Freedom is more embattled in America today than ever. My group, the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), has begun tracking the activities of numerous active groups that are threats to freedom in the United States today on our Threats to Freedom Index. We plan to augment it periodically and publish it annually.

All Threat to Freedom groups have beliefs or practices that attack or malign American Constitutional freedoms and/or lawful initiatives for American self-defense.

My colleague Robert Spencer and I compiled the list from records of Threat to Freedom group statements and activities as they appear in their own publications and websites, as well as from reports from concerned citizens and mainstream media reports.

Threat to Freedom group activities can include misrepresentation of anti-terror and other law enforcement initiatives, attempts to restrict the freedom of speech regarding Islamic jihad or other threats to freedom, defamation of freedom fighters, disinformation campaigns in the mainstream media regarding attempts by the U.S. and Israel to defend themselves, and more.

Listing as a Threat to Freedom group does not in itself imply that a listed group calls for or participates in violence or criminal activities, although it does not rule out their doing so.

Here are the first groups listed on our AFDI Threats to Freedom Index. There is more detail in my book Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance.

(more…)

Imagine America faces a crisis of malnutrition. Millions of Americans are consuming too many processed foods and too few fresh foods. To stem the crisis, Congress enacts a comprehensive food reform law, requiring food sellers to meet minimum nutritional standards and provide access to healthy foods. The new law makes food more expensive, and many Americans opt out of the food market altogether, choosing to grow their own food instead. The food industry teeters on the verge of collapse. To prevent this collapse, Congress passes another law mandating that individuals buy a minimum amount of healthy food each month. Individuals who fail to buy the minimum amount face a stiff penalty.

Can Congress do this? Does the Constitution give the federal government power to make you buy healthy food? These questions are the heart of the Obamacare lawsuits—merely substitute “health insurance” for “healthy food.” If Obamacare’s health insurance mandate is upheld—as the federal Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in late June—individual liberty is in serious long-term jeopardy.

The rationale behind forcing individuals to buy health insurance versus healthy food is indistinguishable. The Obama Administration contends that, if people aren’t forced to buy health insurance, the market will collapse. Because Obamacare made health insurance more expensive—doing things like forbidding insurers from excluding those with preexisting conditions—many Americans, particularly healthy young people, would have decided to stay out of the health insurance market altogether and “self-insure.” Government must force these people to buy health insurance, the argument goes, to capture their premium dollars and help subsidize older, sicker people, keeping the overall market affordable and viable.

No matter how ardently you believe the health care system is flawed, or how angry you are at insurance companies, you must resist the temptation to let these considerations distract you from the broader and critically important constitutional choice posed by the health reform litigation. At stake are two related constitutional concepts: “federalism” and “limited and enumerated powers.” These concepts aren’t just quaint, outdated relics. They aren’t about “states’ rights.” They are both designed to protect individual liberty by restraining government’s innate tendency toward ever-expanding power.

(more…)

Even if you agree that Congress should have the right to order a citizen to purchase health care insurance on the basis of the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution, you need to consider how this will expand the powers of the federal government to mandate other actions that you, your children and future generations may have to comply with.  Consider a party in power that disagrees with your ideology and imposes mandates on you to take actions opposite of your beliefs.  Can you visualize how allowing this mandate to stand is simply an abdication of individual liberty?

As the 4^th District Court of Appeals deliberates the issue as the next step in a journey that both sides agree will end up at the Supreme Court, we are reminded that part of the genius of our Constitution is in how it defined a government of enumerated powers.  Those powers, specifically granted to the government by the people, clearly subjugate the government to the people regardless of the political agenda of those in power at any point in time.  Previous interpretations of the commerce clause, and the general welfare clause, broadened the powers of the federal government but only to increase the reach of its power to tax.  While those interpretations are still discussed in some circles, the mandate for a citizen who chooses not to participate in commerce to purchase a service to benefit commerce is a significant increase in the power of the federal government.  It will reverse the balance of power in favor of the federal government, subjugating the people to the will of the particular party in power at any given time.

This slope is indeed a slippery one.  If a party comes to power and passes legislation to mandate citizens to pursue education and careers based on the overall benefit to the nation’s commerce, rather than individual choice, it will be able to have that legislation upheld based on the precedent this current mandate will establish.  It will be argued that if the nation needs engineers and chemists, citizens should be tested and those with aptitudes in those disciplines should be mandated to direct their lives accordingly.  The argument will be strengthened by suggesting that these citizens are going to pursue careers anyway and the nation’s commerce would be benefited by mandating the direction of their careers.  If citizens fail to comply, the government would impose financial penalties.

