Today America is in grave danger.
Criminal bailouts costly unconstitutional wars mounting debt out of control spending placed all of its Citizens facing an uncertain future.

What is the answer?

CLEAN THE HOUSE!

The people elect its servants.
The people must speak out loud and act in the blessed defence of their rights and the Liberty of the future generations of men women and children so we can all be proud saying:
We Are Free People! We Are Americans!

Jake Towne Clean The House Money Bomb September 14

Donate = Freedom!
http://towneforcongress.com/

Song to inspire you:
Jordan Page *Pendulum*
http://www.libertypoet.com/libertymusic/pendulum/

On the face of it that title sounds ridiculous considering that legalizing drugs would reduce crime by doing away with those laws that cause it to be a crime to begin with but don’t tell that to the drug warriors.

The drug warriors over at the DEA will tell you that legalizing any drug will cause crime to skyrocket because there will be more addicts. At first that almost sounds like a reasonable argument but when you look closer you find that that argument falls apart.

When Portugal legalized the possession of all drugs they saw a sharp decrease in use especially among teens for a full decade. In Switzerland where they changed their policy regarding Heroin to one of treating heroin addiction as a health issue rather than a criminal one they saw a 60% reduction in criminal activity among addicts. In Amsterdam where the over the counter sale of Marijuana has been tolerated for years use among teenagers is significantly lower than it is in the US where harsh penalties should,according to the drug warriors,deter it.

Added to that ever expanding list of evidence against prohibition is the just announced closing of 8 major prisons in Holland because they “suffer” from a lack of crime.

Read more: http://www.bukisa.com/articles/346921_dutch-prove-legalizing-drugs-reduces-crime#ixzz0yOPnaRC7

Amid much fanfare last week, the last supposed “combat” troops left Iraq as the administration touted the beginning of the end of the Iraq War and a change in the role of the United States in that country. Considering the continued public frustration with the war effort, and with the growing laundry list of broken promises, this was merely another one of the administration’s operations in political maneuvering and semantics in order to convince an increasingly war-weary public that the Iraq War is at last ending. However, military officials confirm that we are committed to intervention in that country for years to come, and our operations have in fact, changed minimally, if really at all.

After eight long draining years, I have to wonder if our government even understands what it is to end a war anymore. The end of a war, to most people, means all the troops come home, out of harm’s way. It means we stop killing people and getting killed. It means we stop sending troops and armed personnel over and draining our treasury for military operations in that foreign land. But much like the infamous “mission accomplished” moment of the last administration, this “end” of the war also means none of those things.

50,000 US troops remain in Iraq, and they are still receiving combat pay. One soldier was killed in Basra just last Sunday, after the supposed end of combat operations, and the same day 5,000 men and women of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment at Fort Hood were deployed to Iraq. Their mission will be anything but desk duty. Among other things they will accompany the Iraqi military on dangerous patrols, continue to be involved in the hunt for terrorists, and provide air support for the Iraqi military. They should be receiving combat pay, because they will be serving a combat role!

Of course the number of private contractors — who perform many of the same roles as troops, but for a lot more money — is expected to double. So this is a funny way of ending combat operations in Iraq. We are still meddling in their affairs and we are still putting our men and women in danger, and we are still spending money we don’t have. This looks more like an escalation than a draw-down to me!

The ongoing war in Iraq takes place against a backdrop of economic crisis at home, as fresh numbers indicate that our economic situation is as bad as ever, and getting worse! Our foreign policy is based on an illusion: that we are actually paying for it. What we are doing is borrowing and printing the money to maintain our presence overseas. Americans are seeing the cost of this irresponsible approach as our economic decline continues. Unemployed Americans have been questioning a policy that ships hundreds of billions of dollars overseas while their own communities crumble and their frustration is growing. An end to this type of foreign policy is way overdue.

A return to the traditional American foreign policy of active private engagement and non-interventionism is the only alternative that can restore our moral and fiscal health.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=1086

TEHRAN — Iran has transferred assets out of European banks in its latest effort to defend itself against the effects of sanctions that are part of what Iranian officials have called an “economic war” against the country by the United States and other Western countries.

