As Obama blunders from one intrusion into our economy to another we should remember that the American Presidency was set up with limited powers ON PURPOSE. And that was to avoid an over-reaching powerful executive that could thwart the progress of the citizens. Now tie this to the BP oil spill and the one thing we don't need is Obama grabbing more power for the White House. We drill for oil with the understanding that it is a tough, difficult and costly enterprise. Accidents will happen but that doesn't mean that our Presidents (Bush or Obama) need to get involved in every catastrophe. They are not God nor our father. Accidents like the Gulf coast oil spill or Alaska's oil spill should be handled by the people involved. We need the brains of competent people resolving these types of accidents - not politicians. Rob Tracinski writing at The Intellectual Activist makes some good points.
...Since when is the president responsible for managing the response to every industrial accident, from mine collapses to oil-rig blowouts? Since when is it any of his business?
It is British Petroleum's business. It is their responsibility to cap the well (as they now seem to be doing), to do whatever they can to mitigate the spill, and to pay for the damages and the cleanup. The courts should be involved in adjudicating the exact extent of the damages and of BP's responsibility, but that is really the whole of the federal government's legitimate involvement.
The federal government, in our political system, was designed to do very little: to provide for the national defense and to adjudicate a delimited set of legal cases that involve interstate actions. Even the police, which are a legitimate function of government, are not really a federal responsibility. And "industrial accident cleanup" is definitely not among the enumerated powers granted to Congress in Article I.
But nobody cares about the Constitution any more. Under the novel theory of government we've been living under for most of the past century, there is nothing that is not the business of the federal government. And so even as he is being criticized for making an unconvincing show of being "engaged" on the oil spill problem, President Obama has been trying to use that very failure as an excuse for further expansion of the government's role. His response to every criticism has been the same as the response given by Wesley Mouch—the flailing central planner in Atlas Shrugged—when his interventions fail: "I need wider powers."
And so Obama has said that his biggest mistake was to trust the oil companies to handle the spill—rather than putting the government in charge right away. And he has issued a moratorium on new permits for offshore oil exploration, until a new federal commission can convene and come up with a plan for more restrictions and taxes to impose on oil companies...
..When asked about the top achievements of his administration, he replied: "I minded my own business." So should President Obama. ... (The Intellectual Activist - "Mine Your Own Business")
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Friday, May 28, 2010
"Government is Instituted to Protect Property of Every Sort" James Madison
When we have government that is bent on taking more than half of what we own it is time to refresh ourselves with the writings of one Founding Father who understood the proper role of government - that it should be limited and that their main raison d'etre is to protect the individual's right to HIS property. Visit TAKING LIBERTY.
James Madison, Property
29 Mar. 1792Papers 14:266--68
This term in its particular application means "that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual."
In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.
In the former sense, a man's land, or merchandize, or money is called his property.
In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.
He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.
He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.
He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.
In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.
Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.
Where there is an excess of liberty, the effect is the same, tho' from an opposite cause.
Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.
According to this standard of merit, the praise of affording a just securing to property, should be sparingly bestowed on a government which, however scrupulously guarding the possessions of individuals, does not protect them in the enjoyment and communication of their opinions, in which they have an equal, and in the estimation of some, a more valuable property.
More sparingly should this praise be allowed to a government, where a man's religious rights are violated by penalties, or fettered by tests, or taxed by a hierarchy. Conscience is the most sacred of all property; other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that, being a natural and unalienable right. To guard a man's house as his castle, to pay public and enforce private debts with the most exact faith, can give no title to invade a man's conscience which is more sacred than his castle, or to withhold from it that debt of protection, for which the public faith is pledged, by the very nature and original conditions of the social pact.
That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest. A magistrate issuing his warrants to a press gang, would be in his proper functions in Turkey or Indostan, under appellations proverbial of the most compleat despotism.
That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where arbitrary restrictions, exemptions, and monopolies deny to part of its citizens that free use of their faculties, and free choice of their occupations, which not only constitute their property in the general sense of the word; but are the means of acquiring property strictly so called. What must be the spirit of legislation where a manufacturer of linen cloth is forbidden to bury his own child in a linen shroud, in order to favour his neighbour who manufactures woolen cloth; where the manufacturer and wearer of woolen cloth are again forbidden the oeconomical use of buttons of that material, in favor of the manufacturer of buttons of other materials!
