Enjoy these 13 politically incorrect gun rules!

1. Guns have only two enemies: rust and politicians.

2. It’s always better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

3. Cops carry guns to protect themselves, not you.

4. Never let someone or something that threatens you get inside arms length.

5. Never say, “I’ve got a gun.” If you need to use deadly force, the first sound they hear should be the safety clicking off.

6. The average response time of a 911 call is 23 minutes; the response time of a .357 is 1400 feet per second.

7. The most important rule in a gunfight is: Always win – cheat if necessary.

8. Make your attacker advance through a wall of bullets . . . You may get killed with your own gun, but he’ll have to beat you to death with it, because it’ll be empty.

9. If you’re in a gunfight:

- If you’re not shooting, you should be loading.
- If you’re not loading, you should be moving.
- If you’re not moving, you’re dead.

10. In a life and death situation, do something . . . It may be wrong, but do something!

11. If you carry a gun, people call you paranoid. Nonsense! If you have a gun, what do you have to be paranoid about?

12. You can say ‘stop’ or ‘alto’ or any other word, but a large bore muzzle pointed at someone’s head is pretty much a universal language.

13. You cannot save the planet, but you may be able to save yourself and your family.

Did you enjoy this? Any rules you want to add? Please share them in the comments section below.

Image credit: Roland Darby

John Edwards was the Democratic vice presidential nominee in 2004, and he was a leading contender for the presidential nomination in 2008. We all now know he cheated on his wife and lied to America about it throughout much of that time. Now he’s facing potential jail time if convicted of using campaign funds for a cover-up.

Democratic Congressman Anthony Weiner has put on quite a show lately.

The soap operas aren’t confined to Democrats. Republican California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger recently confessed to cheating for decades and had a child he hid from the public for years.

Not that long ago, Newt Gingrich was cheating on one of his ex-wives while haranguing Bill Clinton over Monica Lewinsky.

A few other names come to mind: Al Gore, Mark Foley, Jesse Jackson Sr., Jesse Jackson Jr., and Mark Sanford.

Some people argue that these people’s private lives should not be of concern to the public.

A counter-argument is that people who lie about their private lives are also likely to lie about official business as well. Could they also lie about weapons of mass destruction, or global warming, or the necessity of a trillion-dollar bailout?

So what’s my point? That Libertarians are more honest than Republicans and Democrats?

Actually, no. My point is, human beings are fallible, and many of us are dishonest and easily corrupted.

That’s one of the reasons why government should have as little power as possible. When human beings have the power to control others’ lives, our natural fallibility makes us very dangerous.

What’s worse, power tends to corrupt us and make us even more dishonest, conniving, and cruel.

We Libertarians understand that humans are fundamentally imperfect, and we will always be imperfect.

Libertarians aren’t simply looking for honest politicians. We are looking for politicians who understand this problem, and who will stand on principle to take power away from government, and return it to the individual.

Image credit: jscreationzs

John W. Whitehead, in his recent post entitled “Renewing the Patriot Act: Who Will Protect Us From Our Government?“, points out some very critical issues within the “Patriot Act” that put our American liberties seriously at risk. After reading his assessment, ask yourself who will protect us from an overreaching federal government empowered by this law — one that can now easily redefine citizen protest or even disagreement as terrorism!

The Patriot Act drove a stake through the heart of the Bill of Rights, violating at least six of the ten original amendments – the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Amendments – and possibly the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, as well. The Patriot Act also redefined terrorism so broadly that many non-terrorist political activities such as protest marches, demonstrations and civil disobedience were considered potential terrorist acts, thereby rendering anyone desiring to engage in protected First Amendment expressive activities as suspects of the surveillance state.

There are many anti-liberty problems with the “Patriot Act.” For instance, we are subjected to “sneak-and-peak” searches of our homes and other personal property without being notified and without charges being filed. According to Whitehead the FBI can now “come to your place of employment, demand your personal records and question your supervisors and fellow employees, all without notifying you; allowed the government access to your medical records, school records and practically every personal record about you; and allowed the government to secretly demand to see records of books or magazines you’ve checked out in any public library and Internet sites you’ve visited . . . .” Is this the kind of “security” we are guaranteed in our Constitution? The list of abuses goes on as Whitehead explains:

In the name of fighting terrorism, government officials were permitted to monitor religious and political institutions with no suspicion of criminal wrongdoing; prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they told anyone that the government had subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation; monitor conversations between attorneys and clients; search and seize Americans’ papers and effects without showing probable cause; and jail Americans indefinitely without a trial, among other things. The federal government also made liberal use of its new powers, especially through the use (and abuse) of the nefarious national security letters, which allow the FBI to demand personal customer records from Internet Service Providers, financial institutions and credit companies at the mere say-so of the government agent in charge of a local FBI office and without prior court approval.

