Why the Second Amendment Is So Crucial > Gunpowder Chronicle > Gunpowder Chronicle -- Ideas to Spur a Revolution
Posted using ShareThis
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Is Change Really Possible?
by Carla Howell
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground," wrote Thomas Jefferson.
Is Big Government inevitable? Are we stuck with Big Government?
"You can't fight city hall," say some.
A few countries have altered or reformed their governments. Not one has removed Big Government and replaced it with small government.
No society, no civilization, no people has ever succeeded in making government small.
Wouldn't you like America to be the first?
The challenges are great, and the obstacles large. But we have a choice. Every voter has a choice.
We can choose small government. We show others the benefits of small government. We can campaign and vote to make government small.
Our votes determine our destiny.
The alternatives to voting small government
Americans have voted Big Government for decades. Those votes gave politicians a green light to expand Big Government.
Many say, "hold your nose and vote" for the "lesser of two evils". These "lesser evils" usually turn out to be just as Big Government as their opponents.
Even when they are slightly "lesser evils", they vote to increase government spending, amass huge government debts, hike taxes, and expand failed, destructive Big Government Programs. Their feign attempts to "hold the line on government" quickly give way to votes for bigger budgets - and more Big Government.
If you vote for Big Government politicians and policies, your vote will not be interpreted as being for the lesser of two evils. Rather, your vote will be seen as an endorsement of Big Government - whether you meant it that way or not. The "lesser evil" politician who campaigns on sustaining or expanding Big Government will use your vote as justification for sustaining and expanding Big Government
A vote for a Big Government politician aids and abets Big Government. A vote for Big Government gives you Big Government.
Today a majority of Americans don't vote at all. Many are not even registered to vote.
If you want small government but refuse to vote, you give Big Government votes more weight. You play right into the hands of Big Government advocates who want nothing more than for you to give up and stay home - so that elections are determined solely by Big Government supporters.
Non-voting will not be interpreted as rejection of the Big Government choices on the ballot. Rather, it will be portrayed as apathy or acceptance of Big Government. Politicians will use your abstention to raise taxes and increase spending.
Every alternative to voting small government is counter-productive. Every alternative to voting small government makes Big Government bigger. Read More
Hands Off Honduras
Hands Off Honduras
by Philip Giraldi, July 09, 2009
It is perhaps predictable that the unrest in Honduras is being seized upon by the usual suspects in an attempt to exploit the situation to draw conclusions that are completely unwarranted by what is taking place. Neocons are hailing the removal of a "leftist" president while liberals are shouting "coup." In an attempt to determine what Hondurans think, I have recently had the opportunity to speak to a number of military officers, students, civil servants, and businessmen. As many commentators have correctly noted, there is a sharp class divide in Honduras, with 70% of the population mired in poverty and a middle and upper class that is much better off and politically empowered to stay that way. The existence of extreme poverty with little hope for improvement in the majority of the population has been exploited by populists in Latin America through promises to bleed the rich and help the poor. Though the promises have rarely been kept, the ability to organize bloc voting by the poor has created a de facto monopoly of power for the leaders who have successfully sold themselves as being champions of the disenfranchised, leaders like Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Evo Morales of Bolivia. READ THE REST
by Philip Giraldi, July 09, 2009
Libertarian Quote of the Day
"If you want to understand your government, don't begin by reading the Constitution. It conveys precious little of the flavor of today's statecraft. Instead, read selected portions of the Washington telephone directory containing listings for all the organizations with titles beginning with the word "National"."
George Will
Expanding Government Is Destroying Liberty in the European Union
Great article. Go check it out.
Expanding Government Is Destroying Liberty in the European Union
Shared via AddThis
Expanding Government Is Destroying Liberty in the European Union
Shared via AddThis
Friday, July 10, 2009
Does Gun Control Really Work?
By Justin Wood
In theory, the right to bear arms seems logical. But many people from England or Vietnam say that America is crazy for allowing its citiznes to own guns. They argue that their country has a much lower crime rate because guns are illegal. But I have never seen any solid statistical evidence for either case.
Here are two pieces of data from guncite.com, a website which documents research on the second amendent and gun control. The data is a bit out of data, but still makes a point.
First is a chart on the number of guns owned per 1,000 Americans vs. year vs. homicide and suicide rates. Notice that as gun ownership increases, both homicides and suicides remain stable or slightly decrease. An entire description of this chart can be found here.
A second chart compares gun ownership vs. homicides throughout various countries. The study finds that there is no strong correlation between gun ownership and homicides.
For instance, in 1999, 39% of Americans owned at least one gun and yielded 5.7 homicides per 100,000 people. In 1994, only 9.4% of North Ireland citizens owned at least one gun, but their homicide rate was slightly higher at 6.09 per 100,000. And lastly, in 1994, 22.6% of French citizens owned at least one gun, at 1.12 homicides per 100,000. View the entire chart of country comparisons here.
I understand the data is a bit outdated, but it still holds some validity. Despite the statistics, the Founders believed that gun ownership was essential to resist tyranny from other government as a Militia, and -- as a secondary benefit -- protecting ourselves from our fellow citizens.
LP Platform on Gun Laws
Why Libertarians Support Equal Rights for America's Gun Owners
Libertarians, like other Americans, want to be able to walk city streets safely and be secure in their homes. We also want our Constitutional rights protected, to guard against the erosion of our civil liberties. In particular, Libertarians want to see all people treated equally under the law, as our Constitution requires. America's millions of gun owners are people too.Law-abiding, responsible citizens do not and should not need to ask anyone's permission or approval to engage in a peaceful activity. Gun ownership, by itself, harms no other person and cannot morally justify criminal penalties.
Constitutional Rights
America's founders fought the Revolutionary War to throw off British tyranny. Most of the revolutionaries owned and used their own guns in that war. After the war, in 1789, the 13 American States adopted the Constitution, creating the federal government. Before ratifying the Constitution, the people demanded a Bill of Rights to prevent our government from depriving them of their liberties as the British had done.
