Conservative for Change

We Are Moving!!

2011-10-10T09:33:00.002-06:00

We have created a new site that will replace the content on Conservative for Change.You can now find new content on @ www.libertarian-examiner.comSame mission! Different look!

Ryan's Plan to Repeal and Replace Obamacare.

2011-10-06T11:08:00.001-06:00

by Brent lawler

American Spectator has a post that has brought my attention to House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's "Guide to repeal and replace"

Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan has outlined his "plan" for Obamacare in a speech given at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University – Palo Alto, California. While his speech was well delivered and had many good points, I am left to wonder: When will the Republicans ever wake up to the fact that we don't want them to "replace" obamacare with more government controlled healthcare.
Of course that is the dirty little secret that establishment Republicans don't want you to know.....They want government control of the medical industry too, as long as it's them in control.

Ryan says: "At its core, the health care problem is one of inflation, driven by the overutilization of services, dramatic underpayments, and massive inefficiency."

He is correct, but where does he think these problems arise from? It is the fact that government is involved at all that is the root cause of these issues. We can only manage the decine of the medical industry as long as government is involved. Just like everything else they touch, it's only a matter of time before it is in complete disarray, and becomes a subsidized failure since we are left with no alternative. Get government out and watch the industry flourish, innovation explode, and prices decline.

Let real free markets and competition fix this. I don't want a "better" plan executed by government. I want repeal....you can keep your replace.

The Bigger Leviathan Gets The More Economic Misery It Spreads

2011-09-21T14:56:00.009-06:00

Todays "Church Doctrine" from the Mike Church Show on SiriusXM:

Just when you think things cannot get any worse along comes Zerohedge with a slew of newly depressing economic statistics. None of these stats should come as a surprise but they are enlightening and show a very powerful, undeniable trend: as big government has expanded, personal wealth and income has contracted, here are a few examples. Median income for male workers is now at levels not seen since 1968. Real household median income is now $49,445 which is below the same levels reported in 1996.

The poverty rate in people claiming to live in America’s suburbs is 11.8%, the highest level since 1967. There are dozens more statistics I could list here but I think you get the point. Our freight train of economic might has been reduced to a Thomas the Tank Engine pulling a boxcar full of Boxcar Willies. How did this happen? The answer would take longer than the time we have here but the basics can be explained fairly quickly: The dollars Americans earned since 1971 have not kept up with Leviathan and the Federal Reserve’s perpetual inflation. This happens while capital is sucked out of the marketplace by expanding government appetite for debt. Productivity has improved but that only leads to job displacement which has little chance of of keeping up with businesses headed for the regulatory safety of foreign countries.

Combine all this with Obama’s determination to be the lender, designer and then bankruptcy officer of first choice for American mass manufacturing and we now have a depression on our hands. Americans who are turning to Washington for help are helplessly bound to bringing about more destruction. The only solution is liberty: economic, regulatory and free market liberty combined with the government re-assuming it’s only true power in economics, stabilizing the money supply, fostering ACTUAL free trade and returning us to hard money.

Of course this puts politicians out of the power broker business and big bankers on notice that their cartel-money- monopoly is over while they reach for their Monopoly game “Go Directly To Jail” cards.

Listen to Audio Here

Obama Administration to End Discrimination Against Non-Scientists

2011-09-16T03:52:00.008-06:00

By Roger F. Gay

Following an initiative to protect non-English speaking English teachers, the Obama administration has announced a program to eliminate discrimination against non-scientists in academia.

The large scale initiative is the result of a decades-long pilot program that tested the effect of replacing competent scientists, who had been studying weather, with “politically and financially driven plug-ins” in a pseudo-scientific realm dubbed “climate science.” The Democratic Party talking points characterize it as “one of the greatest successes ever in the field of large-scale social engineering.”

The program, backed by the United Nations and operated in all “civilized nations”, resulted in a near complete replacement of real scientists with politically dependent toadies in the entire field. By crafting funding arrangements on a carefully defined political agenda, less competent, less honest “researchers” were able to prosper, in many cases much more than their competent counterparts.

The long-term study led to even greater success. “Community leaders,” such as academic journal editors, head administrators of scientific organizations, and influential political advisers were drawn from the the new “in crowd” rather than from seriously contributing scientists. As spokesmen for “what scientists think” their influence on the public was dramatic. At one time during the experiment, a majority of the population of the West (the entire Western civilization) believed that human activity was driving a catastrophic change in climate.

Discrimination had been effectively wiped out as the public accepted the word of the appointed scientists over that of scientists who would have had higher status in an independent performance driven system. In fact, recent surveys still show that a substantial number of people identify politically defined commentary on the matter as "real science." There is even a "science guy" on one television network acting as an evangelist for the cause.

“It's proof that we can do anything if we set our minds and lots of public money to the task,” stated one spokesman. “When we realize that we're not bound by rules, we can truly change the world. The whole individualistic idea of competence as an excuse to create hierarchical social structures is crumbling and the economic side-effects will go with it. Science is a big deal, often associated with individual characteristics like intellect. But we've shown that people assigned to the scientific establishment do not in fact need to be scientists at all in the conventional sense. We just need to say that they are.”

The plan is to broaden the effort beyond “climate science” to include all physical sciences. “One of the most important parts of the infrastructure that defines the modern world will undergo dramatic change, no longer limited by what was once presumed to be common sense ideals. Within 50 years, we will no longer be leaving anything to chance. Everything will be designed into a single unified architecture.”

The spokesman said that a number of significant experiments had been carried out outside of academics, particularly in economics and commercial activities. “Here, we have proven that we can destroy and create industry at will and it's not as difficult as people, especially non-progressive right-wingers usually believe. Once we all agreed that there is no God, it was a simple matter to begin assuming powers that previous convention said were not ours to have. We may assume that we represent what is perfect – nothing else is a competitor.”

Other plans suggest broadening the academic program, but the spokesman hesitated when asked about including social sciences. “They're more than half there on their own,” he said. “They were involved in this movement before we were with activities that often ended in public relations disasters. If we include them too early in our activities, they might feel a desire to get involved in the planning – thinking for themselves and wanting us to go along with them. We thank them for their efforts but the professionals will take over from here.”
.

The Man Behind the Curtain

2011-09-09T13:20:00.003-06:00

by Brent Lawler

In last night's speech in front of a joint session of Congress, Obama Focused on a "Jobs bill" that he said must be passed. His catch phrase of the night was "pass this jobs bill" But this was less about the American jobs act, as it was about poll numbers. This was obviously the kickoff of his 2012 campaign. However, there was an underlying theme that may have gone unnoticed. Something that is good news for those of us who want a return to a constitutionally limited government.Apparently the resurgence of interest in the constitution and limited government has become such a large movement that the President felt the need to try to quell the sentiment. Here's proof:

"In fact, this larger notion that the only thing we can do to restore prosperity is just dismantle government, refund everyone’s money, let everyone write their own rules, and tell everyone they’re on their own – that’s not who we are. That’s not the story of America."

I've got news for you Mr. President. Yes....that IS who we are, and yes....that IS the story of America. As a matter of fact that is exactly the story of America and who we are. And that is your biggest problem.

More and more of us are remembering the ideals of our founders, and don't like the fact that government at the Federal level assumes so much "responsibility" in our lives. We are awakening to the lessons of our history. Lessons which have proven that self government, free markets, and private industry, not government, are what made us great. We are waking up to the fact that as our government assumes more undelegated powers and thrusts itself into the market and our lives as a supposed savior - our prosperity, consequently, has been in steady decline. This is no coincidence, but the root cause.

Obama wants us to believe that without the benevolent, and gracious acts of our Federal Government, (over stepping their bounds) we would be lost, and living in poverty, without any modern conveniences. To this end he asks:

"Ask yourselves – where would we be right now if the people who sat here before us decided not to build our highways and our bridges; our dams and our airports? What would this country be like if we had chosen not to spend money on public high schools, or research universities, or community colleges?"

A fair question, and one everyone should ask. But when actually examined, the answer does not support the Presidents implication. It actually proves the opposite.

Obama implies that without the Congress acting, none of these thing could have been accomplished. That we are too stupid, lazy, and incompetent to have achieved these things without their involvement. Nothing could be further from the truth. The thoughtful answer to his question shows us how much better off would we be without Congress involving itself in these things at all? We can never know just how much better for sure. We can be sure however, that not only would all these things have been established, but in private hands, they would have been made better, stronger, more effective, and more efficient. They would have to be. The market would demand it. The owners, and investors in these business ventures, in order to compete, would be forced to provide the highest level of satisfaction to consumers if they mean to survive and profit. There would be unmatched incentive to innovate, streamline, and improve. Without improvement, they would fall to the wayside to make room for those who do. Where is that competition in government? There is none. They can't lose, they make the rules, and set the standards. Essentially, they have no "skin in the game". So why should there be a concerted effort to innovate, streamline, or improve? When no one else is allowed to compete there is no need to be the best. They just need to be.

The most disturbing item of the night was when Obama made perfectly clear that the Federal Government did not need to be restricted to the actual limitations intended by the founders, and embodied in our Constitution. He Asks:

"What kind of country would this be if this Chamber had voted down Social Security or Medicare just because it violated some rigid idea about what government could or could not do? How many Americans would have suffered as a result?"

How dare we question the authority that they have assumed under the guise of charity. We are but mere subjects under our federal overlords. As such, could never understand the importance of these unconstitutional programs. We are heartless, backwards, immoral fools for thinking that we can take care of ourselves and our communities better than our federal masters can. Don't you see? We need them. We would all be living in deplorable conditions, with no food, shelter, or medical treatment without their grand gestures of redistribution. Those immoral, idiotic founders were wrong. They just didn't understand the nature of government, and bureaucracy.

Give me a break. This is what we are supposed to believe? How did previous generations ever exist without these things? I would ask how much LESS would Americans have suffered as a result?

The good news in all of this is the fact that the ideals of the founders are making a comeback. So much so, that our President, who represents the antithesis of those ideals, feels so threatened by the movement that he saw fit to address it. To try to convince us that we don't have to worry about those pesky founding principles that made us great. Keep looking at government to solve your problems. Keep the status quo. Because, without us intervening, those founding principles would have led you all to poverty.

Its too late. We have seen the man behind the curtain. He's the Federal Government.............and he's no wizard.

Obama May Be Best Choice for Conservatives

2011-09-09T00:52:00.015-06:00

By Roger F. Gay

Shocking headline, I know. But I'm not just seeking attention.

Over the past few decades, we have been unable to slow the march of the Political Class toward absolute control. Big Media's insistence on classing Republican presidential candidates as “first tier” down to bottom guarantees that the race for the nomination will come down to the worst few. Even in such hopeless times, there is a classic American maneuver aimed at slowing the acceleration toward our ultimate demise.

It's based on the old “divide and conquer” strategy. We've often put one party in power in the White House and another in power in Congress and even divided power between the two Houses. Then our hope, at least for buying a bit more time, lies in discouraging too much friendly bi-partisan cooperation. It hasn't worked as well as it should lately. In the intoxicating Washington environment, RINOs and Dems fall quickly in love – both wanting to “get something done” and “compromising” their way right back onto the fast track to doom. Then came the Tea Party.

Let's just take another quick look at Big Media's “top-tier” candidates today.

We have Mitt Romney, who embraced HillaryCare after lengthy open analysis and debate led to an incontrovertible conclusion that it's a genuinely stupid idea. He's a guy who never met a federal dollar he didn't like to spend or a Constitutional liberty he didn't want to crush. He spent considerable time as Governor twisting arms to accelerate the cost and power of government. Constantly portraying himself as whatever kind of guy the audience is looking for makes him a highly competitive candidate among the other bunch of liars on the stage. I'll put that in my bottom tier, thank you; no matter how many times he mentions Ronald Reagan.

Rick Perry exploded into the national scene and has quickly managed to make global warming hysteria popular again. That's right. Statistics are up on public belief in catastrophic man-made global warming. Perry is the stereotype the left has been looking for – the poster child for doubting evolution and the left's big “climate science” scam for the same reasons; a representative of the “religious right” who doesn't believe in climate change because it's not in the Bible. If he wins the White House in 2012, Al Gore might have a shot in 2016 along with an entire army of Big Green Nazis to fill the seats in Congress.

A win by either of Big Media's Republican favorites would be catastrophic. Romney would continue down the far left fast-track while pretending to be a “fiscal conservative,” just as he did as governor of Massachusetts. It worked then and would likely have a chilling effect on protests against out-of-control government. Perry would wave his arms like an old-time revivalist and ask us to believe in – God knows what and only God knows why – heading only God knows where while handing big wins to the left in their propaganda wars. We've come too far to want to take ten steps back for any reason.

Naaaah, it's got me thinking. Let's just not do that.

Put more serious Tea Partiers in Congress. Bring Obama to a halt and spend a couple of years impeaching him. Then start in on Joe Biden if he's still there. That'll slow things down. Perhaps we'll even manage to make the point that members of the Political Class, even if elected president, are not above the law.

.

Who is really the extremist?

2011-09-07T07:44:00.004-06:00

I am tired of people accusing me of being radical, extremist, or part of the blame America crowd because I think the Constitution should be enforced as it was intended, or that our fight against islamic terrorism doesn't need to involve preemptive strikes, nation-building, or endless war to be victorious.

The Constitution, as an idea, is widely accepted by the American people. However, when confronted with the actual application of it's intentions, or adhering to it's intended construct, is dismissed as extreme. Apparently the founders are now extremists. Their idea of individual liberty is just crazy. Their idea that the general government have only the few powers expressly delegated to it is ludicrous. The idea that your State is sovereign, and should be able to govern itself as it's people see fit is extreme. Their belief that the government which governs least is one which governs best is radical. Saying that that the government is out of control and assuming powers it does not legally have is seditious. I thought that we believed in liberty for all. That we ascribed to the live, and let live motto. Not anymore. One set of views are now to be enforced at the Federal level, whether you and your State like it or not. Forget our differences in beliefs, forget government closest to the people, forget the common cause of liberty, and defense. We now must have common beliefs on everything, in all corners of the Union.

I used to believe the idea that the Federal government was meant to be the most powerful government in the land. That when social and constitutional issues arise, it is to be the Federal government who has the final word and legislative authority on such matters. Of course I believed that.....I went to a government run school after all. What else would they teach? The truth? That the States created the Federal government to be limited in its scope and authority? That the States would never have ratified the constitution if they didn't believe that they would retain their sovereignty, and keep all powers not delegated specifically to the new general government? That would not be beneficial to the government. So they don't teach that. They do teach how great our Union is,(or at least they did when I went to school) and how it was our freedom that government was instituted to protect. That freedom has always been our governments main object.

It wasn't until my Adulthood that I began to study our history on my own. I discovered something that I didn't expect. That this Union was founded on a greater idea than I had been exposed to. Not just that all men were created equal and endowed by their creator, with unalienable rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But that our founders settled on a system of de-centralization (Federalism, and republicanism) to prevent the government (who by nature, and throughout history have destroyed liberty) from being powerful enough, and big enough to take away the liberty that it was created to protect. To divide power into the smallest possible parts. This would ensure that the government with the most influence in our day to day business remained closest to, and would be made up of people in your own community. Government closest to the people has to answer directly to the people, and is easier influenced by them. With this system people would have a true influence on their government. Of the people, by the people and for the people. They understood that governments in ivory towers far away could never truly understand, nor represent the sentiments of an entire nation of people. Especially one as big as ours. So they limited the Federal government to a few specific powers that were best handled by our Union as a whole, (defense, and foreign relations mostly) and left the rest where they belong- at the State and local levels.

Is it an extremist position to think that people should be free to to govern themselves locally, and decide for themselves how to live their lives as long as it doesn't infringe on the basic rights of others? Or is it extremist to think that your beliefs should be forced on every one else through the force of a powerful central government? The majority have chosen the latter, while paying lip service to the former. Who is really the extremist?

"What is ominous is the ease with which some people go from saying that they don't like something to saying that the government should forbid it. When you go down that road, don't expect freedom to survive very long."
- Thomas Sowell

Then there is the matter of fighting the terrorist threat. When it comes to "the War on Terror", you had better be in line with the narrative, or your with the enemy, or, God forbid, a liberal! Understand before I go on, that our governments motives in this struggle are inconsequential to the points I will try to make here. Whatever you believe they are.

I once thought along the same lines as the "you are either with us, or against us" platitude. I was once what many would call a neo-con. That it is our responsibility to "make the world safe for democracy." To transform the middle east into a bastion of freedom, and that with a little push, the middle eastern world would fight to be free and democratic. "The domino effect" so to speak. Leaving in it's wake, a place unfriendly to terrorism. A place that held dear the philosophy of Jefferson, and Washington. That with this policy, victory would be ours. Terrorism would be abolished.

I still wish I believed that were true. It was much easier believing that. But it's not.

I used to think it was preposterous to say that our involvement in the affairs of the middle-east was a possible motive for the sick, malicious actions of the terrorists from the region. That there was no way that our presence in those nations could cause such atrocities. How could anyone view our actions as imperialistic? How could our involvement in these countries be seen as an infringement on their sovereignty? I mean, we were only there to help, right? To fight terrorism. We aren't there to stay.

That line of thinking, for me, has been over-ruled by reason, history, human nature, and just plain old facts. But does that mean I blame America first, or wish to see our Union destroyed or diminished? Absolutely not. I want to win the fight against terrorism. I want us to remain strong militarily, and economically. I just want to see us keep in line with our founding principles to attain those goals. It is more than possible to do so. As a matter of fact, it will be impossible if we don't.

While I would never say that terrorists are justified in killing innocent people, or that using violence to advance their beliefs on others is right. It would be intellectually dishonest of me to say it was alright for us to do the same. We either believe in liberty or we don't. There are obvious differences in the way each side of this struggle conduct themselves. If I had to pick one manner of conduct over the other, it would be ours. By a long shot. But I don't have to. Whats wrong is wrong. Let me elaborate.

The United States, ideologically speaking, has the moral high ground. That is, if we still hold the founding principles at heart. The Muslim terrorists (not all muslims) have a tyrannical interest for the world at heart. Having said that, lets turn the tables around for arguments sake.

Imagine, if you will, that a foreign nation such as Saudi Arabia was the worlds super-power. Part of their foreign policy was to spread Saudi style Monarchy throughout the world. That they believed that their way of life, and their form of government was the most just, and reasonable one, and it would be best for everyone if all the world would adopt it. That it was their moral duty to influence other nations by example and intervention. As such they set up political alliances with our government to influence policy. Soon they were influencing production and exportation of our natural resources. Then, over time, they establish military installments within our borders. Whatever their motives, good or bad, Would this anger you? For a patriot such as myself, I would be livid. I would feel like our sovereignty was threatened. I would feel like they should mind their own business, and get the hell out of my country! I am sure that over time this would create factions within our population, and maybe within our own government who would want to fight, violently if necessary, to drive out the Saudis.

When and if one of those factions obtained sufficient financing, from whatever sources, to engage in violent attacks on Saudi troops or property, would then the Saudi government have justification to use their military might to topple our government and install one friendly to them? If this was done would it not make you consider joining one of those factions. Wouldn't this fuel your anger and strengthen your resolve to destroy their influence?

I am in no way trying to justify the actions of terrorists. I understand that their ideology, based on their religion is a huge factor in their self-justification, and motivation. What they do is wrong, and should not be tolerated. But where were the frequent attacks on us before we involved ourselves in the affairs of their nations? Could this not have been, coupled with their ideology, the justification they needed to push them over the edge? The point I am trying to make is this: to say that our presence and actions in the countries of the middle-east does not at all motivate terrorist actions is dishonest and naive. Just as naive as saying our governments motives are always about our liberty. Our tendency to spread our ideals by more than just principled example, well intentioned or not, has a profound impact that is unavoidably going to produce resentment and anger. They don't see the world the way you and I do. They don't place such high value on life like we do. We cannot be successful in influencing their beliefs by force or political intervention. Only by principled example can the hearts and minds of others be influenced. Only by principled example, and maybe not even then. But it is the only way to not create or further resentment and anger towards us. Lets stop compounding the problem, and actually solve it.

