We The People Brings Federal Lawsuit to Stop AIG Bailout

On the day following the 221st anniversary of the signing of the U.S. Constitution, WTP Chairman and constitutional activist Robert Schulz today filed a federal lawsuit in United States District Court in Albany seeking to halt the execution of the emergency bailout of American International Group, Inc. (AIG) by the United States Government and the Federal Reserve.

The lawsuit asserts that the commitment of public funds and credit for the direct benefit of privately owned AIG is an ultra vires action by the United States Government and Federal Reserve, i.e., beyond the limited legal authority granted by the Constitution. The lawsuit asks for a "show cause" hearing demanding that the Government produce evidence of its legal authority to commit public funds for such a purpose, as well as emergency and permanent injunctions halting the bailout transaction.

Beyond the Constitutional deficiencies, the bailout establishes a dangerous precedent enabling the Fed and/or Government to nationalize virtually any business or property within the United States without legal authority or congressional approval.

The defendants include the Federal Reserve System, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, the U.S. Treasury, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson Jr. and the United States Government.

The WTP Foundation today issued a press release citing Schulz:

"Beyond the moral hazard and dangerous precedent established by this action, it is of vital importance that the American people recognize that the present financial crisis is a direct and predictable result of decades of constitutional violations by the Federal Government. Through a long-standing policy of disinformation and collusion with the Federal Reserve and Wall Street financial elite, the United States Federal Government has denied public access to information about the secretive operations of the privately owned and operated Federal Reserve and its monopoly control of America's money system.

"This monopoly control of our currency by a private banking cartel has resulted in increasing distortion, volatility and cyclical (boom and bust) economic conditions in the U.S. and abroad. America's fiat currency (produced from thin air) is manipulated by the Federal Reserve for the benefit of its owners, major Wall Street financial institutions and the Federal Government and is not unaccountable to the taxpayers. These abuses of the Constitution have taken our financial system to edge of the abyss. The chickens have come home to roost."

Press Release: http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/PROJECTS/AIG/AIG-PressReleaseSept18-2008.pdf

Complaint: http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/PROJECTS/AIG/AIG-Complaint-9-18-08.pdf

Memorandum of Law: http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/PROJECTS/AIG/AIG-MemoLawSupptTRO-9-18-08.pdf

Affidavidit in support of complaint: http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/PROJECTS/AIG/AIG-Decl-Schulz-9-18-08.pdf

545 People

By Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget.

The president does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations.

The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country. I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.

If the Marines are in IRAQ , it's because they want them in IRAQ .

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.

They, and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

Benz Speaks! 3 ways to lower gas prices

Newt Gingrich speaks on Congress's role in the continuing energy crisis and ways that the American people can help turn the tide on rising energy prices.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=UOpcPfAarjY

Benz Speaks! How much is a billion?

This is too true to be funny.

The next time you hear a politician use the word 'billion' in a casual manner, think about whether you want the 'politicians' spending YOUR tax money

A billion is a difficult number to comprehend,but one advertising agency did a good job of putting that figure into some perspective in one of it's releases.

A billion seconds ago it was 1959.
A billion minutes ago Jesus was alive.
A billion hours ago our ancestors were living in the Stone Age.
A billion days ago no-one walked on the earth on two feet.

A billion dollars ago was only
8 hours and 20 minutes,
at the rate our government
is spending it.

While this thought is still fresh in our brain...
let's take a look at New Orleans ...
It's amazing what you can learn with some simple division.

Louisiana Senator,
Mary Landrieu (D)
is presently asking Congress for
250 BILLION DOLLARS
to rebuild New Orleans ..

Interesting number...
what does it mean?
Well... if you are one of the 484,674 residents of New Orleans
(every man, woman, and child)
you each get $516,528

Or... if you have one of the 188,251 homes in New Orleans , your home gets $1,329,787.
Or... if you are a family of four...
your family gets $2,066,012.

Politicians and Bureaucrats, wherever you are

Are all your calculators broken??

Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL License Tax
Cigarette Tax Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax
Hunting License Tax Inheritance Tax Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax)
IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax Luxury Tax Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Property Tax Real Estate Tax
Service charge taxes
Social Security Tax Road Usage Tax (Truckers) Sales Taxes Recreational Vehicle Tax
School Tax State Income Tax State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Tax
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Tax
Vehicle License Registration Tax Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax

STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY

Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago...and our nation was the most prosperous in the world.

