tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-48711247464370749102024-03-12T23:05:17.521-07:00Kinetic ReactionPolitical blogUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger156125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4871124746437074910.post-48703727325086579972011-10-13T19:18:00.001-07:002011-10-13T19:19:09.572-07:00Ron Paul Highlights - Bloomberg/Washington Post GOP Debate<iframe width="410" height="305" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/4o038RvQW90" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com43tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4871124746437074910.post-36582456822204824562011-10-11T08:21:00.000-07:002011-10-11T08:22:34.210-07:00Ron Paul: Restore America NowA great promotional video for Ron Paul<br /><br /><iframe width="410" height="280" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Loma6chxrX8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4871124746437074910.post-37025940913209012872011-10-11T07:18:00.000-07:002011-10-11T08:21:38.777-07:00Rand Paul on Regulations<iframe width="410" height="250" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/pmrNHg7C_QY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com40tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4871124746437074910.post-87788072132213293942011-10-11T07:14:00.000-07:002011-10-11T07:15:12.158-07:00Ron Paul at the Fox News / Google Debate<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/tI-yStFdjfQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4871124746437074910.post-74053152969940788192011-10-11T07:11:00.001-07:002011-10-11T08:23:28.789-07:00Ron Paul Highlights - CNN Tea Party Debate<iframe width="410" height="250" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/szHkBgXnS38" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4871124746437074910.post-84974029638299247012011-10-11T07:10:00.001-07:002011-10-11T08:23:52.728-07:00Ron Paul Reagan Library Debate - All Questions and Answers - September 7, 2011<iframe width="410" height="300" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/44S6frKsHtM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4871124746437074910.post-86698589913640181362011-09-06T21:32:00.000-07:002011-09-06T21:33:51.347-07:00Ron Paul: Unwavering Consistency, Unparalleled Foresight<iframe width="415" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/sLtdFtSAmLw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com20tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4871124746437074910.post-23730057474429988072011-08-26T17:48:00.000-07:002011-08-26T17:50:32.975-07:00American Spectator Dead Wrong on Ron Paul<iframe width="410" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/6YpP80_J5N8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4871124746437074910.post-4874504434721626902011-08-26T17:46:00.000-07:002011-08-26T17:53:47.956-07:00Ron Paul's Iowa Fox GOP August 11 Debate<iframe width="400" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/76LFwMnq6bE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4871124746437074910.post-10100991030729318892011-06-16T06:50:00.000-07:002011-06-21T18:36:00.282-07:00The Philosophy of Liberty: Plunder<iframe width="400" height="257" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/TJIMqwJI2uI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4871124746437074910.post-88063288868058470342011-06-16T06:48:00.000-07:002011-06-21T18:37:15.594-07:00Ron Paul in 6/13/2011 Debate<iframe width="400" height="330" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/gsZfSJ3V4bc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4871124746437074910.post-37982382015316731642011-05-06T08:56:00.000-07:002011-06-21T18:38:08.705-07:00Ron Paul highlights in GOP Presidential debateRon Paul as usual defended liberty and the constitution in the first presidential debate in South Carolina. Here are the highlights:<br /><br /><iframe width="400" height="257" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/k84AAV9z8wo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4871124746437074910.post-56174308901444497832011-04-27T19:26:00.000-07:002011-04-27T19:39:14.008-07:00The Great Socialist MisconceptionThe logical short-comings of socialism have been known for a long time.<br /><br />Nearly 200 years ago, the great classical liberal thinker Frédéric Bastiat wrote:<br /><br /><blockquote>Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.<br /><br />We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.</blockquote><br /><br />His critique still applies today to socialist-leaning individuals.<br /><br />Bastiat wrote 'The Law', one of the most famous classical liberal works. The Law argues that the only just use of government power is to protect the right of individuals to their person, their liberty, and their property. When governments are used to plunder from one group to give to another, then they because instruments of injustice, rather than providers of it.