Is it an extremist position or is it America bashing to believe that we have the greatest philosophical ideas for liberty on Earth, That we should defend ourselves when attacked, but should only lead by example, not by intervention into the internal affairs of others, or by force? Or is it extreme to believe that we must intervene in the political affairs of other nations, and topple governments in order to be successful at fighting terrorism, compounding the problem, and extending the war? Who is really the extremist?

"There are some who've forgotten why we have a military. It's not to promote war; it's to be prepared for peace.'
- Ronald Reagan

When does the War on Terror end? How do we know when we have won? Who surrenders? What treaty will be signed to end it? And by Whom? Is there a limit to the number of countries that we must change before we can claim victory? I ask these questions not because I want us to lose this battle, but because I don't know the answers, and I don't see how this can ever end without the eventual destruction of our economy, and our liberty. If you don't understand that conclusion, learn the history of endless multi-front war and economic collapse.

Brent Lawler

Efforts to block message “IPCC is finished” are fruitless

2011-09-07T05:46:00.000-06:00

PRESS RELEASE from Stockholm Initiative for a Rational Climate Policy
London, September 5, 2011

(Related to the recent climate change seminar in which it was declared the "IPCC is finished." Link below. The seminar was "censured" (cancelled) under pressure from IPCC bureaucrats and Greenpeace and subsequently held at an alternative location.)

Efforts to block message “IPCC is finished” are fruitless as climate expert Dr. Fred Singer’s roadshow continues uninterrupted.

Last week’s incident of censorship in Brussels is testimony to the power of the message delivered by climate research veteran Dr. Fred Singer. Presently on a seminar/lecture roadshow through Europe initiated at the Majorana Conference in Erice, Sicily, two weeks ago, Dr. Singer lectures today at 5 PM at IEA (Institute of Economic Affairs) in London, before rounding off his European tour in Paris in a week from now.

Contrary to popular belief, on which current and planned climate policies are based, Dr. Singer’s conclusion is that natural causes are very likely the dominant cause of the climate change that took place in the twentieth and at the start of the twenty-first centuries. Costly measures to curb greenhouse gas emissions are meaningless since the evidence shows that they are not playing a substantial role.

Dr. Singer is the founder of NIPCC (the Non Governmental International Panel on Climate Change), a private alternative to the UN body IPCC. He is an atmosphere physicist, emeritus professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia and founded the National Weather Bureau's Satellite Service Center in 1962.

The controversy built into Dr. Singer’s message is demonstrated by last week’s censoring of his lecture on the disparity between climate models and observation, at a seminar planned to take place at the University Foundation, Brussels under the auspices of SEII (La Société Européenne des Ingénieurs et des Industriels). Through intervention by the vice chairman of the IPCC, Greenpeace activist Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, in letters to the University Foundation and to SEII, the seminar was cancelled by the organizers only to resurface on a private initiative in an expanded format.

The fact that Dr. Singer’s conclusions are controversial, not coinciding with the views of the IPCC, means that they challenge the political structures that are built on the existence of an antroprogenic climate threat. The action of Mr. van Ypersele further undermines the credibility of the IPCC, already shattered by a continuous chain of scandals, and underlines the final conclusion of Dr. Singer’s lecture: “IPCC is finished”.

A video of the banned seminar is found at http://bambuser.com/channel/stockholminitiative/broadcast/1939418 and a summary of Dr. Singer’s presentation is attached.

For more information, please contact:

STOCKHOLM INITIATIVE
Göran Ahlgren, secretary general, Kungsgatan 82, 112 27 Stockholm, Sweden, goran.ahlgren@stockholminitiative.com, www.stockholminitiative.com
The Stockholm Initiative is a politically and economically independent non-profit organization dedicated to promoting rational climate-, energy-, and environmental policies.

Let's all Embrace the Muslims …

2011-09-05T15:02:00.007-06:00

By Roger F. Gay

… fellow people of the Book. Let me give you fair warning. It's the government's fault. That's what we have to think of when religious freedom and freedom generally is at stake. If you're going to presume anything, then presume this: It's the government's fault when there's a problem. And they're not trying to fix it, especially when they say they are.

I read a short commentary at Godfather Politics entitled; New York Times: America Should Embrace Sharia Law. I googled and noticed a large number of republications. Popular comment. I didn't feel like logging in to the New York Times site to read the article under scrutiny. That would seem about as foolish as tuning in to MSNBC. The commentary assured me that some wrongful opinion was been published there. That would not be particularly surprising.

The issue is that there are efforts underway in some states that are said to be aimed at outlawing certain aspects of Sharia law. Personally, I can do without Sharia law. I'm not Sharian. But that's not the point.

The NYT article (excerpt in the commentary) opines that the crusade against Shariah undermines American democracy, ignores our country’s successful history of religious tolerance and assimilation, and creates a dangerous divide between America and its fastest-growing religious minority. The commentary, quite logically, retorts: Letting Muslims and people of other cults practice voluntary ecclesiastical law within their communities is one thing. Muslims wants Shariah law to be the law of the land. State governments are getting smart and shoring up their laws to prevent the courts from forcing Sharia law on American citizens.

Fair enough. But the NYT article gives examples and more. Some of these efforts would curtail Muslims from settling disputes over dietary laws and marriage through religious arbitration, while others would go even further in stigmatizing Islamic life: a bill recently passed by the Tennessee General Assembly equates Shariah with a set of rules that promote “the destruction of the national existence of the United States.”

Does that mean they're members of the Tea Party? (Which has been the subject of very similar accusations.) I'm not saying it's a bad thing. Those of us with Libertarian (classic liberal / American political conservative) leanings are quite convinced of the need to curtail government intrusion; which some politicians might clumsily label a “national existence.”

I must admit a bias here stemming from actual knowledge. Family law, one of the things specifically at issue, was illegally federalized, absorbed into the “national existence”, two decades ago. Marriage is no longer a “sacred private institution” as it once was under Constitutional rule. Since the change, and because of it, most of your individual rights and freedoms have quickly disappeared as far as federal courts are concerned. Nancy Pelosi was aware of this change when she asserted that the Constitution (its modern interpretation by judicial misbehavior) gives Congress unlimited power to regulate whatever it wants to regulate in any way that it wants to regulate. This includes the power to force people to do things in their private lives, against their will, that make no sense.

Dietary issues? Consider Michelle Obama's obsession with telling us all what to eat and the left's incessant battle against McDonald’s (icon of capitalism). Why aren't we holding joint political rallies with Muslims? It doesn't matter if we want to eat different food. What matters is that we all want the freedom to choose.

I've been through too many rounds in my life where public discussion of an “issue” leads the masses to feel that those other people don't deserve the same rights that we do. Something must be done to curtail their freedom. Whenever I dig deeper, it turns out to be a con. It happens over and over and over again. We are constantly divided, especially on the very point we most need to be unified: our liberty.

The con is so simple to understand that it can be difficult to remain aware of how effective it is. It's also very easy to pull off. The others, especially those we don't really know or understand, are the bad guys. We all lose in the end, except for those pesky dishonest members of the Political Class. They're laughing all the way to the bank. “There's Joe Sixpack out there,” they chuckle, clambering for freedom and begging us to take it away as fast as we can.”

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Quote of the Day.

2011-09-05T13:22:00.004-06:00

The illusion of freedom [in America] will continue as long as it’s profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater.

- Frank Zappa

Republican Candidates Fail to Sparkle, Why and Who Wins?

2011-09-04T02:08:00.005-06:00

By Roger F. Gay

The old wisdom is that it's impossible for a president to get reelected in a poor economy. Strapped with historically poor performance and approval ratings, an obviously failed set of old-fashioned and rather childish far-left objectives, just as obvious superficiality and self-centeredness, a list of criminally indictable scandals, a hatred of Constitutional rule and a racist streak too broad to hide, you'd think Barack Obama, who's also had nothing to show to his base supporters but his butt-crack, would be on the verge of announcing he won't run again for the good of his party, or his family, or something.

But this is 2011. If you're too young to have noticed already, Barack Obama is the perfect politician, for somebody. We don't all agree on who that somebody is, but an obvious bit of the puzzle is that, whoever they are, they're focused on stealing as much as they can and generally think less of everyone else than Alabama road-kill. The only health of the nation that interests them is measured by their own personal short-term gains.

In my view, the difficulty in exposing them is just that there are too many of them to count and they're everywhere. Conspiracy theorists don't seem to know what to say when the protagonists can't be narrowed down to at least one special category and easily labeled. The conspirators have taken capital buildings as their club-houses and being either a greedy sociopath or one of their lying loyal lackies is required to join the club.

Does that sound like a whopper of a conspiracy theory? Well, we used to understand. Back before Western religion was banned, people generally understood the effects of temptation on the weak. And there's simply no shortage of weak. That's a small edge of religious wisdom, but as proper religion so often does, it provides a huge insight into the human condition. It's no wonder that proper civilization wouldn't have emerged and undoubtedly won't last without it. Those who would replace it with science know nothing about science, or about religion, or about either; and they tend to get confused when trying to distinguish between weakness and strength.

Competition then? Surely a traditional conservative view would save the country; that good, old-fashioned competition is all we need. It works to the good in commerce, why not politics? Well, where is it? Whenever a Republican candidate gets ever so slightly ahead of Barack Obama in the polls, it's short-lived. Most recently, Rick Perry has been a few points up. Just a few mind you. Nothing that reflects the overwhelming disadvantages of the current White House occupant (when he's not vacationing). Front-runner Perry is the new guy in the race. The vetting has begun and unsurprisingly, it's beginning to look like he's just another member of the club.

If you still feel the need to focus narrowly and identify a culprit; let's pick an important one. There is a group (an activity actually) so important that they're explicitly protected by the Bill of Rights. The very first amendment to the Constitution reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

As you sit, hour after hour over the next several months, covered in cold sweat, eyeballs glued to the tube (even if it's flat), keeping track of every minute of the coming horse-race, remember this. If either side had a good candidate, there would be no reason for such apprehension. As a result, advertising revenue from political “coverage” would drop like a rock. Yep. They're in the club too.
.

I Blame the People, Not the Government.

2011-09-03T09:18:00.002-06:00

As Americans debate amongst themselves the problems we face today, most people, no matter what their political preference, refer to the biggest problem as being the kind of people we have in government. That they are not the sort of people that belong in government. That they just don't care about anything but re-election, money, power, or themselves, and this is the root of our problems. "We need term limits", "we need to replace 'em all." etc. etc......Well,.....how do you think they got that way?

As for me, I blame the people.

We allow, and promote their behavior through our own actions, lack of principles, lack of self education, and lack of involvement.

We are not a moral, virtuous, or educated people ourselves are we? Just look around you. Do the people today live within their means, and only buy what they can afford, or must we have the latest, greatest, biggest, and best thing- and pay for it later? Do we actually believe in "liberty for all" or do we simply pay lip service to the idea, while hoping to see our beliefs, or ideas imposed on others through the force of law? Do we think theft is wrong or do we think that it's OK as long as we steal, via government, from those who have, and give it to those who don't. Do we refuse to participate in that theft, or do we make excuses for why it's OK when we participate? Do we conduct ourselves in a respectful manner, or do we act disrespectful, better, or smarter than others, without consideration for the other persons situation or experience? Do we speak gently, with careful words, or are we foul mouthed, rude, abrasive, and proud? Do we endeavour to educate ourselves, or would we rather catch the next episode of Jersey shore, the big game, or whatever other mindless activity that sounds like more fun and keeps us too busy to pay attention? Need I go on? How then, can we expect our leaders to be moral or virtuous in their positions? After all, aren't our representatives in Government elected from our own populous?

If we want truly want to make this Union better, and see a return to good government we must first look in the mirror. Why would those in government change for the better, unless they knew that the people they represent would accept nothing less? How can we elect virtuous people to government without a virtuous population from which to choose them from?

The founders understood this.

John Adams said in 1818:

"The Revolution was effected before the War commenced. The Revolution
was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious
sentiments of their duties and obligations ...
This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and
affections of the people, was the real American Revolution."

Samuel Adams said this about the matter:

"No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and Virtue is preserved. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders."

And this:

"A general dissolution of the principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy.... While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but once they lose their virtue, they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.... If virtue and knowledge are diffused among the people, they will never be enslaved. This will be their great security."

George Washington had this to say:

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest prop of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them."

Patrick Henry:

"...Virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor, my friend, and this alone that renders us invincible. These are the tactics we should study. If we lose these, we are conquered, fallen indeed...so long as our manners and principles remain sound, there is no danger."

George mason:

"No free government, or the blessings of liberty,
can be preserved to any people,
but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation,
temperance, frugality and virtue, and
by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles."

The list goes on, and on.

A true revolution for liberty, and a government that protects it, must begin in the hearts and minds of the people. Without a virtuous, moral, and educated people we cannot keep liberty, justice, or good government. We have over time, lost an adherence to these principles. This has truly been our downfall more than anything else.

Our revolution could never have happened had it not been for a people who were, in number, more virtuous than not. This is how we were able to retain our liberties, and keep the government in check for so long after that revolution. As the people have moved away from those principles, not coincidentally, we have lost many of those liberties to a growing, almost unchecked government.

The fight for liberty cannot be won through the election process……it must be the main object in the hearts and minds of the people. Liberty cannot be in our hearts and minds without morality. Nor morality without Virtue. and none of these without the religious principles from where they come.

"Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles." -George Washington.

In conclusion, Unless we have a moral people we will continue to have an immoral government. As we look ahead in our quest for liberty, we must first remember to change our own lives and behaviors for the better, if we ever expect to change the government. There is no other avenue to accomplish this. The Government is truly a reflection of ourselves. In light of this.....I would say......we get the government we deserve.....and always will.

Brent Lawler Sept. 3, 2011

Al Gore Knows He Has Lost 'The Conversation' on Global Warming

2011-08-28T12:50:00.010-06:00

Al Gore emerged from his hidey-hole recently to have a conversation with fellow traveler and 'Climate Reality Project' collaborator Alex Bogusky. You know that he knows it's over when the opposition is equated with racists. I mean, really. Hasn't that one been a little over-used?

Al Gore has never had a reasonable argument to present on 'climate change,' a flaw shared by the entire bunch of alarmists. It's just one lie after another coupled with name-calling. Propaganda that includes plenty of negative campaigning, but entirely void of any sustainable argument.

Alarmists are the most ignorant bunch of people when it comes to science (and other things too, I suspect). Try to imagine not knowing (or believing others don't know) that "climate" (measured by average annual temperature) has always fluctuated naturally. You don't know that there have been particularly hot summers and colder winters, for example.

It's been obvious for a long, long time - based on common knowledge as well as a host of scientific measurements - that there are also longer term trends. It gets warmer for a while and cools down a while. Some even longer term trends have given humanity (life in general) boom and bust cycles - generations of warmer prosperous years and ice ages.

So, imagine being so stupid that you think that if there's data (you know, science stuff) that says climate changes, it must be your fault. And now it's necessary for you to make a sacrifice to Al Gore's special science god to fix it. And if you don't buy into his superstitious nonsense, you're a racist?

Ron Paul Takes on Perry, Rommney, and Bachman

2011-08-27T10:34:00.001-06:00

The true conservative in the race for the Republican nomination has been in the process of gaining more and more support every day in order to challenge the failing Presidency of Barack Obama. Ron Paul has proven time and again that he is true to what he believes in and has a record that will support his claims. Unlike a lot of the other Republicans in this race for the Presidency, Ron Paul can prove with fact that he has challenged the idea of big government with every turn in the road. The Congressman has released a new ad that takes on the likes of Perry, Rommney, and Bachman. It is hard hitting, not negative, because it states fact. Take a look for yourself:

We Do NOT Have a Federal Government

2011-08-24T08:38:00.001-06:00

by Paul Rosenberg

WHAT WAS "FEDERAL"?

Nearly all of us use the word federal to refer to the United States national government, as distinct from the state governments. This has been an error on our part.

Federal was a description, not a name. It would be fair to use federative in its place. It described a type of government, not a particular organization.

For example, when we say "my friend has a fast car," we don't think that fast is the car's brand name – it is merely a description of the car's acceleration and top speed.

Federal was not the brand name of the government that James Madison designed, it was a description, like fast.

Notice how Madison distinguishes between national and federal. We have lost this distinction, and it is crucial.

James Madison

Federalist #39

The proposed Constitution, therefore, is, in strictness, neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both.

In its foundation it is federal, not national;
In the sources from which the ordinary powers of the government are drawn, it is partly federal and partly national;
In the operation of these powers, it is national, not federal;
In the extent of them, again, it is federal, not national; and, finally,
In the authoritative mode of introducing amendments, it is neither wholly federal nor wholly national.

Madison – six times in this passage – distinguishes between federal and national. There can be no question about this: he is referring to two different things. Federal is NOT the same as national.

We no longer use these distinctions because the US government has become entirely national – we have nothing else to attach the tag federal to.

At the founding – as Madison was writing the US Constitution – the meanings of the words he used were these:

National powers were those of an independent central government.
Federal powers were those that came from the contributions of the states.

To be fully precise, "federal" meant a union based on a treaty. It described the type of association that was being used.

Madison distinguishes between national and federal in exactly the same way that we distinguish between a business and a club.

FEDERAL POWERS

You can see from Madison's words that the structure of the United States government very carefully included federally-derived powers. Madison specifies them as fundamental components.

At its origin, the national government was dependent on the states, and not vice-versa. When the states shifted their positions, the central government, which rested on top of them, had to move along with them.

Understand, this was not a case where the national government was supposed to shift along with the states – there was literally no other possibility. An analogy would be the surface of the ocean moving up and down as a wave passes. The national government rode on top of the federal arrangement – when and where it moved, the national government automatically followed – like the surface of the ocean moving with a wave. There was nothing else it could do or be.

Madison did this on purpose. It was the central controlling and protecting mechanism of his design.

Here is what Thomas Jefferson had to say about the original federal structure of government in the US:

Thomas Jefferson, Letter to William Johnson, 1823

The capital and leading object of the Constitution was to leave with the States all authorities which respected their own citizens only, and to transfer to the United States those which respected citizens of foreign or other States; to make us several [separate] as to ourselves, but one as to all others.

Jefferson, as usual, understood the essence of the arrangement: Separate among ourselves, but as one toward the rest of the world – the outsiders who only saw the surface of the wave, not the waters underneath.

Jefferson (who was certainly not alone in this) saw the centralizing movement of power from the states to the capital as the great threat to the American experiment of liberty:

Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Nathaniel Macon, 1821

Our government is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction. That is: by consolidation first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence.

THE PATH OF DESTRUCTION

The federal structure of the US government was abolished in steps, over time. Certainly the largest factors were the confusion, ignorance, apathy and fear of the populace, which resulted in mute compliance. There were, however, watershed moments along the way. The most important of these events were the following:

Marbury v. Madison, 1803

This most important of Supreme Court rulings resulted from a complex case involving dirty deals, a politically-stacked Supreme Court and the entry of partisan politics into the operation of the American republic. By the time it was over, the Court had ruled against the man who wrote the Constitution (James Madison) and claimed the sole right to interpret it. Here’s how it went:

The Federalists, Alexander Hamilton being the driving force, organized into a faction (a political party) that organized and pooled their power.
Facing a loss of control after the election of 1800, they pushed John Adams to appoint a large group of judges and other officials in the lame duck session before he left office. Adams complied. These appointments were written for five-year terms – long enough for the Federalists to retain control through the next election.
Not all the commissions could be completed before Jefferson was inaugurated. One of these was slated for delivery to a hard-core Federalist named William Marbury.
When Jefferson took the Presidency, Marbury’s appointment was still in the Secretary of State’s office. James Madison, who now filled that office, withdrew the appointment for precisely the reasons you’d expect (being based on dirty dealing), and went about to appoint someone else.
Marbury ran to the Supreme Court, which was entirely composed of Federalist appointees. He demanded to be given his office.
In a complex ruling, the Court (led by John Marshall) ruled that Madison was wrong to withhold the appointment, but that this didn’t matter, since the underlying law from 1789 was unconstitutional.
The shock of ruling against the author of the Constitution aside, ‘Marbury’ brought up the important issue of constitutionality: Who decides? Even if we say there is an argument to be made for the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution, it is NOT in the Constitution. The Court should have said something like this:

Since it has fallen to us to decide such an important matter, we will render our opinion in this case. However, we request of the Congress and the States, that they pass an amendment to the Constitution clarifying this issue.

