Every now and again there is story about how some group is lobbying for government to takeover private 401(k) plans. Not much ever comes out of it, just an acknowledgment of something most of us already know…the government wants our money.

Posted by Jason at 12:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Nick Gillespie explains why plans programs passed by Congress often windup being used differently from their intended target:

Posted by Jason at 07:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

We hear the words "fascist" and "Nazi" tossed around as a smear in politics on a fair regular basis. However, "communist" isn't, at least not anymore, but is responsible for far more deaths. Writing in the Washington Post, Paul Hollander explores why communism gets off so easy these days:

The different moral responses to Nazism and communism in the West can be interpreted as a result of the perception of communist atrocities as byproducts of noble intentions that were hard to realize without resorting to harsh measures. The Nazi outrages, by contrast, are perceived as unmitigated evil lacking in any lofty justification and unsupported by an attractive ideology. There is far more physical evidence and information about the Nazi mass murders, and Nazi methods of extermination were highly premeditated and repugnant, whereas many victims of communist systems died because of lethal living conditions in their places of detention. Most of the victims of communism were not killed by advanced industrial techniques.

Communist systems ranged from tiny Albania to gigantic China; from highly industrialized Eastern European countries to underdeveloped African ones. While divergent in many respects, they had in common a reliance on Marxism-Leninism as their source of legitimacy, the one-party system, control over the economy and media, and the presence of a huge political police force. They also shared an ostensible commitment to creating a morally superior human being -- the socialist or communist man.

Political violence under communism had an idealistic origin and a cleansing, purifying objective. Those persecuted and killed were defined as politically and morally corrupt and a danger to a superior social system. The Marxist doctrine of class struggle provided ideological support for mass murder. People were persecuted not for what they did but for belonging to social categories that made them suspect.

Posted by Jason at 12:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

"We trying on every front to increase the role of government." - Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA)

You can see the video below:

Posted by Jason at 07:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

To answer Grift's question, yes, this bothers me. It bothered me the other day when someone responded to a post at United Liberty on Twitter with "Bring back HUAC."

In his book, Radicals for Capitalism, Brian Doherty points out that libertarians, such as Leonard Read and Foundation for Economic Education, were once subject to our own version of HUAC called the Buchanan Commission put together by Rep. Frank Buchanan (D-PA):

In 1950 [Buchanan] ran an investigation into lobbying activities in which he had FBI agents come into the Foundation for Economic Education attempting to find out who was financing these horrible anti-American ideas about free markets and free trade and no government intervention. He sent telegrams to all of these funders of FEE, demanding that they come before him and “name names,” as they said in the McCarthy Era, and explain exactly where their money was going that was allegedly being used to influence Congress in sinister ways.

I've noted some of the ties that a couple of Barack Obama's advisers have. We shouldn't play mind police in a free country. Yes, they are wrong in their views, but views that we may consider to be dangerous still have seat in the marketplace of ideas in a country that is supposed to embrace liberty.

We have all the right in the world to say their are wrong or debate them or chide them for certain views, but we do not need another government witch hunt.

Posted by Jason at 02:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Jack Layton, a Member of Parliament from Canada, will meet this week with the Obama Administration to talk discuss healthcare:

Armed with the virtues of Canadian health care, Jack Layton is heading to Washington this week, hoping to bolster President Barack Obama's intentions to reform the American health system.

The federal New Democrat leader is to spend two and a half days meeting with White House officials and members of Congress.

"We know the Americans can't just simply adopt our model, walk it across the border and put it in place," Layton said in an interview Saturday after making a speech to the Ontario NDP provincial council in Toronto.

"But the principles of universality, of access and of insuring that health care's available to everybody, those kinds of principles are very much motivating the Obama administration."

Layton said he and his contingent will aim to destroy what he calls myths being perpetuated by right-wing health care privatizers who don't want Obama's plans realized.

Do you need anymore evidence of the end goal of Obama's plan for healthcare in the United States? You can play it down all you want, but it's very clear that a government takeover is the goal and the plan being put forward.

You can read more about healthcare in other nations, including Canada, here.

Posted by Jason at 04:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has." - Margaret Mead

The left leaning media outlets made much of the numbers at Wednesday’s Tea Parties. Keith Olbermann especially mocked some Tea Parties attended by less than recent sporting events. Understanding that Olbermann’s primary objective is not to inform (but rather to sell advertising), his observations (as well as those of his fellow travelers) avoid the important point.

Legend holds that at the time of the American Revolution 1/3 of the colonists were in favor of revolution, 1/3 were against the revolution and 1/3 were apathetic (plus ça change…) The number of men standing on the Green at Lexington was less than 100. To paraphrase that old saw “it is not the size of the crowd at the revolution, it’s the size of the revolution in the crowd.”

It is a mistake to argue whether the number of people at the Sacramento Rally was 5,000 or 10,000. It matters not that Atlanta’s numbers were inflated by Sean Hannity’s appearance. The proper response to these sorts of comments is not to gainsay; rather, the best retort is to emphasize the gravity of the issues discussed at the Tea Parties.

Too often a good idea will die on the vine because of a perceived lack of interest. Note that Olbermann and Maddow et al. spent very little time discussing the topic of tax reform and reduction of federal spending. Those who attended the Tea Parties and those who support tax and spending reform should be talking about how these ideas will create more opportunities and eliminate the impediments to financial success.

Perhaps the most grotesque attempt to suppress discussion of these ideals was Janeane Garofalo’s commentary on Olbermann’s show. She claimed that the Tea Parties were gatherings of racists whose limbic brains were enlarged. Garofalo’s attack could be dismissed as the ignorant rant of a misinformed actress; instead Tea Party participants should ignore the temptation to counter- attack Garofalo and her ilk. There is no way to win the argument as Garofalo seeks to frame it. There probably were some people at the Tea Parties who are racist with enlarged limbic brains. So what? That addresses not at all the validity of the points made by the Tea Party organizers.

The better course is to invite those who attack to discuss the merits of tax and spending reform. The person who defines an argument has already won the argument. If the history of the Tea Parties is reduced to head counts and allegations of racism then the cause will be lost. Proponents of tax and spending reform should insist that the discussion and arguments be on the merit of the ideas.

The battle will be won by convincing the apathetic that this is a fight worthy of their time and effort. It will be lost if the apathetic are allowed to think that the tax and spending revolution is the province of a cabal of racists. Shaping the argument is the destiny of the movement.

Less than 750 people were present for the inception of the American Revolution at the Green in Lexington and the North Bridge in Concord. These men were willing to sacrifice all in order to security the “blessings of liberty’. What moved others to join them was not their number but their passion and courage. The next American Revolution (whenever it comes) will be defined by similar passion and courage not by head counts.

Posted by Green Death at 12:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (7)

Social Security isn't doing all that well:

For years, opponents of Social Security reform have told us that there is no need to rush into changing the program because, after all, Social Security is running a surplus today. Well, according to a new report by the Congressional Budget Office, not so much.

CBO reports that the Social Security surplus, originally expected to be $80-90 billion this year and next will shrink to $16 billion this year and just $3 billion next year (essentially a rounding error) as a result of the recession and rising unemployment. And those estimates may be far too optimistic. In February of this year, for example, Social Security actually ran a deficit—spending more than it took in through taxes and interest combined.

The evidence suggests that, even with recent market declines, private investment would still produce higher returns than Social Security. The new surplus numbers provide yet another lesson: if the economy is in such a mess that it hurts private investment, traditional Social Security isn’t going to be in any better shape.

While the Obama Administration says lifting the cap on payroll taxes is an answer, in fact it's only a short term fix that isn't worth pursuing because it would amount to a huge tax increase.

C/P: Examiner

Posted by Jason at 07:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

There has been a lot of reaction in the blogosphere about a new Rasmussen poll which shows that 53% of Americans believe capitalism is better than socialism:

Only 53% of American adults believe capitalism is better than socialism.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 20% disagree and say socialism is better. Twenty-seven percent (27%) are not sure which is better.

Adults under 30 are essentially evenly divided: 37% prefer capitalism, 33% socialism, and 30% are undecided. Thirty-somethings are a bit more supportive of the free-enterprise approach with 49% for capitalism and 26% for socialism. Adults over 40 strongly favor capitalism, and just 13% of those older Americans believe socialism is better.

Investors by a 5-to-1 margin choose capitalism. As for those who do not invest, 40% say capitalism is better while 25% prefer socialism.

There is a partisan gap as well. Republicans - by an 11-to-1 margin - favor capitalism. Democrats are much more closely divided: Just 39% say capitalism is better while 30% prefer socialism. As for those not affiliated with either major political party, 48% say capitalism is best, and 21% opt for socialism.

If you want to see socialism in practice, look back at the Bush Administration. The case against the economic interventionism of George W. Bush is well documented. The man brought the big government that Bill Clinton never delivered.

Scott Rasmussen also points out that this poll used different terminology than a similar poll a couple months ago:

It is interesting to compare the new results to an earlier survey in which 70% of Americans prefer a free-market economy. The fact that a “free-market economy” attracts substantially more support than “capitalism” may suggest some skepticism about whether capitalism in the United States today relies on free markets.

Other survey data supports that notion. Rather than seeing large corporations as committed to free markets, two-out-of-three Americans believe that big government and big business often work together in ways that hurt consumers and investors

A few years ago Milton Friedman said that our economy was already half socialist. One could reasonably argue that we accelerated the grasp of socialism significantly in just the last few months as the government gains control over important sectors of the economy. My point is that government has always gotten in the way of the market, holding it back because of misguided populist anger or simply out of arrogance that, somehow, politicians and bureaucrats can manage the economy.

Politicians that campaign on capitalism (free trade, less taxes and smaller government) need to start practicing it or stand aside.

C/P: Examiner

Posted by Jason at 12:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (4)

The Obama Administration wants the power to seize financial firms:

The Obama administration is considering asking Congress to give the Treasury secretary unprecedented powers to initiate the seizure of non-bank financial companies, such as large insurers, investment firms and hedge funds, whose collapse would damage the broader economy, according to an administration document.

The government at present has the authority to seize only banks.

Giving the Treasury secretary authority over a broader range of companies would mark a significant shift from the existing model of financial regulation, which relies on independent agencies that are shielded from the political process. The Treasury secretary, a member of the president's Cabinet, would exercise the new powers in consultation with the White House, the Federal Reserve and other regulators, according to the document.

The administration plans to send legislation to Capitol Hill this week. Sources cautioned that the details, including the Treasury's role, are still in flux.
[...]
The administration's proposal contains two pieces. First, it would empower a government agency to take on the new role of systemic risk regulator with broad oversight of any and all financial firms whose failure could disrupt the broader economy. The Federal Reserve is widely considered to be the leading candidate for this assignment. But some critics warn that this could conflict with the Fed's other responsibilities, particularly its control over monetary policy.

The government also would assume the authority to seize such firms if they totter toward failure.

Besides seizing a company outright, the document states, the Treasury Secretary could use a range of tools to prevent its collapse, such as guaranteeing losses, buying assets or taking a partial ownership stake. Such authority also would allow the government to break contracts, such as the agreements to pay $165 million in bonuses to employees of AIG's most troubled unit.

The Treasury secretary could act only after consulting with the president and getting a recommendation from two-thirds of the Federal Reserve Board, according to the plan.
[...]
The powers would parallel the government's existing authority over banks, which are exercised by banking regulatory agencies in conjunction with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Geithner has cited that structure as the model for the government's plans

And regardless of what Geithner says, the plan isn't like the FDIC.

Posted by Jason at 12:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Barack Obama got a little touchy over a question from The New York Times during a recent interview:

President Obama was so concerned that he may have mishandled a question from New York Times reporters about whether he was a socialist, that he called the paper to clarify his position. The president initially answered the question aboard Air Force One saying, "Let's take a look at the budget, the answer would be no."

The president explained he wanted a return to the tax rates of the 1990s by giving a tax-cut to 95 percent of workers. But the president may have felt that was too dismissive, and called the Times from the Oval Office explaining: "It was hard for me to believe that you were entirely serious about that socialist question... it wasn't under me that we started buying a bunch of shares of banks. it wasn't on my watch."

Asked whose watch he was talking about he said: "I just think it's clear by the time we got here, there already had been an enormous infusion of taxpayer money into the financial system."

Q. The first six weeks have given people a glimpse of your spending priorities. Are you a socialist as some people have suggested?

A. You know, let’s take a look at the budget – the answer would be no.

Then comes the next question:

Q. So to people who suggested that you are more liberal than you suggested on the campaign, you say, what?

A. I think it would be hard to argue, Jeff. We have delivered on every promise that we’ve made so far. We said that we would end the war in Iraq and we’ve put forward a responsible plan.

Obama was so concerned about the question that he called back and not only clarified his answer, but took a moment to blame Bush (and rightly so) for his expansion of government:

Just one thing I was thinking about as I was getting on the copter. It was hard for me to believe that you were entirely serious about that socialist question. I did think it might be useful to point out that it wasn’t under me that we started buying a bunch of shares of banks. It wasn’t on my watch. And it wasn’t on my watch that we passed a massive new entitlement – the prescription drug plan without a source of funding. And so I think it’s important just to note when you start hearing folks through these words around that we’ve actually been operating in a way that has been entirely consistent with free-market principles and that some of the same folks who are throwing the word socialist around can’t say the same.

It's clear being labeled a socialist bothers him. Everything he is doing is leading to more centralization of government. How is that not socialism?

Posted by Jason at 06:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Senator John Douglas,

How do you plan to vote on SB 31? Will you vote with the Georgia Power lobbyists who have far more money to spend to butter you and your associates up than the average citizen? Or will will you vote in the defense of the citizens who elected you to look out for their best interests?

By voting for Georgia Power's plan, you take money out of my pocket and redistribute it to someone else, and I get nothing in return. Because I know your are a man who considers Obama a socialist and decries the redistribution of wealth, I hope that I can rest assured that you will not vote to redistribute what money I have (especially as I am in the process of buying my first home) to a state-protected monopoly.

Please feel free to let the JasonPye.com community know how you plan to vote.

Thanks,
Josh Patterson

Posted by Joshua Patterson at 09:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (12)

There is a controversy over Carol Browner, who would serve as the Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change in the incoming administration. It turns out that she is a socialist in the very literal sense:

Incoming Global Warming Czar Carol Browner was — until last week — listed as one of 14 leaders of a socialist group that advocates what's called "global governance" and says rich countries must shrink their economies to address climate change. The Washington Times reports Browner's name and biography were listed on the Web page for Socialist International .

Browner previously served as Bill Clinton's Director of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Posted by Jason at 02:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (6)

Your favorite charity could be targeted by Congress:

Like divining rods, Members of Congress are always alert to fresh sources of money, which once discovered they will spend. California Democratic Congressman Xavier Becerra thinks he's discovered a new source of political treasure: the money inside private and community foundations.

The tax exemption foundations enjoy, says Mr. Becerra, is a "$32 billion earmark." As he explains: "I have an obligation to make sure that those $32 billion that would have gone to the federal government are used for a . . . public good."

This sounds like political intimidation. Unless the foundations reprogram money in the direction of Mr. Becerra's preferences, he'll start proceedings to dismantle their tax exemption.

