Populist Constitutionalism and the Tea Party

“Social conservatives, fiscal conservatives (who might be liberal on some social issues), libertarians, and moderates can agree to disagree about issues like abortion, legalized drugs, gay marriage, etc. The Constitution teaches all of them that the resolution to these problems should be conducted on the state or community level, as opposed to the national level.”

BAM !!!!!!!!!

Read the rest of the Article by Larrey Anderson at the American Thinker
(Click the Title)

Window to the Soul

They say the eyes are the window to the soul.


Look deep, look very deep into the soul of Congressmen Boxer’s pitch black eyes….The evil intensions pose is just icing on the cake.

Hmmm, how to manipulate the public with fear…that is the path to true power.

What "Tax the Wealthy" Really Means

I listened to an interview on YouTube where a wealthy individual said he represented a “substantially” large group of other wealthy people who endorse raising taxes on the “wealthy” to pay for government reform in health care (slow creeping move to nationalization). The exact YouTube video is irrelevant; it’s only a back drop to my pondering. In the same video another individual said that this man had inherited the money and found it odd that those who actually earned their riches do not feel the same. Of course the individual who endorses a government take over stated that “many” of the supporters where entrepreneurs.

With Congress’s disregard for the distaste many individuals have for more government interference with everyday life, aka Health Care, they passed a 2,000 page monstrosity that none of them read completely let alone understood; In keeping with the tyranny that comes with forcing “social reforms” over harmony within the democracy, Senator Reid is considering raising taxes on those who make over $250,000 a year.

Here’s the ponderings: That “wealthy” government worshiper and his like minded “wealthy” entrepreneurs already have their mansions, and federally subsidized insured beachfront homes; along with billions of post-taxed (taxed when earned at lower rates) in the bank, who can live nicely off a modest trust say of $249,999 a year. This goes for champions of government engineered society, such as Warren Buffet; who has an uncanny ability to pick who the government is going to make a winner in the business world.

My conclusion is when they say “tax the wealthy” they, from the government is my god guy to Senator Reid and the likes of Pelosi to Warren Buffet, its all bullshit. What they really mean is tax those with the potential to become wealthy, but don’t tax the wealth we’ve already inherited or earned prior to our support of big god like government.

Here's an idea, let’s tax the “net worth” of these priests of the centralized ruling class, and see how enthusiastic they are of taxing those still trying to achieve their dreams to finance their social engineering.

Maybe this is why, for the most part, the rich and the poor vote democrat and the middle class votes republican. The middle class needs a party that actually represents them though. Could it be the L word?

Natural Rights or are they Natures Right

The process of birth gives us life. Birth is a natural occurrence, not dictated nor made by man. Although some may argue that man initiates or can terminate the process, neither gives man authority over it. In regards to the first, it is nature that drives the man’s natural desires to initiate, but only as a tool; man himself can not will the conception; it is nature that does so. For the later, termination of the process does not give man any authority or credit for it, how could it? He has destroyed it.

Some will insist that it is man’s actions that should be credited to life. However, man can not call to life his offspring; he must bow to nature, for it is nature that provides man his essence of life. The only power man has over life is, again, the destruction of it.

Since it is nature that is the giver of life and life coming from nature, life must be and is natural. Nature having given it and it being natural, nature then has authority over it. This being so, only nature has a right to take it, as it does through the passing of time, disease, and disaster. Man does take life through violence, such as war, either by man vs. man, as some men do, but not all as Hobbes claims; nation vs. nation, and even nation vs. man, a vile practice. Man taking life though is theft; he has no right to what belongs to nature, he has merely raped it.

In the absence of nature actively claiming it’s right to a man’s life, that same life is then the man’s to do as he sees fit with, until his master (nature) demands it. Until his master demands it, it is man who is in possession of it; therefore, it is his own life. In essence, nature has given man his life, which he, man, is then caretaker of; none except the master may dictate how that life is used except the caretaker given responsibility of it. Therefore, no man has authority to dictate to another how he is to live his life.

No man having authority, or “a right” over another’s life, then has authority or “a right” to what comes from that man’s life. Being that a man’s life is his own, all things that derive from that life are his also. All things that are his are then his property, and being no man has authority over another man’s life he then has no authority over his property. No man therefore, has a right to another’s property, whether it is his thought, labor, or possessions. Only man’s master has a right to its possessions and it will claim it either through time, disease, or disaster. If another, mainly man, takes it…..it is nothing more than rape.

