A Free Press Means No Government Involvement

But that's exactly the opposite of what we're getting. The Federal Trade Commission is currently holding a workshop to explore ways the government might help save the journalism industry.

Make no mistake about it. The government already controls the press. It does so through licensing, enforcing "decency" and "fairness" standards, public funding, restricting access, and granting preferential treatment.

The feds have always been frightened of truly independent news reporting. That explains why we're seeing a strong effort to counter the effect the Internet has had on the mainstream media.

The Threat of Net Neutrality

From Forbes:

There was a time, not so long ago, when the term "Internet Freedom" actually meant what it implied: a cyberspace free from over-zealous legislators and bureaucrats. For a few brief, beautiful moments in the Internet's history (from the mid-90s to the early 2000s), a majority of Netizens and cyber-policy pundits alike all rallied around the flag of "Hands Off the Net!" From censorship efforts, encryption controls, online taxes, privacy mandates and infrastructure regulations, there was a general consensus as to how much authority government should have over cyber life and our cyber liberties. Simply put, there was a "presumption of liberty" in all cyber matters.

Those days are now gone; the presumption of online liberty is giving way to a presumption of regulation. A massive assault on real Internet freedom has been gathering steam for years and has finally come to a head. Ironically, victory for those who carry the banner of "Internet Freedom" would mean nothing less than the death of that freedom.

We refer to the gradual but certain movement to have the federal government impose "neutrality" regulation for all Internet actors and activities -- and in particular, to Monday's announcement by Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Julius Genachowski that new rules will be floated shortly. "But wait," you say, "You're mixing things up! All that's being talked about right now is the application of 'simple net neutrality,' regulations for the infrastructure layer of the net." You might even claim regulations are not really regulation but pro-freedom principles to keep the net "free and open."

Such thinking is terribly short-sighted. Here is the reality: Because of the steps being taken in Washington right now, real Internet Freedom -- for all Internet operators and consumers, and for economic and speech rights alike -- is about to start dying a death by a thousand regulatory cuts. Policymakers and activists groups are ramping up the FCC's regulatory machine for a massive assault on cyber liberty. This assault rests on the supposed superiority of common carriage regulation and "public interest" mandates over not just free markets and property rights, but over general individual liberties and freedom of speech in particular. Stated differently, cyber collectivism is back in vogue -- and it's coming very soon to a computer near you!

No Freedom of Speech or Religion in the U.K.

Another Perspective on the Confederate Flag Issue

My second article for Examiner.com.

We're Number 36!

That's right. The nation that prides itself on the First Amendment has been ranked 36th by Reporters Without Borders in their 2008 Press Freedom Index. Of course, that's only domestically. Outside U.S. territory we're ranked 119th.

Talk About Free market

Mises.org is going open source.

Well, Fiddle-Dee-Dee! Another Complaint from the NAACP

Edward Vaughn, who heads the Alabama NAACP, is complaining that he doesn't want a certain group to be included as part of the upcoming inauguration celebration in Washington, D.C. He believes their appearance would convey a message of racism.

Just what is this racist group? An offshoot of the KKK? Skinhead motorcyclists with Confederate flag stickers on their bikes? No. Mr. Vaughn's undies are in a twist over a group of high school senior Southern belles in hoop dresses from Mobile County. They belong to the Azalea Trail Court, which has been in existence since 1949. In addition to presidential inaugurations, these young ladies have taken part in numerous other national pastimes, such as the Rose Bowl Parade and the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade.

So, what's Mr. Vaughn's problem? "These are not just regular costumes. These are the costumes that remind someone of the plantation in Gone with the Wind," he said in an interview. "We needed something that could show Alabama's great progress rather than something that shows a shameful past."

I don't mean to sound harsh, but wouldn't the appearance of blacks at the inauguration be enough to remind people of slavery? Besides, isn't the fact that a black man is being sworn in as president a testimony to how far our nation has come? Why not celebrate that as a sign of overcoming over a shameful past?

Like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, Edward Vaughn's livelihood is based on voicing grievances where no legitimate grievance exists. My guess is that as head of the Alabama NAACP he had already decided to complain about something -- and since none of the groups to be included in the inauguration ceremonies were going to be flying Confederate flags or other symbols of "hate," this was the best he could come up with.

Not-So-Gay Old Time

What happens when a group of gay rights activists feel threatened by a lone, heterosexual elderly woman? Well, exactly what you'd expect:

"Tolerance" in action.

Chuck Baldwin Introduces Ron Paul

Constitution Party presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin delivers the opening remarks at Ron Paul's Freedom March in Washington, D.C., this past Saturday:

You can view other videos from this event here.

Selling Your Vote Is a Crime

If you're a politician, you can bribe voters with cash hand-outs, "free" education, "cheap" health care, and any number of other welfare programs at taxpayer expense. But offer to sell your vote as a private citizen and you'll be charged with a felony.