There is a great deal of confusion related to Marbury v. Madison that has come down to us. This ruling is universally presented in American schools as crucial to the "checks and balances" of the US government. This is deeply misleading.

Judicial review (the Supremes ruling on constitutionality) involves one branch of the national government providing a check on the other branches of the national government.

Judicial Review provided no check whatsoever on the national government as a whole.

The original design of the republic empowered the states to act as checks on the national government. This was the primary purpose of the federal structure. Without it, the national government has no check on its expansion and use of power. Thus it would seem that the states should be the interpreters of the Constitution – after all, it was they who created it.

RULES VERSUS JUSTICE

There is one last and important thing to mention regarding Marbury v. Madison, and that is the enthronement of rules above reality – of legal wordings over justice.

The "midnight appointments" of the Federalists used rules to manipulate the power-structure of the republic and to secure power by unintended means. James Madison, above all people, understood this. He withdrew Marbury’s appointment to conclude the abuse that was done to his system.

Chief Justice Marshall, however, ignored the injustice and parsed words instead: He went on at length over the distinctions of "nominate," "appoint," "confirm," and the fixing of seals.

Then, Marshall says this:

The people have an original right to establish for their future government such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness...

The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it nor ought it to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established are deemed fundamental.

What Marshall actually says here is that the American people wish not to work so hard defending their rights. He is giving them an excuse to be lazy:

The rules will take over from here on out. You can relax.

Liberty was the primary issue of the founding of the republic; the Constitution was subsidiary to that: it was a tool, valuable only if it helped to secure liberty.

The reversal of the central order – liberty being made subsidiary to rules – dethroned liberty.

Hamilton, Marshall and the Federalists were political power-seekers. To them, liberty was little more than a word that gave them legitimacy; what they really wanted was power.

Madison's design stood in their way; Marbury v. Madison pulled it apart.

The 14th Amendment, 1868

The 14th Amendment filled a hole in the Constitution by declaring that no state could trample an individual’s rights, such as the southern states had done by enslaving black people. (There was an earlier precedent for this, but the amendment was probably necessary.) The key section reads:

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Essentially, the 14th Amendment made sure that the Bill of Rights applied to everyone, no matter what their state government did. This was, in my opinion, a reasonable addition to the Constitution.

The problem with the 14th Amendment is not the text itself, but that people took it to imply the moral superiority of the national government. That is a highly questionable assumption.

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT & SLAVERY

When Americans talk about states' rights, there is an instinctual objection that never fails to grip people – that without central government power, slavery would still exist. The truth, however, is the opposite. And that truth is this:

Every branch of the national government of the United States assisted slavery until 1863. You can verify this yourself; go look-up The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 and the Dred Scott decision.

While the southern states and the national government were supporting slavery, the northern states fought it: They nullified laws supporting slavery. (Wisconsin was exemplary in this.) The secession resolution of Georgia complains specifically about this:

For above twenty years the non-slave-holding States generally have wholly refused to deliver up to us persons charged with crimes affecting slave property. [Northern state officials] shield and give sanctuary to all criminals who seek to deprive us of this property.

The northern states were the anti-slavery heroes, not the central government in Washington. If your school books implied the contrary, they lied.

The 17th Amendment, 1913

The 17th Amendment took the powers of the states and transferred them to Washington, by mandating the popular election of senators.

Previously, senators were elected by the state legislatures. That gave the states massive power in the central government. It provided a check on the power of the national government. If the states were unhappy with the direction of national government, they could instruct their senators to change it.

With senators being elected directly by the populace, the states were cut-out of the equation. In their place, political parties gained massive power, and nearly all power was consolidated in the city of Washington.

The argument in favor of the 17th Amendment was that state houses were corrupt and that they acted erratically, often leaving seats vacant for some time.

It is certainly true that the states were unruly. This, however, was not a crucial issue; the work of the Senate could continue regardless. Respected politicians, however, did not want to be seen as part of a disorderly body.

As for corruption in the states, that was often true, but the implied idea, that Washington was pristine, was – and remains – a bad, bad joke. But, even now, the moral superiority of the central government is often assumed, probably because many people find comfort trusting in the largest and most powerful thing.

Power always corrupts, but a structure featuring small, separate pockets of corruption is far less dangerous than one featuring a single, large seat of corruption, to which all money is gathered. As Thomas Jefferson wrote:

It is not by the consolidation or concentration of powers, but by their distribution that good government is effected.

The government of the United States remains, but it is of a fundamentally different character than the federal republic designed by Madison. Yet, we all keep saying federal. Not only is this use incorrect, but it has prevented us from recognizing the crucial fact that the American federal republic was stolen from our great-grandparents. This is not a trivial argument over vocabulary.

Deceptions and frauds are accomplished over time by changes in the meanings of words. Sometimes this is done purposely and sometimes it happens because people are more comfortable evading the original meaning. But regardless of how much intent was involved, the meaning of federal changed radically between 1803 and 1917. Our current use of the word conveys a completely different meaning than the original. This change of definition has masked a fundamental turning point in the governance of the American people.

What you do about this – or whether you do anything at all – is entirely your choice. I am merely pointing as best I can to the truth. I will add only this:

If you call yourself an American, be one.

August 24, 2011

Paul Rosenberg [send him mail] is the author of Free-Man’s Perspective, a monthly dispatch on the important things of life: virtue, courage, science, art, history, philosophy and personal growth.

Copyright © 2011 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Obama 39%, Paul 38%

2011-08-24T07:58:00.002-06:00

Rasmussen reports:

The president and the maverick are running almost dead even in a hypothetical 2012 election matchup.

Texas Republican Congressman Ron Paul earns 38% of the vote to President Obama’s 39% in the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely U.S. Voters. Fourteen percent (14%) like some other candidate, and eight percent (8%) remain undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Just a month ago, Obama posted a 41% to 37% lead over Paul, who ran second to Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann in the recent high-profile Ames Straw Poll in Iowa.

Paul, whose long run afoul of the GOP establishment with his libertarian policy prescriptions, picks up 61% of the Republican vote, while 78% of Democrats fall in behind the president. Voters not affiliated with either of the major political parties prefer the longtime congressman by 10 points – 43% to 33%.

But Paul still has a long haul among voters in his own party. He ran fourth last week in Rasmussen Reports’ most recent survey of Likely Republican Primary Voters with nine percent (9%) support. Texas Governor Rick Perry, the new face in the race for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, has jumped to a double-digit lead over Mitt Romney and Bachmann with the other announced candidates trailing even further behind.

In that same survey, 43% of likely primary voters expressed a favorable opinion of Paul, while slightly more (45%) registered an unfavorable view of him. This included 15% with a Very Favorable regard for Paul, who ran unsuccessfully for the party’s presidential nomination in 2008, and 14% with a Very Unfavorable one.

Still, Paul, popular with many in the Tea Party movement, runs better against the incumbent than another Tea Party favorite, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.Obama leads Palin 50% to 33% among all likely voters, making her the only potential GOP candidate to date against whom the president’s support has risen out of the 40s.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.

The match-up surveys of 1,000 Likely Voters were conducted August 15-16, 2011 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error for the surveys is +/- 3% with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

Obama continues to trail a generic Republican candidate in a hypothetical 2012 matchup.

Seventy-six percent (76%) of Tea Party members support Paul. Fifty-one percent

Read the rest of the article here

Washington Sacrifices Its Financial Rating to Feed the Sacred Cows

2011-08-09T13:09:00.000-06:00

Cato Institute: Washington Sacrifices Its Financial Rating to Feed the Sacred Cows

Under the latest budget "compromise," spending and borrowing will continue to rise. But who's counting? Standard & Poor's, unfortunately. Washington's inability to implement a credible budget plan has lost Washington's stellar financial rating.

The painful lesson of budget deals past is: never mind the official agreement. What will spending actually be? Higher and higher.

Even before the ink was dry on the accord, special interests were organizing to protect "their" share of the federal loot. For all the talk about the federal government protecting the poor and performing essential services, Washington is mostly about paying off those with the most power and influence.

There is virtually no person or activity that is not subsidized by Uncle Sam. Indeed, all of the biggest federal spending programs provide welfare, just not to poor people.

The biggest recipients of welfare are the middle class. Social Security and Medicare only incidentally address poverty. The biggest share of benefits goes to people who could provide for their own retirement and purchase their own health insurance.

Of course, most recipients mistakenly believe that the two programs are social insurance, paid for by the recipients' contributions. In fact, the money collected is not invested; the systems' so-called trust funds and personal accounts are accounting fictions. The Supreme Court has ruled that the government has no legal obligation to pay anyone anything.

Indeed, if the programs really were genuine social insurance, they would not threaten taxpayers with more than $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities. In truth, the two are public Ponzi schemes. Unfortunately, with America's aging population the good times are long over.

America's military budget is largely foreign welfare — a form of foreign aid, if you like. The U.S. faces no significant security threats other than terrorism, which is best met through intelligence, Special Forces, diplomacy, and international cooperation. No other nation comes close to America in military might. America alone accounts for roughly half of the world's military spending.

The biggest recipients of U.S. "defense aid" are Washington's well-heeled European, Japanese, and South Korean allies. Rather than spend their own money on the military, they rely on U.S. taxpayers to pay the bill. It's a great deal if you can get away with it — as they have for decades. ....

Read the rest at Cato Institute: Washington Sacrifices Its Financial Rating to Feed the Sacred Cows
.

What Shift Right?

2011-08-09T08:58:00.002-06:00

Cato Institute: What Shift Right?

Liz Marlantes of the Christian Science Monitor joins other pundits in proclaiming “America’s Big Shift Right” in politics and governance. “In Washington today, when it comes to the size of government, the debate isn’t over whether to cut spending, but by how much,” she writes. That’s true, but it’s because the federal budget has doubled in just 10 years, with half the increase coming in the past three. Politics may be more conservative, but government is still getting bigger.

Some of Marlantes’s arguments are mystifying: “Instead of coming on the heels of a great liberal expansion of government, today’s shift comes after three decades of the unraveling of elements of the social safety net.” Really? The Congressional Budget Office reported in 2007 that three major “safety net” programs accounted for 45 percent of the federal budget. In this chart the red line represents “social safety net” programs:

Read the rest at Cato Institute: What Shift Right?
.

A Question to You and the Tea Party Movement

2011-08-07T08:35:00.003-06:00

By Roger F. Gay

We're moving toward the real election season. I can tell. The pressure is on to perceive anything and everything as somehow related to a clear choice between just two political parties; no matter how false and idiotic those choices may be and no matter how independent of politics some of those choices should be. It prepares us to be drawn hopelessly into the black hole of traditional American two-party political hysteria from which no reason can escape.

No doubt we'll fall for it again (collectively even if I don't). Brother against brother, friend against friend, colleague against colleague, we'll fight to bring people we don't really know to power against those other guys, hoping against hope that it will mean what we hope it means. It brings religion to mind. Once you've admitted you're a sinner, you have a chance to do something about it. But politics isn't religion and there seems to be no born-again equivalent that requires first admitting you've been fooled and then understanding that they're doing it again. A church has never been established specifically to promote anti-idiocy in politics and to counter politically manipulated emotions.

Then there's the Tea Party. I was surprised by a recent survey that found the number of people in the United States that consider themselves part of the movement is only slightly higher than the number of people who self-identify as “liberals.” Self-identified “conservatives” are twice as many as either, according to the survey.

My surprise might be in part due to the constantly pushed idea that Tea Party members are conservative. I'm not personally convinced that's true, except somewhat in a particular sense. But perhaps a difficulty in the survey might have to do with confusion in terminology. In the US, common use of the term “liberal” means politically left or a Democratic Party politician or supporter. It has lost its original meaning to the point that we now use the term “libertarian” for that instead, although not necessarily Libertarian. There are several types of “conservatives,” some of whom would not enjoy having dinner together. The term is also used, equally unwisely, to refer to a politician or supporter of the Republican Party.

Given the survey results, consider that the “generic Republican” polls only slightly better than Barack Obama and that none of the actual Republican candidates stand up to him well and it's hard to imagine that people so apparently content with a “two party system” think multiparty systems and the metric system are complicated! OK – the two-party system seems to hold a promise of superficial simplicity. I see that. But if you want clear meaning and choices, it doesn't support the minimally required complexity so it doesn't make things easier or even workable. Two choices. Trying to draw the entire set of facts and logic that describe all reasonable or popular political options down to just two simple choices is guaranteed to drive you crazy right from the start. It takes you to a place that is composed of so much compromise and shallow imagery that meaningless ambiguity becomes heavy enough to create the traditional black hole of American politics by collapsing on itself.

To the extent that the vast number of people who show up at Tea Party events have the feeling that something is fundamentally wrong, I can identify. Even though I did not agree with their collective plan, I am sympathetic. It's rational, so they're not crazy. Tea Parties want to reform the Republican Party. My commentary above explains why I do not think that solves the fundamental problem. But it does express a long held sense of need. Remember Ross Perot? He split the Republican vote enough to put Bill Clinton in office. Tea Partiers don't want to continue supporting a bunch of lying thieves. They don't want to throw elections to the other bunch of lying thieves either. They aren't content with having no choice but a false choice. They're trying to solve the problem within the confines of the two-party system.

That they are too impatient to address the more fundamental problem is understandable as well. A well-developed multiparty system would reduce and overcome the hysterical and destructive tendencies in traditional American politics. To achieve it would require much time and effort to educate the American public and then to institute systemic changes. The required constitutional process is far from trivial. Other parties would then need to develop to provide viable and credible alternatives. (We would stop calling them “third parties” because there would no longer be a de facto limit of two. You would not in any sense be “throwing your vote away” by voting for candidates in whatever party most honestly fits your preferences.)

Would I prefer a multiparty system to a superficial change. Yes. But for all its benefits, it doesn't address the problem fast enough. We are not at a cross-road in American political history. We are deep in crisis. The country is under attack. There is a fight for survival going on in which any perceived fault in the Tea Partiers plan can be explained as self-defense. We have a duty as citizens to respond.

On the other hand, I'm a great believer that more than one thing can be going on at the same time. Asking to choose between reforming the Republican Party and starting a process toward a workable democracy is presenting a false choice. (Those of you who are twitching to say that the United States is not a “democracy,” please settle down. We've always had elections and that's what this article addresses. I am not suggesting “pure democracy.” Nowhere have I suggested eliminating limits to government power, checks and balances, federalism, or the Bill of Rights. The country belongs to you. We have elections. You're supposed to have a choice. That's democracy.)

Given the survey results it's obvious that there are a whole lot of people who currently consider the Tea Party movement their political home. I'm just saying that it would be very hard to believe that it would be difficult to put together one more committee to begin addressing the problem at a more fundamental level. Let's imagine that the American people win. In the short term, Washington corruption is brought under control and the nation survives. Then what? Do we maintain this same struggle forever as power corrupts and there is insufficient competition to keep it in check? Or should we go farther to fix the system?
.

The Bigger Insult of the Budget Deal

2011-08-05T11:49:00.003-06:00

By Roger F. Gay

You've probably heard already that the budget cut in the budget deal really isn't a cut. Business as usual in Washington never ends, no matter what. Nothing has happened that will in any way reduce the run-away theft of public funds. If your “representative” says otherwise, she or he is a liar.

But there's been some shouting already about something even more insulting; the so-called “super government” that the deal has legislated to replace the Constitutional process of law-making.

If you're one of those people who really pays attention and thinks, you might have noticed how the new super-committee is supposed to make sense to us. It's composed of “representatives” from both houses and the Republican and Democratic parties. Seem fair?

I can say unequivocally that I have never given my permission to turn the country over to these two parties. This idea does not in any way represent balance or fairness or anything close to representation of the people. Sure, they've gotten away with controlling power for many years because we haven't done anything to stop them. But this institutionalizes the “two-party system” more than any previous event in history.

It just gives me a really creepy feeling, like a guy broke into my house to steal my stuff and then decided he might as well stay. Just one unread law away from owning the house and my stuff himself.

Could Al Gore Help Save the World?

2011-08-05T07:23:00.003-06:00

By Roger F. Gay

Coming back to the global warming issue already seems a bit nostalgic. But if you're paying attention, even a little, you know it isn't really over yet. The stakes are far too high. For decades it's been part of the plan for the biggest heist ever. Not just for money, but for transforming the global political system to concentrate power in the hands of a very few. Proponents still hold high government positions in many countries and none of the conspirators are in jail yet.

My trip back into this particular Big Lie today started with a funny video in which a young woman suggested really big air conditioners to cool down the earth. A related YouTube clip from the Glen Beck show presented a young girl who had been invited to a special event in Washington and her father. Al Gore was at the event, instructing children to support his ill-begotten enterprise because their parents are stupid. (They have “old ideas,” as in anything presented as “new,” no matter how outrageous, must be really really good.) He compared his thing to the Civil Rights Movement, which in Al Gore's version of history was apparently a Girl Power exercise carried out entirely by 12 year old white girls who followed leaders like Al Gore (who as far as I know, has never been a 12 year old girl even if he acts like one).

I enjoy “brainstorming,” which involves respecting and considering all kinds of ideas; allowing free form thought to suggest things that might otherwise remain undiscovered and then evolving those thoughts until they make sense in the real world. For example, if you are willing to think big, perhaps some futuristic city will be air conditioned rather than the individual buildings and cars within it. An enclosed city isn't an entirely new idea but I don't remember whether its presentation in The Simpsons Movie or Futurama's Crimes of the Hot or Highlander II: The Quickening recycled exhaust heat from a giant air conditioning system back into energy production. (But if you think smaller: Heat Pump Water Heater Produces Hot Water & Free Cooling. Shucks, somebody already thought of it; proving not all good ideas are new.)

This brings me to the possibility that Al Gore could actually help save the world. Here's the thing. Before Al Gore came along, the global warming con was pretty much working as planned. Sure, there were “skeptics” but not enough attention was focused on the controversy for your every day ordinary citizen to take much notice. For the most part, indoctrination from the lamestream media was working. Surveys showed most people bought it. Other surveys showed they didn't really care, but that could be useful to the conspirators. Acceptance and apathy combined means government can “solve the problem” without having voters looking over their shoulders and asking what's really going on.

Al Gore is just kind of a half-witted stooge who's had things handed to him on a silver plate his whole life. He was introduced to the basics of corruption by his father and learned the Big Political Con from his years in Washington. He was influenced to push the limits by Bill Clinton. The big difference here is that Clinton knew exactly where to stop; just before the roof caved in. Al Gore doesn't have that instinct or the Clinton political consultants (or political powers and operatives that could allow him to get away with things that other people can't). After the roof collapses on him, Al Gore climbs around on the rubble, head bleeding, imagining he's still in the house. After it's condemned, he huffs like a 12 year old girl about being betrayed by the clean-up crew.