A just security to property is not afforded by that government, under which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward another species: where arbitrary taxes invade the domestic sanctuaries of the rich, and excessive taxes grind the faces of the poor; where the keenness and competitions of want are deemed an insufficient spur to labor, and taxes are again applied, by an unfeeling policy, as another spur; in violation of that sacred property, which Heaven, in decreeing man to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, kindly reserved to him, in the small repose that could be spared from the supply of his necessities.
If there be a government then which prides itself in maintaining the inviolability of property; which provides that none shall be taken directly even for public use without indemnification to the owner, and yet directly violates the property which individuals have in their opinions, their religion, their persons, and their faculties; nay more, which indirectly violates their property, in their actual possessions, in the labor that acquires their daily subsistence, and in the hallowed remnant of time which ought to relieve their fatigues and soothe their cares, the influence [inference?] will have been anticipated, that such a government is not a pattern for the United States.
If the United States mean to obtain or deserve the full praise due to wise and just governments, they will equally respect the rights of property, and the property in rights: they will rival the government that most sacredly guards the former; and by repelling its example in violating the latter, will make themselves a pattern to that and all other governments.
The Founders' Constitution
Volume 1, Chapter 16, Document 23
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s23.html
The University of Chicago Press
James Madison, Property
29 Mar. 1792Papers 14:266--68
This term in its particular application means "that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual."
In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.
In the former sense, a man's land, or merchandize, or money is called his property.
In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.
He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.
He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.
He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.
In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.
Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.
Where there is an excess of liberty, the effect is the same, tho' from an opposite cause.
Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.
According to this standard of merit, the praise of affording a just securing to property, should be sparingly bestowed on a government which, however scrupulously guarding the possessions of individuals, does not protect them in the enjoyment and communication of their opinions, in which they have an equal, and in the estimation of some, a more valuable property.
More sparingly should this praise be allowed to a government, where a man's religious rights are violated by penalties, or fettered by tests, or taxed by a hierarchy. Conscience is the most sacred of all property; other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that, being a natural and unalienable right. To guard a man's house as his castle, to pay public and enforce private debts with the most exact faith, can give no title to invade a man's conscience which is more sacred than his castle, or to withhold from it that debt of protection, for which the public faith is pledged, by the very nature and original conditions of the social pact.
That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest. A magistrate issuing his warrants to a press gang, would be in his proper functions in Turkey or Indostan, under appellations proverbial of the most compleat despotism.
That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where arbitrary restrictions, exemptions, and monopolies deny to part of its citizens that free use of their faculties, and free choice of their occupations, which not only constitute their property in the general sense of the word; but are the means of acquiring property strictly so called. What must be the spirit of legislation where a manufacturer of linen cloth is forbidden to bury his own child in a linen shroud, in order to favour his neighbour who manufactures woolen cloth; where the manufacturer and wearer of woolen cloth are again forbidden the oeconomical use of buttons of that material, in favor of the manufacturer of buttons of other materials!
A just security to property is not afforded by that government, under which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward another species: where arbitrary taxes invade the domestic sanctuaries of the rich, and excessive taxes grind the faces of the poor; where the keenness and competitions of want are deemed an insufficient spur to labor, and taxes are again applied, by an unfeeling policy, as another spur; in violation of that sacred property, which Heaven, in decreeing man to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, kindly reserved to him, in the small repose that could be spared from the supply of his necessities.
If there be a government then which prides itself in maintaining the inviolability of property; which provides that none shall be taken directly even for public use without indemnification to the owner, and yet directly violates the property which individuals have in their opinions, their religion, their persons, and their faculties; nay more, which indirectly violates their property, in their actual possessions, in the labor that acquires their daily subsistence, and in the hallowed remnant of time which ought to relieve their fatigues and soothe their cares, the influence [inference?] will have been anticipated, that such a government is not a pattern for the United States.
If the United States mean to obtain or deserve the full praise due to wise and just governments, they will equally respect the rights of property, and the property in rights: they will rival the government that most sacredly guards the former; and by repelling its example in violating the latter, will make themselves a pattern to that and all other governments.
The Founders' Constitution
Volume 1, Chapter 16, Document 23
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s23.html
The University of Chicago Press
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Pamela Geller's Powerful Entreaty For Us to Fight Against the Encroachment of Sharia in the US
For more of Pamela Geller and her courageous fight against the invasion of Islamic Sharia in America go to http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/atlas-articles/
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Why Won't Liberals Do What It Takes to Protect America and Americans?
You know what? It's time for us as Americans to demand that our government, so intent on taking us to the poorhouse, do what it's supposed to be doing; the reason why we have a government - Protect us from religious fanatics bent on world domination and wiping out the only truly free country the world has EVER seen: America. The question is why won't the left work to free us from radical Islam? Why? Why? Why?
