Friday, February 29, 2008

You Are What You Spend - New York Times

If we look at consumption per person, the difference between the richest and poorest households falls to just 2.1 to 1.

I heard about this article on Neal Boortz and again from SchansBlog.

You Are What You Spend - New York Times

Could Ron Paul Trigger a GOP Revival? by Colin Colenso

Colin Colenso writes, "It is time for mainstream Republicans to welcome and assist the Ron Paul Republicans in reviving a stronger GOP with a clear and powerful voice for the future. It is time for mainstream Republicans to support Ron Paul as their best chance, for not only winning the election in 2008, but in reviving the Republican party and its conservative ideals."

Could Ron Paul Trigger a GOP Revival? by Colin Colenso

Wednesday, February 27, 2008

Daylight Saving Wastes Energy, Study Says -

Having the entire state switch to daylight-saving time each year, rather than stay on standard time, costs Indiana households an additional $8.6 million in electricity bills.

Just what a lot of us have been thinking.

Daylight Saving Wastes Energy, Study Says -

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Bombed if you do...

Ron Paul writes, "The truth is Iran is being asked to do the logically impossible feat of proving a negative. They are being presumed guilty until proven innocent because there is no evidence with which to indict them. There is still no evidence that Iran, a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, has ever violated the treaty's terms – and the terms clearly state that Iran is allowed to pursue nuclear energy for peaceful, civilian energy needs. The United States cannot unilaterally change the terms of the treaty, and it is unfair and unwise diplomatically to impose sanctions for no legitimate reason."

Bombed if you do...

On Illegal Immigration and Border Security

Ron Paul writes, "Right now we are subsidizing a lot of illegal immigration with our robust social programs and it is an outrage that instead of coming to the United States as a land of opportunity, many come for the security guaranteed by government forced transfer payments through our welfare system."

On Illegal Immigration and Border Security

The True Cost of Taxing and Spending

Ron Paul writes, "So, a family of four would pay $46,000 just for this war."

The True Cost of Taxing and Spending

Gates Announces More Foreign Entanglements | The New American

John McManus writes:

Why should our country maintain a military arm? The only answer that makes any sense is that we have a military force to protect the lives, liberty, and property of the American people, the people who pay for it. That's all! Not to intervene when two factions in some far-off nation start killing each other. Not to decide it is America's right and duty to decide what type of government exists in some foreign land. And not to enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions — which is the incredibly wrong justification that was employed for sending our forces into Iraq.

Gates Announces More Foreign Entanglements | The New American

Real Inconvenient Truths.... About Abortion | The John Birch Society - Truth, Leadership, Freedom

Doesn’t the similarity between your defense of abortion, and Douglas’ defense of slavery, bother you in any way?

Does it raise in your mind any suspicions at all that you might just be on the wrong side?

Real Inconvenient Truths.... About Abortion | The John Birch Society - Truth, Leadership, Freedom

Monday, February 25, 2008

Common Sense and the Drug Problem

Hank Sames writes:

There are doctors, lawyers, and other professionals who smoke pot as casually as drinking a cocktail. This disregard for the law from otherwise law-abiding citizens is not good for society. Legislating personal behavior that does not inflict violence on others encroaches on personal freedom, and when citizens do not perceive harm to themselves, the law becomes unsustainable in a free society.

One of the great harms that come with making drugs illegal is the criminal activity that goes along with it. The organized-crime gangs that are involved in the illegal drug trade have become both rich and violent. The money they receive from drugs allows them to corrupt local law enforcement and politicians.

Our law-enforcement system is overwhelmed because of the drug war. The more time that law enforcement spends on drug cases, the less time it spends on crimes of violence.

What would legalization of drugs do? First off, it would relegate drug use and abuse to the private sector, where it rightly belongs. It would also shrink the prison population and relieve the courts of those cases. That would create huge cost savings. Legalization would relieve citizens of the tremendous tax burden to fund the drug war.

A country that is educated about drug use and abuse and has personal freedom as its core value is a much healthier society. It is time for Americans to face the drug war — and its failures — head on and put a stop to this decades-long, failed, and destructive policy.

Common Sense and the Drug Problem

Sunday, February 24, 2008

Dishonest Scales by Larry L. Beane II

Larry L. Beane II writes:

So, why was there no inflation (devaluation) of the currency until 1913? That's the year the United States created a central bank. The Constitution makes no provision for the Federal government to do any such thing, and the Constitution even specifies that money must be backed by gold and silver. But, of course, the folks that tell us the Constitution is a "living document" will tell us that the dollar simply must be "flexible" (while the same people would never in a thousand years propose a "flexible" foot, pound, or gallon to shrink over the course of time).

