Liberty, Security, and the Wildcard

Oftentimes people like to reduce complex issues to the most overly simplistic, simple representations of their own biased beliefs. I pretend to do no different most times, while I still strive for an objective approach to most things. It's easy enough to offer up an example of pork-laden legislation on this site, but having anyone truly care about it enough to act is a little more complicated. I've found that people often establish some sort of pendulum with two diametrically opposed sides with almost everything in their lives. Individuals do this. Groups of people do this. Entire nations live and die by the swinging the pendulums that affect us.

We hear about "balance" and the need to play both sides of every issue to be truly objective. Reagan, like no other, spoke about the idiocy and weakness inherent in those (namely European nations) that removed themselves from the arguments between the free United States and the enslaved Soviet Union. Those equivocators among us do nothing to help the argument for goodness, justice, and our cause. Evil plus inaction equals more evil, and the sooner that everyone realizes this applies to the political arena, the better off our children will be, if not us. The spending, the over-reaching by our federal government into every aspect of our lives, the calls for purely socialist ideas (even if they don't have the courage to call them by the name) are all more than warning shots across the bow of freedom. They've landed direct hits, and the country (and the DOW) is reeling from the blows.

The armchair warriors, pretenders, and fake leaders need to now step aside, as you have been nothing but ineffective. We, the freedom loving Americans, have grown weary of your ineptitude, and you're beginning to see a true change. Tea parties across the country are happening, and we're really, for the first time in a while, seeing the citizens demand the freedoms mentioned in the Constitution be protected.

You can't solve the problems of over-regulation in a free-market with more regulation. You can't solve the problems of violent gun crimes by limiting gun ownership for citizens. You can't preach about accountability and responsibility while doing everything in your power to ensure that those who don't want to be accountable are able to murder babies in the womb, or shirk their responsibilities to pay their debts, or run a sound business.

We have some things in this country that are uniquely American. Our strong belief in the rights to free speech, and in the fact that government works for us, rather than the other way around, usually bring us together. Yet, we've seen a shift in the debate, the general discourse of politics, that suggests otherwise. This nation has allowed the pendulum of liberty to shift to "security," while proclaiming that this is for our own good. The absence of opposition to evil, breeds evil. Without a dissenting voice, the "social norm" becomes tainted, biased, and overpowering.

Maybe it's time to acknowledge that the time for civility is over. It's time to speak up for the values that we hold dear: self-reliance, freedom, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I fear that we may now be embarking into a dark new territory in this country, as my generation is among the first in our young nation's history to inherit less opportunity than the ones before us. To buy our loyalty, the ones in power (who are older than I am by decades) have asked us to simply pass the costs on to our children and grandchildren. "No" is my simple answer to their complicated reasoning for such preposterous ideas. Our answer is the wildcard...the thing they weren't considering in Congress.

What say you?

Sphere: Related Content

S. 449 - Free Speech Protection Act of 2009

A Republican, a Democrat, and an Independent walk into a bar...and discover some common sense!

S. 449 was sponsored in the Senate by Arlen Specter (R*-PA) (co-sponsored by Joe Lieberman and Chuck Schumer) recently, and it doesn't have one bit of press. Essentially, this bill is redundant and unnecessary because my wording on S. 449 would be "Refer to Amendment 1, US Constitution." Problem solved! Still, as we move ever closer to a government dominated by socialist ideals, whereby the government considers itself much more able to choose your life's decisions than you are, perhaps it's worth re-affirming the 1st Amendment in the federal legislature. To save you the headache of searching the Senate.gov website, I'll post the full text of the bill here!

---

111th CONGRESS 1st Session

S. 449

To protect free speech.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

February 13, 2009

Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mr. LIEBERMAN, and Mr. SCHUMER) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

---

A BILL

To protect free speech.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Free Speech Protection Act of 2009'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:

(1) The freedom of speech and the press is enshrined in the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

(2) Free speech, the free exchange of information, and the free expression of ideas and opinions are essential to the functioning of representative democracy in the United States.

