It takes a lot of hard work and effort by the men and women of the TAC and, most of all, it takes money. That’s why I am asking you to reach down deep in your pockets and dig out as much money as you can spare for freedom. The mission of the Tenth Amendment Center is one that is so important and without the help of dedicated patriots like you it cannot continue. Do not look at it as a donation, look at it as an investment in your liberty and the liberty of your children and grandchildren. What better cause is there towards which you could put your money?


Restore Justice

Posted in Uncategorized by Phil Russo on September 23, 2010

I am sure most of you have heard that the Florida Supreme Court has ruled that the people of the state of Florida should not have a chance to vote on healthcare freedom. They have taken Amendment 9, the Florida Healthcare Freedom Act, off of Novermber’s ballot. Thankfully, we have a way to send a messege to the Justices on the Court. In Novermber two of the Justices that voted AGAINST healthcare freedom will be on your ballot. They are not running against anyone, it is just a yes or no question but we want to make sure that these two people do NOT make their way back to the bench. This has never been done before, these guys are always retained with 60-ish %, not this time!

The two offenders are PERRY and LABARGA. We want to vote to NOT retain these two freedom-haters. There will be more information about this in the coming weeks and there is a grassroots effort underway right now to educate the people about these two and their vote against freedom and the people of the state of Florida. Remember those names: PERRY and LABARGA and DO NOT retain them. Please start spreading the word to all the tea party and 9-12 groups, your friends, and social networks. This is an important one because healthcare freedom could go to the Court again and we want to make sure the Supreme Court doesn’t take our voice away a second time.

We will be talking about this on the show in the next couple weeks and I will be sending out more email about it in the near future. Start spreading the word!


The 17th Amendment, Again?

Posted in Uncategorized by Phil Russo on September 2, 2010

In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, in 1787, James Madison wrote, “The Senate will represent the Staes in their political capacity, the other House will represent the people of the States in their individual capacity”. This is why the Congress in 1913 should have kept their hands off the Constitution. Not only did they give us the Federal Reserve, and the 16th Amendment, but they gave us the 17th Amendmemt too. That is what makes the Madison quote above so important.

We, the people, already have representation in Congress. That is why we have the House of Representatives, to represent the people. That’s why bigger states have more congressman. Representation is based on population because the House is where the people are represented. The Senate has equal representation because that is where the States are represented and States deserve an equal voice (though I guess some would disagree!).

The U.S. Senate was never intended to he a “mini-House of Representatives”. There is a reason the State legislatures were to appoint Senators. The Founders even had the idea that Senators would be well respected citizens with different business backrounds and areas of expertise. Why was the progressive Congress of 1913 so hell bent on undoing everything that had worked so well for so long?

Just think about some of the ways the 17th Amendment has affected us during the Obama years. Try to picture if our Senators had been appointed by our State Legislature and subject to recall by them when the healthcare bill was being debated. I think there is a good chance that Obamacare never passes the Senate. Think back to the Patriot Act or Real ID. I think there is a good chance a lot of legislation never passes in a world where the Senate is appointed by the States.

I also wonder, do the States not deserve a voice in the Federal Government? So much of the legislation that is passed in Washington dumps unfunded mandates on State governments. Should they not have a seat at the table? Perhaps most important, who is looking out for the rights of the States?

These are not inconsequential questions. The Founders knew that the States needed a voice in the Federal government. It just makes sense, especially if you have just fought a war against a tyrannical government. The Founders knew that the Federal government would try to overstep it’s bounds at times. They knew that the Federal government would try to usurp the powers left to the States. When this happened, however, there would be the U.S. Senate, the representatives of the State government,and they would step in and save the day.

You can see then why the Federal government would want to push for an elected Senate. If Washington is going to take over every aspect of American life we can’t have the Senate, with the power to filibuster, run by people who are looking to their State capitol. They pushed for an elected Senate using the same rhetoric we hear from the modern left about “democracy”. The Founders hated democracy. They knew that democracy was all about who can collect the biggest mob. They chose a Constitutional Republic as the form of government for their new nation because they didn’t want the rights of individuals and States to be subject to the whim of popular opinion.