He spent a lot of (our) money promoting his agenda. Serious professional liars, the ones that actually have to be good at it to make a living, like New York Times journalists would have known how to play it; when to fall back and recalibrate. Al Gore didn't. He pushed ahead directly against a rising tide of public learning. Maybe a big national ad campaign with Al Sharpton and Newt Gingrich saying they're on-board – yeah, that's the ticket – that'll impress 'em. Then Congress would have no choice but to give him what he wanted. (Do I actually have to write something like “← sarcasm”.)

The basic problem is that Al Gore isn't really with the movement, which by-and-large has historically been content with smaller cons (although not always small) and has the patience to work through a larger plan. Al Gore is with Al Gore. He was already involuntarily retired from politics and ready to receive his extra-curricular retirement pay and he was thinking big, very big, as in one of the wealthiest and most powerful men in the world big. And he wasn't willing to wait until after his own death for it all to work out. For starters, he needed a couple more mansions and a fleet of private jets just as fast as Congress could pass the laws without reading them. And that's the way Washington works, right? No question!

To be fair to his pals in Washington, Al Gore and his partners did receive hundreds of millions in public funds, which I think any normal corrupt politician would have thought quite generous. But Al Gore wouldn't have a clue what to do then. Legitimate business was out of the question. “Business as usual” Washington politics was all he knew. He could only imagine becoming richer and more powerful by keeping his own private worm hole to illegitimate government spending open with his plays backed by large donors looking for political favors. It was his only career experience.

The greatest impact on the global warming saga came as a result of Al Gore's decision to explain climate science to the public. His film, An Inconvenient Truth was intended as a propaganda device to promote his agenda. It was like Al Gore to bite off more than he could chew and go too far. Explaining science was well beyond his own understanding. He easily went beyond the limits of credibility because he had no way of considering where those limits might be. He didn't seem able to rest until everyone saw the film, including young children who cried hysterically after watching it. The public attention became focused on Al Gore and his “issue.”

And before long public opinion was changing, but not in the direction Al Gore hoped and expected. Apathy, at least momentarily, subsided. People were paying attention. One area held a surprise. Many scientists who had not studied climate change, had generally been on board with the fake “science” that had been produced. Although the scientific process involves scientists checking the work of other scientists, scientists generally don't check the work of every other scientist. They become experts about published science in their own area of specialization, and especially about things they're paid to work on. Many scientists simply repeated the “party line” on global warming, especially those who were paid to do so. Others had been temporarily fooled by the constant claim that “the science is settled.”

Many federal grants were offered based on false claims, but not for checking the claims. To get federal research funds in many fields required repeating the claims. Many scientists took the money and played along. But that didn't stop all scientists from checking the claims and the heightened interest created a greater priority for developing real knowledge about the subject. (There are indeed, still many real scientists who are really interested in real science and continue to engage in the real scientific process.) Before long, surveys were turning up showing a great majority of scientists on the skeptical side of global warming hysteria. And the general public soon followed. (I don't know of a survey among 12 year old girls.)

If you haven't caught on yet, this – at least in a brainstorming mood – aims at explaining how Al Gore might help save the world. Through his insatiable greed and equal ineptitude, he helped awaken the public to one of the biggest cons in world history. While doing so, he helped awaken the public to the real meaning of “business as usual” in Washington. What the public has gained during these last few years (aside from it didn't all start with Bush) includes a more detailed understanding of the relentless effort to concentrate power and control the flow of more and more money.

Forget political theory. It all has nothing whatsoever to do with “liberal” verses “conservative” and only borrows tactics from the insurmountably corrupt extreme left (which, whether under the Nazi or Commie brand name, is just another name for extreme power play to begin with). It's all simply about money and power. Power corrupts. It's about corruption.

What he's done by accident may be the very thing he needs to claim a more positive ground in history. He need not be left merely as the dumbest crook from Washington. He could realize, finally, that he's been caught and there's no escape. He could come clean. He could tell. His next book could be about Washington corruption and his part in it. He could, this time intentionally, help save the world.
.

Ron Paul: Conviction

2011-08-04T14:31:00.001-06:00

Ron Paul: "Super Congress" Is Part of a Dangerous Trend

2011-08-04T08:39:00.001-06:00

Just 22% Approve of Debt Ceiling Deal, Most Doubt It Will Cut Spending

2011-08-03T11:05:00.003-06:00

RasmussenReports: Just 22% Approve of Debt Ceiling Deal, Most Doubt It Will Cut Spending

Most voters disapprove of the debt ceiling agreement reached by the president and Congress earlier this week and most doubt it will actually reduce government spending. Not surprisingly, Political Class voters are much more supportive of the deal than Mainstream Americans. Among the Mainstream, 17% approve of the deal and 56% disapprove. Among supporters of the Political Class, opinion is fairly evenly divided.

Read the entire RasmussenReports article: Just 22% Approve of Debt Ceiling Deal, Most Doubt It Will Cut Spending

Boehner, McCain Ready to Switch Parties? The Myth of Fiscal Conservatism

2011-08-01T14:19:00.004-06:00

By Roger F. Gay

Journalists are already finding it easy to include John Boehner on the same lists as Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama. It's become obvious that he shares much in common with them politically and especially when it comes to spending other people's money. For those hoping to turn the Republican Party into a mainstream conservative party, the whole thing stinks. Boehner and other Republican members of Congress are there under the wrong flag.

Boehner has lied about budget proposals as much and as consistently as any Democrat, fully supporting run away spending and debt while pretending to propose and promote cuts. Maybe the new way of pretending that something has seriously changed will convince Americans that something has and after days of wrangling to look like they've taken principled positions of some kind, under principles that are difficult for normal folks to fathom, they'll finally get what they wanted to begin with – permission to spend even more. And if normal folks don't like it, maybe they can be convinced that “compromise” was necessary because that's politics.

John McCain is another troublesome figure, becoming better known for talking one way and marching the other. He's quoted at foxnews.com as saying he's "very concerned" about proposed defense cut provisions in The Boehner / Pelosi / Reid / Obama New Deal. National defense is of course, one of the few areas in which the federal government is actually supposed to be involved. But being “very concerned” apparently doesn't mean what it used to, at least not to John McCain. He also said that he would "strongly support" the deal. Pork is more important than national defense.

One of the most interesting thoughts in the FoxNews article was this.

House Speaker John Boehner may have to rely on a blend of Republicans and Democrats to push it through his chamber, with some conservatives unhappy about key provisions in the compromise.

It would have been more accurate to have called them a blend of RINOs and Democrats. This is just the kind of thing that has mainstream conservatives steamed about the state of the Republican Party. It doesn't seem like it could get much clearer. There are members of Congress pretending to support the ideals voters expect from one party while putting a lot of effort into pulling the other party's wagon. The list of Republicans voting in favor will be a list of RINOs, targets for retirement from political life. Unless of course, they want to do the honest thing and run as members of the other party next time; then it will be up to a different set of voters to say yes or no.

In more than one article, I've presented the argument that fiscal conservatism is not a sufficient political ideology. In The Tea Party and The Illusion of Fiscal Conservatism I noted that

The fiscal conservatives of the T.E.A. Party tend to insist that neither political conservatism nor social issues matter. T.E.A. is an acronym for “Taxed Enough Already” and despite a very strong focus on Constitutional issues and over-reaching federal power expressed among its mass of participants, founders and organizers press to limit their scope to purely fiscal concerns. This they assert, is the big enchilada, large tent conservatism that is needed. Money is the root of all political evil and keeping taxation and spending under control is the final solution.

I think this is a good time to ask; how's that working out?

Underwhelming Cuts Proposed in Budget Deal

2011-08-01T13:23:00.004-06:00

Ron Paul: Freeze the Budget and Stop Plundering the American People!

2011-07-31T20:34:00.001-06:00

Constitutional Amendment: A Balanced Budget

2011-07-31T09:26:00.002-06:00

Looking at today's news you will see headlines that state members of Congress and the President are getting close to resolving the debt crisis, but this is just a temporary solution to an ever growing problem.

Here is the solution....we need a Constitutional Amendment that requires the Congress to balance the budget.

We are in this crisis because of the reckless spending that had been happening in this country for over 100 years. It is both a Democratic problem and a Republican problem. Every President and every Congress is guilty of destroying the financial security of this country and we need to fix that problem fast. Cutting spending is a good idea, and even raising taxes is a way to fix the problem, but there needs to be a long term solution that will force Washington to really fix the problem of a growing debt.

An Amendment to the Constitution is the real permanent solution to a real problem in this country. The Congress needs to act on this and so do the states, who are having their own problem as well. If we can get our financial house in order we can survive as a country. We need to reign in our spending overseas with our reckless wars and start diving into the real issue back home and fix this mess.

Who in Congress will act? Who has the real guts to fix this country and stop worrying about their reelection?

Budget Debate: Where are the fiscal conservatives?

2011-07-30T04:52:00.013-06:00

By Roger F. Gay

The cat is out of the bag. Not surprisingly, the choice Republican bill presented by House Speaker John Boehner is an implementation of the wish list provided by Barack Obama and the Democrats. The great stand-off over “compromise” is pure political theater. Even popular Tea Party favorites like Allen West have jumped on the bandwagon. Republican talk show hosts like Laura Ingraham are confused and bewildered by anyone who hasn't.

Well, ah, the argument goes, we're nothing against the great Democratic Party machine. The press might criticize us if we stand up to them. You can't possibly consider doing the right thing during an election season. What's wrong with compromise anyway? We've given lip-service to debt-reduction. That's better than nothing, right?

It is something – something very much in the wrong direction. It's the direction that voters clearly said “Hell No!” to during the last election.

Republicans have complained about the lack of a detailed Obama plan and now John Boehner has actually invited Senate Democrats write the bill themselves. Detached entirely from the real world, Democrats keep pretending that they have Republicans over their own barrel. Republicans respond by asking the Democrats to provide the barrel.

While the partisan playwrights continue writing fantasy, there is a very real question that needs a real answer. Why isn't John Boehner pushing a fiscally conservative bill? I don't believe that he was sent to Washington to represent the far left / Political Class or to cave in to them at every turn. But that's what he's doing.

Very strongly related article: Budget Gridlock: The House is More Powerful than the Senate and President Combined
.

Government Doesn't Work- By Jack Hunter

2011-07-29T08:54:00.000-06:00

Budget Gridlock: The House is More Powerful than the Senate and President Combined

2011-07-29T08:48:00.010-06:00

By Roger F. Gay

Washington, business as usual, tends to complicate things in ways that were not meant to be. Such is the case in parts of the public discussion on the budget and further increasing the national debt. The key argument of Barack Obama and the Democrats is that getting a budget passed requires their approval and therefore any fiscally responsible position must be compromised. To the uneducated eye, this may seem to be the case. Democrats have a majority in the Senate and a guy in the White House.

But let's (from my perspective, I should say “once again”) get back to basics. The Constitution tells us that in order for a federal law to be created – any federal law – a bill must first be introduced and passed by the House of Representatives. Senators may then vote on the bill and it will pass or not. If it passes, it goes to the desk of the president, who may sign or return it. There is no alternative. There are no other options. This is the process. There is no such thing as a “Senate Bill” in the Constitution. The president's powers are limited and do not include writing law.

There is a sound reason for this arrangement. The intention is that of maintaining a representative government. The House of Representatives is where the representatives of the people work. This distinction is made clear in the Constitution. Startlingly close to the first words of the Constitution is the establishment of this idea.

Article 1, Section 2: The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States ...

Contrast that with the Senate.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State … In its original form, these words were followed by “chosen by the Legislature thereof ...”

Senate elections are held every six years. We have a much greater opportunity to “throw the bums out” of the House of Representatives; every two years, precisely so that we, the people, can have greater and more timely control over who our representatives are and what effect they will have on us in the laws that they introduce and pass. We need people who have heard from us recently, so that our sense of what should happen next has the strongest impact on what actually does happen next.

It is more than merely appropriate for the House of Representatives to assert its will, acting as representatives of the people, against that of the Senate and the White House. This is especially true when the people have voiced strong opposition through their words and votes to what the Senate and White House prefer. Compromise, against the will of the people, is highly inappropriate and the people should consider recalling representatives that sway from their duty.

The House has the necessary Constitutional power. The budget bill must first be introduced in the House. There is no other way. A “House Bill” is the only bill recognized by law as part of the law-making process. The Senate may “propose or concur with Amendments.” They may pass the bill. They may fail to pass the bill. They do not have the power to originate a bill. That power rests solely with the people's representatives.

The president's power in making law can be quickly summarized. He can take it or leave it. That's not a political position taken in the context of a particular circumstance. That is the actual power given to the president by the Constitution of the United States. In addition, he may not refuse to obey or administer laws at his choosing as compensation of not getting a new bill that he desires. In threatening retaliation against retirees for example, a group more prone to supporting Republicans than his own party, or threatening not to pay debts if he does not get “compromise” on the budget, Barack Obama is threatening to (in Barack Obama's case, I should say “once again”) engage in impeachable behavior.

Who's fault is it if no budget is passed? When the difference of opinion rests purely on political whim, as the current disagreement does, fault must properly fall on the Senate and the president if they refuse to agree to the terms sent to them by the people. The power that they have is to either accept or reject. If they reject, then they have made their decision and it makes no sense to assign responsibility for that decision to anyone else. Rest assured, the time will come when we can throw those bums out too.

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

2011-07-28T11:42:00.000-06:00

Forbes: New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

.....

When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a "huge discrepancy" between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are.

Forbes: New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

Socialist Party Succeeds in Implementing Majority of 1928 Platform

2011-07-28T10:35:00.001-06:00

By Mike Church,
Of The Mike Church Show on Siriusxm

Cannot believe what you read?

Whereas many DeceptiCONS (fake,phoney conervatives) would have you believe President Obama is solely responsible for leading us down the path of changing America into a Socialism, the process and incremental implementation thereof began almost a century prior. It is further imperative to point out that such a philosophical system may only be erected and sustained via a centralization of monetary policy and Fiat currency.
Without access to endless "loans" provided by the private 3rd Central Bank of the United States, i.e. the FEDERAL RESERVE, which are wholly collateralized by the wages forcibly removed via income taxation, the sheer outlays required for appropriation under a Federalist Constitution would have collapsed or led to the outright rejection of such a fundamentally flawed scheme long, long, ago.
Thus, now is the time for all Winter Soldiers to stand firmly resolved to end the massive usurpation of our Constitutional Republic aided and abetted by the once iron-fisted control over information. Whilst it may have been impossible for past generations to access the truth behind the silent coup during the last century, all is now laid plain and in candid fashion. Make no mistake, as Dr. Ron Paul recently said, "We are living in rEVOLutionary times.
Socialist Party of America, Platform of 1928
1. "Nationalization of our natural resources, beginning with the coal mines and water sites, particularly at Boulder Dam and Muscle Shoals."
2. "A publicly owned giant power system under which the federal government shall cooperate with the states and municipalities in the distribution of electrical energy to the people at cost."
3. "National ownership and democratic management of railroads and other means of transportation and communication."
4. "An adequate national program for flood control, flood relief, reforestation, irrigation, and reclamation."
5. "Immediate government relief of the unemployed by the extension of all public works and a program of long range planning of public works ... All persons thus employed to be engaged at hours and wages fixed by bona-fide labor unions."
6. "Loans to states and municipalities without interest for the purpose of carrying on public works and the taking of such other measures as will lessen widespread misery."
7. "A system of unemployment insurance."
8. "The nation-wide extension of public employment agencies in cooperation with city federations of labor."
9. "A system of health and accident insurance and of old age pensions as well as unemployment insurance."
10. "Shortening the workday" and "Securing to every worker a rest period of no less than two days in each week."
11. "Enacting of an adequate federal anti-child labor amendment."
12. "Abolition of the brutal exploitation of convicts under the contract system and substitution of a cooperative organization of industries in penitentiaries and workshops for the benefit of convicts and their dependents."
13. "Increase of taxation on high income levels, of corporation taxes and inheritance taxes, the proceeds to be used for old age pensions and other forms of social insurance."
14. "Appropriation by taxation of the annual rental value of all land held for speculation."

All but the last objective have been achieved! And you thought you weren't a socialist

Tom Mullen Interviews Ron Paul 7-7-2011

2011-07-26T12:34:00.002-06:00

Tom Mullen, author or A Return to Common Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of America interviews Congressman and Republican Presidential Candidate Ron Paul. You may enjoy the 10 minute version here or watch the full version below:

Full epidsode

GOP Complicating Debt Debate Because Obama is Black?

2011-07-15T20:54:00.001-06:00

Well according to the Congresswoman from Texas, Shelia Jackson Lee, the Republican Party is making the debt debate complicated for the simple reason of race. They are complicating the debate because Barack Obama is black?? It doesn't have to do with the fact that we are f%&ked as a country?

Now I know there is still racism in this country, but in my opinion it is isolated to certain areas of the country. The majority of Americans want what is best for their country and could care less about Black and White. However, there are still people who hold power in this country that use racism as an excuse for doing wrong in this country. These are the same people that have exploded the national debt to the level it is now. Yes, they are not the only reason for the debt being so high, but they are a big cause of our problems.

Here is a bold solution...stop blaming every thing on race and start acting responsible and do your job! Stop screwing the American people for every dime they have left in their pockets.

Ron Paul 90% Likely President If Nominated: Current Gambling Odds

2011-07-15T13:57:00.001-06:00

Looks like it is about time for people to get on board with his Presidency!

From the Daily Paul:

Current Intrade odds for Ron Paul being elected president are 2.0%

Current Intrade odds for Ron Paul being nominated are 2.2%

Dividing:
2.0%/.022 = 90%

No other Republican comes close. In particular, all the Republicans with best Intrade odds of being nominated are likely losers in the election for President if nominated.

Big money contributors to the Democrats are better served by contributing their money to Romney, Bachmann or Perry.

80% of Americans Want Higher Taxes??

2011-07-15T12:43:00.001-06:00

Leaders in Congress and President Obama are currently in the process of "fixing" the mess of our national debt. However, the President is claiming that 80% of Americans want to pay higher taxes and is using this to push through his compromise on the debt ceiling.

The Hill.com

President Obama on Friday kept up the pressure on Republicans to agree to revenue increases in a deal to raise the debt ceiling, claiming 80 percent of the public supports Democrats' demand for tax increases.
"The American people are sold," Obama said. "The problem is members of Congress are dug in ideologically."

The President must be conducting a poll of the District of Columbia to pull those numbers out of a hat. It can be guranteed that the American people do not support a tax increase to fix the economy or the issue of the national debt.

How about we conduct a poll of Americans and see how many support cutting spending at a national level...I would bet that number would be closer to 80% than what the President is citing.

Who Should Challenge Barack Obama and Why?

2011-07-15T09:35:00.001-06:00

The Republicans have a choice to make in 2012 and as always there are differing opinions as to what philosophy the Republican Party wishes to follow.

I want this post to be a discussion of who should be the challenger to Barack Obama and why? I want a detailed explanation as to what candidate best fits the Republican Party today and why they are the best to take on Obama in the 2012 election.

Make your case as a comment and let the conversation take hold.

Ron Paul Releases First TV Ad — And It’s Epic

2011-07-14T10:57:00.001-06:00

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul is using his first campaign television ad to promote his opposition to a compromise on raising the federal debt ceiling.

In the ad, the Texas congressman criticizes both Republicans and Democrats for striking deals in the past, and notes that he always has voted against raising the federal limit on borrowing.

Ron Paul Asks Ben Bernake - Is Gold Money?

2011-07-13T18:00:00.003-06:00

To most people, Gold is money. Simple as that...but according to our Federal Reserve Chairman, that might not be the case:

BREAKING NEWS: Ron Paul won't seek congressional term in 2012

2011-07-12T12:27:00.003-06:00

John Tompkins at thefacts.com writes...

LAKE JACKSON — After serving almost 24 years in the U.S. House of Representatives, Congressman Ron Paul told The Facts exclusively this morning he will not be seeking another term for the District 14 seat.

Paul, 75, will instead focus on his quest for the presidency in 2012.