Our individual liberty as American citizens is at stake — actually, our freedoms are rapidly disappearing. Whitehead enumerates some of the massive changes that have occurred within the past decade. Frankly, the change has been staggering, especially to have occurred in such a short time-frame.

In fact, since 9/11, we’ve been spied on by surveillance cameras, eavesdropped on by government agents, had our belongings searched, our phones tapped, our mail opened, our email monitored, our opinions questioned, our purchases scrutinized (under the USA Patriot Act, banks are required to analyze your transactions for any patterns that raise suspicion and to see if you are connected to any objectionable people), and our activities watched. We’ve also been subjected to invasive patdowns and whole-body scans of our persons and seizures of our electronic devices in the nation’s airports (there were 6,600 such seizures in airports alone between October 2008 and July 2010). We can’t even purchase certain cold medicines at the pharmacy anymore without it being reported to the government and our names being placed on a watch list. . . .

In light of lost liberty, Whitehead correctly asks why there is not more fight against this law that could be “the final nail in our coffin.” He understandably asks why “many of those civil libertarians who took Bush to task and vocally criticized his civil liberties abuses have been virtually silent in face of President Obama’s continuation of Bush programs that undermine the Bill of Rights.” He concludes that many people have just given up and accepted the abuses of this law. After a decade many are tired of fighting what has becoming the new status quo. He also points out that  many on the left appear reluctant to challenge Obama because they don’t want to be perceived as undermining our first black president.

Regardless of these feelings, injustice should always be challenged and our liberty should always be protected no matter which party occupies the White House. We must not fall asleep in this fight or we are likely to awake in chains.

In conclusion, Whitehead issues this solemn warning: “Patriots, wake up! It’s time to protect our country and our rights against a government of wolves that grows more power-hungry with every passing day.” Let us heed his call and join in the fight against this arrogantly mis-named “Patriot Act” that threatens to enslave us all.

Image credit: nixxphotography

This video builds on the work of French political economist Frédéric Bastiat who addressed the “broken window fallacy” by showing it to be incorrect in his essay entitled “What is Seen and What is Not Seen“. In countering Larry Summers’ “broken window” view that the recent Japanese earthquake and tsunami might be good for their economy, Ryan Young writes in “Tsunamis Are Not Stimulus“:

Yes, construction will be a boom industry in the coming months. That’s why people like Summers can claim that the tsunami will create jobs and boost GDP. Better still, the workers will spend their wages and stimulate the rest of the economy, too. Japan will be better off for having endured a natural disaster.

If this were really the case, then the best possible way to boost Japan’s economy would be to level the entire country. Every building should be destroyed, brick by brick. The number of jobs that policy would create would dwarf any tsunami stimulus.

Then, in a few years, when the rebuilding is finished, workers can destroy their entire infrastructure again. Even more jobs will be created!

Taken to its logical conclusion it becomes easier to find fault with the disasters-are-good-for-the-economy line of thinking. Bastiat writes in his “broken window” analogy that, when replacing items, “society loses the value of objects unnecessarily destroyed.” When replacement items like new windows, for example, are bought instead of new shoes, spending is merely shifted away from shoes to windows. However, instead of being able to have both windows and shoes, after a disaster one must choose between one or the other. Simply put, Bastiat concludes, “destruction is not profitable.”

Special thanks to Tom. G. Palmer of the Cato Institute for pointing this video out in “Bastiat on the Japanese Tsunami” and noting that “destruction isn’t stimulative because it cannot create wealth.”

Key quotes from Ron Paul in this 22 minute speech include the following:

• Patriot — “an individual who is willing to stand up against one’s own government when the government is wrong”
• “The economic system that we are suffering from is not free markets — it’s Keynesian intervention, inflationism driven by a Federal Reserve that we need to get rid of.”
• “The government a people get is a government they deserve. . . When the majority of the people change their sentiment governments will change.”
• “The role of government ought to be there to protect our liberties . . . to provide a strong national defense . . . to give us a sound currency . . .”
• “I would believe in freedom and free markets if it did not produce greater wealth. But we who believe in freedom, we don’ even have to argue that because history is on our side. History proved: the freer the market, the sounder the money, the greater prosperity, and the more people that can enjoy it.”
• “The belief in liberty is growing by leaps and bounds.”

