David Carlson Politics

New Blog - The Liberty Blogger

2009-07-31T10:12:00.003-05:00

For over a year I have been blogging at David Carlson Politics. I have finally made the switch to wordpress. One of the options I had was to try to migrate all my posts to the other blog, but I would have lost all the pictures and possibly comments. I decided it was time for a fresh start, and I plan on leaving David Carlson Politics up indefinitely if you would like to view my older posts.

I will now be blogging daily at The Liberty Blogger.

Please visit, comment, and give me feedback on this new site. Thank you for all the comments, discussions, and support you have given me over the past year and please join me on this new venture.

-David Carlson

Cash for Clunkers = Redistribution of Wealth

2009-07-29T14:20:00.004-05:00

Obama didn't lie when he said he wanted to "spread the wealth." The Car Allowance Rebate System, which almost everyone in America knows of as "Cash for Clunkers" is nothing more than a redistribution of wealth. Being disguised as a necessary and even "creative" way to spur economic growth in our nation is actually nothing more than a big scam with underlying motives.

This program allows qualified buyers to receive a $3,500 or $4,500 voucher towards the purchase of a new car. There is approximately $875 million in federal funds allocated to the program. Here are my objections to such a ridiculous program:

1) Government picks winners and losers

Let's say I bought a new car earlier this year, scrapping my old car. How come I didn't get federal funds to help subsidize my purchase? How come a few months later my neighbor received federal funding, just because their car lasted a few extra months? Simply put, the government is choosing winners and losers based on timing of automobile purchases. How does this make sense?

2) Artificial Demand

Of course there are individuals who would be purchasing new cars anyway, but there will definitely be a number of individuals who buy a new car sooner than they need to. This is not market-based demand, but artificial demand created by the federal government. Call me a skeptic, but isn't Obama's credibility going to be padded if GM sales increase? A quick growth just months after he "fixed" the failing company? Hmmmm....

3) The real goal: get higher mileage vehicles on the road

"The program is designed to...put safer, cleaner and more fuel-efficient vehicles on the nation's roadways."

Translation: We are using federal dollars to put cars with higher gas mileage on the road, one of the goals of the green movement. I have no trouble with the environmentalists...except when they try to push their agenda through government thereby forcing everyone else to comply. This is clearly taxpayer dollars being used to enforce a green agenda.

My friend's car was 2 mpg over the 18 mpg standard, so he didn't qualify. Would a new car be safer than his older car? Absolutely. But sure enough, in reality the goal is to force people to buy hybrids and fuel-efficient cars, even if that is not specifically what they want.

Interestingly, the government wants to push fuel-efficient standards in the United States to unthinkable levels in the near future. All because of global warming, which many in America are skeptical about. Sure enough, even if they don't agree that global warming is a threat, they will be forced to comply with the majority's decision.

Ultimately what it comes down to in my opinion, is whether or not this is a proper role of the Federal government. Picking winners and losers, stimulating artificial demand, and advancing a mandatory green agenda just doesn't meet my standard of a "necessary role" of government.

Collin Peterson Won't Conduct Town Halls

2009-07-28T12:32:00.003-05:00

The truth is out as to why Minnesota 7th district representative Collin Peterson won't conduct town halls with his constituents:

“Twenty-five percent of my people believe the Pentagon and Rumsfeld were responsible for taking the twin towers down,” said Rep. Collin Peterson, a Democrat who represents a conservative Republican district in Minnesota. “That’s why I don’t do town meetings.”

So apparently Representative Peterson believes that about 1 out of 4 of his constituents believe the 9/11 was an inside job. I would be interested in seeing what poll he got this information from, but that isn't the most striking part of this quote. What really is astounding is that he refuses to conduct town halls because he believes 1 in 4 of his constituents are "conspiracy" believers.

Personally, I don't understand his reasoning. If this fact was true, would his constituents ask questions about it? Yes. Would he need to give a lengthy rebuttal to their claims? No. What about the other 75%? Plus, why should he not have town halls because he disagrees with constituents about a certain theory? I believe representatives should be ready to serve their people. It's mighty hard to represent people you refuse to have town hall meetings with where constituents can openly voice their opinions. He knows people will show up to the town halls who otherwise would not interact with him (via telephone, mail, etc.). This is just a cop out for someone who doesn't want to have to directly answer to constituents.

He is a very conservative "blue dog" Democrat who voted against cap and trade and the stimulus bill. I applaud him for those votes, but the point I am trying to make is that representatives should be in constant communication with constituents, regardless of their views. Town halls are the least he could do.

USA to Asia: You Save too Much!

2009-07-27T14:42:00.000-05:00

Apparently savings is a bad thing. Patrick Barta wrote a very left-leaning article titled Asian Nations Revisit Safety Net in Effort to Bolster Spending. Apparently because Western nations have bloated social welfare programs that encourage spending (hey, if you lose your job there is always unemployment and welfare, right?) Asian nations should do the same. Why? To increase domestic consumption, of course.

Just look at this quote by Barta:

"Partly as a result, Asians tend to save more and spend less of their income than their counterparts in the West. That contributed to the global imbalances that are one cause of the current world recession: U.S. consumers went deep into debt to finance consumption while Asians socked away money and relied on exports to Western consumers.

Social-welfare programs are one way of addressing those imbalances. The idea is that if Asian consumers have more confidence in their governments to take care of them in times of trouble, they will be more willing to spend today, igniting new demand for consumer goods and leaving the world economy less dependent on Western shoppers."

In fact, countries like China have positioned themselves beautifully for the "demise" of the West which will occur with the free fall of the U.S. dollar. Imagine this scenario: China realizes all this debt they have been constantly purchasing from the United States is dang near worthless (which it is). Then, they decide they are not going to buy worthless paper U.S. debt. Okay Okay then what? Well, the dollars that China has in reserves starts getting shipped back into the U.S. This adds to our already stifling inflation, and diminishes our purchasing power. At the same time the yuan (and many other currencies) gain on the dollar, increasing China's purchasing power.

China realizes that it doesn't NEED Americans to consume their goods. Instead they start consuming more goods, as the price of goods lowers with less American demand. They no longer artificially prop up our consumer nation, and now take part in the fruits of their labor. This newfound prosperity they have gained allows them to have more money to spend domestically, instead of worthless U.S. debt.

So I'm sorry, Patrick, but no you don't create massive government welfare programs to allow for irrational spending. It's because of people who think like you that we are in the worst economic position in our history. Yes, Asian countries will be able to spend more on consumer items, but not to "lessen dependency" on Western shoppers. It will be because they can afford to spend money on consumer items while Western nations (particularly the U.S.) have to deal with a currency crisis on top of all the trillions and trillions we owe to our creditors and the debt we have accumulated or will be on the hook for in the future.

The scarier thing is that the people who are going to "talk economics" with China this week, really have no understanding of what is headed our way.

The Fair Tax

2009-07-27T11:38:00.002-05:00

This weekend I finished The FairTax Book by Neal Boortz and Congressman John Linder. This book was another one of those books that really changed the way I look at a certain political issue. In this case, it was taxation. I already supported drastically changing the U.S. tax code to either a flat-rate income tax or a flat tax on consumption, but I lacked a workable plan. Well, apparently these two men have already developed such a plan which is a 133 page bill, HR 25.

The Fair Tax is a flat, one-time tax on products at the retail level. After reading this book, their plan makes so much sense it will almost make you angry that we still have a policy of taxation that is economically wasteful and discourages saving! I don't want to go into too much detail, but the tax would actually cause prices to be about the same. How could this be so? Because corporations pass on their tax burdens to consumers. How so? Read the book, its short and you won't regret it.

The thing that I find most intriguing about this plan is that the most quick retort to a flat consumption task is that it puts a higher tax burden on the poor. With their plan, the tax burden is totally lifted from families living below the poverty line. Every head of household would get what they call a "prebate" which covers the tax payments up to the poverty line. So, if the poverty line is drawn at $20,000, every family would receive $4,600 to cover the tax liabilities up to the poverty line. This avoids making anyone pay taxes on basic necessities.

This plan makes complete sense to me. If it sounds like something that interests you, then I would recommend reading The FairTax Book. Eliminating ALL current taxes, including the IRS (since they wouldn't be needed), and implamenting a 133 page tax code I'm on board, are you?

John Linder with the 133 page FairTax Legislation compared to the current tax code.

Free State Project Featured on Yahoo News

2009-07-25T22:22:00.004-05:00

If you have been following the liberty movement as closely as I have, you surely have heard of the Free State Project. If you have not, as my friend Hiro used to say, it's actually very simple. A bunch of libertarians move to New Hampshire and try to change the political nature of NH's politics. For example, it would create the most limited state government in the nation, as well as stand up to the federal government under the banner of the tenth amendment.

This project was started a few years ago, but today it gained national attention with this article being posted on front page of Yahoo News. I hope one day I can contribute to this movement in one way or another. They have some great people working on this project and I hope that New Hampshire does transform under the tireless work of the Free State Project participants.

How to Contact Your Representative...Effectively

2009-07-25T10:20:00.005-05:00

As many of you know I have been interning at Michele Bachmann's Congressional office this summer. One part of our jobs is to help with the phones. Many people call to give opinions about an issue or about something they want her to do or look into. The problem is, most people do this wrong or ineffectively.

First of all, don't get me wrong. I think everyone should let their Congressman and Senators know what they think. Unfortunately, many people who actually follow through and contact them, do it totally ineffectively. So here are some ground rules if you want to have your opinion count:

1) DO NOT, I repeat, DO NOT call Senators or Congressmen who do not represent you. You are wasting their time (well, not theirs but their staffs time) which might be your goal, but you are totally wasting YOUR own time. You really think that your opinion REALLY matters to them in the end? Why should it? Please, this is a total waste of time. Do not do it.

2) DO contact your representative in the House of Reps, and both Senators. All three represent you. Unless you make your opinion known, how do you expect them to know what you think?

3) Snail Mail, Phone, Email. In that order. Mail is very effective because there isn't as much of it anymore, therefore the fact you took the time to actually send a letter stating your opinion makes them value your opinion more. Second, a phone call can be very effective (more on that below) if you do it properly. An email is better than nothing, and very easy to do so at least doing that should help.

4) Letter's should be short and to the point, and very respectful (even if you totally disagree with prior policies they have taken). Remember, if you show respect they will respect your opinion. Emails should be the same way. Read this email I sent to Al Franken a week ago. I disagree with most of what he will probably do as a Senator, but at least he knows where I stand and I showed respect.

5) Phone Calls should be short and respectful. Know what you want to get across before you call. The more you ramble the less will actually be written down and communicated. Be ready to give your name, phone number, and city. Again, if you are not a constituent your opinion is worth 1/10 of a constituents, so don't waste your time.

6) Never threaten. Never threaten or get heated about an issue. Just be polite, state where you sit and obviously how you want the Rep. to vote, give your information, and your done. They know how you feel, and they know if they vote opposite what you want too many times they will lose your vote. No need to state the obvious.

7) Do not expect the person on the other end of the line to answer specific questions. "Why did _____ do this?" "What did ____ mean by this?" It really is a waste of your time, as usually it will be an intern over 50% of the time and the only thing they can state is statements he/she has already made.

8) Don't get upset when you do not get specific answers. Like I said, they can't give you specific answers 98% of the time. Getting upset about it does not help, actually hurts any credibility your opinion had.

So, to sum up, do not call someone who does not represent you. Be extremely polite, concise, and be ready to give your name, number, and city. Never come off as angry and avoid at all costs attacking the representative. If you disagree with something they did, by all means let them know, but do it only in the most respectful way.

Trust me, people impact their representatives. Just make sure your letter/call/email is effective.

Nationalized Health Care Redistributes Wealth

2009-07-24T15:25:00.004-05:00

If you support national health care, there is one essential aspect of the program that you must understand. National health care is in essence a redistribution of wealth. Be it wealthy individuals who will take more of a tax hit to pay for the program, or young people who will be required to get health care when they do not want it. It is not possible to make one person better off without making someone worse off. If this health care plan does in fact make many individuals better off, there is someone who is paying the price.

John Fund of The Wall Street Journal wrote an op-ed for today’s paper, and it seems as though he has a general grasp of this principle. Some, namely young people and small businesses among others, will pick up the tab. It is important to understand the redistributive essence of this bill. President Obama and the Democrats plan could open up a public option and implement universal health care, but at a serious cost. The way I look at it, there are certain preconditions you must believe in order to support this sort of a program:

1) Health Care is a right, and every American should be able to get health care regardless of any outside factors.

2) Those who cannot afford health care are entitled to others funding of their health care. This funding should be forced through government seizure.

I have a serious problem with both of these pre-conditions. First, health care is a responsibility. I do believe in severe circumstances it turns into a right when someone’s life is threatened. This is already worked into the system, a right to life, through the ability to enter an emergency room and receive treatment regardless. Essentially I view health care as a good, not a right. It is a service that is provided through a number of actors including but not limited to doctors, nurses, drug companies, and suppliers of hospital beds and equipment.

How can I as an individual have a right to all this labor and capital investment? I do not, and I should have to pay for these goods and services as anything else. What is worse, I surely do not think that I or anyone else should have our goods seized (notably our cash which we received through productive activities) by the government and redistributed to others who are “entitled” to them. I have no problem subsidizing emergency room visits, but I do have a problem with funding someone’s year-to-year health expenses. How can someone else have a claim to my goods? How can I have a claim to your goods? The government is simply a compilation of individuals, and I believe if I do not have a right to seize your goods in society that government is not above that human standard.

Now if you do believe that health care is ultimately a right and a right that can be met through forced seizure of other’s property then you are beyond the scope of this discussion, and the next thing is to attack me and others for being “cold” and lacking compassion. I believe that some may attack Christians such as myself (okay I don’t believe, I know because I have heard someone call Christian’s “hypocrites” who do not support the health care bill) for taking a stance against universal health care. There is a problem with this attack though. Where in the bible did Jesus advocate using government to redistribute property? Last time I checked he was very anti-government, and ultimately said it is up to us to care for our fellow man. If we weren’t so overburdened with taxes and debt due to the government’s intervention into pretty much every aspect of daily life, maybe, just maybe there would be more money for individuals (voluntarily) to donate to charities on top of cheaper health care? Just a thought.

Medical Marijuana Business Booming in Cali

2009-07-23T15:19:00.004-05:00

The medical marijuana business is booming in California.

This phenomenon interests me for two reasons:

1) I am a big advocate of marijuana decriminalization and ultimately legalization
2) I am interested in entrepreneurial topics and activities

There is serious opportunity to make bank as a supplier of medical marijuana in California. Before the Obama Presidency, suppliers were subject to the risk of federal raids despite the fact that they were legally supplying marijuana to patients who have prescriptions from doctors to purchase marijuana for various health conditions. President Obama has put an end to the federal raids, which really don't make sense. This makes it safer for store owners who sell medical marijuana to grow their own plants without risking the bank in the event of a federal raid. This could improve profitability for many of these shops.

This truly is the first step towards legalization of marijuana. As more and more people realize this drug has medical purposes, and that it is far less harmful than alcohol or tobacco (which is the number one cause of cancer in the United States) they will realize it's silly that we imprison people and deprive them of the freedom to choose what they want to do to their own bodies.

What I find striking is that something that has legitimate medical purposes (increases appetite for chemo patients and those who have anorexia to give just one example) which is sometimes used recreational is illegal while tobacco and alcohol is not. To me personally, besides the whole freedom/nanny state argument, this is one of the strongest arguments for legalization which I can't get past. I absolutely respect the position of those who think alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, etc. should ALL be illegal, but it boggles my mind when people say that marijuana should be illegal, yet when confronted with alcohol and tobacco they believe those should still be legal?

