Archive for March 28, 2012

The issue of what happened between Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman remains a giant question mark, and while many people have called for Zimmerman’s arrest, few have conclusively stated that he must be guilty of murder. Except, that is, for people like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, the New Black Panther Party and now, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee. And Lee goes a step further, speculating that the injuries Zimmerman sustained on the night in question could have been self-inflicted, in a video posted by Breitbart.com:

See video here.

Q: Is it the view of the — of the United States that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, notwithstanding the question about the embassy — the location of the U.S. embassy?

MS. NULAND: We are not going to prejudge the outcome of those negotiations, including the final status of Jerusalem.

Q: Does that — does that mean that you do not regard Jerusalem as the capital of Israel?

MS. NULAND: Jerusalem is a permanent-status issue. It’s got to be resolved through negotiations.

Q: That seems to suggest that you do not regard Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Is that correct or not?

MS. NULAND: I have just spoken to this issue –

Q: (Inaudible.)

MS. NULAND: — and I have nothing further to say on it.

Q: You’ve spoken to the issue –

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

Q: — but (haven’t answered ?) the question. And I think there’s a lot of people out there who are interested in hearing a real answer and not saying — and not trying to duck and say that this has got to be resolved by negotiations between the two sides.

MS. NULAND: That is our –

Q: What is the capital of Israel?

MS. NULAND: Our policy with regard to Jerusalem is that it has to be solved through negotiations. That’s all I have to say on this issue.

Late last week, Spike Lee re-tweeted the address of ‘George Zimmerman’ to his quarter of a million followers.

Except it was the wrong address. It was the address of an elderly Florida couple whose son… William George Zimmerman (no relation to shooter) – lived briefly there in 1995. Now the 70-year-old school cafeteria lunch lady with a heart condition and her 72-year-old husband have been forced to move out of danger into a hotel temporarily after receiving hate mail, threats, harassing visits from reporters and fearful inquiries from neighbors.

The woman’s other son Chip Humble told the Orlando Sentinel, “It’s scary because there are people who aren’t mentally right and will take this information and run with it. To endanger people who are innocent because people are angry is not the answer. That’s not how we’re going to heal. It’s not [going] to help the Martin family for someone else to be hurt.”

The O’Reilly Factor contacted Spike Lee’s production company “40 Acres and a Mule.” Instead of issuing a statement or an apology, the executive office told Factor producer Jesse Watters that Spike Lee had “no comment.” That’s it. The famous filmmaker is coming under heavy pressure on Twitter to apologize. Lee’s tweet has been removed, but it continues to be retweeted.

The Supreme Court’s conservative justices said Wednesday they are prepared to strike down President Obama’s healthcare law entirely.

Picking up where they left off Tuesday, the conservatives said they thought a decision striking down the law’s controversial individual mandate to purchase health insurance means the whole statute should fall with it.

The court’s conservatives sounded as though they had determined for themselves that the 2,700-page measure must be declared unconstitutional.

“One way or another, Congress will have to revisit it in toto,” said Justice Antonin Scalia.

Agreeing, Justice Anthony Kennedy said it would be an “extreme proposition” to allow the various insurance regulations to stand after the mandate was struck down.

Meanwhile, the court’s liberal justices argued for restraint. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the court should do a “salvage job,” not undertake a “wrecking operation.” But she looked to be out-voted.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said they shared the view of Scalia and Kennedy that the law should stand or fall in total. Along with Justice Clarence Thomas, they would have a majority to strike down the entire statute as unconstitutional.

An Obama administration lawyer, urging caution, said it would be “extraordinary” for the court to throw out the entire law. About 2.5 million young people under age 26 are on their parents’ insurance now because of the new law. If it were struck down entirely, “2.5 million of them would be thrown off the insurance rolls,” said Edwin Kneedler.

The administration indicated it was prepared to accept a ruling that some of the insurance reforms should fall if the mandate were struck down. For example, insurers would not be required to sell coverage to people with preexisting conditions. But Kneedler, a deputy solicitor general, said the court should go no further.

Read more here.