<br /><br />'The Law' can be found online <a href="http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html">here</a>.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4871124746437074910.post-6034215133108910672011-04-27T19:22:00.000-07:002011-04-27T19:25:27.660-07:00The Unintended Consequences Of The Welfare StateForbes recently published an excellent article about the immorality of welfare advocacy:<br /><br /><blockquote>The Unintended Consequences Of The Welfare State<br />James Otteson,<br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">It is morally wrong to live off of the fruits of others' labor.</span><br /><br />The welfare state seems to be corrupting some of our core moral principles.<br /><br />That wasn't its intention, but if there is one thing we know about government programs, it is that they rarely do what they were intended to do. This moral corruption is eminently on display in the increasingly common, and increasingly loud, protests over cuts in state budgets, and we will soon see it in the looming fight over whether to raise the federal debt ceiling. (continued..) <a href="http://www.forbes.com/2011/04/25/welfare-labor-immoral.html">source</a></blockquote>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4871124746437074910.post-17455205297700572502011-04-19T15:06:00.000-07:002011-04-28T07:45:07.907-07:00The Great Islamophobic CrusadeFor a small but significant portion of the American population, there is no issue of greater importance than the threat of Islam. Not a debt that threatens to bankrupt the country, nuclear armed adversaries that could in theory kill hundreds of millions of people, or special interests in control of Washington DC. Such an assessment is clearly based on an enormous exaggeration of the strength of Muslim extremists, and at first it might seem inexplicable how it could become so widespread.<br /><br />This article explains that a dedicated effort by far right Israeli/Jewish extremists is pushing the anti-Islamic sentiment, in order to coopt Americans to their cause:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/12/19/opinion/main7166626.shtml">The Great Islamophobic Crusade</a><br /><br /><blockquote>Nine years after 9/11, hysteria about Muslims in American life has gripped the country. <br /><br />With it has gone an outburst of arson attacks on mosques, campaigns to stop their construction, and the branding of the Muslim-American community, overwhelmingly moderate, as a hotbed of potential terrorist recruits. The frenzy has raged from rural Tennessee to New York City, while in Oklahoma, voters even overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure banning the implementation of Sharia law in American courts (not that such a prospect existed). This campaign of Islamophobia wounded President Obama politically, as one out of five Americans have bought into a sustained chorus of false rumors about his secret Muslim faith. And it may have tainted views of Muslims in general; an August 2010 Pew Research Center poll revealed that, among Americans, the favorability rating of Muslims had dropped by 11 points since 2005.<br /><br />Erupting so many years after the September 11th trauma, this spasm of anti-Muslim bigotry might seem oddly timed and unexpectedly spontaneous. But think again: it's the fruit of an organized, long-term campaign by a tight confederation of right-wing activists and operatives who first focused on Islamophobia soon after the September 11th attacks, but only attained critical mass during the Obama era. It was then that embittered conservative forces, voted out of power in 2008, sought with remarkable success to leverage cultural resentment into political and partisan gain.<br /><br />This network is obsessively fixated on the supposed spread of Muslim influence in America. Its apparatus spans continents, extending from Tea Party activists here to the European far right. It brings together in common cause right-wing ultra-Zionists, Christian evangelicals, and racist British soccer hooligans. It reflects an aggressively pro-Israel sensibility, with its key figures venerating the Jewish state as a Middle Eastern Fort Apache on the front lines of the Global War on Terror and urging the U.S. and various European powers to emulate its heavy-handed methods.<br /><br />[continued..]