Mr. Becerra and his allies, however, may want to think twice about whacking foundations. A study out this month suggests that foundations spread economic benefits more broadly through society than had been previously imagined. The research was commissioned by a new organization called the Philanthropic Collaborative and was conducted by Robert Shapiro, President Clinton's under secretary of commerce for economic affairs, and Aparna Mathur, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. The Washington-based group's goal is to persuade policy makers of the benefits of philanthropic dollars flowing to communities across the country.
[...]
Mr. Becerra is threatening the charitable exemption mainly to force foundations to redirect donations toward causes he favors. At the Council on Foundations annual meeting earlier this year he complained in particular about the lack of grants to racial minorities. "We're not trying to mandate something," he told the audience about his colleagues' foundation plans in Congress, but "we will, if you don't act."

It shouldn't surprise anyone that Democrats have also floated the idea of confiscating private retirement accounts as well due to the fiscal instability of Social[ist] [In]Security

Posted by Jason at 05:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Reason takes on the Cult of Che:

Posted by Jason at 04:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

We need a reminder of our liberties in these times when our government has abandon the free market:

Posted by Jason at 06:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Bush Administration is moving to nationalize banks:

The Bush administration is considering taking ownership stakes in certain U.S. banks as an option for dealing with a severe global credit crisis.

An administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because no decision has been made, said the $700 billion rescue package passed by Congress last week allows the Treasury Department to inject fresh capital into financial institutions and get ownership shares in return.

Posted by Jason at 11:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson made the talk show rounds yesterday discuss the taxpayer bailouts of financial giants and selling the plan to the American public.

During his interview on This Week George Stephanopoulos made a point regarding concern about the bailout that hasn't been covered that much. You can listen to it here (at exactly 14 minutes).

Stephanopoulos: Conservatives are saying this smacks of socialism.

Paulson: I would say this, this is big government intervention. I think this is an unprecendented time. We have a regulatory system that was broken. There are excesses in the system and I have never as a philosophy thought intervention was good. I would just tell you it's necessary right now.

What I find so appalling is that government believes they can solve the problem. The FDR's New Deal was based off programs that Herbert Hoover enacted and they not only failed, but prolonged the Great Depression. You can read more about that by reading America's Great Depression by Murray Rothbard.

My point is that we are making the same mistakes all over again and we have adopted socialism as our new economic structure...and it happened under a Republican president.

Posted by Jason at 11:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

I'll watch the Olympics when the media recognizes the decades of human rights abuses and the 65 million people killed by the Communist Chinese.

H/T: Below the Beltway

Posted by Jason at 02:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Glenn Beck takes on the Cult of Che:

How Che became such a revered superhero of the hard-core left is laughable. First of all, he wasn't even a good revolutionary. He failed in his attempt at world revolution almost as badly as communism has failed in the places it was actually tried.

"This is a history of a failure" is how he himself described his efforts in the Congo. He was killed in Bolivia, trying to fire up another failure of a war. Earlier, he even managed to drop his gun and shoot himself in the face.

But more important than his incompetence is the fact that the man was a mass killer. Hundreds were reportedly executed on his watch, and that doesn't include the deaths incurred in the wars he was constantly trying to start. He described his maniacal lust for war in his writings, saying he savored "the acrid smell of gunpowder and blood of the enemy's death." How this guy is a hero to the anti-war crowd is truly perplexing.

Posted by Jason at 12:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Brett at Reclaim Your Republic puts Barack Obama in some not so flattering company. I wrote about Obama's Cult of Personality earlier this year.

Posted by Jason at 10:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Marxists for Obama. I need not explain any further.

Posted by Jason at 07:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

CCTV has failed in Britain:

Massive investment in CCTV cameras to prevent crime in the UK has failed to have a significant impact, despite billions of pounds spent on the new technology, a senior police officer piloting a new database has warned. Only 3% of street robberies in London were solved using CCTV images, despite the fact that Britain has more security cameras than any other country in Europe.

What is the definition of insanity again?

Posted by Jason at 04:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Stephen Bainbridge speaks the truth about Obama:

When I think about Obama, I am reminded of Richard Epstein’s observation that in order to remain politically viable modern socialists no longer advocate direct government ownership of production. Instead, modern socialism operates on two different levels: “At a personal level, it speaks to the alienation of the individual, stressing the need for caring and sharing and the politics of meaning. At a regulatory level, it seeks to identify specific sectors in which there is a market failure and then to subject them to various forms of government regulation.” Sounds a lot like Obama’s stump speech to me.

Posted by Jason at 01:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)

Here is a very good cartoon about change...

H/T: Tax Foundation

Posted by Jason at 12:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Hugo Chavez lost his bid to become president for life:

President Hugo Chavez suffered a stunning defeat Monday in a referendum that would have let him run for re-election indefinitely and impose a socialist system in this major U.S. oil provider.

Voters defeated the sweeping measures Sunday by a vote of 51 percent to 49 percent, said Tibisay Lucena, chief of the National Electoral Council, with voter turnout at just 56 percent.

She said that with 88 percent of the votes counted, the trend was irreversible.

Opposition supporters shouted with joy as Lucena announced the results on national television early Monday, their first victory against Chavez after nine years of electoral defeats.

Some broke down in tears. Others began chanting "And now he's going away!"
[...]
Opponents—including Roman Catholic leaders, press freedom groups, human rights groups and prominent business leaders—feared the reforms would have granted Chavez unchecked power and threatened basic rights.

Posted by Jason at 07:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (7)

Atlas continues to shrug in Venezuela:

The Venezuelan president, Hugo Chávez, today threatened to strip the country's industrialists of their assets if they continued to oppose his indefinite presidency.

Chávez faces a vote at the weekend on his proposals to change 69 articles of the constitution, including scrapping the limit on the number of terms a president can serve.

Venezuela's largest business chamber, Fedecámaras, to which thousands of large and small businesses belong, has called the planned reforms an "illegal act", and called on voters to oppose their passage "by every possible legal means".

Posted by Jason at 09:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Since Christmas is around the corner it feels only right to post this...

Posted by Jason at 05:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I'm glad to see that someone destroyed this monument to a murderer:

A glass monument to revolutionary icon Ernesto "Che" Guevara was shot up and destroyed less than two weeks after it was unveiled by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's government.

Images of the 8-foot-tall glass plate bearing Guevara's image, now toppled and shattered, were shown Friday on state television, which said the entire country "repudiated" the vandalism.[...]
Police said they had yet to identify those responsible. The Venezuelan newspaper El Nacional published a copy of what it said was a flier found by the monument signed by the previously unknown "Paramo Patriotic Front."

"We don't want any monument to Che, he isn't an example for our children," the flier read. It called Guevara a "cold-blooded killer" and said the government should raise a monument in Chavez's hometown of Sabaneta, in the nearby lowland plains, if it wants to commemorate the Argentine-born revolutionary.

I'll stop before I say something that'll get me in trouble.

H/T: Instapundit

Posted by Jason at 09:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

A friend forwarded this along to me this morning, it was previously posted by Neal Boortz at his website:

A little history lesson: If you don't know the answer make your best guess. Answer all the questions before looking at the answers. Who said it ?
1) "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

A. Karl Marx
B. Adolph Hitler
C. Joseph Stalin
D. None of the above

2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity."

A. Lenin
B. Mussolini
C. Idi Amin
D. None of the above

Continue reading "Who said it?" »

Posted by Jason at 07:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (5)

Dennis Kucinich, the communist troll from Ohio, may retire from Congress. But...it turns out that Cynthia McKinney may run for President after all. It looks like Hank Johnson is safe for another term.

Posted by Jason at 11:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Hillary Clinton has another crazy leftist proposal:

Hillary Rodham Clinton proposed tax cuts of up to $1,000 a year on Tuesday to encourage millions of working-age families to open personal 401(k) retirement accounts.

The New York senator said the program would be paid for through higher estate taxes.

At the same time, Clinton said she has given up another idea for a savings incentive — giving every baby born in the United States a $5,000 account to pay for college or a first home.

Instead, she said, her plan for what she called "American Retirement Accounts" will provide "universal access to a generous 401(k) for all Americans."

If Social Security is failing and private retirement accounts are receiving a much higher return than anything the government offers...common sense tells you to keep government out of it.

Posted by Jason at 05:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Rich Lowry on the uber-fascist populist Lou Dobbs:

The other day when he was speaking at a luncheon event in Manhattan, my nodding moment came when he complained that the Iraq War has been going poorly, yet “not a single general has been fired for his failure.” That seemed bracing common sense, but with Dobbs, the longer you listen, the more self-discrediting he becomes.

His trick is to spout clichés drawn from the Right and the Left — any one of which has a 50/50 chance that the average person will agree with it — and give them a patina of freshness by wrapping them in angry and dire rhetoric. That rhetoric is their essential glue, making Dobbs the country’s foremost practitioner of apocalyptic centrism.
[...]
Dobbs is no ordinary corporate basher, since he also rails against political correctness, illegal immigration, “Communist China” and radical jihadists. His economic populism is always sold in terms of the middle class and the national interest. Unless we address the foreign economic threat, he warns, “this century will be named for another nation.” Indeed, he says, “we’re facing a real crisis that will materialize in a couple of years, and we’d better hope that it takes that long.”

Evidence of this imminent crisis is thin. Dobbs basically has to ignore the record stock market, an unemployment rate of 4.5 percent and the 20 years of growth since the early 1980s, interrupted by only two brief recessions. Dobbs is worried because the U.S. imports more than it exports and China sends a lot of its capital here, making us “a debtor nation.” But his alarmist case really relies on the tired stupidities of old-fashioned protectionism.

Posted by Jason at 08:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Fred Thompson shares his thoughts on HillaryCare v. 2.0...

Posted by Jason at 11:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

This is one of the more frightening ideas that could be part of Hillary Clinton's healthscare plan:

"At this point, we don't have anything punitive that we have proposed," the presidential candidate said in an interview with The Associated Press. "We're providing incentives and tax credits which we think will be very attractive to the vast majority of Americans."

She said she could envision a day when "you have to show proof to your employer that you're insured as a part of the job interview — like when your kid goes to school and has to show proof of vaccination," but said such details would be worked out through negotiations with Congress.

This one statement, "We're providing incentives and tax credits which we think will be very attractive to the vast majority of Americans." That line is a deviation from the fact that this abortion she calls a healthcare plan is geared, not towards individuals, but to corporations that already receive tax credits for providing their employees with health insurance.

Ronald Bailey over a Reason sums up her plan:

Sen. Clinton's plan would greatly expand government control over the health insurance market. She mandates that employers buy insurance; offers a menu of cookie-cutter health insurance policies designed by federal bureaucrats; and expands government insurance schemes like Medicare. Her plan is the wrong prescription for America's health care woes because it would result in poorer quality health care, lost jobs, less consumer choice, and higher taxes.

Posted by Jason at 09:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Cynthia McKinney won't run for President:

Controversial former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney spent months attending Green Party events around the nation designed to help raise money to pay off her 2006 campaign debt. And -- after months of flirting with making a run for Green Presidential nomination -- McKinney formally withdrew from the Green nomination contest. In a letter dated Monday and addressed to the Steering Committee of the Green Party of the United States, McKinney wrote: "After careful consideration about the political conditions facing our nation, the level of development within the [Green] Party, my own readiness to take on such a daunting task and my own long postponed personal priorities, I write to inform the Party that I must at this time withdraw my name from consideration for the Party's 2008 Presidential Nominating contest." The move leaves McKinney free to make yet another attempt to recapture her former House seat next year.

But the Greens got played because apparently they helped McKinney retire some $50,000 in campaign debt.

This is something I posted on Peach Pundit on Tuesday, I meant to post it here and forgot.

Posted by Jason at 08:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

John Stossel and Michael Moore will go at it on the healthcare issue this Friday on 20/20. Here is a taste of things to come.

Posted by Jason at 07:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

John Edwards healthcare proposal is bothersome. The idea of universal healthcare is scary enough, but under his proposal you are required, presumably under the threat of force, to see a doctor:

"It requires that everybody be covered. It requires that everybody get preventive care," he told a crowd sitting in lawn chairs in front of the Cedar County Courthouse. "If you are going to be in the system, you can't choose not to go to the doctor for 20 years. You have to go in and be checked and make sure that you are OK."
[...]
Edwards said his mandatory health care plan would cover preventive, chronic and long-term health care. The plan would include mental health care as well as dental and vision coverage for all Americans.

"The whole idea is a continuum of care, basically from birth to death," he said.
[...]
Edwards said his plan would cost up to $120 billion a year, a cost he proposes covering by ending President Bush's tax cuts to people who make more than $200,000 per year.

Posted by Jason at 04:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." - Declaration of Independence

Those words mean something. They were a goal to reach for...that every individual should be free to pursue his own individual version of happiness, whatever it may be. They were given the individual empowerment, free from government interference...provided that they did not infringe on the rights of other individuals.

The message has gotten lost...and in his latest column, Matt Carrothers points out how the American Dream and its individual liberty background has been hijacked by collectivists like Hillary Clinton, who use it as a selling point for her brand of big government:

On August 7, Sen. Hillary Clinton announced her detailed plan to “address mortgage lending abuses.” Clinton’s press statement, found on her web site, begins, “With foreclosure rates continuing to skyrocket across the country, Senator Hillary Clinton . . . laid out a plan to preserve the American dream of home ownership that would crack down on unscrupulous brokers, curb mortgage-lending abuses, assist families facing foreclosure and expand affordable housing options.”

The concept of borrower responsibility is obviously lost on Clinton. She then cites the plight of her own Signora Colombo, a woman named Kristi Schofield. Kristi and her husband can no longer afford to live in their home, because their adjustable-rate mortgage payments grew from $2,400 to $6,000 per month.

Signora Schofield said, “We tried to do the right thing and continued to make the payments as long as we could with our savings and what earnings we had from unemployment, temporary and part-time work.”

Schofield added, “Hillary Clinton is standing up today because she wants to help protect the American dream.”

In truth, Clinton’s plan would heap onerous and needless new regulations on the mortgage industry and establish a $1 billion housing trust fund to help “at-risk borrowers avoid foreclosure.” In other words, Clinton’s plan requires responsible taxpayers to subsidize the mortgage payments of deadbeats unable to comprehend the concept of adjustable mortgage rates.

Posted by Jason at 12:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

Ronald Reagan words are so relevant in today's debate over healthcare...

H/T: Stephen @ The Liberty Papers

Posted by Jason at 04:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

Here is a look at the tax increases on the table from Congress:

• A Senate Finance Committee plan to raise the federal tobacco tax by 61 cents to a total of $1 a pack to finance the Schip health-care expansion. The Senate figures this will raise $35 billion in revenue over five years, if you choose to believe this tax increase won't produce even more tax-free cigarette sales from Indian reservations.
[..]
• Raise the capital gains rate to 28% from the current 15%. This would repeal not only the capital gains tax cut of 2003 but also the tax cut (to 20% from 28%) that Bill Clinton signed into law in 1997. Presidential candidate John Edwards proposed this 86% increase in the capital gains tax last week, and he's been echoed in recent days by such Democratic tax sachems as Alan Blinder and Leonard Burman. Mr. Blinder thinks capital gains should be taxed no differently than regular income, which means the tax rate would rise to 39.6% if the 2003 tax cuts expire in 2010. The last time the U.S. had a capital gains rate that high was 1978--the Jimmy Carter era.
[...]
• A tax increase on the "carried interest" of hedge funds and private equity to 35% from 15%. This has been introduced in the House and endorsed by Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel and the major Democratic Presidential candidates.
[...]
• A levy on oil and gas produced from deep-water leases in the Gulf of Mexico. This tax on domestic energy production is also part of the subsidy-fest known as the House farm bill and would allegedly raise $6.1 billion.

