Posted by Anthony Gregory on 11/06/09
Last updated 11/06/09

The great judge writes at FoxNews.com about the bipartsian attack on health freedom:

Congress recognizes no limits on its power. It doesn't care about the Constitution, it doesn't care about your inalienable rights. If this health care bill becomes law, America, life as you have known it, freedom as you have exercised it and privacy as you have enjoyed it will cease to be.

Tomorrow, the House of Representatives will vote on a 2,000 page bill to give the federal government the power to micromanage the health care of every single American. The bill will no doubt pass. It will raise your taxes, steal your freedom, invade your privacy, and ration your health care. Even the Republicans have introduced their version of Obamacare Lite. It, too, if passed, will compel employers to provide coverage, bribe the states to change their court rules, and tell insurance companies whom to insure.

Read the rest.

Posted 11/06/09 David S Shelby Twp, MI

Congress doesn't care about the constitution because the people don't care about it. If they did we would have 535 Ron Pauls in congress. Isn't there some way of suing congressmen who vote for unconstitutional bills? I think the TARP bill would be an ideal candidate for such a suit. There is clearly no constitutional basis for government to take $700 billion from the taxpayers and give it to the crooked bankers who caused our current financial mess. We the people have been robbed of $700 billion and the congress did it. And they violated their oath of office in doing so. Why can't we sue them each personally for our loss?

Posted 11/06/09 SilverSeraph Goose Creek, SC

I thought the vote was delayed?

Posted 11/06/09 patriotfilms North Bergen, NJ

Here is some video of the Judge that goes with the article: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ce-609kh7cY

Posted 11/07/09 Orville Brettman Huntley, IL

I think it's time to realize that the Country is too far gone to be saved by law suits or rallies. It is I believe time to consider what additional measures may be necessary.

Posted 11/07/09 BillNM Carlsbad, NM

Secession! I like Texas/New Mexico. We can call it TEXMEX.

Posted by Anthony Gregory on 11/04/09

Voters are rebelling against the Obama agenda of accelerated nationalization, domestic socialism, Obamacare, Cap and Trade and all the rest. This is the program that is repelling Americans, not Obama's fictitious softening of the war on terror. Just as Democrats tried to spin the 2006 elections as a victory for socialist ideas, when it was really a public denunciation of the Bush war policy, these elections represent disconent with the Washington establishment and statist quo. In other words, it is good news, even if it will not materialize into the revolution for freedom we all want.

In the short term, however, this is a great obstruction to Obamacare, the ghastly attempt to fix America's partially broken health care system, all the fault of government intervention, with yet more federal poison. Three cheers for the public waking up!

Posted 11/04/09 nowls Atlanta, GA

The elections appeared to be a referendum on the Obama administration and its efforts to continue the expansion of Federal power. But yesterday wasn't all good news. Unfortunately the voters of Maine decided to ban the right of private individuals to enter into the contract of marriage with gay partners. I'm appalled at this blatant disregard for civil liberties. It is quite simply the majority exercising tyranny over the minority, or trying to legislate a specific brand of religious dogma over all Maine's citizens. I wish C4L took more of a stand on this issue, but based on the religious arc through some of the articles on this site, I fear it won't be addressed properly. Hopefully there are at least SOME advocates on C4L for gay citizens' equal protection under the law.

Posted 11/04/09 jwfox1965 Las Vegas, NV

"Unfortunately the voters of Maine decided to ban the right of private individuals to enter into the contract of marriage with gay partners." Actually I think it was more the wording of the referendum in Maine than anything else, Washington State passed a similar ballot measure which left out the word marriage while acknowledging that gay couples have all the same rights & responsibilities (domestic partnerships) as married couples. The "gay rights" activists need to learn from experience and leave the word "marriage" out of any proposal put before the public because once it's included in the language it loses every time. Personally I think gay couples deserve all the same rights as everybody else and the phrase "gay marriage" doesn't bother me but that phrase DOES bother a lot of people that would otherwise support equal rights on this issue. These activities also need to drop the whole "gay rights" phraseology since there is no such thing, there are rights and equal rights but the term "gay rights" sounds as if they are looking to be treated as something special.

Posted 11/04/09 smashysmashy dover, NH

Woah woah woah Anthony! These elections are NOT a referendum on the President. That's what CNN has posted right now as their headlining story, and they base that on absolutely nothing. So you can take your facts elsewhere, they aren't welcomed in the "real" world. LoL. http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/04/election.analysis/index.html N owis - C4L advocates gay citizens' equal protection by promoting freedom and individual rights. There are many smaller issues that C4L doesn't give a lot of direct stand on because they are covered under our general appetite for promoting personal liberties. I would be surprised if there was even one serious C4L member who didn't advocate gay rights. The problem with micromanaging the issue is because (IMO) it is a double edged sword. This is because in our particular political realm/nightmare, advocating gay rights is also advocating tyranny over freedom of religion. This is because churches will certainly be prosecuted for not upholding equal rights if they are not forced into marrying same sex couples. So by advocating gay rights, we have good reason to believe we are fighting against the rights of another group. Certainly we want same-sex individuals to enjoy the same liberties we do, while not forcing tyranny on religious organizations. This is why promoting general freedom and personal liberties we are certainly advocating the rights of same sex couples and EVERYONE for that matter.