Go ahead and have your cigs and alcohol, but don't persecute those who have different drugs of choice. Legalize it and we solve many problems, most the United States created themselves.

A Good Article about Ron Paul / Fed Audit

2009-07-22T14:40:00.003-05:00

This article originally appeared June 30th on Fox News, but it still can be found on the "House" tab under politics news on Fox News. It's a good article that gives an overview of what is going on as far as the effort to audit the Fed, and what different politicians views are on the issue. Quick read as well.

Medical Mistake Causes Air Force Member to Lose Legs

2009-07-21T14:13:00.004-05:00

This story is very saddening. Colton Read, member of the U.S. Air Force, lost both of his legs because of a mistake by an Air Force general surgeon. Because of an old federal law, the family of Colton cannot sue the military, even though it was entirely human error. He will likely receive somewhere around $800/month the rest of his life for his "medical retirement." This situation is sickening and very unjust.

Heat is on The Federal Reserve

2009-07-21T14:03:00.002-05:00

Today there was a front page article in the Wall Street Journal about Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve, and the heat that is being put on the Fed recently. In this article Ron Paul’s HR1207 and S604, which would allow for a far-reaching audit of the Federal Reserve, are cited as the source of some of this pressure. Bernanke has stressed that the independence of the Federal Reserve is crucial to its ability to function properly.

Unfortunately the past couple decades there has been little questioning of the Federal Reserve in the mainstream. Spurred by Paul, there is a new movement of resentment towards the Fed and its policies. What is really pressuring politicians to sign onto this bill (1207 has over 270 co-sponsors, while 604 has 18) is the grassroots effort behind the movement. People are calling in, emailing, and being confronted by constituents about this issue. Contrary to what the Fed says, this bill would be a far-reaching and revealing audit; not a takeover by politicans.

Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer of New York said, “Anyone who doesn’t like the Fed’s independence should wait until the policians can control it. Then they’ll wish for independence.” To this I say “ah, nah, not likely!” At the very least, politicans are responsible to the voter. Currently, the Fed is far from acocuntable to the public, yet they control the most important aspect of our country, monetary policy. They can destroy our economy like no ones business if they truly wanted to. Our dollar is already doomed to failure as it slowly (and currently rapidly) loses its value. Since there is no backing of anything of value (such as gold) the dollar as well as all other currencies will eventually be worth zero.

With so many people becoming passionate about ending the Federal Reserve we should see a far-reaching education campaign continue to reach across the nation. Ron Paul’s new book, End the Fed, will be coming out this Fall and surely will add gas to the already raging fire. As long as the American public is oblivoius to what the Federal Reserve does, the history behind it, and its purpose, it is easy for the Fed to go on its merry way and to be painted as an “essential” and “important” institution. Not for long. Along with many others, I view it as a “detrimental, unconstitiutonal, and damaging” institution. I hope that, if nothing else, the recent focus on the Fed will motivate you to at least figure out why the heck they do what they do (or what they even do!).

Schiff Set To Run!

2009-07-14T23:43:00.003-05:00

In a video blog posted today by Peter Schiff, President and owner of Euro Pacific Capital who is known for predicting the housing bubble well before it burst, has announced that he plans on running for Senate.

He will run...IF the funding is there. This makes sense, of course, because he arguably is not as well known among primary voters as his competition, and funds can help this in a few ways:

1) Media Attention - If he raises large sums of money for his campaign, the media will definitely cover this fact, giving him exposure to potential voters.

2) Momentum - Raising funds can work wonders for a campaign. The Ron Paul Presidential campaign raised $4 and $6 million respectively in its two money bombs. Ask anyone who took part in this and they will tell you it really got them pumped and ready to go.

3) Spending funds on advertising will give Schiff more exposure to potential voters, which is the ultimate goal.

He said he will need at least $20 million to win the campaign. He will only run if the funding is there, and he plans on running to win. If you listen in the video, it is pretty obvious this guy does not waste his time, nor does he plan to waste contributors capital on a campaign that is anything less than a campaign to win.

A few months back, before I even followed Schiff closely or had read either of his books (which I know have) I made a facebook group challenging people to match my $20 donation to his campaign. There are now over 160 people in this group. Though it's not a TON of money, it sure as heck is a start. I would love to see someone make a money bomb similar to the August 20th Rand Paul money bomb where we will attempt to raise over $1 million in one day. Schiff and Paul both need our support, and I hope others will join me in donating whatever they can (even $5 would help) towards their campaigns. Oh, and of course, if he decides that the funding just isn't there, he will refund every dollar you give to his campaign!

So check out his video blog and join the fight for common sense in Washington!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5VbZBpdaKc

Schiff's Campaign Site

'Send a Letter to Franken' Day

2009-07-14T13:52:00.002-05:00

Today everyone at the Daily Paul decided today's target was Senator Al Franken for a fax/email/call bomb regarding S604 (which is the Senate version of HR1207). This bill would allow a full audit of the Federal Reserve, which currently enjoys the ability to keep information about their dealings from the public. Now, since I truly do believe the Federal Reserve was largely to blame for the economic crisis we are now in (read Tom Woods The Meltdown), I am very excited about the possibility of an audit. HR1207 has 260 co-sponsors from both parties, and now if we can get support going in the Senate this could be huge.

Below is my letter to my Senator Al Franken. If you are pissed off about the economic situation our nation is now in, and especially if you live in Minnesota, I would highly recommend sending Al Franken a letter similar to mine. Even if you don't know anything about the Federal Reserve or have never heard someone blame the Fed for the economic crisis we now find ourselves in, can more transparency really hurt?

info@franken.senate.gov

---

Senator Franken,

Congratulations on FINALLY getting sworn into office! I'm sure you will do a fine job on Capitol Hill representing all of us Minnesotans.

My name is David Carlson and I live in Woodbury, Minnesota and go to school at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul. What I wanted to bring to your attention is S604, the partner bill of HR1207. This bill would allow for a full audit of the Federal Reserve by the GAO. All Americans would then be able to see this audit.

This is important to me because the Federal Reserve has so much power currently over our country. They control the dollar, which is the lifeblood of our economy. Regardless of whether you believe they are making the "correct" moves or not, I as well as many other Minnesotans would appreciate this important power check on the Fed.

HR1207 has enjoyed wide bi-partisan support with 260 co-sponsors. S604 currently has eight, and nothing could make me more proud than to have our new Senator signing onto the bill. It would be a sign of bi-partisanship on your part and proof that when you talk about transparancy, you truly mean it.

Thank you for your time, and make Minnesota proud.

-David Carlson

---

The Man Who Predicted the Crisis

2009-07-13T13:32:00.004-05:00

Recently I have read both books Peter Schiff has written. The first I read was The Little Book of Bull Moves in Bear Markets which is his most recent followed by Crash Proof which he wrote in 2006 predicting the economic meltdown we are now experiencing. I also found out that Crash Proof 2.0 is available for pre-order, and I can’t wait to get my hands on it.

I first heard about Peter Schiff when I saw the video of the economist Art Laffer laughing at Schiff explaining we are in the midst of a housing bubble. Laffer is likely regretting this encounter, as he has now lost a lot of the credibility he built up as an economic advisor to Reagan. But really what brought me to reading Schiff’s books has been the past year or so when I have been very interested in Ron Paul and his political positions. I don’t think it was a coincidence.

Schiff is the President of Euro Pacific Capital, a brokerage company that specializes in foreign investments. Their motto is "Because there's a bull market somewhere.” What I found profound about his investment strategies is that he looks above and beyond what other advisors look at. What he looks at is truly a global perspective. His future predictions are both alarming and urgent.

In his books he talks about how the dollar will inevitably come crashing down. What this means for America is very important. For everyone who has their wealth in the dollar, either through domestic investments, cash, bonds, etc. they will see their purchasing power diminish greatly. Currently, the dollar is the global reserve currency. If other nations (such as China) decide that the debt we have been selling them is worthless and they will not be repaid, there could be a “dollar rush.” Imagine if all those dollars held in reserves came rushing back to the United States. Talk about inflation!

The winners are going to be those who have their investments in countries that will see favorable results from this dollar rush and ultimate crash. Imagine two individuals, one with his million dollars invested abroad and in currencies that will gain against the dollar, and another who has a million dollars in just that, dollars. If the dollar loses half its value, the first investor will see gains in whatever currency they are invested in while the second investor will have only half the purchasing power he used to have. In today’s day and age you don’t have to BE abroad to invest abroad. These two individuals could be neighbors who originally had the same purchasing power but now have significantly different purchasing power, all because of the country and currency their wealth was invested in.

This is just the tip of the iceberg and an attempt to explain what Schiff is getting at. I would highly recommend reading his books and deciding for you whether what he is saying makes sense. He has a collection of commentaries and video blogs at Europac.net that you can sift through as well.

To me, at least, it is no mystery why Ron Paul picked Schiff as one of his economic advisors to his recent Presidential Campaign.

The Fourth of July

2009-07-04T11:12:00.005-05:00

When I think of the Fourth of July, I think of fireworks, grilling, family, friends, and the colors red white and blue. But most importantly I look back to the founding of our great nation. What makes us so great and set apart? I believe it is because this nation was founded on principles of freedom, liberty, and the power of the individual to pursue his happiness.

The founders believed that there were some rights that government could not take away from us. These natural rights include the right to choose and practice our religion, the right to keep and bear arms for our own protection (both against thieves and criminals and against tyrannical government), and freedom of speech just to name a few. The Constitution may not be perfect, but it serves its purpose well: to protect individuals against both the government and the majority.

The Constitution, being an imperfect document, also allows for change. Many point out the fact that slavery was allowed under the Constitution. The document allowed for abolition of slavery, though, through an amendment. This is an awful part of our history that I know many wish never had happened, but I am thankful that the founders put a system in place that could right these wrongs. Women’s rights are another issue, but again the Constitution allows for proper change when it comes to issues such as these.

Despite its flaws, the Constitution is possibly the most important document in political history. So today we celebrate the Fourth of July and the courage of the founding fathers to stand up to tyrannical government and create a government that is based on the individual, free market economics, property rights, and extremely limited government. We look to these ideals, and though we have strayed FAR from the government that our founders envisioned, I believe that we can and will return to these ideals.

Have a great fourth everyone, and remember WHY our nation is great!

John McCain supports Cap and Tax

2009-07-03T11:31:00.002-05:00

Ron Paul once said that John McCain knows nothing about economics. Without fail, Senator McCain proves to us that this is all too true. Somehow I did not see this video, but in February 2008 McCain said that cap and trade would stimulate green jobs. At what expense? My own Congresswoman Michele Bachmann hosted cap and trade forums last spring where it was made clear that cap and trade was simply just a tax. It is simply amazing that we could have nominated such a neo-con to represent the GOP! As if Bush was not enough, we had a candidate who endorses a huge tax and regulatory increase in the guise of helping fight global warming. What a joke!

I can’t help but agree with Peter Schiff. He said that unfortunately Obama was the lesser of the two evils between the two Presidential candidates. His reason? McCain would be viewed as a “free market” president. We all know he is FAR from a free market and limited government representative. Since he would have likely continued the Bush interventionist economic policies which will ultimately fail, the free market would take an undeserved but somewhat lethal hit from four years under McCain. After that forget it, the Democrats would have taken power for the next two decades.

Besides his pro-life stance, what did people see in this guy? I would love to see a more intensified primary challenge. His vote for the bailout should be career-ending.

The Awful Eight: Environment Bill Passes Thanks To 8 Republicans

2009-06-27T11:54:00.003-05:00

Yesterday H.R. 2454 passed by a final vote of 219-212 passed the House of Representatives. Only eight Republicans voted in favor of this bill. If these eight Republicans had voted against the bill, this massive tax increase would have been shot down. But sure enough, it passed the House and is headed to the Senate. With the large majority Democrats boast in the Senate, I just don’t see this bill being voted out.

What is possibly the most disturbing part of this bill is the fact that nobody could have possibly read the 300 plus page amendment that was added to the bill at 3 a.m. Friday morning. House minority Leader John Boehner pointed out the many ludicrous additions found in this amendment.

The energy bill will surely join the Patriot Act and the recent stimulus bill as the most recent member of a not-so-exclusive club. This club is made up of massive measures passed in a hurry before it was physically possible for the members to have read and understood the bill.

We have got to start holding our elected representatives to a higher standard. If not just for the flawed reasoning among many other serious problems with this bill, then at least reading the bill should have been a required prerequisite before voting a bill into law. I would applaud representatives from both sides of the aisle who state they can’t consciously and honestly vote for a bill that they have not had enough time to read and fully understand. All the implications of a bill should be taken into consideration before a representative can vote in favor of it; otherwise a no vote should be the standard.

This cap and trade “clean energy” bill is simply going to burden our economy in a time when over regulation and government policies have already tanked our economy. China, India, and all other developed countries surely applaud yesterday’s passage, as they gain yet another leg up on the United States in the global economy. Worse yet, this bill does NOTHING to fight global warming, not even bringing down the global temperature by half a percent Fahrenheit by 2050! Surely you would need to review the science and reasoning of such a massive proposition if you were going to vote it into law? Apparently this common sense does not apply to over two hundred elected representatives who passed the measure.

There is no excuse for the eight Republicans to have voted for passage. There is simply none! Any argument they can present in favor of the bill ultimately is trumped by the fact they surely could not have a grasp of the full implications of the bill since they did not read it, let alone process the information.

Here is what I like to call the “awful eight.” Their vote yesterday should result in nothing short of the end of their political career

Bono Mack (CA)
Castle (DE)
Kirk (IL)
Lance (NJ)
Lobiondo (NJ)
McHugh (NY)
Reichert (WA)
Chris Smith (NJ)

Fall From Grace: Mark Sanford

2009-06-25T19:20:00.004-05:00

My personal favorite choice for the Republican Presidential candidate for 2012 was none other than South Carolina's Mark Sanford. As most of you know, he admitted to an extra-marital affair with a woman from Argentina. He even disappeared for a few days last weekend to meet up with her.

I was all set to do anything I could to get this guy in office, starting with the Republican nomination. Now I truly have no idea who I will get behind. Granted it is early, but I would hate to go through another Presidential election cycle where I can't get behind the Republican "conservative party" nominee.

Just look at our last nominee, McCain. Clueless on economics, a strong believer in our imperialistic foreign policy, supportive of the war on drugs, and probably incapable of explaining why the Federal Reserve should be abolished. Heck, he voted for the bailout! The economic policies that he supports are literally destroying America. In The little book of bull moves in bear markets Peter Schiff explains that if McCain had won the election, the same economic policies would have been implemented, and the media would crucify capitalism as an utter failure, despite the fact McCain is FAR from a free market supporter. Now at least we can fully blame the failure of the President's economic policies as interventionist.

Sanford was as free market as the GOP had (not counting Ron Paul, of course). Now his entire career is tainted and it would be a mistake to run him against Obama. Who do we run? I can compromise on issues (I'm a big supporter of Michele Bachmann, despite the fact she would probably never vote for bills legalizing marijuana or online poker, for example) and Sanford I was willing to compromise on some issues because he was such a free market supporter. We'll have to see what field of candidates run for the GOP nomination, and go from there.

Disturbing Stories - ABC working for Obama and “TeddyCare”

2009-06-18T11:30:00.000-05:00

So there are two very disturbing new stories I came across today, and I just have to share them.

The first news story originated on The Drudge Report. Basically, on June 24th programming will indirectly (or directly, depending how you look at it) be given over to the Obama Administration for an hour to push the Democratic health care agenda. Charlie Gibson will be airing World News from the White House and it will be talking specifically about health care reform. Problem is, there will be no representation from a free market health care advocate, just the socialized health care side. Yikes! Luckily Lost (the best show on television) will not be back until winter so I can join in the boycott of ABC.