(more…)

Charles Koch in today’s Wall Street Journal:

Chad Crowe

Years of tremendous overspending by federal, state and local governments have brought us face-to-face with an economic crisis. Federal spending will total at least $3.8 trillion this year—double what it was 10 years ago. And unlike in 2001, when there was a small federal surplus, this year’s projected budget deficit is more than $1.6 trillion.

Several trillions more in debt have been accumulated by state and local governments. States are looking at a combined total of more than $130 billion in budget shortfalls this year. Next year, they will be in even worse shape as most so-called stimulus payments end.

For many years, I, my family and our company have contributed to a variety of intellectual and political causes working to solve these problems. Because of our activism, we’ve been vilified by various groups. Despite this criticism, we’re determined to keep contributing and standing up for those politicians, like Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who are taking these challenges seriously.

(more…)

George Will in today’s Washington Post:

By the time Huntington’s book appeared, American had had four of what he called “periods of creedal passion” – the Revolutionary era (1770s), the Jacksonian era (the 1830s), the Progressive era (1900-20) and the 1960s. We are now in the fifth.

The American Creed’s values are liberal, as that term was understood until liberalism succumbed to 20th-century statism. The values, expressing the 18th century’s preoccupation with defending liberty against government, are, Huntington said, “individualistic, democratic, egalitarian, and hence basically anti-government and anti-authority.” The various values “unite in imposing limits on power and on the institutions of government. The essence of constitutionalism is the restraint of governmental power through fundamental law.”

What made the American Revolution a novel event was that Americans did not declare independence because their religion, ethnicity, language or culture made them incompatible with the British. Rather, it was a political act based on explicit principles. So in America more than in Europe, nationalism is, Huntington said, “intellectualized”: “We hold these truths to be self-evident.” Who holds them? Americans. Who are Americans? Those who hold those truths to be self-evident.

(more…)

“We need a libertarian Che Guevara,” says libertarian activist Starchild, who makes a living as an erotic services provider.

Reason.tv’s Tim Cavanaugh sat down with Starchild, who recently ran forSan Francisco School Board as the Libertarian candidate, at the Libertopia 2010 conference in Hollywood. Their discussion covers topics such as the history of the libertarian movement, why San Francisco actually is a very libertarian city despite being named Reason.tv’s Nanny of the Year, why libertarians need to look to groups such as the Black Panthers as models for political activism, and how Starchild managed to convert Tim Cavanaugh to libertarianism.

(more…)

Carl Mitz is a third-generation horseman.  The Texan is widely known as one of the nation’s best horse dentists.  He’s treated the teeth of over 100,000 horses and has clients in over 30 states.

But Texas bureaucrats tried for years to shut him down.

In a classic case of economic protectionism, Carl and all other Texas equine dentists were told they had to spend up to $100,000 and four years at veterinary school, where they would learn next to nothing about caring for horses’ teeth, or else abandon their occupation.  To top it off, they were threatened with massive fines and even jail.

Instead of giving up his American Dream, Carl teamed up with other Texas horsemen and the Institute for Justice to fight for their right to earn an honest living.

And this week, they won.

On Tuesday, a Texas judge struck down the effort by the Texas Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners to put equine dentists like Carl—known as floaters—out of business and leave the state’s approximately one million horses without proper dental care.

(more…)

55 years ago, Rosa Parks helped launch the modern civil rights movement.

Today, the government is bulldozing her old neighborhood.  Here’s the real kicker:  The homeowners are forced to pay the cost of demolition.

Nobel prize-winning libertarian economist F.A. Hayek famously wrote that “the great aim of the struggle for liberty has been equality before the law.”  There is no better example of this fundamental struggle than Rosa Parks, known today as The Mother of the Freedom Movement.

She refused to be treated as a second-class citizen.  But her hometown of Montgomery, Ala., segregated blacks on public transits.  Minorities were forced to sit in the back, forced to give up their seats to whites, and sometimes were left standing on the side of the road after paying their fare.  Rosa stood up to the Big Government Bullies and said enough is enough.  Her demand for equality before the law forever transformed America.

Rosa once said:

I would like to be remembered as a person who wanted to be free . . . so other people would be also free.

Indeed, she made the world a better place.  So how despicable is it that today officials in her old hometown are forcing people to give up their homes?  The government is tearing down houses against the property owners’ will and then sticking them with the bill.

(more…)

Abbot Justin Brown and his fellow monks are being threatened with crippling fines and even jail time.  Their crime?  Selling caskets.

Today, they are fighting back in a big way.

In 1889, a group of monks from Indiana fulfilled their dream of establishing a monastery in the Gulf South.  The monastic lifestyle they embody is simple and contemplative.  Their creation, the Saint Joseph Abbey, has had a powerful and positive impact in Louisiana.

For several centuries, monks have supported themselves financially by excelling at common trades such as farming and brewing beer.  The monks at Saint Joseph Abbey have been able to preserve and maintain their quiet lifestyle through farming and harvesting timber.