Thanks to the Congress of 1913 and the 17th Amendment our Constitutional Republic took a giant leap towards a democracy. They removed one of the Constitutional roadblocks the Federal government had to go through to step on the rights of the States. They also removed the final hurdle to the people being able to vote themselves money from the Treasury.

The 17th Amendment and it’s repeal need to become a bigger issue if we really want to balance the budget and get control of spending. The way a lot of people use the FairTax as a litmus test when voting, we need the same kind of movement to repeal the 17th. If we really want to stop the Federal government from growing and violating the 10th Amendment we must give the States their voice back.

Lew Rockwell for President!

Posted in Uncategorized by Phil Russo on August 14, 2010

My conservative friends think I’m too liberal; my liberal friends think I’m too conservative…clearly I’m on the right track! It seems so simple to me, we are a constitutional republic, not a democracy. Therefore, our government should be limited to the powers granted to it by the Constitution. This doesn’t mean that we are always going to be comfortable with the results but it does mean we will always be free.

Sometimes freedom will make liberals angry (re: 2nd amendment) and sometimes freedom will make conservatives angry (re: gambling et al.). Why even have a Constitution if we aren’t going to follow it? The Constitution says that gold and silver shall be used as legal tender. Why do we use Federal Reserve notes as legal tender? The Constitution says that we only go to war with a decleration of war by Congress. Why did we go to war in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and Iraq again without Congress delcaring war?

I know this sometimes puts me at odds with both sides of the political spectrum, but I think that a consistant application of the Constitution is the only way to ensure the security of our individual liberties. People like to badmouth Ron Paul because he thinks we should only go to war with a decleration from Congress! How crazy! Follow the Constitution?!?!?! What a crazy bastard, right? The Constitution was intended to restrain government, not indidviduals. The Founders believed that the job of government is to “secure our rights”, why is government always infringing on our rights? Life, liberty, property. These are the things governments are supposed to protect. Yet they are taking more and more of our property and liberties away from us.

Government is evil. From the dawn of time governments have murdered individuals on a scale of which the most horrific serial killer could only dream. Remember Ruby Ridge? The Justice Department murdered a 14 year old boy and his mother, in cold blood. Remember Waco? I don’t even remember how many men, women, and children were murdered there, but once again it was the Justice Department that had blood on their hands. Can’t we all agree that murdering women and children in cold blood is not the proper role of government? Yesterday it was Ruby Ridge and Waco, tomorrow it could be a group of tea partiers.

Most of the folks I know in the Tea Party movement like to talk about freedom and liberty but they don’t seem to know what those words mean. They like like to joke about being “extremists” but then they tell me that my views are too extreme! I’m too extreme for the extremists! To quote Milton Friedman, “…the problem is I am on your side, but you’re not.”

Again, it seems so simple. Read the 10th amendment! The powers not given to the federal government are reserved to the states or the people. Remember, democracy never lasts long. I forget which Founding Father said it but “democracies are as short in their lives as they are violent in their deaths.”

I know this has been something of a rant but I hope more people start demanding that the government stick to the Constitution, secure our rights, and stop murdering our citizens. All I want is, “A government small enough to fit inside the Constitution”, as Harry Browne said. People can yell at me and complain about my views being extreme, but, my views are the Constitution. So, go ahead and hate me if you want neo-cons, but I’d rather you hate me for being who I am than love me for being someone I am not. I am just a guy that believes in freedom, is that so bad?