Posted by Jason at 11:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Here is a great review of the Socialist Weasel's new piece of propaganda:

With Sicko, Moore starts out telling the stories of a few people without health insurance, who can't afford to reattach cut-off fingers or who stitch up their own wounds. Then he stops suddenly and announces that this film is not about the uninsured. It's about the insured.

At that point Moore leads into a parade of sad stories. A cancer patient dies after being denied a bone transplant. A deaf girl's cochlear implant is considered too experimental. A girl in a head-on collision is taken to the hospital in an ambulance but the insurer refuses to pay for the ambulance ride because it was not pre-approved, even though she was unconscious. A woman in Detroit drives to Canada and shows Moore how to use their free walk-in clinics.
[...]
Take bone marrow transplants. Can you get one in Cuba? Roberta Gianfortoni, a dean at the Harvard School of Public Health, has visited Cuba to tour its medical system and says doctors there know how to do many procedures but that doesn't mean those procedures are actually available. As Moore reports, the government only spends $250 per person on health. Not much room in there for major surgery.

Moore is right that our system is messed up. But that may be due to it being a contorted free market system, with limited competition and little consumerism.

All that is too subtle for Moore, who seems convinced from the start that the only solution is a government takeover. That’s a scary thought. Do you want your doctors to treat you like you get treated at the Department of Motor Vehicles or in airport security lines? Or maybe we should let bad nurses work forever, like a unionized public school teacher. We now enjoy the latest medical device or drug, but will there be much more R&D in the future if a blockbuster pill can't command a blockbuster price?

Posted by Jason at 12:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

John "Two Americas" Edwards is playing a game of "my welfare state is bigger than yours":

Speaking in front of the National Education Association, former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) said he would raise the minimum wage if elected president.

“We’re going to raise the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour so that people can earn a decent wage,” Edwards said. “No one, no one, should work full time in the United States of America and live in poverty.”

And let's not forget that if you raise the minimum wage, especially to $9.50 an hour, it is going to have an adverse reaction and it will cost jobs to many of the same people that it is intended to help.

Posted by Jason at 12:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (6)

Here is an excellent post on socialized medicine from Reason: Hit & Run:

Speaking with my friend in Dublin today, I inquired about his level of satisfaction with Irish health services. He replied with an anecdote: The last time he required medical attention was for a broken arm, for which he was fitted with a standard plaster cast. After a few days the cast, which was apparently constructed from recycled copies of the Irish Sun, began to fall apart. He returned to the hospital for a replacement but, after waiting in the emergency room for nine hours, decided instead to head home and piece it together with DIY tape. The Irish system, he said, was "a mess."

There are some great reviews of Sicko, Moore's new movie, . You can read them here, here and here.

I'd like to watch the movie, just to say I've watched it...it's what I did with his other piece of propaganda, Fahrenheit 9/11, which I watched with Dave Kopel's notes on the film. But I have about four or five other movies that are higher up on my list of flicks to see...starting with Live Free or Die Hard (I dig the Die Hard series).

Posted by Jason at 08:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

Here is Matt Carrother's latest column...yet another good one:

Liberal activists – the political left’s extreme political left – ask that everyone stop referring to them as liberals. They now want to be called progressives. According to a June 22 Washington Times article, Campaign for America’s Future (CAF) co-director Roger Hickey says the word progressive “goes beyond the traditional concept of liberalism, which we also subscribe to, and it has an emphasis on empowering people in the political and economic sphere.” To paraphrase Billy Joel, everybody's talkin’ ‘bout the new label. Funny, but it’s still liberalism to me.

The liber – I’m sorry, progressive – CAF hosted a conference last week called “Take Back America 2007.” The group invited the Democratic presidential candidates to explain their now progressive policy prescriptions for the country. A close examination of the policy solutions offered by both CAF and the leading Democratic presidential contenders, however, reveals their solutions to be nothing more than the same socialist pursuits promoted by the left for over 40 years.
[...]
In truth, leftist activists want to abandon the term liberal because it carries decades of worn, big government baggage in the psyches of American voters. The term progressive, the activists believe, sounds more focused and forward-thinking. In fact, progressive policies are no different whether they are labeled progressive, leftist, Democratic or liberal. They all share the same goals – eliminate individual freedom and liberty, secure government control of the economy and decimate our national sovereignty by dismantling our military and opening our borders.

Posted by Jason at 12:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

"It's basically a commercial for Western Europe, with an over-the-top ode to Cuba tacked onto the end." - Ben Smith, from Politico.com on Michael Moore's new film, Sicko.

The welfare states of Europe are hindering economic growth. Unemployment in the European Union is still over 7%. It is over 8% in Spain, almost 9% in France and Germany and it has edged up in Britain to 5.6%. Why in the hell would we want that here?

H/T: QandO

Posted by Jason at 11:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Hillary Clinton versus the free market:

During a nationally broadcast forum Monday evening on faith and politics Sen. Hillary Clinton (D.-N.Y.) attacked the free market and told listeners in that order to attain energy independence and provide universal health coverage, it would be necessary to “take away from some people.”

“An uninsured person who goes to the hospital is more likely to die than an insured person,” Clinton said. “I mean, that is a fact. So what do we do? We have to build a political consensus. And that requires people to give up a little bit of their own turf in order to create this common ground.”

"From each according to their ability, to each according to their need." - Karl Marx

Posted by Jason at 04:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

One of my fellow contributors at The Liberty Papers put up some quotes from various despots. I thought it was a good post and I wanted to share it here.

One that I definitely want to share is this..."Democracy is the road to socialism.” - Karl Marx

Posted by Jason at 10:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Cynthia McKinney may seek the Green Party nomination for President in 2008 according to Ballot Access News. However, if she does get the Green Party's nomination, she may not appear on the ballot in Georgia unless they can get the 50,000 signatures required by Georgia's draconian ballot access laws.

I believe it would be rather amusing to see her run.

Cross posted at Peach Pundit.

Posted by Jason at 04:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (15)

But remember, folks...it's not a draft:

Under the benign headline “Turning Apathy Into Good Deeds,” former secretary of defense Melvin Laird endorses a strikingly authoritarian proposal: “a system of compulsory universal civil service for young people.” Laird recognizes that the military doesn’t need all the recruits a draft would produce and that today’s high-tech military needs longer-term training and commitment. But the drawn-out war in Iraq threatens to discourage future enlistments. So “universal service” might pressure just enough young people to join the army, while also producing a bumper crop of slave labor for schools, Head Start, Peace Corps, hospitals, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the State Department.

There are candidates running with this proposal, or at least similar ones. Why do these people hate liberty and choice so much?

Posted by Jason at 07:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (7)

Doesn't this just define collectivism:

Presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton outlined a broad economic vision Tuesday, saying it's time to replace an "on your own" society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity.

The Democratic senator said what the Bush administration touts as an "ownership society" really is an "on your own" society that has widened the gap between rich and poor.

"I prefer a 'we're all in it together' society," she said. "I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none."

"Comrades! We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all." - Nikita Khrushchev

Posted by Jason at 12:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

The following is from an interview with Tony Blair on NPR..."The world’s inability to execute a global agreement to seriously reduce greenhouse gas emissions is fueling Islamic terrorism."

H/T: Cato @ Liberty

Posted by Jason at 11:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (6)

Mr. Two Americas spent $400 on a haircut:

John Edwards' campaign for president spent $400 on February 20, and another $400 on March 7, at a top Beverly Hills men's stylist, Torrenueva Hair Designs.

The expensive haircut is, of course, a perennial. Bill Clinton got zinged for getting a cut from Cristophe, and Hillary was found at one point to have buried a stylist on her campaign payroll.

Posted by Jason at 12:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Here is look at Michael Moore, socialized medicine and Cuba.

Posted by Jason at 12:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Throw this one in the What the #$%*? file, it seems that Michigan House Democrats have passed an earmark that would provide every school aged child with an iPod:

Facing a budget deficit that has passed the $1 billion mark, House Democrats Thursday offered a spending plan that would buy a MP3 player or iPod for every school child in Michigan.

No cost estimate was attached to their hare-brained idea to "invest" in education. Details, we are promised, will follow.

NTU has more:

They want taxpayers to pay for an iPod for every school child in the state. Did you hear a record-scratching noise when you read that? Did your jaw drop to the floor? Did you explode with vulgar swear words? If you didn't, let me repeat that one more time, this time I'll yell it...

THEY WANT TAXPAYERS TO PAY FOR AN IPOD FOR EVERY SCHOOL CHILD IN THE STATE!!!

Michigan, a state that already spends more than $10,000 per pupil to educate its children, wants to fund the extravagance of an iPod as well. Because, you know, it would improve their, uhh, education...or something. Knowing government inefficiency, they'd probably spend an average of $1,000 a piece and only half the kids would get them.

Posted by Jason at 02:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (6)

Barack Obama's comments on healthcare are troubling:

Obama said if he was starting from zero, he would likely support a single-payer system, similar to the government-run program in Canada. But he's leery of taking such a step because the United States already has a complex and established system of employer-based health coverage.

He said that the country is already moving toward a government-based health system.

"The government is already covering half the people," said Obama, noting that Medicare, Medicaid and veterans health systems cover a vast number of Americans.

To build a political consensus for a new system, Obama said he'll hold a series of similar meetings to gauge public sentiment. He plans to offer a health care proposal in a couple months, he said.

Obama rejected suggestions that higher taxes are inevitable in a revamped health care system.

Obama realizes that a single-payer system is impossible at this point because of costs, the complexity of healthcare regulations, mandates and other red-tape as well as employer provided systems. He also recognizes that the healthcare liability on the government is growing, but he is ignoring an inevitability which is that the United States is looking at economic hardships in the future due to the liabilities we are facing in our welfare system. Simply put massive tax increases are an absolute certainty at this point unless the government starts taking massive steps to free-market reforms in healthcare.

Posted by Jason at 06:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Hugo Chavez has apparently been following the Sunday sales issue here in Georgia and has decided to take a page out of Sonny and Sadie's book:

For beer and whisky-loving Venezuelans, Easter this year won't be an alcohol-soaked drinking fest.

President Hugo Chavez has imposed a ban on alcohol sales during Holy Week in an attempt to reduce accidents and crimes, prompting a run on liquor stores.

The decree prohibits alcohol sales on Holy Thursday, Good Friday and Easter Sunday next week.

A more limited ban, restricting sales to between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m., including at restaurants and bars, went into effect Friday and will last through April 9.

The sudden, unprecedented measure confused many Venezuelans who raced to stash up before Friday, thinking that would be their last chance to buy for more than a week.

H/T: Brad @ The Liberty Papers

Posted by Jason at 02:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (6)

Congressman John Murtha (D-F'n crazy) wants to bring back the military draft. Sadly, I only wish I was joking. He told CNN's Wolf Blitzer that "everybody ought to be obligated to serve."

I wrote about the Democrats lust for "universal" policies late last summer...the theme, or course, is the "common good."

Here is part of their plan in their own words:

We need a real Patriot Act that brings out the patriot in all of us by establishing for the first time an ethic of universal citizen service. All Americans between the ages of 18 and 25 should be asked to serve their country by going through three months of basic civil defense training and community service. This is not a draft, nor is it military. Young people will be trained not as soldiers, but simply as citizens who understand their responsibilities in the event of a natural disaster, an epidemic or a terrorist attack. Universal citizen service will bring Americans of every background together to make America safer and more united in common purpose.

H/T: QandO

Posted by Jason at 06:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (12)

The Politico covered a forum for Democratic candidates on the issue of healthcare in the United States. What I've read is scary and a load of crap.

Bill Richardson probably had the most honest and respectable comment, though I say that very cautiously:

“We spend $2 trillion a year on health care and 31 percent of that is spent on bureaucracy and red tape. We must devise a strategy that, first of all, does not create any more bureaucracy.”

“I just signed a statewide smoking ban in New Mexico (banning smoking in bars, restaurants, stores, and workplaces). I would do that as president.”

However, John Edwards is off in left field somewhere:

Edwards said his plan will cost $90 billion to $120 billion per year in government costs. The money would come from tax increases, though he prefers the phrase “additional sources of revenue.”

“I do not believe you can have universal health care without finding additional sources of revenue,” he said. “You don’t get universal health care for free."

The National Center for Policy Analysis notes that there is an unfunded liability in Social Security at $11 trillion. The Heritage Foundation puts the Medicare unfunded liability at $27.7 trillion over the next 75 years, Edwards plan adds between $6.75 and $9 trillion (using his estimates) in the same amount of time. I'd love Edwards to sit down and explain how he is going to avoid a fiscal disaster while adding to the liability. Yeah, a tax increase will garner some revenue, but unless he is going to impose a 90% tax rate like that bastard FDR...well, Edwards is off his rocker. Before you propose adding to the liability, maybe you should worry about paying some of it down.

Posted by Jason at 10:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Make sure you check out Herman Cain's lastest article on healthcare:

Of course, over 200 years of American history has shown us that our elected, appointed and career government employees are not motivated by the goal of solving problems. If they were, they wouldn’t so cavalierly pass laws that create new problems or aggravate existing conditions.

It’s not like the rest of us Americans haven’t figured out that the free market, unencumbered by the mandates and regulations of government, provides the best avenue to individual prosperity and the best avenue to affordable and accessible health care for everyone.

But the government’s game is not really about health care, or encouraging every American to achieve and pay for his own retirement, or ensuring low energy costs in our blessed land of abundance. Power and control over the citizenry is government’s mantra.

[...]

Only the free market, not government, can create solutions to our biggest problems – and only if government would get out of the way, and politicians would stop promising new problems.

Posted by Jason at 06:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Despite my recent criticisms of the Republicans here in Georgia, I am reminded that things could be much worse:

Drawing a muted legislative response, Gov. Blagojevich on Wednesday proposed a record $60.1 billion budget reliant on the largest tax increase and biggest borrowing spree in state history.

"Today, we will begin the biggest, most fundamental change in our four-year effort to put middle-class and working families at the center of who we fight for," Blagojevich told a joint session of the General Assembly.

Claiming a "moral imperative," Blagojevich wants to infuse billions of new dollars into public schools, a new health care program for the uninsured and poorly financed government pension funds for state retirees.

[...]

During his 33-minute speech, Blagojevich vilified the state's business community for shirking its "fair share" of government costs and imposing that burden on working families.

Hat tip to the Club for Growth.

Posted by Jason at 04:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I got this off my copy of The Roosevelt Myth. I've always wanted to post it here...so, here it is.

Posted by Jason at 10:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

In an interview yesterday, John Edwards said the following:

"I think that Jesus would be disappointed in our ignoring the plight of those around us who are suffering and our focus on our own selfish short-term needs," Edwards told the site. "I think he would be appalled, actually."