Should Bribes be Counted in Total Health Care Refrom Costs?

There seems to be a split among some Senate Democrats about the Health Insurance mandates. An AP article (Click on Title) talks about several “centrists” that may oppose it to maintain their seats past this election cycle.

The thing that struck me though was AP’s comment about some just holding out for “favors” and “pork” for their districts/states.

Now let’s add the cost of the taxpayer funded bribes the Obama administration might likely hand out to hold outs for votes to the total cost of Health Care Destruction. Is this the way it’s really done in Chicago?

Tariffs are Dangerous to Your Health

While surfing the web I found an article about sugar tariffs. Now limiting the amount of any product that comes into the country always increases the price to the “general public” (of course it protects the few). http://cafehayek.com/2009/09/sourpuss-monopolists.html


The comment sections are almost as interesting as the post itself in most cases. One individual mentions that the tariff on sugar helps the farmers growing corn, since an alternative to sugar is high fructose corn syrup. Another asks if it is healthier or less so than sugar. A couple of comments later states that “Although it’s inconclusive” high fructose corn syrup is thought to contribute to type II diabetes.

This is just another example of the over reaching centrist government’s collusion with a small group of large corporations controlling what its citizens do. First by protecting a small but powerful lobby group, meanly the US sugar industry, it increases the cost to us. Secondly, it distorts the bastardized free market more so than they already have and leads us to use cheaper but less healthy alternatives. Thirdly, the results of the ruling classes meddling are that we see an increase in diabetes.

Finally, to add insult to injury (pun intended) the ruling class now says due, in part, to this diabetes epidemic they must take control of our daily lives more, by legislating more warning labels and indoctrinating the children through state run schools. Ultimately these self appointed guardians of our future will take complete control of the whole Health Care system, because we will not be able to afford it otherwise. Never mind it was their meddling in out lives, protecting the large corporations, starting government run health insurance for the poor and seniors, and regulating all other avenues of health care (to protect us from the large corporate insurance companies) that increased the costs in the first place. Oddly the regulations pushed any small company or non-profits out of the health insurance industry because of the mandated items that MUST be covered.

This all leads me to ask the question, “Are we free, is it a lie, or are we’re just tools they keep alive to maintain the ruling class’ life of luxury and power?

A Comparison to Government Health Care Reform

At least the guy with the gun was a expert in the field.

Cheapened to Worthlessness

“Crack Whore of the Week” or the Nobel Peace Prize, which requires the most accomplishments?

Shattered Chains (Soap Box Rant I)

“…nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of the law…” Mr. Emiliano Gonzolez was never charged, let alone convicted, but he still looses his life savings. The State gets to keep the $124,700 they seized from the car he rented. Under congress’ Forfeiture Act a drug dog barking at a rental car, used by possibly hundreds of people, is enough evidence to convict his money of drug trafficking.

Continuously reinterpreting and expanding the meaning of the Constitution has weakened our liberties from freedom of speech, association, religion, the right to assemble, assumption of innocents, among others. It has given the police state new liberties, including no-knock-warrants, warrantless phone taps or searches and, as the above victim can verify, assumption of guilt. This is due to an idea that the Constitution is a “living document”, that it is some how outdated or, as others reason, for society to interpret the intent of it. The Constitution as a “living document” is dangerous and has contributed to the erosion of our liberties.

Changes in the meaning of the 5th Amendment have undermined the stability of property rights. At first the words “public use” meant just that, roads, post offices, and government buildings, a little later railroads and utilities where added. Then in 1954 the Supreme Court in Berman v. Parker, unannounced to Mr. Webster, proclaimed the word “use” to mean “purpose” for fighting blight. The loss of protection the 5th Amendment provided the lower classes was only the beginning. Land grabs by gluttonous, cash starved municipalities increased. With each grab the courts allowed additional leeway in the reasoning for it. Some like GM were given older middleclass neighborhoods to build plants, that would supposedly create jobs. Others like Lakewood, Ohio for condominiums or Susette Kelo and her neighbors whose properties are planned to go to the multi-million dollar company Pfizer. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said in the Kelo v New London principal dissent, “The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing a Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or an farm with a factory”

Speaking of farms, Roscoe Filburn was fined $1606.08, adjusted for inflation, for having the audacity to grow more wheat then the Secretary of Agriculture gave him permission to. In Wickard v. Filburn the Supreme Court said that Mr. Filburn’s wheat still fell within the interstate commerce clause; not because it went over a state line but since he didn’t have to buy wheat, he affected the supply throughout the US. In theory, this means that if the Secretary of Agriculture feels that the country has too many tomatoes he can ban your grandmothers garden.