One of the most important protections we have against government tyranny is that we are presumed innocent of any crime until proven guilty, before a jury, in a proper trial. Gun control advocates would declare all gun owners guilty without trial, simply for owning guns, even though millions of them have never used their guns to harm another person. Such blanket condemnation is immoral, unfair and contrary to the principles on which America was founded. Gun control advocates are much like the prohibitionists of the early 20th Century. By making liquor illegal, they spawned organized crime, caused bloody, violent turf wars and corrupted the criminal justice system. Today's war on drugs has exactly the same results. Prohibition didn't stop liquor use; the drug laws can't stop drug use. Making gun ownership illegal will not stop gun ownership. The primary victim of these misguided efforts is the honest citizen whose civil rights are trampled as frustrated legislators and police tighten the screws. Banning guns will make guns more expensive and give organized crime a great opportunity to make profits in a new black market for weapons. Street violence will increase in new turf wars. Criminals will not give up their guns. But, many law abiding citizens will, leaving them defenseless against armed bandits. Libertarians agree with the majority of Americans who believe they have the right to decide how best to protect themselves, their families and their property. Millions of Americans have guns in their homes and sleep more comfortably because of it. Studies show that where gun ownership is illegal, residential burglaries are higher. A man with a gun in his home is no threat to you if you aren't breaking into it. The police do not provide security in your home, your business or the street. They show up after the crime to take reports and do detective work. The poorer the neighborhood, the riskier it is for peaceful residents. Only an armed citizenry can be present in sufficient numbers to prevent or deter violent crime before it starts, or to reduce its spread. Interviews with convicted felons indicate that fear of the armed citizen significantly deters crime. A criminal is more likely to be driven off from a particular crime by an armed victim than to be convicted and imprisoned for it. Thus, widespread gun ownership will make neighborhoods safer. Foolish politicians and police now seek to ban semi-automatic "assault rifles". They ignore the fact that only honest citizens will comply; criminals will still have them. Such a ban will only increase the criminals' ability to victimize the innocent. Guns are not the problem. They are inanimate objects. Gun control advocates talk as if guns could act on their own, as if human beings cannot control them, so the uncontrollable guns must be banished. Let us put the responsibility where it belongs, on the owner and user of the gun. If he or she acts responsibly, without attacking others or causing injury negligently, no crime or harm has been done. Leave them in peace. But, if a person commits a crime with a gun, then impose the severest penalties for the injuries done to the victim. Similarly, hold the negligent gun user fully liable for all harm his negligence does to others. Rather than banning guns, the politicians and the police should encourage gun ownership, as well as education and training programs. A responsible, well-armed and trained citizenry is the best protection against domestic crime and the threat of foreign invasion. America's founders knew that. It is still true today.The Prohibition Lesson
The Right of Self Defense
Personal Responsibility
MDLP Press Release on Federal and State Candidate Nominations
Timonium, MD: The Libertarian Party of Maryland has nominated four candidates in the upcoming 2010 election. In the First District, Dr. Richard Davis has been nominated as the Libertarian candidate for Congress; he ran in 2008. Lorenzo Gaztañaga has accepted the nomination for the Second Congressional district again; he ran in 2008. In the House of Delegates two individuals have been nominated: Justin Kinsey in District 5B, and Brandon Brooks in District 11.
Dr. Richard Davis, the Libertarian Party’s First District Congressional candidate, is a Hurlock, MD resident and operates a Dentist office out of Federalsburg, MD. In 2008 he accepted the Libertarian Party’s nomination for Congress in the First District, where he received 8,873 votes (2.5% of the vote). His mild manner and firm grasp of the issues attracted many voters. Dr. Davis can be contacted at (410) 943-8314.
Lorenzo Gaztañaga has been chosen to run for the Second Congressional District seat; this will be his second run for Congress. Mr. Gaztañaga was born in Cuba and became an American Citizen in 1973. He attended Loyola College and Towson State University, majoring in History and Political Science. During the 1980’s he studied Psychology at the University of Baltimore. Mr. Gaztañaga currently works in a security business. He is active in his church, Cliftmont Community Wesleyan Church. In 2008 Lorenzo got 8,786 votes (3.2%) in his run for the Second District seat. Mr. Gaztañaga can be contacted at (443) 414-6539 and email at diazvivar@aol.com.
Justin Kinsey has been nominated as the Libertarian Party’s candidate for Maryland House of Delegates District 5B. Mr. Kinsey is a Sparks, Maryland resident. He works as a Patient Transportation Coordinator for Northwest Hospital in Randallstown and he is a part time EMT. Mr. Kinsey is also an instructor at the University of Maryland Fire and Rescue Institute. He currently attends Baltimore County Community College where he is Double Majoring in Sociology and Political science. His website, www.Kinsey5B.com, is scheduled to be up on July 13, 2009. He can be reached at (410) 456-3584 and email at FriendsOfJustinKinsey@gmail.com .
House of delegates District 11 candidate Brandon Brooks is a longtime resident of Pikesville, MD. Mr. Brooks is an Electricians Assistant in a family business. He is a graduate of Western School of Technology Science in Catonsville, MD and specialized in Information Technology. Mr. Brooks has been a part of the Civil Air Patrol, where he has been involved in search and rescue operations, and training other personnel. This is Mr. Brooks’ first time running for elected office. His contact information is (410) 207-1458, SonOfLiberty076@yahoo.com, and his website is brooksfordelegate.webs.com.
The Maryland Libertarian Party is proud to present its first group of candidates for the upcoming 2010 election. The MdLP plans to run candidates for all federal offices and some county and state offices.
For more information on this issue, or to arrange an interview with the Maryland Libertarian Party, please call Communications Director Muir Boda at (410) 603-3347, or email at mwboda@mac.com.
The Libertarian Party is America's third-largest political party, founded in 1971 as an alternative to the two main political parties. You can find more information on the Maryland Libertarian Party at www.md.lp.org, their blog at www.mdlibertarian.com, and the Libertarian Party by visiting LP.org. The Libertarian Party proudly stands for smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom.
Libertarian Quote of the Day
"The Supreme Court in District of Columbia v Heller (October 2007) upheld that the 2nd Amendment protects the INDIVIDUAL right to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms. This means that the 2nd Amendment does NOT apply to a "National Guard", which is not a militia. Thomas Jefferson even said that the "militia" includes everyone not in the government (meaning the National Guard is not actually part of the militia, but I am). Federal code actually mentions that every able-bodied male not in the military and between the ages of 17 and 45 is part of the "unorganized militia". Therefore, the only group that the 2nd Amendment DOES protect, are the people that you say shouldn't carry firearms."