</blockquote>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4871124746437074910.post-42536795545074297062011-04-11T07:27:00.000-07:002011-06-21T18:39:08.281-07:00Rand Paul Introduces Five-Year Balanced Budget PlanOn March 17th 2011, Rand Paul introduced a plan to balance the budget in 5 years:<br /><br /><iframe width="400" height="257" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/e0vDNmE_M7E" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4871124746437074910.post-5194137898258030972011-03-03T20:50:00.000-08:002011-03-03T20:55:34.056-08:00Soviet Defector Explains How the KGB Demoralized Nations by Spreading New-Age Ideals<iframe width="425" height="344" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/zeMZGGQ0ERk?fs=1" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen=""></iframe>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4871124746437074910.post-88356895835123533882011-02-15T17:17:00.000-08:002011-02-15T17:43:27.928-08:00Fox Blatantly Doctors Ron Paul Victory Announcement FootageFox has apparently used footage from Ron Paul's 2010 CPAC victory and claimed it is what happened in Ron Paul's 2011 CPAC victory. Get the word out and embarrass Fox.<br /><br /><iframe width="425" height="344" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/lwo0Iyrh1Zk?fs=1" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen=""></iframe>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4871124746437074910.post-36383690887438358242011-02-13T19:24:00.000-08:002011-02-13T19:44:09.278-08:00Venn Diagram of Jesus, Democrats, and Communists<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigSZW4HCFWU4pner4es5wTersFu8TYaTGebVBayEpcFoIjjpjWEJ1MCosP1ZEdkgKsM3obzlb3iWWxO-dkQ9qMKoytjjGdMmKD7p2Ho1T4RHUipEDDbTe8p4JUUiRilBfoVuax2ajps8LD/s1600/Jesus+-+Democrats+-+Communists.jpg"><img style="cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigSZW4HCFWU4pner4es5wTersFu8TYaTGebVBayEpcFoIjjpjWEJ1MCosP1ZEdkgKsM3obzlb3iWWxO-dkQ9qMKoytjjGdMmKD7p2Ho1T4RHUipEDDbTe8p4JUUiRilBfoVuax2ajps8LD/s400/Jesus+-+Democrats+-+Communists.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5573385982902946834" /></a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4871124746437074910.post-36016072596168813922011-02-11T19:50:00.001-08:002011-02-11T19:51:50.043-08:00Ron Paul at CPAC 2011Another great speech by Ron Paul<br /><br /><iframe width="425" height="344" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/JM8d_Arjz6g?fs=1" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen=""></iframe>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4871124746437074910.post-83852869547733394442010-12-02T13:10:00.001-08:002010-12-05T01:59:33.933-08:00Wikileaks is a Power Shift from the Elite to the Masses but Also Reduces Government EfficacyThe Wikileaks release of 250,000 secret cables exposes the dealings of the world's most powerful people, and in the processs shift power to the masses. The institutions of government grant the political elite and the administrators of said institutions enormous powers through government privileges like secrecy and immunity to privacy laws, as well as the public resources at their disposal. <br /><br />This political and bureaucratic elite have guarded these privileges jealously, and only with an involuntary leak could the world have learned of how they are used. With this knowledge the masses who form the power base of the governmental/political elite are better able to negotiate and manage their supposed representatives, and ensure they are working for their interests and not their own.<br /><br />The information in the leaks also reveals to the masses the large strategies in play and tactics used by the various politically connected factions. This expose has the effect of reducing the disparity between the smaller players in the world and those who have attained political power.<br /><br />The downside to the Wikileaks release is that short term considerations of how a particular action will play to the public will cloud political decisions. With political criticism now an ever present possibility in the minds of government officials, their actions could end up being conducted in a manner primarily motivated by a desire to minimize political risks to themselves.<br /><br />In some ways, the weakness of democracy, which is that the government is more intent on re-election than doing what's best for the people, becomes more pronounced when officials do not have any secret channels through which to share their views and administer policies. The risk of this is that government action becomes like the election season campaigning of political candidates, where what is said is not what the candidate really believes will improve the situation for the people, but what they believe will gain them support from a public that largely responds to sound-bites.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4871124746437074910.post-89824244817926848652010-06-09T23:20:00.000-07:002010-11-19T03:42:36.595-08:00Individual Rights by Rand PaulRand Paul responded to the recent manufactured controversy over his Civil Rights comments with the following article in the <a href="http://bgdailynews.com/articles/2010/06/06/opinion/commentary/comm1.txt">Bowling Green Daily:</a><br /><br /><blockquote>Kundera writes of a balcony scene in the winter snow of 1948 Prague. Clementis offers his fur cap to the new leader Gottwald. Later Clementis is purged by the Communists and airbrushed from all the photos. All that remains of Clementis is the fur cap on Gottwald’s head.