Stealing Anything Named "Liberty" As a Means to Defend Property
Info: The Liberty Committee Page (death by flash intro)
Are you a self-described "Libertarian" group? The reason immediately I ask is that you provide numerous, misleading that do not definitively answer this question. A while back, you briefly listed the essay "Libertarianism, Conservatism, and All That" on your website. Then, you submitted your website to the DMOZ.org open directory with the definition, "Group of libertarian Congressmen dedicated to the advancement of liberty." Now that you are listed as one of the premiere websites on Libertarianism in the directory, I cannot find anything even mentioning Libertarianism on your website.
According to what you've told the press, you're trying "to reduce the size and scope of government." (WND.com) However, there's nothing about limiting the scope of the government on your website. Consider the most recent "Take Action Now!" that you're demanding. You want to make a law that stops a judge from hearing a case or a defense "based upon the right of privacy." ("We the People Act," H.R. 539, Section 2.)
This seems rather curious to me. If I were to limit the scope of the government, I would not start by attacking the right to privacy for the people. In fact, I would do quite the opposite: provide legislative barriers that protect the people from the intrusive aggression of the state. That is, if I didn't have the option of abolishing all capitalism and government. Your honor is quite impeccable: "The Liberty Committee does not accept government funding -- NONE -- or the strings that inevitably come with it." However, you do like to advertise how you work side-by-side with those who live off of government funding to accomplish the same exact tasks, such as the Republican Party.
The first section of H.R. 539 prohibits the courts from handling cases "relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion." Where have most of the cases involving the free exercise of religion been charged against? The governments, the schools, the political parties, the traditional unions, and in general, the established institutions of society. Prohibiting people from bringing charges against the government does not seem like you're "limiting the power of government." Rather, it seems like you're limiting the power of the people to control the government.
If the state could declare Christianity, Judaism, or Islam to be the official government religion, what would H.R. 539 mean? It would mean that nobody has a right to appeal to any legal system to defend their own basic rights and liberties as citizens. If a police officer forced women to wear burqas, or to temporarily drown infants in a bath before a pastor, or to make compulsory readings of prayers for children -- to do any of these things would be an establishment of religion. And, likewise, in every case, the government is behaving in a way that constricts individual liberty, since it interferes unnecessarily with the citizens' private life. Prohibiting the people from charging the state with invading their privacy is like prohibiting the masses from petitioning the government for change: your efforts weaken the popular will, they do not disempower the state.
Another case that is prohibited, under section 3 of this bill, would be "any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation." Of all the laws you wish to make, this one is most distinct, defined, and clear. The purpose of the government is not simply the enforcement of laws that provide security for everyone -- its purpose is to enforce the agenda of the most wealthy and powerful group within the immediate distance of the state. For Texas, apparently that's Capitalists, Conservatives, and Churches.
Consider the idea of prohibiting "equal protection of the laws" and extending this to the government. You are, indeed, basically saying that the government is not responsible to protect its citizens with the laws that normally apply to everyone. You are entrusting the governor, the chief of police, and the commander of the riot-control squads with this power to distinguish: "You, over there, shall have the protection of the laws, but you over there shall not. It is within my power and my authority to do this, even if every constitution written in every land has prohibited it!"
Yet, you call yourselves "The Liberty Committee," you list yourselves as "Libertarians" and associate with "Libertarian" groups, and you say you want to reduce the "size and scope of the government." How is it that you're supporting all these laws that make the state so unbelievably powerful and unopposed to resistance, when you claim to believe in liberty? Perhaps it is because the word is so vague that it could mean anything, so you use in a context where it means nothing.
I have read your materials and have analyzed the issues, and a response wouldn't be so much to request. I patiently await, and thank you.