Brandon Brooks - Libertarian Candidate for Maryland House of Delegates to Maryland State Senator Brian Frosh
Friday's 2nd Amendment Quote
"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner. "
Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Congress, Second Session (February 1982)
Thursday, July 9, 2009
With unemployment skyrocketing, Libertarians suggest real stimulus
GOP, Dems debate passing another spending expansion, despite past failures
WASHINGTON -- America’s third largest party Thursday criticized Democrat and Republican leaders in Congress for suggesting that rising unemployment can be solved by passing another “stimulus” government expansion, or by spending current appropriations more quickly. Libertarians propose an alternate package of tax and regulatory relief that will create the jobs Americans need.
When Congress passed President Barack Obama’s “stimulus” package early this year the White House stated the spending expansion would keep unemployment below eight percent. It instead skyrocketed to a 26-year high of 9.5 percent, which Republicans blame on not spending the money fast enough and Democrats claim is reason to pass another, similar bill.
“While Democrats are proposing another several hundred billion dollars on dog parks and ACORN recruiting and Republicans are complaining Obama isn’t spending stimulus money fast enough, Libertarians are focused on growth policies that create the jobs Americans need,” said Donny Ferguson, Libertarian National Committee Communications Director.
“We can start by preserving the 2001 and 2003 pro-growth tax cuts, scale back taxes on investments so job creators can expand their businesses, reduce taxes on individuals so Americans will have more money to save and meet basic needs and reduce unnecessary and unneeded federal regulations that are stopping employers from creating jobs,” said Ferguson. “The Libertarian Party is the only party in America with a proven plan to create the jobs Americans need.”
“Poll after poll shows Americans are skeptical of trying to spend our way to prosperity. Poll after poll also shows they agree with the Libertarian Party that government cannot create wealth. It’s no wonder that’s why Americans are showing a growing interest in the Libertarian Party’s common-sense, reasonable and proven job growth policies.”
For more information on this issue, or to arrange an interview with the Libertarian Party, please call Director of Communications Donny Ferguson at 703-200-3669 or 202-333-0008, x. 225, or email Donny.Ferguson@lp.org.
The Libertarian Party is America's third-largest political party, founded in 1971 as an alternative to the two main political parties. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party by visiting http://www.LP.org. The Libertarian Party proudly stands for smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom.
2nd Amendment Fridays - Dedicated to the Gunpowder Chronicle
As always we dedicate 2nd Amendment Fridays to Tim Patterson's Gunpowder Chronicle. He continues to fight the good fight and we respect him for that.
Collective Will
"It makes no difference, in principle, if this "collective will" is divined by the edicts of a dictator or by majority vote – so long as the rights of the individual may still be sacrificed. "
Robert Garmong
P.J. Orourke: Where Was The Government With Studebaker?
.J. O’Rourke is a 21st-century H.L. Mencken—a libertarian satirist and quote-machine who’s deeply suspicious of most any office-holder (“Politics is the attempt to achieve power and prestige without merit”).
Since the 1970s, O’Rourke has written for all kinds of publications, including Playboy, Esquire, Vanity Fair, Automobile, and The National Lampoon. He is the H.L. Mencken Research Fellow at the Cato Institute, a regular correspondent to for The Atlantic Monthly, and the best-selling author of 12 books, the latest of which is Driving Like Crazy: 30 Years of Vehicular Hell-Bending.
Great Libertarian Quotes
"The government that we gave limited power to – to protect our rights – has grown into a hideous behemoth that continually increases its power and now enslaves the people, and causes strife throughout the world."
Tom Parker
Classical Liberalism and the Fight for Equal Rights
Damon W. Root | July 8, 2009
Remembering the forgotten libertarian legacy of American anti-racism
In a 1992 speech at Colorado's Metro State College, Columbia University historian Manning Marable praised the black minister and activist Malcolm X for pushing an "uncompromising program which was both antiracist and anticapitalist." As Marable favorably quoted from the former Nation of Islam leader: "You can't have racism without capitalism. If you find antiracists, usually they're socialists or their political philosophy is that of socialism."
Spend time on most college campuses and you're likely to hear something very similar. Progressives and leftists, the conventional narrative goes, fought the good fight while conservatives and libertarians either sat it out or sided with the bad guys. But there's a problem with this simplistic view: It completely ignores the fact that classical liberalism—which centers on individual rights, economic liberty, and limited government—played an indispensable role in the fight for equal rights.
Indeed, from the great abolitionist Frederick Douglass, who championed the natural rights philosophy of the Declaration of Independence and declared "give the negro fair play and let him alone," to the conservative newspaper magnate R.C. Hoiles (publisher of what is now the Orange County Register), who denounced liberal President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's wartime internment of Japanese Americans while most New Dealers (and liberal Supreme Court justices) remained silent, classical liberals have long opposed racism and collectivism in all of its vile forms. Read The Rest
Remembering the forgotten libertarian legacy of American anti-racism
In a 1992 speech at Colorado's Metro State College, Columbia University historian Manning Marable praised the black minister and activist Malcolm X for pushing an "uncompromising program which was both antiracist and anticapitalist." As Marable favorably quoted from the former Nation of Islam leader: "You can't have racism without capitalism. If you find antiracists, usually they're socialists or their political philosophy is that of socialism."
Spend time on most college campuses and you're likely to hear something very similar. Progressives and leftists, the conventional narrative goes, fought the good fight while conservatives and libertarians either sat it out or sided with the bad guys. But there's a problem with this simplistic view: It completely ignores the fact that classical liberalism—which centers on individual rights, economic liberty, and limited government—played an indispensable role in the fight for equal rights.
Indeed, from the great abolitionist Frederick Douglass, who championed the natural rights philosophy of the Declaration of Independence and declared "give the negro fair play and let him alone," to the conservative newspaper magnate R.C. Hoiles (publisher of what is now the Orange County Register), who denounced liberal President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's wartime internment of Japanese Americans while most New Dealers (and liberal Supreme Court justices) remained silent, classical liberals have long opposed racism and collectivism in all of its vile forms. Read The Rest
Ben Franklin's Wit & Wisdom
"The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself."