(3) The free expression and publication by journalists, academics, commentators, experts, and others of the information they uncover and develop through research and study is essential to the formation of sound public policy and thus to the security of the people of the United States.

(4) The first amendment jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of the United States, articulated in such precedents as New York Times v. Sullivan (376 U.S. 254 (1964)), and its progeny, reflects the fundamental value that the people of the United States place on promoting the free exchange of ideas and information, requiring in cases involving public figures a demonstration of actual malice, that is, that allegedly defamatory, libelous, or slanderous statements about public figures are not merely false but made with knowledge of that falsity or with reckless disregard of their truth or falsity.

(5) Some persons are obstructing the free expression rights of United States persons, and the vital interest of the people of the United States in receiving information on matters of public importance, by first seeking out foreign jurisdictions that do not provide the full extent of free-speech protection that is fundamental in the United States and then suing United States persons in such jurisdictions in defamation actions based on speech uttered or published in the United States, speech that is fully protected under first amendment jurisprudence in the United States and the laws of the several States and the District of Columbia.

(6) Some of these actions are intended not only to suppress the free speech rights of journalists, academics, commentators, experts, and other individuals but to intimidate publishers and other organizations that might otherwise disseminate or support the work of those individuals with the threat of prohibitive foreign lawsuits, litigation expenses, and judgments that provide for money damages and other speech-suppressing relief. Such actions are intentional tortious acts aimed at United States persons, even though the harmful conduct may have occurred extraterritorially.

(7) The governments and courts of some foreign countries have failed to curtail this practice, permitting lawsuits filed by persons who are often not citizens of those countries, under circumstances where there is often little or no basis for jurisdiction over the United States persons against whom such suits are brought.

(8) Some of the plaintiffs bringing such suits are intentionally and strategically refraining from filing their suits in the United States, even though the speech at issue was published in the United States, in order to avoid the Supreme Court's first amendment jurisprudence and frustrate the protections it affords United States persons.

(9) The United States persons against whom such suits are brought must consequently endure the prohibitive expense, inconvenience, and anxiety attendant to being sued in foreign courts for conduct that is protected under the first amendment, or decline to answer such suits and risk the entry of costly default judgments that may be executed in countries other than the United States where those individuals travel or own property.

(10) Journalists, academics, commentators, experts, and others subjected to such suits are suffering concrete and profound financial and professional damage for engaging in conduct that is protected under the Constitution of the United States and essential to informing the people of the United States, their representatives, and other policymakers.

(11) In turn, the people of the United States are suffering concrete and profound harm because they, their representatives, and other government policymakers rely on the free expression of information, ideas, and opinions developed by responsible journalists, academics, commentators, experts, and others for the formulation of sound public policy, including national security policy.

(12) The United States respects the sovereign right of other countries to enact their own laws regarding speech, and seeks only to protect the first amendment rights of the people of the United States in connection with speech that occurs, in whole or in part, in the United States.

SEC. 3. FEDERAL CAUSE OF ACTION.

(a) Cause of Action- Any United States person against whom a lawsuit is brought in a foreign country for defamation on the basis of the content of any writing, utterance, or other speech by that person that has been published, uttered, or otherwise primarily disseminated in the United States may bring an action in a United States district court specified in subsection (f) against any person who, or entity which, brought the foreign lawsuit if--

(1) the writing, utterance, or other speech at issue in the foreign lawsuit does not constitute defamation under United States law; and

(2) the person or entity which brought the foreign lawsuit serves or causes to be served any documents in connection with such foreign lawsuit on a United States person.

(b) Jurisdiction- The district court shall have personal jurisdiction under this section if, in light of the facts alleged in the complaint, the person or entity bringing the foreign suit described in subsection (a) served or caused to be served any documents in connection with such foreign lawsuit on a United States person with assets in the United States against which the claimant in the foreign lawsuit could execute if a judgment in the foreign lawsuit were awarded.