We had absolutely no national debt...

We had the largest middle class in the world...

and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.

What happened?

Can you spell 'politicians!'

And I still have to press '1' for English.

I hope this goes around the USA at least 100 times

What the heck happened????

James Madison on Enemies of Public Liberty

Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. . . . [There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and . . . degeneracy of manners and of morals. . . . No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
-James Madison

Will the Right Sit It Out?

by Patrick J. Buchanan

April 29, 2008

If John McCain wins the presidency, his comeback -- after the bankrupt debacle his campaign had become in the summer of 2007 with his backing of the amnesty bill -- will be the stuff of legend.

And as nominee, he is entitled to conduct his own campaign and be cut slack by a party whose brand name is now Enron.

That said, McCain seems to have decided to win by love-bombing the Big Media and putting miles between himself and the base.

Consider his "Forgotten Places" tour of last week.

It began in Selma, Ala., where McCain went to Edmund Pettis Bridge to hail John Lewis and the marchers night-sticked and hosed down by the Alabama State Troopers on the Montgomery march for voting rights.

Now that was a seminal movement in the fight for civil rights.

But this is not 1965. Today, John Lewis is a big dog in the "No-Whites-Need-Apply!" Black Caucus. The Rev. Jeremiah Wright is sermonizing White America. The Rev. Al Sharpton is trying to shut down the Big Apple. And the fight for equal rights is being led by Ward Connerly.

With no help from McCain, Connerly is trying to put on five state ballots a Civil Rights Initiative that declares white men are also equal and not to be denied their civil rights because of the color of their skin.

And where does McCain stand?

From Selma, McCain went to the Gee's Bend Quilters Collective, where black ladies make the famous blankets. The stop could not but call to mind the hundreds of thousands of textile and apparel jobs in the Carolinas and Georgia lost after NAFTA and Most-Favored Nation for China, both of which McCain enthusiastically supported.

McCain's next stop was Inez, Ky., where LBJ declared war on poverty. But LBJ's war was a politically motivated scheme to shift wealth and power to government, which led to a pathological dependency among America's poor, his own abdication and Ronald Reagan's 1980 campaign against Big Government that ushered in the Conservative Decade.

McCain then went to New Orleans to backhand Bush for failing to act swiftly to rescue the victims of Katrina.

But the real failure of New Orleans was of the corrupt and incompetent regime of Mayor Ray Nagin and the men of New Orleans, who left 30,000 women and children stranded in a sea of stagnant water.

No doubt Bush hit the snooze button, but why the piling on?

Then McCain headed up to Youngstown, Ohio, to tell the folks their jobs are never coming back and NAFTA was a sweet deal.

But why, when America's mini-mills and steel mills are among the most efficient on earth -- in terms of man hours needed to produce a ton of steel -- aren't those jobs coming back?

Answer: It is due to the free-trade policies of Bush and McCain, which permit trade rivals to impose value-added taxes of 15 percent to 20 percent on steel imports from the United States while rebating those taxes on steel exports to the United States. We are getting it in the neck coming and going.

An America First trade and tax policy could have U.S. steel mills rising again, while those in Japan, China, Russia and Brazil would be shutting down as uncompetitive in the U.S. market.

But we no longer put America first.

The U.S. government burns its incense at the altar of the Global Economy. The losers are those guys in Youngstown McCain was lecturing on the beauty of NAFTA. And the winners are the CEOs who pull down seven-, eight- and even nine-figure annual packages selling out their country for the corporation.

Does McCain think $6 trillion in trade deficits since NAFTA, a dollar rotting away and 3.5 million manufacturing jobs lost under Bush was all inevitable? Does he think we can do nothing to stop the deindustrialization of a country that used to produce 96 percent of all it consumed?

Why should those guys in Youngstown vote for McCain?

So the feds can teach them how to shovel snow?

Even Hillary, whose husband did NAFTA with Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole's help, now gets it.

Then McCain took a time out to denounce the North Carolina GOP for ads tying the Rev. Wright to Obama, and the pair to two Democratic congressional candidates. To their credit, the North Carolinians told McCain where to get off and are running the ads.

What does a McCain victory mean for conservatives?

Probably a veto on tax hikes and perhaps a fifth justice like Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito or John Roberts, to turn two pair into a full house. Fifty years after Warren, it could be game, set, match for the right.

