LOLA created a panel for CPAC called- Why Real Conservatives Are Against the War on Terrorism. This instruction gave clear and concise understandings as to why anyone that believes in Liberty should be against the war on terror and any aggression against others

Is America’s current “War on Terror” essential to keeping our nation safe? Or is it yet another vehicle for the federal government to increase its power over our lives and take away our liberties? Is the “War on Terror” actually weakening our national defense and increasing opposition overseas?

The panel, Created by LOLA and co-sponsored by The Future of Freedom Foundation, Ladies of Liberty Alliance and Campaign for Liberty, included:

# Karen Kwiatkowski — retired U.S. Air Force Lieutenant Colonel

# Jacob Hornberger — founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation

# Philip M. Giraldi — former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer, current Francis Walsingham Fellow at The American Conservative Defense Alliance

# Bruce Fein — former associate deputy attorney general in the Reagan administration

CPAC 2010: "Why Real Conservatives Are Against the War on Terrorism, Part 1" from The Future of Freedom Foundation on Vimeo.

by Stacy Litz

"I freed a thousand slaves . . . I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves."
Harriet Tubman

Black History Month, for me, is usually spent reflecting on the legacies of many influential people in the civil rights movement for their bravery when combating such horrible injustice. However, it is interesting to see the many methods that were taken to reach a level of equality, and it hurts to see many fall into a trap of a collectivist mindset while fighting for freedom.

Just recently, I saw the first chairwoman of the Black Panther Party, Elaine Brown, speak at my university. After reading her book, Taste of Power, I knew what to expect -- a socialist mindset with hatred towards free markets, laws for affirmative action, "free" housing, health care, and food. All of this came out in her speech, which ended with a Che Guevara quote and a thunderous applause from the audience. I felt incredibly out of place and the anger that had built up throughout the speech put me at a tipping point.

After cooling off, I realized that instead of being angry towards this woman, I should feel sympathy, if anything. She spent her entire life fighting and fighting and fighting -- and her method of choice? Politics. She had run for office several times, even running for president in 2008 with the Green Party. While she tirelessly battled for equality using the same very governmental system that enforced inequality and that continues doing so to this very day, she has not had any of her goals reached.

I feel sympathy towards Elaine Brown for another reason, too, and this is the fact that she had become a complete martyr for the black man, and in her book, she mentions how many times she neglected fighting for women's rights and simply sacrificed herself for men, with no value for herself as an individual. The Black Panther Party represents the anti-thesis of LOLA, that's for sure.

Sadly, this is not the first time that I have heard minorities beg for a socialist government to force equality, and I have heard it many times in other regards. The problem with this argument is that it fails to strike the root of the issue of inequality. Many fail to note that it is only government that forces inequality to exist -- and while we are all different, in freedom, we would not be judged by the color of our skin, but by the content of their character (thanks, MLK).

While I am not a huge fan of Glenn Beck, I heard that he had a special called the "Revolutionary Holocaust" on why minorities, the poor, and the oppressed should not believe that socialism and communism will solve all their problems.  I have yet to see the special, but I hope it does the topic justice!  I feel as if many fall into the trap of  socialism because offers a sense of equality through a system of each receiving a measured collective share, but it has been tried and tested to have failed in several countries. Freedom, however, is restrained as much as possible, and has never gotten a chance to show off its possibilities for equality.

As I've said, striking the root of the inequality problems is the best method to finding the solution. And the root is big government. The war on drugs, prohibition, lack of self ownership, not teaching personal responsibility in public schools, victimless crimes, subsidizing poverty . . . all of these things hurt minorities in their current state and all are based on government. Instead of lobbying for more laws and more regulations for equality, let us try a new approach -- removing these laws and regulations that only make sure inequality exists!

We can all be equally free, but not equally enslaved.

An example of when individuals make decisions in the name of "government," rather than thinking with their own rationality.

