LibertyMaryland

The Risk of Entangling Alliances

Thomas Jefferson upon his inauguration recommended peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.

The threats of the modern world do change and sometimes call for signs of solidarity such as the NATO alliance. Created after the Second World War, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s policy where an attack on one is considered an attack on all, made it clear that the free nations of the western world would defend any aggression vigorously and immediately. NATO was the answer for the very real threat posed by the Soviets. Anchored by America, a strong case can be made that NATO prevented World War III.

However, in this century, stubborn expansion of NATO could very well be the cause of World War IV. The nation of Georgia, a former state of the Soviet Union and birthplace of Joseph Stalin, is on a pathway to membership in NATO. Extending promises of mutual protection to countries so far away from any reasoned definition of the “North Atlantic” and greatly at risk of boarder disputes and internal conflict is unwise. If this month’s military action in the Caucuses instead took place two or three years in the future, America could very well find itself in a shooting war with Russia, something every President since Truman has wisely taken great pains to avoid.

I take seriously the advice of our third President. Alliances such as one with Georgia could entangle the United States in a war that we neither want nor are well prepared to fight. On a world stage that differs considerably from the middle of the twentieth century, we should reevaluate the numerous alliances that we are currently in, the deployment of our forces in over 130 nations, and the purpose of NATO. With a stressed economy and military 100% utilized, we cannot afford to look for new dragons to slay by further extending our commitments to far flung regions of the world.

- Richard Matthews

cross posted from RichardMatthews.org

No More Unconstitutional, Undeclared, Preemptive Wars!

I see through the lens of non-interventionism.  We should not intervene in other countries’ affairs, as I certainly would not want China, the U.N., or, for that matter, Israel, intervening in our internal affairs.  In May, Israeli Prime Minister suggested a naval blockade on Iran.  Now, HR 362 and SR 580 call for just that.  International norms recognize a blockade as a declaration of war.

Our cowardly Congress was derelict of duty with Iraq.  They passed a resolution that shrugged their responsibility to discuss the who, where, why, and when a war was necessary to protect our national interest.  The cowards allowed this administration to take our country into war, without the declaration of war from the legislative branch as required by the constitution.  Now we are in a prolonged occupation with over 4000 American soldiers dead, and 900,000 civilians killed, since we destabilized the Iraqi government.

Have we learned nothing?

Pat Buchanan’s commentary, “Who’s Planning Our Next War?”  quotes Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, on his return from a June meeting with Bush. “George Bush understands the severity of the Iranian threat and the need to vanquish it, and intends to act on the matter before the end of his term.”

Buchanan then questions, “Is it not time the American people were consulted on the next war that is being planned for us?”

Congress should stop Bush from ignoring the Constitution’s directive on War Powers.  Before they pass another resolution to unconstitutionally yield their power to the President on paper, or in a naval blockade, they should come clean with the American people.  Their discussion should clearly answer two questions: How does Iran threaten the U.S.?  And, how many Nuclear missiles does Israel have?

Upside-down mortgages

I want to point out this one tiny factor that crops up in every single news story about the recession, housing prices, gas prices, inflation, taxation and probably Obama.

Upside-down mortgages. For those who are blissfully ignorant, an upside-down mortgage is when someone owes more money on their mortgage than the house is “worth.”

In other words, Mr. and Mrs. Nervous J. Panic decide, at the very height of the housing market, to buy a house for $500,000. A year before, the house was $410,000, and 5 years ago, it was $250,000 - but no matter, Mr. and Mrs. Panic are happy to buy the house for $500,000.

They’re enthusiastic, in fact, because in 5 years, the “value” of the house has doubled. Now that’s an investment anyone can bank on. In another 5 years, they’ll be sitting on a million dollars!

And it is a nice house. After all, it’s half a million dollars, ipso facto.

But then a year later, they go to refinance their mortgage because they’ve just discovered that their adjustable rate mortgage has somehow adjusted itself higher. That’s strange. Well, no matter… Continue reading Upside-down mortgages…

Freedom Slate ‘08

Trevor Lyman’s Break the Matrix project is setting up a Money Bomb for Liberty Candidates nationwide. More importantly, Kurt Wallace is interviewing each candidate so that you can find out more about them. Some of our bloggers have already been interviewed, and you can listen to them after they are aired on Break the Matrix TV at the Freedom Slate ‘08 site.