Edwards also said he was against teacher-led prayers in public schools, but he added that "allowing time for children to pray for themselves, to themselves, I think is not only OK, I think it's a good thing."

Jesus Christ was anti-establishment. You could make an argument that Christ was anti-government. I'm not saying he was an anarchist or anything to that effect, but he spoke out against the religious leaders of the day and Christ had a firm belief in free will. Something that today's Democrats know very little about, with the exception of abortion...oh, and don't threaten that sacred institution.

One thing I hear leftist politicians say is that the United States is the "richest country in the world." For the most part that is true. But that wealth is privately owned and privately earned by individuals. It is not there for you to redistribute and it is not yours or ours.

Edwards frequently uses morality in his speeches, especially in his "Two Americas" rhetoric. You often hear the left scream that morality is something that cannot be achieved through the legislative process, which I agree. But shouldn't the same be said for economic issues? The leftist would likely say no and tell me about my social responsibilities. I'm sorry, I have no social responsibilities. I have no responsibility to my fellow man, with the exception of the harm principle. If I choose to donate to charity or a cause it should be of my own choice, not something forced by the police power of government.

Choice...it's something Democrats are supposed to be for, right?

Posted by Jason at 06:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (12)

China is about to become the world's largest producer of greenhouse gases, but no one is threatening them with sanctions because they won't sign the Kyoto Protocol, which will do little to relieve any sort of global warming effect:

Far more than previously acknowledged, the battle against global warming will be won or lost in China, even more so than in the West, new data show.

A report released last week by Beijing authorities indicated that as its economy continues to expand at a red-hot pace, China is highly likely to overtake the United States this year or in 2008 as the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases.

This information, along with data from the International Energy Agency, the Paris-based alliance of oil importing nations, also revealed that China's greenhouse gas emissions have recently been growing by a total amount much greater than that of all industrialized nations put together.

Posted by Jason at 06:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

The House lead by Pelosi have come up with another scheme to shore up votes for the Democratic Party, they want to build stronger numbers in unions. The House passed the Employee Free Choice Act which gives union heavies the ability to place unscrupulous pressure on workers and the way they vote.

If this bill passes then the worker no longer has the ability to vote in private for or against the union. There will be no more secrete ballots and those opposing the union will be in harms way. Since 1975 there have been a reported 90,000 incidents of violence with 203 deaths where no one was arrested. Believe it or not the “under the 1973 Enmons ruling, the Supreme Court granted union officials immunity from federal prosecution for extortion and violence — including murder — committed while they are pursuing “legitimate union objectives.”*

The way this new bill works is when the majority of the workers sign a card the union is automatically certified no ifs ands or buts. However you have to jump through hoops to decertify a union and a simple majority does not apply.

With union membership plunging the Democratic Party needs to buy off more voters. Union membership was 37% of the work force in 1960, by 1980 unions made up only 20% of the work force and last year made up only 7%. Those in power (like our state senators wanting to be elected for 4 years or life which ever is greater) want to stay empowered.

There was a time and place for unions and there still may be in the future, however we all know that unions cost the American working man jobs over the decades by wages escalating higher than the elasticity of demand. Now most all manufacturing jobs are over seas. Let’s have more unions with higher wages and ship more jobs over seas. Way to go Dems!

Posted by ngreenbaum at 12:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Hugo Chavez is seizing oil projects run by foreign entities:

President Hugo Chavez ordered by decree on Monday the takeover of oil projects run by foreign oil companies in Venezuela's Orinoco River region.

Chavez had previously announced the government's intention to take a majority stake by May 1 in four heavy oil-upgrading projects run by British Petroleum PLC, Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM), Chevron Corp. (CVX), ConocoPhillips (COP) Co., Total SA (TOT) and Statoil ASA. (STO)

He said Monday that has decreed a law to proceed with the nationalizations that will see state oil company Petroleos de Venezuela SA, or PDVSA, taking at least a 60 percent stake in the projects.

"The privatization of oil in Venezuela has come to an end," he said on his weekday radio show, "Hello, President.""This marks the true nationalization of oil in Venezuela."

By May 1, "we will occupy these fields" and have the national flag flying on them, he said.

Posted by Jason at 10:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

My friends, Al Gore is right, we need to follow his lead and conserve energy:

Gore’s mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

Hat tip to Instapundit.

Posted by Jason at 07:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (6)

The recent increase in the minimum in Arizona is already starting to have negative effects:

Oh, for the days when Arizona's high school students could roll pizza dough, sweep up sticky floors in theaters or scoop ice cream without worrying about ballot initiatives affecting their earning power.

That's certainly not the case under the state's new minimum-wage law that went into effect last month.

Some Valley employers, especially those in the food industry, say payroll budgets have risen so much that they're cutting hours, instituting hiring freezes and laying off employees.

And teens are among the first workers to go.

[...]

"After a wage hike, employers seek to take fewer chances on individuals with little education or experience," one institute researcher told lawmakers in 2004.

Tom Kelly, owner of Mary Coyle Ol' Fashion Ice Cream Parlor in Phoenix, voted for the minimum-wage increase. But he said, "The new law has impacted us quite a bit."

It added about $2,000 per month in expenses. The store, which employs mostly teen workers, has cut back on hours and has not replaced a couple of workers who quit.

Kelly raised the wages of workers who already made above minimum wage to ensure pay scales stayed even. As a result, "we have to be a lot more efficient" and must increase menu prices, he said.

It's a basic rule of economics. Labor is mixed into the cost of operating a business. If payroll costs increase, the business will have to cut jobs or increase cost of their goods or services in order to keep their profit margin.

Meanwhile, the leftist (Socialist) candidate in France is proposing a minimum wage that equals out to $2,000 month, that's a good way to add to that unemployment rate is already at 8.7%.

Posted by Jason at 04:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Here is Herman Cain's latest column dealing with entitlements and healthcare.

"Government can't make a man rich, but it can make a man poor." - Ludwig von Mises

Posted by Jason at 07:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Hugo Chavez in nationalizing the Venezuela oil and telecommunications industries is stealing form me and every investor that owns stock in companies like Exxon, Chevron and Verizon. But is Chavez the only socialist out to steal from shareholders of energy companies?

“Take those profits and put them into an alternative energy fund that will begin to find alternative smart energy, alternatives that will actually begin to move us toward the direction of independence.”

What profits need to be confiscated? Exxon Mobile made $39,500,000,000.00 in 2006. Exxon Mobile is a company owned by shareholders and responsible to them.

Why does Socialist Hugo Chavez demand that profits be taken from a public corporation and used to fund alternative energy sources when he sits a top of oil deposits?

Actually he didn’t say the above quote, no it was Presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton. Socialism is in this woman’s blood. Remember when she was co-president and she wanted to socialize the medical industry, which accounts for about 15% of the nation’s economy? She wants to go further this time and nationalize, like Chavez, the nation’s energy industry.

Posted by ngreenbaum at 12:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (16)

Well, we won't sign Kyoto, so the EU may add a tariff on imports to the United States as penalty for non-compliance:

He said that he welcomed last week’s State of the Union address in which President Bush described climate change as a “serious challenge” and acknowledged that a growing number of American politicians now favor emissions cuts.

But he warned that if the United States did not sign the agreements, a carbon tax across Europe on imports from nations that have not signed the Kyoto treaty could be imposed to try to force compliance. The European Union is the largest export market for American goods.

“A carbon tax is inevitable,” Mr. Chirac said. “If it is European, and I believe it will be European, then it will all the same have a certain influence because it means that all the countries that do not accept the minimum obligations will be obliged to pay.”

Posted by Jason at 12:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

The Senate has approved the a minimum wage hike to $7.25. The vote was 94 to 3. I'm disappointed in Isakson and Chambliss for voting it.

Jim DeMint, Jon Kyl and Tom Coburn were the only Senators to vote against. These three deserve a lot of praise for standing up to small business and not awarding mediocrity and as Kevin says over at The Liberty Papers, they may be the only members of the Senate that still believe in limited government and fiscal conservatism.

Posted by Jason at 07:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Hillary Clinton has announced her bid for the presidency.

Dick Morris, a former advisor to Bill Clinton, is planning an anti-Hillary documentary.

God help us if she wins.

Posted by Jason at 11:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

The Georgia Peace and Justice Coalition is holding a "peace vigil" in Stockbridge tomorrow. Yeah, I know...Stockbridge. That doesn't make much sense.

Many of you may not have been reading my blog early last year when the Libertarian Party of Georgia was entertaining the idea of supporting a major protest put on by this same organization last year. I was ready to tender my resignation from the Executive Committee over involvement in the protest due to the fact that most of the groups that had signed on were pacifist and socialist organizations and I felt that the Libertarian Party name shouldn't appear along side the name of Code Pink, who protests outside Walter Reed Hospital. While I respect their right to speech, I have to question their judgment and tact to use a hospital where soldiers are trying to recover from their wounds. We didn't participate, though some individual members of the party went.

Initially, I supported the war and I have the utmost respect for our troops, but Iraq is a mess and at this point I don't think we should have invaded, but I have little respect for leftists who revere Stalin (who killed 20 million people), who worship Castro (imprisoned thousands of political foes) and Chavez (who is just a damn fool).

Some would say, "there is a common goal there." These organizations don't promote personal and economic liberty, they promote socialism and authoritarian rule. That is not a goal of mine...and I want a strong military. However, I want that military to promote national defense, not international offense and stop mixing ourselves into the affairs of other nations. But I want the government to do the same at home, stop mixing it's self the affairs of private individuals. These groups don't share that sentiment.

Posted by Jason at 11:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The House of Representative is set to vote on the minimum wage proposal.

Here is a web round up from those who have been following it...
- Club for Growth
- RedState
- The Liberty Papers
- Cato @ Liberty
- John Stossel
- Washington Post

[UPDATE] The increase has passed the House.

Also, the bill does not include the tax breaks that President Bush wanted.

[UPDATE II] Here are the vote totals. The vote among the Georgia delegation was among party lines with the exception of Norwood, who did not vote.

Posted by Jason at 05:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Here is an interesting fact from the National Taxpayers Union...the United States has a higher corporate tax rate than Cuba, China, the UK, Russia and a few other socialist nations.

As the NTU notes, "Something is very, very wrong when the U.S. has higher tax rates than two Communist countries and a host of Socialist nations."

I agree. But such is the myth of corporate income tax. Corporations do not pay taxes, only individuals pay taxes. The "tax" is passed along all the way to the consumer.

Posted by Jason at 05:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

George Will has written an excellent column on the minimum wage:

A federal minimum wage is an idea whose time came in 1938, when public confidence in markets was at a nadir and the federal government's confidence in itself was at an apogee. This, in spite of the fact that with 19 percent unemployment and the economy contracting by 6.2 percent in 1938, the New Deal's frenetic attempts had failed to end, and perhaps had prolonged, the Depression.

Today, raising the federal minimum wage is a bad idea whose time has come, for two reasons, the first of which is that some Democrats have an evidently incurable disease -- New Deal Nostalgia. Witness Nancy Pelosi's "100 hours" agenda, a genuflection to FDR's 100 Days. Perhaps this nostalgia resonates with the 5 percent of Americans who remember the 1930s.

The problem is that demand for almost everything is elastic: When the price of something goes up, demand for it goes down. Obviously were the minimum wage to jump to, say, $15 an hour, that would cause significant unemployment among persons just reaching for the bottom rung of the ladder of upward mobility. But suppose those scholars are correct who say that when the minimum wage is low and is increased slowly -- proposed legislation would take it to $7.25 in three steps -- the negative impact on employment is negligible. Still, because there are large differences among states' costs of living and the nature of their economies, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) sensibly suggests that each state be allowed to set a lower minimum.

But the minimum wage should be the same everywhere: $0. Labor is a commodity; governments make messes when they decree commodities' prices. Washington, which has its hands full delivering the mail and defending the shores, should let the market do well what Washington does poorly. But that is a good idea whose time will never come again.

Posted by Jason at 12:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

In his recent editorial, Jay Bookman points to hypocrisy in those that don't support an increase in the minimum wage, but support corporate welfare. Bookman is still showing intellectual dishonesty, but I get what he is saying.

It's dishonest because he classifies those support corporate welfare in the legislature a supporters of the free market. If any elected official supports corporate welfare, they cannot claim to be supportive of a free market. Either he has a misunderstanding of capitalism (which I have no doubt of) or he is purposefully deceiving his readers (again, which I have no doubt of).

I completely agree with the notion that a government has no place providing welfare to corporations, however, it is my belief that government shouldn't be setting standards for a minimum wage either, nor providing welfare to individuals. Although, Bookman would have you believe that we want fourth graders working in abhorrent conditions for two dollars an hour. That simply isn't true and it isn't capitalism.

Bookman says something here that is just incredibly stupid, "Of course, the notion that the free market is an unassailably accurate gauge of a person's economic value is nonsense." Are you serious? Of course it is. Remember the days when IT administrators were hard to come by? Businesses had to be competitive with wages and benefits packages to lure a competent worker in that field. Now that the market is flooded with them the demand has dropped and entry level salaries have come down. That is the market at work. It is supply and demand. Any suggestion otherwise is ridiculous.

Posted by Jason at 12:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

State Senator Robert Brown (D-26) plans to introduce legislation to increase the state's minimum wage (registration required) to $7.25 an hour.

Let the vote buying begin!!!

Posted by Jason at 11:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (12)

Dennis Kucinich is planning another run for the White House in 2008.

That'll add some humor to the race.

Posted by Jason at 04:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Cynthia McKinney introduced legislation to impeach President Bush yesterday, the last day of the 109th Congress:

McKinney, a Democrat who drew national headlines in March when she struck a Capitol police officer, has long insisted that Bush was never legitimately elected. In introducing her legislation in the final hours of the current Congress, she said Bush had violated his oath of office to defend the Constitution and the nation's laws.

In the bill, she accused Bush of misleading Congress on the war in Iraq and violating privacy laws with his domestic spying program.

McKinney has made no secret of her frustration with Democratic leaders since voters ousted her from office in the Democratic primary this summer. In a speech Monday at George Washington University, she accused party leaders of kowtowing to Republicans on the war in Iraq and on military mistreatment of prisoners.

Bush has two years left...just hold your breath and get past it. There is another election in 2008, maybe someone will come along that actually believes in small government...I just don't expect it to be a Republican or Democrat.

As for McKinney...she's gone. Thank God. I was hoping some sanity would come to that district, but Hank Johnson is only a less controversial and less entertaining version of her.

Posted by Jason at 10:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Socialist leaders in Europe are falling all over themselves about the new Democratic Congress here in the United States:

Socialist leaders attending a meeting of the European Socialist Party pledged that with the Democrats on the rise, strong ties could be renewed with the United States after years of cool relations with Republican President George W. Bush.

Howard Dean, chairman of the national committee of the U.S. Democratic Party, is attending the two-day conference together with the leaders of leftist governments of several countries and party leaders from across Europe.

"We are not anti-American, we want the real America, your America," former Danish Prime Minister Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, president of the European Socialist Party, said in remarks directed at Dean.

With Dean appearing at this meeting, it should send a message as to what the real agenda is for the Democratic Congress.