Tracey Harmon will be heading to Iraq in April- in hopes of awakening the hearts and minds of others to the non aggression principle.  Here is a more detailed description of her mission and how you can support her:

It has been my personal obligation to travel to Iraq ever since enlisting in the U.S Army at 18 years old.   As a soldier, I swore an oath to protect and defend the constitution of the United States from all foreign and domestic enemies.  When it occurred to me that more enemies of the U.S constitution are being created and the surge of violence and terrorism is increasing by our presence in Iraq, I decided to apply for Conscientious Objector status.  I refused to participate in the unnecessary bloodshed and violence our country is waging against innocent civilians, and vowed to go to Iraq without a weapon.  Now, I have the unique opportunity to travel unarmed to Iraq on a peacemaking delegation this spring.

I depart for Istanbul on April 15.   I will be traveling with an international team through an anonymous organization that follows the principal of "devoting the same discipline and self-sacrifice to non-violent peacemaking that armies devote to war."  Their ground teams are based in the conflicted border regions of the Kurdish North and accompany displaced persons by documenting human rights violations against civilian populations. I came into contact with their work through my travels in the Middle East.  After hearing my story of getting out of the Army as a Conscientious Objector to war, the Executive Director of this organization gave me a special invitation to visit all of the ground teams in Iraq.

Although the main purpose of the team’s delegation is to access the security for future participants, my overall mission is multifaceted:  I will be meeting with various NGOs, relief groups, and local Iraqi civilians to document an insider's perspective on the cost of war, and the structural damage we have caused.  I hope to conduct live radio interviews in country to illustrate this reality. I will be taking letters from veterans in Iraq Veterans Against the War - letters of remorse, grief, and apology for losses. I will accept personal responsibility for the damage due to my participation, as a former soldier, and work towards alleviating human suffering in any capacity I can.  I hope to return home with footage, interviews, stories, pictures, articles, as well as contacts for a future delegation I am planning on behalf of Iraq Veterans Against the War and LOLA.  This is a risky trip I am taking – but I already swore to give my life to defend this nation once.  I believe that the greatest thing I can do to protect my country is to protect those whom our “Military-Industrial Complex” has harmed.  As a Conscientious Objector to war, I believe that making peace requires extreme non-violent action.

I am requesting that you join me on this peacemaking delegation.  To cover transportation and basic ground costs, I need to raise $3000.  I am not only asking for your financial assistance, but also your support.  I am creating an email chain for those who wish to receive immediate updates while I am in Iraq, as well as access to my blog with live footage.

In the words of Martin Luther King, Jr., “It is not enough to say we must not wage war. It is necessary to love peace and sacrifice for it.”

Thank you so much,

Tracey Harmon

By Brittany Cloud

Traveling can deeply change a person. Seeing more of the world fuels that childish curiosity you sometimes wonder if you’ve lost. It encourages learning new things. You know, it calls you out of the daily grind. If you’re lucky, it challenges you out of your comfort zone to find a new one. Even perhaps, it will throw the opportunity in your face to question whether everything in your initial comfort zone was even that great after all.

Having a special affinity for France’s language in college, I luckily obtained enough scholarship funds to participate in a summer graduate teaching program in the French elementary schools. What I did not expect, was that I’d be teaching in some of the most economically worse off areas in France. To top off the experience, most of the children wouldn’t do their homework even if I gave it, because most of the parents were Muslim and refused to learn French. That’s when I started to see a problem: the State-fueled cultural prejudice not only against Muslims, but female Muslims in particular.

This recent, infuriating article confirms many of my suspicions.

To summarize, the article outlines recent legislation proposed to partially ban Muslim women’s usage of the veil in public services. The legislative committee’s president (I should note, a committee that's been in existence to make a decision on burqas and niqabs for over a year now) Communist MP André Gerin speaks as if this legislation’s success is a non-issue. In the same breath, he states, "The full veil is the visible part of this black tide of fundamentalism." The only reason given for withholding the proposal for a full veil ban, is fear “the ban would be socially divisive and hard to enforce.”

