Category Archives: big government

big government, Constitution, personal responsibility, taxes

Patrick Henry needs a bit of revision today!

Leave a comment

My liberal cousin ends his emails with this wonderful Patrick Henry quotation:

” . . . I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death! – March 23, 1775″

All the while he supports policies such as these:
1. Government run health care. So much for the freedom of doctors and patients to work together on their fees and treatments. You’ll be told what health care you can have and the doctor will be told how much he or she will be paid for it. Patrick Henry would want freedom for both. (Yes, insurance needs to be reformed, but again, the answer is freedom – freedom for insurance companies and people to buy from each other instead of having the government stand between the two. And freedom to take your insurance with you if you change jobs.)
2. Minimum wages – there is no freedom to negotiate your own wage. Both the employer and employee are restricted by government. Patrick Henry would not like this.
3. Redistribution of earnings. Let us say exactly what this means instead of using double-talk: you take some money from someone who works and give it to someone who needs it, supposedly, more than you do. Instead of you owning the products of your labors by right, you own them by sufferance of the majority. Patrick Henry would not like that and neither would the Constitution.

So, Patrick Henry needs a little revision today because although Patrick wanted liberty for everyone, today’s liberals only seem to want it for approved people and approved areas:

. . . I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me AND EVERYONE ELSE liberty, or give me death!

The liberal version seems to be:

. . . I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me AND NO ONE ELSE unless I approve of them liberty, or give me death!

The only answer is freedom and that implies an economic system that is based on freedom. There is no debate between capitalism and statism, it is a debate between freedom and statism. And statism is any philosophy that uses the state to greatly restrict your freedom to live your life as you please.

Remember that ‘business’ does not pay taxes, they merely collect them from the consumers and pass them along to Washington. Businesses pass along any taxes to you. The rhetoric behind “tax business” is obfuscation to get more money for Washington to spend in trying to buy your vote.

Abuse of Power, big government, Constitution, internet, privacy, rights, supreme court

Spying Upon Ourselves

Leave a comment

United States Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, is drafting a plan that is supposed to protect America?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s cyberspace. The plan, according to The New Yorker (January 14, 2008) is that “the government must have the ability to read all the information crossing the Internet in the United States.” Yes, you read it right, in order to protect us, we must give up all our rights to privacy. Prisoners in jail have given up their right to privacy, not voluntarily of course, as we are asked to do. Prisoners can be moved, strip searched, cavity searched, and have their mail search at the whim of their jailers. But they are safe. Oh yes, very, very safe. As will be the people of the United States with the Federal Government as our Jailer, at least that is the plan. The prisoners who are following the rules of the jail have nothing to fear, they are told. And yet they still must submit whenever they are ordered. The United States can be both free and safe. A false choice is being created in order to increase the power of the Federal Government. Do we want to be a nation of prisoners? Do we want to be a nation that must watch every word or spend months explaining what was meant by a particular sentence. When all dissent is monitored, dissent becomes impossible.

People act is if there is a difference between civil liberties and liberty. There isn’t. We will be free in all areas or will be in none. There is no difference between those who wish to limit our economic liberty that those who wish to limit or “civil” liberty. Limiting our liberty in one area necessitates its loss in all other areas. The ramifications of one small loss of liberty multiplies across all others. We will be free or not. Half-free and half-slave is a contradiction in terms and impossible in reality. Continue reading Spying Upon Ourselves →

Abuse of Power, big government, Constitution, elections, rights

Hillary and the Law

Leave a comment

“No woman is illegal,” Clinton said, to cheers. (http://www.lvrj.com/news/13702902.html)

From someone sworn (as a United States Senator) to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the United States, this is disgraceful. Yet again Hillary Clinton shows her disdain for the laws that she expects everyone else to obey.

A pragmatist is someone who would have compromised with King George. Do we really want pragmatists guarding our liberty?

big government, global warming, personal responsibility, united nations

Global Warming Hypocrisy continues…

Leave a comment

Bloomberg has a story today about the United Nations (UN) Climate Summit in Bali (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601170&refer=home&sid=aPbfclqokwcw) and how the summit will produce as much pollution as 20,000 cars in a year (7.3 million cars in one day). Yes, you read that right, 20,000 cars in a year. Do as they say, not as they do because they are the special elite, while the masses of people need to be ruled.Freedom is lost bit by bit, and once lost more difficult to reclaim.

big government, Constitution, foreign policy, personal responsibility, rights, trade

Spitzer decries Hyperpartisanship

Leave a comment

Nothing reflects the result of hyperpartisanship more than the current immigration debate, which has become so toxic that anytime a practical proposal is put forward, it is shot down before it can even be weighed on its merits. New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer, November 14, 2007

One wonders what Gov. Spitzer would have said about Patrick Henry saying “give me liberty, or give me death!”Governor Spitzer, it is not hyperpartisanship to defend freedom, liberty and the rule of law. The steps to immigration are well spelled out. Immigrants are great. Illegal immigration is breaking the law by definition.Anyone who decries so-called “hyperpartisanship” wishes to confuse the issue, marginalize people in order to increase their own power, and decrease the liberty of the people of the United States. The “hyperpartisans” are those who are willing to trade your liberty for their power. Compromise over freedom only has one result – loss of liberty. When the choice is freedom or anything else, freedom by definition will lose in any compromise. And once lost, freedom is much more difficult to regain. Gov. Spitzer, there are at least three steps:1. Border security.2. Encourage freedom and the rule of law elsewhere to make life better for the citizens of the countries there.3. Then deal with the problem here.It is not Hyperpartisanship to point that out. It is not “hyperpartisanship” to state the freedom should not be compromised on. It is not “hyperpartisanship” to defend liberty.