The second news article goes along with the first: Socialized health care. Now being called “TeddyCare” after Ted Kennedy, this scary piece of legislation (not yet an official bill) should make anyone who loves liberty and freedom quite literally freak out. This proposed piece of legislation would include a federal database of medical records. What the author of this article is trying to get at is this health care system would ultimately be mandatory. Besides that, all information shared at a doctor’s meeting would be put into the database. Admitting something like “I smoked marijuana ten years ago” could put you in jeopardy of losing gun rights. Grandpa has Alzheimer’s? His antique gun collection would be taken away. As a libertarian, this type of stuff really makes me cringe.

So there are your two disturbing stories for today. It is unfortunate that we have gone this far in the direction of socialism.

Liberty Candidates Gearing up for Congressional Runs

2009-06-16T09:57:00.001-05:00

Last fall I followed the B.J. Lawson campaign daily. Lawson is what I like to call a “liberty candidate.” To me, a liberty candidate is a candidate who promotes such things as free market (Austrian) economics, sound monetary policy, a foreign policy of freedom, and is generally libertarian-leaning. Last fall, Lawson became the first candidate I have ever donated money to. This was the least I could do for someone who is willing to stand up to the liberal and neo-con political machine that runs Washington.

I saw an article on Liberty Maven that said Lawson is gearing up for another run. There is no official announcement, but I hope this is true. The current Representative of North Carolina’s 4th District is Democrat David Price. A quick look at some of the stances Price has on issues should be enough for anyone to become excited about a possible liberty candidate knocking Price out of office.

Next year will be different. There is not just one liberty candidate who is running. Besides Lawson, there are three more that are making runs. Rand Paul, son of Ron Paul, will be running for Senator of Kentucky. Adam Kokesh will be running for House of Representatives out in New Mexico. Also, RJ Harris will be running for House of Representatives in Oklahoma. These are three solid liberty candidates whose campaigns I will be following very closely for the next 14 plus months.

In a recent interview with The Motor Home Diaries, Ron Paul makes a statement that a few extra people in Congress will help, but that the mindset of Americans as a whole must be changed. I truly do believe that getting a few extra liberty-minded individuals into Congress will help change the mindset of Americans. If you look at the Libertarian Party, the problem does not necessarily lie with their ideology, but their lack of elected representatives. Ron Paul has made the impact he has by working within the Republican Party. Sure he often is in disagreement with the party line, but the impact he has made is phenomenal. I think that not only will these campaigns bring libertarian ideas into the mainstream, but if these candidates do in fact make it in office it is just the tip of the iceberg for the liberty movement.

Online Poker and Individual Responsibility

2009-06-12T16:44:00.002-05:00

Unless you have been paying close attention to the online poker/gambling battle going on in the United States, you might have missed two big events that happened recently.

The first is the freezing of $34 million in assets that belong to online poker players by the U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York. There was an article relating to this in today’s Wall Street Journal. This made me realize that the attempt by Minnesota to outlaw online gambling is a much smaller concern in retrospect than actual asset freezes. The second event was that Internet Service Providers dropped a federal lawsuit against a senior state law enforcement official Monday after he withdrew requests that the service providers block access to hundreds of online gambling sites. So it seems as though the online gambling issue in Minnesota, at least for now, should die.

Unfortunately this issue has become so messy that its hard to know who is right. On one hand, we have states that “kind of” pursue it but then eventually back down but still maintain that it is “illegal.” Then we have the federal government who do not try to make it cut and dry illegal, but instead go after banks or the middle men when it comes to transactions between the online sites and the consumer.

Though I almost always disagree with Representative Barney Frank, I do applaud him for introducing a bill that would legalize and regulate online poker. He is absolutely correct in his statement that there is a huge market (The Poker Player’s Alliance claims more than 10 million Americans engage in online poker each year) that should not be ignored. If Conservatives are worried about it encouraging gambling, what they should be concerned about is how easy it is for an under aged individual to get money on the site. I was on Pokerstars at age 16 and had no problem immediately getting cash into my account.

Let’s start promoting individual responsibility in this country and stop the nanny state where this logic that somehow government should decide for us what activities we can or cannot engage. When an individual engages in poker (or drinking, or smoking) they bear the full consequences of that action. Government is not above the individual, and never could be.

The Time to Stop Socialized Medicine is NOW

2009-06-09T09:51:00.002-05:00

Dr. Gratzer, a physician and a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute wrote a great Editorial for the Wall Street Journal today. This is a short and sweet article that explains how as we rush to socialize our healthcare countries such as Canada and the U.K. are moving in the opposite direction, and for good reason.

One of the most important things to remember when debating whether or not the United States should embrace "universal" health care is the difference between a system that has somewhat private healthcare (our current system, though it is in no way a free market system) and a system that is socialized and government-run. The systems simply are not the same. There will be countless cases in a universal health care system where an individual will literally 'wait to death.' Something that would be treated in the current system will be delayed and delayed in a universal health care system. There is no getting around this fact, as many cases have been documented in Canada and the U.K.

A while back I watched Sicko, Michael Moore's documentary that promotes universal health care. At first it sounded like a great idea! Everyone getting treated, and treated well! But the real picture just isn't that rosy. I can't blame Moore for leaving out different aspects of the debate such as funding, wait lists, government intrusion into patient's choice, etc. since it was in fact a presentation of one side of the argument, as should have been expected. All I ask is that you stop and think about whether this is the right road for America to go down before embracing the idea of a Utopian universal health care system.

The President and War

2009-06-08T18:19:00.000-05:00

If you asked the average American whether or not the President of the United States has the power to wage a war against another nation, I truly believe that many would say yes. Can you blame them? Look at the most recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. There was no declaration of war, yet we have been in both of these countries for over 5 years. A declaration of war by the legislature is a necessary check on the executive branch.

Senate candidate Rand Paul (Republican - Kentucky) has stated on his campaign site possibly the best summary of war powers I have seen:

The Constitution explicitly grants Congress the power to declare war. As James Madison wrote, “The Constitution supposes, what history demonstrates, that the executive is the power most prone to war. The Constitution has, therefore, with studied care vested that power in the legislature."

However, in the face of an imminent nuclear attack or in response to an assault, the executive [Presidential] branch can and should make military responses without Congressional authority. After 911, an immediate raid by 10,000 Special Forces on camps in Afghanistan would have been justified by the executive, even if the decision was made in secrecy.

But, any military action that takes more than a few days or weeks to organize and is directed against a country's government should require a declaration of war. When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, Congress met and declared war within 24hrs.

Congress has had plenty of time to declare war on Afghanistan and Iraq. As a member of Congress, Dr. Rand Paul would have demanded and voted in the affirmative for a declaration of war with Afghanistan. He would demand and voted against a declaration of war with Iraq.

To the average individual, this may seem like a minor issue, if not irrelevent to their lives. But one must realize the extreme costs, both in human lives and cold hard cash, as well as possibilities of future repercussions due to our actions (see blowback). I urge you to at least keep this in mind and question the actions of both our Presidents and Congress when you get in a debate about whether or not war is just. The question should be: did we even follow the Constitution when we got involved in the war in the first place?

The Fountainhead: A Challenging Philosophy

2009-06-05T16:07:00.003-05:00

Last night I finished the book The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand. It was kind of a beast of a book, 700 plus pages, but still nothing like her more well-known masterpiece Atlas Shrugged (which I also plan on reading this summer) which is over 1,200 pages.

I first heard about Ayn Rand when she was mentioned in a newsweek article earlier this year (which had a nonsense theory about how libertarians were to blame for the economic crisis). I found out she was apparently one of the blocks that build up the foundation of libertarian thought. So I figured it would be a good thing to read her novels. This thought was even more re-inforced when I read a Wall Street Journal Op-Ed about how they call interns and young employees "virgins" if they have not read Atlas Shrugged...

So I read The Fountainhead. What has reading this book done to me? Challenged my very notion of life. She once summed up her theory of Objectivism like this:

My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.

It's hard to explain how she was able to transform this theory so perfectly into a work of fiction, but in "The Fountainhead" she did just that. Not only that, the book was not tied together until the final 15-20 pages where one could see exactly how this philosophy relates to every single individual and is reflected in government and collectivism.

What was most challenging about this book is the fact that I know Ayn Rand is an atheist. Before reading the novel, I was aware that Rand was writing from a standpoint that rejected religion. But I also know that there are many who are libertarians who reconcile their faith with this philosophy (Ron Paul being the most notable). The reason I feel a need to reconcile these two views is because it makes so much sense. I am a HUGE believer in the power of the individual, the importance of individual responsibility, and the fact that our nation was founded on the principle of individual freedom. I see the freedom some individuals experience when they can disregard what others think about them, but stick with their convictions. I can picture Ron Paul, the lone voice in the House of Reps for so many years standing alone in his views and convictions.

So, the question comes, how do you reconcile a Christian faith that has stressed the need for submittance to God and man with this philosophy of the individual as a hero? It really is quite the task, and I may never know.

One thing that I know for certain: reading this book and being presented with this philosophy has made me want to learn and understand more about both objectivism and Christianity.

I love the Motor Home Diaries

2009-06-04T22:07:00.003-05:00

You gotta love these guys. Basically they are traveling across the United States in a motor home (named M.A.R.V.) with one purpose: searching for freedom in America. They just posted this funny video where they confront a number of our former Presidents. Check it out:

Follow them on their homepage here or their facebook page here.

In a shocking turn of events, Ron Paul endorses son Rand Paul!

2009-06-04T13:59:00.001-05:00

Dear Friend,

My son, Rand, has helped me campaign since he was 11. He and his brothers and sisters and nieces and nephews have literally knocked on thousands of doors for me.

At the age of 21, Rand debated Phil Gramm in my US Senate race in my stead. During the Presidential election he traveled to ten states giving speeches for me. He appeared on hundreds of radio programs for me. I am grateful for his contribution and very proud of the thoughtful, principled man Rand has become.

So, it is with great enthusiasm that I endorse my son Rand's venture into electoral politics. Rand has formed an exploratory committee to run for Senate in Kentucky. Sending Rand to Washington would be a tremendous victory for the Freedom Movement.

I hope you will join me in supporting Rand in any way you feel comfortable. You can get more information or make a contribution at www.randpaul2010.com

Rand has also established himself as a significant force in Kentucky politics. For fifteen years he has run Kentucky Taxpayers United, a group that rates the state legislature and promotes the Taxpayer Protection Pledge whereby candidates and office holders take a pledge not to raise taxes.

Like me, Rand is a graduate of Duke Medical School. Rand is an eye surgeon, married for eighteen years, and has three children. In addition to politics, he is the founder of the Southern Kentucky Lions Eye Clinic that provides free care for those in need.

I hope you will visit Rand's website, www.randpaul2010.com, and consider supporting him in any way you can.

In Liberty,

Ron Paul

An Unlikely Ally

2009-06-03T13:17:00.003-05:00

The title of this blog is somewhat misleading. Yesterday German Chancellor Angela Merkel publicly spoke out against the powers of central banks. She believes they have gone too far in their interventions of the private market in their attempt to fix the economic problems that are prevalent today.

I say that this is misleading because I am not sure if she would ever support such legislation as an audit of the European Central Bank, or the abolition of such entity. But to much of her credit, she is the lone "world leader" who has spoken out against the central banks. Both President Bush and President Obama support the actions taken by the Federal Reserve here in the United States. With this in mind, I would be very happy if we had a President who would stand up and say "enough!" to the Federal Reserve. But we do not, and they continue to support the central bank despite their unconstitutionality.

Thankfully, not just the American Public are realizing the folly of our system of central banking, but also many Representatives. Ron Paul introduced a bill that would force an audit of the Federal Reserve, H.R. 1207. It now has 182 cosponsors. Paul has called this possibly the most important piece of legislation in his career. One thing I am very excited about is the upcoming release of Paul's book End The Fed. Of all the issues out there, usually a few hours of looking into it one is able to have a basic understanding of what each side of an issue believes. With the Federal Reserve and central banking, it is an issue that is not really given much attention. It is not an issue that has carved out party lines giving it constant attention. But I find myself realizing more and more that this is a huge issue. We have un-elected officials who control our monetary policy, the very lifeblood of what allows our nation to function.

Paul has a way of putting a complicated isuse into simple terms. I'm sure that End the Fed will be no different. Instead of spending hours trying to find relevant information online, do yourself (and your country, children, etc.) a favor and buy this book when it comes out. I look forward to interesting discussions about this issue in the future.

Adam Kokesh to Run For Congress!

2009-05-01T10:05:00.002-05:00

This morning Adam Kokesh published a letter to supporters. He is now forming the Kokesh for Congress Exploratory Committee. Adam is from Santa Fe, New Mexico and has been very active in the fight for liberty, particularly in IVAW Iraq Veterans Against the War. If he does choose to run, I pledge $20 (anyone willing to match me?).

This is looking to be a very exciting election cycle in 2010 with possible/likely runs by Adam Kokesh, Peter Schiff, Rand Paul, and RJ Harris. Three of these four could be for Senate seats.

Here is the full letter from Adam:

My fellow patriots,

Thank you for all you have done to help me in my journey over the past years. It has been an honor to stand shoulder to shoulder with you. Slowly but surely, in our struggle for freedom from authoritarianism, we are making progress. As long as we continue to hang together, we will not hang separately!

After leaving the Marine Corps, I joined the monumental fight to end the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, bring our troops home to defend America, and restore a Constitutional foreign policy. Having won the public to our side, it is time we take the fight to the capitol, to the real enemies of the Constitution. Posturing against war while voting to fund it is unacceptable! Tragically, we still have a government that behaves like it owns us, rather than serves us.

Since I was first politically active, people have been encouraging me to run for Congress, including a recent effort to “draft” me to run (draftkokesh.com). We need rallying points to keep our movement invigorated and growing, and if a run for Congress from my home town of Santa Fe can serve as one, I will gladly step up. In that spirit, I am excited to announce the formation of the Kokesh for Congress Exploratory Committee.

While I am asking for your financial support in this effort, I want to make it clear that I am willing to make the personal sacrifices necessary to raise the standard of our national leadership. If elected, I will not accept the Congressional salary of approximately $170,000, but only the national average income. It is unbearable in these difficult times, for Congress to tell the American people what is best for us economically while they vote themselves another pay raise and burden our children with impossible debt. Enough is enough!

There is a temporary website up now at kokeshforcongress.com. Please sign up and donate there as we prepare for the launch of a complete site on June 1st.

It is time once again to draw the line between patriots and loyalists. I am a patriot because I am committed to the ideals of liberty and equality this country is destined to achieve, loyal to no false authority. I know that much more than political resistance is required to achieve a paradigm shift, but we can do no wrong standing up for what we know to be morally right. Regardless of my decision, I remain eternally committed to the cause of liberty.

Love, faith, respect,

Adam Kokesh

I Agree With the Obama Administration!

2009-04-30T12:14:00.003-05:00

In today's Wall Street Journal, there was an article written by Gary Fields titled Shorter Sentences Sought for Crack. The gist of the article is that the Obama Administration has told Congress that they favor equal penalties for crack and powder cocaine. Right now if you have five hundred grams of crack cocaine on you, you will be given a minimum sentence of five years. The same minimum goes for those who have only five grams on them.

I applaud the Obama Administration in this step towards equality (and towards what I believe should be the ultimate goal, ending the failed war on drugs). Some teenager may have just got in with the wrong crowd and be caught with five or six grams of crack cocaine, yet would be given that five year minimum prison sentence. Does that really make sense?

One statistic that is used in the article is the fact that more than 52% of the federal prison systems 204,000 inmates are serving time for drug crimes. Worth the taxpayer dollars? I would disagree. Plus, I see the current prison system as dysfunctional and grossly ineffective.

So here it is: I support this decision, President Obama! I don't get to say it often, but I will say it whenever I have reason to.