But McCain may also mean more Middle East wars, more bellicosity, more manufacturing jobs lost, malingering in the culture wars, and more illegal aliens and amnesty.

In Pennsylvania, thousands of Republicans re-registered to vote Democratic, and 27 percent of the GOP votes went to Mike Huckabee or Ron Paul. McCain may just stretch this rubber band so far it snaps back in his face.

Stopping Illegal Immigration: Focusing on Jobs

Rod Jetton

Last week, I wrote about how states can help stop illegal immigration by eliminating the incentives and rewards for people who jump our borders. I focused on making sure that only legal immigrants are allowed to attend our public colleges and universities. This week, I want to look at how we can stop the flow of illegal aliens into Missouri by making it harder for them to find employment.

Now, this issue can be a little tricky. First, we can't tolerate businesses and employers who go out trolling for illegal workers just to improve their bottom line. At the same time, we don't want to destroy honest employers who don't know they have illegal aliens in their workforce. And, we don't want to run off hard working immigrants who do everything right and come to this country through the proper channels.

Cracking down on employers who intentionally hire illegal aliens is a no-brainer. But what about those employers who accidentally hire illegal immigrants? Think it can't happen? Ask yourself one question, how would you know if one of your workers was here illegally? Remember, illegal aliens come in all shapes, colors and accents. You'd have to rely on the federal government to help you out. But, right now, they're just not very helpful.

I was told about one employer who hired three workers. When they turned in their paper work, the employer noticed their Social Security numbers were sequential. In other words, their Social Security numbers were exactly the same except for the last digit. This should have been impossible.

The employer called the federal government and asked them what to do. He was told not to fire the workers because he could get sued. That employer was in a bind. He was pretty sure he had illegal aliens working for him, but the federal government has specifically told him he couldn't do anything about it.I

f you are an honest employer what are you supposed to do? We can't force our businesses, especially our smaller employers, to serve as the INS. They don't have the resources or time.

To solve this problem, the federal government needs to work with the states to develop a quick and reliable way to check the immigration status of potential workers. This way, honest employers can avoid hiring illegal immigrants and dishonest businesses will have no excuse to hide behind.

The number one reason people come to America illegally is to find a job. By helping employers identify illegal aliens we can make it virtually impossible for illegal immigrants to find work. As the jobs dry up, so should our illegal immigration crisis.

Rod Jetton is Speaker of the Missouri House of Representatives

email rod.jetton@house.mo.gov.

Speaker Rod Jetton,

201 W. Capitol Ave

Jefferson City, MO 65101

Mexamerica, Here We Come

by Patrick J Buchanan


Have Americans, one wonders, fully reflected on what the Bush amnesty portends for the country their children will grow up in?

Consider what Bush is saying with this amnesty for 8 million to 12 million illegal aliens and his “guest workers” program to allow employers to go overseas and hire people anywhere in the world for jobs Americans will not, or cannot take at the wages offered.


He is saying: I cannot defend our border. I will not enforce the laws. I will not send illegal aliens back. And as I cannot stop this invasion of the United States, I intend to legalize it.


Bush is not only rewarding millions of law-breakers and gate-crashers, he is erasing the border with Mexico. Mexamerica is our future. The United States is going to become a giant Brazil. Bush is saying there is no way to stop it ,therefore, we must embrace it.


Ethnically and racially, this means an America that is no longer a First World country. Third World people of color will be the majority in two decades. Americans whose forefathers came from Europe, 90 percent of the population in 1960, will be a shrinking minority by 2040. For not only are the birth rates of white Americans lower than those of immigrants, the new immigrants will be from the Third World.


Economically, Bush is throwing American workers ,white, black, Asian, Hispanic, into a Darwinian survival-of-the-fittest struggle for jobs with foreigners willing to do sweat-shop labor for wages that cannot sustain an American family.


Winners will be the economic elites who will benefit from low prices produced by cheap labor and from having a vast proletariat to do the chores at their homes, country clubs, ski lodges, restaurants, parking garages, vacation spas and yacht basins.


Losers will be American workers who have to compete for jobs with folks for whom $5.15 an hour is pay undreamed of back home in the Caribbean, Nigeria or Mexico.


Politically, our welfare state will explode. The Bush plan will convert America from the middle-class country we grew up in into a nation with a huge proletariat with a rising claim on our tax dollars for more schools, courts, cops, hospitals, parks, roads and prisons.