(c) Remedies-

(1) ORDER TO BAR ENFORCEMENT AND OTHER INJUNCTIVE RELIEF- In a cause of action described in subsection (a), if the court determines that the applicable writing, utterance, or other speech at issue in the underlying foreign lawsuit does not constitute defamation under United States law, the court shall order that any foreign judgment in the foreign lawsuit in question may not be enforced in the United States, including by any Federal, State, or local court, and may order such other injunctive relief that the court considers appropriate to protect the right to free speech under the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

(2) DAMAGES- In addition to the remedy under paragraph (1) and if the conditions for release under that paragraph are satisfied, damages shall be awarded to the United States person bringing the action under subsection (a), based on the following:

(A) The amount of any foreign judgment in the underlying foreign lawsuit.

(B) The costs, including reasonable legal fees, attributable to the underlying foreign lawsuit that have been borne by the United States person.

(C) The harm caused to the United States person due to decreased opportunities to publish, conduct research, or generate funding.

(d) Treble Damages- If, in an action brought under subsection (a), the court or, if applicable, the jury determines by a preponderance of the evidence that the person or entity bringing the foreign lawsuit which gave rise to the cause of action intentionally engaged in a scheme to suppress rights under the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States by discouraging publishers or other media from publishing, or discouraging employers, contractors, donors, sponsors, or similar financial supporters from employing, retaining, or supporting, the research, writing, or other speech of a journalist, academic, commentator, expert, or other individual, the court may award treble damages.

(e) Expedited Discovery- Upon the filing of an action under subsection (a), the court may order expedited discovery if the court determines, based on the allegations in the complaint, that the speech at issue in the underlying foreign lawsuit is protected under the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

(f) Venue- An action under subsection (a) may be brought by a United States person only in a United States district court in which the United States person is domiciled, does business, or owns real property that could be executed against in satisfaction of a judgment in the underlying foreign lawsuit which gave rise to the action.

(g) Timing of Action; Statute of Limitations-

(1) TIMING- An action under subsection (a) may be commenced after the filing of the foreign lawsuit in a foreign country on which the action is based.

(2) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS- For purposes of section 1658(a) of title 28, United States Code, the cause of action under subsection (a) accrues on the first date on which papers in connection with the foreign lawsuit described in section (a), on which the cause of action is based, are served on a United States person in the United States.

SEC. 4. APPLICABILITY.

This Act applies with respect to any foreign lawsuit that is described in section 3(a) in connection with papers that were served before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

(1) DEFAMATION- The term `defamation' means any action or other proceeding for defamation, libel, slander, or similar claim alleging that forms of speech are false, have caused damage to reputation or emotional distress, have presented a person or persons in a negative light, or have resulted in criticism or condemnation of a person or persons.

(2) FOREIGN COUNTRY- The term `foreign country' means any country other than the United States.

(3) FOREIGN JUDGMENT- The term `foreign judgment' means any judgment of a foreign country, including the court system or an agency of a foreign country, that grants or denies any form of relief, including injunctive relief and monetary damages, in a defamation action.

(4) FOREIGN LAWSUIT- The term `foreign lawsuit' includes any other hearing or proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, office, agency, commission, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of a foreign country or political subdivision thereof.

(5) UNITED STATES- The term `United States' means the several States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.

(6) UNITED STATES PERSON- The term `United States person' means--

(A) a United States citizen;

(B) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence to the United States;

(C) an alien lawfully residing in the United States at the time that the speech that is the subject of the foreign defamation suit or proceeding was researched, prepared, or disseminated; or

(D) a business entity incorporated in, or with its primary location or place of operation in, the United States.

Sphere: Related Content

This recession was inevitable and overdue!