Wickard v. Filburn allowed Washington’s tentacles to taint even medicine, reaping needless suffering and, unfortunately, death. Several states have passed medical marijuana laws. This gave glaucoma suffers the ability to see, cancer and other terminal illness victims relief from their pain, and the bodies of AIDs victims the ability to keep down their life saving medications. The Supreme Court in Gonzales v. Raich, once again using the “living document” mentality, declared that the state and its people had no right to decide what was best for them; not because the medicine was transported over state lines but merely because it could be. Peter McWilliams an AIDs and cancer victim, died on June 14, 2000. Unable to hold down the drugs without the marijuana treatment a doctor had prescribed to him but a federal judge had forbidden him to use, he drowned on his own vomit. That same so called pillar of justice had prohibited the defense, in his trial, from telling the jury that Mr. McWilliams needed the marijuana to keep down his medications, or even that it was prescribed by a doctor and legal in California.

The Declaration of Independence states we have “…certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness…” These rights were not given to us by politicians, judges or a document. They are natural, obtained by our existence, they are our birthright. The framers of the Constitution believed that it was government's duty to protect these rights for us against anyone that would take them away. They also mistrusted men of power, those who as the protectors, could become drunk with power, abuse their positions and become the very ones that they were to protect our rights from. For some time now politicians and judges have ruled over us by using the "living document", saying its meaning can be changed to fit the needs, wants, demands, and even ideology of large, powerful groups. If this is true our “unalienable Rights” are no longer rights protected by the Constitution, but privileges granted or denied us by the courts and the whims of politicians. Tomorrow grandma's garden could be outlawed or the State might decide to give her home to the Seneca Casino and take her pain killers away. Then again, the police might decide her walker can transport drugs and convict it.

Alexander Hamilton feared a democracy leading to politicians catering to the masses at the expense of the individual; Thomas Jefferson feared a strong central government catering to the rich and big business would do the same. To which Jefferson proclaimed, "In questions of power, then, let no more be said of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution." The “living document” mentality is shattering the chains that kept the State and politicians from acquiring unlimited power and the Supreme Court keeps hitting it with an ideoligical sledge hammer.

Half Baked Ideas Just Need More Time in the Oven

Looking at the tea parties and ignoring (or taking with a grain of salt) the medias trivializing of, or stereotyping of them, one sees a lot of different ideologies out there. Could this be that the majority of people are dissatisfied with the “lesser of two evils”? With the blatant, sped up centralizing of power and that those not in the so called “left/right” confines of ideologies are starting to realize that neither party is what they truly want.

Being a radical about individual rights, I have a paranoid attitude towards government. It’s kind of funny, that after over a decade in the Marines I’d be leery of the centralized government, but maybe that’s partly why. After all, that’s one of the reasons I got out. We swore to defend, with our lives, the Constitution from “all enemies foreign and domestic.” I started to see the oath as a conflict. Having to defend the Constitution and obeying superiors (Executive and Legislative branches being the highest); but then this is a path of logic for another post; back to the path at hand.

With so many different ideologies opposed, or at least not happy, with the current direction of the country (a.k.a. centralization) what if they/we all banded together for the purpose of “decentralization?” Say a new party not based on economic or moral ideology but based on unpolluted individualism, family, and community, and to a lesser extent state’s rights. If this party were to gain elected seats to oppose the central government and to a lesser extent the state’s power grabs too, would it be able to slow or even reverse the consolidation of power and the strangling of liberty?

Hmmmm….

Unauthorized Babysitters

Once again the heavy hand of faceless bureaucrats interferes with the daily lives of the working class. In Michigan a neighborhood mom babysits a couple of friends’ kids before school starts so they (the mothers) can go off and work. But the “State” in its all knowing and all seeing wisdom says that to do so the mother needs the “State’s” permission, in way of “daycare license.”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090930/ap_on_re_us/us_baby_sitter_backlash_mich

I’m sure this is to protect the children, as all intrusions by the “state” are reasoned to do. However, in what way can the “State” tell if the mother babysitting is not a danger to the children that the other mothers don’t posses by actually knowing her? These arrangements are between friends and a neighborhood. What’s next, the teenager that babysits a neighborhood kid has to get a state license to do so or they shut her down? But then they’ve done it to kids’ lemonade stands already.