Proposal: Veterans Tax Reform and Relief

A major plank of the Richard Matthews campaign for Congress is tax reform. Not only do we Americans pay too much, but the primary method of taxation is oppressive to our dignity and provides excessive policy authority to our Federal Government. Tax simplification is a major thrust of this campaign and should be a focus of the Republican Party.

Bureaucratic overhaul never being a pretty sight, and always taking longer than desired, Matthews will propose a quicker partial remedy on our way to full tax reform. Upon election Richard Matthews will introduce and/or sponsor a bill in congress to exempt all military retirement pay from Federal Income tax. If any class deserves tax simplification and relief first it is our veterans.
Continue reading Proposal: Veterans Tax Reform and Relief…

The Isle of Jekyll - where a handful of the richest men in existence secretly plotted the creation of the Federal Reserve

What’s the Federal Reserve? Most folks will tell you it’s a large, complex, central banking system headed by a small group of elite economists and bankers that control every aspect of the United States money system.

But most folks probably don’t know how it got started.

I found out when I made a recent business trip to Jekyll Island - a small island off the coast of Georgia. It’s a remarkable place with lots of natural beauty, a great golf course and huge Golden-Age era mansions. They filmed “The Legend of Bagger Vance” there to give you an idea.

I played a few games of tennis on the best clay courts I’ve ever laid eyes on.

During the conference, my coworkers and I were treated to elegant multi-course meals, complimentary cigars and more single-cask bourbon than I would care to remember.

We stayed at the Jekyll Island Clubhouse, the original building where 7 men (one Senator and the 6 richest men on the planet) met - in secret, with fake names, no less - to lay out plans for the Federal Reserve. Continue reading The Isle of Jekyll - where a handful of the richest men in existence secretly plotted the creation of the Federal Reserve…

Alcohol and Other Drugs

Alcohol was prohibited at the federal level for fourteen years. However unsuccessful the government agents were, in stopping drinking, they did succeed in suppressing civil liberties. The Prohibition Era has been credited with wiretapping, and warrantless searches of private homes. When the American people got fed up with their rights being trampled, they organized and supported candidates who pledged to erase the Prohibition Amendment from the Constitution. When they succeeded, most states legalized the distribution and sale of liquor, and criminal gangs dominating the trade went out of business. The repeal of a bad law accomplished what the indiscriminate use of force and tax money could never do: the end of criminal trade in liquor.

When misused, alcohol is still a deadly drug, and human weakness and disease enable alcohol to destroy families. We live in a society though, that strives to be free with minimal local regulations. The federal prohibition against alcohol became a prohibition against liberty.

Illegal drugs, or our government’s attempt to solve the problems resulting from these substances has affected many Americans. These substances known as “drugs” are not all equally dangerous. In the late 1960’s the anti-war, anti-government mentality was endemic, resulting in a popular anti-establishment statement of marijuana use. Medical marijuana is the easiest example of how liberty and common sense blend. Full drug legalization though, is the tough question. Drug laws against physically addictive substances may be necessary, but at the federal level? Constitutionally, the federal government does not seem to have this power.

As a father of four, and a grandfather of two, I understand the fear associated with raising families in this culture. Having practiced dentistry twenty-five years in Baltimore City, I have witnessed patients merely existing from one drug program to another. Any substance that disassociates someone from truth, whether it is alcohol or some other drug, is counterproductive. But, is it the Federal Government’s role to declare war on it, and is the war working? I would call for a study of how to transition from a federal war on drugs, to a system that would support liberties, protect our citizens, and encourage a sober populace. This should be a State matter, not Federal.

Free Talk Live

Free Talk Live is a liberty oriented talk show syndicated out of New Hampshire. The hosts Ian and Mark are members of the Free State Project, a project with the goal of moving thousands of liberty activist to one state to better affect the politics of that state. The show is not broadcast in this area but you can listen to it via live stream and podcast. I have enjoyed listening to the show for the past few months and I thought I would pass along the recommendation to you.

