Destroying Liberty

by Walter E. Williams.

Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis warned, "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." The freedom of individuals from compulsion or coercion never was, and is not now, the normal state of human affairs. The normal state for the ordinary person is tyranny, arbitrary control and abuse mainly by their own government. While imperfect in its execution, the founders of our nation sought to make an exception to this ugly part of mankind's history. Unfortunately, at the urging of the American people, we are unwittingly in the process of returning to mankind's normal state of affairs.

Americans demand that Congress spend trillions of dollars on farm subsidies, business bailouts, education subsidies, Social Security, Medicare and prescription drugs and other elements of a welfare state. The problem is that Congress produces nothing. Whatever Congress wishes to give, it has to first take other people's money. Thus, at the root of the welfare state is the immorality of intimidation, threats and coercion backed up with the threat of violence by the agents of the U.S. Congress. In order for Congress to do what some Americans deem as good, it must first do evil. It must do that which if done privately would mean a jail sentence; namely, take the property of one American to give to another.

According to a Washington Post article (6/22/05), there were nearly 35,000 highly paid registered lobbyists in Washington in 2004 who spent $2.1 billion lobbying the White House, Congress and various agencies on behalf of various interest groups. Political action committees, private donors and companies give billions of dollars to political campaigns. My question to you: Do you think that these people are spending billions of dollars to assist presidents and congressmen to better perform their sworn oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the U.S. Constitution? If you do, you're a fine candidate for a straitjacket. For the most part, the money is being spent to get politicians and government officials to use their coercive power to create a favor or special privilege for one American at the expense of some other American.

If we Americans didn't give Washington such enormous control over our lives, I doubt whether there would be 10 percent of the money currently spent on lobbying and campaign contributions. This enormous control that Congress has over our lives also goes a long way toward explaining much of the government corruption that we see in Washington.

If the average American were asked whether he wishes to return to mankind's normal state of affairs featured by arbitrary abuse, control and government dictates, I am sure he would find such a suggestion repulsive. But if you were to ask, say, the average senior citizen whether Social Security, Medicare and prescription drug subsidies should be continued, he would probably answer yes. The same would be true if you asked a college professor whether higher education should continue to be subsidized, or a farmer or a dairyman whether their products should be subsidized, or a manufacturer whether there should be tariffs and quotas on foreign products that compete with his product. The problem with congressmen producing favors and privileges to all interest groups is that it creates what none of us wants: massive control, numerous dictates and micromanagement of our lives.

There is no question that if one were to ask whether we Americans are moving towards more liberty or more government control over our lives, the answer would unambiguously be the latter -- more government control over our lives. We might have reached a point where the trend is irreversible and that is a true tragedy for if liberty is lost in America, it will be lost for all times and all places.

Douche Of The Week 11.01.07

This week's "Douche Of The Week" is an individual award.



Back in July of this year, University Of Colorado Ward Churchill compared the 9/11 victims to Nazis.

Well, to make a long story short, he was fired. But get this, he is still invited to campus to teach and lecture.

STORY

Former University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill no longer is a member of the faculty but he is holding classes on campus after his dismissal following a controversial Sept. 11 essay comparing victims to a Nazi leader.

The classes, covering topics including colonialism, genocide and racism, are organized by the students who then invite Churchill to speak.

"We feel Ward has a right to say what he wants to say," Aaron Smith, a political science and ethnic studies senior, told FOXNews.com.

Smith, one of the discussions' organizers, said about 75 students usually show up but it is hard to get them to commit to assignments since they can't receive grades for them.

The discussions on campus aim to make a statement about academic freedom and free speech, Smith said.

Churchill sparked national outrage after his essay called some victims "little Eichmanns," a reference to Adolf Eichmann, who helped Adolf Hitler's plan to kill Jews during World War II.

Churchill lost his job in July after the University of Colorado governing board fired him following accusations of plagiarism, falsification and other university misconduct. His Sept. 11 essay ignited an investigation over his writings and research.

University officials responded to concerns about Churchill's writings, apologizing to America for the essay, and former New York Gov. George Pataki called Churchill a "bigoted terrorist supporter."

The University of Colorado says Churchill is allowed on campus since he is a private citizen but students cannot receive academic credit for attending the discussions.

"They are doing everything they can to make it look like Ward Churchill is teaching again at the University of Colorado," said Bronson Hilliard, a university spokesman.

The university does not recognize the discussions as courses or an official representation of the University of Colorado academic work, Hilliard said.

Churchill is receiving a year's pay under a long-held university agreement following his dismissal, Hilliard said.

Churchill did not respond for comment.

David Lane, Churchill’s attorney, said he doesn’t know if Churchill views the discussions as a return to campus, he just enjoys teaching.

"I’m sure they are going very well; he’s an excellent professor," Lane said.

Smith, who took a class with Churchill amid the debate over his research and writings, agreed.

"He pushes us to think critically about issues that are left outside of the main chronicles of history," Smith said. "He tries to have us not only look from the perspective of the dominant, but from the perspective of the oppressed."

The university also is wrapped up in a legal battle with the former professor. Churchill filed a complaint claiming the university and university regents violated his First Amendment rights to free speech.

The university filed motions in September to dismiss the complaint and Lane, Churchill's attorney, filed a response last week. The university will file reply briefs to his response soon, said Ken McConnellogue, a spokesman for the CU System. There won't be a ruling for about a month, he added.

For taking his socialists views to an all time low, and for living, Ward Churchill earns the title "Douche Of The Week."