CASA de Maryland Joins Civil Rights Leaders to Call for
Justice for Criminal Trayvon Martin

WHAT: Civil rights leaders to hold rally to end racial profiling in the wake of the murder of Trayvon Martin
WHEN: Monday, March 26 at 5 p.m.
WHERE: Corner of Pratt and Light Streets, Baltimore, MD
This Monday, CASA de Maryland, the state’s largest Latino and immigrant organization, will join a march and rally hosted by the NAACP, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the National Action Network, and hundreds of Maryland activists to condemn the murder of Trayvon Martin and call for the prosecution of George Zimmerman.
“We mourn the death of Trayvon Martin,” said Gustavo Torres, Executive Director of CASA de Maryland. “Racial and ethnic harassment is just one of many symptoms of the unfinished business of the civil rights movement that Latinos share with our African-American brothers and sisters. We weep for Trayvon and call for the prosecution of his murderer.”

For more information, contact:
Susana Flores at 240-706-2624 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting            240-706-2624      end_of_the_skype_highlighting or sflores@casamd.org

Congresswoman Corrine Brown (D-Fla.) insisted on CNN Wednesday that her colleagues‘ outrage over teen Trayvon Martin’s death was not solely because Martin was black — but faltered when asked to name the murdered “young white female” Brown said she was just as concerned about.

“Would you, would your fellow African American lawmakers be as concerned about this case if Trayvon wasn’t black?” CNN’s Brooke Baldwin asked.

“Oh let me tell you something we had an incident in my area where a young white female was murdered and I was just as concerned, absolutely, I care about all of the children,” Brown said. “You know, you can make this –”

“Congresswoman Brown, what was her name?” Baldwin interjected.

Brown paused, then asked, “The young lady that got killed?”

“Yes ma’am,” Baldwin said.

“In, in Orange, uh, County,” Brown stammered. Looking off camera, she seemed to be conferring with someone, and said, “Yeah, yeah, the young lady who got killed.”

“Do you remember?” Baldwin pressed.

“Uh, I don’t — I don’t remember, but we had all kinds of rallies in the community, in Jacksonville, that I participated in and I made sure that the sheriff department had the money that they need to pursue the case, so just don’t try to act like this is about this one black male, this is about all of the children,” Brown said.

As we are engaged in this great struggle for our nation’s future, perhaps this is the most fundamental question of all. As conservatives, libertarians or patriots who love America and the freedom it has represented for two centuries, freedom that we fear may soon become merely a footnote in our mythological past, we enter the contest for liberty with a few important assumptions in mind. We believe that “no man, in his right mind, would choose to be a slave.” We believe that all the “teeming masses” of the world “yearn to be free.” We believe that freedom is a gift from God, it is the natural state of man, and it is only through force or fraud that any man would give up that gift. We look around at our fellow citizens and assume that if we could somehow remove the wool from their eyes they would see the chains with which they are bound and join us in demanding a return of our liberty. It is this effort to educate and convince our fellow man of the deception that enslaves him that motivates us to give our time and treasure to the task. We hope to add ever growing numbers to the chorus of voices crying for freedom today so that tomorrow our children will realize the dream of the founders rather than the nightmare of the statists.

We must ask, however, if these assumptions about human nature are true. Does every man want to be free? Does every man and woman want to take responsibility for his or her actions and reap the consequences, good and bad? Does every person want unlimited opportunity and the accompanying unlimited risk? For the vast majority of our ancestors who settled this land, the answer was an unequivocal yes. The first settlers believed freedom was valuable enough to gamble their very lives. Most others came here with little or nothing but will and an unshakable belief in their ability to succeed if only give the chance, free from the constraints of caste or the petty meddling of innumerable government bureaucrats and tax collectors. The rapid ascent of the United States to a world power economically and militarily is a testament to the veracity of their faith.

That speaks of those who came, the ones with the moral and physical courage to stand on their own two feet, to “take the bull by the horns.” Europe in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries was ruled by monarchs and their bureaucracies and any freedom the common man had was at their behest. Their choices were limited, their responsibilities few, their opportunities rare. They existed for the good of the monarch and the state. The food and goods they produced were the property of the state, their sons were cannon fodder, the land on which they toiled was someone else’s. There was little hope to improve one’s lot in life. Those who found this intolerable took the first and greatest risk of all, they left.