Posted 11/04/09 smashysmashy dover, NH

Ditto on "gay rights" jwfox... substitute "gay rights" with equal rights for same sex couples in my post

Posted 11/04/09 DevilDog4Liberty Kailua, HI

The government should have no role in the marriage business in the first place. I think if more of the gay rights activists pushed for non-government intervention in ANY marriages this debate would be over. Instead of trying to push for gay marriage, let's push for government OUT of marriage! Let the churches decide who they want to marry. It isn't the government's business to decide!

Posted 11/04/09 nowls Atlanta, GA

@jwfox1965 - You'll notice I never used the term "gay rights"; in fact, I specifically said "gay citizens' equal protection under the law". Also I don't believe any one group has a monopoly on the term "marriage", which is why I denounce one group denying it to another. @smashysmashy - You're absolutely right that private religious institutions should not be forced to accept a definition of marriage that they find unacceptable. My denunciation of what happened in Maine was intentionally cursory. Furthermore, the text of the law expressly forbade the regulation of how private religious institutions define marriage (Sec. 5. 19-A MRSA §655, sub-§3) See: http://news.findlaw.com/nytimes/docs/glrts/maine-same-sex-marriage.html

Posted 11/04/09 ateal Sharpsburg, GA

Actually, nowls, whether you want to believe it or not, marriage is a Judeo-Christian doctrine through and through. For the record, I parrot smashysmashy's comments. I am all for equal rights for everyone, but when you make "gay marriage" legal, you open the door to lawsuits against individual pastors and churches for violating the law if they choose not to perform gay marriages. In my opinion, if ANY two people, gay, straight, in love, or just good friends, choose to enter into a financial bond (because this is all it really is in the eyes of the government), they should have that right. If two really good guy friends who are not gay want to pool their money and live as a "couple," why should they get any different treatment than a married man and woman?

Posted 11/04/09 Learning Bethesda, MD

I am with Ateal. The solution is to get the State out of the marraige business. I am a traditional Christian and believe that marraige is an instituition ordained by God. Obviously, there are divergent views on this and will not reach agreement as to the morality of it in a political discussion. What can happen is that Government stays out of the Marraige business, and people can make whatever arraignment the wish, with whoever they wish. Nobody has to violate their conscience. A smaller government would mean less taxes: I wouldn't tax you to take care of my spouse and children. You would not tax us for your necessities or force us to recognize your arrangements against our conscience.

Posted 11/04/09 TDawg2002 Savannah, GA

I wish I shared your enthusiasm for the results of these elections. It really doesn't matter to me if people who are fed up with Obama start voting for republicans, though. Republicans are just as bad for Liberty as the democrats. Same coin, other side. This isn't any measure of progress as far as I'm concerned.

Posted 11/04/09 nowls Atlanta, GA

@ateal - I agree that the government should not be in the business of regulating marriage in the first place. However, even under the assumption that marriage is a Judeo-Christian doctrine, should anyone be allowed to deny two individuals from using the term? No doubt, churches are unlikely to redefine marriage as anything other than a union between a man and a woman in the eyes of God. But why does "gay civil marriage" present a problem? Any reasonable legislation endorsing gay civil marriage would prohibit the government from forcing any definition of marriage onto a private religious institution, and Maine's law was reasonable in that sense. The biggest issue is that gay couples don't want to say "we're joined in civil union." They want to be able to say "we're married", because they want to express its powerful meaning of love and commitment in the same way straight couples do. Denying them that is unfair.

Posted by Anthony Gregory on 11/04/09

For all who haven't noticed, we are now running three featured articles a day, six days a week. It will remain at this frequency for the forseeable future, as it seems to be just the right amount. Be sure to send article links to your friends and family, and encourage people to stop by and look at our commentary. The battle for liberty requires, above all else, that we be educated and informed, and there is never a point where any of us can say we have read enough. So let everyone know, as you're sharing the virtues of the Campaign for Liberty, that this site is also a solid source for political commentary, opinion and reporting.