Benjamin Franklin
Great Libertarian Quotes
"Borrow, spend, tax and ... promise, promise, promise is the formula for a long and successful political career. "
Hal O'Boyle
Michael Swartz Post On Environmentalists
Michael Swartz at Monoblogue has good post about Environmentalists. Definitely worth a read.
Words from Presidents Past....
"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government. "
James Madison
Wes Benedict named Executive Director
Wes Benedict, Libertarian Party of Texas Executive Director from 2004 to 2008 and former member of the Libertarian National Committee, was named Executive Director of the Libertarian National Committee today by Chairman William Redpath.
Benedict begins his service July 17 at the LNC's quarterly meeting in St. Louis, Missouri and will then move directly to the Party's Washington, D.C. headquarters.
Libertarian Quote of the Day
"Most people want security in this world, not liberty."
H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Two Good Articles Worth Reading
The Gunpowder Chronicle has two good posts up that get right to the point.
Lawyer & Doctors
Republican Catamites
Lawyer & Doctors
Republican Catamites
Regulators in Washington - That Phrase Always Worries Me
I'll start with a snippet from this article. Then give my opinion based on years of working in the Cellular Industry.
by Troy Wolverton
Mercury News
7/6/2009
Regulators in Washington appear to be drawing a bead on one of the more frustrating features of the cell-phone business: The exclusive deals that tie certain cell phone models to a particular carrier, such as the one that makes Apple's iPhone available only through AT&T.
The Federal Communications Commission has said it will explore the issue, and a congressional committee held hearings on it last month. On Monday, The Wall Street Journal reported that the U.S. Justice Department has opened an initial review of the telecom industry that could explore whether those exclusive deals violate antitrust laws.
But barring such deals would not necessarily guarantee that consumers will be able use the phone they want on the network of their choice. Consumers will still face technical incompatibilities between networks that make it impossible to use certain phones with particular carriers. Click Here To Read More
My thoughts:
As you read this story further, it is very scary. The government wants to punish businesses for being successful and being competitive. They are worried that Verizon and ATT are too big and that they stifle competition. The exclusivity agreements is a major part of the issue, the iPhone is what they are targeting. I believe the government is again about to overstep it's authority. You cannot tell a business that they are not allowed to make agreements with other businesses.
An example would Granny Smith bakes the best cookies in town and sells them from her front porch. There are 3 stores in town that want to sell her cookies. Granny chooses Harry's Grocery Store and they sell her cookies everyday with many people going to that store to buy her cookies. It is a very successful business agreement.
North End Groceries and George's Grocery Store are mad because Granny Smith and Harry's Grocery Store made that deal. They complain to the government that Harry's has a monopoly on Granny Smith's Cookies. " It isn't fair," they say, "every store should have Granny's Cookies and we are losing market share by this unfair business agreement."
The answer is the free market and creativity. Those other stores should get creative to generate business and customer flow into their stores. It is Un-American for a business to complain about such instances. It is also Un-American for the government to stick it's nose in the private sector and decide what business agreements are fair and which are not. Antitrust laws in my opinion are holding back businesses and it stifles competiton. I believe the private sector is over regulated and 99.9% of Government Regulators should be relieved of their duties to join the private sector.
What is ridiculous about this whole exclusivity issue is that every Cellular Provider has exclusive agreements. T-Mobile has exclusivity agreements with HTC on the G-1 Google Phone and the Sidekick. ATT has exclusivity on the iPhone. Verizon has exclusivity on the Blackberry Storm, LG Env line, LG Dare, and few others. Sprint has exclusivity on Palm Pre, Sanyo Katana, and Samsung Rant.
Each has something different with their plans. ATT has Rollover Minutes, Verizon has Friends and Families, T-Mobile has My Faves, and Sprint starts their nights at 7pm. Each company has carved out their own niche and people mostly choose a cell phone plan based what network their friends and family use. Some do go with companies that are little more credit lenient such as Sprint and T-Mobile.
Part of the focus may also venture into the pre-paid cell phone market where Verizon is king. There are currently limtations on Verizon with their pre-paid. Unlike ATT and T-Mobile you can't buy a pre-paid phone to use immediatley on Post-Paid Verizon or Sprint account because they use cdma technology. ATT & T-Mobile you can swap the sim cards with their pre-paid phones. Also, Verizon has a restriction on their pre-paid phones, the ESN (serial number) of a pre-paid phone must be active on a pre-paid account for six months before it can used on a post-paid account.
All of this is quickly bringing to light an agenda that is inch by inch exerting tyranical authority of government over the private sector. Our Government has reached it's hands too far into the private sector, not to mention what it is doing in the lives of individuals. People who have never worked in or owned a business are now making major policy decisions on issues they know nothing about.
I believe if the Founding Father's were fumed about King George and his policies, imagine if they were here today and saw the mess that their sacrifice has become. I often think of the anecdotal story of Ben Franklin leaving Constitution Hall in September of 1787, when a lady asked him this:
“Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”
“A Republic, if you can keep it,” Ben replied.
I wonder if we will be able to keep it.
by Troy Wolverton
Mercury News
7/6/2009
Regulators in Washington appear to be drawing a bead on one of the more frustrating features of the cell-phone business: The exclusive deals that tie certain cell phone models to a particular carrier, such as the one that makes Apple's iPhone available only through AT&T.
The Federal Communications Commission has said it will explore the issue, and a congressional committee held hearings on it last month. On Monday, The Wall Street Journal reported that the U.S. Justice Department has opened an initial review of the telecom industry that could explore whether those exclusive deals violate antitrust laws.
But barring such deals would not necessarily guarantee that consumers will be able use the phone they want on the network of their choice. Consumers will still face technical incompatibilities between networks that make it impossible to use certain phones with particular carriers. Click Here To Read More
My thoughts:
As you read this story further, it is very scary. The government wants to punish businesses for being successful and being competitive. They are worried that Verizon and ATT are too big and that they stifle competition. The exclusivity agreements is a major part of the issue, the iPhone is what they are targeting. I believe the government is again about to overstep it's authority. You cannot tell a business that they are not allowed to make agreements with other businesses.