In a Utopian world, we would never have recessions, depressions, or restraints. We could grow and spend and over-extend ourselves without consequence. We do not live in this fairy tale world. We are fortunate enough to live in a free market society that provides the opportunity to prosper but also the painful recourse when an opportunity is mismanaged. And rightfully so, we are now entering a time of punishment for over-extension of credit, surplus goods, and false demand-boosting incentives in the 1990's and 2000's.

Like many things in life, prosperous times come and go. Riding the flows upward are fun and the ebbs down are not. But its not with a messianic clairvoyance that one could foresee this coming. With a simple understanding of Economic principles (supply & demand, market pendulum, velocity of money, etc.) it is more of a question of "why did it take this long for the proverbial "bubble" to pop?"

Pick your bubble (housing, energy, tech, .com, etc.) and it has contributed to this downturn in our economy. When you over supply a market with a product (houses) without reducing prices, you create a surplus gap between the supply and the demand. Mortgage companies sought to remedy this gap by reducing the immediate impact of purchasing a home at the same price by deferring payments. This helped raise demand which fueled additional building. However, as the deferred payments and interest caught up with over-extended buyers, demand plummeted.

Here are some interactive S&D curves to play along:
Supply: http://www.bized.co.uk/learn/economics/markets/mechanism/interactive/contain.swf?path=demand_and_supply4.swf

Demand:
http://www.bized.co.uk/learn/economics/markets/mechanism/interactive/contain.swf?path=demand_and_supply2.swf

This is an over-simplified micro-economic view of why growth has slowed. But, apply this misalignment in the supply & demand of products to a handful of industries and you have momentum. Free markets contain tightly interwoven dependencies throughout the various supply chains. The benefit is cost efficiencies and competitiveness. If there is true competitiveness, when one entity falls or fails another can rise in its place. This does not happen instantaneously and in the time it takes for the successor to rise or enter that market there can be further decline among other associated entities. So as one grows/declines so does its dependencies, which creates an inertia. If the inertia is not controlled we get the large boom and busts. The problem is that the larger/longer the boom the larger/longer the bust and vice versa.

Looking at a macro-economic view let's go back to the Utopian idea of no recessions. Well in theory it is possible. Based on the idea that markets act like a pendulum, if you don't have a flow you won't ebb. Economists vary in there belief of the ideal growth % to avoid the rollercoaster. I've come to adopt 5% based on Ibbotson's analysis of Risk Premium in the Cost of Capital equation of the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM). CAPM helps determine the rate of return for an asset and is a quantifiable measure of the value of an investment. The Risk Premium takes into account the opportunity cost of not investing the potential investment capital. Ibbotson determined that in developed countries the risk premium averaged 5% throughout history. In other words, if you invest in the market expect 5%. If your investment opportunity presents a higher percentage, seek the opportunity.

Lets look at a 5% annual growth versus the Adjusted Closings for Dow Jones Industrial Average, NASDAQ, and S&P 500 throughout each indices history.

DJIA:
The Dow, Jones & Company has existed since 1882 and has been tracking an annually chosen group of 50 predominant companies from leading industries. The companies have changed over time with General Electric being the only original company still included (except from 1902-1908). As the graph shows, the post WWII era of growth was inline with the 5% annual growth up until 1964. From 1964 the DJIA stagnated with some large swings until 1980. From 1980 to 1994 you can see a steady growth back towards the 5% line, with a few down years (1989-1990). From 1994 to 1999 the DJIA almost tripled from going 3800 to 11500!!! This unprecedented growth was the ride of rides. However, reality came back as the market started to correct itself from the overheating with the declines through 2002. President Bush and others realizing the potential magnitude of the decline following the boom used steps to change the decline (pre-9/11). Unfortunately for us today, those steps were too aggressive in my opinion and created another boom rather than a soft landing back at consistent growth. Instead the false confidence grew the DJIA to an all-time high of 14,164.53 in Oct. of 2007 and we have been sliding ever since as the market continues to correct itself.