Bye Bye Arlen!

2009-04-28T12:14:00.004-05:00

Arlen Specter, Senator from Pennsylvania, switched to the Democratic Party today. Good riddance!!!! He was FAR from Conservative.

I understand that Senators are usually a lot more centrist than Representatives, since they must represent the wide range of views of their home state. But there is a fundamental issue when a Senator is so centrist/left that they can switch parties without really altering their views at all. What I mean by this is that I believe it didn't matter which party he was a part of, that he will probably vote the same way regardless of his party line.

Sadly, he fits in much better with the Democrats.

The Conservative Party, the Republicans, need to and are becoming the party of fiscal discipline. Specter was one of three Senate Republicans who approved of the stimulus bill and allowed it to be passed. This bill was the epitome of big government spending. Personally, I refuse to support any candidate who votes for fiscally irresponsible and economically damaging bills such as the bailout and the stimulus. I followed through by not voting for Norm Coleman (I know I know look where that got us, been there had that debate).

But all in all, I am quite pleased with Specter switching parties. I look forward to the Senate race in a couple years where the Republican Party will have a solid candidate in Pat Toomey.

Consider joining me in donating $20 to his campaign when the time comes!

Save the Polar Bears!

2009-04-24T14:18:00.003-05:00

At work one day a few months back I got into a discussion about global warming with a co-worker. They gave a very simple and understandable example of how environmental legislation can and will create unprecedented intrusions into the private lives of citizens.

First, one must take note of the words used in the environmental debate. The enivros as I like to call them (think Al Gore) are moving away from using the term "global warming," and for good reason. Think about it: if we start experiencing cooler weather (as we have the past couple years) and this trend continues, their arguments will be hurt.

Instead the new phrase to use is "climate change."

How ironic that we are concerned about climate change, since climate has been changing since the beginning of time! This is just a tactic to keep the issue on the table...forever.

But here is the story you need to hear. The polar bear was added to the endangered species list last May, the first species to be put on the list due primarily due to "global warming" concerns. "So what" one might say. But here is how the far left enviros could use this event to support a green agenda that would intrude into our lives and increase taxes.

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) which was passed in the 1970s could open up for government to put restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions, or tax these emissions heavily based on the fact that they are contributing towards making an endangered species extinct. Anything and everything that emits greenhouse gases could be taxed.

Some on the left might say this logic is ridiculous and nothing of the sort would ever happen. All I have to say to that is: cap and trade. End of Story.

Bachmann on Glenn Beck

2009-04-21T23:24:00.002-05:00

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann was on Glenn Beck today. She truly is a taxpayer's best friend. Check it out:

My View on Gay Marriage

2009-04-20T14:34:00.006-05:00

Last night Perez Hilton asked Miss California, Carrie Prejean, whether or not she thought that gay marriage should be legalized. Here's the clip.

First of all, what the heck? A JUDGE of the competition asks for a contestant's view on an issue he clearly is totally emotionally involved in. He obviously expects the candidate to spout his view, since he IS the judge. But nope she was not going to be used like that, and told truthfully what she thought regardless of the ramifications of her answer.

This got me thinking about marriage legislation and the government. What does marriage mean to the government? You basically register with the government and you get a piece of paper, your marriage certificate. You also get certain legal rights such as being able to be in the hospital room of your spouse as well as some tax implications.

Morally, many Christians believe that gay marriage is wrong. There are a number of verses in the bible which point out that argument. This issue has divided the country, with some calling for a Constitutional amendment barring same-sex couples from becoming married and defining marriage as one man and one woman.

Here's the problem: married couples are given more rights than unmarried couples, some of which were stated above. How do you reconcile this clearly unequal status in the government's eyes as well as stand up for your morals.

My Standing

Why is the government even in the business of marriage? Why are they not certifying confirmations, baptisms, bar-mitzvah's, and more? Marriage is much more than a piece of paper and a standing in the government's eyes. Can't two people love each other and be very close if they are of the same sex? Obviously the answer is yes, as many same-sex couples ARE obviously in love with each other. Should they not have the convenience of joint tax returns as well as be able to be at the other's dying bedside?

Get the government OUT of marriage. Allow "registration" of "unions" for both man and woman couples AND same-sex couples. Allow the church to deal with the issue on a level playing field. If a same-sex couple gets married in a formal ceremony, your issue should not be with the government but with the minister who gave the ceremony. The government is not going to stop any same-sex couples from becoming married, it just won't happen. There will always be some state with legalized marriage. What is almost laughable is the fact the couple can be married in one state but not in the other.

Legislating marriage is legislating morality, and the problem is people have different levels of morality. There are some laws that pertain to morality that are meant to protect one person or the other, such as young children from sexual predators, but this is truly a situation where there is not a victim.

After that somewhat serious blog post, I thought I'd lighten the mood with this: best man fail :P

BJ Lawson speaking at the Raleigh Tea Party

2009-04-19T16:39:00.003-05:00

I blogged often about BJ Lawson during the last campaign cycle. I am holding out hope he will run again in either 2010 or 2012 for the House of Reps. Check out this video of him at the tea party in Raleigh this past Wednesday:

Minnesota Representatives/Senators love taxes

2009-04-10T15:57:00.002-05:00

The National Taxpayers Union rates members of Congress annually and gives them a grade which is determined by their voting record and how often they voted in the interest of taxpayers.

Minnesota failed miserably.

As far as representatives were concerned, Michele Bachmann is the ONLY representative who received an A with an 81%. John Kline received a B- with a 61% and Jim Ramstad a C- with 43%.

Keith Ellison, Betty McCollum, Jim Oberstar, Collin Peterson, and Tim Walz all received an F. Collin Peterson ranked the highest of this group, with a 21%.

The Senators were no better. Amy Klobuchar received an embarrasing but expected 4%, while the "Conservative" Republican Norm Coleman received a D with only 31%.

The election is over and I hate to revive this point, but this just re-affirmed my belief that I did the right thing by NOT voting for Norm Coleman. I support very few of the positions he has shown to support in his previous term, and the 31% rating he got just shows that he was far from fiscally conservative.

On a lighter note, Michele Bachmann received a very high score. She is truly a fiscal conservative who is representing the Minnesota taxpayer at a time when few Minnesota politicians (Democrats and Republicans alike) seem to be.

Man detained and harassed at airport for carrying cash

2009-04-08T00:07:00.004-05:00

Thank you Transportation and Security Administration! You are doing so much to protect us! A man (from the Campaign For Liberty) is detained by the TSA for carrying cash in the airport and then interrogated. All Steve (the detained) did was constantly ask if they had the legal authority to do what they were doing.

This video has gone viral with over 200,000 views after a little more than a week. Just another example of abuse by the TSA.

Again, thank you TSA. So much. Keep up the good work.

Political I.Q.

2009-04-05T21:52:00.001-05:00

I recently finished an excellent book Increase your Financial I.Q. by Robert Kiyosaki. One theme that he re-iterates over and over (as well as in other books) is the lack of financial I.Q. today. Many people just trust their money to people such as financial planners and mutual fund managers to manage their money instead of deal with it themselves. He explains that the reason why more people are not wealthy is because of their lack of financial knowledge.

Granted, it does take time and effort to become knowledgeable about finances, but with something as important as wealth and management of our wealth why do many put it on the back burner and make no effort to increase their knowledge of financial matters? Well, I will let you ponder that yourself but the point I want to make is that most people have a very small political I.Q. A friend of mine recently helped with both the Franken and Obama campaigns last fall becoming quite active with the campaign. What I find amazing is that they do not know the difference between the Keynesian and Supply-side economic camps. They do not understand that underlying these contrasting agendas is an economic belief that we can spend ourselves out of a recession versus creating incentives to grow the economy.

Besides that, how many people vote based on shallow beliefs? I would bet many vote Democratic because their parents are Democrats or Republican because their parents are Republican without a second thought. Others might believe restricting gun ownership will solve violence problems despite the fact that the second amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. Most people are likely unaware that the Federal Reserve is a private bank and not a part of the government, yet has control of the monetary policies of the United States. Besides this, many do not know what the Constitution says and how the government has overstepped the Constitution.

I know someone (actually, multiple persons) who voted for Obama for his economic policies. I can guarantee you that most of these people do not understand his economic policies, nor the fundamentals of Keynesian economics (versus Supply side and Austrian). Now I am not saying that you need to know everything about every candidate and political issue, but it is important to have a political I.Q. in the same way it is important to have a strong Financial I.Q. Some may be overwhelmed by politics and feel it is beyond their understanding. Let me ask you this: If you were trying to make a million dollars in one year with only $1,000 to work with, would you not feel overwhelmed and defeated? The important thing is to simply start. Read a political book that you would not normally read. Expose yourself to new ideas. Focus on one issue and try to have a general understanding (The War on Drugs is a great place to start – very interesting subject!) and then move on to another issue.

You will be surprised how applicable a political I.Q. is to your life. Here’s one way: the government will probably in one tax or another take over/nearly half of whatever income you take in and spend it on primarily unconstitutional and wasteful things. So spend a little time here and there improving your political I.Q. It can only help you.

Ron Paul's Weekly Blog calls for an end to War on Drugs

2009-03-30T16:16:00.001-05:00

Check out Ron Paul's weekly blog where he calls for an end to the War on Drugs!

Obama - legalizing marijuana not a good strategy to grow economy

2009-03-27T13:38:00.006-05:00

Yesterday President Obama laughed at those who have consistently been making it clear on change.org that they want him to address marijuana legalization.

Notice how he 'answers' the question by saying he does not think it is a good strategy for growing our economy. He does not say that it would cause too many social ills or it was addictive or any of the other mainstream reasons for keeping marijuana illegal. Instead he says that he does not think it is a good strategy for growing our economy.

Why not? In fact there has been legislation introduced in such states as California for the legalization of marijuana because it would help the economy through the tax revenue which would help close the gap in their huge budget shortfall. Large taxes on such things as alcohol, tobacco, and gambling have brought in and continue to bring in huge tax revenues. Is it any mystery why Nevada does not have a state income tax?

I'm sorry President Obama, but here's the problem. You don't "think" it's a good strategy to grow the economy, but look at the strategies you are advocating and implementing. There's a growing number of Americans' who are not giving much credit to what you "think" will help the economy. Last time I checked your budget was over $3 trillion dollars and had few tax cuts. Grow the economy with your policies? Good luck with that.

Excellent JFK Martin Luther King and Ron Paul Video

2009-03-27T13:30:00.003-05:00

This is a video that apparently Youtube kept taking down, but has been resurrected. Check it out, it's an amazing video compiled with sound bits from John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and who else but Ron Paul!

Geithner lied to Bachmann

2009-03-26T14:57:00.003-05:00

In my previous post there is a video of Michele Bachmann questioning Geithner and Bernanke about whether or not they would categorically renounce the U.S. moving away from the dollar and going to a global currency (as suggested by China). He said he would renounce that. But soon after, he expressed his openness to a global currency! Too many lies, too much flip-flopping by these 'economic masterminds.' They are destroying our financial system, not repairing it. They are putting the United States more in debt and taxing us through the printing of money.

Change? More of the same failed economic policies as far as I'm concerned. Audit the Fed (better yet abolish it) and cut government spending in half. Please, support candidates in 2010 who are opposed to these harmful Keynesian economic policies!

Bachmann grills Geithner/Bernanke!

2009-03-25T14:55:00.003-05:00

Go Bachmann! Grilling Bernanke and Tim Geithner. I'm in full support of my Congresswoman, and I find all the blogs out there that simply rip on her as a pathetic attempt to marginalize a rising politician.

Adam Kokesh Interview

2009-03-22T14:18:00.003-05:00

Just an interview from a couple days ago of Adam Kokesh, member of IVAW.

Please, Just Watch

2009-03-17T23:56:00.003-05:00

I won't say anything about it. Just watch.

$20 Match Me Campaign

2009-03-17T12:34:00.004-05:00

Yesterday I told a friend (James at http://www.dinksfinance.com) that I was willing to donate $20 to Peter Schiff's Senate Campaign if he were to run. I challenged him to match my contribution, which he agreed. Then I thought what if we could get thousands of people (or even just another handful :P) to match our $20 contribution? This caused me to create a facebook group:

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=71963104896

So if you are on facebook and are willing to match our contributions, please join the group! If you are not on facebook, just make a commitment to match us and that is just as good.

Senate races, actually any political race, can be extremely costly. Senate races run in the millions of dollars. Thousands of donations of $20 can really help fund the campaign, more so than one would be led to believe.

So join me in funding this campaign for Peter Schiff, if not against Chris Dodd.

New Website Launched Yesterday!

2009-03-16T22:50:00.003-05:00

This has nothing to do with politics, but Saturday night (actually Sunday morning) my friend and I launched a website we have been working on for quite a long time, USA Casino Index.

Basically it is an index of every casino in the United States and provides general and gaming information. We plan on adding gaming strategy articles, gambling videos, and a way to post reviews and photos for others to see. I could go on and on about the plans we have for the site, but the main thing is: It's up! We first thought of the idea and bought the domain in June of 08 so you can see how this was quite a process.

Anyway, we would appreciate a visit and some feedback! If you have a blog and want to help me out please throw our link somewhere on your site or in a post. We would greatly appreciate it!

Ron Paul vs. Stephen Baldwin - Larry King - Marijuana Debate

2009-03-13T22:39:00.002-05:00

Ron Paul on CNN debating Stephen Baldwin on whether or not marijuana should be legalized. Great arguments presented here!

Please Pledge Your Support!

2009-03-13T16:30:00.003-05:00

This weekend do yourself (and your country) a huge favor and pledge your support of Rand Paul (Kentucky) and Peter Schiff (Connecticut) for Senate in 2010. These are two individuals who are very fiscally conservative and support small government.

Rand Paul is the son of Ron Paul. Despite not having formal experience with politics, he is ready to run for Senate if current Republican Jim Bunning (now 77 years old) decides not to run.

Peter Schiff is a stock broker and investment adviser who is currently the President of Euro Pacific Capital. This is a man who literally predicted the economic collapse (see video on post two posts down). Peter Schiff was an economic advisor to Ron Paul's Presidential campaign, and has an understanding of economics and finance on a level that few will ever reach.

Let's get these two out on the campaign trail and into office!

Simply scroll down until you see the 'pledge' widgets on the left hand column of this page. Let them know there are people out there who are fed up with the government throwing our dollars down the drain!

Peter Schiff on Fox Business News

2009-03-12T22:11:00.002-05:00

Get to know potential Senate Candidate (and fiscally conservative!) Peter Schiff. Here he is on Fox Business News talking about saving:

Special thanks to The Daily Paul

Art Laffer was wrong! Schiff was Right!

2009-03-10T22:35:00.004-05:00

I have talked a lot about the book The End of Prosperity on this blog, which was written in part by Arthur Laffer. I loved the book, but I must admit, this video shows just how big of a 'jerk' the man is. He talks condescendingly to Peter Schiff (former Ron Paul economic advisor and possible Republican candidate for Senate in 2010).

This video is from August 28, 2006. Who was right? I think it is EXTREMELY obvious. I wouldn't trust you with a dime Art Laffer. Can Peter Schiff PLEASE write a book? Asap??

Ron Paul calling out the Neocons!

2009-03-09T21:37:00.003-05:00

It's unfortunate how the neocons have taken over the Republican Party. They flooded the Bush Administration (Bush himself, Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc.). We are taking the Republican Party back to its roots! I am opposed to the neo-cons who have tainted and taken over the Republican Party. Watch this video, it is a great educational speech by Ron Paul on the neo-cons.

Thanks to the Daily Paul where I first saw this video.