An example would Granny Smith bakes the best cookies in town and sells them from her front porch. There are 3 stores in town that want to sell her cookies. Granny chooses Harry's Grocery Store and they sell her cookies everyday with many people going to that store to buy her cookies. It is a very successful business agreement.
North End Groceries and George's Grocery Store are mad because Granny Smith and Harry's Grocery Store made that deal. They complain to the government that Harry's has a monopoly on Granny Smith's Cookies. " It isn't fair," they say, "every store should have Granny's Cookies and we are losing market share by this unfair business agreement."
The answer is the free market and creativity. Those other stores should get creative to generate business and customer flow into their stores. It is Un-American for a business to complain about such instances. It is also Un-American for the government to stick it's nose in the private sector and decide what business agreements are fair and which are not. Antitrust laws in my opinion are holding back businesses and it stifles competiton. I believe the private sector is over regulated and 99.9% of Government Regulators should be relieved of their duties to join the private sector.
What is ridiculous about this whole exclusivity issue is that every Cellular Provider has exclusive agreements. T-Mobile has exclusivity agreements with HTC on the G-1 Google Phone and the Sidekick. ATT has exclusivity on the iPhone. Verizon has exclusivity on the Blackberry Storm, LG Env line, LG Dare, and few others. Sprint has exclusivity on Palm Pre, Sanyo Katana, and Samsung Rant.
Each has something different with their plans. ATT has Rollover Minutes, Verizon has Friends and Families, T-Mobile has My Faves, and Sprint starts their nights at 7pm. Each company has carved out their own niche and people mostly choose a cell phone plan based what network their friends and family use. Some do go with companies that are little more credit lenient such as Sprint and T-Mobile.
Part of the focus may also venture into the pre-paid cell phone market where Verizon is king. There are currently limtations on Verizon with their pre-paid. Unlike ATT and T-Mobile you can't buy a pre-paid phone to use immediatley on Post-Paid Verizon or Sprint account because they use cdma technology. ATT & T-Mobile you can swap the sim cards with their pre-paid phones. Also, Verizon has a restriction on their pre-paid phones, the ESN (serial number) of a pre-paid phone must be active on a pre-paid account for six months before it can used on a post-paid account.
All of this is quickly bringing to light an agenda that is inch by inch exerting tyranical authority of government over the private sector. Our Government has reached it's hands too far into the private sector, not to mention what it is doing in the lives of individuals. People who have never worked in or owned a business are now making major policy decisions on issues they know nothing about.
I believe if the Founding Father's were fumed about King George and his policies, imagine if they were here today and saw the mess that their sacrifice has become. I often think of the anecdotal story of Ben Franklin leaving Constitution Hall in September of 1787, when a lady asked him this:
“Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”
“A Republic, if you can keep it,” Ben replied.
I wonder if we will be able to keep it.
What The Constition Is....
"Contrary to popular opinion, the Constitution was not – and is not – a grant of rights to the citizenry. Instead, the Constitution is a "barbed-wire entanglement" designed to interfere with, restrict, and impede government officials in the exercise of political power."
Jacob Hornberger, 11/01
The Wise Milton Friedman
"The economic miracle that has been the United States was not produced by socialized enterprises, by government-union-industry cartels or by centralized economic planning. It was produced by private enterprises in a profit-and-loss system. And losses were at least as important in weeding out failures, as profits in fostering successes. Let government succor failures, and we shall be headed for stagnation and decline."
Milton Friedman
Ben Franklin Weighs In On The Housing Market Crisis
"I conceive that the great part of the miseries of mankind are brought upon them by false estimates they have made of the value of things."
Benjamin Franklin
Wisdom from H.L. Mencken
"It is the fundamental theory of all the more recent American law … that the average citizen is half-witted, and hence not to be trusted to either his own devices or his own thoughts."
H. L. Mencken
Libertarian Quote of the Day
"The Declaration, after all, catalogued the assaults on our freedoms committed by Britain's King George III. What has been built up over the last two and a quarter centuries is a structure that dwarfs George III's regime. "
K.E. Grubbs, Jr., Investor's Business Daily, 7/3/01
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Liberty & Democracy
"Regarding liberty and democracy in the United States, I would like to refer to the oft told tale in which Benjamin Franklin, coming out of the Constitutional Convention, was asked by a woman, "What kind of government have you given us, sir?" He replied, "A republic, if we can keep it." We are a republic, meaning that we elect representatives to whom WE give the right to govern - not the other way around. We use a democratic process to elect those representatives - or we're supposed to - and a majority of voters decides who gets to represent us. I have to admit that I would like to see in our legislative chambers proportional representation based on ideas, rather than race and gender as has been suggested by some over the last decade or so. Ballot access should be virtually unrestricted, and to those who say that you would have too many people on the ballot and it would be confusing, I would simply say that the value of our liberty, our Constitution, our Bill of Rights and certainly our Declaration of Independence does deserve time and effort from citizens to learn who in the heck is running and what they stand for, and to vote for the one they most agree with as their civic duty. Voting for the lesser of two evils is a game of losers. We're supposed to be winners in this country, not losers.
Our liberties are under siege by many things: attacks on the Second Amendment, free speech zones set up so that the politically privileged ears will not be hurt by dissent, and the one most onerous thing of all - the so-called "Patriot Act," insult of insults - a law so vile that I think even John Adams, second president of the United States, who lost his second bid on account of his anti sedition acts, might find repugnant."
Lorenzo Gaztañaga is the 2010 Libertarian Candidate for Congress in Maryland's 2nd District.
Politician Removal Service Available for 2010
The Libertarian Party of Maryland will be offering it's Professional Politician Removal service. We will be announcing our first of 2010 Candidates very soon to give Maryland voters real choices.
Words from Presidents Past....
"Collecting more taxes than is absolutely necessary is legalized robbery. "
Calvin Coolidge
Great Libertarian Quotes
"Greedy capitalists get money by trade. Good liberals steal it. "
David Friedman
Obama Doesn't Have the Only Prescription for Healthcare Reform
by Michael D. Tanner
A free-market approach would move away from employer-provided insurance and increase competition among both insurers and health providers.