NASDAQ:
The NASDAQ (National Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quotations) was founded in 1971 and is currently comprised of approximately 3,200 companies. It has the highest trading volume per day of any stock exchange in the world and gained its place along side the DJIA in the 1990s by focusing on technology and growth companies. The graph shows a similar trend as the DJIA against a 5% annual growth. The 1970s were a stagnant period with steady growth through the 1980s and early 1990s. Like the DJIA, the NASDAQ composite boomed in the 1990s as it gained 6 times it value from 1994 through 1999 going from 750 to +4000!!! Hurt by the .com and technology bubbles of the late 1990s, there was a resurgence from 2002 to 2007 and decline ever since.













S&P 500:
Published since 1950, the Standard & Poors (S&P) 500 index is comprised of 500 stocks traded on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) and the NASDAQ. The 500 companies are typically the 500 largest American stocks according to market capitalization. Similar to the DJIA and NASDAQ the S&P500 saw growth inline with 5% through the 1950s until 1964. It then stagnated until 1980 and then steadily grew until 1994. From 1994 to 1999 the S&P500 tripled its value from 450 to +1500!!! It too declined into 2002 and re-boomed until 2007 and has been down ever since.

What the 3 charts illustrate is that we are now paying the price for the boom of the 1990s. The market appeared as though it would correct itself in 1999-2002 but then falsely manipulated growth sustained until 2007. It was appropriate to attempt to control the downturn in 2002, but the errant attempts to cling to the 1990s may have caused us even more pain now. This economy was due to slow down after the 1994-1997 joy ride. 2002-2007 only deferred the slow down and may cause a deeper and longer recession because of it.

So, let's apply this lesson towards a more cautious attitude and sense or reality as we combat this recession. President-elect Obama and his team have floated the idea of large stimulus and quick return to the double-digit growth slopes of recent yore. Largely based on public demand for a return to those haydays, I argue that it is not what we need. We need to return to steady consistent growth in the single-digit percentage range. Its fun to go fast but not on the way down. Let's slow the economy for a sustainable long-term growth rather than a short-lived burst. The problem is that political figures have a shelf-life and long-term steady growth is not beneficial to them during their career. However, their legacy will be judged by the history of tomorrow's tomorrow. A strategic vision of economic growth is why we can look back and say that Presidents like Truman-Eisenhower-Kennedy and Reagan-Bush did more to advance the prosperity in American than the short-term benefits of economic times under Presidents Ford-Clinton-Bush.

Signing off...JCB

Sphere: Related Content

My Letter to Rep. Lamborn, 5th District, Colorado

Rep. Lamborn,

Congratulations on your victory. You had support from my family during this election, as we all voted for you.

When I look at Colorado, a state that I've only recently moved to in the past year, I see a void. There is an embattled governor (a Democrat), and two out-going Senators. While Sen-elect Udall won his seat, and will replace our only Republican Senator, it appears that Sen. Salazar will take a cabinet post with Pres-elect Obama's Administration, leaving Gov. Ritter to choose any old liberal he sees fit.

For Republicans in Colorado, at least within the 5th district, you are the continuity.

As a staunch Conservative (which is not always synonymous with Republican unfortunately) I'd like to see a few bold initiatives from you and the party.

1) Term limits. Reduce the term that Representatives serve to 2. Four years in office is enough to get things done. If it's not, then perhaps it's time for a new voice anyway. One 6 year term for Senators is plenty. Let's end career politicians, and start getting some real leadership in Washington. If it's good enough for the President, it's good enough for Congress.

2) Control taxes. If it says "new tax" kill it. They will call you names, tell you "it's for the children" or come up with a variety of reasons to claim that increasing taxes is the right thing to do, but it is not.

3) Control spending. If we don't have it, and we're not under a Nazi invasion, don't spend it.