Propping up GM just prolonged the inevitable

2009-03-05T16:45:00.001-06:00

Today the Dow fell close to three hundred points, erasing whatever gains were made in yesterdays up day. The driver of today's fall was due to GM's auditors raising 'substantial doubt' about the ability of GM to survive without declaring bankruptcy.

Is anyone really surprised that the 'loan' given to GM and the propping up of a failing company has come to this? I am not surprised at all. All of the intervention and bailing out and ultimately 'propping up' of different businesses won't stop the inevitable. Look at AIG for another great example. They lost the market value equivalent of the entire McDonald's company in three months!

Some may say, "what about the auto workers? Their pensions are tied up to this company, if they fail what will happen?" Well here's the thing to remember: If a company is having trouble turning a profit, it might have something to do with those billions in pension paychecks they have to pay former employees. Perhaps the union bosses, instead of being mortal enemies of the very company that needs to exist for them to exist, should have taken this into consideration. What if our demands cause this company to fail?

I am not saying that it is entirely due to the unions, but what I am saying is that there are reasons this company is failing and the government is not capable of, nor have the Constitutional rights to do anything about it. This economic intervention needs to stop at some point, and it will not work. We can already see it unraveling!

The markets will move back up, but not until they have reason to. If the government just got the heck out of the way for once, the economic downturn would still be bad, but not nearly as prolonged and enlarged as it is with their intervention.

If you agree with me you won't like this: The White House is 'assuring' the American public they are working around the clock to address the GM problem.

Market does not like Obama's Economic Policies

2009-03-02T14:05:00.003-06:00

Today the Dow opened at it's lowest level in nearly 12 years. It dropped and remains below 7,000. To put this in perspective, if you invested in a Dow index fund 12 years ago expecting a somewhat decent return (4-8%) over time, you would have made 0% interest on your investment as of today. Because a dollar 12 years ago is worth less than a dollar today, you would in actuality have lost on this investment, since it is not keeping up with inflation. Stocks are down across the board and gains made over the past decade are being wiped out in just a few months. This is not good news to anyone who has money in the market, even those who invested conservatively and diversified their holdings.

I expect the Obama Administration to deeply down play the stock market. The last thing they want right now is for their 'success' to be linked to the tanking market. But the funny thing is, as soon as it roars back (whenever that may be) they will be the first to take credit for the upward movement. Don't be fooled, if you credit them with moving the market up you must hold them responsible for the market moving down. The market has reacted negatively to almost every measure the government has made to 'stabilize' and jumpstart the economy. Most recently today news came out that AIG had lost over $60 billion in one quarter. It is expected to receive another injection of around $30 billion, and I can assure you this will not be the last. In correlation to this, you see the Dow dip today. From the Stimulus package, to fears of nationalization, to Timothy Geithner's unveiling of his master plan to fix the economy, we have seen negative reactions in the market.

These bad economic policies are not limited to Obama or the Democrats in Congress. The Federal Reserve Chairman and the Federal Reserve itself has contributed to the tanking market, as well as former Treasury Secretary Paulson. This is not limited to the Democratic Party, either, as many Republicans (including Former President George W. Bush and Former Presidential Candidate John McCain) supported the initial bailout that was the beginning of the string of government intervention policies.

Fortunately, the Republican Party is coming around, for the most part. They made a stand against the 'stimulus' package (except for a few Republican Senators), and we can see a renewed spark of fiscal Conservatism in Republican Governors such as Mark Sanford, Bobby Jindal, among others. The investors and public at large, through the stock market, are showing their disdain for the current economic policies. They are not confident that the actions taken by the government to 'fix' the economy are going to do any good. It falls further with each further intervention. Fiscal Conservatism has been abondoned by both parties, but I can see a spark of hope in the rapid growth of those calling for limited government and fiscal conservatism.

Are we at the point where politicians will take up stances such as abolishing the Federal Reserve, taking on the problem with fiat currency, and discussing the benefits of the gold standard? Not quite. But I wouldn't rule these out as impossibilities in the near future.

Keep the government out of the CEO's pockets!

2009-02-27T14:00:00.004-06:00

Before you write a lengthy response to the title of this blog and accuse me of supporting 'greed' and the 'ultra-rich,' allow me to explain myself.

Big government has led us into a situation that I can't see ending well. Public outcry about excessive executive salary has been going on for years. "Why should they make $1,000,000 and the worker only make $20,000?" "They don't do more than the average worker!" The comments go on and on and on. I think people need to look at this from a totally different perspective instead of believing they are getting jipped or ripped off.

Let's take a look at just a small business. Let's say there is one owner and ten employees. Let's say the owner has stepped away and there is one head manager of the business. The owner is totally non-involved in the day-to-day operations, but obviously keeps tabs on how the business is doing. The owner decides how much the manager and employees make. So we have this established: the owner decides how much the employees of his company gets paid. Fair enough?

Now, a corporation is just a very large business that has many owners. These owners ELECT a board of directors, who then approve compensation of executives among other things. The board of directors answers to the stockholders (the owners). The owners are the ones who are financially linked to the performance of the company, and since it is THEIR business they should decide how much the executives should be compensated.

People who argue about employees being compensated too much really should not be upset about this compensation. The only people who have a credible argument when they complain about executive compensation are those who are stockholders. Further, the stockholder should not expect the government to intervene, or some other third party, as it is their responsibility to vote in directors who have the same opinion of lower executive pay. If someone complains, "Oh, Disney executives make so much money it's just wrong!" Well, are you an owner? If not, then why are you complaining? It is not your operating revenue going to the executives. It is the stockholders' who could be getting that money in dividends.

But of course, people turn to the government to solve this 'problem.' I personally do not see the problem. If the shareholders would rather pay executives extreme amounts of dollars for their service instead of receiving that extra revenue in dividends, then what is the 'problem'? So we have all these people complaining about executive compensation most likely with the false notion that if the executives did not get paid as much that it would go back to the employees. But it won't go back to the employees in the form of higher wages. It will go to the owners!

Now we have this strange situation where the government has injected money into companies, which has caused two things: 1) Dilution of stocks 2) Government having 'stakes' in companies. Now with the government owning these stakes they feel like they're influence must be felt, so they want to cap executive compensation. I believe people think that after this happens that 'working class' wages will rise. As I said previously, this is not what is going to happen.

Once again, government intervention has made a mess of things in the private market. Let's hope that enough Americans find the common sense to see the false premise of the war against executive compensation.

Bobby Jindal's Response to Obama

2009-02-25T14:10:00.004-06:00

Below is Bobby Jindal's response last night to President Bush. Presidential Material? That is yet to be seen. Luckily for him, he has a few years.

Part 1

Part 2

"Not because I believe in bigger government, I don't." - Obama

2009-02-24T19:38:00.008-06:00

As many of you know, Obama made his first address to Congress tonight. This address was concentrated nearly entirely on the economy. He started out by talking about the sorry state of our economy, and how it is affecting everyone either directly or indirectly. He reiterated the point that America will prevail and recover. I don't doubt that we will prevail and recover, but not because of Keynesian economic policies that the Democratic Party is implementing. Not because of the spending, bailing out, and intervention of the Federal Government.

He criticizes CEO's for taking taxpayer money and then flying in private jets and padding their balance sheets. He said that those days are over. Instead of applauding a governmental plan that will now limit the spending of the top executives of companies, we should be asking: Why are these banks getting taxpayer money anyway? And how can the federal government expect a company to change its ways when they have just set a precedent of bailing out any failing bank as long as they are 'too big to fail?' Instead of trying to control these companies and giving them taxpayer money, the free market would force them to make changes or simply fail. Instead of having a job as a CEO, they will be out looking for jobs with the rest of the employees who have lost their job. The top executives and board of directors should answer to stockholders (the owners of the company) instead of the federal government who is fatally inefficient and ineffective.

He rejects the notion that government's role does not include intervening to bring the country out of a recession. He is basically saying, I reject supply-side economics and I approve of Keynesian economic policy. When has Keynesian economic policies ever worked? It prolonged the depression of the last 20's into the 30's, and it will prolong this depression as well.

A few comments concerning the address:

Obama said we need to 'take responsibility for our future once more.' How is spending money that we surely cannot pay back for years to come taking responsibility of our future? Think about it: we just passed a spending bill that cost nearly a trillion dollars even though our nation is deeply in debt. We are the biggest debtor nation in the world. Our country is deeply in debt, and instead of drastically cutting spending we are drastically increasing it.

"We import more oil today than ever before" - Drill Alaska and offshore, that would help us move towards a more independent America.

Our schools are not preparing our children to compete in the global economy - School vouchers would give parents choices for their children, increase competition, and therefore increase the quality of our education. Why not give it a chance? Clearly our current system is not working effectively.

Energy Policy - He wants to put a cap-and-trade system on carbon emissions. This is not going to help promote business, but make business more expensive. As if our extremely high corporate tax isn't enough to drive business out of the country, this will surely make America even less attractive for business.

Higher Education - He said he wants every American to go to at least one year of higher education. This simply is not possible. Not everyone needs to go to college; it does not make sense for everyone to go to college. I point to Michael Powell's article "College is Overrated," where an argument is made against higher education. Also, he foreshadowed the inevitable push we will see within the next two years where service for school is going to be grandfathered in, eventually resulting in mandatory service for all 18-25 year olds.

"Not because I believe in bigger government, I don't." - Ironic. How can he say that? Most everything he supports results in bigger government.

After listening to this address, the sharp contrast between Obama's policy and true conservative policy could not be more clear. There was very little I heard during this address that I truly agreed with. The liberal agenda is in very sharp contrast to the cause of liberty. Though the current policy of the Federal Government is in such opposition to the cause of Liberty, I see hope in the message of liberty. The message of liberty is popular. The message of liberty is growing. Above all else the message of liberty offers true hope and change. President Obama, you can pursue your policies, grow the size of government at a rapid pace, and even increase government intervention in the free market to an all-time high, but I will choose to align myself with the cause of liberty, limited government, and the free markets.

Ron Paul's Weekly Radio Address

2009-02-22T14:18:00.003-06:00

Check it out, much better than Obama's weekly address ; )

I Support Throwing the Chronically ill in Prison!

2009-02-18T14:50:00.003-06:00

Did I get your attention yet? If you are wondering what these chronically ill individuals would have done that is so heinous that I would want them to suffer in prison, you might be a little shocked to hear what it is: they smoked a plant!

Okay I lied, I don't really support imprisoning the chronically ill for smoking a plant, but many people do. I am talking about medical marijuana. In my home state of Minnesota it has been reported frequently on the news (both radio and television) that it is a very likely possibility that there will be a bill on Governor Tim Pawlenty's desk that would decriminalize the use of marijuana for medical purposes. He has constantly stated his opposition to such a bill. Pawlenty, who was a key member of John McCain's team when he was running for the Presidency not too long ago, most likely would state the same reasons McCain did when the question was brought to his attention at his numerous town hall meetings: Marijuana has not been proved to be as effective as other drugs in treating chronic pain.

This is an inadequate answer simply because that is not the point. I'm not sure about the United States you have been living in, but I was not aware that if a plant could be used as medicine, but that medicine was not 'proved' to be as good as other drugs, that we then outlawed that plant? The root of the issue is whether or not governments should be allowed to outlaw certain drugs and imprison those who decide to use these 'illegal' drugs on their bodies. I would like to hear Governor Pawlenty explain how he justifies keeping the drugs tobacco and alcohol legal while supporting the continued criminalization of marijuana use.

It simply does not matter whatsoever whether marijuana is 'more effective' medically than other drugs. Tobacco is estimated to kill over 400,000 in the United States each and every year. That is the United States alone. There are no positive benefits of smoking tobacco, yet it is legal. Shouldn't Tim Pawlenty be pushing for tobacco to be made illegal, based on his rationale?

To get back to my point, how can someone say they care about the sick and dying when they support policy that literally imprisons individuals for using these drugs to alleviate chronic pain? It is bad enough that we are limiting people's freedom by waging a war against those who decide to use a given drug, but imprisoning those who have chronic illnesses who have turned to marijuana to alleviate their pain?

The Founding Fathers would not believe it.

How Will This Stimulate The Economy???

2009-02-15T10:38:00.003-06:00

Obama's weekly address:

What I can't stand about these big-spending Democrats (and a choice few Republicans) is how they hardly explain how this "stimulus" bill will actually stimulate the economy. He talks about updating our infrastructure, schools, etc. but that is just regular old spending. Those who are in favor of tax cuts can actually make an argument that the cuts will stimulate the economy (they have in the past). But this is just another New Deal big spending plan, which FDR's treasury secretary said, in 1939, did not work. The direct quote, "“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work.”

Congressman Paul's Reaction to Stimulus being passed

2009-02-13T22:48:00.003-06:00

What I find most astounding about this bill is that the Legislators were not even given copies of the bill to read! What an amazing day and age we live in where people are actually voting IN FAVOR of legislation that they have not read. How can you vote for something you have not read? Especially if it is over 1,000 pages?

American Students 'biased' Towards Capitalism?

2009-02-13T15:05:00.003-06:00

In this week's edition of The Aquin, the St. Thomas weekly school newspaper, there was an article written by Rebecca Omastiak titled "Obama may help renew St. Thomas' Cuban ties." Basically it talks about the history the past couple decades between St. Thomas and the University of Havana, which includes Dean Dennis Dease visiting in the early 1990s and about 20 faculty members in 1999.

It then addresses the possibility of exchange and study abroad programs between our own University of St. Thomas and University of Havana. This is where a quote is made that is quite off-topic i.m.o. in which a student said, "American students have a natural bias towards capitalism, and it would be good for them to see a different system." As government intervention and regulation of the free market in the United States becomes more and more intense, we hardly are living in a truly capitalist society. Ask anyone who has tried to start a business recently about all the regulations they must adhere to. Just look at our income tax system: in a truly capitalist society, there would not be a tax system that punishes and takes away incentives of creating more wealth.

By all means, I think it is good for Americans to see a 'different system,' it is important to keep in mind we are hardly a truly capitalist nation. And this bias towards capitalism of American students this student speaks of is hard to justify with the overwhelming support the Democratic Party (and Obama specifically) has on college campuses. This would seem to be in contradiction to the students claim. If anything, they are biased away from capitalism.

Low Taxes Attract $$$$

2009-02-12T19:01:00.003-06:00

As I have said before, The End of Prosperity caused me to become an even bigger advocate of low taxes. In today's world, each state in the United States is in effect competing for citizens and business. The more business and people they can attract, the more tax revenue they can bring in and arguably the more prosperous that state will become. People (for the most part) are very mobile. I have heard somewhere (yet I do not have a link so you will have to trust me) that today people move an average of seven times during their adult lives. That is quite a significant change from the generations before us! Besides just people moving around towards low tax areas, businesses are and have been doing this for quite some time now.

Here is just one recent example of business being attracted to a low-tax state: TCF bank is moving its headquarters to South Dakota from Minnesota. From KSTP, "The bank said the move is for regulatory reasons only and that no Minnesota jobs will be lost." Purely regulatory reasons. Hmmm, these regulatory reasons would not have anything to do with the fact South Dakota is much more tax friendly than Minnesota, would they? I'm sure they do.

Whether it is homeowners moving across the border from California to Nevada, businesses headquartering in tax-friendly countries, or even TCF moving their head operations to South Dakota, low taxes will always attract capital.

'Mad Money' Host Jim Cramer Gives Stimulus an 'F'

2009-02-12T12:29:00.002-06:00

Even Cramer thinks this 'stimulus' package is a horrible idea!

The Fed in Minneapolis is Against Bailouts/Stimulus!