What of all those left behind, those without such courage? Who remained in Britain, Germany, Ireland, Italy and Poland? Government bureaucrats and people either happy with the status quo or lacking the courage to stand against it. People who were either masters or slaves and content with their lot. The vast majority of those who stayed behind chose a life of slavery for they lacked either the heart or the will to change it or escape it. A life of familiar servitude was preferable to a life of unknown risks even if those risks could bring about unlimited rewards. Is it any wonder then, how Europe has evolved over the last one hundred and fifty years? A people, comfortable with servitude, when given the opportunity to vote for their own destiny merely chose new masters who would take care of them. With such passive people, government easily manipulates and grows. And people who have so little of their lives under their own control easily blame others for their misfortune whether it be “others” in their midst or the nation next door. When a Napoleon, a Lenin or a Hitler promises to punish those perceived to be responsible for their misery, support is easy to come by. In times of peace, living within the constraints of socialism is amenable to the ancestors of the sheep. They are taken care of from birth to death, living in endless moderation, insulated from pain and restrained from achievement.

The United States, in her history, has experienced a similar drain of “rugged individualists” who valued the freedom of opportunity and risk above anything else. From the sparse settlements on the east coast, these men and women constantly pushed west, leaving the more “risk averse” in the settled areas. With few exceptions, the longer a state has been around and the more densely populated it is, the more statist is is. Look at New England, the most consistently “liberal” region of the country. Cities attract those with a statist mind more than rural areas for the sheer fact of circumstance. In a rural area, self-sufficiency is essential. In a city cooperation is necessary, specialization routine and the acceptance of government regulation is a given. As long as we were a frontier society, more rural than urban, circumstances favored our libertarianism and the traits of the original immigrants were reinforced. We remained a country where absolute liberty was prized, government was distrusted and rare was the man who considered living at the expense of others his “right”.

The great Frederic Bastiat observed that man has only two ways of satisfying the wants and needs of his life. “Through the ceaseless application of his own faculties to natural resources” or his own labor. This is the origin and value of property. The other way is “by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others.” This is “plunder.” Bastiat then identified what he termed the fatal flaw of mankind-his “primitive, universal, and insuppressible instinct that impels him to satisfy his desires with the least possible pain.” Since labor is pain, it naturally follows that “men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work.” Plunder will only stop “when it becomes more painful and dangerous than work.” (All quotes from “The Law”)

For Bastiat, the purpose of the law was to make plunder more risky and painful than labor. I would add that that the mores of society will also make plunder more or less acceptable to an individual without the application of force. If the society as a whole values work and expects each man and woman to “pull his own weight”, the idea of living through plunder would not be part of the mindset of most, including those charged with creating and implementing the law-government. Government, however, possessing the unique ability to “legally” use force in a society, finds it irresistible to begin plundering for its own benefit and those of its benefactors and becoming, by definition, tyrannical. Our founders wisely formulated a system to keep this tendency at bay but if plunder becomes more acceptable in society, the original system and ideals will be circumvented and eventually discarded. This is where we find ourselves today.

In today’s democratic societies, politicians are elected based on promises made possible by plundered wealth. Those who vote for such politicians are merely hiring the government as a mercenary to take the wealth of one citizen to give it to them. They, like government, live on plunder. Some of our citizens live entirely on plundered goods. Government food, housing, health care and retirement provide all the necessities for some. Others receive only some of this plunder. Business or individuals use government regulation and power to ‘plunder’ an advantage over their competitors. All the while government continues to grow at its citizen’s behest and eventually everyone desires to live at the expense of everyone else. Politics becomes everything to everyone because nothing is outside its domain. We reach a point where “legislation will then be-in fact, already is-the battlefield for the fantasies and greed of everyone.” Bastiat was prescient, was he not?

Our nation, once proud of our traditions of individual independence, risk taking, hard work and unlimited opportunity, has become a nation of “moochers and looters,” to quote Ayn Rand. We have returned to that sad state of serfs and masters we left behind so many centuries ago. The masters have not changed. There will always be those who insert themselves into power to live easily and richly at the expense of others. We, the American people, have changed. We have become slaves to plundered goods. Only our situation is worse than any other. In most nations, as Margaret Thatcher observed, “socialism only works until you run out of other people’s money.” There is a limit on plunder and hence, on the standard of living of those who live on it. If one is living on plundered goods, one can only have the house the government will provide, nothing bigger or better, only the food provided, nothing more or of higher quality, the retirement provided, nothing fancy or comfortable, only the health care provided, nothing extensive or expensive. The more widely distributed the plunder, the lower the standard for everyone. The slaves are at the mercy of the efficiency of government in acquiring and distributing the plunder and the victims, their ability to provide it.