“I felt it was better that I concentrate on one election,” Paul said. “It’s about that time when I should change tactics.”

His announcement will give enough time for anyone with aspirations for his seat to think about running, he said. Paul didn’t want to wait for filing in the 2012 primary to let people know he wasn’t seeking reelection.

“I didn’t want to hold off until in December,” he said. “I thought it shouldn’t be any later than now.”

Paul has served 12 terms in Congress. District 14 encompasses a 10-county area along the Gulf Coast.

“The people in the area have supported me for many years,” he said.

Before turning to politics, Paul was an obstetrician based in Lake Jackson. The Pennsylvania native served as a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force before moving to the area to start his practice.

Paul first was elected to the U.S. House in 1976 and served four terms before stepping down in 1984. After Republicans took over Congress in 1994, Paul said he felt inspired to run again and sought the District 14 seat in 1996. He beat incumbent Republican U.S. Rep. Greg Laughlin in the 1996 primary and won the general election against Democrat Charles “Lefty” Morris.

Read the rest of the article here

Raising the Debt Ceiling so We Can Kill to Support the Empire

2011-07-12T09:23:00.002-06:00

By Mike Church

NEW ORLEANS, La. – The debate now taking place between milk-toast Boehner and Emperor in Chief Obama is nothing short of pure unadulterated political theater. Despite what the Political Class in conjunction with their old-media talking heads would like you to believe that utter catastrophe looms if Congress refuses to raise the ballyhooed "Debt Ceiling", nothing could be further from the truth.

The TRUTH, in plain common terms is that the federal government is in NO danger of defaulting as current receipts into the Treasury more than cover those expenditures which are required by LAW to be paid, i.e. Interest payments to bill and bond holders.

The cold hard reality is that the only REAL reason this faux crisis is sucking all of the air out of the room is that failure to raise the "debt Ceiling" would immediately halt the ability of the AmeriKan Empire to wage its undeclared and unconstitutional wars against brown people in Libya and Somalia. Nor would the Human Farmers be able to continue bribing their cattle, the "Entitlement Class". The latter of which would then cause a massive stampede, vis-à-vis Greece as they have become wholly incapable of living their lives without the stolen confiscated wages of others transferred to them via the "social safety net."

Ladies and Gentlemen, we and the future posterity are being plundered daily, and the political class is endangered of having their ultimate swindle exposed. We must resist, we must stop this federal leviathan before we all wake up as shackled and soulless human cattle on the federal plantation.

To hear audio on this subject visit: http://mikechurch.com/Show-Clip-of-the-Day/raising-the-debt-ceiling-so-we-can-kill-to-support-the-empire.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+MikechurchcomRssFeed+%28MikeChurch.com+RSS+Feed%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo

Debt Fight Gives Us a Window Into the Future

2011-07-12T09:15:00.000-06:00

The news over the past few months has been about the debt fight taking place in Washington between the President and the Republicans in Congress. We keep hearing about tax cuts and tax increases, cutting spending and trying to compromise.

The news however has failed to talk about the future and the problems we face in the years to come if we keep up this pace of reckless spending. Congress and the power players in Washington keep ignoring the numbers and the problems we will be faced with in the next 50 years. The debt will balloon into catastrophic proportions and the leaders we have running our country are ignoring the bigger problem.

I have posted this video multiple times and will not stop posting it until the debt problem in this country is fixed. It is a little old, but it still shows the dire situation we are facing in this country.

Dems Try $2 Trillion Tax Hike to Curb National Debt

2011-07-10T08:57:00.000-06:00

First off...we all know there is a huge problem with our nations finances, and that something needs to be done fast to fix the dire situation.

There are two different philosophies that deal with fixing a debt in government...one is cutting spending and the other is raising taxes. It is obvious which is the better and most popular fix to the problem, but it seems the Democrats and Obama would like to put in a $2 Trillion tax hike to fix the national debt.

From the Washington Post:

Senate Democrats have drafted a sweeping debt-reduction plan that would slice $4 trillion from projected borrowing over the next decade without touching the expensive health and retirement programs targeted by President Obama.

Instead, Senate Democrats are proposing to stabilize borrowing through sharp cuts at the Pentagon and other government agencies, as well as $2 trillion in new taxes, primarily on families earning more than $1 million year, according to a copy of the plan obtained by The Washington Post.

With debt-reduction talks under way between Obama and congressional leaders, Senate Democrats are unlikely to adopt the blueprint. However, it has gained broad support among those eager to chart a path to solving the nation’s budget problems without making politically painful cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

While some might consider this admirable it is actually more damaging to the country. The economy is tanking because of policies set forth by the federal government. People are struggling to keep jobs and afford the basics for their family. They are foreclosing on their homes and the Democrats solution to the problem is raise taxes??

Spending needs to be cut to break this cycle of drunken spending. If you cut spending you are more likely to fix the economy and bring in more revenue since people will be more willing to spend money.

$14 Trillion is too much and it needs to be fixed!

Ron Paul: Bold Economic Leadership

2011-07-08T06:45:00.001-06:00

Obama Will Still Lose Without Joe Biden

2011-07-05T08:56:00.002-06:00

Yesterday was our nations 235 birthday, but the rumor mills were churning about the possibility of President Obama dropping Vice President Joe Biden from the ticket in 2012.

From the Politico:

Don’t be surprised if Jay Carney comes to his daily press briefing at the White House on Tuesday prepared with an answer to knock down the latest rumor that President Obama will drop Vice President Biden from the ticket in 2012.

That speculation comes courtesy of Fred Dicker, who wrote in the New York Post on Monday that former New York GOP chairman William Powers was confident that Obama would ask Gov. Andrew Cuomo to be his running mate.

Carney doesn’t like to talk about 2012 politics at his briefing, but if recent history is any guide, Obama’s press secretary will be swift in dismissing the conjecture. The administration has already dealt with speculation that Obama would ask Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to be his running mate for his reelection, after Bob Woodward suggested that the president was thinking about replacing Biden with her.

But here is the kicker...Obama will still lose without Joe Biden even if he is, or isn't, on the ticket. The other ticker is the Republicans need to chose the right candidate in order to unseat this President.

President Obama has been a colossal failure and the chances of him being reelected are slim. Americans are tired of fighting endless wars, tired of seeing the national debt balloon, and tired of having their personal liberty stripped from them on a daily basis. These three issues should be the defining issues in this election, and the Republicans need the right man to clarify these them.

Will they be smart enough to chose the right man, or will we be stuck with the dunces of the Republican Party?

Sen. Rand Paul on filibustering the Debt Ceiling...July 4th Style!

2011-07-04T14:00:00.001-06:00

Ron Paul Goes After The TSA

2011-07-04T13:50:00.001-06:00

Congressman Ron Paul announced today, on Independence Day, that he will introduce legislation into the House this week that will directly target not only grossly invasive TSA pat downs, but also the use of harmful radiation emitting body scanners.

“This week I am introducing the American Traveler Dignity Act, which establishes that airport security screeners are not immune from any US law regarding physical contact with another person, making images of another person, or causing physical harm through the use of radiation emitting from machinery on another person.” The Congressman stated in his weekly Texas Straight Talk update.

SCOTUS to Hear Case on FBI GPS Car Tracking Without Warrant

2011-07-03T21:22:00.001-06:00

From the Blaze:

You might want to take a look under your rear bumper after reading this. It was in that spot that a U.S. college student found a tracking device the FBI planted on his car without a warrant last year. The Supreme Court has recently decided it will hear the case on whether the FBI action was constitutional or a violation of the young man’s privacy. MSNBC:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

U.S. Still Bombing Libya

2011-07-02T08:35:00.004-06:00

President Barack Obama instructed the American people a couple weeks ago that the U.S. role in Libya was limited and therefore he did not need the approval of Congress to continue action in this country. Members of Congress have challenged him on this theory and are trying to invoke the War Powers Resolution of 1973 which gives the Congress the power to control the action of the U.S. Armed Forces when they are engaged in hostile action.

U.S. Forces are engaged in hostile action in Libya despite the opinion of President Obama.

U.S. forces are still flying hundreds of bombing raids over Libya even though the Obama administration claims that American armed forces are only playing a limited role in the conflict.

Since NATO’s Operation Unified Protector took over from the American-led Operation Odyssey Dawn on 31 March, the U.S. has flown hundreds of strike missions, according to United States Africa Command (AFRICOM).

The White House originally claimed that U.S. planes were mostly providing intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance and played down the number of bombing raids.

However AFRICOM spokeswoman Nicole Dalrymple said: 'U.S. aircraft continue to fly support missions, as well as strike sorties under NATO tasking.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2010505/Air-Force-Navy-flying-thousands-missions-Libya-Obama-says-U-S-playing-limited-role.html#ixzz1QxUWdPUq

President Obama is in violation of the law and needs to stop this action that is taking place in Libya. The conflict in Libya has nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing, to do with the security of the United States. We need to stop going around the world and fighting these sensless wars that are costing us billions of dollars and ballooning our national debt.

Quote of the day!

2011-06-27T13:43:00.001-06:00

Quote of the Day

"Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone."

-Frederic Basiat

Mike Church Interviews Ron Paul

2011-06-23T11:09:00.003-06:00

All Hostile Action Should Be Approved by Congress....Even Libya

2011-06-19T08:51:00.000-06:00

Across the political circles there has been a decent amount of debate about the involvement of the United States in hostile action in the country of Libya. We have been discussing it on this website, and the top officials of the U.S. Government have expressed their opinions about the situation.

The outgoing Secretary of Defense Robert Gates believes that the mission in Libya is not a violation of the War Powers Resolution and takes the side of his boss President Obama:

Outgoing Secretary of Defense Robert Gates defended the Obama administration Sunday against congressional critics who say President Barack Obama is in violation of the War Powers act over ongoing operations in Libya.

"I believe that President Obama has complied with the law consistent in a manner with virtually all of his predecessors," Gates said on "Fox News Sunday." "I don't think he's breaking any new ground here."

The War Powers Act generally requires the president to seek congressional approval within 60 days of the start of hostilities. The Obama administration has maintained that their mission in Libya is too limited to apply under the War Powers Act.

"From our standpoint at the Pentagon, we're involved in a limited kinetic operation," Gates told host Chris Wallace. "If I'm in [Libyan leader Muammar] Qadhafi's palace, I suspect I think I'm at war."

But here is the predicament...two of the Pentagons top lawyers (that we reported on the other day) believe that the President needs to seek the approval of Congress. They sight the section of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 that requires the President to seek approval of Congress within 60 days of the start of hostilities.

The War Powers Resolution also states the explicit wording that gives Congress the power to check the power of the President when he tries to commit U.S. forces to action anywhere and under any circumstances:

SEC. 3. The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.

Gates, and the Obama Administration are clearly out of line when they suggest that the United States is not "really" involved in action in the country of Libya. From my understanding we are involved and we are dropping bombs and using our naval forces to conduct efforts in Libya to depose of the country's leader.

How about we start following the Constitution and the laws that are passed by our legislative body that fall under the guard of our founding documents. Stop circumventing the law and own up to the fact that you have broken the law and certain punishments should be dealt for that course of action.

McCain Doesn't Appreciate 'Isolationist' Republican Field

2011-06-18T21:18:00.001-06:00

John McCain who was the defender of the senseless wars of the Bush Administration has bad filling towards the Republican field which is spouting the old ideas of the Republican Party that holds an isolationist approach to foreign policy.

Following the past decade of war and conflict the Republican Party is getting back to its pre-9/11 roots and taking the attitude that we no longer need to police the world and should use our conservative approach to fixing the problems of our own country.

Here is a transcript of John McCain's remarks in a taped interview earlier this week:

McCAIN: “Well, I was more concerned about what the candidates in New Hampshire the other night said. This is isolationism. There's always been an … isolation strain on the Republican Party — that Pat Buchanan wing of our party. But now it seems to have moved more center stage, so to speak. … If we had not intervened, Gadhafi was at the gates of Benghazi. He said he was going to go house to house to kill everybody. That's a city of 700,000 people. What would be saying now if we had allowed for that to happen?”

AMANPOUR: “Well, you were one of the key supports. And what you're talking is all the Republicans on the stage of that debate on Monday seeming to waver from what's a traditional Republican position on national security.”

McCAIN: “Yes, I wonder what Ronald Reagan would be saying today.”

AMANPOUR: “What would he be saying today? If he heard, for instance, Michele Bachmann or Mitt Romney?”

McCAIN: “He would be saying: That's not the Republican Party of the 20th century, and now the 21st Century. That is not the Republican Party that has been willing to stand up for freedom for people for all over the world, whether it be in Grenada — that Ronald Reagan had a quick operation about — or whether it be in our enduring commitment to countering the Soviet Union.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57266.html#ixzz1PgirrBEP

Maybe it is time that John McCain gets off the neo-conservative horse and realizes the true history of his own party. We need to stop causing problems overseas and pay attention to our own situation and citizens.

Speculation of Presidential Run: Rick Perry Gives Fiery Speech to RLC

2011-06-18T20:33:00.001-06:00

The Republican field for President is full of different men and women that believe they would be better suited to replace President Barack Obama for the top job in Washington. This website is a Ron Paul website, but we are always open to other candidates as long as they can prove their allegiance to smaller government and less control over the individual.

There are not a lot of candidates that fit this profile, but in my opinion Governor Rick Perry has a high probability of being that candidate and President.

It has been speculated for months that he might run for President, and with the crumble of Newt Gingrich, the possibility has become higher.

He gave a speech today at the Republican Leadership Conference (where Ron Paul won the straw poll) that was down right fiery and eluded to the fact that he is ready to run for President:

Breaking News: Ron Paul Wins RLC Straw Poll

2011-06-18T13:48:00.004-06:00

In a sign of strength, Congressman Ron Paul, Presidential candidate for President, has won the Republican Leadership Conference straw poll for the Republican nomination.

This is Congressman Paul's second consecutive win in conservative straw polls as Republicans try and figure out who they want running against President Barack Obama in 2012.

From the Ron Paul for President website:

LAKE JACKSON, Texas – Today, 2012 GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul again took first place in a straw poll at a major conservative gathering. The Republican Leadership Conference held in New Orleans was the setting for Congressman Paul’s latest victory, winning with 40 percent of the vote over the rest of the Republican field.

“This win is just the latest indicator of how the majority of American opinion is turning in Ron Paul’s direction,” said Jesse Benton, Paul campaign chairman. “Listening to all the other speakers and candidates, you hear them saying the things that Dr. Paul has been saying for years, and they are saying it because they know that’s what Americans are looking for right now.

“The American people want and deserve someone who will tell them the truth, tell them what needs to be done, and who has an untouchable record of consistency to back it up.”

It is time that the Republicans get behind the man that will truly fix this country and stop the out of control spending and senseless wars that are plaguing our country.

Ron Paul's full speech at the RLC 2011:

Why I’m suing the Obama administration over Libya

2011-06-18T10:32:00.002-06:00

From the Daily Caller:

By Rep. Ron Paul

There is no issue more serious than war. Wars result in the loss of life and property. Wars are also expensive and an enormous economic burden.
Our Founders understood that waging war is not something that should be taken lightly, which is why Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution gives Congress — not the president — the authority to declare war. This was meant to be an important check on presidential power. The last thing the Founders wanted was an out-of-control executive branch engaging in unnecessary and unpopular wars without so much as a Congressional debate.
Unfortunately, that’s exactly the situation we have today in Libya.
That’s why I’ve joined several other members of Congress in a lawsuit against President Obama for engaging in military action in Libya without seeking the approval of Congress.
Of course, in 2007, then-Senator Obama spoke passionately about the need to go after the Bush administration for violating the War Powers Act — the very same thing he’s doing now. In fact, while speaking at DePaul University in October of 2007, then-Senator Barack Obama said the following:
“After Vietnam, Congress swore it would never again be duped into war, and even wrote a new law — the War Powers Act — to ensure it would not repeat its mistakes. But no law can force a Congress to stand up to the president. No law can make senators read the intelligence that showed the president was overstating the case for war. No law can give Congress a backbone if it refuses to stand up as the co-equal branch the Constitution made it.”
We are now taking Barack Obama’s past advice and standing up to the executive branch.
Of course, the War Powers Act is hardly an improvement on the U.S. Constitution because it does allow the president to go to war without the approval of Congress. But President Obama refuses to follow this law.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/16/why-im-suing-the-obama-administration-over-libya/#ixzz1Pe6xElIG

Breaking the Law: Top Lawyers Lost to Obama in Libya War Policy Debate

2011-06-17T22:47:00.002-06:00

In this country we have this pesky little document we call the U.S. Constitution. It is an older document that is suppose to be considered the "law" of the land, but sometimes in this day and age we fail to see the importance of its words. Even the President of the United States fails to see the importance of the Constitution along with most politicians that govern our country from Washington D.C.

The President of the United States is breaking the law and he could care less. He dedicated our armed forces to action in Libya almost 90 days ago and by law he must report to the Congress of the United States and seek permission to extend the use of force past the 90 day limit under the War Powers Resolution of 1973.

However, the President has failed to listen to the advice of his lawyers and believes he does not need Congressional approval to use the U.S. Military in Libya.

From the New York Times:

WASHINGTON — President Obama rejected the views of top lawyers at the Pentagon and the Justice Department when he decided that he had the legal authority to continue American military participation in the air war in Libya without Congressional authorization, according to officials familiar with internal administration deliberations.

Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon general counsel, and Caroline D. Krass, the acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, had told the White House that they believed that the United States military’s activities in the NATO-led air war amounted to “hostilities.” Under the War Powers Resolution, that would have required Mr. Obama to terminate or scale back the mission after May 20.

But Mr. Obama decided instead to adopt the legal analysis of several other senior members of his legal team — including the White House counsel, Robert Bauer, and the State Department legal adviser, Harold H. Koh — who argued that the United States military’s activities fell short of “hostilities.” Under that view, Mr. Obama needed no permission from Congress to continue the mission unchanged.

The President is currently being challenged by members of Congress who hold the power to authorize military force under the Constitution and hold the power of the purse for military action.

Members of Congress have currently introduced a lawsuit that challenges the authority the President believes he has to commit U.S. Military personnel to hostile action in Libya. They have a valid argument and can prove that the President is in direct violation of the law and his duties as President.

As someone who studies the Constitution and the Law, this could turn out to be an impeachable offense under the Constitution if it is decided the President violated the War Powers Resolution of 1973.

We will stay updated on all breaking aspects of this story and keep you in the loop....more to come!

Save The Economy: BAN ATMs

2011-06-17T22:20:00.001-06:00

President Obama said, "There are some structural issues with our economy, where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient, with a lot fewer workers. You see it when you go to the bank and use an ATM -- you don't go to a bank teller." We sent our crew to the streets of Alexandria, Virginia and they asked people to sign a petition to ban ATMs to save jobs.

40 Years Later: Cost of the failed drug war

2011-06-17T20:57:00.001-06:00

Foundation for Economic Education has a new video out today breaking down the cost of the war on drugs. Today is the 40th Anniversary of the beginning of our modern day prohibition - FEE calls for bringing an end to this ever escalating war through decriminalization.

Quote of the day!

2011-06-17T13:45:00.001-06:00

Free market-anti-socialist

Quote of the Day

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

-Adam Smith

The Right Choice for 2012...

2011-06-17T10:14:00.002-06:00

Before I began we can all agree that anybody (and I mean anybody!) will be better than President Barack Obama.

Now, we must make choice on who should be the person that challenges the power of Obama and unseats him from his position in the White House. The Republicans are starting to come out in full force and candidates are lining up on the GOP side.

I will say this...I did not vote for either McCain or Obama in 2008. I was disgusted with both candidates and endorsed the Libertarian candidate for President Bob Barr.