<br /><br />In the end, all that remains of any of us is our reputation. Mine has been sullied over the past week by lies and innuendo.<br /><br />I’ve spent the past 14 months traveling around the commonwealth, giving more than 400 speeches, and talking to thousands of Kentuckians.<br /><br />Throughout these speeches, I never once had reason to discuss the Civil Rights Act of 1964, much less call for the repeal of this settled law 46 years later.<br /><br />So you can imagine my shock when my wife called the day after the election to tell me that Jack Conway was on MSNBC saying - outright lying - claiming that I had called for the repeal of the Civil Rights Act. Even though these lies were evident by watching the video footage, commentators on MSNBC and elsewhere have been repeating it as fact for more than a week now.<br /><br />If you watch any of my interviews, you’ll see I never stated that I did not support the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and I certainly never called for its repeal.<br /><br />I was asked if I supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I stated that “I like the Civil Rights Act in the sense that it ended discrimination in all public domains, and I’m all in favor of that.” In response, the interviewer asked me about private domains, and I did what typical candidates don’t - I discussed some philosophical issues with government mandating rules on private businesses. I think the federal government has often gone too far in regulating private citizens and businesses.<br /><br />I made comparisons to the First Amendment and how it allows people in a free society to say things that may be abhorrent, but that is a challenge of a free society. I was speaking abstractly, not to any piece of legislation, since in general my political views are rooted in the rights of the individual over the state.<br /><br />The interviewer then brought me back to the literal world of life in 1964, saying, “But it’s different with race, because much of the discrimination based on race was codified into law.” In the video you’ll see me agree with her, ending the discussion by saying, “Exactly, it was institutionalized. And that’s why we had to end all institutional racism and I’m completely in favor of that.”<br /><br />I think that statement is very clear. This did not stop my opponent and the liberal media from implying that I meant the opposite.<br /><br />I am unlike many folks who run for office. I am an idealist. When I read history I side with abolitionists such as William Lloyd Garrison and Frederick Douglas who fought for 30 years to end slavery and to integrate public transportation in the free North in the 1840s. I see our failure to end slavery for decade after decade as a failure of weak-kneed politicians.<br /><br />I cheer the abolitionist Lysander Spooner, who argued that slavery was unconstitutional 20 years before the Civil War. I cheer Lerone Bennet when he argues that the right of habeas corpus guaranteed in the Constitution should have derailed slavery long before the Civil War.<br /><br />Only when the brave idealists, the abolitionists, finally provoked the weak-kneed politicians into action, did the emancipation proclamation come about. Our body politic has enough pragmatists, we need a few idealists.<br /><br />Segregation ended only after a great and momentous uprising by idealists like Martin Luther King Jr., who provoked weak-kneed politicians to action.<br /><br />In 2010, there are battles that need to be fought, and they have nothing to do with race or discrimination, but rather the rights of people to be free from a nanny state.<br /><br />For example, I am opposed to the government telling restaurant owners that they cannot allow smoking in their establishments. I believe we as consumers can choose whether to patronize a smoke-filled restaurant or do business with a smoke-free option.<br /><br />Think about it - this overreach is now extending to mandates about fat and calorie counts in menus. Do we really need the government managing all of these decisions for us?<br /><br />My overriding principle is this: I believe in the natural right of all individuals to have their God-given liberty protected. And that’s why I believe the Civil Rights Act was necessary, and that I would have voted for it.<br /><br />I have long been a fan of what Martin Luther King wrote, “That an unjust law is any code that a numerical majority enforces on a minority but not make binding on itself.”