Independence Day, 2004
What we hear from politicians, intellectuals, and the media is that independence is passé, that we've reached a new age of "interdependence." We hear demands for mandatory "volunteering" to serve others, for sacrifice to the nation. We hear demands from trust-busters that successful companies be punished for being "greedy" and not serving society. But this is not the message of America.
It is the direct opposite of why America became a beacon of hope for the truly oppressed throughout the world. They have come here to escape poverty and dictatorship; they have come here to live their own lives, where they aren't owned by the state, the community, or the tribe.
"Independence Day" is a critically important title. It signifies the fundamental meaning of this nation, not just of the holiday. The American Revolution remains unique in human history: a revolution -- and a nation -- founded on a moral principle, the principle of individual rights.
# Bob Tipton at The Libertarian Enterprise - The Cardinal - a short story. Some fates are worse than death. [tle]
# Caroline Bollinger at Prevention.com - Access Denied - some anti-abortion doctors are refusing to prescribe the pill to women, saying that it sometimes ammounts to a first-month "silent abortion". Incredible. Of course the proper response, as in the article's conclusion, is the market solution, refuse to do business with such doctors and tell all your friends. [faisal]
# Ron Paul at LewRockwell.com - The Trouble With Forced Integration - why Dr. "No" was the only nay-sayer in the roll call vote on H.Res.676, "Recognizing and honoring the 40th anniversary of congressional passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964". Bravo, Dr. Paul! [saltypig]
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judges defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.
Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.
#
Charley Hardman at saltypig.com -
another democrat gun poseur - John Kerry was
photographed trying to convince the masses that he's a gun
owner. Well, he may own a gun, but his training in the
Four Rules is sadly lacking. The photo shows him with his finger
on the trigger and his eyes decidedly not on the target. Still
not as bad as
Fineswine sweeping the crowd with an AK-47, but bad. [saltypig]
# Jim Duensing at The Libertarian Enterprise - Hamdi v. Rumsfeld - another take on the Supremacists recent ruling that Bush has to offer a kangaroo court to his "enemy combatants". [tle]
The Supreme Court, that great bulwark against intrusions against our constitutionally protected liberties, did not agree with the Bush team. Instead they handed down a decision, which held "that a citizen-detainee seeking to challenge his classification as an enemy combatant must receive notice of the factual basis for his classification, and a fair opportunity to rebut the Government's factual assertions before a neutral decision maker." Further, hearsay evidence may be relied on, the neutral decision maker may employ a rebuttable presumption which forces the detainee to prove his innocence--rather than be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and that neutral decision maker could be a "properly constructed" military tribunal.
To translate, an American citizen, we'll call him Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, may be captured by the military, declared an enemy combatant, a term for which there is still no definition. Alex can be housed in a military prison like the military concentration camp at Guantanomo Bay Cuba, where prisoners are known to have been tortured mentally and physically. To be sure that the military doesn't abuse this power of random arrest and permanent detention, a military court will hold a hearing where a military intelligence official can declare "we have a cohesive collection of concrete allegations which strongly suggest that Alex is an enemy combatant who hates our freedoms and respect for individual liberty." Alex, aided by a militarily appointed lawyer, will then have to prove that he is not an enemy combatant, a term for which there is no definition. If Alex fails to meet this minimal standard, he can be detained without being charged until the forces of civilization are victorious over the forces of evil who hate our freedoms. Being temporarily detained for the duration of a permanent war is a small sacrifice for an innocent person to make if it means ultimate victory for the forces of freedom.
# Downsizer Corporation - World's Smallest Pistol - $499 for an 11 oz, single shot, .45 ACP (or .357 magnum), smaller-than-a-playing-card pistol. More tiny guns at smallestguns.com. [outdoorsbest]