Our choices are vast, but who is the right candidate for this country...not just the one who will cream President Obama. At this point any Republican can beat Obama, and that is from a Gallup Poll released today. There can not be an argument that goes like this "that Republican can not beat Obama!" The likely hood is quite clear...probably whomever the Republicans put up at this point can beat the President.

So...who do we chose? For the daily readers of this website they probably know where I am going and whom I am about to mention. The right choice for 2012 is Ron Paul.

Ron Paul got hammered in the 2008 primary election for the GOP nomination for President partly because of his positions on foreign policy. But that had changed....Republicans are getting on board with the idea again that we should not be policing the world, that we need to stop spending Billions of dollars everyday in wars that do nothing to protect our national security. These people are getting on board with the idea that our economic problems at home are more important than fighting a bunch of crazy terrorists in caves that have little capability of attacking us in the near future.

Ron Paul has the right ideas for America and has the ability to fix this economic crisis from day one. The other Republican candidates spew the same rhetoric about fixing the economy, but Ron Paul is the only one that will actually stay true to reducing the size of government.

His foreign policy is that of a true conservative, his economics is that of a true conservative...what more do you want?

Libya: Illegal War

2011-06-17T09:47:00.000-06:00

Yesterday, Rep. Walter Jones and Rep. Tim Johnson, were both on Fox Business discussing their lawsuit against Obama's illegal war in Libya.

Quote of the day!

2011-06-16T13:43:00.001-06:00

Quote of the Day

"Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other."

-Ronald Reagan

Quote of the Day!

2011-06-08T19:20:00.001-06:00

Quote of the Day

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."

-Thomas Jefferson

POTUS Politics 2012: Are You Prepared? - Self-Help Advice

2011-06-07T03:05:00.005-06:00

By Roger F. Gay

The great quadrennial talent show and liars competition is underway, now pitting impressionist against impressionist. One side features ruling Chicago gangster Barack Obama, who won in 2008 with his Martin Luther King impersonation. Up first on the other side is Massachusetts con-man Mitt Romney channeling the patron saint of the RINO movement Ronald Reagan. Both have chosen highly inspirational figures. It's shaping up to be yet another contest with all the thrill of an amateur flea circus building to a critical moment of choice between white and off-white hand towels for the bathroom. (*)

Let me tell you a secret. They and their “positions” on issues aren't the focus of the real game. (**) You are. And you need to face some serious questions. Are you prepared for the onslaught of propaganda aimed at your emotional hot-spots and intellectual weak-points? Will you emerge from the election process with your humanity intact and your brain still functioning? Or will your name be one of many in the office pool for guessing the date you officially become a partisan zombie; wandering the halls with a blank stare, mindlessly repeating talking points, and mumbling something about the fate of the world?

If you're concerned; and especially if you still haven't returned to the land of the living since the last one, take heed. I have found an antidote that's easy to swallow.

Get a copy of the 2007 film: Futurama: Bender's Big Score and watch it repeatedly. You'll learn everything you need to know about modern American politics. Pay particularly close attention to the nude beach scene in which members of the Planet Express crew are talked into signing petitions. That's you – the voters.

Rest assured, any way you look at it - we're boned!

* Not a racial comment. Hand towels are not people - not even on South Park.
** Because, on average, you don't understand any of that anyway.

Quote of the Day

2011-06-06T08:50:00.001-06:00

Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of the day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers (adminstrators) too plainly proves a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing us to slavery.

-Thomas Jefferson

WSJ Question of the Day: Can Ron Paul win the GOP presidential nomination?

2011-06-03T09:28:00.000-06:00

Click to vote and comment: Can Ron Paul win the GOP presidential nomination?

Why Republicans Will Lose 2012

2011-06-02T07:55:00.009-06:00

By Roger F. Gay

You might expect that I will lead this article by pointing to the extraordinarily weak field of candidates currently led by Mitt Romney (code-name: Chameleon). OK, that's fair. I should and in fact I already have. But there's something else. The lamestream media has started its quadrennial preoccupation with the (so-called) “women's vote”. The social policy agenda, and indeed the fate of Constitutional rule, will once again rest in the hands of radical feminists. The RINOs can't handle it.

Early on, there will be much focus on the Obama agenda; the New World Order, “socializing” American industry, broader and more intensive cronyism. We'll certainly not believe candidates in the current field, who've taken credit for advancing all three during their careers. But even if another fresh, clean candidate should appear and gain in popularity, he or she will have to overcome the final barrier. A Republican candidate cannot win without winning quite solidly among men. And that's where every potential Republican nominee will be sabotaged by professional campaign advisers and party leaders.

Remember John McCain and the way he chased the skirts of “Hillary voters”? Sarah Palin said she'd do the same thing again if she had the chance. I believe she would; and then we'd find ourselves in the midst of the same spitting and snarling cat-fights as before, stuck month after month in the great competition over who's a better feminist. If there's any bright side at all, it might only be that there will be even less attention paid to MSNBC's racial slurs. But that won't save the Republicans.

The Party has a secret, and it's a doozy. When it came to the feminist vote, Ronald Reagan was farther left than Barack Obama. As Governor of California, he led the national charge to annul traditional marriage and family laws. He followed through as president, with the full support of NOW, under the Republican cover of child support and “welfare reform.” And the Party succeeded.

When Federal court challenges arose during the Clinton years, the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals formally put an end to traditional marriage and individual rights at the same time. In P.O.P.S. v. Gardner (1993), the Court reclassified marriage and family law from civil law to social policy. This effectively (legally) redefined both marriage and the relationship between the individual and government. A year later, the nation saw the Republican “Contract with America” (Newt Gingrich) that whole-heartedly supported the transition and not surprisingly attempted to replace the concept of Constitutional protection with political party promises.

“Welfare reform” led to both an enormous increase in welfare spending and an all-encompassing expansion of the reach of the welfare state. Think the federal government telling individuals how to spend their money is something started by Obamacare? It's not. The welfare reforms of the 1980s opened the door. Tens of millions of American men, who had nothing to do with welfare benefits, began to experience living without Constitutional rights, in a country where one's wealth and happiness are entirely at the mercy of political whim.

Do you think spying on innocent Americans and great government databases filled with personal information began with The Patriot Act? Think again. It was “welfare reform” that authorized the tens of billions of dollars to build and operate the national computer systems and all the information gathering mechanisms (such as access to bank records, mandatory employment reporting, etc.). They said they were keeping track of “deadbeat dads” or “illegal aliens” or …. anyway, they were compiling information and automatically tracking the activities of everyone with a Social Security card.

It's no wonder that RINOs like Mitt Romney (and Newt Gingrich, and …) love to drop Reagan's name. It was all done in the name of fiscal conservatism and spun with socially conservative brain-teasers like “government enforcement of personal responsibility”.

They called the increased spending “investment” that was supposed to reduce welfare dependency and spending in the long run. The spin was in fact the brain-child of a leftist social science professor, Irwin Garfinkel. Among other propaganda, Garfinkel produced a “study” that concluded that socialists have a higher standard of living because their income tends toward equality (i.e. the masses are better off being equally poor because they're less relatively poor) and participated in far-left academic-level New World Order groups.

Working at the Wisconsin Institute for Research on Poverty, Garfinkel convinced then Wisconsin Governor and later to be HHS Secretary under George W. Bush, Tommy Thompson to adapt his welfare reform concept. Thompson's far-left social policy agenda on child support and welfare reform was in the 1980s and 1990s worse than Romney's health-care socialism in Massachusetts. The welfare reform revolution went national without serious public scrutiny, legally ended traditional marriage, led to the downfall of Constitutional rule, and opened the door to the national undoing.

No, the Father's Rights Movement is not dead. The lamestream media stopped reporting when public opinion swayed to their side. You may not have noticed, but every Republican presidential candidate was quizzed about this issue in 2008 – and their responses posted on YouTube. They weren't good. Meanwhile, tens of millions of men - that's a lot of voters - who have suffered greatly from the reforms are waiting for a candidate to emerge who'll actually tell the truth and lead the country back to Constitutional rule and protection of their individual rights. It's not going to be done if no one is willing to acknowledge the root cause. And those men aren't going to vote Republican if the candidate can't or won't deal with it honorably.

And they won't. If they were, they wouldn't grasp defeat from the jaws of victory by pursuing "Hillary voters." And that's why Republicans will lose 2012.

Key Evidence of Global Warming Fraud

2011-05-29T08:02:00.007-06:00

By Roger F. Gay

I was disappointed upon seeing a Global Warming “science” pitch recently published in Politico. Cold shoulder for climate change was written by sports writer turned outdoors, travel and entertainment reporter turned environmental journalist Darren Samuelsohn.

I won't pick apart details of the entire article. It's based on the old propaganda template: warmers are scientists, skeptics are right-wing ideologues. No mention of the much larger number of professional scientists and engineers who have gone from skeptical to calling the whole thing a fraud. In Samuelsohn's world, warmers and their climate theories have been “exonerated” and the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is slated to rise in public status again.

Sameulsohn's background – about as far from scientifically educated as possible – is rather typical for environmental journalists. The rank and file tend to drive the ad nauseam element of Global Warming Propaganda - the endless repetition of an idea in the hope that it will begin to be taken as the truth. What else are they qualified to do? We can kind-of understand this serving up of a previous season's warmed over nonsense by someone without enough knowledge to be embarrassed by it. It's a living, right?

So I doubt he had a clue that his article contained one of the most basic bits of evidence that the global warming scare is a complete fraud and the IPCC is a scam.

“We need to equip ourselves with the ability and capacity to deal with the heightened scrutiny … which we have been subjected to recently,” IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri said earlier this month during a conference in Abu Dhabi.

Warmers tend to think of science as magic. Chant the word “science” enough and a cow pie should become the Mona Lisa if that's what you say it is. But what is it about (real) science that implies such overwhelming credibility? If your answer is “the scientific process” then congratulations; you're light-years ahead of environmental journalism.

Scientific process: If you're asking, “What's that?” then let me give you a hint. Skepticism and scrutiny are essential to the process. If ideas are not exposed and tested with skepticism and scrutiny, it isn't science. A “skeptic” is the more likely scientist than the “open-minded” unskeptical believer. The mere fact that a Nobel Peace Prize recipient says something doesn't make it true. That an article is “published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal” does not make everything in it true either. Publications communicate ideas, which are then subject to skepticism and scrutiny. That's scientific process.

The word of a “scientific committee” cannot be presumed truth. The so-called “scientific consensus” on global warming is meaningless (and still would be even if it actually did favor their argument as they insist). A good example of scientific perspective on such things is illustrated by Einstein's response to a 1931 pamphlet entitled “100 authors against Einstein.” The pamphlet was commissioned by the German Nazi Party as a clumsy contradiction to Relativity Theory that did not fit the canons of the “Aryan science.” Similarly, the IPCC and modern leftist political operatives define acceptable scientific views to conform with a political and economic agenda and support it with a claim of a consensus view. Einstein’s answer; “If I were wrong, then one would have been enough.”

Scientific fact is not determined by appointments and elections. It didn't matter how many Nazi supporters lined up against him or how strong their influence on public discussion. Nor does the past few decades of political influence through biased funding and its impact on the number of scientific journal articles determine the truth about global warming. Science is not conducted by committee and certainly not by political appointees in an intergovernmental panel.

What IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri reveals in his statement is that scrutiny has been missing from the IPCC process – something many of us “skeptics” already knew. The IPCC was established in 1988. That makes 23 years of non-science. The problem isn't confined to United Nations' activities and their reports that warmers treat as the bible of climate “science.” It's found throughout the entire chain of “climate science” activities and it's been intentional and systematic. (That's also an important part of what was exposed to the general public through Climategate.) “Science” is the basis of their claim of credibility, and it's the one thing they've avoided doing.

Some of the warmers have Ph.D.s. In fact, there are plenty of them, and they understand all this too. The global warming scam isn't just the product of uneducated sports writers trying to make a living. It is a fraud. Science is something done by scientists. But who is a scientist and who is not, is not determined by who holds what scientific degrees. Degrees don't make scientists. Scientists are people who actually do science. Having made claims to scientifically established facts without subjecting them to the rigors of scientific process is not science. The people who do it are not scientists. They are frauds.

2011-05-19T19:09:00.001-06:00

Quote of the Day

"The 'private sector' of the economy is, in fact, the voluntary sector; and the 'public sector' is, in fact, the coercive sector.

-Henry Hazlitt

Repeal of the 17th amendment is the only thing that gives TEETH to any 10th amendment resolution

2011-05-19T08:24:00.001-06:00

"The state governments are essentially part of the system. The senators represent the sovereignty of the states. They are in the quality of ambassadors of the states. But suppose that they were to be chosen by the people at large (17th amendment)? Whom, in that case, would they represent? Not the legislatures of the states (Article 1 Section 3), but the people. This would totally obliterate the federal features of the Constitution. WHAT WOULD BECOME OF THE STATE GOVERNMENTS, AND ON WHOM WOULD DEVOLVE THE DUTY OF DEFENDING THEM AGAINST THE ENCROACHMENTS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT?" - Fisher Ames in The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution

"WHAT WOULD BECOME OF THE STATE GOVERNMENTS?" We have one up on Founder Fisher Ames. We can now answer that question conclusively.

Let's make the assumption that you agree that there exists an overbearing Federal Government, that the State Governments as not much more now than appendages of it, and their purpose is mostly to carry out the Federal central dictates. What is the solution to this assumed problem? Is the solution simply to reaffirm (as I spelled out in the accompanying letter) the states' 10^th Amendment rights via a resolution? This would be only a fine start, it's a definitive statement of concurrence with the true intents of the Federalist system that the Founders set up with the Constitution.

But how exactly are the states' rights, state government powers and authority, that are "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" by the 10^th Amendment, implemented in order to halt Federal encroachments? Is there a single simple mechanism for achieving this? The answer lies in what caused the separation of power between state and federal governments to be dissolved.

What was the cause? There is one very simple answer. Even if you don't believe a system of Federalism was established by the Constitution, or believe that a central power in Washington is the answer to all, or even don't know what a system of Federalism is…the following review may be of some service to you.

Definition: Federalism is the constitutional division of powers between the national and state governments.

It was the conclusion of the Founders, from studying centuries of history, and multifarious forms of government, that the most essential mechanism needed to reduce the abuse of power was one that decentralized and divided power into receptacles that checked and balanced each other. I could go on for pages and pages presenting quote upon quote to prove the point. But being that you are likely acquainted with many of them, and for the sake of brevity and keeping within the scope of this letter, I will simply refer you back to the two quotes of Madison and Jefferson presented in the accompanying letter.

The system of Federalism they crafted called for separation of power-authority into two main differing realms of operation. The National government operating purely in external spheres, with matters that dealt with foreign nations, and disputes between states. The State governments were to operate purely in the internal spheres within their respective states. This dynamic created the largest and most important division and check on power to keep it from consolidating to a National center, as was the case throughout history, which always led inexorably to government oppression of the people it was suppose to protect. This dynamic also created the and most important division and check on power to keep it from reverting back wholly to the individual state level, thus recreating the failures of the Articles of Confederation, where each individual colony behaves as its own nation within itself. This reversion would have led to the danger of external conquest, state by state.

How then was this proper Constitutional federalist separation to be sustained? Precisely the same way it had been laid out from the beginning. I restate what I said earlier in this letter:

"But how exactly are the states rights, state government powers-authority, that are 'reserved to the States respectively, or to the people' by the 10^th Amendment implemented? Is there a single simple mechanism for achieving this? The answer lies in what caused the separation of power between state and federal governments to be dissolved."

For those with ears to hear, it is not enough for a State to reaffirm its 10^th Amendment rights, and not have in place the "lost" mechanism, the "teeth" to exercise them. These "teeth" are to be found in the same place they ever were, that which was lost by the 17^th Amendment, that in turn caused the proper federalist separation to be dissolved.

Article 1 Section 3: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof

Seventeenth Amendment: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state.

The Founders had assigned the Senate the responsibility of representing the states as sovereign entities. This is why Senators at the federal level were appointed by the state legislatures rather than being elected directly by the people of the state. It was so that Senators would not be compelled to involve themselves in the popular issues of the day (always at the task of hearing "the voice of the people" in order to win re-election), but could concentrate primarily on the protection of states' rights from the encroachments of the National government. Their primary assignment was one of balancing the budget, keeping taxes as low as possible, tempering the radicalism of the House, and serving as the "elder statesmen" of the Congress.

Despite the Founders' intentions, all of this was changed by the Seventeenth Amendment. In effect, this made both the Senate and the House a reflection of the popular will, both to be violently tugged and tossed by the less-informed populace for their re-election survival. So they would become less in touch with the sovereign interests of the states (which were distilled into their purest form in the state legislatures), or the checks and balances which the states were to have provided through their Senators.

It was understood, and still remains true, that the state legislatures would most certainly be more informed of all the concerns and interests of all the counties in their respective states than would the populace directly. Thus they would be in a much more enlightened position to appoint these "ambassadors of the state" to wholly represent the state as a state check upon a less informed House of Representatives at the federal level, and the wholly national nature of the Executive. This was the federalism of the Founders. The nature of the appointing of Senators was a vital element in the Federalist system. In fact, it was so vital that James Madison had this to say about it in The Federalist Papers no.39:

"The Senate, on the other hand, will derive its powers from the states, and in this respect the government is federal, not national."

Another way of putting it is, "If the Senate does not derive its powers and authority directly from the appointment by the state legislature, then this system is in no way a federalist one." Yet another way of putting it is, "If this system of federalism is not upheld in this manner, we will eventually have no separation of powers between the state governments and the national government." Or, as Jefferson put it, we will wander into a miasma of boundless power-grabbing Federal government law, unanchored by any Constitutional basis:

"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That 'all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.' To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition." To President George Washington, opinion against the constitutionality of a national bank, 15 February 1791

It is of no coincidence that in 1913, once this vital mechanism of this system of federalism was stripped by the 17^th Amendment, immediately thereafter, in the same year, the most egregious encroachments of the national government into the realm of state government authority occurred. Those being the Federal Reserve, and the national income tax with it Cerberus, the IRS.

Here is the full quote from Fisher Ames:

"The state governments are essential parts of the system.... The senators represent the sovereignty of the states; in the other house, individuals are represented.... They are in the quality of ambassadors of the states, and it will not be denied that some permanency in their office is necessary to a discharge of their duty. Now, if they were chosen yearly, how could they perform their trust? If they would be brought by that means more immediately under the influence of the people, then they will represent the state legislatures less, and become the representatives of individuals. This belongs to the other house. The absurdity of this, and its repugnancy to the federal principles of the Constitution, will appear more fully, by supposing that they are to be chosen by the people at large. If there is any force in the objection to this article, this would be proper. But whom, in that case, would they represent? Not the legislatures of the states, but the people. This would totally obliterate the federal features of the Constitution. What would become of the state governments, and on whom would devolve the duty of defending them against the encroachments of the federal government? A consolidation of the states would ensue, which, it is conceded, would subvert the new Constitution, and against which this very article, so much condemned, is our best security. Too much provision cannot be made against a consolidation. The state governments represent the wishes, and feelings, and local interests, of the people. They are the safeguard and ornament of the Constitution; they will protract the period of our liberties; they will afford a shelter against the abuse of power, and will be the natural avengers of our violated rights."

_____________________________________________

A proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution, designed to repeal the 17th Amendment, follows:

SECTION ONE. The Seventeenth Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

SECTION TWO. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, selected by the legislature of each State. Each Senator shall serve a six year term and may be reappointed. Each Senator shall have one vote.

SECTION THREE. Among the duties of each Senator is the primary duty to represent the government of their State, and in particular, their State's Legislature, in the Senate. For the purpose of maintaining communications with its Senators, each State Legislature shall establish a liaison committee and shall specify the duties, procedures, and method of appointment of that committee. This committee shall work with its United States Senators in evaluating the impact of federal legislation on their State. All legislation proposed by Congress, and all treaties proposed, shall be submitted to each State's liaison committee.