===

The Jewish Policy Center (JPC) is a non-profit think tank offering “scholarly perspectives on foreign and domestic policies that impact the Jewish community in the United States, and the broader American public.” On the domestic policy front, the JPC endorses “smaller government, lower taxes, free trade, and other issues.” The JPC provides a variety of published materials, forums, speakers, and media materials designed to support this vision.

One such JPC publication is the inFocus Quarterly journal which presents a variety of scholarly essays — a specific policy theme is focuses on each quarter. According to the JPC, these essays are written by “some of the top experts and academics around the world.” In addition, the JPC publishes their inSight blog with provides perspective related to contemporary events and news. The JPC also sponsors a variety of speeches, forums, and seminars in Jewish communities across the country. These events focus on current events and vital policy issues.

===

Another online resource is Jewish World Review (JWR) which is a free online magazine published five days a week. JWR is provided “to people of faith and those interested in learning more about contemporary Judaism from Jews who take their religion seriously.” In addition to offering a variety of information about Judaism, JWR also publishes many thought-provoking columns, editorials, cartoons, and other insights about government, current events, politics, and liberty.

===

Billing themselves as “America’s Most Aggressive Defender of Firearms Ownership,” Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. JPFO is not a lobbying organization but is instead a non-profit educational and civil rights organization. As such, JPFO offers a huge array of books, comic-style booklets, videos and films, and other well-documented materials to show how our Bill of Rights are being trampled in the name of gun control and other anti-liberty measures.

Based in Wisconsin, JPFO is dedicated to destroying the concept of gun control and encouraging all Americans to understand and defend the Bill of Rights. JPFO materials point out the racist roots of gun control in America and how a disarmed populace is vulnerable to abuse by government. JPFO explains their goals:

Founded by Jews and initially aimed at educating the Jewish community about the historical evils that Jews have suffered when they have been disarmed, JPFO has always welcomed persons of all religious beliefs who share a common goal of opposing and reversing victim disarmament policies while advancing liberty for all.

===

The views espoused by the above referenced sources are not necessarily those advocated by PonderPost or held by PonderPost editors. Please suggest other Jewish resources that are dedicated to the preservation of liberty and/or share your response to this information below. You may also contact us with your suggestions for future PonderPicks.

Image credit: luigi diamanti

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable 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 . . .

In closing the Declaration of Independence, the signers once again referenced God — “Divine Providence” — and acknowledged their dependence upon Him in this joint effort:

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.

As was true in 1776 so it is today: Our nation needs God. Today we need the kind of spiritual renewal that birthed this nation. If we are going to return to the “spirit of ’76″ then we need God’s Spirit in our lives and culture.

Americans are blessed with great religious freedom to worship God as we see fit. However, not all is as it once was in this area. For the past few decades our First Amendment freedom of speech within churches has been curtailed to restrict political speech. That restriction is frankly not right or constitutional. The First Amendment was written with a one-way restriction — to keep the government out of the church but not the church out of the government.

If the Founders could not have used local churches for political purposes do you think our country would have been born? More recently, would the civil rights movement have succeeded without the direct involvement of many churches? Would the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. have triumphed under today’s unconstitutional federal guidelines that restricts political speech from the pulpit? In both eras church leaders were actively involved in impacting citizens and our political system.

We should pray for a return of liberty within our government. We need to learn our American history so we are not deceived about the rightful place of God within our government. Likewise, we must take these things seriously and personally prepare for spiritual renewal.

===

Today there are several online groups offering resources that individuals can use to impact our nation spiritually. One such group is The Presidential Prayer Team. Since 2001 the nondenominational Presidential Prayer Team has been impacting our nation through prayer. Each week a variety of executive, legislative, judicial, and military leaders are specifically featured to lift up in prayer.  In their own words, The Presidential Prayer Team describes themselves as follows:

[A] national ministry dedicated to a focused mission of encouraging, inspiring and practicing PRAYER on behalf of our President, nation’s leaders and our troops. We also seek to be a catalyst in the development of a robust prayer lifestyle. We do this by finding and PROVIDING tools to encourage prayer – through email, web, mobile phones and other communication tools. Ultimately, we believe that prayer will TRANSFORM our nation, one heart at a time.