The more we learn about failed Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad, the stranger the initial reporting about him becomes. The liberals’ rush to downplay any possible connections to Islam and label him a “homegrown” terrorist were blatant attempts to freeze the story before the truth was known. Now, the facts about Shahzad are showing a liberal establishment that can’t face a reality it created.
First there was New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg dismissing the then-unknown suspect as “a mentally deranged person or somebody with a political agenda who doesn’t like the health care bill (i.e. ObamaCare)” to Katie Couric. Shortly thereafter, MSNBC personality Contessa Brewer was “hoping this was not going to be anybody with ties to any kind of Islamic country” because “[t]here are a lot of people who want to use terrorist intent to justify writing off people who believe in a certain way or come from certain countries or whose skin color is a certain way. I mean they use it as justification for really outdated bigotry.”
So instead the liberal chattering class indulged in updated bigotry. After two terrorist attacks on New York City landmarks in 1993 and 2001 by Islamists, the current mayor of the city immediately points to the most likely culprit in 2010: Tea Party activists upset with the government takeover of healthcare. But why, Mayor Mike, would people angered by federal overreach target a local tourist site like Times Square? The symbolic value would be lost. Then again, maybe attention to constitutional distinctions between different levels of government is the kind of “political agenda” motivating “mentally deranged” people these days. ..Read at Center for Individual Freedom - " The Fact About The Failed Times Square Bomber: Why the Liberal Establishment Can't Face Reality".
The more we learn about failed Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad, the stranger the initial reporting about him becomes. The liberals’ rush to downplay any possible connections to Islam and label him a “homegrown” terrorist were blatant attempts to freeze the story before the truth was known. Now, the facts about Shahzad are showing a liberal establishment that can’t face a reality it created.
First there was New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg dismissing the then-unknown suspect as “a mentally deranged person or somebody with a political agenda who doesn’t like the health care bill (i.e. ObamaCare)” to Katie Couric. Shortly thereafter, MSNBC personality Contessa Brewer was “hoping this was not going to be anybody with ties to any kind of Islamic country” because “[t]here are a lot of people who want to use terrorist intent to justify writing off people who believe in a certain way or come from certain countries or whose skin color is a certain way. I mean they use it as justification for really outdated bigotry.”
So instead the liberal chattering class indulged in updated bigotry. After two terrorist attacks on New York City landmarks in 1993 and 2001 by Islamists, the current mayor of the city immediately points to the most likely culprit in 2010: Tea Party activists upset with the government takeover of healthcare. But why, Mayor Mike, would people angered by federal overreach target a local tourist site like Times Square? The symbolic value would be lost. Then again, maybe attention to constitutional distinctions between different levels of government is the kind of “political agenda” motivating “mentally deranged” people these days. ..Read at Center for Individual Freedom - " The Fact About The Failed Times Square Bomber: Why the Liberal Establishment Can't Face Reality".
Friday, May 21, 2010
Obama Perfects The Game of Divide and Conquer
It's bad enough that the Obama Administration is taking us to the edge of financial ruin with his profligate spending of money we DON'T have, but to bad mouth Arizona for trying to defend their state against Mexican thugs who are enriching themselves because of American drug addicts is beyond the pale. READ THE BILL! This is nothing but a means of pitting American against American. Hitler chose the Jews for everyone else to hate - Obama has to do it piecemeal and Arizona is his test case...Beware of more to come.
Members of the Obama administration, who soundly condemned Arizona's new immigration law, are now admitted that they have never even read it. Could President Obama and Mexican President Felipe Calderón find themselves in the same boat based on comments they made today at their joint appearance on the White House lawn?
Let’s review. The first person who had to admit he had never read the Arizona law Attorney General Eric Holder made his admission last week. On Monday, it was Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano's turn. On Tuesday, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley revealed that he, too, had not read the bill, despite commenting on it. Given how inaccurate these officials have been in their descriptions of the law, maybe members of President Obama’s team simply had no option but to plead ignorance.
After all, how do you take a law that clearly states the following: "A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, or town or other political subdivision of this state may not consider race, color or national origin,” and then claim that it is racist or could lead to racial profiling? Not only that but other parts of this very short law also include additional safeguards against racial profiling. For example, the law requires that the police may only ask for ID if they have “lawful contact” with “lawful stop, detention or arrest” and that authorities must have "reasonable suspicion" that a suspect is an illegal alien.