But, Mr. Gerin, if you’ll settle for a partial ban because it’s more “politically correct,” why not also tell the French Muslims how badly you think a full ban is best, and you’re just holding back. I’d also like to know how many Muslim women were represented on your committee or interviewed by you personally over the past year. Wait, you might say, there’s not enough women around to ask, because although there are 5 to 6 million Muslims in the country, “according to police figures, no more than 2,000 women – most of them young and a quarter of them converts -- wear a face-covering veil.”

If I may press further, what’s the real issue at stake here Mr. Gerin? Is this just a cover up for State paranoia? Because a lot of other countries are doing it? Is it a fear of relinquishing power, even if ever so slowly, to the Muslims, in your government? What about pleading due respect for laïcité? And are we really helping the women live better lives or is this about your agenda against Muslims? If we must go there, why choose to ban veil usage in public places alone? Is it somehow less offensive that way?

How is a ban against women who would, all else equal, freely choose to wear the veil more beneficial than, say, the Taliban mandate in Afghanistan against women who are not wanting to wear it? Is there really a difference, or are you just flexing the power because you have it?

Most women will understand, from the time you’re a child, life is a series of unique power struggles. The power struggle between the individual and the State is no different, even in France. Women everywhere have an acute sensitivity to these struggles, and once empowered, they won’t tolerate such injustice. That is why the concept of freedom holds such value for us. To be a free and independent woman is something we were born to accomplish. It’s a deep desire, a need. Legislation such as this encroaches on a woman's fundamental right to be free and achieve independence. Not to mention, it's a strong statement against the peaceful toleration of cultural values, and a blatant breach to laïcité. If the government, especially Mr. Gerin, had an interest in furthering cultural prosperity in France, educating women and encouraging them to freely engage in thinking critically through their own personal choices, especially in what to wear, would be the priority. To the contrary, here it appears it’s not the Muslim women in need of the education.

By Brittany Cloud

If there is one organization that eludes me in its relevance, it’s the TSA. What purpose does it really serve? The pattern repeats itself in circular fashion: The government sees a threat, then security tightens. It’s never the other way around. This is all for our protection as U.S. Citizens, they say. Terrorism is rampant, and we are vulnerable.

The problem with the TSA is that it creates even more problems that it fails to recognize. The problem is, I don’t feel protected just because the TSA exists to protect me from terrorism. In fact, I feel exploited. I feel targeted based on parameters put in place to merely give me a false “peace of mind.” As someone that loves travel, the recent tightening of TSA regulations has me doubting whether I will fly again while it remains in existence.

As a woman, I especially value the choice to do with my body what I wish. As a libertarian, I respect every other woman’s right to peacefully do whatever she wishes with her body. What I will not accept, however, is the government’s forceful search, or even the threat of forceful search of my body, against my will. As an individualist feminist, the TSA's recent mandate to force full body searches randomly is an insult to females in a most catastrophic form.

It’s not only the increase of full-body scans that presents a problem. The TSA has been problematic for a long time. If you want another person’s account, see here.

Is it just me, or is the number of violent police-related incidents rising dramatically lately?

Every time that I get on the computer, it seems like there is a SWAT team at a protest or a cop is waving his gun around during a snowball fight.

And then I read about the transformation of a Boyscout into a Mini Me version of a Homeland Security goon.



You could say that I am scared for the future.  Big guns aimed at innocent civilians is definitely scary.  But then I noticed something -- most of these gun happy "public servants" are men . . . so, this seems like a job that LOLA can definitely tackle!

Quoting the movie My Big Fat Greek Wedding,"The man is the head, but the woman is the neck. And she can turn the head any way she wants."  If we can get enough "necks" in this movement, who knows, maybe cops will start promoting a little peace, freedom and prosperity!  Or maybe we won't need them at all . . .

President Obama recently wrote to North Korean leader Kim Jong Il in an attempt to restart talks about nuclear disarmament.   A senior State Department official said: "The North Koreans have a choice: continued and further isolation or benefits for returning to the six-party talks and dismantling their nuclear weapons program."