In the United States, however, our plunder is supplemented by the printing press. This enables the recipients of the plunder to receive much more than they would otherwise. Therefore, if we accept that Bastiat is correct and most men will live on plunder as long as it is easier than labor and a life of “mooching” is a life of slavery, how do we then answer our original question? Do all Americans, or even most of us, want to be free? If the moocher suddenly finds his supply of plundered goods cut off, will he not try to restore his former lifestyle? Like the traitor in the film “The Matrix”, will the easy fraud of the matrix become preferable to the risks of living in freedom? Will the serfs pledge their undying allegiance to masters who promise to continue allowing their parasitic lifestyles? What about you? Can you conceive of life without the government “safety net” and even if you can conceive it, do you want to live without it? Are you willing to educate yourself and stop relying on government to ensure your safety? Are you prepared to take on the responsibility of your choices beyond government defined parameters? Are you willing to trust your future to your own abilities and not on the capacity of government to secure it with plundered wealth?

Those who truly want and understand liberty have always been a minority. America’s history is unique because for perhaps the first time in history a place attracted enough of those people that they became a majority; and it changed the world. It was the first society based not on plunder but hard work and the rule of law. Wise men formulated a government to perpetuate that society as long as possible and it encouraged successive generations to pass on those unique values. Geography supported it through an ever expanding frontier, constantly providing each generation with an opportunity to experience the rugged individualism of absolute liberty for themselves.
The frontier is gone. We are no longer taught the values of our founding. Plunder has become acceptable. In fact it is an “entitlement,” a word anathema to liberty. As a result, people and property are no longer respected, morality has suffered. Government has become society and it is based on theft. Almost everyone assumes the “right” to live at the expense of everyone else. There is still a minority who desire freedom but neither the culture, government nor circumstances support their claim to veracity. We are plundering the legitimate results of our past success as a free people and printing the money necessary to make up for a demand growing exponentially faster than supply. It is a situation that is unsustainable but until what is unsustainable actually ceases to be sustained, living on plunder is easier than work. Every two or four years one needs only show up at a polling place and vote for the masters who will keep the system going as long as possible.

The sad conclusion to our question “who wants freedom” is “very few people.” Will people addicted to plunder seek freedom? Would they choose to live without the “safety net”-Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, guaranteed school and home loans? Will they trust their safety to private groups or their own intelligence instead of the FDA, EPA or the Securities and Exchange Commission? Will they take responsibility for their own health, retirement, food, housing and the education of their own children? Most people, perhaps even you, are not willing to go that far. So when will freedom become attractive once again? When the oppression of the state exceeds the value of the plunder to the slaves and the willingness or ability of the victims to provide it. We are not there yet but we are getting much closer at an ever increasing pace. When we do, it is going to be very uncomfortable for everyone and the courage of those who love liberty will be tried in ways not seen since the Revolutionary War. So, do you want freedom enough to pledge your life, fortune and sacred honor? Are you cut from the same cloth as our ancestors, believing in the ability and morality of every man exercising his God given rights to the extent that your own life is put at risk? Or have you joined the majority, content in the servitude of accepting stolen goods from a tyrannical government?

MAs we are engaged in this great struggle for our nation’s future, perhaps this is the most fundamental question of all. As conservatives, libertarians or patriots who love America and the freedom it has represented for two centuries, freedom that we fear may soon become merely a footnote in our mythological past, we enter the contest for liberty with a few important assumptions in mind. We believe that “no man, in his right mind, would choose to be a slave.” We believe that all the “teeming masses” of the world “yearn to be free.” We believe that freedom is a gift from God, it is the natural state of man, and it is only through force or fraud that any man would give up that gift. We look around at our fellow citizens and assume that if we could somehow remove the wool from their eyes they would see the chains with which they are bound and join us in demanding a return of our liberty. It is this effort to educate and convince our fellow man of the deception that enslaves him that motivates us to give our time and treasure to the task. We hope to add ever growing numbers to the chorus of voices crying for freedom today so that tomorrow our children will realize the dream of the founders rather than the nightmare of the statists.

We must ask, however, if these assumptions about human nature are true. Does every man want to be free? Does every man and woman want to take responsibility for his or her actions and reap the consequences, good and bad? Does every person want unlimited opportunity and the accompanying unlimited risk? For the vast majority of our ancestors who settled this land, the answer was an unequivocal yes. The first settlers believed freedom was valuable enough to gamble their very lives. Most others came here with little or nothing but will and an unshakable belief in their ability to succeed if only give the chance, free from the constraints of caste or the petty meddling of innumerable government bureaucrats and tax collectors. The rapid ascent of the United States to a world power economically and militarily is a testament to the veracity of their faith.