Yes, welcome to America, land of opportunity, so long as you pay the state its extortion fees.

Comfortably Numb Stupor

After several glasses of wine:

Still wondering what authority society and to a greater extent the “state” has over me by using their self-imposed “responsibility” to me?

Since I reject the assumption that either has a responsibility to me, except the “State’s” obligation to protect property rights, neither has authority over me unless to limit my action against another’s property.

Or……as Kant says, or more accurately said:

“The function of the State is to impose the minimum restrictions and safeguard the maximum liberties of the people, and it never regards the person as a thing.”

Now I’m wondering if a revenue generator is a “thing.”

I told you s_

After not posting for more than two years I find it very satisfying that numerous people are now just as radical, unpatriotic, racist, angry, swastika wearing, mob mentality, pawns to the pharmaceuticals (and other big industrialist corporations) as I have been labeled for over almost two decades.

What’s even more comforting, than spooning the wife, is the fact that some that thought I was just being paranoid, about the ever encroaching, ever intrusive, ever expanding central government are now going “OMG!” Bet you’ll read the Constitution and Federalist papers now…..and while you’re at it read Huxley, Rand, and Hayek.

So, although I would much rather look the fool at the moment…I’ll repeat what I use to say then, “Come, Come to the dark side of decentralization, individualistic liberties and Lazzie Faire…that is Libertarianism”

Or just be a tool for what ever powers to be the sheep elect.

The Law Against Laws

Everyday in papers around the world there are rumors of new laws, proposed or enacted. Some dictate when not to talk on a phone, where and what not to smoke, what not to cook with, and for the citizen’s own good, when to wear a helmet or seatbelt. Recently there was an article discussing what some call the criminalization of America. Professor Jonathan Turley of George Washington University, mentions the 12-year-old girl arrested for eating French fries in a Washington, D.C. metro station and the grandmother whose crime was letting her “shrubbery” grow to scandalous heights (21A). The Knights who say Ni better mind their hedges. Professor Turley also points to a State Senator in Louisiana who wants to criminalize wearing pants too low (21A). These laws probably came from some concerned, scandalize citizens saying, “There ought to be a law”.

Over 200 years ago a group of men, who had just rid themselves of over burdensome laws, decided there ought to be a law about “there ought to be a law”. Their solution was the U.S. Constitution and its Amendments, better know as the Bill of Rights. Most people have a misconception of what it is; a majority thinks it gives them their rights. In actuality those rights were already theirs. The Constitution, unlike all other laws does not prohibit, curtail, or manage a citizen’s acts, but rather it prohibits prohibiting, curtails curtailing, and manages managing that the lawmakers would otherwise do. The Constitution is in fact a law that is not a law.

In the Constitution’s First Amendment it says, “Congress shall make no laws” about five things, one of which is restricting the citizens’ right to peaceably assemble. The populace may come together to protest or applaud anything they feel is wrong or right with the country. According to the Constitution the government can not curtail this right, though at times it tries. This is the one instance where groups of citizens emulate the founders the most, by a mass act of civil disobedience, ignoring the authority's attempt to suppress them. As the saying goes, “If citizens ask for the government’s permission to protest, they deserve to be told no.”

In another area, the Constitution forbids authorities from entering or taking property without due process of the law. Specifically the Fourth Amendment which says a citizen can tell the authorities that he or she does not consent to having his or her property searched; along with Fifth Amendment which says the authorities can not hold a citizen without just cause or deprive him or her of his or her life, liberty or property without due process. These two corner stones curtail the abuse of search and seizure. Most laws dealing with property try to give the authorities the power over it, such as the search and seizure laws outlined in the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act. These laws give police the ability to take property, not only, when an actual crime has been committed, but also when there is only a suspicion of one. James Madison in “Property” said, that where “excess of power prevails” an individual’s property whether body, thought, or physical would not be secure (1). This is why the Founders tried to make it virtually impossible for government to enter a citizen’s home or other property and seize anything without proof. These two Constitutional Amendments limit the authority’s ability to take property away.

Then there are the laws forbidding the verbal or written expression of particular ideas. The reasoning in most cases is to protect the populace against hate, prejudices or lesser untruths. The Constitution, again the First Amendment, forbids the limiting of individuals’ expression of ideas, whether truth or not. Ironically, the laws aimed at protecting the truth actually weaken it, and allow untruths to go unchallenged; the very opposite of its intentions. A nineteenth century philosopher and economist, John Stuart Mill, suggested as much; when a perceived idea that is commonly considered true, is shown through reasoning to be false, all of mankind benefits from “exchanging error for truth”. On the other hand, when an individual’s belief is exposed as being false through the open exchange of that same reasoning, he gains truth (14). The restrictive law’s aim is to protect but fails to do that, yet the Constitution disregarding the perceived need, not only protects freedom of speech but strengthens that which the law failed too.

