End the Fed Arkansas Rally – Little Rock! RSVP HERE! http://www.facebook.com/events/163591980431439/
We invite everyone in Arkansas from every political and ideological persuasion to join with us to take back control of our monetary and banking systems. This is an issue that affects EVERYONE. A mini-audit was done from 2007 – 2010 that exposed Trillions of (taxpayer backed) Dollars being used to not only prop up the “Too Big to Fail” institutions in the US, but also Trillions in extremely low-interest loans being given to foreign institutions like Deutsche Bank, Credit Suisse, and Arab Banking Corp. We’ve also learned that sitting members of the Regional Boards of the Fed have given their own companies low interest loans, which can only be described as a supreme conflict of interest, and we’ve also seen well-connected individuals taking loans from the Fed personally. It seems like everyone is getting bailed out by the Federal Reserve while we are still dealing with economic hardships on Main St. THIS MUST END NOW!
We will gather in Little Rock for a walk to the Federal Reserve (where we will be making stops to spread our message to the general shopping public and disperse literature and mail-in petitions to US Senators). We will end with a rally at the Fed, to continue promoting the message to the public.
This event is being sponsored by End The Fed Arkansas and the Arkansas Libertarian Party.
Photo courtesy of Andy Shupe with NWAOnline.com (Copeland on the left)
Casey Copeland, Treasurer for the Libertarian Party of Arkansas, attorney and Alderman in Prairie Grove, AR, brought a case to the Arkansas Supreme Court that led to the overturn of the law banning sexual contact between teachers and adult students. The Arkansas Supreme Court found that people over the age of 18 have a constitutional right to engage in a consensual sexual relationship.
The case was about Elkins High School history and psychology teacher David Paschal, who admitted to having a consensual sexual relationship with and 18 year old student.
“Regardless of how we feel about Paschal’s conduct, which could correctly be referred to as reprehensible, we cannot abandon our duty to uphold the rule of law when a case presents distasteful facts,” wrote Chief Justice Jim Hannah.
Paschal, who is serving a 30-year sentence, will have his convictions reversed and dismissed. His attorney, Casey Copeland, said his client was “vindicated by the Supreme Court.”
“I think that this case does not necessarily say a teacher can do that and keep their job,” said Copeland. “I think the loss of job and loss of teacher’s license might be Continue reading
This is a continuation of the LPAR bringing you blog posts by our upcoming speakers at our State Convention on April 9th. This was originally posted at Liberty for All.
by R. Lee Wrights
“The only defensible war is a war of defense.”
- C.K. Chesterton
One of the most misunderstood principles of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle. The belief that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being for any reason whatsoever; nor advocate the initiation of force, or delegate it to anyone else including government is the very essence of the non-aggression principle. The misconception starts when we use the phrase “initiation of force.” People tend to focus on the last word and ignore or forget the first.
Most libertarians are not pacifists so our adherence to the non-aggression principle doesn’t mean we won’t defend ourselves. On the contrary, the right to self-defense is inherent in the concept of Continue reading
Rodger Paxton, Chairman of the LPAR, was a guest panelist on Liberty Cap Talk Live tonight. To listen to the podcast, go to Liberty Cap Talk Live and download the .mp3 file. You can also listen to it on your iPod device by going to iTunes. Other panelists were James Oaksun, Treasurer of the Libertarian National Committee and Jackie Fiest, contributor the the Liberty Conspiracy website and podcast. Thanks to Todd Andrew Barnett for hosting the show and having us all on.
Note: There is some explicit language in this podcast.
223 years ago today in 1787, the Philadelphia Convention adopted the U.S. Constitution. Today, that Constitution is being attacked from all over, which makes it more important today than at any time in our history.
In honor of the date of adoption, I challenge everyone to commit themselves to understanding this venerable document more. You can read it online or order a very nice Pocket Constitution from the Cato Institute.
What do they mean by building a mosque in New York, and right down there at Ground Zero no less! Why we can’t have that! So what if we have the unalienable right to worship as we see fit, that don’t mean *they* can build a mosque right down there on Ground Zero. They are just spitting in our face by doing that. [/sarcasm]
This whole issue has been completely blown out of proportion by the news media and then, for some strange reason beyond my comprehension, the President made a statement about it on national TV so it has now become a political “hot potato”. Republicans are jumping all over it and Democrats are distancing themselves from it to the point that I saw a cartoon today showing a democrat getting money from an “Obama ATM” with a 10 foot pole.