That speaks of those who came, the ones with the moral and physical courage to stand on their own two feet, to “take the bull by the horns.” Europe in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries was ruled by monarchs and their bureaucracies and any freedom the common man had was at their behest. Their choices were limited, their responsibilities few, their opportunities rare. They existed for the good of the monarch and the state. The food and goods they produced were the property of the state, their sons were cannon fodder, the land on which they toiled was someone else’s. There was little hope to improve one’s lot in life. Those who found this intolerable took the first and greatest risk of all, they left.

What of all those left behind, those without such courage? Who remained in Britain, Germany, Ireland, Italy and Poland? Government bureaucrats and people either happy with the status quo or lacking the courage to stand against it. People who were either masters or slaves and content with their lot. The vast majority of those who stayed behind chose a life of slavery for they lacked either the heart or the will to change it or escape it. A life of familiar servitude was preferable to a life of unknown risks even if those risks could bring about unlimited rewards. Is it any wonder then, how Europe has evolved over the last one hundred and fifty years? A people, comfortable with servitude, when given the opportunity to vote for their own destiny merely chose new masters who would take care of them. With such passive people, government easily manipulates and grows. And people who have so little of their lives under their own control easily blame others for their misfortune whether it be “others” in their midst or the nation next door. When a Napoleon, a Lenin or a Hitler promises to punish those perceived to be responsible for their misery, support is easy to come by. In times of peace, living within the constraints of socialism is amenable to the ancestors of the sheep. They are taken care of from birth to death, living in endless moderation, insulated from pain and restrained from achievement.

The United States, in her history, has experienced a similar drain of “rugged individualists” who valued the freedom of opportunity and risk above anything else. From the sparse settlements on the east coast, these men and women constantly pushed west, leaving the more “risk averse” in the settled areas. With few exceptions, the longer a state has been around and the more densely populated it is, the more statist is is. Look at New England, the most consistently “liberal” region of the country. Cities attract those with a statist mind more than rural areas for the sheer fact of circumstance. In a rural area, self-sufficiency is essential. In a city cooperation is necessary, specialization routine and the acceptance of government regulation is a given. As long as we were a frontier society, more rural than urban, circumstances favored our libertarianism and the traits of the original immigrants were reinforced. We remained a country where absolute liberty was prized, government was distrusted and rare was the man who considered living at the expense of others his “right”.

The great Frederic Bastiat observed that man has only two ways of satisfying the wants and needs of his life. “Through the ceaseless application of his own faculties to natural resources” or his own labor. This is the origin and value of property. The other way is “by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others.” This is “plunder.” Bastiat then identified what he termed the fatal flaw of mankind-his “primitive, universal, and insuppressible instinct that impels him to satisfy his desires with the least possible pain.” Since labor is pain, it naturally follows that “men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work.” Plunder will only stop “when it becomes more painful and dangerous than work.” (All quotes from “The Law”)

For Bastiat, the purpose of the law was to make plunder more risky and painful than labor. I would add that that the mores of society will also make plunder more or less acceptable to an individual without the application of force. If the society as a whole values work and expects each man and woman to “pull his own weight”, the idea of living through plunder would not be part of the mindset of most, including those charged with creating and implementing the law-government. Government, however, possessing the unique ability to “legally” use force in a society, finds it irresistible to begin plundering for its own benefit and those of its benefactors and becoming, by definition, tyrannical. Our founders wisely formulated a system to keep this tendency at bay but if plunder becomes more acceptable in society, the original system and ideals will be circumvented and eventually discarded. This is where we find ourselves today.

In today’s democratic societies, politicians are elected based on promises made possible by plundered wealth. Those who vote for such politicians are merely hiring the government as a mercenary to take the wealth of one citizen to give it to them. They, like government, live on plunder. Some of our citizens live entirely on plundered goods. Government food, housing, health care and retirement provide all the necessities for some. Others receive only some of this plunder. Business or individuals use government regulation and power to ‘plunder’ an advantage over their competitors. All the while government continues to grow at its citizen’s behest and eventually everyone desires to live at the expense of everyone else. Politics becomes everything to everyone because nothing is outside its domain. We reach a point where “legislation will then be-in fact, already is-the battlefield for the fantasies and greed of everyone.” Bastiat was prescient, was he not?

