Concordia res Parvae Crescunt
by Phil Russo
There is a very important and interesting conversation taking place amongst tea party groups right now. It can sometimes be uncomfortable and awkward but we, as tea partiers, are not afraid to tackle big issues, right? The conversation I’m referring to is about civil liberties, how important they are, and their relationship to the Constitution.
When I wrote a blog post about the Times Square bomber and how he should have been read his rights I expected to be blasted by my fellow tea partiers – but I wasn’t. Most people agreed that John McCain was wrong.
I have also heard others talking about the Obama decision to assassinate American citizens and how unconstitutional it is. And, there’s plenty of talk about denying people on the “terrorist watch list” their second amendment rights even though they have not been charged with, let alone convicted of, any crime. The progress being made on the right with respect to civil liberties is very encouraging.
Many tea partiers ask me how they can reach out to younger people like myself and I have been telling them that younger people are with us on economics; it is when we get to civil liberties that they look at the GOP and they see big government, Big Brother, unconstitutional hypocrites.
One of the reasons Ron Paul’s following was so young was for this exact reason. Young people don’t want higher taxes or bigger government. They believe in free markets. What they also don’t want are things like a national ID card, even if the Republicans say it is needed to “fight terrorism.” In fact, many young people don’t want to give up their constitutional rights for any reason.
I am with Patrick Henry, “I know not what course others may choose but as for me, give me liberty or give me death”! A lot of folks my age, who would vote Republican on economic issues, look at the constitution and don’t see anything about gay marriage. They see no power granted to Congress to create a Federal Reserve Bank. They see no power in the Constitution giving congress the power to regulate marriage. Similarly, they see no power there giving Congress the power to prohibit pot smoking.
There is a thick libertarian streak in the under-30 crowd and especially in the under-20 crowd. If we tell them that freedom means the government staying out of the economy, they rightly think that the government should also stay out of their homes, personal lives, and bedrooms. They also think that the bill of rights should apply to every American citizen regardless of the charges against them. This should make sense even to my post-40 tea party friends.
If we allow the government to assassinate an American citizen overseas the next step will be assassinating American citizens on our own soil. If we allow the government to assassinate American citizens accused of “terrorism” the next step is allowing them to assassinate anyone accused of being a “threat to national security.”
Imagine if Obama had decided to assassinate the members of the “Christian” militia that was busted a few months back. They were “terrorists” – they were going to use a bomb to kill a police officer and then set off more bombs along the funeral route. That’s a tactic straight out of Bin Laden’s playbook. Should these men be held without charge in Gitmo and tried before a military tribunal?
I obviously don’t speak for all young people, but I do talk politics with a lot of them. There are neo-cons that are under 30, less of them under 20, and they think that if you have brown skin and the government (that they claim to distrust so much) deems you are a terrorist, it is ok to suspend your constitutional rights for “national security.”
I find this particularly ironic since these neo-cons claim to hate socialism and collectivism so much but then they preach about the “greater good” which is textbook socialism talk. Giving up our constitutional rights in the interest of security is no different from the commies that used to say “better Red than dead.”
So to answer the question – how do you reach the younger people in this country? The answer is simple – if we really want to reach them we should continue this conversation about civil liberties and we should not shy away from it because it makes us “uncomfortable.”
When I think of my favorite Founding Fathers like Thomas Paine, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, and Thomas Jefferson, I see those men more in Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, Barry Goldwater, and Jim Demint than I do in George W Bush, John McCain, Eric Cantor and the others.
If we present young people with a consistent message of economic and personal liberty, and if we elect people who follow the constitution and repeal the tens of thousands of pages of laws that are unconstitutional, we will not have a problem turning young people to our side. That will happen naturally.
Phil Russo is a grassroots activist and co-host of the radio show, “Tea Party Patriots Live” which can be heard on Saturdays on 660 WORL in Orlando, FL. Visit his website at www.teapartypatriotslive.com.
Copyright © 2010 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given
If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
"There is a thick libertarian streak in the under-30 crowd and especially in the under-20 crowd."
If this were true, why is it that the number of those who voted for Obama in 2008 was 66%, 13% higher than the overall electorate?