Failure by members of President Obama’s administration to read the four page text of Arizona's law is no a small matter, since some on his team managed to create quite a stir in various appearances on Sunday talk shows by bringing up concerns about racial profiling and racism.
Take, for example, Ms. Napolitano's warning on "This Week" on May 2: "Unfortunately, I think it [the law] does and can invite racial profiling." If these various "news" shows had been doing their job, they would have challenged Napolitano and other officials on these claims. Even just reading parts of the law -- verbatim -- to Ms. Napolitano or other administration officials during their appearance on the program would have been enough to force them to admit their ignorance. (READ "Mr. Obama, Please Read Arizona's Immigration Law" by John Lott.
Members of the Obama administration, who soundly condemned Arizona's new immigration law, are now admitted that they have never even read it. Could President Obama and Mexican President Felipe Calderón find themselves in the same boat based on comments they made today at their joint appearance on the White House lawn?
Let’s review. The first person who had to admit he had never read the Arizona law Attorney General Eric Holder made his admission last week. On Monday, it was Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano's turn. On Tuesday, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley revealed that he, too, had not read the bill, despite commenting on it. Given how inaccurate these officials have been in their descriptions of the law, maybe members of President Obama’s team simply had no option but to plead ignorance.
After all, how do you take a law that clearly states the following: "A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, or town or other political subdivision of this state may not consider race, color or national origin,” and then claim that it is racist or could lead to racial profiling? Not only that but other parts of this very short law also include additional safeguards against racial profiling. For example, the law requires that the police may only ask for ID if they have “lawful contact” with “lawful stop, detention or arrest” and that authorities must have "reasonable suspicion" that a suspect is an illegal alien.
Failure by members of President Obama’s administration to read the four page text of Arizona's law is no a small matter, since some on his team managed to create quite a stir in various appearances on Sunday talk shows by bringing up concerns about racial profiling and racism.
Take, for example, Ms. Napolitano's warning on "This Week" on May 2: "Unfortunately, I think it [the law] does and can invite racial profiling." If these various "news" shows had been doing their job, they would have challenged Napolitano and other officials on these claims. Even just reading parts of the law -- verbatim -- to Ms. Napolitano or other administration officials during their appearance on the program would have been enough to force them to admit their ignorance. (READ "Mr. Obama, Please Read Arizona's Immigration Law" by John Lott.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
The brave and historical speech of Malalai Joya in the LJ
The Bravest Woman in Afghanistan - Malalai Joya
"A new survey shows many British think relations with the U.S. have deteriorated since the president took office."
Obama needs to keep our friends close and our enemies far - not the other way around.
...A new survey of British public opinion reveals chastened hopes for close ties with the United States. The poll, conducted by YouGov on behalf of the Legatum Institute and the Royal United Services Institute, carried out between May 10 and 12, finds that overall public support for the relationship remains strong. Some 66% of those surveyed hold a favorable view of the U.S. and 62% agree that America is Britain's most important ally.
Moreover, a full 82% of Britons want their nation's relationship with the U.S. to stay as close as it is or even be strengthened. New Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg might take note of this in light of his previous plea for the British to "release ourselves from the spell of default Atlanticism."
As much as the British people still feel a commitment to the special relationship, they also feel that their love is unrequited. An overwhelming 85% believe that Britain has little or no influence on U.S. policies, and 62% think that America does not consider British interests. The Obama administration has reinforced these perceptions over the past year.
In stark contrast to the stratospheric hopes that Mr. Obama would dramatically improve America's relations with the world in general and the U.K. in particular, a full 74% of the British people now think that their relationship with the U.S. has stayed the same or even worsened since Mr. Obama's election... Read: "Obama and the 'Special Relationship' " at WSJ.
...A new survey of British public opinion reveals chastened hopes for close ties with the United States. The poll, conducted by YouGov on behalf of the Legatum Institute and the Royal United Services Institute, carried out between May 10 and 12, finds that overall public support for the relationship remains strong. Some 66% of those surveyed hold a favorable view of the U.S. and 62% agree that America is Britain's most important ally.
Moreover, a full 82% of Britons want their nation's relationship with the U.S. to stay as close as it is or even be strengthened. New Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg might take note of this in light of his previous plea for the British to "release ourselves from the spell of default Atlanticism."
As much as the British people still feel a commitment to the special relationship, they also feel that their love is unrequited. An overwhelming 85% believe that Britain has little or no influence on U.S. policies, and 62% think that America does not consider British interests. The Obama administration has reinforced these perceptions over the past year.