If you would know America’s future, look at California. In the 1990s, for the first time since the Spanish arrived, California saw an out-migration of native-born Americans, white and black, along with a huge influx of immigrants, legal and illegal.

We are endlessly reminded how wonderful the new America will be as she becomes more diverse. Californians, who already live in that new America, apparently don’t think so. Every chance they get, they vote to chop welfare and deny drivers licenses to illegal aliens. Now, they are deserting the new California beloved of our elites. If assimilation is working, why are Californians voting with their feet and fleeing to Nevada, Colorado, Arizona and Idaho?


“Who cares where people come from?” comes the retort. “The Melting Pot will make them all Americans, as it did the 18 million who came from Eastern and Southern Europe from 1890 to 1920.”


But those were European peoples coming to a country run by descendants of Europeans. They came to a land that enforced assimilation in its schools. They learned and were taught in the same language, read the same books and magazines, went to the same movies, listened to the same radio, went through the Great Depression together and served in the same Army in World War II.
And after the great wave ended in 1920, we had 45 years of low immigration to assimilate and Americanize the children of the immigrants who had come here.

But America’s population has doubled since 1945. Instead of the 16 million people of color we had in 1960 almost all of whom were black Americans immersed for centuries in American culture – there are 80 million people of color here now, from 100 nations.


Instead of assimilation, we live in an age of racial and ethnic resentments and entitlements, where “multiculturalism” is in vogue and it is “racist” to demand immigrants learn the English language.
But if we no longer worship the same God, honor the same heroes, speak the same language, study the same history, love the same literature or even agree about what is right and wrong, how do we remain one nation and one people?


What do we have in common anymore? If Bush’s ally-ally-in-free immigration policy is embraced, the old America we knew will be nothing more than a global hiring hall and what Teddy Roosevelt called a “polyglot boarding house for the world.”


And if it doesn’t work, there is no going back. It is the end of the America we all loved. Why is President Bush taking this risk with our country?

The People Speak

One of our readers has opined on the upcoming tax rebate coming forth from Uncle Sugar.

As you may have heard the Bush Administration
said each and every one of us would now get a nice
rebate.

If we spend that money at Wal-Mart, all the
money will go to China.

If we spend it on gasoline it will all go to
the Arabs.

If we purchase a computer it will all go to
India.

If we purchase fruit and vegetables it will all
go to Mexico, Honduras, and Guatemala.

If we purchase a good car it will all go to
Japan.

If we purchase useless crap it will all go to
Taiwan and none of it will help the American
economy.

We need to keep that money here in America, so
the only way to keep that money here at home is to
buy prostitutes http://www.bunnyranch.com/index1.html
and beer,http://nimbusbeer.qwestoffice.net/
since those are the only
businesses still in the US.

The Human Right of Self-Defense

David B. Kopel,1
Paul Gallant 2
& Joanne D. Eisen 3

I. INTRODUCTION

"Any law, international or municipal, which prohibits recourse to force, is necessarily limited by the right of self-defense."4

Is there a human right to defend oneself against a violent attacker? Is there an individual right to arms under international law? Conversely, are governments guilty of human rights violations if they do not enact strict gun control laws?

The United Nations and some non-governmental organizations have declared that there is no human right to self-defense or to the possession of defensive arms. The UN and allied NGOs further declare that insufficiently restrictive firearms laws are themselves a human rights violation, so all governments must sharply restrict citizen firearms possession.


1. Research Director, Independence Institute, Golden, Colorado; Associate Policy Analyst, Cato Institute, Washington, D.C., http://www.davekopel.org . Author of The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies? (1992). Coauthor of Gun Control and Gun Rights (2002). French, Spanish, and Portuguese translations of national constitutions and of English decisions written in Law French are by Kopel.


2. Senior Fellow, Independence Institute, Golden Colorado. http://www.independenceinstitute.org


3. Senior Fellow, Independence Institute, Golden, Colorado. Coauthor (with Kopel and Gallant) of numerous articles on international gun policy in publications such as the Notre Dame Law Review, Journal of Law, Economics & Policy, Texas Review of Law and Politics, Engage, UMKC Law Review, and Brown Journal of World Affairs.