Today, the dollar has no definitional standard – unlike the highly regulated gallon or inch. Rather, dollars – freed from any tie to gold or silver – are printed on paper out of nothing. Every year, the government incurs an ever-increasing debt, and constantly prints more money to pay its bills (great gig, huh?), which lowers the relative market value of every dollar in your pocket (or in your money market fund, in your stock portfolio, or even dollars that you have yet to earn).

Uh, what does Scripture say about "dishonest scales" again?

Dishonest Scales by Larry L. Beane II

Friday, February 22, 2008

Do Elections Guarantee Freedom?

James Bovard writes:

The... American voter... [is] merely asked to personally consecrate the continued violations of the highest law of the land by whoever won. The current system of government is structured so that voters effectively have to vest near-absolute power in someone. This is simply how the rulers and the establishment have fixed the game. Any choice that would deny nearly boundless power to the rulers is kept out of the sunlight by the powers that be.

Bush’s reelection made clear that a president’s proclaimed goals could exonerate his methods — thus largely obliterating many of the safeguards built in by the Framers of the Constitution. But elections based on the winner’s receiving unlimited power are based on far different principles than are elections in which winners remain subservient to the Constitution and the law. This is the difference between voting for a master and voting for a chief law-enforcement officer. America is far closer today to what the Framers dreaded — “slavery by constitutional forms.”

With current elections, people are permitted to choose whose pawns they will be. Voting is becoming more like a medieval act of fealty — with voters bowing down their heads and promising obedience to whoever is proclaimed the winner.

What if being permitted to choose a master once every four years is the primary “freedom” left? Are citizens merely choosing whose vassal they will be? Many citizens today behave like slaves who spent their time wishing for a good master, rather than scouting up information on runaway routes.

America was born as a republic — with limited-government powers, carefully crafted checks and balances, and distinct roles for the people, for legislators, for judges, and for the executive branch. Many Americans these days are content with “democracy” — regardless of how much of the strength and safeguards of the original Constitution have been lost.

Do Elections Guarantee Freedom?

Thursday, February 21, 2008

Secrets: The Amazing Sierra Hull

Great review and video of young musician!

Secrets: The Amazing Sierra Hull

Arming the Academy | The John Birch Society - Truth, Leadership, Freedom

Selwyn Duke writes:

Does it make sense to think that declaring a school a "gun-free zone" will do anything but render the hands of potential white knights gun-free?

Then there is the idea that individuals deemed sane enough to carry a gun beyond the boundaries of the academy are not equipped to do so within them. Are we to believe that, upon stepping foot on campus, a person is seized by a unique madness that causes him to temporarily take leave of his senses?

The reality is that the academy is a great bastion of leftist feeling posing as thought, and its minions just don’t like firearms. But with gun-free now synonymous with shooting spree, they would do well to remember that guns don’t kill people, bad policies do.

Arming the Academy | The John Birch Society - Truth, Leadership, Freedom Are Americans Giving Up Their Freedom?::By David Strom

David Strom writes:

Dispensing with the idea of limited government in realm of benefits has meant dispensing with the idea of any limits to government power at all. Once we accept the notion that government should ensure that our pursuit of happiness succeeds, we have accepted the notion that government has the right to define what a happy life should look like...

Can conservatives succeed in convincing Americans that government benefits, and hence power, should be limited? Perhaps. But only if they remind Americans (as Barry Goldwater did) that a government big enough to give you everything you want is one big enough to take away everything you have. Are Americans Giving Up Their Freedom?::By David Strom

Monday, February 18, 2008

A Sure-Fire Argument on the Second Amendment

Excellent analysis of the context in which the Second Amendment was written.

A Sure-Fire Argument on the Second Amendment

Our Enemy, The Presidency by Anthony Gregory

Good food for thought. Anthony Gregory writes:

The president of the United States has far more power than any office in the history of humanity. It is trite even to make the comparison. The current president claims the right to detain, torture and kill anyone on earth and to start wars and occupations in any nation of his choice. He claims the right to levy taxes on anything, prohibit anything, mandate anything, spy on anyone, and demand that all jurisdictions on the planet bend to his will. While the laws of economics limit his actual power to alter reality, the pure destructive potential of the modern presidency is beyond unspeakable...

Americans shouldn’t look to the president for their self-respect, patriotism and cultural identity. The presidency in its current form is entirely too powerful and thus an inherently corrupting and inhumanely destructive thing. The presidency as it supposedly should be, under the Constitution, is a relatively humble office overseeing the executive branch, one of three composing a radically restrained government with very limited enumerated powers. Today, the presidency overshadows the other branches, the states, and all Constitutional and statutory limits on its power. In any event, why should 300 million people, and to a great extent the rest of the world, have to live under one all-powerful law enforcement official? The whole idea seems like some kind of insanity. How did this become the American way? If we are to restore our freedom, we need our compatriots to snap out of this trance...

Our Enemy, The Presidency by Anthony Gregory

Saturday, February 16, 2008

Playing the Odds by David Calderwood

Like paying taxes (extortion by any honest view), this is yet another time that self-preservation requires us to play by the contemptible rules dictated by the slaves who surround us.