In stark contrast to the stratospheric hopes that Mr. Obama would dramatically improve America's relations with the world in general and the U.K. in particular, a full 74% of the British people now think that their relationship with the U.S. has stayed the same or even worsened since Mr. Obama's election... Read: "Obama and the 'Special Relationship' " at WSJ.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Europe, IMF and the European Central bank Admit Quietly that Government Healthcare is Unsustainable. Surprise!!!!
So the cat is out of the bag. Europe admits that government run healthcare is UNSUSTAINABLE. Are you surprised? Of course not. Most Americans know that government run anything leads to bankruptcy, failure and mediocrity. Let's take back America for Americans before it's too late for us. Let's learn the lesson of Greece and go back to Capitalism, the system which is "based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned." ("What Is Capitalism?" in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand). Read "Guess What Greece Has to Jettison" by
Policy Failure: Greece was told that if it wanted a bailout, it needed to consider privatizing its government health care system. So tell us again why the U.S. is following Europe's welfare state model.
The requirement, part of a deal arranged by the IMF, the European Union and the European Central bank, is a tacit admission that national health care programs are unsustainable. Along with transportation and energy, the bailout group, according to the New York Times, wants the Greek government to remove "the state from the marketplace in crucial sectors."
This is not some cranky or politically motivated demand. It is a condition based on the ugly reality of government medicine. The Times reports that economists — not right-wingers opposed to health care who want to blow up Times Square — say liberalizing "the health care industry would help bring down prices in these areas, which are among the highest in Europe."
Of course most of the media have been largely silent about the health care privatization measure for Greece, as it conflicts with their universal, single-payer health care narrative.
The public health system in the Hellenic Republic is operated by the Ministry of Health and Welfare, where centralized decisions and rules are made.
It provides free or low-cost treatment through what is essentially a single-payer system established in 1983 when the Socialist Party was in power. Family members and retirees are also covered. Like the systems in Britain and Canada, it has agonizingly long waiting lists...READ the rest here at IBD.
Policy Failure: Greece was told that if it wanted a bailout, it needed to consider privatizing its government health care system. So tell us again why the U.S. is following Europe's welfare state model.
The requirement, part of a deal arranged by the IMF, the European Union and the European Central bank, is a tacit admission that national health care programs are unsustainable. Along with transportation and energy, the bailout group, according to the New York Times, wants the Greek government to remove "the state from the marketplace in crucial sectors."
This is not some cranky or politically motivated demand. It is a condition based on the ugly reality of government medicine. The Times reports that economists — not right-wingers opposed to health care who want to blow up Times Square — say liberalizing "the health care industry would help bring down prices in these areas, which are among the highest in Europe."
Of course most of the media have been largely silent about the health care privatization measure for Greece, as it conflicts with their universal, single-payer health care narrative.
The public health system in the Hellenic Republic is operated by the Ministry of Health and Welfare, where centralized decisions and rules are made.
It provides free or low-cost treatment through what is essentially a single-payer system established in 1983 when the Socialist Party was in power. Family members and retirees are also covered. Like the systems in Britain and Canada, it has agonizingly long waiting lists...READ the rest here at IBD.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
I Don't Recognize America Anymore - Do You?
As the Government payroll gets larger and larger and Obama is looking to add more people on the dole - I mean on the Union payrolls Americans have to sit down and take a good long look at what we are becoming. A reflection of socialist Europe. We must fight this cancer creeping through our society spreading ever faster as Washington is changing the meaning of our country. Read this excellent commentary by Bill Frezza, "Are the Greek Riots a Picture of Our Future?"
...Wake up America! How many million unionists are we expected to carry on our public payrolls? How long can we keep government employees on defined-benefit pension plans while the rest of us scramble to fund our 401(k)s ? How many more people are we going to drop from the income tax rolls as we lean on a smaller and smaller slice of citizens to carry an ever greater percentage of the load, leaving the rest free to vote for tax increases? How large a swath of our population can we pretend to keep supplied with newly manufactured economic rights like free healthcare as Social Security and Medicare careen toward insolvency? How much more do we think we can borrow from the Chinese to fund day-to-day government operations? How long do we think we can afford to police the world?
What the world's political leaders and those who elect them need most right now is a shocking example of the only possible outcome of trying to practice redistributive justice on a national or even global scale. Rescuing Greece is a mistake. What they deserve is a good hard dose of exactly what they are asking for - unvarnished socialism.