The Problem With the Tea Party

Posted in Uncategorized by Phil Russo on July 28, 2010

I think the problem is that most of the people in the tea party movement are not true believers in liberty. They are neo-con statist Republicans. They are also ignorant of the meanings of the words and quotes they use.Remember, I say all this as a founding member of the Orlando Tea Party and someone who has spent the past year and a half
of his life fighting in this movement. This is how I see it: there are two different kinds of tea partiers. There are the younger, more ibertarian, Ron Paul tea partiers. We were having tea parties in December 2007. This is something that Tom Tillison argued with me about. He didn’t believe that Ron Paul supporters were having tea
party rallies more than one year before the rest of the country. We were doing it before Obama was elected, during the Bush years. If you don’t believe me, use Google and find the articles for yourself. The reason people like Tom and my buddy Jason don’t know that there were tea party rallies in 2009 is because they, like the rest of the neo-
cons in the movement, were asleep at the switch. They didn’t care when Bush and the GOP Congress passed Medicare Part D, took the debt from $5 trillion to $9 trillion, and pissed all over the Constitution (Patriot Act, Real ID, warrentless wiretaps). You see, it’s ok to violate the Constitution because of terrorism. As long as you aren’t
doing anything wrong, what do you care about the FBI coming into your
house and snooping around without telling you or getting a warrant?
These people stop reading the Bill of Rights at the 2nd Amendment. For
some reason, they seem to love the 10th Amendment too, but that is
just rhetoric because they seem to think that even though the government has no power to regulate what you smoke, they are ok with the federal government spending billions of dollars fighting the war on drugs.

Anyway, this second group is the neo-con, over 40, upper-middle class, white people who are less Barry Goldwater and more George W. Bush/John Mccain voters. I think the age gap is the reason the movement won’t always be effective. Funny how they all like Rand Paul. What do they think Rand Paul thinks about pot legalization? My
friends like Hoyt has asked me questions like, “How
do we get more young people involved?” I don’t think we are going to
get young people to vote the party line at the ballot box. I’ll be voting for Libertarian Alex Snitker for U.S. Senate because he believes what I believe. I voted for Bob Barr for President in 2008. Most of the people I know under 40 think like I do. The ones that are
registered Republican is so they can vote in primaries. The rest of my
friends are Libertarians, Constitution Party, NPA and such. Most of the people I know that are my age just want the government to follow the Constitution and leave them alone. Nobody wants to be told what to smoke or whom to marry. The Constitution does not give the government the power to regulate either of those things. You would think you could get the neo-cons on the constitutionality of these things. Even if you think pot and gays are the worst thing in the world, does the Constitution give the government power over these things? Try to follow me here: the neo-cons need the Ron Paul/libertarian
Republicans to win elections. If we stay home or vote for other Candidates, the Republican has a lower chance of winning. Then they are left to the whims of independent voters and their vacillations. They need to compromise with us and follow the Constituion, not the other way around. When the Conservative Party in the U.K. failed to win a majority in the recent elections, they needed to compromise with the
Liberal Democrats and adopt some of their platform to get them to form
a government and allow David Cameron to become Prime Minister. The same way Cameron had to compromise with Nick Clegg to get the gavel, the neo-cons need to adopt some of our policy goals. Instead, they
say, “We need to get the Republicans in power and then we can worry about the Constitution later.” That’s not how it works, though. This is all very ironic when you consider their rhetoric.

All of the “don’t tread on me” and “live free or die” stuff are just slogans to
the neo-cons. I think the under-40 crowd take them to heart a little more. Look at things like the Free State Project. The neo-cons talk about socialism and how awful it is and how Obama is a Marxist and a collectivist. Then when you ask them why it’s ok to violate the Constitution in the name of “terrorism” for “the greater good” — that is socialism! The greater good, that’s straight out of the Communist Manifesto. One of the planks of the Communist Manifesto is free education provided by the state. I’m sure many of the neo-con tea partiers are cool with free public education. That Marxism is ok.