President Obama is right when he says that the U.S. healthcare system needs reform. Although this country provides the finest care in the world, our healthcare system has serious problems. It costs too much. Too many people lack health insurance. And quality can be uneven.
The president and his supporters in Congress would have you believe that the only choice is between their plan — which amounts to a government takeover of the healthcare system — and the broken status quo. That is a falsehood.But supporters of the free market, frankly, have been remiss in positing viable alternatives. So what exactly would a free-market approach to reform look like? Quite simply, it relies on those time-tested building blocks of marketplace efficiency: competition and choice.
There are two key components to any free-market healthcare reform. First, we need to move away from a system dominated by employer-provided health insurance and instead make health insurance personal and portable, controlled by the individual rather than government or an employer.
Employment-based insurance hides much of the true cost of healthcare to consumers, thereby encouraging overconsumption. It also limits consumer choice, because employers get the final say in what type of insurance a worker will receive. It means that people who don't receive insurance through work are put at a significant and costly disadvantage. And, of course, it means that if you lose your job, you are likely to end up uninsured.
Changing from employer-provided to individually purchased insurance requires changing the tax treatment of health insurance. The current system excludes the value of employer-provided insurance from a worker's taxable income. However, a worker purchasing health insurance on his own must do so with after-tax dollars. This provides a significant financial reward for those who have employer-provided insurance. That should be reversed.
For tax purposes, employer-provided insurance should be treated as taxable income. To offset the increased tax, workers should receive a standard deduction (or in some plans, a tax credit) for the purchase of health insurance, regardless of whether they receive it through their job or purchase it on their own.
The other part of effective healthcare reform involves increasing competition among both insurers and health providers. Current regulations establish monopolies and cartels in both industries. Today, for example, people can't purchase health insurance across state lines. And because different states have very different regulations and mandates, costs can vary widely depending on where you live.
New Jersey, for example, requires insurers to cover a wide range of procedures and types of care, including in-vitro fertilization, contraceptives, chiropodists and coverage of children until they reach age 25. Those mandated benefits aren't cheap. According to a 2007 analysis by the National Center for Policy Analysis, the cost of a standard health insurance policy for a healthy 25-year-old man averaged $5,580 in the state. A standard policy in Kentucky, which has far fewer mandates, would cost the same man only $960 per year.
Unfortunately, consumers are more or less held prisoner by their state's regulatory regime. It is illegal for that hypothetical New Jersey resident to buy the cheaper health insurance in Kentucky. On the other hand, if consumers were free to purchase insurance in other states, they could in effect "purchase" the regulations of that other state. A consumer in New Jersey could avoid the state's regulatory costs and choose, say, Kentucky, if that state's regulations aligned more closely with his or her preferences.
With millions of American consumers balancing costs and risks, states would be forced to evaluate whether their regulations offered true value or simply reflected the influence of special interests. Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.) has a bill in Congress that would allow consumers to purchase their insurance in other states.
We also need to rethink medical licensing laws to encourage greater competition among providers. Nurse practitioners, physician assistants, midwives and other non-physician practitioners should have far greater ability to treat patients. We also should be encouraging such innovations in delivery as medical clinics in retail outlets.
The choice facing us now is not between Obama's plan for healthcare micromanaged by the government or doing nothing. Rather, it is a choice between government control, regulation and rationing on one hand, and free markets, choice and competition on the other.
That is the real healthcare debate.
Michael D. Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and coauthor of Healthy Competition: What's Holding Back Health Care and How to Free It.
Added to cato.org on July 6, 2009
This article appeared in the Los Angeles Times on July 5, 2009.
Some Things Are To Basic To Understand..
"The free market punishes irresponsibility. Government rewards it."
Harry Browne
Libertarian Quote of the Day
"The Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals. It does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government. It is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizens' protection against the government. "
Ayn Rand
Monday, July 6, 2009
Barr: 'Cap and tax' a lot of hot air
Congressman Bob Barr, the 2008 Libertarian presidential nominee, takes a look at Barack Obama's proposed "cap and trade" $1.9 trillion National Energy Tax in his weekly column for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
Click here to read Barr's column. Barr writes, in part:
...Its 1,200 pages must rank among the most complex and convoluted pieces of legislation ever devised, making old, Soviet-style government edicts appear streamlined by comparison.
Former President Jimmy Carter, who oversaw the last formal effort Washington undertook to mandate comprehensive energy usage, was a novice compared to the heavy-handed, global-oriented approach by Obama and his Democratic colleagues in the House. Where Carter, a generation ago, was content to turn down the thermostat and lecture the country while wearing a cardigan sweater in front of a warmly glowing fireplace, Obama uses 21st-century communications tools and offers to change not just America’s energy system, but the entire world’s —- with taxpayer dollars by the trillions...
...This discussion barely scratches the surface of the Byzantine system of mandates and favors that would be doled out by the government if this legislation reaches Obama’s desk. The cost is impossible to calculate, except to know it will be in the trillions of dollars. For a plan based on bad science and proposing to implement a model that’s already failed in Europe, that’s a price no responsible American ought to accept. But, how can you put a pricetag on saving the world and all of mankind?
Monday's LP Message from Donnie Ferguson
Dear friend,
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
It’s an old saying, often attributed to Edmund Burke even though it’s never been found in any of his writings. But it’s not entirely accurate.
You see, “evil” just as easily triumphs when good men do things that are pointless or ineffective.
In fact, “evil” loves ineffective “good men” even more than inactive ones. Engaging in ineffective habits not only depletes resources more quickly than inactivity, it’s much harder to change ineffective or pointless activity than it is to simply act in the first place.
For folks engaged in electing “good men” and defeating “evil” legislation, “triumph” only happens when you are better organized and engaging in more effective activities than the opposition.
In fact, it was the subject of several lengthy conversations I had with friends over the July 4th holiday. In one way or another they are all actively involved in scaling back government and restoring freedoms, whether it’s electing congressmen, educating the public or lobbying.
While their organizations and job duties all adhere to the strictly defined purposes that make their larger movement effective, they are all focused on one thing – being better organized than their opponents and working with a laser-like focus on activities that are effective. They know that veering off the path or expending resources doing things their
When I told them what we are doing here at the Libertarian Party – recruiting new members, strengthening our finances, focusing on relevant issues and improving our political technology, and then focusing it on electing more Libertarians to office, starting at the local level – they were excited.