Where is the middle ground between good and evil?  Where is the middle ground between freedom and tyranny? Where is the middle ground between liberty and slavery?  There can be no compromise between you and your destroyers unless you willingly accept your own destruction.  Without liberty your life is not your own, it belongs to those who enslave you.  Enslavement for a good cause is still enslavement.

There is no ground for compromise between people who want to take your freedom from you.  Partisanship is not saying “no” to enslavement.  The evil here is not those standing up for liberty, the evil is those attempting to take it.

big government, Constitution, elections, personal responsibility, taxes

Barack Obama-‘I deserve a tax increase’

Leave a comment

“And [Buffett] has said, and I think a lot of us who have been fortunate are willing to pay a little bit more to make sure that a senior citizen who is struggling to deal with rising property taxes or rising heating bills, that they’ve got the coverage that they need.” Barack Obama, November 11, 2007 (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/11/11/obama-i-deserve-a-tax-increase/)

Barack, just as we said to Warren Buffett – if you really believe what you say about paying more in taxes, why haven’t you been doing so? No one is stopping you. So, why haven’t you paid more for the past 2 or 10 years? Why aren’t you starting to pay more today? The Social (In)Security System would love it. The hypocrisy continues.Just remember that Congress’ retirement does NOT come from Social Security, Senator Obama. What does Congress know that they don’t want the rest of us to know?

big government, capitalism, Constitution, elections, rights, taxes

AMT, Republicans and Socialist Charles Rangel

Leave a comment

With all the grousing about the AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax) and the plans to ?¢‚Ǩ?ìdo something?¢‚Ǩ¬ù about it, the following factors must be considered. Charles Rangel, Democratic Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s plan is to raise taxes (don?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t worry, you won?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t be left out) elsewhere to ?¢‚Ǩ?ìpay for?¢‚Ǩ¬ù reducing the AMT. First, Charles, you don?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t have to borrow money to ?¢‚Ǩ?ìpay for?¢‚Ǩ¬ù a tax cut. You borrow money to spend. Everything else is just dissembling and an attempt to confuse people. Power-hungry politicians love to use words like that Continue reading AMT, Republicans and Socialist Charles Rangel →

big government, capitalism, Constitution, foreign policy, personal responsibility, rights

Sicko Michael Moore and the truth about Cuba

Leave a comment

Michael Moore, please call your office ?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú or the church. In a stunning move, the very liberal Episcopal Church unintentionally repudiates Michael Moore?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s manipulative movie Sicko.

As is typical for the Episcopal Church, the Church again injected politics into the pulpit, at least this time, it was something that people could -and should- do to help.

The statement begins: ?¢‚Ǩ?ìImagine waking in the middle of the night with a raging fever and sore throat. Or even worse, your child wakes up feverish and covered in chicken pox. Now, imagine there is no aspirin, Tylenol, or Benadryl in your home because these products are simply not available for purchase in your country. For our brothers and sisters in Cuba, this is everyday life.?¢‚Ǩ¬ù Continue reading Sicko Michael Moore and the truth about Cuba →

big government, capitalism, Constitution, First Amendment, personal responsibility, privacy, rights, taxes

Buffett says taxes are too low, but doesn’t pay more himself

1 Comment

Echoing his comments in June, Warren Buffett is complaining about tax rates as being too low. The relevant question is: has he done anything about it or is he just being a hypocrite, again?

Let?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s see what Buffett has actually done instead of said: Buffett is giving away is fortune (http://money.cnn.com/2006/06/25/magazines/fortune/charity1.fortune/). Good for him, great choice, it is nice that he has the right and freedom to do as he sees fit with the money he has earned. Too bad Buffett doesn’t think that others should have that same freedom.

What precisely is Buffett doing? He is giving his fortune to tax-exempt foundations. So, if you REALLY want to pay more taxes, Warren, why do this? Continue reading Buffett says taxes are too low, but doesn’t pay more himself →

big government, Constitution, privacy, rights, supreme court

Judge David Sentelle and life saving medicines

Leave a comment

“I may have gotten a thin copy, but I had a hard time finding it in my copy of the Constitution.” Judge David Sentelle questioning the “right” for terminally ill patients to get life saving medicines. (March 1, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. For more, see Reason.)

It seems like Judge Sentelle is the one who missed the entire Constitution. The proper question to be asking is, if one reads the Constitution, is where the power to regulate whether terminal patients can get medicine that could save their lives in the first place? Judge Sentelle apparently missed the concept of enumerated powers in the Constitution. Judge Sentelle, please return to law school and pay attention this time.