4. In re Hirota and Others, 15 ANN. DIG. & REP. OF PUB. INT’L L. CASES 356, 364 (Int’l Mil.. Trib. for the Far East, 1948) (no. 118, Tokyo trial) (also stating that under the Kellogg-Briand Pact, a state is the initial judge of the necessity of self-defense against an impending attack, but not the final judge); see also YORAM DINSTEIN, WAR, AGGRESSION, AND SELF-DEFENSE 181 (2d ed. 1994) ("This postulate [from Hirota] may have always been true in regard to domestic law, and it is currently accurate also in respect of international law . . . . [T]he right of self-defence will never be abolished in the relations between flesh-and-blood human beings . . . . ")


Full article is published in the BYU LAW JOURNAL at:
http://www.davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/The-Human-Right-of-Self-Defense.pdf

An interview with Hugh Downs

Hugh Downs on libertarianism: "The basic
philosophy, I find attractive and needed."

Hugh Downs is one of America's most respected and honored television personalities. He began his extraordinary TV career in 1956 as an announcer on Sid Caesar's Hour. After stints on The Tonight Show and The Today Show, he spent 21 years as co-host of the popular ABC news magazine 20/20 (1978-1999). On 20/20, he frequently shared a stage with self-professed libertarian correspondent John Stossel. Since his retirement from network television in 1999, Downs has taught journalism, edited a book, and lectured around the country.

To the freedom movement, Downs is known as perhaps the highest-profile media figure to praise libertarian ideas. In 1997, he famously said, "All the really good ideas belong to the libertarians." In 1998, he said, "From a historical perspective, all Americans are libertarians." Although Downs does not describe himself as a libertarian, he has also editorialized against the War on Drugs and in favor of the Second Amendment.

Downs spoke at the Advocates for Self-Government's 20th Anniversary Celebration in Atlanta, Georgia (October 14-16, 2005). In addition to a lunchtime speech, Downs dropped in to listen to two-time Libertarian Party presidential candidate Harry Browne speak on "The Seduction of Force." (The two had communicated during Browne's 2000 presidential campaign, but had not previously met.)

On Saturday, October 15, 2005, Downs sat down for an interview with Bill Winter, the Advocates' director of communications. The two talked about the appeal of libertarianism, the proper role of government, decriminalizing marijuana, the war in Iraq, and how to spread libertarian ideas.

Bill Winter: How did you first hear about libertarian ideas?Hugh Downs: I don't remember where I first heard about it. But I do remember feeling that there were threads of that thought in what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they set up this nation. And that kind of appealed to me.After I had done 20/20 for a while, we had the chance to gain John Stossel on the program, and that was very interesting to watch [him]. Philosophically he's a libertarian. And that interested me, too.The way the nation has evolved now, from the government's standpoint, there's a real need for that kind of philosophy to come back into it. I can't say that I am in agreement with everything that is said -- possibly because in some cases I don't understand fully what [libertarians] are saying -- but still, the basic philosophy I find attractive and needed.

BW: Let me follow up on that. What are the areas of libertarianism you find most appealing?

HD: Well, the sovereignty of the individual is extremely important. And I grieve for the type of person who may be so baffled or battered that he wants to surrender his sovereignty to some guru or some government.[There was a newspaper in] Phoenix -- I live in that area -- where this guy had written in and said he thought the public knows too much. And he said, "I don't want to know everything. I trust my government and I trust they have all the necessary knowledge, and they'll do the right thing." And I said, that's the most alarming thing I've read for quite a while. Mostly because the writer is not unique. And we've got people like that, and that's a great danger.

BW: There's something almost un-American about what he wrote.

HD: I think there is. You're absolutely right. You know what it reminded me of? After the Soviet Union really began to seriously come apart, there was a big flood of people who came to New York and became cab drivers, for some reason or other. I was in a cab with this guy whose English was pretty fair, and he was complaining about America. Because he said, "You know, you have to go get yourself a job; the government doesn't tell you where you're going to work." And then he said, "And then there's these newspapers; they've got differing views, and you're not told which view is correct."Now, that was the result of 70 years of Communist oppression. But he thought he would have been more comfortable going back into Russia. Because people don't understand liberty if they've had two or three generations of not having it. Even though, if the oppression is bad enough, they can thirst for relief -- and people came from Europe to the New World to gain that benefit.But I hate to see that creeping back. That kind of desire to give up your sovereignty

.BW: So, individual sovereignty, you find very appealing. What area of libertarianism are you most doubtful about?