They know, like I do, that something big is brewing. The independent, non-partisan Leadership Institute’s July 4th Soiree drew a record crowd of over 1,500 people, all committed to fighting the Obama administration’s bailouts, industry nationalizations and proposed government takeover of health care. Crowds swelled at July 4th “tea parties,” where activists booed bailout-supporting elected officials of their own party.
Americans are sick and tired of Big Government Republicans and Democrats, and they’re looking for an alternative that knows simply doing “something” won’t magically solve the problem. They’ve been doing “something” for decades. Now they’re looking for an alternative that is effective and focused.
The Libertarian Party is that alternative. If you are already a Sustaining Member, thank you!
If not, please join today. Just click here to become one of those “good men” (or “women”) who knows that defeating “evil” means that just doing something isn’t good enough. Activists must be focused on electing Libertarians -- starting at local offices -- and defeating those who would take away our liberties, wealth and property.
With optimism,
Donny Ferguson
Director of Communications
Libertarian National Committee
Donny.Ferguson@lp.org
Great Libertarian Quotes
"The principles of this country are no mere abstractions; they are written in the hearts of all true Americans."
Edward L. Hudgins
Chait Calls Out Conservatives on Rationing
Michael F. Cannon
I’ve been struggling with how to respond to an article by The New Republic’s Jonathan Chait, who accuses conservatives of hypocrisy and Republicans of whorishness when it comes to wasteful spending in Medicare and other government health programs. I have grudgingly decided that a good fisking is the only way to go.
Chait writes:
Two weeks ago, President Obama offered to cut several hundred billion more dollars out of the Medicare and Medicaid budget to help make room for health care reform. This sort of gesture ought to appeal to conservatives, right? Apparently not. The Heritage Foundation warned, “At a time when Medicare is dangerously close to bankruptcy, it is shortsighted to funnel funds into the creation of another government-run program instead of shoring up Medicare.” A National Review editorial complained, “These cuts in Medicare and Medicaid payments are nothing more than reimbursement reductions with no empirical or economic basis to justify them.”
A couple of problems here. Chait takes the National Review quote out of context. The magazine’s most recent issue states: “Republicans should not have only harsh words for Obama’s ideas. If he truly believes that he can squeeze hundreds of billions of dollars from federal health programs, then he should be encouraged to do so. But the savings should be banked before they are spent.” The Heritage quote is odd in that it suggests that conservatives should make “shoring up Medicare” a priority. But it makes essentially the same argument. Chait gives a false impression when he suggests that all conservatives are knee-jerk opponents of reducing wasteful Medicare spending.
No empirical basis to justify them? Since when do conservatives require an empirical basis to justify cutting social spending?
Truth
"The error is in the assumption that the General Government is a party to the constitutional compact. The States … formed the compact, acting as sovereign and independent communities."
Great Libertarian Quotes
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficial … the greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding. "
Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis, 1928
Words from Presidents Past....
"The extravagant expenditure of public money is an evil not to be measured by the value of that money to the people who are taxed for it. "
Chester A. Arthur
The Politicians and the Founders
David Boaz
Both President Obama and Sen. John McCain cited the Founders in their weekly radio addresses today, as they made the case for government actions that would have appalled those Founders. Obama invoked “the indomitable spirit of the first American citizens who made [independence] day possible” in arguing for a federal takeover of education, energy, and health care.
He might have trouble explaining how his policies reflect the spirit of the men who left us such words as these:
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must be happy.
Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread.
A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.
Meanwhile, McCain called for the American government to more vigorously support the protesters in Iran. What would the Founders say to him?
The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible….Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest.
Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.
[America] has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. …Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.
Maybe each week there should be three national radio broadcasts: one from the incumbent president, one from the other big-government party, and one reflecting the views of the Founders.
Monday's Prohibition Quote
"Opium and morphine are certainly dangerous, habit-forming drugs. But once the principle is admitted that it is the duty of the government to protect the individual against his own foolishness, no serious objections can be advanced against further encroachments … Is not the harm a man can inflict on his mind and soul even more disastrous than any bodily evils.? Why not prevent him from reading bad books and bad plays, from looking at bad paintings and statues and from hearing bad music? The mischief done by bad ideologies, surely, is much more pernicious both for the individual and for the whole society, than that done by narcotic drugs. "
Von Mises, Human Action
Fuel Standards Are Killing GM
Alan Reynolds is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, and the author of Income and Wealth
General Motors can survive bankruptcy far more easily than it can survive President Barack Obama's ambitious fuel economy standards, which mandate that all new new vehicles average 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016.
The actual Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) results will depend on the mixture of fuel-thrifty and fuel-thirsty vehicles consumers choose to buy from each manufacturer — not on what producers hope to sell. That means only those companies most successful in selling the smallest cars with the smallest engines will, in the future, be allowed to sell the more profitable larger pickups and SUVs and more powerful luxury and sports cars.
Sales of Toyota's Prius, Yaris, Corolla and Scion, for example, allow and encourage Toyota to market more Lexus 460s, Sequoia SUVs and Tundra pickups in the U.S. without incurring fines. Hyundai's success selling Accent and Elantra compacts allows it to sell 368-horsepower Genesis sedans.
Similarly, Ford has the Toyota-licensed hybrid Fusion and will soon produce the European Ford Fiesta in Mexico. Chrysler will soon have Fiats. But what does GM have?
No independent reviewer suggests that the Chevy Aveo and Cobalt are credible contenders in the small car field. Even the president's auto task force finds the electric Chevy Volt "unviable," since it will lose money unless priced above a Cadillac CTS. The Opel-engineered 2011 Chevy Cruze will face tough competition from Asian cars whose reliability is better established. Launching such new models will be even tougher in the future, now that GM has lost control of Opel.
GM accounted for about 19% of vehicle sales so far this year, but the company had a much smaller share of the market for small cars and SUVs (which accounted for 20% of total sales through May). To continue offering a Toyota-like array of larger cars and trucks under ever-tighter CAFE rules, GM would have to capture a much larger share of the market for small and/or diesel-powered vehicles. Unfortunately, European and Asian car makers have decades more experience building reliable subcompact cars and diesel engines for their local markets — where consumers face steep taxes on gasoline and large engines.