Iran’s “Central Bank had previously specified a list of its banking reserves in Europe and has transferred them,” the bank’s governor, Mahmoud Bahmani, was quoted as saying by Iran’s semiofficial Fars news agency on Saturday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/30/business/global/30iran.html

I like to think of freedom as a natural river. It creates and develops its own course while adjusting to storms and other barriers that may present themselves over time. The river may choose to run off into countless tributaries, just as various human civilizations throughout history have chosen to pursue different goals. However, all those tributaries come from the same source somewhere high in the mountains no matter how far they may stray during their journey to the sea. The many smaller streams cover wide portions of land and make their own paths, but they are all part of that initial head river.

Think of the government as a dam in this scenario. A group of enlightened, flawless, and selfless people (kidding) with the greatest of intentions decide the river is best served by molding it into a lake by creating a dam. The freedom of the river is impeded, but the source and flow of the river remains the same (however minor and ignored it may be). This is a key concept to grasp when trying to understand freedom and the free market. No matter how much government intervenes in the marketplace and civil liberties of individuals, the natural forces of freedom are always at work. A dam may hinder the river’s progress, but no matter how big the dam the natural river will always maintain its usual flow. In other words, no matter how grand and daunting the government may appear, the natural flows of freedom will always be in the background chipping away at the inevitable flaws of a nanny state.

This is exactly why every communist, socialist, and any other big government society built on coercion either has or always will fail. These governments are built and survive purely on force and coercion. You’d be hard pressed to find a government that could remain intact were people allowed to choose whether or not to support it with their lives and labor. People naturally choose freedom and liberty, and collective government force is the dam to that natural course.

Freedom is the only “system” built on the assumption of human change and creativity. Government programs lock people unnaturally into one way of thinking; governments do their best to convince us that they just need a little more power over the people to end some sort of misery in the world. Governments also attempt to plant the idea that without them the whole world would enter sheer and utter chaos, as if governments haven’t already been able to achieve that with countless wars, displacement and slaughter of millions of people, and now the buildup of trillions of dollars of debt and worthless paper money to pay for bankrupt and corrupt systems.

Regardless of your political or economic views, true sustainable change will only come through freedom on an individual level. Change will not come from these central geniuses who somehow are qualified to solve all of humanities problems; change will come from individuals on a local scale utilizing their unique creative expressions. Top down movements never last because they are not built by the people for whom they are intended. Freedom’s beauty is that it unleashes individual creativity in ways that a government bureaucrat could not begin to comprehend. Freedom gives people the chance to create the life and world they want to live in; it doesn’t force them into a Utopian society as imagined by a few politicians and bureaucrats. One of the odd things that crosses my mind as a 17 year old is: why am I forced to pay taxes (when I haven’t even been able to vote yet) for programs created before my grandparents were born, by some politicians I never would have supported, all of which will probably be bankrupt within the next 20 years? At least I can look forward to voting on the next crook who will manage my own money even though he didn’t do a thing to earn it.

As farmer, lecturer, and author Joel Salatin explains in his book Everything I Want To Do Is Illegal, government laws currently discourage local cooperative farms, sustainable living techniques, and even prevent people from building a house less than 900 square feet. Both national and local government laws, regulations, and codes prevent individual creativity and actual change from being unleashed as it would in a true free market situation. The primary side effect of all government intervention is that the state essentially mandates that things be done a certain way, no questions asked. You either farm this way or it’s illegal. You either build the house this way or it’s illegal. You want to grow hemp and use it for ethanol, plastics, and clothing? Sorry, it’s illegal. What kind of a boring, confining, pitiful setup is this? Such a system is guaranteed to put a damper on the creativity and ingenuity of individuals, and that is exactly what it does.

Remember that each individual in this world is unique in some way, shape, or form. You can try to put the perfect system on paper, who will manage it, how you will enforce it, how you’re going to have everyone else pay for your perfect system, and what you’ll do to people who don’t accept your line of thinking. Now consider; is the most successful social system or principle going to be the one that uses a top down, bureaucratic, centralized power approach? Or is it going to be the one that encourages individual creativity, responsibility, and initiative? Most likely the latter will appear more attractive. In reality, all you need to achieve these honorable goals is one simple but very powerful tool: freedom. A society built from the ground up on the daily voluntary interactions of free individuals. That is where real change will begin.