Another way the Constitution can be summed up is by what Professor William Warner, Chair of the University of California’s Santa Barbara English Department wrote, “this ‘right’ is not won through laws…but through a law against laws” (3). Although Professor Warner is speaking specifically about freedom of speech, the same can be said of the whole Bill of Rights. Each amendment is a “law against laws”. This concept is the complete opposite of the purpose of laws Rather than forbidding or dictating conduct it is inviting the free expression of it.

Though the U.S. Constitution is a law or more specifically, the supreme law of the land, it is the facilitator of freedom. Unlike other laws that are the oppressors of individual thought and expression it is their champion. The law says nobody can say that, nobody can do that, and nobody may see, taste, or touch that. Whereas the Constitution says, “Go ahead, it’s a free country.” Then again, Professor Turley might just be wondering when the last time anyone actually heard that phrase was.
...There just ought to be a law...

Works Cited
Madison, James. “Property” National Gazette 29 March 1792
Duke University. 2 Apr. 2007

Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, Inc. 2002
Originally published, London: J.W. Parker 1859

Turley, Jonathan. “Justice? What a Joke.” USA Today 27 Mar. 2007: 21A

Warner, William B. “Print on the Market and the Ideal of Public Culture” 9Aug99. University of
California Santa Barbara English Department. 28 Mar. 2007:

An Observation from Curious George

Recently I had a class assignment to find a specific edition of a nameless business weekly. Unknown to me, it hadn’t hit the stand yet, needless to say after several stores, Tops, Wegmans, Walmart, Target, and a few others I gave up. At the last store though, frustration building and mumbling to myself, I noticed a pattern; there were only a few business and finance magazines on the shelf, compared to any other topic.

I started looking at the bulk of the magazines by topic. I didn’t do any real count but there were more fashion, and high end luxury magazines then any others, will accept maybe the numerous auto mags, though most of the cars on the covers were luxuries. There were women magazines with articles like, “How to make your man beg” or “Secrets your lover wants you to know”, ironic that these magazines started because of and during the women’s liberation movement. Most had one thing in common; the items were beyond the reach of the average joe, including the ways to “make your man beg”.

What came to me, not in a midsummer nights dream, was that the one topic that creates the possibility of acquiring these luxuries is business and wealth, yet those are the two types of magazines in the shortest supply on the racks. Now the stores only sell what the consumer wants, that in it’s self is telling, but I’m curious to the ratio in “rich” areas. I’d be willing to wager that there are almost as many business/wealth magazines as the other kinds.

I’m not saying there is any thing wrong with this, I just found it interesting, in a “curious” kind of way. Maybe it’s just a consequence of being named George.

You don't get what you paid for all the time

I've heard and in the past said, "Government should be run like a business." Problem is business offers their product to individuals on a voluntary basis. If you don't want or don't think the product is worth the cost you can refuse to purchase it. With the government they force you to purchase it, through taxes, then if you don't like it to bad, "Don't use it", no refunds though.

When government makes a product it is, in most cases, inferior to the same product made by a private enterprise; case in point John Deer verses USSR tractors. The picture below tells the story. Can you guess if it was a private venture or government job?



Now do you REALLY want the organization responsible for this quality work messing with your health care more then they already are?

Gun Control, I see the Light Now!

Gun Control: Now that I’ve abandoned my barbaric notions of individualism and have seen the greater good that collective authoritarian statism will usher in, I see no problem with it. Actually, I'm looking forward to all guns being banned. Even though I'll be much safer in my house, my family and I might still fall victim to a knife or sword. And once again we can look to the guiding wisdom of the State for protection.

So I was pleased when I saw the following at a British Police News release:

A number of home-made weapons have been surrendered during the national knife amnesty.

Nails soldered onto a metal bar, specifically cut, highly sharpened blades and knuckledusters were among the weapons handed in.

“These weapons were only made for the purpose of fear and intimidation with the potential of inflicting serious injury, even death - there would be no other reason for their use.” said Sgt Jim Mills at the force’s crime reduction unit.