===

Another group that offers a full library of information, news, and media is WallBuilders. Their purpose is to present “America’s forgotten history and heroes with an emphasis on our moral, religious, and constitutional heritage.” WallBuilders is named after the Old Testament leader Nehemiah who rallied the nation of Israel to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem to protect the city. WallBuilders’ goals are as follows:

[T]o exert a direct and positive influence in government, education, and the family by (1) educating the nation concerning the Godly foundation of our country; (2) providing information to federal, state, and local officials as they develop public policies which reflect Biblical values; and (3) encouraging Christians to be involved in the civic arena.

===

A third resource involves a new spiritual challenge called 40 Days and 40 Nights that has been issued by radio talk-show host and television commentator Glenn Beck. The challenge is to pledge to “practice faith, hope and charity” by doing three things: (1) re-establishing a relationship with God through prayer, (2) establishing a habit of honesty in everything as we seek the truth, and (3) doing something kind for every member of our family at least once a week and being grateful for how blessed we are. A variety of 40 Days 40 Nights Challenge Blueprints are available for download.

These three online resources can help Christians pray for our leaders, learn our history, and make personal changes that impact others in a big way. Together we can change our nation by changing ourselves through the power of God. Let us encourage one another to pray for and do good works for the preservation of liberty.

===

The views espoused by the above referenced sources are not necessarily those advocated by PonderPost or held by PonderPost editors. Please suggest other Christian resources to help preserve liberty and/or share your response to this information below. You may also contact us with your suggestions for future PonderPicks.

Image credit: graur razvan ionut

Other military engagements have been authorized by Congress but not through a formal declaration of war. With the exception of both Barbary Wars in the early 1800s, most Congressionally-authorized but non-declared wars (or “conflicts”) took place after the 1950s — the Vietnam Conflict, the Gulf War, Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, and the Iraq War being prime examples. Additionally, several notable military engagements were never authorized by Congress but were initiated instead by presidential action following United Nations (UN) Security Council Resolutions — the Korean War, the Bosnian War, and peacekeeping operations in Haiti and Liberia. Again, for the record, please note that these UN military actions were never expressly authorized by Congress.

According to a September 25, 2001 Memorandum Opinion for the Deputy Counsel to the President and entitled “The President’s Constitutional Authority to Conduct Military Operations Against Terrorists and Nations Supporting Them,” there have been at least 125 occasions where the President has initiated military intervention “without prior express authorization from Congress” (and that total only counts those occurring before 2001). According to this document, the largest action was the Korean War:

Perhaps the most significant deployment without specific statutory authorization took place at the time of the Korean War, when President Truman, without prior authorization from Congress, deployed United States troops in a war that lasted for over three years and caused over 142,000 American casualties.

Similarly, the Bosnian War did not receive explicit congressional authorization. It was, as the Memorandum Opinion explains, a “unilateral deployment . . . [that] constituted full-scale war. On March 24, 1999, without any prior statutory authorization and in the absence of an attack on the United States, President Clinton ordered hostilities to be initiated against the Republic of Yugoslavia.” Like the Korean War, that military campaign was substantial as is noted within the Memorandum Opinion (which uses the word war):

Bombing attacks against targets in both Kosovo and Serbia ended on June 10, 1999, seventy-nine days after the war began. More than 30,000 United States military personnel participated in the operations; some 800 U.S. aircraft flew more than 20,000 sorties; more than 23,000 bombs and missiles were used.

While several wars received some form of congressional approval, the Korean and Bosnian Wars never received any express congressional authorization. In light of these and similar military interventions, does it really matter whether Congress, the President, or even the UN formally commits our troops and resources to war? Is there a difference between authorizing and declaring war?

To answer this question we must look to the Constitution which states how our nation can be committed to war. Jacob G. Hornberger, founder of The Future of Freedom Foundation, addresses this question in his 2002 article entitled “Declaring and Waging War: The U.S. Constitution.” He writes:

What does our Constitution say about war? Our Founders divided war into two separate powers: Congress was given the power to declare war and the president was given the power to wage war. What that means is that under our system of government, the president cannot legally wage war against another nation in the absence of a declaration of war against that nation from Congress.

A literal reading of the Constitution makes it clear that the Korean and Bosnian Wars amounted to bold, unconstitutional power-grabs by Presidents Truman and Clinton. But what about other wars like the Gulf War and the Iraq War? Didn’t both Presidents Bush received Congressional authorization to wage those wars? Wasn’t gaining that approval far better than the unauthorized actions of Presidents Truman and Clinton? Again, Hornberger offers a constitutional answer. He points out that “the fact that later presidents have violated the declaration-of-war requirement does not operate as a grant of power for other presidents to do the same.”