At the end of the day, I do not think either side will ever compromise and the end result will be the same old, same old. The endless cycle of swinging back and forth between liberal and conservative Congresses and liberal and conservative presidencies. Most of the neo-cons won’t even talk about most of these issues. Hoyt is always telling me that if we talk about legalizing pot, people will “walk away from us.” I don’t see why. People didn’t “walk away” from Milton Friedman. In fact, I think he is considered one of the most influential conservative public figures of my lifetime. He won a Nobel prize! People didn’t “walk away” from William F. Buckley Jr. Lots of people I know read the National Review, the magazine he founded. He wrote many articles in National Review about legalizing pot. William F. Buckley wrote God and Man at Yale! Congressman Tom Tancredo, who I think Jason and Tom like, supports legalizing pot. Go to YouTube and search Tacredo and drug legalization. You will find videos of him
explaining it all. Barry Goldwater, the man called “Mr. Conservative,” supported legalizing pot and gay marriage. Did people “walk away” from
Barry Goldwater? Neo-cons will never embrace the classical liberalism of the Founders like Madison, Jefferson, and Mason, not to mention Patrick Henry, another guy they love to quote. I don’t know how to change things if we can’t even talk about it.

Welcome To New Mexico

Posted in Uncategorized by Phil Russo on June 10, 2010

I know I have not been blogging as much as I had hoped to, but, we have been so tired you cannot imagine. Since we left Orlando at 8:00 p.m. on Tuesday night most of us have not slept. It is now 2:33 p.m. Thursday in Orlando.

We just crossed the border into New Mexico. It is unbelievable. So was El Paso. Maybe it is because I grew up at the Jersey shore but the landscape keeps giving me chills. It’s just so beautiful. I cannot help but think about the people that first settled this area, and looked at those same mountains upon which I have been so fixated, and how wonderful it must have seemed to them. I always knew I’d like the desert but I am more sure now than ever. I am most surely moving to El Paso or Las Cruces when the opportunity presents itself. Nothing in my limited volcabulary will do justice to the place. Those that know me know that I am seldom at a loss for words; enjoy this Hoyt!

Everyone one our RV is in the highest of spirits, being 15 minutes from Las Cruces. We are looking forward to seeing Jerry and the crew from the Las Cruces Tea Party. They are fixing us some dinner and we are going to have a nice rally here. We are only six hours from Phoenix, our final destination, where hotels await us! For being at the edge of exhaustion and having driven through the night for two straight nights we are exceptionally happy and excited.

I will report back after the rally tonight. Stay tuned…

Baton Rouge

Posted in Uncategorized by Phil Russo on June 9, 2010

We are just about to pass through Baton Rouge on the way to Houston! I called in to the Sam Malone show in Houston this morning. He was super nice and let me plug the rally in Houston tonight. The drive through the night wasn’t bad but I REALLY hated driving the RV. It moves around way too much, especially when a big truck passes.
I am out of the driver’s seat for now and looking forward to some BBQ in Houston tonight! Oh, this was kinda funny; we pulled in to a rest stop in Alabama and there were three bus loads of Mexican tourists there. We quietly noted the irony and continued on to our rally to support Arizona. It was just so damn funny stepping off the RV, seeing about 150 Mexicans standing around, and watching everyone else get off the RV and chuckle. We are in good spirits and it has been smooth sailing thus far. I’ll report back as we near Houston.

Channeling Kerouac

Posted in Uncategorized by Phil Russo on June 8, 2010

We are on the road! Just left Orlando about 45 minutes ago and we are on the Florida Turnpike heading to I-75 to take us up to I-10 and then on to Houston! The folks at the Houston Tea Party Society and North Houston Tea Party are feeding us some Texas BBQ, sweeeet!
The rally in Orlando went great, all the speakers were awesome and the crowd really enjoyed it. The media turned up, which was cool, they never turn out for any of our other events. Todd is taking the first shift behind the wheel and the. Kevin and I are driving the overnight shift to get us to Houston and then we will have a chance to sleep and then rally and head to NM! I am so hungry I can almost taste the BBQ in Houston. More updates to come.

Tagged with: , , ,

…And The Band Played On

Posted in Uncategorized by Phil Russo on June 1, 2010

I was misquoted in the Sentinel this week and it has lead to a situation in which I am forced to call bullshit. I don’t really blame the reporter that rearranged my words, he is usually pretty good, no, this is about a blog that was written by somebody who is very, very wrong.