Posted by Jason at 04:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Joshua Patterson sent me an article about the homeless in Hawaii. He pointed to this quote in the article that has made my blood boil, as he knew it would.

A woman interviewed in the article said...and I quote, ""Being homeless is not a crime, it is the fault of the government." That's right, being homeless is the fault of our government. It isn't from the result of poor personal choices or the lack of education, both individual responsibilities...it's because of the government.

Posted by Jason at 06:48 AM | Permalink | Comments (7)

Jimmy Carter got called a racist, a bigot and an anti-Semite by a caller on C-SPAN. Here is the clip.

Posted by Jason at 11:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Check out this article from Walter Williams:

The bottom line: We love government because it enables us to accomplish things that if done privately would lead to arrest and imprisonment. For example, if I saw a person in need, and I took your money to help him, I'd be arrested and convicted of theft. If I get Congress to do the same thing, I am seen as compassionate.

This vision ought to bother the Christians among us, for when God gave Moses the commandment "Thou shalt not steal," I'm sure He didn't mean thou shalt not steal unless you got a majority vote in Congress.

Posted by Jason at 11:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Here is some insight from Michael Tanner, Director of Health and Welfare Studies at the Cato Institue, on the coming push for socialized medicine:

The entire idea behind the Clinton health care plan was that government knew best -- better than businesses, better than doctors, and better than patients.The Clinton plan would have required every business in America to provide health care coverage to its employees, regardless of cost. The mandate would have devastated small businesses and cost thousands of jobs.

Clinton's plan would also have forced Americans to give up their current health insurance, even if they were happy with it, in return for a government-designed standard benefit package that could be far more expensive.

What the policy covered would be determined not by consumer preference or even medical necessity, but by the lobbying power of various special interests.

Such policies would have been "community rated," meaning that people would pay exactly the same premium regardless of whether they were healthy or on their death bed, practiced healthy lifestyles or smoked six packs a day. That would have meant a huge premium increase for young and healthy people.

Posted by Jason at 04:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Congressman Charlie Rangel (D-NY) wants to bring back the draft:

"There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way," Rangel said.

Rangel, a veteran of the Korean War who has unsuccessfully sponsored legislation on conscription in the past, said he will propose a measure early next year.

In 2003, he proposed a measure covering people age 18 to 26. This year, he offered a plan to mandate military service for men and women between age 18 and 42; it went nowhere in the Republican-led Congress.

Democrats will control the House and Senate come January because of their victories in the Nov. 7 election.

At a time when some lawmakers are urging the military to send more troops to Iraq, "I don't see how anyone can support the war and not support the draft," said Rangel, who also proposed a draft in January 2003, before the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

But remember...this is all part of their plan.

[UPDATE] The guys at the Liberty Papers have more:

November 19, 2006 will go down in American history as the date when America’s newest party, the Collectivist Party, replaced the old Democratic Party of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison as the America’s major party.

[UPDATE II] Pelosi says, "No."

Posted by Jason at 07:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (4)

Hillary-care could be making a comeback:

[Clinton] also said Democrats would focus on improving the quality and affordability of health care _ a touchy matter for the former first lady, who in 1993 led her husband's calamitous attempt to overhaul the nation's health care system. The failure of that effort helped Republicans win control of both the Senate and House the following year.

"Health care is coming back," Clinton warned, adding, "It may be a bad dream for some."

Posted by Jason at 06:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (15)

Here is an excellent rebuttal to the recent call for an increase in the minimum wage:

A generation ago, it was universally agreed, even among liberal economists, that raising the minimum wage was a mistake because it would produce higher unemployment. Force companies to pay the lowest-skilled workers more than they are worth, and companies will get rid of them. In this view, it's better to have a job that pays $5 an hour than to lose one that pays $5.15.

That insight violated, but didn't curb, the perennial liberal desire to pursue social improvement at other people's expense. In the past, Democrats boosted the minimum wage in stubborn disregard of the wisdom of academia. Lately, though, they have been able to brandish studies alleging that in the real world, an increase doesn't raise unemployment and may reduce it.

Posted by Jason at 07:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Markos Moulitsas from the Daily Kos has cited Governor Brian Schweitzer from Montana as a "libertarian Democrat." But David Boaz over at Cato @ Liberty kills that notion by citing Schweitzer recent grade of "F" in Cato's Fiscal Policy Report Card.

Boaz closes by saying, "We’re still waiting for a libertarian Democrat. Really. We’d love to find one." The only answer I can give is Grover Cleveland. I'm still trying to figure out how a party that is now based on collectivism can be libertarian, which is a philiosophy of individual rights. The Democratic Party that exist 100 years ago, maybe, but now? I don't think so.

Posted by Jason at 11:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I just ran across this Letter to the Editor over at the Henry Herald website.

I'm going to break it down piece by piece, but damn...reading this letter made me physically ill.

Continue reading "And people think I'm out there..." »

Posted by Jason at 04:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (14)

"We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." - Hillary Clinton

The Democrats are using the theme of the "common good" as their rallying cry in this year's election:

"It's a core value that we think organizes the entire political agenda for progressives," said John Halpin, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. "With the rise of materialism, greed and corruption in American society, people want a return to a better sense of community _ sort of a shared sacrifice, a return to the ethic of service and duty."

Republicans have used the phrase, too. GOP Sen. Rick Santorum, who faces Casey, a fellow Catholic, in November, wrote a book last year titled, "It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good." But liberals say that Republican policies promote a "radical individualism" _ advocating individual retirement accounts above Social Security, health savings accounts over affordable insurance, and tax cuts that Democrats say benefit only the rich.

[A]t least the Democrats are being loyal to their socialist roots. "Common good" was a catch-phrase for the communist movement for decades, now it is being officially embraced by the Democrats. No real surprise here. Democrat icon Ted Kennedy announced the war on individualism -- using those very words -- many years ago.

The idea of the "common good" is completely contrary to the concept of individualism. You either support and promote the idea of individuality, or you ignore the rights of the individual for the good of the whole .. for the common good.

So .. here we have the Democrats telling you just exactly who they are, and who they think you are -- not an individual, just one element that makes up the masses.

These people and their socialist "common good" theme are dangerous to freedom, liberty and the very concept of the individual.

Posted by Jason at 01:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Six hundred and fifty economists have signed a letter supporting a "modest increase" in the minimum wage.

Russell Roberts at Cafe Hayek responds:

What were they thinking? Little or no effect on employment? How can you sign your name to something like that and call yourself an economist? I guess you could argue that there's little effect on TOTAL employment. That effect is very hard to find empirically because so few workers are affected by the minimum wage and its impact gets swamped by other factors. But among low-skilled workers, the ones we want to help? Maybe the people who signed believe that "modest" increases in the federal minimum wage (to $7.25) would effect so few people (many of whom are already covered by state minimum wage laws), that the effect is mainly symbolic. So signing a petition is more of a political statement than a statement about economic reality.

It wouldn't bother me if they petitioned for social programs that would help workers who lose their jobs due to an increase in the minimum wage. You can be in favor of that and still be a first-rate economist—you believe that the benefits of increasing the minimum outweigh the harm and you'd like to mitigate the harm. But to argue that there's no harm, that there's a free lunch because the demand curve for low-skilled labor is vertical? How do you defend that?

Hat tip to the Club for Growth.

Posted by Jason at 12:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Nancy Pelosi is quite the little collectivist, though I'm not telling you anything you didn't already know. She said yesterday that, "We must share the benefits of our wealth."

Remember what Hillary Clinton said, "We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

This is not reason to vote for Republicans, it's a reason to blame Republicans. If they had actually listened and bought into their own rhetoric, we would not be facing a takeover of the House by the pinko wing of the Democratic Party. So...thanks, guys.

Posted by Jason at 02:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I just found this quote about healthcare over at Cato @ Liberty from Benjamin Rush, one of our Founding Fathers. Rush said:

"Unless we put Medical Freedom into the Constitution, the time will come when medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship . . . to restrict the art of healing to one class of men, and deny equal privilege to others, will be to constitute the Bastille of Medical Science. All such laws are un-American and despotic and have no place in a Republic ... The Constitution of this Republic should make special privilege for Medical Freedom as well as Religious Freedom."

Posted by Jason at 05:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Cato Institute has an event podcast called Cornerstone of Liberty: Property Rights in 21st Century America on their site. It offers insight into America's socialist revolution the Progressive era and the interpretation of the Constutition .

Posted by Jason at 11:52 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

And people wonder why I believe that the Democratic Party is the home of socialism in the United States. This post sums it up:

Libertarianism sounds like a good idea, and would be a great idea if we were all well-meaning, good and decent people.

Trouble is people aren't all good, decent and well-meaning -- not all the time anyway. Government exists to deal with this reality. Libertarians deny the reality. But when you're frustrated with reality, and don't like the alternatives, such fantasies are very appealing, especially in the outer collar counties.

What reality are we denying? There is one reality that Democrats want to take more of our hard earned money and property for more vote buying programs to get themselves power. Then there is the other reality that Republican portray, that we must give up necessary liberty because of the fear of another terrorist attack.

Don't you find it laughable that the author of this post believes that government, perhaps the most corrupt institution ever conceived, is supposed to be the light of morality?

With captialism the sky is the limit, as long as you are willing to work for it. There is no limit to the success that you can have. With socialism there is a cap and the mob will punish your success, which undermines the individual and property rights.

How can a party that claims to be the defender of civil liberties forget the most basic of civil rights...economic liberty. But the author of this post should have just posted this, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." That quote from Karl Marx sums up what Democrats, and some Republicans, now believe. Stripping away personal and economic liberty to buy votes.

Posted by Jason at 12:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (11)

If you are a true believer of the Democratic Party’s anti-capitalist rhetoric, then you hold certain concepts to be true. The first truth is that a corporation which pays an average salary of $10.11 an hour, provides healthcare to over 60% of its workers, and has advocated for an increase in the national minimum wage is evil. Another truth is if a man who has worked all of his life to build and maintain a multi-million dollar estate, and has paid property taxes on said estate every year, dies and leaves the estate to his children, he is evil. Yet another truth is that the top 50% of income earners in America should be legally obligated to pay 97% of all income taxes, while the lowest 44% of income earners should not have to pay any income taxes. If you are a true believer in the rhetoric of the Democratic Party, these are your beliefs.

Suffice it to say that you and I do not agree.

You see, you are suffering from the world’s most deadly disease—Wealthy Envy. Of all the communicable diseases in the world, none have wreaked such utter devastation on mankind as Wealth Envy. Wealth envy can be connected to nearly every civilization collapse in contemporary history. It was Wealth Envy that provided an avenue for Hitler to seize power of Germany. It was Wealth Envy that created Stalinist Russia. It was Wealth Envy that prompted the rise of radical Islamic regimes in the Middle East. It was Wealth Envy that created Communist China. And it was Wealth Envy that gave rise to the brutal, murderous regime of Kim Jong Il in North Korea.

Continue reading "Wealth Envy in America" »

Posted by Jace Walden at 10:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (6)

"The world conflict of today is the conflict of the individual against the state, the same conflict that has been fought throughout mankind's history. The names change, but the essence - and the results - remain the same, whether it is the individual against feudalism, or against absolute monarchy, or against communism or fascism or Nazism or socialism or the welfare state. If one upholds freedom, one must uphold man's individual rights; if one upholds man's individual rights, one must uphold his right to his own life, to his own liberty, to the pursuit of his own happiness - which means: one must uphold a political system that guarantees and protects these rights - which means: the politico-economic system of capitalism." - Ayn Rand, from Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

Democrats like to accuse Republicans of wanting reinstate the draft, however in 2004 Senator Fritz Hollings (D-SC) and Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) sponsored identical versions of legislation that called for universal military service, HR 163 and S 89.

Well...the Democrats are pushing the idea again. Rep. Rahm Emanuel, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, is touting a new book called The Plan, which outlines the Democrats collectivist plan for the United States.

The first plank of this plan is the following, "A new social contract -- universal citizen service, universal college access, universal retirement savings, and universal children's health care -- that makes clear what you can do for your country and what your country can do for you."

On the "universal citizen sevice," they write:

We need a real Patriot Act that brings out the patriot in all of us by establishing for the first time an ethic of universal citizen service. All Americans between the ages of 18 and 25 should be asked to serve their country by going through three months of basic civil defense training and community service. This is not a draft, nor is it military. Young people will be trained not as soldiers, but simply as citizens who understand their responsibilities in the event of a natural disaster, an epidemic or a terrorist attack. Universal citizen service will bring Americans of every background together to make America safer and more united in common purpose.

I've heard a lot of Democrats talk about morals over the last few years, I've heard Republicans talk about it too, but Democrats do it more often and with the emotionalist and altrustic rhetoric. They say we have a moral duty to this and to do that. I am damn tired of people telling me what my morals should be...especially people who are part of the most corrupt institutions in the county...government.

You can talk about corporations all you want...but there is no institution more corrupt than government. Why? Because it's grow far past the point of what it was intended to be.

I also laughed when I saw this line out of the article I previously linked:

During the Great Depression, when capitalism and government alike were failing, FDR stepped forward to save both.

Many economists such as Nobel Prize winner Milton Friedman and Murray Rothbard believed and documented that Roosevelt's economic policies actually prolonged the Great Depression and that his policies actually hurt the people they were meant to help. The only point where FDR was able to bring down unemployment under 14% was when he conscripted millions of soldiers to fight in Europe and in the Pacific during World War II.

Also...another point mentioned in this "plan" is a "return to fiscal responsibility":

We'll never be able to build a new social contract if we don't repair the broken contract between the American people and their leaders. We can only achieve universal service, college, pensions, and children's health care if we're willing to cut and invest to pay for it. The place to start is by ending corporate welfare and the hack-ridden government that fuels it.

I've said before that the Democrats are honest about their intentions. They are going to tax and spend. Which makes more sense than the borrow and spend mentality out of the Republicans. But just because it's more honest doesn't mean that it's the way things should be. What I'm seeing with these "universal" proposals isn't a return to "fiscal responsibility." It would be the same damn thing that we have now, and it could very well be worse.

The Democrats plan is some of the most anti-freedom, anti-choice and anti-individual rhetoric I ever read.

Hat tip to the Volokh Conspiracy.

Posted by Jason at 07:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Apparently the Democrats have started a new committee called the "Waste, Fraud and Abuse Truth Squad." The Washington Times Insider has the details (login required):

With the fall elections little more than two months away, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi yesterday announced the formation of what she called a "Truth Squad," manned by some of her party's most partisan House members.
The Democrats' "Waste, Fraud and Abuse Truth Squad" will be chaired by California Reps. Henry A. Waxman and Dennis Cardoza. Mrs. Pelosi said the Truth Squad will focus on the Bush administration's mishandling of taxpayer dollars, which, she added, contributed to budget deficits.
"The alarming amount of waste, fraud and abuse by the Bush administration and the rubber-stamp Republican Congress is egregious," Mrs. Pelosi said. "Democrats are committed to a new direction in the way our government does business so taxpayers' money is handled responsibly."
The group immediately released a report on what it called wasteful procurement spending in response to Hurricane Katrina. Other members of the Truth Squad are David R. Obey of Wisconsin, John Tanner of Tennessee, D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, and John F. Tierney of Massachusetts.