Our nation, once proud of our traditions of individual independence, risk taking, hard work and unlimited opportunity, has become a nation of “moochers and looters,” to quote Ayn Rand. We have returned to that sad state of serfs and masters we left behind so many centuries ago. The masters have not changed. There will always be those who insert themselves into power to live easily and richly at the expense of others. We, the American people, have changed. We have become slaves to plundered goods. Only our situation is worse than any other. In most nations, as Margaret Thatcher observed, “socialism only works until you run out of other people’s money.” There is a limit on plunder and hence, on the standard of living of those who live on it. If one is living on plundered goods, one can only have the house the government will provide, nothing bigger or better, only the food provided, nothing more or of higher quality, the retirement provided, nothing fancy or comfortable, only the health care provided, nothing extensive or expensive. The more widely distributed the plunder, the lower the standard for everyone. The slaves are at the mercy of the efficiency of government in acquiring and distributing the plunder and the victims, their ability to provide it.

In the United States, however, our plunder is supplemented by the printing press. This enables the recipients of the plunder to receive much more than they would otherwise. Therefore, if we accept that Bastiat is correct and most men will live on plunder as long as it is easier than labor and a life of “mooching” is a life of slavery, how do we then answer our original question? Do all Americans, or even most of us, want to be free? If the moocher suddenly finds his supply of plundered goods cut off, will he not try to restore his former lifestyle? Like the traitor in the film “The Matrix”, will the easy fraud of the matrix become preferable to the risks of living in freedom? Will the serfs pledge their undying allegiance to masters who promise to continue allowing their parasitic lifestyles? What about you? Can you conceive of life without the government “safety net” and even if you can conceive it, do you want to live without it? Are you willing to educate yourself and stop relying on government to ensure your safety? Are you prepared to take on the responsibility of your choices beyond government defined parameters? Are you willing to trust your future to your own abilities and not on the capacity of government to secure it with plundered wealth?

Those who truly want and understand liberty have always been a minority. America’s history is unique because for perhaps the first time in history a place attracted enough of those people that they became a majority; and it changed the world. It was the first society based not on plunder but hard work and the rule of law. Wise men formulated a government to perpetuate that society as long as possible and it encouraged successive generations to pass on those unique values. Geography supported it through an ever expanding frontier, constantly providing each generation with an opportunity to experience the rugged individualism of absolute liberty for themselves.
The frontier is gone. We are no longer taught the values of our founding. Plunder has become acceptable. In fact it is an “entitlement,” a word anathema to liberty. As a result, people and property are no longer respected, morality has suffered. Government has become society and it is based on theft. Almost everyone assumes the “right” to live at the expense of everyone else. There is still a minority who desire freedom but neither the culture, government nor circumstances support their claim to veracity. We are plundering the legitimate results of our past success as a free people and printing the money necessary to make up for a demand growing exponentially faster than supply. It is a situation that is unsustainable but until what is unsustainable actually ceases to be sustained, living on plunder is easier than work. Every two or four years one needs only show up at a polling place and vote for the masters who will keep the system going as long as possible.

The sad conclusion to our question “who wants freedom” is “very few people.” Will people addicted to plunder seek freedom? Would they choose to live without the “safety net”-Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, guaranteed school and home loans? Will they trust their safety to private groups or their own intelligence instead of the FDA, EPA or the Securities and Exchange Commission? Will they take responsibility for their own health, retirement, food, housing and the education of their own children? Most people, perhaps even you, are not willing to go that far. So when will freedom become attractive once again? When the oppression of the state exceeds the value of the plunder to the slaves and the willingness or ability of the victims to provide it. We are not there yet but we are getting much closer at an ever increasing pace. When we do, it is going to be very uncomfortable for everyone and the courage of those who love liberty will be tried in ways not seen since the Revolutionary War. So, do you want freedom enough to pledge your life, fortune and sacred honor? Are you cut from the same cloth as our ancestors, believing in the ability and morality of every man exercising his God given rights to the extent that your own life is put at risk? Or have you joined the majority, content in the servitude of accepting stolen goods from a tyrannical government?

Michael Calpino
Independent Candidate for Congress
Maryland 1st District
http://www.electmike.webs.com