Sadly, it is not true. The 18-29 demographic are significantly more at ease with socialism and Progressivism, 78% pro to 18% against, in the latter case.
I'm happy to see that the author is in the pro-liberty group, but most of his compadres, unfortunately, are not.
P.S. I tried three times to provide links to support my assertions but the message comes back that my comment was deleted in each case. So, I'm trying without the html.
"There is a thick libertarian streak in the under-30 crowd and especially in the under-20 crowd."
If this were true, why is it that the number of those who voted for Obama in 2008 was 66%, 13% higher than the overall electorate?
[http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1031/young-voters-in-the-2008-election]
Sadly, it is not true. The 18-29 demographic are significantly more at ease with socialism and Progressivism, 78% pro to 18% against, in the latter case.
[http://shavingleviathan.blogspot.com/2010/05/views-on-political-words-by-age-group.html]
I'm happy to see that the author is in the pro-liberty group, but most of his compadres, unfortunately, are not.
"There is a thick libertarian streak in the under-30 crowd and especially in the under-20 crowd."
If this were true, why is it that the number of those who voted for Obama in 2008 was 66%, 13% higher than the overall electorate?
[http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1031/young-voters-in-the-2008-election]
Sadly, it is not true. The 18-29 demographic are significantly more at ease with socialism and Progressivism, 78% pro to 18% against, in the latter case.
[http://shavingleviathan.blogspot.com/2010/05/views-on-political-words-by-age-group.html]
I'm happy to see that the author is in the pro-liberty group, but most of his compadres, unfortunately, are not.
"There is a thick libertarian streak in the under-30 crowd and especially in the under-20 crowd."
If this were true, why is it that the percentage of those who voted for Obama in 2008 was 66%, 13% higher than the overall electorate. Sadly, it is not true. The 18-29 demographic are significantly more at ease with socialism and Progressivism - 78% pro to 18% against, in the latter case - than those among the older groups.
I'm happy to see that the author is in the pro-liberty group, but most of his compadres, unfortunately, are not.
I've been promoting the freedom/liberty message since the mid '90's, and am now in my mid 40's. I don't associate myself with the Tea Party folks much, but I do point out inconsistencies when necessary. When I used to talk about freedom/liberty, many people would look at me as if I had a third eye. Even during the 2008 campaign, when I was promoting Ron Paul, I'd get brushed aside as someone with kooky ideas. It is amazing how things have changed in such a short period. I've always had faith the the younger generation would get it, and push back by rejecting the previous generations politics. They should, seeing how they will be the ones left holding the bill long after the folks who created the mess are gone.
To the article's point, I'm glad to see people continuing along the path to freedom by addressing the civil liberties part. To me, freedom is an absolute. One is either free, or not free. Demanding freedom and liberty for one's self while imposing tyranny on others, is self defeating. Take the AZ law, for instance. This issue hits close to home for many of the newly baptized freedom/liberty minded Tea Party folks. They would rather see my freedom imposed upon by having a fellow American who's only authority is derived through the barrel of a gun demand that I prove my citizenship. I should never be forced to do that (unless I'm coming back into the country, perhaps). And the notion that the police need probable cause? They will find a way to find it if they want to see my papers. ( unfortunately, it is already happening -http://www.checkpointusa.org/blog/index.php )
My solution is along the civil liberties path, and very simple. Eliminate welfare, end that horribly expensive failure known as the war on drugs, and streamline the immigration process (no country just lets people in, but neither are their immigration processes as cumbersome or expensive as the U.S.)
Again, one is either free, or not free. There is no in between.
[youtube=muHg86Mys7I]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I [/youtube]
Sadly thats not within our capability now or in the foreseeable further. Indeed i don't see the welfare state being end-able politically for some time. There is simply too many voting people who think they are depended upon it for us to go about ending it directly.
We have nether the numbers nor the strength to eliminate the welfare state directly. There are of course always a wide variety of indirect approaches we might try.
One thing we might try is to convenes people that the only way they can get anything out of the welfare state is for the government to relinquish its control of "their money". Highlighting government incompetents might be useful propaganda towards helping us achieve that end.