According to the Citizens Against Government Waste's website, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Rep. Henry Waxman, Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin and Rep. John Tierney all received a rating of hostile to the taxpayer, the group's lowest rating for this current Congress. Rep. Dennis Cardoza and Rep. John Tanner did slightly better, as both received an unfriendly rating.

Posted by Jason at 06:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Possible 2008 Democratic Presidential hopefuls continue their rhetoric against Wal-Mart:

The Wal-Mart attacks hit a high note last week when Delaware's Sen. Joe Biden was quoted at an Iowa event as saying, "My problem with Wal-Mart is that I don't see any indication that they care about the fate of middle-class people." His criticism has been joined by other Democratic presidential hopefuls, including supposed moderates like Indiana's Sen. Evan Bayh.
But while their anticorporate message might resonate against certain corporate targets, Democratic politicians should think twice about viciously -- and unfairly -- tarnishing Wal-Mart simply to score political points with union leaders. That's because there is a very good chance Wal-Mart-bashing might actually turn off the same voters Democrats are trying to get out to the polls.

Unless you plan on going into management, Wal-Mart isn't meant to be a career choice. It's meant to be a stepping stone to better job. If you are 35 and work at Wal-Mart for $8.50 an hour...who's fault is that? Not Wal-Mart's.

Posted by Jason at 10:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (4)

Rusty Tanton has written a new column for Georgia Political Digest on the comment recently made by Herman Cain:

Despite losing that race, you had built up good will among movers and shakers within and outside your party. Inevitably, it would propel you into a successful statewide or national race in just a few short years. "Cain for Governor in 2010!" I can almost hear them chanting. Alas, poor fella, you got cancer earlier this year. Our hearts bled for you more. When you beat it, we wondered, "How remarkable would this man be after kicking cancer's butt?"

You answered us this week with a resounding "not very."

But, by going the Ann Coulter route and juxtaposing an anti-Wal-Mart position with Hezbollah sympathizing, well, your creativity and mental capacity comes into question. Any idiot can casually throw around accusations of treason when they don't agree with someone.

The Herman Cain I remember from a couple of years ago was a showman, but not a cheap shock jock. Maybe that's the image I hold onto because I've never listened to your radio show.

Consider your good will with me officially squandered.

As soon as I read Mr. Cain's column I told a friend that he was going to take heat for what he said. I even called it "rough" on this site. But he wasn't saying that Democrats are are terrorists or traitors, rather their rhetoric against capitalism and the free market is something that could be compared to some of the rhetoric that islamic radicals use against the west. Cain was not implying anything other than that...and I don't think anyone can deny that the modern Democratic Party has been center for collectivist thought and politics in this country, though the Republicans aren't too far behind them.

The only thing Cain is guilty of is bad timing.

Posted by Jason at 11:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

And people wonder why I won't go to an anti-war rally.

Back in March, before I was elected chair, the LPGa almost participated in an anti-war rally in Atlanta. But these pictures that in the link above are the reasons why I can't go to these things. I support their right to look like morons, but I won't join them, mainly because the vast majority of these events are put on by socialist douche bags that want to take more of my money, take away my right to defend myself...along with a number of other rights that I hold sacred.

Posted by Jason at 11:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Spokesblogger over at Jack's Blog has an interesting picture of Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez, note the bobblehead dolls behind them.

Such a light-hearted moment.

Posted by Jason at 05:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Today is 71st anniversary of Social[ist] [In]Security. Cato @ Liberty has a great post on Social Security:

Overall, the system’s unfunded liabilities—the amount it has promised more than it can actually pay—now totals $15.3 trillion. Yes, that’s trillion with a “T.” Setting aside some technical changes in how future obligations are calculated, that’s $550 billion worse than last year. In other words, because Congress failed to act last year, our children and grandchildren were handed a bill for another $550 billion.

Moreover, Social Security taxes are already so high, relative to benefits, that Social Security has quite simply become a bad deal for younger workers, providing a low, below-market rate-of-return. In fact, many young workers will end up paying more in taxes than they receive in benefits. They will actually lose money under the program.

Vinson: Your insurance company [Travelers] would not think for a split second of passing on to 1965 or 1980 a burnden such as contemplated here. In other words you watch your step in and month in and year in.
Williamson: An insurance company must maintain its reserves to meet its current liabilities.
Vinson: That is sound economic policy, is it not?
Williamson: That is right.
Vinson: You would not suggest that we pass the buck on to 1965 or 1980, or even think about doing it, because there will be 22 Congresses between now and then that could upset that apple cart.
WIlliamson: I think it should be well understood that that is exactly what is being done.

Posted by Jason at 01:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (13)

Yes, my friends...I believe that "asphalt and gasoline are free." I also believe that aliens exist, that George Bush eats small children and that Elvis is still alive. Not only that...I drive a Jeep, not exactly a fuel efficent vehicle.

At least I'm not shooting up with the heroine of big government.

I don't really believe that crap, but you get the point. I don't recall ever making a statement like that. Isn't it great when people put words into your mouth? I believe in private solutions to everyday problems. We are over taxed and our government already spends far too much money. We can't keep up anymore. We are facing a fiscal disaster. If Congress raised the debt ceiling by another $3 trillion, you'd be screaming at the top of your lungs. But, let's drop a couple billion dollars for some commuter rail projects that under one out of every ten people will ride.

Posted by Jason at 10:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Penn & Teller's Bullsh*t! is one of my favorite shows...it's the only reason I have Showtime.

So here is one of their episodes entitled "Environmental Hysteria." If you don't like coarse lanuage, then I wouldn't recommend watching it.

If the video player doesn't work, you can watch here.

Posted by Jason at 03:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

It looks like some McKinney supporters are blaming Jews for her defeat:

The remarks were allegedly made just moments after McKinney's entourage passed out of earshot of 11Alive cameras, as the congresswoman left her campaign headquarters on Tuesday night.

Someone reportedly said quote, “You wanna know what led to the loss? Israel. The Zionists. You. put on your yarmulke and celebrate."

Posted by Jason at 07:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (4)

I think the ACLU is once again, overstepping its boundaries.

Many of you are probably familiar with the story. The residents of Saint Bernard Parish, Louisiana, are erecting a memorial for the 129 parish citizens killed during Hurricane Katrina. The Parish Council voted to approve an erection of the monument earlier in the year, but had no specific plans. The monument being constructed will feature a Christian Cross. Here's the catch. The monument will be built on private land, using private money, by private citizens. A couple of the citizens happen to be on the Parish council. However, as they are doing this on their own private time, I see no problem.

Here's where I think the ACLU overstepped. If the monument was paid for by city funds, and carried out by the councilmembers in their official elected capacity, the ACLU would have a case. However, in this instance, the ACLU is making the claim that if you are an elected official, even in your private time, you cannot promote your religion. Moreover, you cannot promote your religion on your private property.

If the ACLU would stick to stuff like getting rid of the Patriot Act, they might have some credibility. But the bottom line is, I don't want the ACLU involved in what I can and cannot do on my private property anymore than I want the government telling me how to worship.

Posted by Jace Walden at 01:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (6)

The House has passed an increase in the minimum wage. It passed by a vote of 230 to 180.

However, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid says he will work to kill the bill in the Senate because cuts on the "death" or inheritance tax were included.

I still have problems with the any wage increase by government but this is politics at it's best. By getting this passed more moderate Republicans, who may be in some trouble, can go home to their districts and talk about how they got a wage increased passed for the first time in a decade but the Democrats killed it in the Senate.

But this also made more moderate to conservative Democrats, like Georgia's John Barrow and Jim Marshall, get on record as supporting a tax cut as well as rasing the minimum wage.

Like I said though I still dont' agree with a wage hike. I want to see the minimum wage killed. But it was smart politics on the part of Republicans.

Here is how the Georgia delegation voted...
Yea: Barrow, Gingrey, Marshall, Price, Westmoreland
No: Bishop, Kingston, Scott
Not Voting: Deal, Lewis, Linder, McKinney

Posted by Jason at 09:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

House Republicans are considering an increase in the minimum wage.

That being said, I offer three articles. You can read them here, here and here.

Posted by Jason at 05:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Andrew Young has endorsed Cynthia McKinney:

“I don’t always agree with Cynthia McKinney, but I always agree with her right to express her opinion because that creates a dialogue that makes democracy work. We need an outspoken, courageous, intelligent woman representing us in the fourth congressional district.”

Posted by Jason at 04:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The City of Chicago just guaranteed a cut in jobs by passing a living wage of $10:

The measure requires mega-retailers with over $1 billion in annual sales and stores of at least 90,000 square feet to pay workers at least $10 an hour in wages plus $3 in fringe benefits by mid-2010. The current minimum wage in Illinois is $6.50 an hour and the federal minimum is $5.15.

Mayor Richard M. Daley and others warned the living wage proposal would drive jobs and desperately needed development from some of the city's poorest neighborhoods and lead giants like Wal-Mart to abandon the city.

[UPDATE] Cato @ Liberty is has weighed in on the passing of this ordinance in Chicago:

By prohibiting job-seekers from accepting terms of employment to the mutual benefit of aspiring workers and potential employers, the City Council has effectively requested that major employers like Wal-Mart and Target open fewer new stores in Chicago, and to make available fewer (and possibly no) new jobs. Additionally, the Council has asked Chicago’s low-income consumers, who would benefit most from more discount retail outlets, to forgo significant increases in their quality of life.

Posted by Jason at 10:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (23)

Howard Dean called Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki an anti-semite, then compared Florida Senate candidate Katherine Harris to Stalin and now wants an end to divisiveness.

Stupid remarks like this is why he didn't win the Democratic nomination for President.

Posted by Jason at 09:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Cynthia McKinney has agreed to debate Hank Johnson. The debate will air on Monday, July 31st on Georgia Public Broadcasting and C-SPAN at 7:30pm.

Posted by Jason at 11:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Cato @ Liberty has a pop quiz on Hillary Clinton's new campaign initiative:

Pop quiz. Finish the following sentence:

No factor does more to hold back America’s economic growth and keep American workers from earning as much as they deserve than _________________.

A. the soaring cost of health care [16.5 percent of GDP]

B. the soaring cost of government [31.4 percent of GDP]

If you understand the “greater than/less than” thing, you picked B. But if you are Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, you picked A. In fact, that is how Senator Clinton completed the first sentence of the “Affordable Health Care” section of her “American Dream Initiative,” released yesterday.

Just one sentence into her vision for health care, and I am already disappointed.

Posted by Jason at 07:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Former State Senator Steen Miles has endorsed Greg Hecht.
It's seems fitting that one anti-free market candidate endorses the other. I just hope Hecht gets his ass kicked by Martin so I don't have to listen to this "big oil" crap for three more months.

Posted by Jason at 04:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Cynthia McKinney hasn't been seen in Washington, DC this week:

Rep. Cynthia McKinney was a no-show this week in the U.S. House, as WSB Washington Correspondent Jamie Dupree reports that the Georgia Democrat missed all four days of legislative business and every vote on the House floor as well.

McKinney's office offered no comment as to why the Congresswoman did not return to Washington after Tuesday's primary election, where she was forced into an August 8th runoff against Hank Johnson.

Also left unanswered Thursday night was whether McKinney would be back at the U.S. Capitol next week. The House has one more week of work before a scheduled August break.

Peach Pundit is also reporting this as well.

Posted by Jason at 12:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)

This is so funny. I got an e-mail from a friend that says:

Thought you might like this.

The sign was stolen about 2 days after it was put up.

mike

Ha...thanks, Mike.

Posted by Jason at 04:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

This is funny...Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who may be to the left of Karl Marx, is taking names of members that show up to caucus meetings. They are appearently struggling to break the 50 member mark.

According to Roll Call (subscription necessary):

With attendance typically struggling to crack the 50-Member mark, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) is cracking the whip, demanding that her fellow Democrats attend three “crucial” Caucus meetings between now and the August recess — an order supplemented by a fellow leader’s hint that failure to cooperate could be detrimental to Members’ futures.

Do they really expect to win back Congress?

Posted by Jason at 11:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Michael Moore is preparing another lie documentary which will be called Sicko and gives us a socialist's view of the United States healthcare industry.

I'm sure the words fascist and single-payor will be used frequently in the movie.

[UPDATE] Cato @ Liberty has some thoughts on Michael Moore.

Posted by Jason at 12:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

France has decided to increase it's minimum wage to 8.27 euros, which is $10.39 US.

I'd also like to point out that France's unemployment rate is over 9%.

Posted by Jason at 09:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

The Senate has voted down a minimum wage increase.

I'd like to say they did it because there is no constitutional authority for Congress to regulate wages, as defined by Article 1, Section 8. But God knows that's not the reason.

The sad thing is that 52 Senators voted in favor of this measure, but it fell short of the 60 votes required.

Posted by Jason at 06:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

A grand jury has decided not to indict Cynthia McKinney:

A grand jury declined Friday to indict Rep. Cynthia McKinney in connection with a confrontation in which she admitted hitting a police officer who tried to stop her from entering a House office building.

The grand jury had been considering the case since shortly after the March 29 incident, which has led to much discussion on Capitol Hill about race and the conduct of lawmakers and the officers who protect them.

“We respect the decision of the grand jury in this difficult matter,” said U.S. Attorney Kenneth Wainstein.

His statement, released late Friday, also included support for the officer involved, Paul McKenna, and the Capitol Police. He said, “This is a tremendously difficult job, and it is one that Officer McKenna and his colleagues perform with the utmost professionalism and dignity.”

With that, Wainstein closed a case that has simmered with racial and political tension.

Cross posted over at Peach Pundit.

Posted by Jason at 01:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Some scientists are countering some of Al Gore's claims:

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?

No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."

Posted by Jason at 08:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Read about it over at Cato:

House Republicans have one last chance to demonstrate that they have any remaining intelligence or principles. On June 13, the House Appropriations Committee approved a bill that would increase the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour over the next three years. This bill, with the support of seven Republicans on the committee, would implement one of the highest priorities of the congressional Democratic leadership.

An increase in the minimum wage is one of the dumbest possible policies for the following reasons:

1. The employment of the least-skilled members of the labor force—often new entrants—would be reduced.
2. The non-wage benefits and working conditions of those who keep their jobs at the higher wage would probably be reduced.
3. Most of those who keep their jobs at the higher wage would be secondary workers in non-poor families.

Cato also has more on the minimum wage here, here and here.

Posted by Jason at 07:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Bill Clinton is blaming the policies of the Republican Party for the recent increase in severe storms.

Bill Clinton is so full of crap. He unconstitutionally signed the Kyoto Protocol, which is a treaty, and never submitted it to the Senate. According to the Constitution, the Senate has to ratify any treaty that the United States participates in.

In 1997, Senators Robert Byrd (D-OK) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE) sumbitted a resolution that refused Kyoto. This bill recieved bi-partisan support...it was approved unanimously (95 Senators supported the resolution). Who voted for the resolution? Liberals like Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Paul Wellstone, Tom Daschle, Joe Biden, Dick Durbin...I could keep going.

Global warming is religion:

So you have to ask yourself: Why does Gore pretend that apostates do not exist? Scientists acknowledge contradictory data. But the faith-driven Gore argues that all scientists agree with him -- well, except for those who are bought and paid for by big polluters.