This clip from Jon Stewart summarizes my thoughts on the Ground Zero Mosque controversy. This is not an issue for government and in the process brings up the issue of individual rights vs. collective rights. The mosque property was legitimately purchased and it is up to owners alone to decide how to develop that property. For some it is a negative reminder of 9/11, while for others it is a holy place of worship. The test of liberty comes when someone wants to do something that goes against your ethics or beliefs. As Ron Paul, Jesse Ventura, and others heading the freedom movement today have said; it is not popular ideas that need protection, but rather unpopular ideas. One of the major challenges of freedom is knowing you are not going to get your way every time, as any rational human being would know after living in this world for a day. Freedom lets us do what we like but at the same time we must tolerate actions and ideas we might not necessarily connect with. Voluntary exchange in a free market joins ideas and cultures together in a cooperative way that governments couldn’t dream to achieve.

As a vegetarian I don’t necessarily “appreciate” the display of meat on nearly every fast food outlet’s windows, but it doesn’t give me or the government the right to physically prevent the restaurant owner from operating and developing his property as he sees fit. My personal preferences, ethics, and morals are not used as an excuse to take away an owner’s right of using, developing, and advertising his restaurant. Every individual has different morals and beliefs, and it is not up to government to choose one way or another. Ideas must flow free, they cannot be compartmentalized and narrowed as the state often manages to accomplish with its endeavors. If I don’t eat meat, I don’t buy meat. The store still has every right to advertise as it sees fit, and I can choose for myself whether they have a product worth buying or not. Freedom is choice, you have to be responsible and understand that not everyone sees the world as you do.

Those passionately protesting the mosque are essentially asking government to interfere in private property in order to better serve the morals and values of the people of New York City. Government is the last entity you want organizing taste, morals, and ethics. If so many people are downright opposed to the mosque, the last thing that would be necessary is government intervention to block development of the land. Obviously the only way the mosque could productively survive is if people choose to worship there. As with any business or private organization in a free society, the final regulation is up to individuals. The fate of a project lies the hands of individuals, not central bureaucrats disconnected from society and reality. If the mosque is really being put up as an “in-your-face” to America by radical Muslims and no one actually wants to worship there, it’s going to take a substantial amount of money to maintain. An organization cannot survive without support, yet these protesters believe that once the mosque is built it will be there for good. It may be there for awhile, but only if it has legitimate support and consistent worshipers. Without support, it will be a financial burden to maintain. Such is the natural process of rewarding productivity in a free market.

This is no different than if a Christian church branch opened up exclusively for one-legged peach farmers. Such a church will likely fail because there aren’t many one-legged peach farmers to go around in the first place. If there is demand for a mosque in New York City, so be it. Obviously they feel there are enough Muslims in the area to make it a worthwhile endeavor. Are you really going to get so incensed because a group of people want to worship in a particular way? Such a misguided view of intolerance and discrimination is exactly what leads to the disintegration of freedom and liberty.

With our time, labor, and money we are “voting.” We support certain businesses and groups and withhold our money from other organizations. I choose not to support meat producers and instead make the choice to spend my money on vegetarian and meatless products. In a free market voluntary exchange based on individual needs and preferences keeps regulatory power in the hands of individuals. Government regulation uses collective force to take away individual power and choice and instead give it to a select few bureaucrats who are appointed to make certain decisions for the rest of the people. Whether it be the ability to confiscate income or make the final decision on the mosque at Ground Zero, the issue at hand is one of principle. Do we really want to entrust our power as individuals to bureaucrats who haven’t even been elected by the people? In a new age of creativity how does a powerful central government help the people more than it destroys their creativity, productivity, and natural organization? Government hinders freedom. Government blocks creativity. Government survives only through coercion, and that coercion comes at the expense of our lives, liberty, and property.

It is time that we choose liberty over government. It is time that we stop treating ourselves like children and acknowledge the risk and responsibility that inevitably comes with freedom, but it is a small price to pay to be free. Without this understanding in principle, the mosque protesters cannot expect to achieve anything worthwhile. Avoid the uncreative and coercive trap of government and choose tolerance, responsibility, and freedom!

This is a very important distinction for libertarian minded conservatives to keep in mind as the elections near.

So here’s the question: Why do these conservative politicians make a distinction between the kind of spending and not the amount of spending?

My theory:

If these Republicans admitted that cutting spending, in general, would lead to a quicker economic recovery, they would have to face the reality that cutting military spending would be just as beneficial to our economy as cutting the pork that was passed under the guise of stimulus.