2009-02-11T21:21:00.004-06:00

Okay, not exactly. The paper clearly indicates it is the express view of the authors and not that of the Minneapolis Federal Reserve. But check out this abstract from a paper posted by Timothy J. Kehoe (University of Minnesota, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, and National Bureau of Economic Research) and Gonzalo Fernández de Córdoba(Universidad de Salamanca):

"Studying the experience of countries that have experienced great depressions during the twentieth century teaches us that massive public interventions in the economy to maintain employment and investment during a financial crisis can, if they distort incentives enough, lead to a great depression."

It's ironic that a branch of the Federal Reserve has an economist who advocates the exact opposite of what we have been doing. Wake up people this intervention is making things worse!

"Stimulus" Passes Senate 61 - 37

2009-02-10T12:31:00.004-06:00

Sure enough, the three Republicans (Collins, Spector, and Snowe) who were expected to vote in favor of the stimulus followed through and allowed the stimulus to pass. Considering the fact that the Republican party has not been all that 'fiscally conservative' in the past oh decade, the message can be heard loud and clear that this bill was clearly something that no conservative could justify approving. At least now we know who DEFINITELY is not conservative.

I like to see the roll call of who voted in favor of what (it's usually more interesting in the house were there are always a number who cross 'party lines') and I think that if more people paid attention to this they would get a better view of what their Congressmen and women really stand for.

Government is the only choice to resurge economy! What?

2009-02-10T09:42:00.007-06:00

I heard this on the radio during my morning drive. It's from Barack Obama last night speaking to the media:

"But at this particular moment, with the private sector so weakened by this recession, the federal government is the only entity left with the resources to jolt our economy back into life. It is only government that can break the vicious cycle where lost jobs lead to people spending less money which leads to even more layoffs."

What??? This statement is just false. "The Federal government is the only entity left with the resources to jold our economy back to life." Sorry Obama, but I'm not sure if you realized this yet (well, obviously you have not), but the government receives it's resources from the private market. The government is not a for-profit business, it survives solely on the private market for it's income. That being said, how is the government the 'only entity left' with resources that can miracoulously 'jolt' our economy back to life? Am I the only one dumbfounded by these ignorant comments that are simply wrong.

No President Obama, government is the least efficient entity that can 'spend' money in such a way that will 'jolt' the economy. The money is being taken from the private market and potentially efficient if not efficient means to an entity that inevitably spends money inefficiently.

Conservatism - Alive and Well

2009-02-09T14:06:00.005-06:00

As I have written in my previous post, I am not buying into Susan Collins (Senator from Maine) as a "real" Republican. She is one of the three Senators (Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe, and Collins) who are going to push the Senate over the sixty required votes to pass the ‘stimulus’ bill (and I’m already predicting a number of future Liberal bills).

During the election the media made a big deal about whether or not the Democrats would get sixty Senators voted into office to give them a super majority. What does it matter? As long as Susan Collins and a couple other Senators are ‘Republicans’ they can pass any legislation they want! Perhaps I am too pessimistic about Collins, but give me some sort of evidence to give me hope for this liberal Republican (it just sounds wrong, doesn’t it?). Collins support of any given liberal bill should definitely not be seen as bi-partisanship, or even something out of the ordinary i.m.h.o.

Now, I do see one positive in the passing of this bill: this is entirely on the liberal, Keynesian, Democrats’ shoulders. Unlike the bailout where there was, sadly, support from both sides including a “Compassionate Conservative” i.e. neo-con president, this bill cannot be blamed on the Republican Party (granted, if it does succeed, the Democrats get all the credits. I would NOT want to be on that side of the table, though). Congratulations, GOP, you acted fiscally conservative when it comes to government spending!

Needless to say, I am excited about the GOP rallying under the Conservative banner. As for “Republicans” such as Susan Collins, I suggest you rethink your party.

Susan Collins - I think you are a Democrat, not a Republican!

2009-02-07T16:32:00.007-06:00

Susan Collins, a "Republican" Senator from Maine, is one of only a handful GOP Senators who might approve the massive spending bill the Democrats and Obama Administration has been pushing the past couple weeks. My major question: Is she a Republican? After looking at her stances on issues, she seems to be in favor of big government.

Now, I know what some might say, "the neo-cons are all in favor of big government!" But hear me out. Neo-cons and liberals alike are in favor of big government, but most neo-cons are pro-life. Susan Collins basically is against any limits on abortion. She even "Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)." Come on, even if you are on the fence whether or not the government should be intervening when it comes to abortions, we should at the very least have a consensus that partial-birth abortions should be banned.

I think Republicans are finding their conservative principles. I applaud all the Congressmen and women who have stood up and recognized this bill for what it is: a massive spending bill. The worst part about this whole situation is that it is meant to 'stimulate' our economy. How can taking nearly a trillion dollars OUT of the private sector and putting it into the irresponsible hands of government to spend as they please 'stimulate' the economy?

Check out this great quote from Arizona Senator John Kyle:

If you knew a bill in the U.S. Senate would cause a recession in 10 years, would you support it?" asked Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Arizona. "That's what the Congressional Budget Office, the bipartisan office that supports our efforts in the Congress, says about this legislation. ... There will be negative [gross domestic product] in this decade as a result of this legislation.

Here is the problem with 'compromise' on this spending bill: Conservative and Liberals have fundamentally different views on how to 'fix' the economy. Conservatives (now, I'm not speaking for all the neo-cons who have grown the government the past decade, but true Conservatives) believe that government intervention is just going to make it worse, and spending billions upon billions (possibly trillions) will just prolong the private market recovery. Liberals (for the most part, especially the ones in office today) believe in Keynesian economics which has the belief that the government can spend it's way out of a recession.

From this we can easily see that anyone who votes for this bill but calls themselves 'Conservatives' are simply contradicting themselves. I'm sorry, Susan Collins, you are not Conservative and your 'leaving the partisan politics to get things done' is actually you just re-affirming yourself as a big-government liberal. Below is from CNN:

Tax cuts include incentives for small businesses, a one-year fix of the unpopular alternative-minimum tax and tax cuts for low-and-middle-income families, said Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, the most prominent Republican negotiator in the bipartisan talks.

"Our country faces a grave economic crisis, and the American people want us to work together,' she said. 'They don't want to see us dividing along partisan lines on the most serious crisis facing our country."

I suggest you quit trying to pretend that you are a Republican, since you clearly align yourself with a liberal ideology. You would be doing everyone a favor by running for re-election as a Democrat and letting the people actually have a Conservative choice in the next election.

It's Just Really Bad Legislation

2009-02-06T13:49:00.002-06:00

Michele Bachmann posted a great blog in response to Obama's recent criticism of Republicans actually acting as fiscal conservatives when it comes to the 'stimulus' bill. It's a nice short read, I hope you enjoy!

Glenn Beck: Obama's 'Change' = Socialism

2009-02-05T23:38:00.005-06:00

A great clip where Glenn Beck talks about how Obama's Administration (as well as the liberal-dominate Congress) are going beyond liberalism towards socialistic policy:

Democrats and Republicans are both libertarian...kind of

2009-02-04T23:30:00.004-06:00

Today was my first day in a political science class which is based around American Political Thought. One thing that is interesting to look at with the history of political thought is how the 'liberal' of the 18th century is really the 'libertarian' of today.

Sadly, some people in the class didn't really understand what the modern day libertarian is. One kid explained it as "I want the government out of my life!" and said Ron Paul was a good example of a present-day libertarian. He also pointed out how they are a fringe group that has not had much major impact, at least recently.

My professor pointed out something that is very interesting. The present political set-up (and where libertarian political thought is today) has its roots way back when the original 'liberals' split. The Republicans essentially reject the libertarian view of the government being out of society as they are in favor of such things as pro-life, against gay marriage, keeping marijuana illegal, etc. while the Democrats take the other route and think that the government should regulate the market heavily. Both have libertarian sides to their stances, and they vary from person to person (for example Ron Paul is pro-life, while some Democrats would oppose legalizing marijuana, etc.).

The two points I want to leave you with are:
1) Libertarian political thought has influence on both modern-day liberal and conservative ideology, and really is not quite as 'radical' as some might believe.
2) It is inaccurate to say that libertarian political thought has been attempted already, but has failed. The total package has never been implemented, only parts of it have been.

What I am most excited about is how libertarian thought has and will continue to gain influence in the Republican Party. They will be forced to appeal to this growing group. Even if full libertarian ideology will never be fully implemented, I think that the whole Ron Paul Revolution of 2008 (now the Campaign For Liberty) has created an explosion of libertarian activism.

What exactly is libertarian political ideology? I'll save that for another day.

Why can't we abolish the income tax?

2009-02-02T22:36:00.003-06:00

The income tax was probably the worst idea (okay, not the worst, but close) when it comes to taxes. Who thought of this anyway? "Hey, I have a great idea: let's tax everyone's incomes." Or an even better idea, "No, no, no, let's take it further and the more someone makes, the more they get taxed!" Penalize people for producing. Great Idea.

Not only has the income tax stifled production (why would someone want to produce more when they can only keep .15 for each dollar they earn?) but it is simply inefficient. The tax code is so complex that only the very rich can afford to hire teams of accountants and lawyers to find loopholes so they can pay as little as legally possible. Not to mention the hours upon hours that people spend each year filing returns. How about we spend that time doing something a little more efficient? We all know that we can surely spend that money much more efficiently than government could ever dream of.

Especially in this time of economic downturn, you would think the government would think of a better way to stimulate economic activity than pull close to a trillion dollars out of the private market (that 'stimulus' money has to come from somewhere!). Come on, how many of you out there honestly think that the income tax is a good idea? Honestly! I would seriously doubt that more than 25% of the American population (when they actually stopped and thought about it) would rather have the income tax than NOT have it.

Alas, there is at least one voice of sanity when it comes to sound economic policy. Who else but Ron Paul?:

"If Congress really wanted to do something helpful, it would cut taxes. Ideally, we would repeal the income tax altogether and get the IRS off the economy’s back, which would be a huge boon. We should also cut spending. Cut every unconstitutional department and program, every wasteful governmental encroachment on the people’s liberty and money, starting with our massive overseas empire. The cost of our empire is bringing us to our knees, just as the Soviets’ empire did to them. Congress should also abolish the Federal Reserve and take back its responsibilities to ensure sound money, safe from the manipulations of powerful banking interests."

-Ron Paul, Texas Straight Talk

A Sign From God?

2009-02-02T19:38:00.001-06:00

This may sound a little goofy (you probably will just think I’m a college student too hopped up on caffeine) but something happened to me that is not explainable. Over the past few weeks I have been reflecting on my choice of finance for my major, and actually recently decided I will stay an extra semester and double major in Finance/Econ.

When I first came to St. Thomas I was set on a Financial Management major and a Political Science minor (which then turned into a double major). After a while I realized I like economics and thought it ‘fit’ better with Finance, so I dropped Political Science altogether (after taking a total of two political science classes).

I have always been interested in politics, but this past year I have taken it into overdrive (borderline addiction). I started a blog, donated dollars to my first candidate, went to the Rally for the Republic, started listening to talk radio, read multiple web sites with political news, and now am part of a web log (amazingly, a group blog where the first candidate I ever donated to also posts!). I could probably list over 50 political books I want to read, and would love to be involved in politics the rest of my life.

So why am I not pursuing a political science degree? Well, I figured, I like business and finance is something that intrigues me. But really, when someone is so passionate about a subject and easily could spend a lifetime researching, commenting, and writing about such a topic, maybe I’m looking at the wrong profession?

Anyway, so I have four business classes this semester (two finance, one marketing, one accounting). Overload? Perhaps. So I was not too keen on the marketing class, and would rather put it off (I will need to take it eventually if I want a finance major). So I looked to see if there were any other classes during that time. Sure enough, there is a political science class that one of my all time favorite professors is teaching. I emailed him if I could get in, and sure enough, I could. I have never dropped a class during a regular semester, this would be a huge first.

So this is what happened: I went in to do the change (after hours of tossing the idea around in my head…I would hate to take a class if I wasn’t going to get the degree) but somehow the marketing class was already dropped? Had I gone in and dropped it myself??? When??? I’m sure I hadn’t. I can say with 100% honesty no matter how long I try to remember when I did this, I simply cannot! Well, I happily joined the political science class. Sign from God? Maybe. Hopefully.

The Huffington Post Complete Guide to Blogging

2009-02-01T22:14:00.004-06:00

The Huffington Post Complete Guide to Blogging is a book that I would highly recommend to anyone who:

1) Wants to Start a Blog
2) Has Started a Blog But Rarely Posts
3) Wants to Make the Best Use of Their Blog

Though some of the information is basic, it allows the book to have a bigger target audience. You do not need to have any background about blogging to make use of this book. The Huffington Post is an extremely successful weblog that cranks out posts at all hours of the day. They get millions of hits per month and obviously the bloggers who contribute to their site have a lot of advice to offer.

I have been blogging for a little over a half year. I have found it to be a great way to get my opinions out and in writing. It has also allowed me to connect with people I otherwise never would have connected with. I love the information I find on some blogs, the stories from people's everyday lives, and relatives blogs (such as my aunts) where I can see what they are up to however far they are from where I am. I now am a contributor at a very cool group blog, United Liberty, where there are many contributors passionate about liberty. Needless to say, my experience with blogging has been pretty positive.

I would highly recommend blogging to anyone, really. Perhaps you will find it is not for you, but maybe you will really enjoy it and have thousands of readers. You never know until you try.

Republicans Should Embrace Marijuana Law Reform

2009-01-29T23:38:00.003-06:00

Paul Armentano wrote a great piece over at Alternet.org about the recent transition of power in Washington D.C. and how they have dealt with marijuana law reform. Needless to say, nothing major (or minor, really) has been done in favor of either decriminalization or legalization for either medicinal or recreational use of cannabis.

The general partisan positions concerning marijuana law is: Liberals in favor of decriminalizing/legalizing marijuana, while Conservatives have been against changing the current drug laws and continuing the costly war on drugs. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has recently voiced her support of marijuana law reform, but said that there is work that needs to be done outside of Congress before such action can be taken. Other Democrats have also voiced their support of reform.

Here is my solution to give the Republicans some credibility and show they can reach across the aisle: support marijuana law reform. Why? Well, the war on drugs has been an epic failure. It has cost billions of dollars, imprisoned over 20 million (many of whom are harmless), disproportionally targeted minorities, and has caused many unnecessary deaths. If the Democrats are the ones who eventually rise up and are credited with ending this catastrophe, it would be a huge blow to Conservatives.

Republicans should be jumping all over this issue. Arguments for keeping marijuana illegal are weak to say the least, and there is no denying the fact that government would necessarily shrink if marijuana was legalized. Billions of taxpayer dollars would be saved (imagine how much it has cost us to not only fight the drug war, but to incarcerate over 20 million). If Conservatives are for less government intervention and individual responsibility, would it not make sense to be the loudest proponents of marijuana legalization?

ACORN To Get 'Stimulus' Money?

2009-01-28T08:29:00.000-06:00

The stimulus bill that Obama and the Democrats are trying to push through Congress includes lots of spending, which means bigger government and a bigger burden on the taxpayer. When it is all said and done this bill is estimated to cost over a trillion dollars. With that being said, opposition to this bill should be a no-brainer for any fiscal Conservative.

What may be the most insulting part of this bill is that the group ACORN, which is an advocacy group that is under investigation for voter fraud (and who routinely back Democratic Candidates in elections), may be eligible for billions of dollars of the 'stimulus package.'

Senator David Vitter (R-LA) said "It's just a long list of spending items. Not a real economic stimulus job creation bill. It's line after line after line of favorite liberal spending programs, and it amounts to a big government bill -- not a job creation bill." What is astounding about this is that Obama wants the GOP to 'keep politics to a minimum' when it comes to discussion about the stimulus package. That, combined with the Democrats creating an environment of urgency, puts Conservatives in Congress in a lose-lose situation.