SECTION FOUR. Senators are subject to removal by the State Legislature. Removal of a Senator requires a majority of each House of the State Legislature.

SECTION FIVE. Congress is precluded from enacting any legislation affecting the senatorial selection process. Each State Legislature shall enact rules and procedures, consistent with this amendment, related to the selection and removal of Senators.

SECTION SIX. This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislatures.

Canada's carbon catastrophe begins

2011-05-19T05:31:00.000-06:00

Ottawa Sun: Canada's carbon catastrophe begins

It’s like watching the same train wreck — twice.

Our politicians are starting to commit the same wasteful blunders, resulting in the same perverse consequences, as the Europeans have in pricing carbon dioxide emissions, ostensibly to fight climate change.

The harbinger of many bad things to come for us is now happening in B.C.

There, the provincial government is forcing the transfer of millions of tax dollars from cash-strapped schools, hospitals and other public institutions, by requiring them to buy carbon offsets.

Money which then benefits hugely profitable energy companies like Encana.

This is eerily reminiscent of what happened in Europe when it started pricing emissions years ago.

Hospitals, universities and other public facilities had to spend millions of dollars that could have gone toward hiring more nurses and professors, buying carbon credits.

Meanwhile, energy giants like BP and Esso made millions after receiving free carbon credits from European regulators — which they then sold into Europe’s disastrous cap-and-trade market, the Emissions Trading Scheme.

Read the entire article at the Ottawa Sun site: Canada's carbon catastrophe begins

Quote of the day

2011-05-17T16:27:00.001-06:00

Quote of the Day

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests".

-Patrick Henry

A libertarian take on the Tea Party movement

2011-05-16T05:43:00.000-06:00

A libertarian take on the Tea Party movement

Lawsuit alleges Ohio has over collected millions in child support payments from parents

2011-05-12T01:04:00.000-06:00

Lawsuit alleges Ohio has over collected millions in child support payments from parents

COLUMBUS, Ohio — A lawsuit alleges Ohio has over collected millions of dollars in child support payments and doesn't provide parents with any way of knowing if they have paid too much.

The lawsuit filed Friday in the Ohio Court of Claims also alleges the state purposely over collects to boost federal incentives the state gets for processing child support payments.

The lawsuit alleges there are more than 114,000 child support cases where individuals have paid more than they're legally required, a figure that could be as high as $176 million over a three-year period.

Ben Johnson, spokesman for the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, declined comment.

Ohio processes about $1.7 billion in child support payments annually in a system driven by federal incentive payments.

Yes, Says Virginia, There Are Limits on Federal Power

2011-05-10T12:43:00.000-06:00

Cato Institute - Article includes link to oral argument on forced purchase of health insurance.

Today, the Fourth Circuit became the first appellate court in the nation to enter the Obamacare fray. It heard two very similar cases back-to-back, Liberty University’s, in which the government won in the district court, and the Commonwealth of Virginia’s, in which Judge Henry Hudson struck down the individual mandate back in December. Going into the hearing, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s legal team had done a wonderful job setting out the reasons why Hudson was correct and why Congress went too far in asserting the unprecedented power to compel people to enter into contracts with private insurance companies. ...

Complete article: Yes, Says Virginia, There Are Limits on Federal Power

How Libertarian Is the 2012 GOP Field?

2011-05-10T04:50:00.002-06:00

Cato Institute

Republicans Doubtful About 2012: What to do? What to do?

2011-05-09T09:59:00.006-06:00

By Roger F. Gay

Byron York wrote a good article for the Washington Examiner titled 2012 and the Republican rescue fantasy. The sense among South Carolina's Republicans is that the current field of presidential candidates is poor. I could say, Well, DU-UH! but feel no urge to treat the writer disrespectfully. Someone did have to report it after all, and it is at least half my purpose here to repeat it.

The “Republican rescue fantasy” York refers to is that “a superhero candidate will swoop down out of the sky and rescue them from their current lackluster presidential field.” After reviewing the usual suspects and some dropped names of “unattainable” candidates, he concludes that “One thing is certain: No previously-unknown savior is going to descend from the sky to save Republicans. If they are to defeat Barack Obama, they'll have to do it with someone from their extended field today.”

Well, OK. Given that ending, York's piece can be classified as commentary and I'm free to rag a bit. If the analysis is to be a serious one, it must first be recognized that the Republican difficulty in defeating the most overtly corrupt president in the nation's history is just pathetic.

The Republican mid-term success was due to a simple promise to fight back. The new House of Representatives opened with a dramatic historical event; the first time the House read through the U.S. Constitution. They won because they told us they'd do everything they could to see that government began playing by the rules. That in fact was the Republican fantasy; one hypocritically aimed at the voting public. Once seated, it soon became clear that they preferred to take the quickest route back to “business as usual.”

I do not think that a superhero candidate is needed. He or she need only be better than the opponent. I do not agree with York that Republicans need to pick someone from the current extended field. That seems the worst possible course. The Republican problem is one of credibility, making any established Party operative a liability. It's difficult to believe, for example, that anyone thinks Mitt Romney will ever win the presidency, even if he runs against the Devil who declares actually being the Devil and runs on a platform assuring that everyone who votes for him will go to Hell.

Republicans have said they'd be better many times, but then when it's time to deliver – they aren't. Instead they merely present a different set of excuses, lies, and arguments for compromise that lead to the same sort of corrupt policies, growth of government, and centralized control. The credibility problem has become critical, producing the pathetic difficulty they now face. In the hearts of voters: Fool me once, shame on me! Fool me a few hundred times … well … dude, you've got a serious problem.

The place to focus for 2012 is back on the promise of 2010 and what they actually need to do (talk is cheap) to improve the Party's credibility enough to raise them from their pathetic status.

Ron Paul Revolution 2012

2011-05-01T19:37:00.000-06:00

Congressman Ron Paul has formed an exploratory committee to run for President in 2012. It is the start of the Ron Paul Revolution once again.

Here is video of the Congressman talking with John Stossel about the Libertarian movement and his intentions for the country:

Why the U.S. is ‘Screwed’

2011-05-01T11:11:00.000-06:00

There has been a long debate on the state of our country in financial terms, and just for your viewing eyes, here is a chart to show why the U.S. is "screwed!"

The Sesquicentennial Is Upon Us

2011-04-19T12:40:00.001-06:00

by Kirkpatrick Sale

As an editor at large, I get to be considerably at large and so I am in fact living these days across the Cooper River from Charleston, South Carolina. That was the place, as you may remember, where the phenomenon erroneously called the "Civil War" began some 150 years ago, and where some folks now are determined to remember what went on and some others are determined to protest whatever went on then and is going on now.

It seems to have become something of a national issue, and being in a good position to take a look at the events this spring commemorating the sesquicentennial of what they like to call "the late unpleasantness," I thought I'd try to shed a little light amid the considerable murkiness of ignorance all around.

But first I think it's important to remember that the secession that took place 150 years ago was in a grand old American tradition. The American "Revolution" was, in fact, a war of secession – 13 colonies breaking away from the British Empire – not a war of conquest, and most of the Founding Fathers understood that to be a given right when they created the Articles and then the Constitution. The creation of the Republic of Vermont in 1777 was another act of secession, from both New Hampshire and New York. And just 25 years after the new nation was born, representatives from all New England states (only one from Vermont) met at a convention in Hartford to consider secession from the United States if their grievances against President Madison's conduct of the war of 1812 and limitations on Atlantic trade were not satisfied; in the event, they did not vote for secession, but its spirit was in the air.

So in that context, let's make clear that what began 150 years ago this April was not a true civil war, except in the sense that there were two sides in one country, because there was no attempt by one side to take over the other, as in the more familiar English civil war between Parliament and Charles I. The South did not want to run the Union, it wanted out of the Union. That makes it a war of secession (similar to the war of 1775-1783) or, as various forms have it, the War of Southern Secession, the War Between the States, the War of Northern Aggression, or the War to Prevent Southern Independence – all more accurate than "Civil War."

Next, let's see who really began it. The first conflict had to do with Washington's unwillingness to give up Federal forts and bases in states that had declared their independence, or even to negotiate some kind of settlement. After declaring independence in December 1860, South Carolina sent two delegations to Washington with the express purpose of working out terms, including monetary compensation, for the turning over of Federal outposts in Charleston Harbor, including Fort Sumter. Refusing to negotiate, President Buchanan in January sent ships with 200 troops intending to restock and reinforce Fort Sumter, an island only four miles from downtown Charleston. The first one was fired on and forced to turn back, and the South looked for some reconciliation. But when Lincoln took office two months later he still refused to negotiate and, a month after saying he had no intention of invading the South, accomplished that in effect by ordering a second flotilla of armed supply ships to force its way into the harbor.

Upon learning of the second fleet, in what seemed a clear and deliberate act of war, the government of South Carolina repeatedly demanded that the Unionists in the fort surrender. When they refused, the Carolina battalions gave warning on April 12, and after an hour began firing. The fort, low on munitions as well as provisions, finally surrendered the next day, the soldiers were transported by Confederate steamers to Union ships outside the harbor, and the only casualties were two Union soldiers that blew themselves up by accident during a cannon salute during the lowering of the U.S. flag.

Exactly what Lincoln wanted. It mattered not who committed the first act of war, which was the North, but who fired the first shot; that would work in the Union propaganda machines sufficiently to have it understood not only in the North but in the Border States and territories that the South had started the war. A Union invasion of a revolutionary Confederacy that fired first seemed only a fit and proper response.

Which in turn brings up the next nettlesome issue that always surrounds this issue: slavery, and the motive for Northern invasion.

In fact, after the fall of Fort Sumter the Union armies descended on the South in 1861, or tried to, in order to put down what Lincoln held to be a revolution by a federation of states that had illegally left the Federal compact. They did not, nor would their generals or soldiers have even so formulated it, invade the South to eliminate slavery, in the cause of abolition, or for the liberation of Negroes. It was not formally or informally, in the minds of either the Union armies or their civilian instigators, a war about slavery.

The great myth that the Union was fighting for a high moral cause, the elimination of chattel slavery and freedom for four million oppressed people torn from Africa, was ultimately a very convenient falsehood that served Northern ends later on in the war, particularly in distorting world opinion so that neither England nor France, though they might have had some allegiance to the cause of independence, were able to take the side of the Confederacy. But even then, the ultimate welfare of black Americans and their peaceful economic and social integration into white American society was never, but to a tiny few – and certainly not to Lincoln or his government – a moral (or even political) principle even thought much less expressed. The deep racism of the American North, though the victors would try to go on to forget it, was as dark a stigma against the Union as anything it would project on the South.

And the Emancipation Proclamation? Well, in the first place, it had nothing to do with slavery, per se. It did not abolish slavery. It decreed that slaves in the Confederacy only were to be free, but not those elsewhere in the Union or the territories (Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Missouri all had slavery, as well as Washington, D.C., until 1862). It was at bottom a military ploy, hoping to create rebellion and civil unrest on the South's plantations at a time when the war was not going all that well for the Union. ("It has no constitutional or legal justification, except as a military measure," its creator acknowledged.) It had no particular moral implications, and it made no provision for how the liberation was to be effected, what would happen to the slaves after they were emancipated, what the slaves would in fact do for a living, or even where they were to go if they left the plantations that had been their home for generations. (They could not, incidentally, go north, because no state there would welcome them and a good many, including Lincoln's own Illinois, had laws forbidding immigration and settlement of Negroes.) Unlike a number of serious schemes that had been proposed, North and South, before the war, the Proclamation did not deal with necessary issues of compensation for deprived slave-owners, integration of ex-slaves politically or economically into white societies, or even for their deportation to Africa, an idea that Lincoln in particular had favored. It was, in short, a military ploy without moral or humanitarian foundation.

Finally, we should understand that the issue of slavery, strictly, was not the cause of Southern secession or the reason for the war on the Confederate side. The South did not want to protect slavery from a Northern attempt to abolish it, because no such attempt was ever intended or expressed by any serious party, and indeed Congress in 1861 had explicitly defended the continuance of the institution in the South. Nor did the South want to extend slavery into the Western territories, because it was clear it was neither a useful nor a welcome practice there, and besides when it formed the Confederacy it no longer had any constitutional claim to influence in those sections.

What the South wanted was to continue an economic system that it had inherited for 200 years, that had been fostered and maintained by Northern interests (particularly New England shippers and textile barons) that entire time, that had been the foundation of the United States economy both North and South from the beginning of the nation, and that was a way of life now so entrenched no one knew how to alter or ameliorate it even if, like quite a few, they wished to do so. And the South wanted to be free of Northern interference: the continued attempts by abolitionists (as John Brown in 1859) to foster slave rebellions and terrorism in the South, the refusal of Northern states to return illegal runaway slaves (or to return Brown's companions who had fled North), the threat of increased tariffs on Southern goods, the stated purpose of the new Republican party to expand federal power in the interest of Northern industrialists, and the clear perception that Lincoln had come into office with a hidden agenda of limiting if not eliminating Southern influence on the national scene (he was elected with not a single Southern electoral vote).

So, is all that clear? Now we can go on with four more years of sesquicentennial commemorations without all the myths and misunderstandings. Maybe.

Reprinted from Vermont Commons.

Liberals for Slavery?

2011-04-18T12:39:00.001-06:00

Liberals for Slavery

Jack Hunter April 14th, 2011

On the 150^th anniversary of the Civil War and the battle of Fort Sumter, MSNBC television host Rachel Maddow said on her evening program: "The fact that the first shots were fired in South Carolina specifically came as no surprise… the great pride of the South Carolina secessionists was Senator John C. Calhoun, a beloved pro-slavery politician who… championed the cause of nullification."

The obviously anti-secession liberal host then defined the term: "Nullification—the idea that states could and should refuse to follow federal laws they didn't like, that they thought went beyond the powers of the federal government."

In addition to Calhoun, some of the earliest examples of nullification in the United States were in defiance of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. This act declared that slaves who escaped to free states must be forcibly returned to their masters. Many abolitionists became rabid advocates of nullification. When South Carolina seceded from the Union on December 20, 1860 it specifically listed nullification of fugitive slave laws as one of its grievances. When US Senator Jefferson Davis left Congress to become the President of the Confederate States of America he specifically denounced nullification in his farewell address.

Southern leaders denouncing nullification where it undermined the institution of slavery reinforces liberals' argument that the Civil War was exclusively about slavery. It also seriously contradicts liberals' argument that nullification is exclusively about slavery.

Still, was the Civil War just about slavery? Not according to President Abraham Lincoln, who wrote in 1862: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."

For Lincoln, preserving the Union was more important than abolishing slavery. Not surprisingly, Lincoln's primary concern for the supremacy of federal law over state law had formerly led him to be a strong proponent of the Fugitive Slave Act.

Lincoln was for slavery before he was against it.

The same is true of his opposition to secession, Southern or otherwise. Said Lincoln in 1848: "Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world."

At that point in American history some of the most significant rumblings about secession since the Revolution had been in the North—with the loudest voices often coming from abolitionists who wanted to sever their political union with the slave-holding states.

I bring up these contradictory historical views concerning what were once considered all-American decentralist concepts, not to prove that slavery wasn't a major issue during the Civil War. It obviously was. But it was not the only issue, not always the primary issue, and was quite frequently a wedge issue, exploited by those on both sides for the purpose of empowering political, corporate or special interests. Do liberals believe that George W. Bush's Iraq War was just about spreading "freedom" and liberating Iraqis, as the president contended, or were there political, corporate and special interests also at stake? Is it possible that Lincoln, too, wasn't as wholly benevolent as his speeches reflect, his flip-flopping suggests and his many critics in the antebellum South and North insisted?

If a liberal like Maddow's primary reason for denouncing nullification or secession is these concepts' popular association with the Old South and slavery, would Maddow have respected the Fugitive Slave Act—or nullified it? Would the liberal host have agreed with Lincoln that runaway slaves should be returned to their masters? Would Maddow have opposed abolitionists' Northern secession? If she is opposed to nullification and secession in each and every instance—as her rhetoric heavily implies—would liberals like Maddow have occasionally found themselves in the strange position of supporting slavery?

What about today, where a de facto nullification remains in effect in California which continues to openly flout federal drug laws? Does Maddow believe residents in that state who are stricken with cancer or glaucoma deserve to be arrested for alleviating their pain with medicinal marijuana? Or does Maddow support nullification?

Liberals do not want to be confronted with these uncomfortable philosophical contradictions concerning centralization vs. decentralization—the debate that raged in 1776, 1861 and still rages today—because any such intellectual exploration toward this end threatens the very heart of the Left's collectivist historical narrative. For progressives, the ever-increasing power of the federal government represents human liberation and political liberalization—period. This has been the Left's clarion call from FDR to Barack Obama, and any talk of devolving centralized power—even in the name of what would typically be considered liberal causes—is heresy.

In this light, for liberals, not only was the Civil War just about slavery—it must be just about slavery. And that Lincoln simply freed the slaves is not just the end of the story—it is the only story—lest Americans begin down the dangerous path of looking at their history and government with honest and open eyes.

Believe in the American Dream

2011-04-16T19:41:00.002-06:00

Rand Paul spoke on the Senate floor Thursday to challenge his colleagues to get serious about cutting spending and tackling the debt crisis. He also urged them to trust in the American people's creativity and innovation instead of government power.

Global Warming Debate Lost Under an Avalanche of Corruption

2011-04-13T08:08:00.007-06:00

By Roger F. Gay

In case you haven't noticed the subtle redefinition of the global warming question, it's a lot like the last 1000 or so re-definitions. It could be described as several parts deception that have been partially digested by a straw man. Let's start by taking a look at an article in the Los Angeles Times entitled; Critics' review unexpectedly supports scientific consensus on global warming.

A team of UC Berkeley physicists and statisticians that set out to challenge the scientific consensus on global warming is finding that its data-crunching effort is producing results nearly identical to those underlying the prevailing view.

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project was launched by physics professor Richard Muller, a longtime critic of government-led climate studies, to address what he called "the legitimate concerns" of skeptics who believe that global warming is exaggerated.

But Muller unexpectedly told a congressional hearing last week that the work of the three principal groups that have analyzed the temperature trends underlying climate science is "excellent.... We see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups."

In fact, Richard Muller is a warmer, always has been. He seems to like playing the diplomatic mitigator of the apparent difficulties with global warming theory. In a Technology Review article in 2003, he characterized criticisms of Michael Mann's hockey stick as part of a complex scientific process, a parley into defending Mann. This is about as far as his longtime criticism of government studies goes in recognizing the legitimate concerns of skeptics. In the same article, he says:

Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate. I would love to believe that the results of Mann et al. are correct, and that the last few years have been the warmest in a millennium.

Not exactly the model global warming skeptic. In fact, use of the word “pollutant” suggests a path straight from Muller to the EPA's unconstitutional attempt to take control of private industry. I can't imagine that many were really surprised that he supported the left in a congressional hearing.

Pretending warmers are converted skeptics has become a common ploy, but the deception goes deeper. It's fundamentally important to look at the main straw man. It's apparent enough in the LA Times article. I'll start with that and add another to partly illustrate its appetite for deception.

The enormous surprise, as the story goes, was some kind of confirmation that there's been a warming trend. Put this on the back of 100s of “environmental journalists” and left-wing bloggers constantly characterizing “skeptics” as “climate change deniers” and so on. It's typical for warmers to complain that non-believers are people who don't believe that average temperatures vary over time, as though they believe that climate is entirely static.

More-so, they don't believe there's been a warming trend. They couldn't of course, if they believe climate is static. If you've fallen for it, it could very easily seem that confirmation of a warming trend would crush the opposing argument. If you're not so naive, and knowledgeable enough about the debate, you would have immediately recognized the title phrase “scientific consensus on global warming” as an unscientific leftist fantasy.