Kudos for sending a letter instead of more troops to South Korea, but what has isolation (or the threat of further isolation) done for us thus far? Sanctions do not hurt the intended decision-makers, and continuing them won't push the Kim Jong Il government to change. We have to try a new method of engagement.

North Korea, like any country, wants security.  We need them to know that they won't become a target once they pursue nonproliferation.  Like a teacher must deal with the class bully, the world has to deal with rogue states. The bullies exist, and they always will to some degree. The best teachers know that alienating a bully may perpetuate the poor behavior, but encouraging them and asking his classmates (i.e. China, South Korea, Russia, etc.) to put pressure on him works. In international relations, we call that diplomacy, and there is plenty more we can do in that regard.

By Brittany Cloud

I’ve long been interested in the process of sorting through complex ideas, critically examining them, and presenting a position on them clearly. Wendy McElroy’s book, The Reasonable Woman: A Guide to Intellectual Survival is arguably a definitive treatise on how to do just that. I first stumbled on the book while doing a self-study on libertarian feminism, specifically individualist feminism.

As a side note, I already respected McElroy, because I knew of her as an accomplished research fellow at The Independent Institute, founder of iFeminists.com, and manager of website, WendyMcElroy.com.

Even in the preface I was taken aback by how clearly McElroy lays out her ideas and examples. She is spot on regarding many differences in the way the female mind approaches ideas and how women are stereotypically misunderstood. She opens with an example of how women, more often than men, will burst into tears during a frustrating conversation. Men, in contrast, are more likely to get into bar fights. She asserts the destructiveness of these conditioned behaviors and suggests how we can unlearn them.

McElroy’s use of the terms “intellectual survival” and “reasonable” in the book’s title immediately intrigued me.  Why should women need a compelling reason to “survive intellectually”?  And aren’t we already “reasonable?” McElroy doesn’t use the term “intellectual” in the elite ivory tower sense. By “intellectual” she means to express that every woman is not only fully capable, but has a profound duty to maintain reasonableness in all aspects of life. While she indeed gives an interesting critique of the relationship of emotion to reason, her underlying defense for emphasizing the value of reason is simple -- so simple it shattered many of my previous perspectives on female reasonableness.

“Reason” is the tool we use in seeking the truth of things. “Truth” is merely what’s left after careful examination of evidence, and after thoughtfully, and civilly entertaining certain arguments on a subject. We care about being “reasonable” because we care about how ideas are justified. Adequate justification requires careful analysis of the logical connections between the ideas we are thinking about. Caring about reason is so self-evident, that to question it, in McElroy’s words, is like asking, “Why should I value my right arm?” Reason should be valued “because you should value being as alive and aware as possible. (Ch 1, p. 29, emphasis mine).”

Through vivid examples and rigorous psychological analysis, Reasonable Woman strikes at the core of what barriers we face today, especially the uniquely female ones, and how to respond successfully to those barriers.  She examines common ideas such as:

-          Women should not compete with men

-          Women become irrational when menstruating

-          Women do not argue fairly

-          Women – not men – must balance career and family

-          A wife should accommodate her husband’s job transfer

-          Women are bad at math

-          Women gossip; men discuss

-          A clean house is the woman’s responsibility: a good living is the man’s

While she provides effective solutions to combating these barriers through the application of reason and logic, Reasonable Woman is not limited to practical advice for women only.  Many of the book’s practical tenets are applicable to men as well. After all, individualist feminism is not about stereotypical feminist victimization and male marginalization. Notable writer, Chris Matthew Sciabarra, author of Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical positively reviewed McElroy’s book, stating:

Though McElroy’s book is a benevolent declaration of intellectual independence for women, it is chock-full of humane strategies and useful techniques for everyone. A manual and resource guide for the critical mind, it stands as a deeply personal and practical testament to efficient thinking.