The monks make simple wooden caskets in which to bury themselves. In the early 1990s, Bishops began requesting the caskets, which led to inquiries from other interested people.  The demand continued to build:   People were eager to share in the monks’ view of the simplicity and unity of life and death through burial in a simple monastic casket.

As Abbot Justin Brown puts it:

The monks of Saint Joseph Abbey have been making caskets for over a hundred years.  People who ask for them want to share in that noble simplicity that our coffins express. We’re not a wealthy monastery and we need the income that Saint Joseph Woodworks could generate for the health care and the education of our own monks.

On November 1, 2007, the monks opened their Saint Joseph Woodworks.  But before they could sell even one casket, they were threatened with crippling fines, jail time and even a lawsuit.

Why?

(more…)

With great sadness, I convey the news I have just received that Manuel F. Ayau has died. Known to his friends as Muso, Ayau was one of the greatest persons I have had the privilege to know. I am not given to hero worship, but I do not hesitate to affirm that, to me, Muso was a hero.

Ayau was the principal founder of the Universidad Francisco Marroquin in Guatemala City. He was also a successful entrepreneur, an active participant in the public affairs of his country, and a dedicated champion of liberty there and throughout the wider world. The proud patriarch of a beautiful family, a warm friend to countless adherents of classical liberalism, and man of tremendous energy and striking courage, he exemplifies the realization of the finest potential that human beings can achieve.

(more…)

There’s a new site to add to your blogroll:  Congress Shall Make No Law.

The site, which has the address makenolaw.org, empowers grassroots activists from around the country that are standing up and saying no to unconstitutional attacks on free speech coming in the guise of campaign finance reform.  The site explains all the latest news and events going on in this increasingly complex area of law.  All of the writers are First Amendment attorneys and experts at the Institute for Justice (IJ)—the libertarian law firm dedicated to striking down campaign finance laws in state and federal courts.

The unfortunate reality is this:  Campaign finance laws are a way to regulate speech and silence speakers.  And they have seriously negative impacts on everyday Americans.

Consider Karen Sampson of Parker North, Colorado:

(more…)

In a June 14th editorial entitled “Politicizing the Fed,” the Wall Street Journal sheds light on one of the dubious regulations of the upcoming financial reform bill.  The Journal states:

The biggest underreported threat comes from Subtitle I, Section 1801 of the House financial reform bill titled “Inclusion of Minorities and Women; Diversity in Agency Workforce.” Sponsored by California Democrat Maxine Waters, the provision requires each federal financial agency, the Fed Board of Governors and the 12 regional Fed banks to “establish an Office of Minority and Women Inclusion.”

So what else is new, you say? Don’t the feds already dictate racial and gender hiring? Yes, they do, through the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and assorted other federal laws. As a matter of racial and gender diversity, the Waters provision is at best redundant.

But Ms. Waters and the House are hunting bigger game—to wit, the political allocation of credit.

[...]

The House provision makes that very clear by making each diversity officer a Presidential appointee who must be confirmed by the Senate.The post, says the bill, will be “comparable to that of other senior level staff.”  The post, says the bill, will be “comparable to that of other senior level staff.”

The law says this diversity czar will “ensure equal employment opportunity and the racial, ethnic and gender diversity” of the work force and senior management of these institutions. More ominously, this creature of Congress and the White House will also be charged with “increas[ing] the participation of minority-owned and women-owned businesses in the programs and contracts” of each agency and conducting “an assessment” of stated inclusion goals.

Mull over that one for a minute. Having recently lived through a financial mania and panic caused in part by political pressure for “affordable housing,” Congress will now order regulators to allocate credit by race and gender.

In an article I wrote on February 28th entitled “Fiscal Death by Welfare,” I argued: “I believe that as the downturn goes on the government will blame the banks for the lack of economic growth and force them to allocate credit to chosen political entrepreneurs and other bad credit risks…”  I truly wish I had been wrong in my assessment.

(more…)

They were “Wide Awakes” – scores of torchbearers marching through sleepy hamlets to herald the emancipation of a people from the bonds of slavery into God-given liberty.  These despised and decried champions of human freedom and defenders of American Union proudly called themselves “Republicans.”

Through the ensuing decades of political triumphs, falters and defeats, we Republicans never forgot our honorable heritage – until today.  Amidst the stormy present, some of our compatriots suffer from an apocalyptic intimation that America’s revolutionary experiment in human freedom and self-government is over.  They are wrong.

Throughout the life of the exceptional nation we’ve inherited from our parents and must bequeath to our children, America’s strength and salvation remains her free people.  They have and will never let her down.

Indeed, through history’s lens Global Generation Republicans glean the transformational challenges confronting our nation.

(more…)