Any Conservative who speaks out against the bill will be seen as someone who does not want to help those who have lost their jobs. They will also be seen as someone who is not willing to work for partisan solutions, and they will be seen as someone who does not care about 'solving' the current economic crisis.

But in reality, we all know that government cannot spend itself out of a recession, or else we would never be in a recession (based on the billions upon billions government spends each year).

David Carlson : UnitedLiberty.org Contributor

2009-01-27T11:41:00.001-06:00

Towards the end of last week I received an email from Shana Kluck, assistant editor of United Liberty. She had followed my link from a comment I had left from a post by B.J. Lawson. She checked out some of my posts, and liked what she saw and asked if I would be interested in being a contributor for United Liberty.

My first reaction was shock that I would be given the opportunity to be part of a group blog that included the likes of B.J. Lawson as well as some other well-established individuals in the liberty movement. After getting over that shock, I jumped at the chance. Not only will I be able (i.m.h.o.) contribute some good posts to the site, but I will get some exposure (the site averages 6,200 visitors a month). I also believe that United Liberty can become a much bigger site than it currently is. I have thought for many months that there needs to be a political site similar to the Huffington Post except with a libertarian slant (versus liberal).

Regardless of whether the site will grow by leaps and bounds, I see this site as a huge opportunity for myself as well as for the cause of liberty. One thing to note is that any post I put on United Liberty will also appear on David Carlson Politics. I also will not be submitting every single post to the site, just a few here and there. So if you never visit the site, you will not be missing any of my posts! But if you do find the site insightful, I recommend visiting it every once in a while to see if there is something you find interesting.

UFO at Obama Inauguration

2009-01-27T08:55:00.000-06:00

So I was listening to Darkness Radio a couple nights ago (talk show on Sunday nights that reports on weird news) and someone said there was footage of a UFO at the Obama inauguration on CNN. Sure enough, here is the clip from CNN. It should come in somewhere between the 10 and 13 second mark:

To the CNN page with the video.

Pretty weird, don't you think?

Ron Paul - Obama/Bush Same Foreign Policy

2009-01-26T15:24:00.005-06:00

I just recently posted about civilian deaths that happened in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and Ron Paul talks about these events in this video:

This is exactly what people need to hear. The more civilians we kill the more incentives we create. As Paul said, Obama's foreign policy is the same as the neo-con foreign policy of intervention. Nothing will change, regardless of a neo-con or a liberal in the Presidency (or Congress for that matter).

Afghanistan - Irate About Civilian Casualties

2009-01-25T20:20:00.005-06:00

Afghanistan is upset at us. Understandable.

A reported 16 civilians were killed in an overnight operation in Afghanistan Saturday night. This caused angry protests and increased tensions between Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai and the United States.

Fox News says, "Karzai said the killing of innocent Afghans during U.S. military operations 'is strengthening the terrorists.'" If only our own leaders would admit that fact! After experiencing 9/11, we should realize the rage and the motivation that civilian deaths can give to a group of people. As Shane Claiborne points out in Jesus For President, imagine 100 9/11's, and that is what the Iraqi's have experienced. But after so much emphasis has been put on Iraq, we forget that civilian deaths are experienced in Afghanistan as well, and this will ignite anti-American emotions.

It is no surprise that the past 7+ years since 9/11 we have totally botched our response to that tragic day. We have not found and killed Bin Laden, but instead have taken out two countries and killed hundreds of thousands of civilians. We have become more involved in the Middle East than ever before, which is a direct reason we were attacked on 9/11.

I have heard from a number of friends who have studied or traveled abroad (as well as from some of the international students I work with) that outside of the United States it has been Democratic and Obama-fever for the past couple years. Is it really a mystery why? He ran as the peace candidate! He said he would pull us out of Iraq, and that is all they wanted to hear. Now, granted he will continue our foreign intervention, the point is that across the world people are sick of the United State's military interventions. We should be as well.

Obama Continues Bush Attacks That Kill Civilians

2009-01-25T19:03:00.003-06:00

It has been reported that a U.S. air strike in Pakistan has killed civilians. The attacks killed at least fifteen, including a reported three children.

One of the only positives I could have envisioned in an Obama Presidency is a switch from the awful Bush Administration foreign policy. I did not expect much to change, though, as both parties have continued the military empire that is the United States. Yet again we are going to have another administration that does not stop and ask the vital question that no one seems to ask: Why did we get attacked?

Instead of starting two wars that destroyed (and continues to destroy) two countries as well as unleashing a huge wave of anti-American sentiment, it would have done the neo-cons well to stop and think about why someone would want to drive planes into our buildings and kill our civilians. Of course there is someone in the Republican party who asks and answers this question:

"They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free. They come and they attack us because we're over there. I mean, what would we think if we were –if other foreign countries were doing that to us?"
-Ron Paul

So while the neo-cons and liberals keep promoting the foreign policy of intervention, I for one will stand for a foreign policy of freedom.

Bailing Out Newspapers Now?

2009-01-24T23:32:00.004-06:00

With Obama in office along with Democratic control of both the House and Senate, Jon Kraushar poses an interesting question: Would Obama's Administration even pause when it comes to bailing out the media giant New York Times?

After governmental bailouts of other companies, and the fact that the NYT has a liberal slant and in theory aids the Democrats, would it not make sense for the Democrats to try to keep this liberal machine running? Of course it would!

With that being said, I again have to refer back to the financial institution bailouts. They set a bad precedent of government intervention into the free market. I am still embarassed by the many "Conservatives" who voted for the bailouts. They should have been wise enough to see that this is a slippery slope. Maybe when we start electing true conservatives to Congress we will see a change. Sadly, it could be a while before the public wakes up enough to realize that neo-cons are not conservatives!

Obama: Don't Listen to Rush!

2009-01-24T11:10:00.004-06:00

Yesterday Obama said to top GOP leaders, "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done."

What is that even supposed to mean? If by get things done, he means grow the size of government by unprecedented amounts, then I don't want Republicans to get things done!

I have only been listening to Rush the past six months or so (and definitely not on a daily basis, just when I am in my car and he is on), but I have the same view as him when it comes to bailouts and the size of the government: no bailouts, small government. I do disagree with his stance on foreign policy, though that is not the point.

As many Conservative talk show personalities (including Rush) as well as their listeners who call in are becoming increasingly disgusted with the never-ending bailouts and now potentially giant stimulus packages, I think it would do good for GOP leaders good to listen to these people.

Kirsten Gillibrand Supports Gun Rights! But....

2009-01-22T21:27:00.006-06:00

It has just been announced that Kirsten Gillibrand has been selected to fill New York's recently vacated Senate seat that was previously held by Hillary Clinton. When I skimmed the Wikipedia of Gillibrand, I found something surprising: she supports second amendment rights and believes that all law-abiding citizens should be allowed the freedom to own a gun.

But of course, after taking a quick look at ontheissues.org (Great Site by the way!) sure enough I found a number of things I do not agree with:

Voted YES on increasing minimum wage to $7.25
Protect American jobs from going overseas.
Voted YES on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC
Voted YES on allowing stockholder voting on executive compensation.
Balance fossil fuels and viable renewable energy.

These are just a few things from her voting record that just don't fly with me. But it was nice to see that some Democrats do not like her more conservative positions (such as gun rights):

"But some New York City Democrats are skeptical of Gillibrand, who voted against the financial rescue package last fall. And the National Rifle Association has endorsed Gillibrand -- another cause for concern among some Democrats."

I expect her to vote along party lines, but it will be interesting to see if/when she will go against the Liberal Machine.

Barney Frank - When Politics and Business Mix

2009-01-22T09:09:00.004-06:00

I have been critical of the bailouts from the beginning. It was a sad day to see Republican after Republican (or "conservative" after "conservative") say that the bailout was a bad idea but that 'we could not do nothing.' I would say nothing is better than something that will make things worse, but that's just me.

Today the Wall Street Journal has an article about how Barney Frank 'went to bat' for a local Massachusetts bank. As the article explains, Frank has ties to OneUnited Bank. I quote from the article, "Mr. Frank says that in order to protect OneUnited Bank, he inserted into the billa provision to give special consideration to banks that had less than $1 billion of assets, had been well-capitalized as of June 30, served low-and moderate-income areas, and had taken a capital hit in the federal seizure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."

My favorite part is the quote from Frank immediately afterwards:

"I did feel that it was important to farnkly try and save them since it was federal action that put them into the dumper," Mr. Frank says.

Federal action has caused many negative things, but here is the amazing thing about Mr. Frank's position: He believes that MORE government intervention into the free market is going to fix these problems! Granted, the government is not taking over OneUnited Bank as they did Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but sure enough we are intervening more and more into the private market to try to fix intervention in the private market. Huh?

It defies logic, but I have found more and more that actions of government oftentimes defy logic.

Ron Paul's Reaction to Obama's Speech

2009-01-20T22:46:00.005-06:00

I think this is a nice short and sweet clip of Ron Paul's response to Obama's speech. I am considering posting more responses to Obama's inauguration and speech. Hope you enjoy this counter-view to the big government view that is going to be pushed the next two-plus years.

Does Strong Leadership Matter?

2009-01-20T18:42:00.002-06:00

There is a long thread on my facebook page concerning how much leadership matters when electing a President. What I believe is that leadership does matter, but what is leadership? In Obama's case, he is obviously a very strong leader. But he is leader of a group of people who are fueled by political views.

People run for political leadership in part because they believe they can make the world a better place. But the important thing to think about is: how do they believe they can make the world a better place? They believe their political views, and resulting legislation will make the world a better place. In Obama's case (or, most Democrats in Congress and leadership) believe that redistribution of wealth, welfare, universal healthcare, etc. will make the world a better place.

Here is the essential problem: it does not matter how 'good' or 'strong' a leader is if they have political views that do not make America a more prosperous (and free) land. For example, wealth redistribution (or socialism) has been proven to not cause economic prosperity, but in fact, the opposite. Higher taxes has proven to not lead toa time of prosperity. Big government, such as the time of FDR's New Deal, has proven not to lead to prosperity. Telling people what light bulbs they can use and punishing companies through the second highest corporate tax in the worlds does not lead to freedom and prosperity. Therefore, forget how great a leader Barack Obama is, he is leading based on political views that are not going to benefit America in the long run.

So, I ask you, do you agree that leadership is rarely the issue when it comes to Presidential races (or political races in general) or is it based on the person's political views and how strong they stand on these views?

Full Obama Speech

2009-01-20T16:58:00.001-06:00

Here's Obama's Speech if you missed it today:

One Day of Obama is More Than Enough

2009-01-20T13:55:00.002-06:00

Today was surely a historic day for America. We swore in our first African-American into the highest office in our country. While this is truly a historic event, it overshadows and overwhelms the fact that the man being sworn in has extremely liberal, border-line socialist, political positions that he will surely put into place with the Democratically-controlled Congress.

So this is how I feel: One day of Obama as President is much more than enough in my opinion.

Combine the Obama Administration with the Democratically-controlled Congress and we have a recipe for disaster.

One thing is certain: Obama sure can give one heck of a speech. While it can be inspiring to listen to a well-crafted speech of a man who is surely a great leader, it does not change the fact that his policies are going to lead the nation down the wrong path. By wrong I mean policies that are not going to solve the economic depression we are involved in, not going to cause prosperity for future generations (in fact, future generations have a huge debt to pay through government's irresponsible bailouts), and will not promote freedom and liberty.

Pelosi runs a tight shift, as Michelle Bachmann said recently on Glenn Beck. They will push bailouts, environmental policies that place control not freedom on the American public, and higher taxes through Congress. Obama will rubber-stamp these laws, and we surely will not find our way out of this depression that is plaguing the United States. FDR's policies did not work, neither will Obama's.

Obama Inauguration: How Should Conservatives Approach His Presidency?

2009-01-18T23:33:00.003-06:00

Today on Rush Limbaugh's radio show, a caller came on the air who claimed to be an independent and gave a long history of her Presidential votes the past decades to prove it. She then went on about how she is fiscally Conservative and therefore had a number of problems with Bush, but she does not 'hate' the man. She thinks he is a good man who did what he thought was best when put into the Presidency. But then she went on a rant to Rush and how Obama has not even been sworn in yet, but already he has been criticized intensely by Rush. She says that we should wait and 'give him a chance.' Rush then asked, "Are you saying you want Obama to succeed?" "Absolutely" is the response. Rush then said why that is a problem: Obama is pursuing big government, socialistic policies, and universal health care among other things. Besides that, it is not as though his cabinet picks and the Democratic Party have given Conservatives nothing to be upset about.

So how do Conservatives confront this Obama Administration? In my opinion, as it has in the past, liberal economic, budget, and spending policies have all gone down in flames. Especially when we are in a depression where people are holding on for dear life and trying to ride out the storm, these Keynesian big government policies surely will fail. This is not an estimate or something unproven, and if you want a source take some time out and read The End of Prosperity: How Higher Taxes Will Doom the Economy--If We Let It Happen, as they document statistically and historically how policies have affected the prosperity of the United States.

So we know that these policies are going to fail (by fail I mean make things worse and not 'fix' everything as many believe). This has been proven, and it is just a matter of time. I worry that Republicans/Conservatives/Libertarians risk coming off too strong as we aggressively attack the Democrats. But how can you not? The only other option is to wait it out and then when things start going bad to go full force in explaining why the Democrat's policies are making things much worse. But I also realize in this day of instant news and commentary, it is inevitable that we must respond with the criticism deserved.

To sum this up, I will try to engage in useful conversations concerning Obama's (and the Democratic Party's) policies. I oftentimes ask people how they feel about this or that or why they believe a certain policy will do what they think, and always give a counter-argument, or an agreement. The problem is not that there are too many Democrats out there, it's the apathy that is prevalent and people not wanting to spend the time shredding apart the issues. Hopefully this blog (among other resources) will motivate people to maybe follow the blog as I commentate on issues and why I think they are wrong/right/etc as well as maybe go read a book they otherwise wouldn't have ever read. For now, I am going to be open to talking about politics with people and try to listen more, and of course continue to educate myself about different viewpoints to create a more mature political understanding.

Jesus for President?

2009-01-17T11:16:00.005-06:00

In Shane Claiborne and Chris Haw's book Jesus For President, they present a difficult challenge to Christians: address politics as Jesus did. The reason this is so difficult is because it questions the very society that we have taken part in: Do we have allegiance to the flag of the United States (or some other nation) or is our allegiance in Christ? The first 100 pages or so focus on the historical aspects of the bible and politics, leading up to Jesus' time. Claiborne makes a point that many would miss unless they have looked at the Gospels in-depth: Jesus was very political. He was offering a completely different lifestyle and political thought that was in direct opposition to the Roman Empire.

Claiborne talks in-depth about Jesus' view of nonviolent resistance, and poses troubling questions such as "How can Christian's be in the military?" and whether or not wars can be just or not. As Americans see the Iraq war as liberation, Claiborne questions how 300,000 estimate civilian deaths, or 100 9/11 attacks, can be seen as liberation? Needless to say, this should make anyone uncomfortable as we rarely are exposed to views besides the mainstream concerning war.

What I found most revealing from this book personally is my less than a year-old view that we should close all our permanent military bases and bring all our troops home across the globe. As I read this book, I could see (as I have before) how redemptive wars will never end until someone in power takes a strong stance against it. For example, look at the past decade. 9/11 was fueled by a terrorist group who wanted redemption against U.S. interventionism and violence in the Middle East. Then of course we unleash a huge front and two wars in the middle east in response. As Ron Paul says, this makes no sense. Even if we were to practice redemptive war, you would target only those who knew about these attacks and brought them about. Instead we now have hundreds of thousands of civilians blood on our hands and many more who are motivated to attack America than ever before. Our military presence across the globe should motivate them even more.