“We are pleased that the owners’ have been responsible and handed them in. We would urge anyone who has home-made weapons to take the same route and surrender them at one of the designated police stations.”

Tackling knife culture is paramount to the safety of our communities. People who carry bladed weapons run the risk of that weapon being used on them, or inflicting serious injury on others. It also carries a jail sentence of up to four years.

Once the English Police accomplish this just crusade maybe this will be prevented.

I find it upsetting that there are indivuals that still insist in thinking they have a right to weapons. Those who say they have them for their own protection are obviously not thinking rationally. After all, that is what the police are for. One simple call to 911 and within an hour a police officer will show up at your door.(Almost as fast as a dominoes pizza)

We in America have a long way to go before we are as enlightened and civilized as the British. One can only hope that after we have completed the first stage of criminalizing guns, we can move on to the next stage of abolishing the Knife culture also.

I hear the British Police have issued an instruction on how to survive an attack until they arrive. "Lie down and assume the fetal position, so we know who to arrest."

Funny, I thought it be easier. The bloody corps or the man standing over it?

When We Dont Like the Picture Connecting the Dots Make

I really think the Buffalo News could use a weekly opinion column like this:

What's the European response to its self-made economic malaise? They don't repeal the laws that make for a poor investment climate. Instead, through the Paris-based Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), they attack low-tax jurisdictions. Why? To support its welfare state, European nations must have high taxes, but if Europeans, as private citizens and businessmen, relocate, invest and save in other jurisdictions, it means less money is available to be taxed.

I think the reason we don't see a colunm like Dr Williams' in WNY is, We just don't like the picture these dots make when connected.

The Founders as "The Time Traveler"

In the Time Machine when the "Time Traveler" saw the future he must have felt repulsed at what humanity had become. Allowing themselves to become hosts for a group of parasites a food supply. Worse yet they accepted it, not even putting up a fight. Could their acceptance have come from a reasoned thought that one's chances of surviving were greater if one or two "others" were taken then if they refused and fought? The ultimate "The wants of the many out weigh the needs of the few", or in modern American "Common Good".

What reminded me of H.G. Wells book was Walter Williams' latest Minority View "WHY WE LOVE GOVERNMENT"

……..Thomas Paine observed, "We still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping at the spoil of the multitude. . . . It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without a tribute."……….

…………With sentiments like these, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison became presidents. Could a person with similar sentiments win the presidency today? My guess is no. Today's Americans hold such liberty-oriented values in contempt, and any presidential aspirant holding them would have a zero chance of winning office.

Today's Americans hold a different vision of government. It's one that says Congress has the right to do just about anything upon which it can secure a majority vote. Most of what Congress does fits the description of forcing one American to serve the purposes of another American. That description differs only in degree, but not in kind, from slavery.

How repulsed would the Founders be if they were to be transported to present day America? Unlike the "Traveler" would they just turn their backs and say "Your not worthy of our help again".

Milton Friedman; right AGIAN!!!!

Excerpt from Capitalism and Freedom, By Milton Friedman:

In order for men to advocate anything, they must in the first place be able to earn a living. This already raises a problem in a socialist society, since all jobs are under the direct control of political authorities. It would take an act of self-denial whose difficulty is underlined by experience in the United States after World War II with the problem of "security" among Federal employees, for a socialist government to permit its employees to advocate policies directly contrary to official doctrine.

The following is an excerpt from Economist.com on the Venezuela's election:

The opposition's biggest fear concerns the use of fingerprint machines in conjunction with electronic voting. Rightly or wrongly, many Venezuelans believe that because of the machines the vote will not be secret. The government has already made public a list of the several million people who signed the petition calling for the recall referendum, using it to deny jobs and government services to “counter-revolutionaries”. In these circumstances, any belief that the vote might not be secret seems likely to hurt Mr. Rosales.

This brings up several issues:

a. Socialist will crush, by any means, descent yet will demand their right to it.

b. Milton Friedman was right.

c. With our country slowly crawling to a Socialist State, do we really want computers tracking the vote?

d. Milton Friedman was right.

e. Though Ayn Rand's "We the Living" was fictional, she,herself, said if any book was about her life that would be it. The similarities between what she wrote about political descent in early Soviet Union mirrors Venezuela. Now ask yourself: Why is it that socialist leaning Americans are the ones who want the government to have all the guns, and to take them away from the slaves serfs subjects citizens? Why is it that throughout history it is the "welfare of the people" that enslaves those very people?

f. Milton Friedman was right.