4) End extraneous government programs that bog down industry, create massive red tape, and appear only to exist for the sole purpose of existing. The Constitution is your guide. You will find a very clear mandate for limited action on behalf of the nation. Simply because we have more technology and more people than our founders did, doesn't mean that we should throw this document out.

5) Do not support the Pres-elect as he attempts to circumvent the Constitution. For example, Sen. Clinton is ineligible for a cabinet position this term. She must resign her Senate seat, and then be appointed during the next term because she was in office during an affirmative pay raise vote.

Conservatives don't exactly need a new way forward; they need to remember the old way. To sum up our 'new' necessary platform for victory in 2010 and beyond, you can say "freedom" or "liberty." People have become a dependent group, dependent on the government's good graces.

That is not America.

We crave freedom, at least many of us still do. I would prefer to start a business instantly, free to choose my products, my services, my employees, etc. I'd prefer not to have a million incessant regulations controlling everything from the alarm clock I wake up to, to the coffee I drink, to the mixture of gasoline I pump into my truck, to the mattress I sleep on.

It takes brave leadership to be a Congressman willing to put your fellow Washington politicians out of work. If you can do it, you could run for Governor of this state in 2010, and probably win. Sphere: Related Content

Freedom Under Attack (Again)

I don't know the specifics of this case, but it appears that an overzealous Ohio SWAT team has raided a rural Ohio family home because it is part of a food co-op. Reports are that on Dec 1, between about 11a.m. and 8p.m. that SWAT officers raided the home of the Stowers family with no word of the charges against them, no phone calls allowed, and guns trained on them INCLUDING CHILDREN.

Read the account here.

We still don't know what "crimes" the family is charged with. Selling food without a license, perhaps? I mean, let's be honest, it's definitely necessary to ensure that proper government officials give their blessing to any transaction involving something as serious to national security as food. If you don't detect my sarcasm, please go back to your government job, b/c you won't like my site.

This isn't about food. This is about independence. The Stowers family has decided to pursue a different path, and they doing the things that people have done in this nation for generations. They are daring to be self-sustaining! My grandfather told me a story about his youth. During the 1930's, smack in the middle of the great depression, one of the local businessmen in their small Georgia town would plant an entire field of turnip greens, offering them to the community. My grandfather recalls going there with his brother and sister while his mother picked enough turnips for a dinner meal. In an era where our nation had it's greatest struggle, people came together. They found inner strength with their faith, and they worked to make things better.

Today they would be arrested for crimes against the state today.

Would it be so bad to have government do only what it's constitutionally mandated to do? Are most citizens actually afraid of freedom, as government bureaucrats have taught them to be?

If this story is true, then Gov. Strickland (Ohio) should be ashamed of himself. I've heard nothing about this from the mainstream press, or from the governor's office. Perhaps he needs a few letters/emails to encourage him to action. Sphere: Related Content

Geopolitical Implications After India's Terror Attacks

First accounts are still trickling in, and many times first impressions of an event are the least reliable, but we know a few things for certain. India is under a massive terrorist attack, and Muslim fanatics are claiming responsibility. The Global War on Terror is not over, and the enemy is seeing weakness.

The world needs to realize that we, the civilized and free society of planet Earth, are in this struggle together. Other nations cannot pay lip service to fighting terrorism, while letting the United States handle the brunt of the fighting (and the criticism). It is my sincere hope that we stand in solidarity with India, a democratic nation and an ally, with more than just words condemning attacks. It is time to step up and kill the enemy.

On the surface this looks like another pre-coordinated Al-Qaeda-style attack. Multiple symbolic targets were chosen, simultaneous attacks were carried out, and many innocent people were killed. What we have to realize is that India has begun to show its solidarity with the free world and become more aggressive against terrorists. It was the Indian Navy that opened fire on Somali Pirates in Africa, and the rest of the world should follow that example. Pay their ransom, free the hostages, then send the pirates to hell courtesy of a tomahawk cruise missile.

Indian Army officials are now claiming that these terrorists have come from Pakistan.