Throw Greece out of the European Union. Let them default on their debts. Teach buyers to beware before they invest in sovereign bonds. Dare Greece to print Drachmas by the wheelbarrow. Put the whole country on the public payroll then challenge them to demonstrate what a truly egalitarian society looks like. Maybe a dramatic spectacle of what a workers paradise looks like under the media's glare will teach us what's in store if we don't change our ways.
Democracy is broken. You can't mix Freedom and Free Lunch. One or the other has got to go.
...Wake up America! How many million unionists are we expected to carry on our public payrolls? How long can we keep government employees on defined-benefit pension plans while the rest of us scramble to fund our 401(k)s ? How many more people are we going to drop from the income tax rolls as we lean on a smaller and smaller slice of citizens to carry an ever greater percentage of the load, leaving the rest free to vote for tax increases? How large a swath of our population can we pretend to keep supplied with newly manufactured economic rights like free healthcare as Social Security and Medicare careen toward insolvency? How much more do we think we can borrow from the Chinese to fund day-to-day government operations? How long do we think we can afford to police the world?
What the world's political leaders and those who elect them need most right now is a shocking example of the only possible outcome of trying to practice redistributive justice on a national or even global scale. Rescuing Greece is a mistake. What they deserve is a good hard dose of exactly what they are asking for - unvarnished socialism.
Throw Greece out of the European Union. Let them default on their debts. Teach buyers to beware before they invest in sovereign bonds. Dare Greece to print Drachmas by the wheelbarrow. Put the whole country on the public payroll then challenge them to demonstrate what a truly egalitarian society looks like. Maybe a dramatic spectacle of what a workers paradise looks like under the media's glare will teach us what's in store if we don't change our ways.
Democracy is broken. You can't mix Freedom and Free Lunch. One or the other has got to go.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Protecting Free Speech Also Means the Speech of Corporations Who Are Made Up Of People
The most important job of the Supreme Court is to protect the free speech of Americans. And they did that recently. This is a major victory of all of us. So what is a corporation? Are they made up of sheep? Cows? Dogs? No! Corporations are made up of people that have a right to voice their opinion...regardless of whether Washington likes it or not. We must be ever vigilant of our rights as individuals, groups, or corporations. If we allow one type of speech to be regulated we will all lose our rights to free speech eventually.
...The court's opinion earlier this year in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission said that politicians could not enact limits on independent campaign contributions targeting corporations or unions. President Barack Obama famously chided the justices for this opinion during his State of the Union Address.
Congress is considering a bill that would again specify who could no longer speak freely, including companies that received Troubled Asset Relief Program funding (meaning the key banks) and U.S. subsidiaries of foreign-based companies. The same restrictions would not limit the speech of unions with large foreign activities. Political parties would get discounts on broadcast advertisements to respond to corporations or unions.
Citizens United has been viewed as a case about campaign reform, but it's better read as a broad, 21st-century primer on free speech....
...Citizens United is part of a line of cases beginning in the 1940s that protected the rights of unions to endorse candidates in print and through television broadcasts. Justice William O. Douglas wrote in one such case that the Constitution required "no point of view be restrained or barred," so that voters "have access to the views of every group in the community."
Speech rights are the same whether exercised through pamphlets or the Web, and whether by individuals or through associations of individuals, incorporated or not. "When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought," the justices warned in Citizens United. "This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves." Read at WSJ "Tech-Savvy Justices Protect Free Speech".
...The court's opinion earlier this year in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission said that politicians could not enact limits on independent campaign contributions targeting corporations or unions. President Barack Obama famously chided the justices for this opinion during his State of the Union Address.
Congress is considering a bill that would again specify who could no longer speak freely, including companies that received Troubled Asset Relief Program funding (meaning the key banks) and U.S. subsidiaries of foreign-based companies. The same restrictions would not limit the speech of unions with large foreign activities. Political parties would get discounts on broadcast advertisements to respond to corporations or unions.
Citizens United has been viewed as a case about campaign reform, but it's better read as a broad, 21st-century primer on free speech....
...Citizens United is part of a line of cases beginning in the 1940s that protected the rights of unions to endorse candidates in print and through television broadcasts. Justice William O. Douglas wrote in one such case that the Constitution required "no point of view be restrained or barred," so that voters "have access to the views of every group in the community."
Speech rights are the same whether exercised through pamphlets or the Web, and whether by individuals or through associations of individuals, incorporated or not. "When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought," the justices warned in Citizens United. "This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves." Read at WSJ "Tech-Savvy Justices Protect Free Speech".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)