Reasonable Woman provides an excellent starting ground for the analysis of ideas and understanding the female mind. The ladies at LOLA and anyone interested in liberty can greatly benefit from her ideas.  Whether gaining the confidence to apply these ideas effectively in public, creating an organization from your own unique ideas to help the cause of liberty, building courage to stand up to authorities through activism, becoming a better writer, or merely learning how to assess the multitude of information out there more effectively, McElroy offers insight and support for the individual-minded.

As a fellow LOLA member, I have no doubt about the relevance of Reasonable Woman to my place in the liberty movement. I’d highly recommend it to all those interested in the value of ideas, specifically for its application to liberty-minded women. What's more, her book offers insight for everyone, not just scholars -- activists, writers, public leaders, homemakers, and careerists alike can draw valuable insights from within its pages.

This weekend, all across the country, marks an important time in history. It’s a time when the “End the Fed” rallies will take place. Don’t be fooled, these are not your silly backyard protests (for some of that nature, see here); rather, they will serve as both reaction against and reminder of an important concept and very real problem persisting today: the inherent errors in centralized banking.

But why is central banking a problem, you might ask?

As Dr. Ron Paul states in his recent ground-breaking work , released Sept. 16^th of this year, “Most Americans haven’t thought about the strange entity that controls the nation’s money. They simply accept it as though it has always been there…(Ch. 2, p. 12)”

Sadly, it is a truth that most people blindly accept as commonplace what is really a large cartel vehicle for exacerbating socialized debt.

“Socialized debt,” exists when economic boom turns to bust and huge losses must suddenly be compensated for. Under the current regime, these losses are absorbed by third parties, including the government, instead of what should rightly be the Fed’s bottom line.

Dazzled by the complex business reports presented before Congress and the endless public relations play on a commitment to “reducing inflation,” it’s no wonder most people have no idea what’s going on.

People need to understand how the system actually works. They need to know the problematic nature of fractional-reserve banking, deposit insurance patching schemes, and the government’s overwhelming dependency on the Fed’s unrestrained “elasticity.”

With fractional-reserve banking, deposits made by consumers are loaned for investment, with the “guarantee” that the funds will be re-deposited. Deposit insurance serves as this “guarantee” which is actually hard to sustain, especially if everyone decides to withdraw all their money at once. Here is where the “elasticity” of the Fed and the government’s dependency come into play. If more money is needed to cover losses or to bail out what is actually a free-market correction, the Fed, under the government’s blessing, can simply provide more money at whim. Consequently, inflation skyrockets – the very result the Fed states it stands to protect against.

The idea that the Fed actually serves to reduce inflation is ludicrous. Through incessant money printing for bailout after bailout, it is, as Dr. Paul states, akin to the tobacco industry trying to help people stop smoking, or the automobile industry trying to reduce traffic congestion.

What we really need, is a system of sound money, where the government could not just arbitrarily create money whenever it wanted. A system under sound money would hold the government accountable much more than it is now. Simply put, the costs of spending funded through taxation are much more difficult to hide than by inflation.

It’s our responsibility to bring these issues into the forefront, expose them for what they are, and take a stand for what needs to happen to solve them. This weekend, the “End the Fed” rallies are taking place for that very purpose.

Many members of LOLA will be participating; if you get a chance, come out and help support this cause, too. And if you see a girl with a LOLA shirt, don’t forget to ask her why she thinks we should end the Fed.

Today I was driving behind someone with a bumper sticker that said: AMERICA, a nation of immigrants. The other sticker on their car was for Obama.

I started to wonder: what happened to immigration reform? It was pushed to the back burner while cap-and-trade and health care have moved to the front.  People argue about whether or not the government should be responsible for the environment and medical treatment but there is little disagreement that both of these initiatives will cost Americans money. They will take money away from the private sector and put it into the government, which will ultimately further weaken our economy.

Our current recession is already causing migration to decrease. These measures, backed by President Obama, will have the unintended consequence of bringing in less immigrants... Less AMERICA, if you will.

After all, "America is a shining city upon a hill whose beacon light guides freedom-loving people everywhere," and wouldn't it be nice if it could stay that way?