Specifically addressing the authorization for Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, Hornberger writes:

What about the congressional resolution that granted President Bush the power to wage war against unnamed nations and organizations that the president determines were linked to the September 11 attacks? Doesn’t that constitute a congressional declaration of war? No, it is instead a congressional grant to the president of Caesar-like powers to wage war, a grant that the Constitution does not authorize Congress to make.

Simply put, there was no declaration of war and so military actions taken by the President were unconstitutional. Hornberger concludes that the consequences of supporting such unconstitutional military campaigns are extremely dangerous for our liberty:

Therefore, when a U.S. president wages what might otherwise be considered a just war, if he has failed to secure a congressional declaration of war, he is waging an illegal war — illegal from the standpoint of our own legal and governmental system. And when the American people support any such war, no matter how just and right they believe it is, they are standing not only against their own principles and heritage, not only against their own system of government and laws, but also against the only barrier standing between them and the tyranny of their own government — the Constitution.

Nine years after Congress gave President George W. Bush an almost blank check to use force against terrorists we are still waging war in Afghanistan. Instead of wrapping things up, it seems that the Bush and now Obama administrations actively expanded the scope of this war into other territories. Now hardly a day passes that we don’t learn of new military actions taking place within Pakistan and other sovereign nations. Why is this war dragging on and expanding?

Could it be that our Founders intended for war to be infrequent because declarations of war are difficult to pass? Could it be they knew that it was foolish to give any President an open-ended “authorization” to simply wage war? Could it be they knew that a formally declared war, as opposed to a vague authorization to use force, would be carefully debated, clearly defined, and then quickly and decisively won?

Contrast our five declared wars with the at least 125 military campaigns initiated by Presidents without prior Congressional authorization. While all five declared wars ended decisively and in most cases quickly, a high percentage of all others have ended poorly at best — with some slogging on to this day. Put another way, most military actions merely authorized by Congress (but not constituting a constitutional declaration of war) have had a dubious outcome.

After 60 years of waging ambiguous and undeclared wars on multiple fronts, Congress is long overdue in reclaiming their rightful authority under the Constitution. Regarding our current war and multiple military incursions, it is time for Congress to revoke all unconstitutional authorizations of force, thoroughly debate each situation, and take a simple up or down vote to declare war. If military action is warranted then Congress should own up to the need and declare war (and the President should then quickly win it). If no declaration of war is merited then our government should cease all military actions within that sovereign nation and bring our troops home. We cannot allow the Constitution to be violated any longer. If we fail to act now and end this unconstitutional abuse then our personal liberty may be the next victim under a President wielding Caesar-like powers.

—

¹While not officially declaring war, Congress formally recognized that a state of war existed. However, in 1848 the House of Representatives censured President Polk for “unnecessarily and unconstitutionally” provoking this war with Mexico.

Image credit: jscreationzs

Fast-forward almost 80 years for Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.’s October 11, 2010 article entitled “The Killing and Reviving of the American Dream.” Here Rockwell highlights many of the social trends brought about by the current economic downturn and their troubling impact on the American way of life. He notes that “Economics isn’t just about trade statistics, retail sales or GDP. It is the very pith of life.”

So what are the numbers telling us about our country and the American Dream? What has changed significantly over just a few years? Using Census data Rockwell points out the following changes have occurred:

• Reduced mobility — fewer people are moving
• Delayed marriage
• More people are working from home
• More people are going back to school or extending school
• There is a “Boomerang Generation” of young people moving back with their parents
• High youth unemployment is producing a “Sloth Generation”

Regarding the “Sloth Generation,” Rockwell notes that while many of these young people “have never held a job in their lives” he says that is not their fault “for the most part.” Instead, Rockwell lays the blame on government policies: “The economic crisis, child labor laws, socialized educational costs, minimum wages, and a government-imposed culture of prolonged adolescence have combined to deny opportunity to an entire generation.”

Given these trends, Rockwell suggests it is easy to see “how American living standards have been hammered.” He warns that the American Dream is disappearing:

We are witnessing the fall of the American dream, which has always been about having hope in the future. People do not have that hope as they once did. This is a striking fact of our times, one made even more devastating as we look at the economic fundamentals such as the unpayable public debt and the out-of-control spending in Washington and the states that continues to consume vast amounts of private capital.

