Category Archives: privacy

Rancor in politics means not compromising on freedom

The Politico states that Obama’s “gift for healing words would combine with the power of his biography to transcend the rancor of modern politics.” (   Rancor in politics is caused by one group attempting to gain power over another and that group fighting back.  To take freedom and turn the United States into a socialist paradise.  To take our liberty for what they claim as a good purpose.  The Founders knew this which was why they enumerated powers in the Constitution.  The authoritarians knew this too and since at least the 1930s have attempted to pit one group against another for the aggrandizement of their own power.  Group politics and group envy is the basis of those power hungry groups who only care about one thing – their own power.

Should the North avoided “rancor” with the South in April of 1861?  Should Roosevelt should have avoided “rancor” with Japan on December 8, 1941?  Should the Africans who were being sold into slavery by their own people to the Europeans have fought or should they have avoided “rancor” in politics?

Anyone who is being sold into serfdom should fight back to preserve their freedoms.  Rancor is perfectly fine. Rancor is good, it means you are engaged and care about being free or being serf.  Rancor means not compromising when it comes to protecting your freedoms.  Rancor means that power-hungry authoritarians are not getting their way.  Rancor means that the line of liberty in the sand is drawn and defended.  Rancor means that the defenders of liberty are not willing to compromise their liberty away bit by bit.

Freedom implies free markets.  Freedom implies free minds.  Freedom implies the freedom to make good, and bad decisions.  Every compromise is a grain of sand dripping out of the hour-glass of freedom.  It may only seem like a single grain, but given enough time eventually the top of the glass will be completely empty.

Obama on Palin’s Family

Kudos to Barack Obama:

“Our people were not involved in any way in this, and they will not be. And ifI thought there was somebody in my campaign who was involved in something like that, they would be fired.”

Whether or not this is a political calculation or not, this is the right thing. If the candidate doesn’t bring his or her family into the issue, the press should not do so.

Obama co-sponsers national finger-print database bill

Senators Mel Martinez and Diane Feinstein along with 11 co-sponsors include Barack Obama have authored a bill creating a national finger-print registry according to analysis of the bill. Yet another step towards asurveillancesociety. And another hint of the type of “Change” that Barack Obama will support – fewer freedoms.


Martinez press release:

Heritage Foundation on the issue:

Spying Upon Ourselves

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

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

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 ( 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

Judge David Sentelle and life saving medicines

“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.

All safe deposit boxes in banks or financial institutions have been sealed… and may only be opened in the presence of an agent of the I.R.S.

“All safe deposit boxes in banks or financial institutions have been sealed… and may only be opened in the presence of an agent of the I.R.S.”
– Attributed to President F.D. Roosevelt, 1933 after making it illegal to own gold  [There is dispute about this quotation, but the result was the same.]


2010 Update: Great article on President Roosevelt confiscating – a.k.a. taking or stealing – gold from United States citizens and foreigners (through devaluation).

Back to the USSR? Compliments of Rep. David Dreier

Tuesday, October 05, 2004
Back to the USSR?
Rep. David Dreier introduced Legislation ( to force people to carry national ID cards with them which are tied into a national database. If Dreier is an example of the Republican party, the Republican Party is no longer the party of Reagan and Goldwater, only of the old USSR. So much for maximizing Liberty, Dreier is taking us one step closer to totalitarianism. Continue reading Back to the USSR? Compliments of Rep. David Dreier

No Privacy Jihad

No Privacy Jihad, April 1, 2004

Regarding the editorial “The ‘Privacy’ Jihad” in the April 1, 2004 Wall Street Journal, the short response to Heather Mac Donald is from Franklin: “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” This phrase was used often in the Revolutionary period, even as early as November 1755 Continue reading No Privacy Jihad

Federal Government?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s recent actions demonstrate a tremendous danger to free speech

Thursday, February 26, 2004
The Federal Government?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s recent actions on censorship demonstrate a tremendous danger to free speech.

Once you start down the path of the government deciding permissible content for radio (or TV, newspapers, or the internet) to air, the country is in very serious trouble. A company such as Clear Channel may decide it doesn?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t want to air a particular program, but it is entirely different for the government to impose such a decision. Continue reading Federal Government?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s recent actions demonstrate a tremendous danger to free speech