Max Sanders, a 19-year-old college student in Minneapolis who offered to sell his vote to the highest bidder on eBay, was charged under a 1893 Minnesota law that criminalizes the sale and purchase of votes. Sanders now faces the possibility of up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

Mike Freeman, a Hennepin County attorney with an ironic name, said, "We're not humorless in the county attorney's office and we're not in the horse-and-buggy age, but we decided it's something we just couldn't blow off. Sometimes in this business we need to make statements." The statement in this case: "You don't own your vote." Or, to put it in today's vernacular: "All your vote are belong to us."

What's sad is that those who are still coming down from their July 4th patriotic high cannot grasp the fact that this is a country in which the ruling elite play by a different set of rules. Land of the Free? Give me a break. Freedom in America is defined by hot dogs, beer, and fireworks.

Our New Declaration of Independence

(Originally drafted on July 3, 2002)

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another; a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which compel them to make that separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations reduces them to despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patience of these fifty states; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their system of government. The history of the present federal government is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all working toward the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world:

It has refused to abide by the strict guidelines of the United States Constitution, and has instead decided that it alone will decide what is necessary for the public good.

It has forbidden state legislatures to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, and has allowed the federal judiciary to strike down countless state laws as unconstitutional, in clear violation of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution.

It has refused all states the proper control of land within their respective borders and has instead used its power to confiscate even more property.

It has enacted legislation, on issues ranging from alcohol consumption to the ownership of firearms, for the sole purpose of forcing states and individual citizens into compliance with its wishes.

It has unlawfully persecuted, under various administrations, citizens and organizations for opposing its invasions on the rights of the people.

It has continued to pass laws affecting campaign financing and election procedures that have only served to exclude ordinary citizens from the political process.

It has endeavored to prevent states from taking steps to curb illegal immigration and has refused to protect the sovereign borders of this nation.

It has obstructed the administration of justice by refusing to equally apply the laws it passes to members of the federal government.

It has allowed judges to become dependent upon their own political ideology without any regard for the Constitution.

It has established a multitude of new bureaucracies, and has sent out swarms of officers to harass the people.

It has maintained, in times of peace, standing armies both here on our shores and overseas.

It has effectively rendered the military independent of and superior to the civil authority.

It has subjected us to things foreign to our Constitution, giving its assent to burdensome acts of legislation:

For forcing states to quarter illegal immigrants.

For protecting them and refusing to deport even those convicted of serious crimes.

For implementing protectionist measures that have limited our ability to engage in free trade with all parts of the world.

For imposing taxes, hidden or otherwise, without our consent.

For threatening to deprive us, in times of perceived crisis, of the benefits of trial by jury.

For federalizing offenses that should remain under the jurisdiction of the states.

For implementing a foreign policy that has this nation engaged in costly and unnecessary entanglements overseas.

For taking away state sovereignty, abolishing federalism, and altering fundamentally our entire system of government.

For superseding state legislatures, and investing in Congress the power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever; including areas such as employment, health care, education, and housing, among others.

It has waged war against citizens of the United States by using armed troops to enforce unconstitutional laws.

It has denied states the control over valuable natural resources within their own borders.

It is, at this time, engaged in armed conflict overseas without a formal and constitutional declaration of war.

It has turned businesses into government agencies, forcing workers to report the "suspicious" activities of their fellow citizens to authorities.

It has succeeded, through its interventionist policies, in funding and arming enemies of the United States of America.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms. Our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A government, whose character is marked by every act which may define a tyranny, is unfit to be the government of a free people.

We have warned them from time to time of attempts by Congress, the president, and the judiciary to extend an unwarranted jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of the founding of our nation. We have appealed to their sense of justice and fair play, and we have appealed to the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They have been deaf to the voice of justice and of reason. We must, therefore, hold them as we hold the rest of mankind - enemies in war, friends in peace.

We, therefore, the people of the United States of America, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the rectitude of our intentions, do solemnly publish and declare, that these states are, and of right ought to be, free and independent; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the existing federal government, and that as free and independent states, they have full authority to reassume those powers guaranteed to the states and the people by the Constitution. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

Ron Paul Convention

Announcing the first (annual?) Ron Paul Convention!

When: September 2, 2008, during day two of the GOP convention.
Where: Williams Arena on the University of Minnesota campus in Minneapolis.
Who: Dr. Ron Paul and about 11,000 supporters.
Why: Because freedom of speech hasn't been officially outlawed yet.

Hope to see you there!

We're Looking for a Few Good Moles

In preparation for the 2008 GOP convention in St. Paul, the FBI is trying to get people with a certain look and social network to infiltrate local protest groups as paid informants for the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force. Well, what else did you expect in a post-9/11 police state?

This kind of thing has happened before. In fact, these moles have even been known to encourage violence on the part of protesters so that police actually have people to arrest.

But that seems too complicated, doesn't it? Why not just use a simple show of force like the Chinese did at Tiananmen Square?

Thanks, but no tanks. We Americans like to quell political dissent with good, old fashioned subterfuge. Besides, we really don't need any more bad press these days.