Check out this podcast of Newt Gingrich discussing global warming.

Posted by Jason at 12:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Human Events Online has a list of the top ten Hillary Clinton quotes.

Here is my Hillary Clinton quote that I would have contributed to this list:

"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society."

"It is thus necessary that the individual should come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation; that the position of the individual ego is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole ... that above all the unity of a nation's spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual. .... This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture .... we understand only the individual's capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow man."

Posted by Jason at 01:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

The Daily Kos isn't a blog that I read very often because I think it's nothing more than a mouthpiece for the far left in the Democratic Party.
Markos Moulitsas who runs the Daily Kos has called himself a Libertarian Democrat. Here is reasoning:

Traditional “libertarianism” holds that government is evil and thus must be minimized. Any and all government intrusion is bad. While practical libertarians (as opposed to those who waste their votes on the Libertarian Party) have traditionally aligned themselves with the Republicans, it’s clear that the modern GOP has no qualms about trampling on personal liberties. Heck, it’s become their raison d’ etre.

The problem with this form of libertarianism is that it assumes that only two forces can infringe on liberty — the government and other individuals.

The Libertarian Democrat understands that there is a third danger to personal liberty — the corporation. The Libertarian Dem understands that corporations, left unchecked, can be huge dangers to our personal liberties.

Libertarian Dems are not hostile to government like traditional libertarians. But unlike the liberal Democrats of old times (now all but extinct), the Libertarian Dem doesn’t believe government is the solution for everything. But it sure as heck is effective in checking the power of corporations.

What is Markos Moulitsas? A socialist. He believes in the state.

You can read some more commentary on this at Hammer of Truth, Reason: Hit & Run, Cato Institute and Samizdata.

Posted by Jason at 08:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Environmental socialists are working their anti-capitalist agenda by trying to get Congress to penalize livestock farmers:

Environmental activists are teaming up with state attorneys general and trial lawyers to bankrupt the nation’s livestock farmers – in the name of saving the environment.

If the situation wasn’t so serious, it would be hilarious.

The activists – including the Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, and Union of Concerned Scientists – are trying to convince Congress that the nation’s farms should be treated as industrial waste sites and therefore subject to severe penalties under the federal Superfund law. Some state attorneys general, supported by trial lawyers, have filed lawsuits toward the same end.

Why? Because, they argue, animal manure is a hazardous substance.

Posted by Jason at 08:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

You have to admire the persistence of the eco-nazis:

Eco-Nazi's are calling for the resignation of the heads of the National Hurricane Center and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for the agencies' failure to substantiate the eco-nazi junk-science based claims that global warming is causing more severe hurricanes.

Oh, this makes complete sense: "The heads of the administrations don't buy into BS, so let's get them to resign!" Don't you guys have a rainforest or something to "save"?

And here's my favorite....

If anything, the Earth has cooled SUBSTANTIALLY over the last 55 million years.

Common Sense is Al Gore's worst nightmare.

****UPDATE****

Only 30 people ended up attending the protests. No one knows why, so I'll take credit for it. It was all because they read this article and realized how idiotic they sounded. You're welcome NOAA and NHC.

Posted by Jace Walden at 12:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

The Competitive Enterprise Institute has released three 60-second TV spots which expose the extreme fallacies in Al Gore's upcoming film, "An Inconvenient Truth". The third spot is the best, because it tracks Gore's "carbon footprint" from flying around the world in his private jet promoting the film...More ecofacsist hypocrisy.

Posted by Jace Walden at 09:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

With the war on Terror, the War on Drugs, and the War on Christmas all raging, it's really easy to forget the less important threats like the potential rise of a communist global hegemon!

As an "internet writer", this story pisses me off.

Let's not forget that communism is still alive and well in some parts of the world.

Oh, one other thing...I just didn't want to take up another entry just for this:

Bubonic Plague was detected at a Park in Utah. The park was closed...here is the quote of the day:

"We come down on the conservative side when it comes to closing campgrounds," said Joe Winkelmaier of the U.S. Public Health Service. "We just like to be sure when it comes to plague."

Posted by Jace Walden at 09:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

American socialist thinker Noam Chomsky met with the leader of Hizbollah today. During the meeting Choamsky alled the United States a "terrorist state."
I despise Chomsky. He needs to be held accountable for this.

Posted by Jason at 04:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thanks to a shortage in dentists within the National Health Service some Brits have taken to pulling their own teeth.
Socialized medicine is such a great idea (I hope you catch the sarcasm there).

Posted by Jason at 11:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The trustees that monitor Medicare and Social[ist] [in]Security have issued a report that says that Medicare will go broke by 2018.

Hat tip to the Godfather.

Posted by Jason at 07:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

When you use fear to get your way...isn't that called terrorism? Al Gore is pushing movie on global warming called An Inconvenient Truth. I've seen the trailer. What Gore is using is propaganda and sensationalism to put fear into the minds of the people that see the movie.
Gore says that a number of the hottest years on record have occured in the last decade. However, the Climate Research Unit found that from 1998 to 2005 the global average temperature did not rise...it's actually decreased. Also...another interesting fact. The warmest year on record was 1998, while Bill Clinton was President.

If you want a good website for debunking the the myths of global warming, then check out JunkScience.com.

Posted by Jason at 11:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

I found this quiz online today. It's a slightly more offensive version of the "World's Shortest Political Quiz".

The Quiz

Don't get offended...it offends everyone equally!

Common Sense

Posted by Jace Walden at 10:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

John "Two Americas" Edwards preached about "the great moral cause" on Friday while speaking at the University of Georgia (registration required for article.
I'll point back to my post from yesterday about another "moral" issue that Al Gore has been preaching about:

[W]hat about morality? According to Al Gore, I have a moral obligation to fight against global warming. Is Al Gore that superior to me that he can tell me what my moral obligations are? This is the man that would have been King, so to speak. Even then, does he have the moral superiority to dicate his personal altruistic philosophies on me. Gore seems to regard that I have duty to the environment, before I have a duty to myself. I'm betting that Al Gore watches Captian Planet when ever it's on.
Who is to define morality? Government? Corporations? Special interests? Wait! I've got it! The individual should be his moral compass. If the individual chooses to follow God or Jesus Christ, Buddha or just himself...then at least he was allowed to make the choice for himself. Coercion and government initiated force is not only wrong...it's immoral. When morality is defined by someone or something other than the individual, it creates a sort of slavery. I regard slavery as any practice, whether it's social or economic theory, that forces an individual to act against his or her will.

Posted by Jason at 01:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Posted by Jason at 09:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Looks like socialist college professor Noam Chomsky isn't practicing what he preaches:

One of the most persistent themes in Noam Chomsky's work has been class warfare. The iconic MIT linguist and left-wing activist frequently has lashed out against the "massive use of tax havens to shift the burden to the general population and away from the rich," and criticized the concentration of wealth in "trusts" by the wealthiest 1%. He says the U.S. tax code is rigged with "complicated devices for ensuring that the poor -- like 80% of the population -- pay off the rich."

But trusts can't be all bad. After all, Chomsky, with a net worth north of US$2-million, decided to create one for himself. A few years back he went to Boston's venerable white-shoe law firm, Palmer and Dodge, and, with the help of a tax attorney specializing in "income-tax planning," set up an irrevocable trust to protect his assets from Uncle Sam. He named his tax attorney (every socialist radical needs one!) and a daughter as trustees. To the Diane Chomsky Irrevocable Trust (named for another daughter) he has assigned the copyright of several of his books, including multiple international editions.

Chomsky favours massive income redistribution -- just not the redistribution of his income. No reason to let radical politics get in the way of sound estate planning.

Posted by Jason at 05:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

A Canadian man has been denied a free drug so he can treat cancer:

As a retired carpenter who barely covers his monthly expenses, Raymond Bouchard was delighted to learn that he qualified to receive a free drug to treat the cancer that is killing him.

But Health Canada won't release Thalomid to him because a licensed alternative is available -- it just happens to come with a $35,000 price tag.

With Health Canada's recent decision to stop releasing Thalomid, which U.S.-based Celgene Corp. will provide at no cost under its compassionate-use program, there's no way Mr. Bouchard, 73, can afford the licensed alternative, Velcade, to treat his multiple myeloma.

Almost everyday I see a new story coming from Canada about the horrors of their "healthcare industry," well...industry is a bad word, we'll use bureaucracy instead. I try to put the best ones up from time to time.

Recently there was an article from the New York Times were a healthcare professional from Canada said, "This is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week and in which humans can wait two to three years." Isn't that insane? I can't imagine waiting that long in the United States.

Sadly, that is just the tip of the iceberg. People complain about the "rising cost of healthcare." Democrats say that a single payor or univeral healthcare plan is the answer. More government is never the answer. Politicians like to blame insurance companies and healthcare providers. While I'm sure some blame may be on them, politicians should be pointing their fingers at themselves. Insurance mandates and the lack of tort reform drive up costs. Of course this doesn't fit the rhetoric of the left.

And here is something that you'll see me write often...you do not...DO NOT...have a right to healthcare. I don't have a right to webspace to post on a blog. I buy therefore I have the privilege to write.

You have no right to force or to use government coercion to force another individual to live for you. Such thinking goes against the very ideals of liberty and freedom and instead institutes slavery to the state.

On the web: Institute for Health Freedom

Posted by Jason at 08:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

This is the best description of socialism I've ever seen:

Socialism teaches its citizens to expect everything, even if they contribute nothing.

Socialism teaches its citizens that they have a plethora of rights and few corresponding obligations -- except to be taxed.

And that is why the citizens of less socialist -- and more religious -- America give more charity per capita and per income than do citizens of socialist countries. That is why Americans volunteer time for the needy so much more than citizens of socialist countries do. That is why citizens of conservative states in America give more charity than citizens of liberal states do. The more Left one identifies oneself on the political spectrum, the more that person is likely to believe that the state, not fellow citizens, should take care of the poor and the needy.

Under socialism, one is not only liberated from having to take care of oneself; one is also liberated from having to take care of others. The state will take care of me and of everybody else.

As much as America has been adversely affected by socialist thought, it is still inconceivable that in America hundreds of thousands of students would shut down their schools in order to gain the right not to be fired by the first company that hires them. But every time America's socialists, the Democrats, prevail in an election, we move in that direction. No matter how pure their motives, the Left makes America and its citizens less noble people, just like the spoiled French students.

Posted by Jason at 12:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thanks to Charter Communications having a free weekend of HBO, I was able to catch Real Time with Bill Maher. I don't really care for Bill Maher. He is a pompous left winger that had a popular show five years ago on ABC called Politically Incorrect, where they had four different guests every night, usually three liberals and a token conservative, where they'd debate the issues of the day.
Anyway...among the guests for Saturday night were Congresswoman Ileanna Ros-Lehtinen and Law & Order actor Richard Belzer.
The Iraq War came up during the segment and here is the exchange between Ros-Lehtinen and Belzer (you can also download the video from this link...also, please not there is some foul language that I didn't edit):

Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen: “Having been in Iraq a few times, and Afghanistan, having met the troops one-on-one with free reign and asking them what they're doing, they're saying 'we're proud of our mission, we know what we're doing over here. We don't want you guys in Washington to lose it over there'. And there is a great sense of determination that what they are doing is making a difference. And yes, it has been an important mission what we're doing, come on.”

Richard Belzer: “Yeah, come on. Our soldiers now are at-”

Ros-Lehtinen: “Are a volunteer force, a volunteer force.”

Continue reading "Left Thinking" »

Posted by Jason at 02:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

A co-worker just sent this to me. It's hilarious:

Dear Abby,

My husband is a liar and a cheat. He has cheated on me from the beginning, and when I confront him, he denies everything. What's worse, everyone knows he cheats on me. It is so humiliating. Also, since he lost his job four years ago, he hasn't even looked for a new one. All he does is buy cigars and cruise around and bull**** with his pals, while I have to work to pay the bills. Since our daughter went away to college, he doesn't even pretend to like me and hints that I am a lesbian.
What should I do?

Signed, Clueless

Dear Clueless:
Grow up and dump him. For Pete's sake, you don't need him anymore.
You're a United States senator from New York. Act like it!

Posted by Jason at 08:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I saw this on Instapundit and I wanted to repost it here. The New York Times is reporting that private health insurance in Canada is surging:

Canada remains the only industrialized country that outlaws privately financed purchases of core medical services. Prime Minister Stephen Harper and other politicians remain reluctant to openly propose sweeping changes even though costs for the national and provincial governments are exploding and some cancer patients are waiting months for diagnostic tests and treatment.

But a Supreme Court ruling last June — it found that a Quebec provincial ban on private health insurance was unconstitutional when patients were suffering and even dying on waiting lists — appears to have become a turning point for the entire country.

"The prohibition on obtaining private health insurance is not constitutional where the public system fails to deliver reasonable services," the court ruled.

Read more at Cafe Hayek, who has a great point on why Canada is seeing the rise of private health insurance, "Canadians tired of waiting for radiation therapy, eye surgery and hip replacements have turned toward private alternatives springing up under the new legal environment."

Posted by Jason at 12:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

You can now purchase Help! Mom! There Are Liberals Under My Bed! from Amazon.com.

The list of characters in the story is great. There is Mayor Leach, "Former Presidential Candidate and Chairman of Liberaland Socialist Party (LSP), Mayor Leach comes from a long line of Leaches in politics. Because of his family name, he has earned millions from fundraising and speaking engagements. He too has never held a private sector job or owned a home. He has successfully survived numerous scandals involving interns, adult beverages and movie stars to become the longest serving Mayor of the LSP."
Congresswoman Clunkton, "Congresswoman Clunkton is a star in the Liberaland Socialist Party (LSP) and a multimillionaire from class action lawsuits. Her most famous suit was the class action lawsuit against Burgers, Inc. in which 80% of the population of Liberaland sued the Burgers Inc. hamburger chain for $1 Trillion claiming they did not know that eating too many cheeseburgers made them fat. Rep. Clunkton received billions of dollars in legal fees while her clients received $100.00 each. As a result, all hamburger chains in Liberaland, including Burgers, Inc., closed their doors for business. Black market cheeseburgers are now smuggled in from neighboring lands."
Senator Kruckle, "A multimillionaire, Sen. Kruckle earned his money the old-fashioned liberal way – he married into it. His wife, Allmine, is heiress to the great Dustpans, Inc. fortune. He has never held a private sector job nor owned a home. His three children, following in the footsteps of their parents, attend the prestigious Liberaland Private School for Elites."
And finally, Mr. Fussman, "Mr. Fussman is the founder and CEO of Liberaland’s largest lobbying group, LCLU (Liberaland Civil Liberties Union) – a group that, through the Liberaland judicial system, has successfully removed all references to God in Liberaland. Churches are now required to resemble strip malls. Prior to suing some of his “Offenders” in court, Mr. Fussman often gives the potential defendants an opportunity to avoid litigation by making a substantial donation to the LCLU."

You can learn more about there book at www.liberalsundermybed.com.

Posted by Jason at 12:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Check out the Center for Union Facts.

