A New Writing Discovery

If you are a conservative libertarian and a Constitutionalist, as I am, you may have read some of Rachael Williams articles. But in case you haven't, here are two for you to sample.

The first, found at the American Thinker is entitled In Defense of Libertarians makes the point that...but let her explain it:

When I "came out" as a black conservative, I had to explain ad nauseam how the two were not mutually exclusive. I'm finding myself having to make the same point over and over with regards to libertarianism -- that the most vocal members of a given group do not speak for the whole. There is as much diversity of thought between fellow libertarians as there is in either the Democrat or the Republican Party. While I self-identify as a conservative libertarian, many people react to that label as though I cannot be both simultaneously.

Being a conservative libertarian isn't a contradiction of terms; it's actually a description of me as a whole more than just my political beliefs. I am conservative in my values system, libertarian in the belief that truly constitutional government should be small and have a limited impact on one's life. There's nothing ideologically impure in that.

In order to give Americans the freedom and liberty intended by the Founders, Constitutional government must necessarily be small and limited. Why? Because there is no "collective will." There is, instead a plethora of differing ideas and opinions among 300 million different Americans. To truly govern with the consent of the governed, the Government must get out of the way and allow everyone to live as his own concience dictates. The role of government, particularly at the Federal level should extend only to ensuring that one person's exercise of his rights does not deprive another of his, to provide for national defense, and ensure regular trade among the several States.

A lot of times, the only difference between a conservative and a libertarian is the "why." As a libertarian, I want Roe v. Wade overturned in part because the basis of the judiciary's ruling was in regard to the safety of abortion (which holds no bearing on the constitutionality of it) and also because abortion infringes upon the rights of others in the most obscene of ways: infringing upon their right to life. Many conservatives' argument against abortion is that it is morally abhorrent and a sin against human life and against our Creator. I agree on that, but I don't agree with Perry or Santorum on an all-out federal ban on abortion.

I also agree that to abort a child is murder, unless the life of the mother is endangered by bearing that child. In other words, the mother has a right to self defense. As for the Constitutional merits, let us just say that Roe v. Wade could be the poster case for the idea that the Justices should have to return to the Constitution, rather than precedent each time they decide a case.

The second article appears in an online e-zine called Undoctrination, where Rachael Williams is a staff writer. The article, entitled Expunging the Constitution One Ruling at a Time talks about recent rulings made by the Courts that are erasing rights protected by the 4th and 5th Amendments. This is very dangerous for anyone who comes under the scrutiny of the police. Under these rulings, the police can enter any home on a trumped up excuse, and once in, seize anything they can find to use against a person, and have that "evidence" stand up in Court. Indeed, it has now become so routine that Hollywood uses the device in popular cop shows to keep the pace up, and frankly because Holleywood script writers are often just plain clueless. Now, I admit that is is frustrating when someone who is doing something actually criminal gets off because the police did not go through all the legalities. But today, it is possible that someone could come crashing through your door, possibly announcing themselves, possibly not, with a gun and wearing a mask, put you in handcuffs, look at your bookshelf and notice several books like A Nation of Cowards by Jeff Snyder and Men in Black by Mark Levine, notice that you reload ammunition, see your guns and ammunition supplies, and conclude that you were a terrorist. Under these conditions, you could be detained indefinitely with no right to a lawyer, nor a right to a writ of habeas corpus. This breach of our Constitution is little short from the infamous Gulags of the Soviet Union, or the concentration camps of Nazi Germany.

Go and read more from Racheal Williams at Undoctrination.