From a political standpoint this is, at best, a local zoning issue. From a property rights standpoint the original owner has the right to transfer ownership to whomever he/she pleases and the new property owners have the right to use that property as they see fit. As “alleged” free men we have the unalienable right to worship, or not worship, how, when and where we wish. The Bill of Rights enshrined that right, it did not grant it but rather made clear that the government can’t (or at least shouldn’t be able to) do anything about it. Just like all the other rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights. One of the very things that this country was founded on was the fact that would be no state sponsored religion, or state sponsored censorship of religion. Yet we have “patriotic” Americans that want to do that very thing, use the State to censor what types of religion are acceptable in any given area. Now, having said that, I think the folks that are wanting open the mosque/community center where they are opening it probably should have put a little more thought into where it was located. Kind of like the old saying of “Just because you can say something, don’t mean you should say something”. The real hypocrisy in all this is there are strip clubs and “adult” shops closer to Ground Zero than the proposed mosque. For some reason they don’t have a problem with lap dances, but have a problem with folks that pray on a mat.
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled Chicago’s gun ban unconstitutional due to the 2nd Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms and the 14th Amendment’s Due Process clause.
The 214 page majority opinion can be found here.
According the the Chicago Tribune, “The Chicago City Council could consider new gun control measures as soon as Wednesday if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns the city’s long-standing handgun ban Monday, Mayor Richard Daley said.”
“Daley has discussed several options if the 1982 handgun ban is no longer in effect. Chicago could require firearm owners to purchase insurance and receive training or maintain a registry of how many guns are in particular homes so that police responding to an address will know what they’re up against.”
There has been much press this past week, and it probably will be continuing for some time, about Rand Paul and his statements concerning the Civil Rights Act and “institutionalized racism”, as one media pundit put it. I’ve watched the sound bites of what Rand said and fully understand why the media and “blogosphere” are all a buzz. I’ve seen the editorial comments, both for and against (mostly against). Nearly all of those in the nay column have pulled the race card, just like they did with his father, and proclaim that since he is against the Civil Rights Act, at least part of it anyway from some of his “clarifications” recently, he must be racist, for “institutionalized racism” or (and I love this one) a radical. I can understand where someone may take those positions, not understanding Libertarian philosophy, and contend that Rand Paul (again like his father) is a big business corporate lackey that doesn’t understand the rights of “the little guy”.
The problem, however, is not in Rand Paul’s understanding of rights, but the misconception of rights by the public at large. More importantly, a great portion of American citizens do not understand the difference between Natural and Civil rights. I would venture to guess, at least from conversations that I’ve had with “the public at large” they equivocate natural rights and civil rights. We, as Libertarians, understand the difference and we also understand that natural rights ALWAYS Continue reading
The United States as we know it today is a far cry from the vision the Founding Fathers had in mind at the end of the 18th century. Upon declaring independence from the British Empire America was to become a nation of free people with a minimal government whose purpose was to protect violations of person or property.
When Thomas Jefferson so eloquently penned America’s declaration that it was independent from England he also defined how our new country would proceed from that day forward.
Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
However, today the United States more closely resembles the divine right of kings of old where an elite bureaucracy imposes its will as it sees fit.
John Calhoun foresaw the gradual expansion of federal power at the cost of individual liberty. Calhoun, mainly noted by historians today as a “proponent” of slavery, was a brilliant orator, writer, and advocate of free trade, state’s rights, and limited government in a political career that lasted over 35 years. Calhoun wrote the South Carolina Exposition and Protest in 1828 to protest punitive tariffs to the southern states.
This document put the South on a path Continue reading
Statement of Congressman Ron Paul
United States House of Representatives
Statement on Motion to Instruct Conferees on HR 2194, Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act
April 22, 2010
Mr. Speaker I rise in opposition to this motion to instruct House conferees on HR 2194, the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act, and I rise in strong opposition again to the underlying bill and to its Senate version as well. I object to this entire push for war on Iran, however it is disguised. Listening to the debate on the Floor on this motion and the underlying bill it feels as if we are back in 2002 all over again: the same falsehoods and distortions used to push the United States into a disastrous and unnecessary one trillion dollar war on Iraq are being trotted out again to lead us to what will likely be an even more disastrous and costly war on Iran. The parallels are astonishing.
We hear war advocates today on the Floor scare-mongering about reports that in one year Iran will have missiles that can hit the United States. Where have we heard this bombast before? Anyone remember the claims that Iraqi drones were going to fly over the United States and attack us? These “drones” ended up being pure propaganda — the UN chief weapons inspector concluded in 2004 that there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein had ever developed unpiloted drones for use on enemy targets. Of course by then the propagandists had gotten their war so the truth did not matter much. Continue reading