Posted by Jason at 12:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Wal-Mart bill is coming to Georgia. Senator Steen Miles is carrying the bill in the State Senate and Rep. Nan Orrock is carrying the House version.
Recently the state legislature in Maryland passed similar legislation.
The legislation being proposed by Miles and Orrock is virtually the same as in Maryland. It would require companies with more than 10,000 employees to pay for at least 8% their payroll on employee's health coverage or they would have to contribute to medicaid.
Democrats bitch, whine and complain about the cost of insurance coverage, do they really believe crap like this actually brings the cost down? What happens when legislation like this gets passed...the cost is passed on to the consumer or Wal-Mart will be forced to cuts jobs to cut overhead. It's simple economics. Cost increases are always passed on to the customer. It always drives me up a wall to hear people talk about corporate taxes and how "they don't pay enough and blah, blah, blah..." It's kills me. Corporations do not pay taxes, only consumers do. All taxes increases on corporations or insurance mandates to employers and so on...are almost always paid for by price increases on the consumers. If not, they corporations pay for them by cutting their workforce.
Steen and Orrock need to take a damn economics lesson.
This legislation isn't about the cost of healthcare or taxpayer money. Senator Steen Miles is sponsoring legislation in that would cover all children under the age of eighteen. So why punish Wal-Mart because some people who work their have their children on PeachCare or Medicaid? She wants all kids covered under a taxpayer funded universal healthcare system in Georgia (this is actually one of Mark Taylor's campaign proposals). What's the difference? It's about the fact that Wal-Mart makes money. God forbid, someone make money.

My friends, socialism is alive and well in Georgia. This bill is just another example of it.

Posted by Jason at 09:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

A Russian delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council is objecting to equating communism to Nazism. The head of the Russian delegation, Konstantin Kosachyov, says, "This is unacceptable, we are not ready to uphold any attempt to compare these ideologies as branches of totalitarianism." According to Kosachvoy, communism cannot be condemned as an ideology.

Communism and countries that promoted it are responsible for the death of millions upon millions of individuals. Stalin with his Great Purge, Pol Pot's killing fields, the Soviet gulag and so on. Nazism is responsible for the deaths of millions, but it is nothing by comparison to communism. In The Black Book of Communism there are 94.36 million recorded deaths by communist regimes.

Nazism is responsible for between 7 to 8 million deaths. Of course Nazism is considered to be a right leaning movement. I've never really understood that, I'm sure it's the nationalism. However, Nazism means National Socialism. Socialism is a child of Communism. They all are totalitarian philosophies that strive to tear apart the Individual and create a culture of collectivism.

In Socialism, Communism and Nazism the individual must give up his rights for the good of the collective. One single person cannot stand in the way of progress. Therefore the individual must be eliminated (sounds like the current Democratic Party in the United States. It for damn sure sounds like the Greens and hardcore Liberals). There are no guns to fight the government. There is no free speech. There is no property.

Communism, Nazism and Socialism all need to be condemned as failures and threats to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Posted by Jason at 04:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

This is another reason why John Stossel is one of my heroes. Stossel takes a look at the American education system in a segment call Stupid in America.

Posted by Jason at 04:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Maryland Legislature, controlled by Democrats, has overridden a veto of the Governor, a Republican, on a so-called "Wal-Mart BIll." The bill requires Wal-Mart to spend more money for employees health insurance.
Mark my words...this will force Wal-Mart to layoff some employees. You absolutely do NOT have a right to healthcare from an employer or the government. I'm tired of these made up rights like abortion and the so-called right to affordable healthcare.
Why is this happening? Because Wal-Mart makes a profit...and the socialists in the Maryland Legislature just can't let an evil corporation like Wal-Mart make money.

Posted by Jason at 07:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Socialist Democrat Cynthia McKinney (D-4th) will have a challenger in the Democratic primary in 2006. DeKalb County Commissioner Hank Johnson announced his intention to run for her seat.
McKinney was challenged and beaten by Denise Majette in the 2002 Democratic primary. Majette received support from many Republicans that were outraged by some of McKinney's actions and allegations about possible involvment from the Bush Adminstration in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Posted by Jason at 12:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Bill Clinton says that George W. Bush is "flat wrong" on the Kyoto Protocol, a treay drafted and ratified by 156 countries. The treaty is supposed to limit greenhouse gas emmissions. Clinton unconstitutionally signed the treaty during his term. The Senate voted against ratification of the treaty by a vote of 95-0.
The Bush Administration has said that Kyoto would have a negative economic impact on the country. Steven Milloy, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, has a website called JunkScience.com that takes on the supporters of the Kyoto Protocol.
Patrick Moore, a founding member of Greenpeace, has praised Bush for rejecting the treaty. Moore has since abandoned the environmental movement.
My favorite show, Bullsh*t!, went to a Greenpeace rally and had a petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide. These tree huggers were signing this petition without question. In case you didn't know, dihydrogen monoxide is more commonly known as water.

Posted by Jason at 03:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

North Dakota Rep. Earl Pomeroy has a clear message to DNC Chairman Howard Dean..."Shut up."
Pomeroy said that, "We have young men and women with their lives on the line" and that "debate [on Iraq] has fallen far short of what they deserve."

Posted by Jason at 02:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Former Mayor of Atlanta and UN Ambassador Andrew Young, MLB Home Run King Hank Aaron and Congressman David Scott have endorsed Mark Taylor for Governor (on the link there is a picture, to the left of Young is Emanuel Jones).
Taylor seems like he'll get the black vote. Cox will probably get the teachers. I'm thinking Taylor will win the primary, but anything can happen between now and then.

Posted by Jason at 09:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I heard what John Kerry said on Face the Nation on Sunday but it didn't hit me until I heard Sean Hannity play his comments from his testimony in 1971 when he told the Senate Committee of Foreign Relations about how American soldiers terrorized, tortured and raped the South Vietnamese. Hannity played those comments, then he played what Kerry said on Sunday. If you haven't heard it Kerry said, "And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs."
So...there you go. Are soldiers are terrorists. My god we are starting to see the rhetoric of Vietnam all over again from the left.
Our soldiers are not terrorists. They are brave men and women who deserve nothing less than our respect and admiration. John Kerry is a fool who should have been tried for treason along with Jane Fonda and Ramsey Clark.
It's perfectly fine to protest a war or speak out against it, but we have soldiers in harms way and when you use rhetoric like this it only fuels the fire of the enemy, John McCain can attest to that when the VietCong played Kerry's testimony and other anti-war rhetoric to him and other soldier while the were being held captive. If were alive during the Vietnam era, I most likely woundn't have supported it, but I wouldn't have said such horrible things about our soldiers, especially when they were either isolated incidents or just not true.
My father was a Vietnam Veteran. He did two tours in '68 and '69. He was exposed to Agent Orange and died in 1993. Though he knew he was going to die because of being exposed to Agent Orange he was still honor to be given an chance to serve his country. My father told me about some of the things that happened to him when he came home. He and the other soldiers with him were called baby killers and murderers. They were spit on and cursed at. I don't want that to happen with our soldiers fighting in Iraq, but I'm afraid that is what is going to happen.

In case you have heard, Georgia Congressman David Scott is calling for a pull out from Iraq by February.

Posted by Jason at 07:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The media is making a big deal out of the "hawkish" Democrat John Murtha calling for a pullout of Iraq. It's not really that big of a deal. He said the same stuff last year. In a press conference in May 2004 with Nancy Pelosi, Murtha said, "We cannot prevail in this war as it is going today" and "We either have to mobilize or we have to get out."
So why is the media making a big deal out of this? As Boortz would say, because "it fits the template." If it hurts Bush, you report it.

Hat tip to the Drudge Report.

Posted by Jason at 07:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Supposedly, Michael Moore owns stock in Halliburton, a company demonized in Fahrenheit 9/11, according to a new book called Do As I Say (Not As I Do) : Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy.

Check out the quiz that goes with this book.

Posted by Jason at 03:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Everyone's favortie Keynesian, Paul Krugman, has a op-ed in the AJC today (link not provided). Krugman says that health insurance should not be left up to the free market to provide for three reasons. The reasons are risk, selection and social justice.
Krugman says that in 2002, 5% of the population accounted for half of all medical expenses. Which is terrible. But does the financial suffering of 5% of the nation mean that we should go to a government run healthcare system? Not just no, but hell no. However in the eyes of people like Paul Krugman we should on behalf of those five people...we should do it for the "common good."
I was watching Howard Dean on Meet the Press, Dean said that, "I am a Democrat because of my moral values." During last years campaign Dean was pushing a national or federalized healthcare system. Many Americans actually believe this type of healthcare would be free. Obviously it won't be free, it will be paid for with our tax dollars. But here is the question I have for Howard Dean, you say it's a moral value to provide every American with health insurance...but is it moral to take people's money to pay for it? Is it moral to take a doctors business against his will and forcefully make him a federal employee? I don't think that's very moral, I'd say it's criminal.

As far as selection goes...these insurance companies assume the risk for their customers, they should be able to choose who will or will not be covered. One thing that drives up the costs of policies is government, with the red tape and procedures that have been made mandatory. Some state legislatures are making procedures like gastric bypass something that insurances companies have to cover.

Social justice is a matter of opinion. Social justice to me would be Paul Krugman moving to some socialist country and being thrown in the gulag when he realizes that what he preaches isn't all it's cracked up to be.

Posted by Jason at 12:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

My girlfriend, who is very apolitical, just sent me an e-mail called The Power of Makeup...
The following pictures may not be appropriate for children and Democrats.

Continue reading "Haha..." »

Posted by Jason at 09:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Last night I setup a table at the Henry County Fair for the Libertarian Party. This is the fourth time this year I've had a table setup at a local event. It still surprises me that with the popularity of Neal Boortz and the fact that there have been Libertarian Party candidates on the ballot in Georgia since 1988 that people still have never heard of us. I can understand not knowning what the party stands for, but people have this look on their face, like they are shocked that there is something out there other than Republicans and Democrats.
Republicans and Democrats are essentially one in the same. The both believe in big government, though the Republicans say they are for small government, their actions say something different. Democrats like to criticize the GOP for the spending, but their word fall on deaf ears because they even worse than the Republicans on spending.
The only real difference between the two major parties is which special interest group they cater to. The GOP has the religious right, social authoritarians and big oil. Democrats have NARAL, trial lawyers and the ACLU. Each party panders to those groups and they are rewarded for it. Special interests control both parties.
Republicans and Democrats have no problem telling you how to run your life, like you are some moron and you can't do it yourself. I reject the idea that someone knows what's good for me, other than myself. The individual is an end unto to himself. No one should tell you how to run your life. Not the Republicans, not the Democrats, nor the special interest groups on K Street in Washington, DC.
Recently I had some thoughts on leaving the Libertarian Party and joining the GOP. After I talked to the GOP chairman and heard some of the reaction from other people in the county party, it hit me that these people don't believe in the principles of personal freedom. That they are too concerned about what the public perception will be than to stand on principle. I don't want to be a part of that in any way, shape or form.
If you want personal and economic freedom and you call yourself a Republican, you are kidding yourself. In the last five years the GOP has done nothing but spend more of your money through big government vote buying pork projects, restrict personal liberty through socially authoritarian agendas and the so-called USA PATRIOT Act and infringe on private property owners through smoking bans and eminent domain.
Democrats? Well, they don't get a free pass by any means. Today's Democrats are collectivists. The believe that the individual should always yield to the "common good." They want to forcefully confiscate more money out of your pay check to pay for more vote buying social programs. Modern day Democrats can be summed up in one word...Socialists. Though, I have to admit, two of my favorite Presidents were Democrats (Andrew Jackson and Grover Cleveland). The Democratic Party has drifted through three phases. In the 19th century they were the party of small government. In the early to mid 20th century with FDR at the helm, our country was introduced to fascism. In the late 1960's the fascism introduced by FDR turned in socialism with Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Democrats are worse than Republicans in my opinion. But just because they are slightly worse doesn't mean we should have to settle with a "less evil."
Be a free thinker, vote with your heart. And if you want a party that is truly for less government, less spending, economic and personal freedom, please check out the Libertarian Party.

Posted by Jason at 08:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (14)

Mayor Gavin Newsom is working to get hi-speed wireless internet in San Francisco. Newsom called access to hi-speed wireless internet "a fundamental right." He really did actually say that.
How is this a fundamental right? Liberals have to stop coming up with this crap. Hi-speed internet is not a right. You only should be able to get it if you can afford it. I can't afford it, I don't have it. It's not a right.
What Newsom is doing is what liberals do best, creating more dependence on government.

Posted by Jason at 11:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Senator Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) has met privately with Cindy Sheehan.
Dole said that Sheehans comments have been "extremely detrimental to our men and women in uniform in harm's way." Dole is right. I asked a very close friend of mine who is currently serving in Afghanistan for his opinion on Sheehan's comments. My friend said that it is an all volunteer Army and that he knew the risks. Not to mention that he re-enlisted with the full knowledge that his unit was going to Iraq.
Sheehan said that Dole was a "gentle lady," and a "warmonger." Does that even make sense?
Why are they pandering to this woman? She has associated herself with International A.N.S.W.E.R., a group that is sponsored by the Workers World Party, who has defended and praised the work of dictators and openly supports militant communism. The mere fact that she associates herself with this group negates and contradicts her criticism of the Bush Administration or supporters of the our efforts in Iraq as warmongers.

I'm sorry the woman lost her son in Iraq. I sympathize, I really do. I have had friends go to Iraq, they all came back safely. Like I said, I have a good friend in Afghanistan right this minute. But her son knew the risks of joining the Army. I could understand her statement had he been drafted and been forced to serve against his will, but that is simply not the case, by any means. She has the right to say what she wants. However, it would serve her to at least get the facts straight, because she sounds crazy.

Posted by Jason at 12:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The United Nations and the European Union want control of the internet. There reasoning is because the internet is a "global resource."
This is bad. French Prime Minister Jacques Chirac is looking for a way to take on poverty and has been urging the United Nations to legislate a tax on wealthy countries to help struggling nations. These struggling nations that have been recently or currently are run by socialist and communist regimes that oppressed and starved their people.
Then we have the free speech issues. UN or EU control will mean heavy regulation on the internet. No doubt that free speech and expression rights of individuals will be infringed. France and other countries in the EU will arrest you for so-called "hate speech."
The time is coming, more rights will be lost.

Posted by Jason at 11:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Have you ever heard of A.N.S.W.E.R., sometimes known as International A.N.S.W.E.R.? This group has strong ties with the Workers World Party, which is a United States Communist political party. The WWP has supported the actions of Slobodan Milošević, Kim Jong Il, Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro and supports the government of China. What's wrong with these that? Considering these men and their government routinely violate their citizen's basic rights, I'd say there is a lot wrong it. The Chinese government has killed millions of it's own people. Saddam Hussein has killed hundred of thousands of his people. Slobodan Milošević was founf guilty of genocide. Kim Jong Il opresses and starves his people. Castro is no better than Hussein or any of these other men. Not to mentio the WWP idolizes Josef Stalin. Who wasn't exactly a beacon of peace. Estimates are that Stalin killed 20 million of his own people.
With the ties that A.N.S.W.E.R. has to the WWP, they don't come off as being too peaceful. Christopher Hitchens is pointing this out in his latest column.

Posted by Jason at 08:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)