This was the moment – this was the time – when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves, and our highest ideals. Thank you, God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America. – Barack Obama, June 3, 2008
Yes, if something is great, you typically want to remake it.
“It’s time for a president who is ready on day one to be the commander in chief of our economy.” Hillary Clinton, March 27, 2008
“I don’t want to run the national economy! I want your national economy runners to leave me alone!” Dagny Taggart, Atlas Shrugged
The nature of freedom is being in charge of your own life. Freedom means freedom in every sense, from the economy to your personal life. A free people do not need a “commander in chief” of our economy. Liberty means you can live on a commune in Wisconsin or a free city in Florida. A free economy implies capitalism. All other statist systems from communism to socialism to fascism, rely on force to take your freedom away from you. The people who say “capitalism does not work” are saying “freedom doesn’t work.”And what they mean by that is they want power over you to force you to change reality for them and make the economic systems based on force work.
There is no middle ground between liberty and tyranny.
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.
“I firmly believe that changing the rules now, and seating delegates from Florida and Michigan at this point would not only violate the Democratic party’s rules of fairness, but also would be a grave injustice. …I knew the rules, abided by them, and ultimately accepted the consequences. Changing the rules in the middle of a presidential contest is patently unfair both to the candidates (including Senator Edwards) and to Democratic voters everywhere.” – Al Sharpton, February 13, 2008, part of Rev Sharpton’s letter.
Reverend Sharpton,you are exactly right,thank you for stating that. Changing the rules in the middle of the game is patently unfair. As a Florida resident I don’t like the handling of the delegates for the Democrats or Republicans, but the rules were set by both parties for 2008 and we are stuck with them now. Perhaps for 2012 the parties will revise their rules in light of these events.
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.
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.
“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?
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
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
“Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent.” (see Times Online article)
Sounds like Warren Buffett has a perfect argument to lower his secretary’s tax rate to 17.7% (or lower). How about that Warren? Of course, that is unlikely to happen since Buffett has made his stance clear – that he wants everyone to pay MORE taxes, not less. Continue reading Warren Buffett attacks tax rates as being too low?