One interesting topic on the show recently was a civil disobedience event that they were planning along with the Free State Project activists. To protest hypocritical New Hampshire state laws against gambling they are going to hold an open poker game out side in a public area. This is intended to be a challenge to the local authorities to see if they will arrest the participants. They intend to challenge in court the laws against allowing members of the public to take wagers with each other, while simultaneously allowing the public to take wagers with the state in the form of the lottery. Even if they are not successful in court, they hope to point out the hypocrisy of the situation to the general public with any media coverage they may garner.

I applaud these Free State Activist in these activities. Seeing as we in Maryland live in the state that has as its actual official motto “The Free State”, is this a type of activity that we could emulate? What public civil disobedience type event might the liberty community suggest? Please comment below.

The Iranian Problem

With Iran being presented much the same way Iraq and Saddam Hussein were in the past, and with it receiving so much attention in the 2008 presidential campaign, reason needs to be presented to counter our march to unnecessary war. You won’t hear reason from any of the media-loved Republicans on this issue (Romney, Huckabee, Giuliani, or McCain) , nor will you hear it from the media-chosen Democrats (Clinton, Obama etc).

America’s policy on nuclear proliferation in Iran specifically, and Iran’s influence in the middle east in general, brings out the worst of American imperialist politics. First, America needs to step back from “pre-emption“. That is, the policy of invading or taking military action against a country we “think” might be planning to harm our “interests”. Pre-emption is a code word for imperialism. It means that we can attack anyone we think might be looking at us funny, as “interests” are so loosely defined as to make anything permissible. The only acceptable cause for using military force is to defend life or property of our citizens. Anything else opens up the slippery slope we have too often slid down, to our own peril and harm.

When a politician is asked, “Will you allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons if you are president?”, it would be refreshing and give hope for peace and freedom if the politician would answer “it is not my place, or the place of our country to decide who can have what weapons”. Unless we are currently at war with another country, we are overstepping our rights as human beings, when we presume to tell them how they can defend themselves. We are setting ourselves at a higher position, that of demi-gods or imperials lords, when we attempt to control others in such a manner. This is bad for freedom, bad for human dignity, and bad for our own souls.

Further, if one studies history, and understands why Iran and the United States are at odds today, one can see that the problem may not be intractable. Indeed, all the arguments made by our mainstream politicians regarding the sanity of the Iranian government and religious leaders totally ignores the fact that China, and Russia, and plenty of other countries are not terrified by that Iranian government. Continue reading The Iranian Problem…

The Second Amendment

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” — Second Amendment of the United States Constitution

This to me is a very simply explained concept and well written amendment.

In order to secure liberty it could be necessary for the people to defend it with arms from an enemy, foreign or domestic. In addition to the security realities of the day, I believe that the intent of the founders was to create the ultimate of the many checks and balances in the Constitution via this amendment.

There are of course many reasons for a free person to desire to own a firearm. Hunting is the cherished past time of many regions and families. Marksmanship is a sport of Olympic stature. Great enjoyment is found by those who collect and care for firearms. Of course protection of one’s home and the safety of one’s family is of paramount concern to many gun owners. All of the issues I listed are enough to convince me that our Constitution’s position on arms is correct. Free people, in the exercise of their liberty, should be able to do any activity so long as that activity does not conflict with another person’s exercise of their own liberty.

However, what is actually the substantive point of this issue and this cherished amendment, is that by allowing the citizens to remain armed this preserves their right to give consent to be governed. Without the clearly defined rights in the Second Amendment, the people lose the ability to rebel and therefore lose their ability to consent to be governed. Reductions of the strength of the Second Amendment via legislation is contrary to the revolutionary spirit of our nation’s founding. I feel those who signed the Declaration of Independence would look on with scorn at those who attempt to cheapen the significance of these concerns.

I am anxious to read the Supreme Court’s opinion in District of Columbia vs. Heller. Regardless of that opinion and its affect on the regulations of the states, I will not vote for any additional Federal regulation of firearms if elected to Congress and will work to rescind the majority of those on the books.

- Richard Matthews

Originally posted February 8th, 2008