HD: Listening to Harry Browne, who is a man I respect enormously, things popped into my head when he mentioned something about the government not doing anything worthwhile -- which is just about right! I've always felt that there's a role for government, and there is some role for a federal government.If you adopt the view that I've always practiced -- that the government is us -- and there is a community of people who have gotten together and have agreed on certain forms of behavior, and agreed that people who tend to break that (once the agreement is there) have got to be dealt with. There's got to be some kind of a system of justice.So there is a role for government, and I can't quite adopt a view that no government at all would result in anything but anarchy.To the extent that government suffers corruption, then, yes, the libertarian ideas are right. But I've always thought there was a role for the federal government even in the FAA [Federal Aviation Administration]. You know, before ballooning, hot-air ballooning did not come under the jurisdiction of the FAA. And the result was a lot of people got killed because they didn't have the rules you have [today]. When the FAA was functioning properly, it was a force for good, and it represented an example of where the government did do something good. And you have to keep an eye on it, because it can become corrupt over time.But I can't abandon the idea that a government of some sort is almost a necessity for civilization.

BW: Let me clear up a possible misconception. Most libertarians would call themselves "minarchists," which means they believe in a minimum government. Some libertarians call themselves "constitutionalists," and they believe in the kind of small government this country originally had, at the time of the Founding Fathers. There are a small percentage of libertarians who might call themselves anarchists. Most libertarians would argue we want to return government to the ideas the Founding Fathers had, which was a much more limited government, obviously, than we have today. But it doesn't get rid of it completely. I agree: there are certainly legitimate things the government must do. Then the debate is, how many of those things are there, and how do you keep [government] from getting even bigger than that? Which I think is the central question of all politics: What is the legitimate role of government?

HD: It's possible that some of the libertarians you mentioned, in the different categories, may have an idea that I would love to see: That people are responsible enough to live together amicably, without a government that sees to it that they do obey the rules agree upon by the community.It might be naive to think that. Knowing human nature, as I think I do, it wouldn't work.

BW: How would you describe yourself politically?

HD: I think about what was said by Will Rogers, "I'm not a member of any organized political party; I'm a Democrat."I've never aligned myself with any party affiliation. I've voted for the person who ran for office. I was born into a kind of Republican family. But by the time I was 18 I didn't go along with that too much. And as a result, I tend to vote a little more in the Democratic way.But I think, kind of, a pox on both of their houses lately. And I think that's one of the things that led me to examine libertarianism a little more closely.

BW: What would you say is the greatest threat to liberty in America today?

HD: Voter apathy. Complacency. The fact that an almost rogue administration can make the inroads in our liberty like this one has done, with things like the Patriot Act. That's extremely alarming to me. And I'm alarmed that my industry -- mass media -- isn't doing its job, and alerting people to what really is going on. And that's, to my mind, the biggest threat to liberties in our country.

BW: One of my questions was going to be: Do you think the media is doing a good job alerting us to the dangers? And you've already answered that. Why aren't they? Why isn't the media doing a better job of alerting us about the dangers of the Patriot Act, and the lies involving the war in Iraq, and the rise of religious fundamentalism?

HD: There is no simple answer to that; there are several things. One is journalistic fashion. One is ratings and commercial aspects of [media]. Another is the ownership of media -- enormous conglomerates who are pretty set in what they want said and what they want the public to hear. All these factors, I think, conspire to a certain extent in making journalism less than it has been. And less than it ought to be.

BW: In one of your radio commentaries, you spoke out against the War on Drugs and explicitly called for the decriminalization of marijuana. Why did you come to that conclusion? And what kind of response did you get to that commentary?

HD: First of all, I am against smoking marijuana, because I don't think anybody ought to draw leaf smoke into their lungs. That's bad. And marijuana smoking might be almost as bad as regular cigarette smoking. So I'm against it.But I'm always amused at the drug warriors who, for some reason, have gotten mired in something very ancillary that got started in 1935, when [Federal Bureau of Narcotics Commissioner Harry Anslinger] gave enough cannabis to a dog to kill it, and tried to prove a point that way.And [some] people say, "Well, it's a gateway. Eighty percent of hard drug users started on marijuana." That's a nonsense statement! A hundred percent of hard drug users started on milk. What is the connection? It's just not there.So I did feel that if we could get [drugs] under the law, it would be much better. Imagine a teenage ghetto kid who said, "I don't want to do drugs at all, I want to do alcohol." You know, the easiest thing for him to find is crack cocaine on any street corner. But where would he find a bootlegger? He couldn't. He'd have to go into a liquor store or a bar, and they wouldn't serve him. Because those things are under the law. As soon as you outlaw it, you lose control of it.