Rockwell digs deeper and points out that these American Dream-killing trends actually go back several decades to what he calls “the turning point” — the “severing of the dollar’s last link to gold in 1971.” Rockwell argues it was that move that set the United States on the unsustainable path wherein we find ourselves today:

This is the event that set up the explosion of government growth, of credit addiction across the population, of massive malinvestment in housing and many other sectors, of the gutting of American savings, and, most seriously, of the loss of freedom to the national security state.

The consequences of these changes are very serious Rockwell continues:

Long term, our living standards have been eroded in fundamental ways that have a profound cultural effect. The American family once lived well on one income. Now, two incomes is the expected reality. That shift took place following the great inflation of the late 1970s. Many people saw this as the great news that the workplace was being opened up to women. More likely it was not a sign of liberation, but of a dramatic demographic adjustment required to maintain high living standards. And the state didn’t mind: it added millions to the tax rolls. One wonders if “liberation” is really the right word to use for this change.

Such adjustments are ongoing. The hidden tax of inflation combined with the growing regulation of labor markets, makes maintaining the illusion of high living standards ever more difficult. This explains Generation Boomerang, the delay in entering the workforce, the delay of marriage, unemployment among the young, the dashed dreams after graduation, and the advent of the phenomenon of the lifetime student. These fundamental indicators are not reflected in the GDP data, which count government spending as economic growth, and credit-fueled consumption as evidence of rising living standards.

After pointing out these symptoms of underlying problems, Rockwell lays the blame for them squarely on what he calls the “growth of the leviathan state.” It is the massive expansion in government power and reach that is strangling the American Dream:

In every case, we can easily trace these trends to economic realities, which in turn are profoundly affected by government policy trends and monetary policy in particular. Monetary policy is truly the hidden hand behind the strangulation of the American dream. It is the secret force at work that erodes our living standards, funds the growth of the leviathan state, and makes every sector of economic life dependent on rising debt.

But there are other factors at work here too. Antitrust law hobbles business as never before. Taxes drain productivity from corporations, small businesses, and households. Protectionism keeps the best products at the best prices out of the hands of consumers. Edicts issued by a thousand bureaucracies keep American enterprise constantly guessing about the legal climate. Patent mania has created a minefield for innovation in every sector from medicine to software. Imperial wars have drained away capital and labor resources from the private sector.

The leviathan state is the great enemy of American prosperity, the monster that devours wealth. Every bit of economic growth that we experience is due not to the presence of this leviathan, but to the ingenuity of American enterprise in getting around the barriers.

Understanding that last sentence is key to our economic success. But how do American entrepreneurs get around these barriers? Rockwell continues:

To understand how this works, imagine the US economy as a car on a racetrack. Private enterprise, in addition to building the car, provides the fuel, maintenance, and technical innovations that make it run. The government, meanwhile, is in charge of the track, and it puts tacks on the road, increases the sharpness of the turns, and adds speed bumps, as it burns with envy.

In order to keep the car travelling forward at a fast rate, private enterprise has to innovate constantly, adding horsepower, tack-proof tires, and drivers that are ever more skilled. Private enterprise can never rest in its efforts to overcome the ever-intensifying demands on the car and driver. All the while the Federal Reserve stands by to tempt the car’s crew with engine-destroying fuel available at zero price.

Rockwell concludes that the “sad reality” is that there is no “easy way for freedom to triumph today.” Ultimately, “all forms of government intervention, domestic and international” will have to be ended. Rockwell argues that corporate socialism (and all bailouts), the “gargantuan military industrial complex,” and the systems that provide “social security and medical benefits” will have to stop. Rockwell writes:

These three systems of socialism are a main cause of the American bankruptcy. They are absolutely unsustainable. A consistent application of the principle of liberty must take aim at these programs, across the board, with no exceptions.

Rockwell concludes that the resurgence of interest in classic free market economic books “by dead people like Bastiat, Mises, and Hayek” are changing people’s minds. This interest is important since ideas are the “most potent weapon in the struggle between freedom and power.” Since a government’s power “always depends on at least the tacit consent of the governed,” such a renewed interest in free markets, liberty, and limited government is shifting the balance of power to the people and away from big government. Rockwell leaves with a final encouraging thought:

Changing minds can bring a long-lasting victory for freedom, for ourselves and our descendants. Even in the midst of the biggest economic disaster in 70 years, we’ve never had more opportunities to enlighten not only this country but the entire world. It all depends on the actions and choices we make today.

Let us take heart. Let us enlighten ourselves with a thorough understanding of our Constitution, our history, and a consistent view of liberty. Let us share this truth with others. And together, if we follow through, we can rebuild our country and revive the American Dream.

Image credit: federico stevani