A note to everyone: I notice that most every article has at least one comment objecting to it. This is all to the good insofar as internal constructive criticism is essential to the vitality of a movement. But as a response to some common criticisms: First, there is probably no one who agrees with every single word we've published. Nevertheless, we can learn from those we agree with on some or most questions, even if there are nuanced disagreements. An article might be 95% of the way there or even less and I'll still consider it worth passing along. Second, not all these pieces are meant to have the same tenor. Some are op-eds, others longer essays, some academic pieces and still others simple reporting. This is enriching to the intellectural apparatus behind the liberty movement. Not everything should be up to the same "standard" in terms of form or sholastic rigor, since no single standard exists when the goal is to advance liberty and truth in both academic and popular writing. Third, freedom brings us all together, but on any given issue some people in our big tent might not be all the way with the pro-liberty position. That is fine, as any successful movement requires not lockstep conformity but rather some tolerance of disagreement. But the general line we stick to is advocating individual liberty and opposing lawless, unconstituional and oppressive government in every area. That is the basic formula and it would be hard to make it anything else while satisfying our mission and yet not rubbing at least as many people the wrong way.

In short, you might not like every article. That's okay. There's three of them a day now. I hope that at any given time there are at least a few pieces featured that will resonate. We also try to mix up the topics, addressing the news of the day, discussing timeless principles in law and economics, giving historical perspectives important to lovers of liberty, and occasionally touching on issues that are forgotten in the fast pace of the politicians' determined march toward the total state. The core principles of Campaign for Liberty — free markets, limited government, personal freedom, civil liberties, sound money and peace and non-intervention —are of course the common thread. On any given day, we try to ensure that there is something up there for everyone, and no major principle is neglected, even as we give special focus on questions coinciding with our legislative efforts and the most pressing threats to liberty.

Spread the ones you do like, and encourage people to stop on by daily for intellectual ammunition, as well as the fun that comes in seeing writers go after our enemy, the leviathan state.

Posted 11/04/09 MountainDoc Lewisburg, WV

Hoorah!

Posted 11/04/09 Mike in Virginia Fredericksburg, VA

Thank you, Anthony. I find something of value in every article, and much of value in most of them.

Posted 11/05/09 celticreeler Rolla, MO

"Intellectual ammunition" is a good description. Mental sustenance for those of us unsatisfied by the incessant bleating and spin offered by the national media. Thank you so much!

Posted by Anthony Gregory on 11/03/09

It keeps growing, and growing. . .

Posted 11/03/09 BruceKoerber Cedar Rapids, IA

http://undoingsocialism.blogspot.com/ Tuesday, November 3, 2009 Socialistic Health Care Is Far Scarier Than Halloween. Is its growth tumor-like? Rather than ignore it, the proper thing to do would be to have the tumor examined. This is not a benign tumor. It is malignant, without a doubt. Who would then try to avoid it being examined, and why? Do these ghouls work at the morgue or sell grave sites? Soulless agents of the unConstitutional coup are trying to drain the life out of our Constitutional Republic. Wake up and drive a stake in the wretched, seditious schemes of the ego-driven economic terrorists.

Posted by Anthony Gregory on 11/03/09

After an unambiguously fraudulant election, Afghanistan has cancelled its planned runoff election and the West has deemed Karzai the "legitimate" ruler. Contrast this with the wide perception of Iran's election as a clear fraud. Just another example of double standards in diplomacy.

Posted 11/03/09 zoesmom0504 Burien, WA

I am just curious - personally I was a little more than annoyed when Obama congratulated him on his win.....was I the only one? I'm young so I don't know if compared to other presidents this is normal to do, especially given the circumstances.

Posted 11/03/09 Rob Vollat Randleman, NC

I think we all should reflect for a moment as to the evils our government inflicts on other humans. It is outrageous.

Posted 11/03/09 Joey Batz Brooklyn, NY

Zoe, what Obama's doing isn't all that much different than what other presidents do. They all seem to prefer one candidate to another in foreign elections and the relationship between our country and another will shift dramatically when a puppet of the West rises/falls. I can't say I was all that annoyed when Obama congratulated him because I was pretty much expecting it. But I, too, am young, so perhaps our older members can comment on how glaring the double standard is. This is the first time I've ever read about it in the news as it happened, and I could only think of how ridiculous it was that Iran's fraudulent elections were condemned by our leaders (because Ahmadinajad is an enemy of the US) while Afghanistan's fraudulent elections are supported by the very same people (because Karzai is our puppet, I mean friend).

Posted 11/04/09 BruceKoerber Cedar Rapids, IA

http://educationandethics.blogspot.com/ Wednesday, November 4, 2009 What Is The Ethical Thing To Do With Karsai and Afghanistan? Here's the choice: Either prop up the puppet or initiate a free-for-all that unquestionably would result in the political will to expel the foreign occupiers. Which would you choose if you were an imperialist? By definition then, the U.S. is an imperialist. If, in contrast, you were a peaceful person with a concern for liberty and justice yet put in the same position what would you do? Admit the errors of the past, denounce the warmongers and the erroneous logic and impure motives of the neocons, and then bring the troops home!