So, in a way this book re-affirmed to myself that the position of wanting to be non-interventionist and pull-back all our troops is the best thing we can do right now. Besides that, I found it interesting how Claiborne believes (as I do) that so many across the nation put their faith in the government instead of God. This is absolutely the wrong position of a Christian. Instead of the government fixing the health insurance problem, how about Christian's rise up and find a solution themselves? (See Christian Healthcare Ministries) Look to the church (the body of believers) to solve problems, not the government. Limited government where those in 'power' have extremely constrained power combined with Christians living out what Jesus taught is the true solution to the never-ending problems of this world.

Republicans and Democrats are Both Wrong

2009-01-15T08:17:00.004-06:00

As of 8:30 this morning (central time) there is only seven and a half hours to vote on Change.org for policies that you would like to see put in place. Though I am quite confident that the only policies that will go through are the ones that the Obama Administration already plans on implementing, I think it is great that Legalize the Medicinal and Recreational Use of Marijuana is holding a whopping 5,000 vote lead with nearly 19,000 votes as I write.

On another note, End the War on Drugs mysteriously disappeared from the site. It was consistently in the top 10 ideas (by votes), but of course the Obama Administration could not adress such a radical idea and therefore removed it, hoping that no one will notice besides "the radicals" who think that our drug policy has been an epic failure.

The best (or worst?) thing about this issue is how it does not matter which party is in power, both are opposed to it, while I will say the Republicans are much more opposed to legalization than the Democrats. Both parties are wrong! This issue is similar to other policies where the majority of both parties have been consistently wrong: monetary policy, foreign policy, and spending (when Republicans had the majority just a few years ago, spending increased Incredibly. Most of it was Pork-Barrel spending, which is probably why it was ironic that McCain was saying he wanted to end that spending, as it was increased drastically while he was a Senator!).

So, where do you turn when both parties are taking the wrong stance on important issues? I aggressively support Republican Candidates who get the issues right, but I will never hesitate to support a third party when the Republican candidate for whatever office it may be has the wrong stance on many issues, and oftentimes will defend these positions.

And people wonder why so many across the country are obsessed with Ron Paul? Or why Michelle Bachmann is likely to continue to receive increased support and exposure nationwide? Or how B.J. Lawson, A Ron-Paul Republican funded his campaign nearly entirely by small donations from voters across the nation? It really is not that complex.

Michelle Bachmann on Glenn Beck!

2009-01-14T21:38:00.002-06:00

I was pleasantly surprised on my drive home from North Heights tonight. I was listening to Glenn Beck and he said he had just met a member of Congress who he wanted all his listeners to meet. Sure enough, it was Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann!

I'm not just excited for the national attention she has been receiving recently, but because of what she has done with the opportunities. She did not say one thing I disagree with in the entire 15 minute interview. She talked about fiscal Conservatism, and how she was embarrassed that some Republicans have supported and continue to support the bailouts that are being pushed through Washington. She said the biggest political blunder of 2008 was when the "Conservative" candidate for President supported bailout! Amen.

She also said that she has little faith that the Conservative Democratic members of Congress will stand up to Nancy Pelosi and vote against the second bailout. Pelosi recently threatened those Democrats who may vote against it by saying they will not get their one week recess in February to go to their home district! Beck and Bachmann compared this to how a teacher would treat second-graders. Pathetic.

More and more I see why Ron Paul endorsed Bachmann. Some Paul supporters were upset about this endorsement (due to her stance on foreign policy among other things) but what he stressed was her stance on economic and financial issues. She has not failed those who voted her in (myself as one) based on her stance on these issues and her opposition to the bailout from the very beginning.

Bachmann on New Hannity Show

2009-01-14T09:04:00.003-06:00

I wanted to post this yesterday, but the video was not put up until today. It's my Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann on the brand new Sean Hannity show:

I thought she did a good job, considering Sharpton kept cutting in. It's too bad that is what you have to do to get your point across, just keep talking until someone else stops.

I liked her points about the bailouts and school vouchers. The reason I am such a big supporter of Bachmann is because she has been against all the bailouts from the beginning. She never said (like so many other Republicans), "I think these bailouts are horrible, but something has to be done and therefore I support them." Even John McCain, the Conservative Party's Presidential Candidate, or Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman could stand up for fiscal conservatism. Sharpton tries to blame the crisis on the Republicans, even though it was the liberals who pushed for banks to make extremely risky loans and now they are creating incentives to allow even more of this behavior since they are not punished whatsoever! Make a bad loan, get a handout. Sharpton's argument that we need more regulation is just plain foolish.

She was right on about school vouchers. It's ironic that the liberals are against school vouchers since people who otherwise would not have choices, would then have a choice of an array of different schools. Giving people a $6,000 school voucher per child would open them up to many different private schools that some otherwise could not afford or could not justify with their budget. I like how she used Minneapolis as an example. They spend quite a bit per child, yet the public schools are under-performing. She says that even if we spent TWICE as much, it is unlikely that we would see much difference.

Obama Supporters Will Not Defend Views

2009-01-13T10:36:00.004-06:00

As we are exactly one week away from Obama being sworn in as President, I have something I need to say: Obama supporters simply will not defend or explain their views.

Throughout the election season, I would challenge anyone willing to listen (and some who were not) to take a long hard look at what they believe politically. Some people are simply apathetic, but that was not the problem this election cycle. The problem was a huge number of individuals who simply latched on to Obama without making that decision critically.

I'm going to generalize (a lot) here, but this is what I have found:

When I question people who support Obama, the conversation goes one of two ways:

1) Immediately attack of Bush and Republicans. Once I told them that I was not voting Republican, nor did I agree with a number of things the majority of Republicans did when they had power, they went quiet. "Really? Who are you voting for then?" Which, as you can expect, diverted the attention from why they are supporting Obama to why Ron Paul's the man.

2) An attack on me! Apparently for questioning their political views. I don't care if someone says they don't have the answers or they are not informed enough, but when someone supports something, surely there is a rational thought process that was involved? And if not, you should not be embarrased to admit it. But it was pretty amazing when I start going on about why I believe Obama's policies are 'bad' and immediately I get the "I don't have to defend my views to you" and "It's none of your business" and whatnot. What?

My friend Matt Chesla sent me a clip from the Howard Stern show a few months ago where they went out and asked Obama supporters what it was that they liked about Obama's policy. They would say stuff such as "do you like Obama's policy of finishing the war in Iraq or his pro-life stance?" To which the responder would choose one. Each time neither of the views would be those that Obama has, yet sure enough the responder has no idea.

I have waited a while to write this post because I would rather defend the views I have than attack others. But actually what I am trying to say is that I rarely find an Obama supporter who will defend their views and explain why that view is better than a Conservative or libertarian view, or why it would work better. Of course each time they simply attack policies of the past eight years.

Now, I'm sure there are many Obama supporters out there who do not fit my generalization - I have yet to meet them. Perhaps I find too much enjoyment in debating an issue that I think is right, but it would be great to talk to Obama supporters who will defend his views (and not just attack, attack, attack).

Obama/Democrats Plan to Keep the "Death Tax"

2009-01-12T21:13:00.002-06:00

Sure enough, one day after finishing the book The End of Prosperity, I see that the Obama Administration (as well as the Democratic Party as a whole) will seek to keep the estate ("death" is more accurate) tax in 2010 and indefinitely after that. This is precisely one of the policies that was addressed in The End of Prosperity, and sure enough government does the reverse of what the authors would have done (which is eliminate the tax entirely).

Basically this tax is burdensome on small business owners and investors, as a number of small businesses have had to actually be sold since the original owner died and his descendants can't afford to foot the bill (since some of his estate is wrapped up in equity in the business). Besides this, there is a clear example of why this is a horrible tax: it gives the incentive to live large and spend one's estate into the ground instead of save, invest, and pass on wealth to one's family.

Someone who dies with a net worth of zero is taxed: zero. Someone who has saved and saved is taxed at whatever the death tax may be at the time (probably around 50%). Now, if one has to give half of what they have earned (well, what they have earned after already being taxed on those earnings when they DID earn them) what is the incentive to save, invest, and participate in activities that will help the economy?

Sure enough, as other countries across the globe do away with this "death tax" and other high tax rates, we will continually lose our competitive edge with our high income, corporate, and even "death" tax.

This was article was on the front page of the Wall Street Journal today, but you can read it online as well.

The End of Prosperity

2009-01-12T01:41:00.005-06:00

The End of Prosperity: How Higher Taxes Will Doom the Economy--If We Let It Happen is easily the most enlightening book I have read concerning tax policy. Written by Arthur Laffer, Stephen Moore, and Peter Tanous, this book not only gives the supply-side argument for not only lowered taxes but a flat tax rate, but backs up every claim with statistical data and sources. The explanation of how lower taxes across the board (including those on high-income individuals) benefit not only the rich but every class across the board gives ammunition to the argument that lower taxes helps EVERYONE.

This book does not simply bash the liberals, but is very non-partisan. They cover the history of tax policy (as well as delve into free trade) over the past century and the effects that different policies have had. This quick history lesson will be valuable to any American, and is greatly non-partisan as they evaluate the strength of different President's economic policies regardless of which party they were a part of. John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush's tax cuts effects are shown graphically. In fact, as I said earlier, all their claims are backed up by statistics, data, and sources.

I recommend this book to anyone, regardless of your interest level in politics. The fact of the matter is tax policy affects every American. Anyone who makes an income is affected by tax policy. Both Keynesian and Supply-side economics have been implemented in the past, with Keynesian economic policy being implemented today (and a promise of even more Keynesian policies in the next 2-4 years). The problem is, these policies have had ill-effects. Supply-side economics (which include a low taxes or preferably a flat tax rate as well as free trade) have been proven to work time and time again (both in the United States and abroad). Read this book and allow these great economists to make their case for sound fiscal policies.

The New Media

2009-01-09T14:48:00.004-06:00

David Carlson Politics is now listed as an official endorser of Legalize the Medicinal and Recreational Use of Marijuana on the Change.org website. This policy is still holding strong at number one, but there is still eight more days of voting left.

While many know that the Ron Paul Revolution (now in the form of the Campaign for Liberty) was largely fueled by a passionate group that used the new media (the internet) to get the word out about Ron Paul. What I have realized now is that fringe movements, such as the small number of people who have educated themselves about the War on Drugs and strongly believe the policy should be changed, are empowered now more than ever. One hundred years ago the pure expenses of organization (political and nonpolitical alike) were extensive. Now there are sites and networks for people to plug into and truly get organized when they run counter to the popular media and those who have similar views may be spread out across a vast land.

Power truly comes through information. The internet has been and continues to break down information barriers. Simply logging onto the internet, you now have a wealth of information people could only dream of having access to a hundred, fifty, even twenty years ago. It is harder for the mainstream media and government interests to fight against information exchanging that makes an argument for alternate policy and viewpoints. This is one of the main reasons why I believe something like legalizing marijuana for medical and recreational use can succeed. There are many websites that lay out arguments and give factual information as to why the war on drugs has failed and especially why the case for legalizing marijuana is extremely strong.

It is undeniable that the internet was the backbone (and continues to be) of Ron Paul's rise. But one must also look at how Obama used the internet. They used it to influence and connect with young voters. The internet is essential to any future political campaigns (be it for one policy or for an election). Creating a top-notch site is becoming less expensive as there are more and more who are becoming knowledgeable about web design, and this will significantly level the playing field. Instead of spending millions on billboards and other expensive advertising, one just needs to drive voters to their site and make it easy for them to find out what the candidate is all about and why they are the better choice. The internet is going to change how political campaigns (and our lives) will be conducted in the next 10, 20, 50 years.

Therefore, the internet is one reason I hold out hope for ideas that are not covered by mainstream media (or conversation in daily life). When one can easily access ideas that make sense, support will grow. Education is key, and the time and energy needed to find the information that will allow this (political) education will be, and has been, greatly reduced.

Universal Healthcare now third highest vote-getter

2009-01-07T09:20:00.005-06:00

I have been tracking different causes on Change.org and I am happy to see Legalize the Medicinal and Recreational Use of Marijuana holding strong as the top vote getter while End The War on Drugs coming in at a close second. Thanks to anyone out there who voted for either, and a special shout out to Dan Nimlos who told me last night he gave it a vote! Regardless if the Obama Administration is going to actually listen to the people and add this to their policy, it is important to force government to address this issue and not shrug it off as unimportant.

For the Record, this is what they say Ideas for Change in America is:

Ideas for Change in America is a nationwide competition to identify the best ideas for change in America. The top 10 ideas will be presented to the Obama administration just before inauguration day and form the basis of a nationwide advocacy campaign to turn each idea into actual policy

They use clever wording, as they say, "form the basis of a nationwide advocacy campaign" and therefore will have an excuse to not turn it into actual policy. Of course the liberal ideas, such as the third highest vote getter, will surely be turned into actual policy:

Free Single Payer Health Care

"Health Care is a fundamental human right. No one should have sell their house to pay for their mother's cancer. No one should have to choose between food and medicine.

Free basic health care for all!

Why?
1) Its the most efficient approach
2) It works. Why do places such as Cuba and Costa Rica have such good healthcare systems when they spend so little on healthcare?
3) It will solve insurance problems and peopl'e being left without insurance (obama's approach won't get everyone covered).
4) For our childrenHR 676 Bill is one way of achieving this but not the only way.

(NOTE: Free obviously means paid for through some kind of tax, preferribly on the wealthy)"

Now, I will never pretend to have ALL the solutions for our country. I do not, nor have I read and educated myself enough to have solutions to every problem. Health Care is one of those things that has become so 'messed up' that I really do not know where to start. B.J. Lawson believes that the problem has to do with linking health insurance to employment, while Ron Paul has many viewpoints on this issue that are well documented here.

Just a couple that I found most profound:

"The most obvious way to break this cycle is to get the government out of the business of meddling in health care, which was far more affordable and accessible before government got involved. Short of that, and more politically feasible in the immediate run, is to allow consumers and their doctors to pull themselves out of the system through medical savings accounts."
Source: The Revolution: A Manifesto, by Ron Paul, p. 89 Apr 1, 2008

"You don’t have to throw anybody out in the street, but long term you have move toward the marketplace. You cannot expect socialized medicine of the Hillary brand to work. And you can’t expect the managed care system that we have today [to work, because it] promotes and rewards the corporations. It’s the drug companies & the HMOs & even the AMA that lobbies us for this managed care, and that’s why the prices are high. It’s only in medicine that technology has raised prices rather than lowering prices."
Source: 2007 GOP primary debate in Orlando, Florida Oct 21, 2007

What I find most amazing/unbelievable about this cause is that they define free as paid through some kind of tax, preferably the wealthy. Amazing! Government was not meant to rob one individual of his wealth and transfer it to another. In my opinion, if there was a (low) flat tax rate, we would see people donating more money to worthy causes such as healthcare for those who cannot afford it. In fact, lower taxes would contribute to helping this problem in a number of ways: there would be more jobs, income will grow (on all levels, just as it did as a result of Reagan's tax cuts), and prosperity will abound.

The more the government gets involved in something, the worse situations become. I won't be so naive to say that there will one day be a system where everyone can afford all their own healthcare. I think there will always be impoverished individuals who do not have health insurance, who will then need some major surgical operation. By all means, we should treat these people. But for us to afford to do that, there needs to be major cuts across the board in government. We simply cannot be injecting trillions into the economy on top of a $2.5 plus trillion budget and expect to add universal healthcare on top of that. Taxing the rich will just slow the economy and lower the gross tax revenue brought in, which actually goes against what the liberals want.

Even if we did move in the correct direction of getting the government out of healthcare, it would be a long and painful process before we get to affordable healthcare with government aid to the most needy. But sadly, we are most likely moving in the opposite direction which is going to make the situation worse and the process towards a 'better' (i.e. affordable, workable) system prolonged.