BW: What kind of reaction did you get to that commentary? I seem to recall hearing later that you said, "The hammer came down."

HD: Well, yeah. And not from the public so much. A preponderance of the public agreed with me, but the network--. That was ABC Radio, and they were very concerned about that.

BW: One of the arguments against even talking about decriminalizing drugs is that you're condoning their use. If you say, for example, the war on marijuana causes more problems than it solves, it's not uncommon for the Drug Czar to say, "Ah-hah! You're encouraging kids to smoke marijuana!" Did you get any of that reaction?

HD: Yes, I did. I got some. And some from viewers. Although, I repeat, it wasn't like the whole public rose up against what I had [to say]. There was a lot more sympathy out there than I expected. That didn't mean that the powers-that-be weren't upset by it.

BW: Another issue that libertarians are very concerned about is the war in Iraq. In your speech at lunch, you seemed to suggest very strongly that you were opposed to that as well. Why?

HD: I can't imagine how anybody could be in favor of it. It was so patently wrong. People who later said, "We were duped..." You know, they said, "We were duped, we were taken in, and now we know." And I said, "Who is the we? I wasn't taken in by that!" That was nonsense from the beginning.Same with the Vietnam War. Even John Kerry, he said, "I finally came to realize that it was wrong." I may be lucky, but I realized how wrong that was at the very beginning. The French got out [of Vietnam] at Dien Bien Phu in 1954; why didn't we have the sense to follow that kind of wisdom? It was another example of a terribly misguided action on the part of government.

BW: If you were the president right now, what would you do about our presence in Iraq?

HD: I'll tell you why I would bring the troops home. There are several options -- all of them bad. And when you look at the option of bringing the troops home right away, you got to admit it's a terrible option -- there would be an awful, immediate increase in bloodshed. But I examined the other options, one by one, and they are all worse. And if we insist on staying there, that's the worse thing we can do. So, I think, yeah, it's going to be awful, but I'd like to bring them home.

BW: You've made your living as a communicator. How do you think libertarians could do a better job of trying to communicate our ideas to the American public, so more people are willing to listen to them and embrace them?

HD: You know, I've wondered. I can't say I've pondered that, but your asking me triggers this thought.I've wondered if there would be a way for libertarians to establish a libertarian radio station, to start with. And have the whole thing where people would tune in and then say, "Hey, yeah, that's right." And then more people would tune in. I think it could even be supported by the commercial system that supports progressive talk radio now.It might be a way to get a third stream going that would offset what's wrong now in mass media, with the big corporate ownership, and so forth.

BW: Actually, the good news is that the libertarian movement is already heading in that direction. There are some very, very popular libertarian talk show hosts around the country. But they do tend to be, sort of, one-by-one, as opposed to a block of talk show hosts, with a libertarian following a libertarian following a libertarian.Now, going back to my original question -- how to communicate these ideas -- I'm actually thinking more on a one-on-one basis. You mentioned this fellow who wrote the letter to the editor, who thinks Americans know too much, and he trusts his government to take care of him. Which is scary! That letter-writer seems afraid of liberty. And I think that's one of libertarians' biggest challenges. How do we overcome the fear that people have of liberty? How do we reassure them that a free market and private charity and voluntary cooperation can work as good or better than most government programs? How do we overcome that fear factor?

HD: Eloquence is one answer, and I just heard it in listening to Harry's speech.You might persuade some people, but that's a very deep-seated thing. A person so lacking in having his act together that he is ready to surrender his sovereignty to some government, God help us, I don't know whether you could have the time to convince that person.But if [libertarian ideas are] hovering in the air, more and more people will begin to say, "Hey, yeah, maybe that's it." You will never persuade the guy who wrote that letter--

BW: We've written him off already!

HD: [Laughs.] It'd be nice to cut down the number of that kind of people who think that.

BW: Let me end with a lighthearted question. When you were on 20/20, you got to see all the reports that John Stossel -- one of our favorite libertarian correspondents -- used to file. Did you agree with everything he said, or did you sometimes think, "He's going too far!"

HD: I never thought he's going too far. I admired what he did. I loved his style! He was interviewing this prisoner one time who had gone to the law library in the prison, and he sued the prison system because they had supplied him with chunky peanut butter -- and he wanted the smooth.And I remember John said, "So what? You're a criminal!"[Laughs.] It was a beautiful moment.