Bad news.

The long-standing struggle over the Kashmir region, and the discord between Hindus in India and Muslims in Pakistan is clearly demonstrated in history. The minute British forces left the region, all hell broke loose. Pakistan and India have fought in 3 major wars (1947, 1965, and 1971). All three ended with UN mediation, but all three felt strong interference from the Chinese, who saw a power vacuum that they wanted to fill. The United States and Great Britain were able to neutralize Chinese intervention then, but today brings a much different reality.

Since 9/11, the United States has greatly increased its influence over the region, but this is a tricky venture. With almost 300 million Muslims in the area (in both Pakistan and India), a disputed region of Kashmir, and un-governed regions in Waziristan run by warlords, the Indian Ocean is sitting under a powder keg. Here's the other MAJOR problem for the region. In the 1947, 1965, and 1971 wars, neither nation was a nuclear power; today both are.

Now is a "time for choosing," to borrow a quote from Ronald Reagan's great speech. It is time for Americans to choose to surge against the terrorists worldwide, just as we surged successfully in Iraq. It is time for India to choose to be a staunch ally, complete with military forces, of the United States in the Global War on Terror. It is time for Muslims in the region to choose freedom over tyranny, and end the implicit endorsement the extremists among them with their silence. This is not a war between Muslims and Hindus, Christians, or Jews. This is a war between oppressive tyranny and a free society.

It is a time for the rest of the world to choose a side. You can no longer sit idle and netural, declaring yourself beyond the conflict. This not WWI redux, and we have no colonial interests in any of these regions of the world. The United States wants to be free, spread freedom, and be left alone. It seems that the rest of the world suffers from superpower-envy, and fails to do what is necessary for fear that it will put them in line with the United States!

Nap time is over. Wake up and smell the threats before it's too late.

The tendency has been to weigh security v. freedom, as if it's some sort of pendulum, with mutually exclusive principles at work. This is not the case. Free societies do not need to mirror tyranny to remain free during the threat of terrorism. Governments need to relinquish their power over their own people, and focus on the bad guys. You cannot prevent terrorist attacks; you can only mitigate them.

Look at Israel. Their citizens are armed to the teeth, and whenever Palestinian terrorists attempt to carry out mass shootings in markets, they are met with 20 or more armed Israeli civilians and sent to their final destination with expediency. I bet you'd get a similar result in Texas. An armed populace can do more to defend itself from the inevitable than border guards spaced out every 100 miles, and spot checks on cargo ships.

You cannot prevent a terrorist attack, but you can prevent terrorists from breathing. The United States has successfully defended not only itself, but the free world against terrorist threats, but we cannot do it alone. By capturing and killing countless terrorists, the world is better off, but it is never completely safe. London and Madrid are 21st century examples the reach of worldwide terrorists, but the general theme is the same. Muslim extremists killing people of all faiths that do not share their wild views.

Now is a time for choosing, but let us choose wisely. Equivocating for the sake of international diplomacy is a fool's choice. We must stand by our convictions, with courage, and in defense of freedom.

**Update**
2 Americans are hurt in the India Terror attacks. Sphere: Related Content

The Fog Sets In

This world existed in a fog before the United States arose to clear it. Masked under the lie of Divine Rights of Kings, fairness, or common good, people had no real choice in their daily lives. People were lead to believe that they were somehow removed from God's grace in a way that tyrants weren't. They were subjects, not citizens. They were blind followers, not participants in the world in which they lived.


Ancient civilizations attempted "democracy," and while Greece may have felt that a jury of 500 was democratic and fair, they murdered Socrates for having a different viewpoint. A society that was supposedly the epitome of the concept of fairness, proved just as tyrannical as any dictator. Democracy is not liberty.

King George III, relic of the old style of complete control of an entire people by the subjective opinion of one, attempted to squash dissenting viewpoints in the American colonies. Royal governors were given supreme authority, and the Stamp Act required all official documents to have the crown's official seal. This was considered, after all, 'fair' by the royals. Fairness is not liberty.

