Colin Powell called for a more centrist Republican party on Tuesday (May 5, 2009). Whether Powell is a dupe or a closet statist isn’t clear yet, but it looks to be the later.
Mr. Powell, when you cave in on principles and on the defense of liberty you lose. Perhaps you didn’t realize you were fighting for the freedom Continue reading Powell calls for centrism, cares little for Liberty
At the Huffington Post, Democrat Senator Ron Wyden is quoted as saying that had “that legislation [a large tax on bonuses] been passed it would have been a very strong disincentive to anybody paying out bonuses in the future.” Wyden did vote against the major bailouts, but appears to have voted for the “stimulus.”
Let’s recall a few facts:
1. The “Stimulus” Bill that both Houses and the President approved included provisions authorizing the bonuses. Perhaps if Congress READ their Bills they would not be able blame someone else when people do what Congress is authorized.
2. A large number of people have made the statement, “but it is taxpayer money.” I agree that it is taxpayer money.
The real question though is whether we want to go down the path of controlling everyone who receives taxpayer money?
However, if we are going to do so, we need to think about the consequences in detail:
a. If you receive food stamps, shall we limit your choices to low-fat food? Soda?
b. If you receive Medicare, how much of your life can we control? Pretty much everything since we are footing the bill. Are you over-weight? Get on the treadmill. Do you drink? Stop, we’re going to pay for your new liver. Like chocolate? Sorry, diabetes. Ride a bike? Put on a helmet! Like to sunbathe? Skin cancer, get inside. It is taxpayer money paying for your vices. Should the taxpayers be paying and not having input?
c. Are you on Social Security? What can’t taxpayers control since we’re paying your bills.
Additions:
d. Cash for clunkers? Hope you aren’t a lead foot!
e. ObamaCare – apply the Medicare rules to everyone!
Trading freedom for the chance to pick someone else’s pocket is a bad idea morally and fiscally.
While obvious for some time, the Politico (Politico) today confirms that President Obama is targeting Rush Limbaugh.
What Obama fails to realize is that this means that Rush begins to set the agenda for the Democrats and in that case they are going to have a tough time of it. Rush has three hours per day on the air to respond so anyone willing to listen to him will hear the truth instead of the Obama and mainstream media’s spin. While good for Rush, letting him set the agenda will be bad for the President.
It should also be noted that:
I think the title says it all:
“A New Era of Responsibility, 1.75 trillion deficit”
$3.552 Trillion total spending or about $25,000 per taxpayer.
See the pdf file: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/fy2010_new_era/A_New_Era_of_Responsibility2.pdf
It didn’t take long to introduce more gun ownership regulation. (See http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.45.IH:) The short list of requirements are:
1. Guns must be registered (any rifle with a clip or any pistol)
2. You must be fingerprinted.
3. You must supply your social Continue reading HR-45, the Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009
Yesterday (Feb 13, 2009) radio host Mario Solis Marich asked former President Bill Clinton if it was time for “some type of enforced media accountability.” Clinton replied:
“Well, you either ought to have the Fairness Doctrine or we ought to have more balance on the other side, because essentially there’s always been a lot of big money to support the right wing talk shows and let face it, you know, Rush Limbaugh is fairly entertaining even when he is saying things that I think are ridiculous….”
For someone who attended law school and was President of the United States to blatantly ignore the First Amendment to the Constitution (not to mention the fact that the Constitution gives the Federal Government no power to regulate the press) is appalling.
When all power is concentrated in Washington and there is no one permitted to speak up for Freedom and Liberty, we can look back on comments such as these and see the steps we took to get there.
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
“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.
One might call it ironic that the McCain campaign is faltering due to lack of funds. Ironic because he has helped to silence his own speech rights while limiting everyone else?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s. Instead of being free to donate and disclose to a candidate who shares your views, you are greatly limited. McCain suffers from that problem.
It might be that people think he has nothing worthwhile to say and won?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t donate. Or it might be that they don?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t know what he has to say since they haven?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t been able to hear it to decide if they wish to donate. Either way McCain loses his chance to influence the political process because he has limited everyone else’s opportunity too. Certainly McCain?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s (theoretical) base knows many of his positions and disagrees with his anti-freedom views, however there could have been more people who agreed with him, but won?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t hear his message. He can thank himself and Senator Feingold for that.
That is the nature of free speech. You are free to speak when you want, but it costs money to get your speech out there in front of many people. That means convincing people you have something worth saying and can express it. McCain has ensured that he can?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t do that, and who knows how many other candidates he has shut out of the marketplace of ideas.
“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).