At that point privatizing Social Security and Medicare would be preferable to what your getting now(nothing). Basically we are asking people to do is trust themselves more then the government. (Yea i know thats not a lot on face value).
But we would also be assuming a gigantic dept i beleive on the order of 40 trillion dollars openly which would have to be payed into theses individual accounts. It would be difficult but it remains possible that we could survive 40 trillion new dollars in the economy, if we also ended fractional reserve banking at the same time or just before,
That way that 40 trillion will not become 40 Quadrillion dollars in inflation.
Once their individualized and privatized we will be able to get rid of the mandatory participation.
It should be noted that this is essentially what the republican party has been trying to do under Bush.
Why can't people write more straight-ahead, commonsense articles like this? Why do we need to mince words and dance around the issues with rhetoric? The Tenth Amendment Center consistently puts out commentary that begs to be written and yet you can't find anywhere else. What the heck is the matter with this country?
Why did you delete my comment?
Citizens have to be given their Constitutional Rights, the PROBLEM is in the granting of citizenship to terrorists and to Illegals. Degrade what citizenship is and then it is no big deal to deprive,first the undeserving,then the remainder of their God Given Rights. But who is God and what are Judea-Christian Values that formed our Constitution? Oh, History again, yawn, We have an ignorant populace dumbed down by Government Schools and Teacher Unions in the control of Progressives. Identify Progressives and vote them out of office in either party. Start with getting rid of McCain in the Republican Party, and in the Democrat Party almost all are Progressive-Socialists so take your pick.
Local and State elections are VITAL to weed out progressives!
People aren't 'given' or granted rights, they are born with them (and not just the people born within imaginary lines in the sand called borders). The idea behind the Bill of Rights is to list those rights your government is supposed to protect (something it is becoming less inclined to do)
I would also point out that the Fifth Amendment states that no one shall be deprived of life, liberty and property without due process are respected. It does not say what the law or what is the process. My best guess tells me that prevents the government to deprive them of their land without laws or refused to agreed procedures.
I also wish that republicans would stop talking economics and start realizing that freedom is really a property rights issue to begin with. When someone has absolute power over their own property their freedoms begin to materialize such as free-enterprise, free-religion (you need bricks and land to build a church), and all other imaginable freedoms since free-will directs us change the physical enviroment around us which is our property. When government decide how we use our property such as the stereotypical shutting down of printing presses we are allowing it to decide how to use our freedom by deciding how we are to use our property.
Locke would've been proud!
The fifth amendment is pretty clear that it says that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, and property without the due process of law. That is a pretty wide net to cast which says that no person shall have those taken away by the actions of the federal government without the due process of law. This includes people on foriegn soil as well but no one has pointed out the exception stated in the 5th amendment about times of war. This was very smart to put in because do we want soldiers having to read 'miranda rights' right in the middle of a battle somewhere? People who claim to want to follow the constitution don't seem to want to read the full text about the scope of powers and exceptions put in it in order to account for situations where the it is not prudent to follow strict court procedures.
Future they name is hell: From American Thinker: Let It Burn: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/05/let_it_bur...
If there was ever a time to kick things up a notch, to push for real leadership from our state representatives for nullification it is now. This site is right on the money, but we need to add in a massive ground campaign of non-violent civil disobedience. The above piece is the single most important piece I have read this year for, if true, then nothing we write about will make a bit of difference. This is the piece nobody wanted to write but somebody had to.
Massive ground campaign is right! We need to get out there and educate people, and start taking action too.....soon?
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Subscribe to entries
Subscribe to comments
All content © 2012 by Tenth Amendment Center
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Phil Russo. Phil Russo said: New blog post at the #10th http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/05/17/liberty-is-not-just-about-economics/ #tcot #tlot #teaparty #912 [...]
[...] Liberty is not Just About Economics | Tenth Amendment Center [...]
[...] http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/05/17/liberty-is-not-just-about-economics/ Easy AdSense by Unreal Bookmark It Hide Sites [...]
[...] think that the government should also stay out of their homes, personal lives, and bedrooms.Source:http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/05/17/liberty-is-not-just-about-economics/ May [...]
[...] Via tenthamendmentcenter. com [...]
[...] Liberty is not Just About Economics [...]