The article in which I was misquoted was about the 2010 U.S. Senate race here in Florida. I was asked about Marco Rubio and if he would start moving away the Tea Party and towards the middle for his general election campaign so he could court the independants. I responded that there are many Tea Party people who already feel, or have always felt, that Rubio is one of “them” not one of “us”.

I’m not going to go into the reasons why Marco Rubio is not as “tea party” as the media seems to think he is. I also don’t think Marco Rubio is a terrible choice for Senate. I think he is better than most, but, why not sign the 10th Amendment pledge? Why not sign the Contract From America? Not to mention his political squishiness on the Arizona immigration law. Why has Rubio refused to be vetted by all of the Tea Party groups that are asking to vet him? While he may be better than most, I don’t think he represents the Tea Party values as much as the Libertarian Senate candidate Alexander Snitker.

Alex Snitker is a very smart guy, he is a true fiscal conservative, and he has solutions to problems. Alex has been coming to tea parties from the begining and he understands and he really thinks the way we do. If you live in Florida I hope you will check out his website and learn about him and his stances on the issues. In a four-way race Alex also has a very good chance to win this election, if we in the Tea Party movement have the intestinal fortitude to stand on our principles.

The reporter asked me what happens if Snitker loses, how does this impact the race, to which I replied that I think it would sink Rubio because Sniker would take more votes away from him than the other two. The reporter quoted me as saying, “Alex can’t win, but he can sink Rubio”.

Then a blog was written asking why I would vote for someone I don’t believe could win the election. As I wrote above, I never said Alex can’t win; quite the contrary, I believe he can win. Even if I thought he had no chance, I would still vote for Alex for a couple of reasons. First and foremost, Alex is a friend of mine. What kind of friend would not support a friend who is running for office? How shallow of a person would you have to be to turn your back on a friend?
Secondly, we have said on our radio show that more regular people need to run for office and replace the career politicians. As Hoyt always says, “Its the ultimate ‘what are you going to do about it'”. How can we lay down that challenge to people and not be supportive of them if they have the right core values? Running a grassroots campaign is extremely challenging and requires a massive amount of labour from the candidate. If they are a tea partier, share our core values, and would be a good Senator should we not do everything we can to support that person instead of the establishment? We are we challenging people to run grassroots campaigns and fight the establishment, we are telling them that it is the ultimate “what are you going to do about it”, do these people that have responded to our call not deserve our support?

Finally, I always vote my conscience and I think that it is, or should be, one of the core values of the Tea Party movement. We are fed up with career politicians and business as usual. We should be looking to hold the estblishment accountable and the only way to really hold politcians is at the ballot box. If the Republican party thinks that they will get our votes no matter what they will pander to us when they have to and vote the other way in Congress.

This bogger wrote that the time to vote your principles is in the primary not in the general election. In the general election, says the blogger, you should vote with a “strategy” to keep the “bad guys” out of the seat. Is that what the movement has become? We want to keep the democrats out so we vote for and support big government Republicans? We send more Republicans to Washington that will tow the party line and vote for things like TARP and Medicare Part D when the party leadership tells them to? Or do we vote only for candidates that will be true to our core values and lead instead of blindly following party leadership.

I have a lot of faith in the people of the Tea Party movement and I think they will vote for the person that most reflects our core values and vote their conscience. If your conscience tells you that Marco Rubio is the candidate that most reflects your values I think you should vote for Rubio. If, however, you are like me, and believe that Alex Snitker is the person that shares my core values, I hope you will vote your conscience and vote for Alex Snitker.

I could not disagree more with the person that wrote this blog when he says, “…the time to vote your princples in is the primary”. I think it is always time to vote your principles. That is the same line of thinking the career politicains use. The time to stand on principles is while you are campaigning but once you get to Congress you have to “be realistic” and “there is no such thing as a perfect piece of legislation”. They vote with a “strategy”.

Principles are the base for everything else and should be be firm and consistent. Once you compromise them you have no ground on which to stand.

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.