Enter the founders.


Our founding fathers removed the foggy lens, with which the world had used for so long to see itself. Some philosophers question whether one can be truly aware of his own universe. It's like a fish jumping out of the water to see that the ocean is only one part of the world, not the world. Jefferson, Washington, Adams, Hamilton, and a cast of others did just that. They questioned, they challenged, and they stood their ground. Still, this world existed under the dense fog that had plagued us since the dawn of civilization. Most people were oppressed, and it wasn't until the final shots of the Revolutionary War that victory was not only apparent for the small group of colonies against an empire but also for a new idea of liberty versus oppression.

The fog began to lift.

This great nation plugged along and grew. We had our own knock down and drag out fight, with the brave men and women from the North and the South doing more to forge our nation as a union of states, than any act of congress ever could. Slaves were free, and we asserted that this nation was, indeed, a federalist system. Local and national control are shared, and the states are not subjects to Washington.

Some of our great civil rights leaders, like Dr. King, helped to end the bigotry that existed across the nation. Because of this, we now see with more clarity.

We fought to end tyranny, and many nations are free in special thanks to the American will to fight for it. We faced down a giant that had us outgunned and outpaced in technological advancement in the Nazi regime, but liberty again reigned over tyranny.

The fog began to lift from the world.

Today we live in a world where oppression is still more common than liberty, but we have never been closer to a truly free world. This has been our national call to arms for our entire history: liberty, freedom. It's imperative that we remember this as the soul of our nation. We have rights and freedoms because we exist, not because government granted them to us. As we move closer to a socialist form of government, we move dangerously away from the intent of this nation, as our founders saw it. What's more, we risk swinging the pendulum of freedom back towards tyranny for the rest of the world.

Don't be fooled by the name "liberal" because it sounds so close to liberty. The two have nothing in common. Having the government rob from someone else to buy your vote is not liberty. This is the first step towards subjugation.

Democracy is not liberty; it is mob rule. Our founders set up a Republican form of government to guarantee our God given rights, even while in the minority.

Fairness is not liberty; it is the foggy lens that tyrants use to control the masses, for the common good.

We use the word Conservative to describe our ideology only because we want to conserve the principles of freedom and liberty that this nation was founded upon! If we had not seen such a dramatic shift away from those principles, and towards New Deals of government dependency, our ideology would be described as radical in a world where most people still do not live free.

Give me liberty or give me death.

This nation fully supports taking your private property for the "common good," while limiting your freedom of speech in the "interest of the many," and placing "reasonable restrictions" on gun ownership.

"Never trust a government that doesn't trust its own citizens with guns." -- Thomas Jefferson

We are now faced with the possibility of a "fairness doctrine" that will ensure that you have the "correct" thoughts and opinions. We have "hate crimes" legislation that seeks to punish you for thoughts that are not in accordance with the wishes of the masses.

It's getting foggy.

Would it be so bad if government did not have it hands in every aspect of our daily lives? Can you imagine a world where our government sets up a military, handles disputes between the states, and runs a court system without telling us which type of gasoline we can use, without controlling the alarm clock we wake up to, or the mattresses we sleep on? What if your money earned was yours to spend? What if true charity returned, and we could afford to give more to those in need, and make sure that it was money well spent? What if you could say what you wanted to say, and not go to jail for offending someone? What if you could question your leaders, and not be ridiculed and investigated by those leaders and their comrades?

Just imagine true freedom.

"I will not forget the wound to our country and those who inflicted it. I will not yield, I will not rest, I will not relent in waging this struggle for freedom and security for the American people." -- George W. Bush, President of the US

Let's be wary of restrictions to liberty.

"Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear." -- Harry Truman, President of the US

Conserve our traditions, and re-ignite the flame of liberty. That is the only way forward.

Freedom! Sphere: Related Content