In fact, this hypocrisy would be even more blatant once a libertarian minded conservative (which I am not, but I like their company), considered how vastly better off our economy would be today had these same conservatives not supported the endless Middle East wars.

Palin/Gingrich/McCain/Beck/Limbaugh/etc.. can not argue for a total cut in spending without admitting culpability in the current economic state of America.

I open this to your thoughts, whether you agree of disagree.

In New York, several blocks from the former site of the World Trade Center, an Islamic center and mosque is being considered. As a federal representative, it is my duty to defend the Constitution and the natural right to religious freedom as protected by the First Amendment. This freedom has its roots in how America was first settled by European religious outcasts.

Therefore my stance is that if built on private property and approved by the local authorities, the citizens building the center are perfectly free to do so. I am sure the builders realize the impact of their actions, and the careful, sensitive path they will realistically need to tread if they choose to continue.

However, due to some minor misinterpretations of my position in the front page article in today’s Morning Call, I would like to elaborate:

9/11 remains a great scar on America’s soul. However, the fact remains that the threat of suicide terrorism is enhanced – NOT lessened – by the conventional armies stationed abroad in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Suicide terrorism is not caused by religious “fundamentalism.” Instead, suicide terrorist groups have a secular and strategic goal in mind – to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland. Period. Religion is NOT the root cause, and is mainly employed as a tool for recruitment and highlighting differences with the “invaders” from the native community. (I highly recommend reading Dr. Robert Pape’s “Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism” as academia’s best scientific study of suicide terrorism, see the video below.)

Again, Islamic fundamentalism was not the root cause of 9/11 or even suicide terrorism in general. This myth is just as nonsensical as blaming the religion and morals I was raised under, Catholicism, as the root cause of IRA (Irish Republican Army) car bombings in Northern Ireland. Even if the mainstream media has permitted this prejudice to pervade the public consciousness, this logic is nonsense.

For instance, Hezbollah’s first (and highly successful from their point of view) suicide terrorism campaign resulted in 241 Marine fatalities. This led to the rapid and complete withdraw of US Marines and French military forces from Lebanon in 1983. However, only 8 of the 38 identified Hezbollah suicide terrorists practiced Islam. The others either practiced Christianity or were secular.  (Source: Pape’s book)

Specifically, Osama Bin Laden and his ilk follow Salafism which is a perversion of Islam. Al-Qaeda perverts the concept of jihad into a “holy war” that rationalizes the murder of innocent civilians. It is my understanding that those of the Shia and Sunni Islamic faiths in the United States peacefully believe in “jihad” as literally a “struggle” to maintain faith and piety in a greater sense, and in the right to personal self-defense when attacked in a lesser sense.

Of course, while speaking of the murder of innocent civilians, Americans must refuse the role of naive bystanders. We must realize hundreds of thousands of innocents have been killed in Iraq, and tens of thousands in Afghanistan. A huge percentage of these violent deaths were caused by our military. We must realize that the deaths of 5,642 American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan in unconstitutional, preemptive wars of aggression IN NO WAY compensates for the deaths of those that died on 9/11.  Only the capture and trial of those responsible for 9/11 can in some way compensate for this tragedy.

The only effective and proper solution to defeat suicide terrorists is to capture the current generation and prevent the next generation from being created from collateral damage and blowback. Capture of the current generation will best be attained by small special ops forces acting under constitutional letters of marque and reprisal as explained here. Raising the reward for the capture of 9/11 criminals is also necessary, but also note that the American military believes there is less than 100 Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.

American soldiers are dying NOW in far-flung deserts and mountains EVERY DAY. These brave men and women have written a check for up to and including their lives to defend their country. These checks are being cashed out into coffins in what I believe to be a negligent and fruitless manner.

If we aspire to be a just nation ruled by laws we must resolve to never ask our military men and women to engage in unconstitutional warfare and nation-building missions.

I do not wish to see the day when not only essential civil liberties are revoked by the PATRIOT Act – as they are today, not only when more than 1 in 8 Americans are living on food stamps – as they are today, and not only when employment is crushed by the economic suppression of the federal government – as it is today, but religious freedom is also lost.

I saw firsthand the evils the lack of liberty brings when I lived abroad in communist China, and I’ll be damned if I do nothing to stop these very same evils in my home country.

We must stop the endless debt and the endless wars.  Yours in liberty,
Jake Towne