What might be called the “consensus” criticism is that temperature variations occur naturally and always have. (Which actually puts warmers in the dunderhead class for not readily acknowledging the fact.) Warmers have shown neither that recent changes in average temperatures are unusual nor that they are scarey. The weight of the evidence indicates that modern industrial human activity has very very little to do with it – even if atmospheric CO2 were a major contributing factor. This case has been strengthened enormously in recent years as the lack of cause and effect between CO2 and temperature change has become so extremely obvious. But what about the warming trend? Most critics of global warming politics generally accepted that there was a warming trend in the latter half of the 20th century.

I learned about the LA Times article through a link at AccuWeather where I had read a short article entitled, Coolest March since 1994. Here we find another similar deception that's become popular among warmers. The title pretends that the article supports skeptics and invites the common every day ordinary citizen skeptic to post the link to all their favorite web hangouts. All the information above the first image supports the idea. This March was the coolest March globally since 1994.

The article gives warmers the last word however, dashing the hopes of anyone who's prematurely concluded that it provides further evidence of a cooling trend. The evidence is contained in the following partially unlabeled graph. “Despite the recent cooling”, the text reads, “the decadal temperature trend for the lower troposphere remains upward at + .145 C. (see image below)”

Digging into the data on which the graph is constructed, we find the left-most data-point is given for the year 1979. The right end of the graph is for March 2011. If you've been paying attention to the global warming debate much, that first year might ring a bell. You may know that there was a cooling trend from the mid 1950s to the mid 1970s. “Climate scientists,” even some of the same trying to frighten us about warming now, were preaching global cooling and warning of the possibility of a coming ice-age (a fact that really irks the warmers – Google and see).

At the end of the 1970s, it was relatively cool. So of course, if you find the coldest point in recent history – and we aren't continuing unabated into an ice-age – everything from there will be part of a warming trend – at least for a while. Let's put the trend from 1979 to the late 1990s in a different perspective by taking a broader look at temperature change – over the whole century.

Image source: IPCC Attribution to CO2.
These deceptions pale by comparison to the impact of Phil Jones (CRU), a researcher at East Anglia University's Climate Research Unit (CRU). Jones, made globally famous by Climategate. Jones created modified data sets using select data sources and mixed data inputs as tricks to “hide declines” and otherwise support the case for global warming hysteria. The data didn't support global warming “theory,” so he constructed fake data sets to correspond with the “theory.”

More than anyone, Jones demonstrated just how truly despicable warmers are when he went beyond rewriting the Earth's temperature history for the sake of his own scientifically unsupportable arguments. He made a global effort to replace all real temperature data with his own “reconstructed” data. He also requested that temperature data centers around the world mischaracterize his data as their original. According to his own testimony in a UK Parliament hearing, only three countries declined. (The United States was not one of those countries.)

It doesn't matter what sort of statistical analysis is performed on the data. It can't reveal the truth if the data isn't real. (Invalidating even the very limited straw man arguments by Muller and others that are based on analysis of the data.) When investigation of Jones' activities fell off the track into a warmer propaganda party, the last chance for warmers to claim a scientific argument went with it. By not sacrificing Jones and others of Climategate fame and leaking some truth into the debate at that point, party operatives eliminated any possibility of recovering the lost credibility of available data. All they have to offer now on the latter half of the 20th century are demonstrations of garbage-in, garbage-out.

Unfortunately, this means that researchers around the world will not be able to trust the data – no matter how objective and honest they would like to be. For the moment, and for many years to come, “climate science” based on historical temperature records is about as viable as dust on a loafer.

UN document would give 'Mother Earth' same rights as humans

2011-04-13T03:52:00.011-06:00

And of course, who do you think Big Daddy is in this arrangement? Bolivia is in fact, under the control of socialist extremists (MAS). The goal is to become Mother Earth's pimp. It's ok to exploit her, as long as the ruling Political Class has control and gets its cut! This is not a new game. Wherever it's happened before, freedom, economy, and Mother Earth have all suffered abuse. Following the eventual revolution, nations have an extremely difficult time extracting themselves from the deepest pits of political corruption and organized crime. Now just imagine it happening on a global scale under the UN umbrella. Corrupt administrations like that in Bolivia will claim legitimacy under international law, justify violent suppression, and ask aid to support tyranny. The UN becomes nothing more than a protection racket.

UNITED NATIONS — Bolivia will this month table a draft United Nations treaty giving "Mother Earth" the same rights as humans — having just passed a domestic law that does the same for bugs, trees and all other natural things in the South American country.

The bid aims to have the UN recognize the Earth as a living entity that humans have sought to "dominate and exploit" — to the point that the "well-being and existence of many beings" is now threatened.

The wording may yet evolve, but the general structure is meant to mirror Bolivia's Law of the Rights of Mother Earth, which Bolivian President Evo Morales enacted in January.

That document speaks of the country's natural resources as "blessings," and grants the Earth a series of specific rights that include rights to life, water and clean air; the right to repair livelihoods affected by human activities; and the right to be free from pollution.

It also establishes a Ministry of Mother Earth, and provides the planet with an ombudsman whose job is to hear nature's complaints as voiced by activist and other groups, including the state.

Read the rest: UN document would give 'Mother Earth' same rights as humans

Quote of the day!

2011-04-12T14:21:00.001-06:00

"The central truth of economics is scarcity. There can never be enough of anything to satisfy everyone. The central truth of politics is patronage: Promising to give everything to everyone. Paper money is the bridge between economics and politics." -Porter Stansberry

The Ten Principles of a Free Society by Ron Paul

2011-04-11T12:51:00.001-06:00

This is the Appendix to Ron Paul's new book, Liberty Defined.

Rights belong to individuals, not groups; they derive from our nature and can neither be granted nor taken away by government.
All peaceful, voluntary economic and social associations are permitted; consent is the basis of the social and economic order.
Justly acquired property is privately owned by individuals and voluntary groups, and this ownership cannot be arbitrarily voided by governments.
Government may not redistribute private wealth or grant special privileges to any individual or group.
Individuals are responsible for their own actions; government cannot and should not protect us from ourselves.
Government may not claim the monopoly over a people's money and governments must never engage in official counterfeiting, even in the name of macroeconomic stability.
Aggressive wars, even when called preventative, and even when they pertain only to trade relations, are forbidden.
Jury nullification, that is, the right of jurors to judge the law as well as the facts, is a right of the people and the courtroom norm.
All forms of involuntary servitude are prohibited, not only slavery but also conscription, forced association, and forced welfare distribution.
Government must obey the law that it expects other people to obey and thereby must never use force to mold behavior, manipulate social outcomes, manage the economy, or tell other countries how to behave.

Freedom From Freedom

2011-04-10T20:35:00.001-06:00

by J. Paul Henderson

There's a basic quality of freedom. And Americans have forgotten it. Simply stated, freedom can only be to. It can't be from.

You can be free to eat, but you can't be free from hunger. You can appear to be free from hunger, but in reality, freedom from hunger is a privilege bestowed in exchange for giving up another freedom.

The natural state of freedom is always to. Governments can't grant freedom to because freedom to is a natural right of human kind. We have natural rights and freedoms simply because we exist; not because governments dole them out.

In recent years, the government in this country has perverted the meaning of the word freedom, and in so doing has confused Americans as to the very nature of freedom.

Whenever the government grants "freedoms" to a specific class of citizens, it's really granting special privileges. Privileges that come with costly strings attached.

Think for a minute about today's concept of freedom. It's freedom from hunger Freedom from worry. Freedom from discrimination. Freedom from medical bills. Freedom from anything and everything in life that one might consider unpleasant.

Freedom from discrimination in housing can only be accomplished by taking away the freedom to manage or dispose of one's property as he or she chooses. The difference between a property owner and a property renter is that the owner may do what he chooses with the property, while the renter has to obey someone else's rules.

When the government tells a property owner how to manage his property, or to whom he may rent or sell it, the property owner becomes, in effect, a renter. The government is the new landlord. In the name of freedom from discrimination, the government grants a would-be buyer the privilege of buying property the previous owner may not wish to sell him. For whatever reason. The property owner's freedom to has been usurped by the government in order to grant the would-be buyer a specific freedom from.

But here's one of those attached strings. As soon as the would-be buyer takes possession of the property, he becomes a property owner and subsequently loses his freedom to.

As more and more segments and classes of society are petitioning the government for special freedoms from, even more people are losing their precious natural rights of freedom to. And sadly, the very same people who've acquired special freedoms from are also losing their real freedoms. Their freedoms to.

As more and more privileges (freedoms from) are granted to the myriad of political special interest groups, an increasingly growing number of freedoms to are being forever taken by the government. Eventually, the end result of selling out our freedoms to for specific special privileges will result in the ultimate freedom from: Freedom from freedom itself.

April 9, 2011

J. Paul Henderson [send him mail] lives in Charlotte, North Carolina. See his site.

The Budget Battle

2011-04-10T20:30:00.002-06:00

by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

Watching the public debate on the budget, we are reminded of two boys on the floor playing with toys. One has a bear and the other has a dinosaur. They are forever threatening the other kid with taking the toy away. One warns he will take away the dinosaur (military spending) and the other says he will grab the bear (domestic spending). They pull and tug and eventually settle the dispute so long as each gets to keep his favorite.
Oh, and one other thing: both toys belong to other children.
That's the public debate, which should strike anyone as preposterous on its face. If the goal in this crisis is to balance the budget without raising taxes, everything has to be cut regardless of political ideology. But of course that's not what political parties do. The goal of a political party is to shovel the largess in the direction of its constituent supporters while punishing the loyalists of the other party, which is attempting to do the same.

The tit-for-tat is always resolved the same way: more for both sides, from third parties.
In other words, this is all political play, which is obvious from the numbers and the norms. In the first place, no one is talking about actual cuts, not even the supposedly radical Republicans. These are cuts in projected spending, meaning that everyone is dealing with symbolic changes in a future that is just as symbolic. Even on paper, the only way to consider these cuts is to compare them with the GDP and the national debt -- both of which are slated to rise. Forgetting those two metrics, and looking at the actual numbers, there are no cuts at all and only increases.
Even the dating of the Republican's balanced budget is ridiculous. So the budget will be fully balanced in 2040? That's three decades from now. Few of the people in office will still be in office, and many will be dead. To see how viable this is, consider how many political plans of the year 1982 still survive today.

The Republican plan proposes domestic cuts in these gargantuan programs like Social Security and Medicare with nothing specific beyond the old prattle about establishing bi-partisan commissions and sending block grants to the states. There is nothing specific here beyond a numbers-laden pipe dream. No programs are abolished, no benefits are slashed or even trimmed, and although the propagandists claim to attack the culture of spending in Washington, there is not one word about taking on the money-printing machine that made the $14 trillion national debt possible in the first place.
The real legislative battle is over current-year spending, and there the Republicans appear to be taking a slightly less profligate line than one might expect, due to pressure from Tea Party types. The government might "shut down" unless an agreement is reached, and I hope it happens. It doesn't, of course, mean the end of government as we know it, but it can produce a few days of entertainment.
The Republicans are at least correct on this point: the government's finances are in a state of total calamity, thanks to them and the Democrats. With each shift in the business cycle, we keep going through the same stages, only it gets worse each time. During the boom, tax revenues soar and the president and Congress initiate vast new spending for their interest groups. Then the recession hits and tax revenue plummets, driving up the deficit. But rather than cut back on spending, economists instruct Congress to do what they want to do anyway, spend even more! And so it goes, as we spiral down into the pit.
The only reason this nonsense is sustainable is due to the promise of the Federal Reserve to back all this spending with money creation. The Fed is what makes the whole racket too big too fail. This is why budget battles end up being insignificant to the future of government spending patterns. If the Republicans wanted to seriously take on the fiscal mess, they would begin with reining in the Federal Reserve. Apart from such reforms, budget battles end up being theatre.
The time to start paying close attention is when Democrats take on entitlement programs, Republicans propose serious cuts in military spending, and both parties agree on fundamental monetary reform. Until that time, these battles have all the significance of the battle between the two children. Both sides need to return their toys to their proper owners.
April 9, 2011
Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. [send him mail], former editorial assistant to Ludwig von Mises and congressional chief of staff to Ron Paul, is founder and chairman of the Mises Institute, executor for the estate of Murray N. Rothbard, and editor of LewRockwell.com. See his books.

John Boehner closes the deal to avoid government shutdown

2011-04-10T10:53:00.000-06:00

I hope everyone realizes that Washington and the lamestream media use the term "cuts" much differently than common folk. Democrats propose budget increases more than twice what, as a practical matter, they'd actually be able to spend. Republicans propose increases somewhat smaller, but still over anything that's needed. The "cuts" are merely the amount the final budget comes in lower than the highest proposal.

From Politico: John Boehner closes the deal to avoid government shutdown

His colleagues stood and cheered at his announcement of a deal, knowing Boehner secured more than $38.5 billion in cuts, a far higher figure than many of them expected just days before. Boehner still has to get the votes next week for the long-term budget deal, and he’s got a huge sales job ahead on raising the debt limit, not to mention debating the entire 2012 budget.

“It’s a big deal. It shows a great deal of leadership,” said Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.), a Boehner ally. “It’s a big win for the speaker.”

In a larger sense, Boehner has achieved more than just a short-term budget victory — in his first three months as speaker, he’s helped turn the entire Washington dialogue into a debate about the size and scope of government. He started the year by getting rid of earmarks, he’s pushing through some of the deepest spending cuts in American history, and he’ll now try to get most of the GOP Conference on board with Rep. Paul Ryan’s fiscal 2012 budget — one of the most audacious long-term spending plans in recent memory.

Wink, wink! Nudge, nudge!

GOP Losing Ground In Battle Over Deficit

2011-03-31T09:48:00.000-06:00

From ABC News: The Note: GOP Losing Ground In Battle Over Deficit. And from my own "I told you so" department: "Fiscal conservatives" (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) are not trustworthy - especially when compromise is part of their basic character.

As Congress and the White House struggle to cobble together a budget deal, Americans don't feel particularly confident that either side has the right answers.

In a new ABC News/Washington Post poll out today, just 43 percent of Americans approve of the way President Obama is handling the economy, though more Americans say they trust Obama (46 percent) on the issue than Republicans in Congress (34 percent). http://abcn.ws/gpFL1H

What's more, by a 9-point margin Americans now see Obama as better able to handle the deficit than GOP lawmakers in Congress. That represents an 11-point drop for the GOP since December -- a period when Republicans have made cutting federal spending a centerpiece of their agenda.

And here’s another interesting fact, according to ABC polling analyst Gary Langer: “The drop in trust to handle the economy has occurred chiefly among independents, now drawing away from the GOP after rallying to its side. As recently as January, 42 percent of independents preferred the Republicans in Congress over Obama to handle the economy. Today just 29 percent say the same, and there's been a rise in the number who volunteer that they don't trust either side.”

Read the rest of the article at ABC News: The Note: GOP Losing Ground In Battle Over Deficit.

Not Even Jon Stewart is Buying the President’s NATO Argument

2011-03-30T20:21:00.002-06:00

The Daily Show
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Young Girls BANNED From Selling Girl Scout Cookies On Their Own Front Lawn

2011-03-28T05:02:00.000-06:00

From Hawaii News Daily: Young Girls BANNED From Selling Girl Scout Cookies On Their Own Front Lawn

Once upon a time in America, if you were a couple of little girls and you wanted to sell lemonade or girl scout cookies at a little stand in front of your home nobody would give you any problems. In fact, most of the people passing by would have smiled and would have seen it as a sign of hope that the next generation was being so industrious. Well, that is not the way that it works anymore. Today, all across America nightmarish control freaks are seeking to micromanage every single aspect of our lives. That includes banning young girls from selling girl scout cookies on their own front lawns. Yes, you read that correctly. In Missouri of all places, two young girls named Abigail and Caitlin Mills were recently taught a lesson on how to be good citizens in the emerging totalitarian control grid going up all over the United States. After a complaint from a neighbor, the city of Hazelwood cracked down on the two girls and told them that they must shut down the girl scout cookie stand that they had been operating in their front yard.

So were the girls doing anything wrong? No. There are very few things that are more “American” than selling girl scout cookies. In fact, they had been operating the stand during this time of the year for the past 6 years. It had become a community tradition. But according to the city of Hazelwood, the girls were violating a city ordinance that bans “the sale of commodities” from a home.

You see, the truth is that there is a “rule” for almost everything today. In fact, we have so many “laws” and “rules” and “regulations” in the United States that it is literally impossible to be in compliance with all of them.

Read the rest at Hawaii News Daily: Young Girls BANNED From Selling Girl Scout Cookies On Their Own Front Lawn

Gary Johnson to Announce Intent to Run for President in Late April

2011-03-26T11:40:00.000-06:00

Besides Ron Paul there is another man that we at Conservative for Change feel could make a very descent President, and that man is former Governor of New Mexico Gary Johnson.

It has been confirmed by Fox News that Gary Johnson will announce in April his intention to run for President of the United States:

Fox News has learned the former Governor of New Mexico will announce his candidacy, for President of the United States in late April. Johnson insiders say he will bypass the exploratory stage, announce his candidacy and immediately travel to New Hampshire sometime after tax day, April 15. Johnson is a strong supporter of legalizing marijuana and gay marriage. Strategists say his libertarian approach to GOP politics may prove very popular in the Granite State, whose motto is "Live Free or Die."

Johnson has not himself, and will not when asked, state his intention to seek the White House. He currently runs a non-profit organization and under FEC regulations cannot run for office at the same time. "I do have the fact that I'm a 501c (4), the Our America Initiative," the former Governor explains. "It allows me to raise money and speak out on the issues of the day, and of course I don't want to get sideways with that legal status."

When asked in a wide ranging interview with Fox News what he thinks is the most important issue facing America today, the answer is immediate, "I think it's the fact that we're bankrupt, that we're borrowing 43 cents out of every dollar that we're spending."

Read more: http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/03/25/gary-johnson-announce-intent-run-president-late-april#ixzz1HjDTcJcu

If Ron Paul decides not to run for President, Gary Johnson will be given a lot of consideration by this website.

Maybe there could be a combo ticket in the works as well??? Paul/Johnson 2012??

Do We Really Need the Federal Reserve?

2011-03-26T11:10:00.000-06:00

Where's the Authority on Libya?

2011-03-20T20:05:00.003-06:00

In his latest C4L update, Congressman Ron Paul comments on how President Obama's actions on Libya are violating the Constitution, ceding authority and sovereignty to the United Nations, and weakening the United States.

Action by the American people to return government to its constitutional limits is critical if we are to change our course.

I Thought Obama Was Suppose to Be the Anti-War President?

2011-03-19T20:26:00.000-06:00

The United States today began operations along side other nations to strike at the heart of Libya's power to wage war against opposition rebels in that country. The United States launched 112 cruise missles at strategic locations in Libya in an effort to stop the leader of the country, Moammar Gadhafi, from taking out the rebels in his country.

But here is my question....I thought Obama was suppose to be the anti-war President? Why are we now engaging in our 3rd military operation around the world?

Obama ran on the promise of being the anti-war President, but since the moment he took office he has been anything less then that promise.

For years Obama and the Democrats have given the Bush administration hell for being aggressive when it came to foreign policy, but they turn around and conduct the same type of action when they are the ones in charge.

MARCH 19, 2011
OBAMA: 'Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world'...

MARCH 19, 2003
BUSH: 'American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger'...

Our country and our military can not be stretched so thin in a time like this. When are we going to stop being the policemen of the world and fix the problems we have here at home? When are we going to stop angering the people in that part of the world with our actions?

Ron Paul in Iowa

2011-03-13T16:58:00.000-06:00

During Congressman Paul's recent trip to Iowa, he stopped at Pella Christian High School in Pella, Iowa as part of The FAMiLY Leader's "Presidential Lecture Series." The full speech, including the Q&A, is posted below.

Ron Paul 2012!!!