Playing the Odds by David Calderwood

If You’re Going to Lock and Load, You Should Talk the Talk by Greg Perry

Some great quotes!

by Greg Perry

These Lines Are Just Pure Fun

    When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

They Want Your Guns

    Never say "gun control" but instead, say "victim disarmament." I've seen the visceral effect this has on our enemies in public. It's as if somebody punched them in the stomach when they realize they've lost the moral high ground. – L. Neil Smith

    The victim disarmament industry is filled with people who would rather see a woman raped in an alley and strangled with her own pantyhose than see her with a gun in her hand. – L. Neil Smith

    The sophisticated and subtle tyrant will unarm his people, and store up their weapons, under pretence of keeping them safe. – Sir Walter Raleigh

Why do You Carry A Gun?

    Because I think it is sociopathic to outsource my self-defense to others. – Bill Buppert

    Because I think my wife would rather bail me out of jail than have to identify my corpse in a morgue. – James Robert Rodgers

Those Bad Guns!

    An "assault" is an action that only an animated creature can engage in; inanimate objects, by definition, can't. – Peter W. Wickham, Jr.

In General

    An armed society is a polite society. – Robert A. Heinlein

    You can have freedom or you can have peace. – Robert A. Heinlein

    The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed. – Alexander Hamilton

    The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun. – Patrick Henry

    The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms; history shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own fall." – Sarah Brady (Correction: Hillary Clinton.) (Correction: Adolph Hitler in his Edict of March 18, 1938)

If You’re Going to Lock and Load, You Should Talk the Talk by Greg Perry

Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Progressive Recycling

Thomas E. Brewton writes, "Recycling is a modern-day liberal-progressive idol that is, like the idols of old, both ineffective and harmful."

Intellectual Conservative Politics and Philosophy » Progressive Recycling

McCain sings 'bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran'

Source material for previous post.

The Raw Story | Unplugged McCain sings 'bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran'


Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation. He writes:

The conservatives are on firmer ground when they criticize McCain for his so-called campaign-finance reform. Every aspect of McCain-Feingold is without doubt a violation of freedom of speech, among other liberties. McCain has sanctimoniously insisted he’s only trying to take corruption out of politics — as though that were possible — but in fact he and his allies in this cause are mainly concerned with protecting incumbents from “negative” advertising. The floor debate in the Senate made that abundantly clear...

I wish the conservatives disagreed with McCain on more things. In my mind, one incident with McCain is enough to rule out supporting him, regardless of who his opponent is. When he stood in front of an audience and laughingly sang the old Beach Boys hit as “Bomb, bomb bomb/bomb, bomb Iran,” McCain should have been regarded as disqualified from holding any office in the land. If the United States attacks Iran, many innocent men, women, and children will be killed or maimed, just as they were in Iraq. Is that a laughing matter, Mr. McCain? ...

The same for when he called for increasing U.S. troop strength in Iraq and said it would be fine if the troops stayed there for a hundred years or more...


68 Senators Violate Their Oaths of Office

Jim Babka writes:

In keeping with the ideas expressed in our Declaration of Independence, our government was instituted with highly limited powers. The instrument that imposed these limitations was the Constitution, and it is this document that members of Congress swear an oath to defend.

One of the consequences of Constitutional limits on government power is that bad people are often permitted to get away with doing bad things. The government is categorically denied many of the powers that might aid it in the apprehension of criminals. For example . . .

There are hundreds of murderers running lose in America, and thousands of murders committed each year, that the government might be able to stop. The Constitution specifically prohibits government from doing all that it could do to save lives by catching murderers.

Were the Founders crazy? Were they stupid? No, they were not. The Founders knew that any government that has all the power it might need to optimize its apprehension of murderers, would also have all the power it needed to become a mass murderer.

The Founders knew, even in their time, that governments were, historically, the greatest killers of all. The history of the last century has only added to the evidence. Tens of millions of people were murdered in the 20th Century by governments that had too much power. Our Constitution protects us from this; so far...

But now, because criminals murdered thousands of people on September 11, 2001, many are eager to abandon their Constitutional protections...

Yesterday, 68 Senators violated their oaths of office. They voted to pass S. 2248, a new law designed to replace the so-called "Protect America Act." This bill violates the Bill of Rights . . . Blog | 68 Senators Violate Their Oaths of Office

Making Pot Legal -- the argument

Marijuana law reform is often presented by the activist community as a broad political concept (e.g., "Hemp can save the planet!"). It is not. At its core level, it is an effort to bring civil justice to millions of Americans who have been targeted, persecuted, and in many cases, have had their lives ruined for no other reason than the fact that they chose cannabis rather than alcohol to relax.

Making Pot Legal: We Can Do It – Here's How by Paul Armentano