General Motors does produce competitive cars and trucks, but not one of them is small. Consumer Reports recommends three GM cars and three GM trucks. The recommended cars are the Chevy Malibu (the unrecommended hybrid has been dropped), the large Buick Lucerne and the Cadillac DTS. Consumer Reports recommends the Chevy Avalanche and Silverado and the GMC Sierra trucks. Car enthusiast magazines insist on adding Camaro, Corvette and the 556-horsepower Cadillac CTS-V to that list.
Among those nine best GM vehicles, only the four-cylinder Malibu achieved as much as 25 mpg in Consumer Reports testing. The others get 12-17 mpg, yet they are no less fuel-efficient than comparable foreign brands. The Environmental Protection Agency rates the mileage of the Toyota Sienna van and Nissan Titan pickup as worst in their class, and comparable Chevys as best. Unlike GM, however, Japanese car companies sell enough small cars to offset the large and thus hold down the average figures.
General Motors is likely to become profitable only if it is allowed to specialize in what it does best — namely, midsize and large sedans, sports cars, pickup trucks and SUVs. The company can't possibly afford to scrap billions of dollars of equipment used to produce its best vehicles simply to please politicians who would rather see GM start from scratch, wasting more taxpayer money on "retooling" to produce unwanted and unprofitable subcompacts and electric cars. The average mileage of GM's future cars won't matter if nobody buys them.
Politicians are addicted to CAFE standards because they create an illusion of doing something sometime in the future without voters experiencing the slightest inconvenience in the present. Tighter future CAFE rules will have no effect at all on the type of vehicles we choose to buy. Their only effect will be to compel us to buy larger and more powerful vehicles from foreign manufacturers. Americans will still buy Jaguars, but from an Indian firm, Tata, rather than Ford. They'll buy Hummers, but from a Chinese firm, Tengzhong, rather than GM. The whole game is a charade; symbolism without substance.
As a matter of practical politics, rescuing GM from strangulation by CAFE will require offering economically literate environmentalists a greener alternative, i.e., one that works. Luckily, the government has two policy tools that, with minor modifications, really could discourage people from buying the least fuel-efficient vehicles.
One is the federal excise tax on "gas guzzlers," which could take some fun out of the horsepower race except that it applies only to cars, not to SUVS, vans and trucks. Why not apply this tax to all types of gas guzzling vehicles? Owners of trucks used for business could deduct the tax in proportion to miles used for business, as they do with other vehicular expenses. Phase it in after 2011 to encourage buyers to snap up the unsold inventory of gas guzzling trucks quickly — a timely "stimulus plan."
Second, the federal fuel tax is highest on the most efficient fuel (diesel) and below zero on the least efficient fuel (ethanol). Cars get about 30% better mileage on diesel than on gasoline, and cars running mainly on gasoline get about 30% better mileage than they would using 85% ethanol.
To stop distorting consumer choices, simply apply the same 24-cent-a-gallon federal tax to gasoline and ethanol as we do to diesel. This would add funds to the depleted federal highway trust. More importantly, it would remove an irrational tax penalty on buying diesel-powered cars — arguably the most cost-effective way to improve mileage without reducing car size or performance.
These two proposals are a greener alternative to CAFE, because they'll work. But they'll only work if Congress totally and permanently abandons the charade of CAFE. It is arguably worthwhile to accept a modest tax increase in exchange for an end to harmful regulations, but that exchange is effective precisely because it is not painless.
Unifying fuel taxes and broadening the excise tax on gas guzzlers makes sense as an alternative to CAFE. Otherwise it's just more pain with no gain.
If politicians insist on tightening fleet average mileage standards for bankrupt auto companies, how could those rules be enforced? The only penalty for violating CAFE rules is a big fine. If consumers keep refusing to buy enough small cars from GM and Chrysler to allow them to meet the CAFE rules, how are those companies expected to pay the fines?
The government is already planning to spend about $50 billion bailing out General Motors plus $7 billion for Chrysler. Will President Barack Obama provide Detroit auto makers with even more subsidies to pay CAFE fines?
Maybe so. That would be only slightly more bizarre than current plans to bribe folks with $4,500 to sell their "clunkers," or to offer huge tax credits to those rich enough to buy a $73,000 hybrid Cadillac Escalade or an $88,000 Fisker Karma.
The bottom line is that CAFE standards are totally unenforceable and ineffective. Regardless of how much damage the rules do to GM and Chrysler, Americans can and will continue to buy big and fast vehicles from German, Japanese, Korean, Chinese and Indian car companies. CAFE standards might just be another foolhardy regulatory nuisance — were it not for the fact that they could easily prove fatally dangerous for any auto maker overly dependent on the uniquely overregulated U.S. market.
Wisdom From Webster
"Where is it written in the Constitution, in what section or clause is it contained, that you may take children from their parents and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battle in any war in which the folly or the wickedness of government may engage it? "
Daniel Webster
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Sam Adams on a Sunday Afternoon
"The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks … It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men. "
Samuel Adams
Sunday's Libertarian Sermon
"Let it be henceforth proclaimed to the world that man's conscience was created free; that he is no longer accountable to his fellow man for his religious opinions, being responsible therefore only to his God. "
John Tyler
Wisdom from George Washington
"My ardent desire is, and my aim has been, to comply strictly with all our engagements, foreign and domestic; but to keep the United States free from political connections with every other country, to see them independent of all and under the influence of none."
George Washington
Sunday - Voices of Libertarian Prophets
"Capitalism without failure is like religion without sin. Bankruptcies and losses concentrate the mind on prudent behavior. "
Allan H. Meltzer
mon·o·blogue - Michael's General Assembly Guide is Ready
As promised Michael Swartz has his General Assembly voting guide up on his website. Ijust want say thank you for the hard work and good job Michael.
Words from President Martin Van Buren
"For myself, therefore, I desire to declare that the principle that will govern me in the high duty to which my country calls me is a strict adherence to the letter and spirit of the Constitution as it was designed by those who framed it. "
Martin Van Buren
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)