<br /><br />Now the media is twisting my small government message, making me out to be a crusader for repeal of the Americans for Disabilities Act and The Fair Housing Act. Again, this is patently untrue. I have simply pointed out areas within these broad federal laws that have financially burdened many smaller businesses.<br /><br />For example, should a small business in a two-story building have to put in a costly elevator, even if it threatens their economic viability? Wouldn’t it be better to allow that business to give a handicapped employee a ground floor office? We need more businesses and jobs, not fewer.<br /><br />This much is clear: the federal government has overreached in its power grabs. Just look at the national health care schemes, which my opponent supports. Look at the out of control EPA, trying to make law by overreaching regulations that will harm Kentucky coal.<br /><br />Our country faces a difficult financial future. I see issues not in terms of party but in terms of principles and I will do my very best to deserve the honor that has been bestowed upon me to run for office.<br /><br />Editor’s note: Rand Paul of Bowling Green is the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate.</blockquote><br /><br />Another good article is one in the Wall Street Journal, which points out the hypocrisy and unprofessionalism of the attacks by left-leaning media figures like Salon's Joan Walsh on Rand Paul:<br /><br /><blockquote><a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703559004575256283217096358.html"><br />Rand Paul and Civil Rights</a><br /><br />A rookie mistake feeds a left-wing smear.<br /><br />By JAMES TARANTO<br /><br />Rand Paul was 1 when Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Now 47, he is the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate from Kentucky, his first ever foray into politics. To his evident surprise, the hypothetical question of how he would have voted in 1964 has been drawing a lot of attention.<br /><br />Politico's Ben Smith characterizes as "evasive" this response Paul gave when asked the question by National Public Radio (we've corrected Smith's transcription errors):<br /><br /> <blockquote>"What I've always said is, I'm opposed to institutional racism, and I would have--if I was alive at the time, I think--had the courage to march with Martin Luther King to overturn institutional racism, and I see no place in our society for institutional racism," he said in response to a first question about the act.<br /><br /> "You would have marched with Martin Luther King but voted with Barry Goldwater?" asked an interviewer.<br /><br /> "I think it's confusing in a lot of cases in what's actually in the Civil Rights Case (sic)," Paul replied. "A lot of things that were actually in the bill I'm actually in favor of. I'm in favor of--everything with regards to ending institutional racism. So I think there's a lot to be desired in the Civil Rights--and indeed the truth is, I haven't read all through it, because it was passed 40 years ago and hadn't been a real pressing issue on the campaign on whether I'm going to vote for the Civil Rights Act."</blockquote><br /><br />In an update to his post, Smith notes that it wasn't the first time Paul was asked the question:<br /><br /> <blockquote>Paul articulated his view on the Civil Rights Act in an interview with the editorial board of the Louisville Courier-Journal. . . .<br /><br /> Paul explained that he backed the portion of the Civil Rights Act banning discrimination in public places and institutions, but that he thinks private businesses should be permitted to discriminate by race.<br /><br /> "I like the Civil Rights Act in the sense that it ended discrimination in all public domains, and I'm all in favor of that," he said. "I don't like the idea of telling private business owners. . . ." </blockquote><br /><br />Smith is not the only commentator to accuse Paul of being "evasive" or refusing to give a "straight answer." This criticism is absurd. The politically wise answer would have been "yes"--a straight answer in form, but an evasive one in substance. Answering the way he did was a rookie mistake--or, to put it more charitably, a demonstration that Paul is not a professional politician.<br /><br />Taken at face value, the question itself--How would you have voted if you had been in the Senate as an infant?--is silly. It is a reasonable question only if it is understood more broadly, as an inquiry into Paul's political philosophy. The question within the question is: How uncompromising are you in your adherence to small-government principles?<br /><br />Paul gave his answer: Pretty darn uncompromising--uncompromising enough to take a position that is not only politically embarrassing but morally dubious by his own lights, as evidenced by this transcript from the Courier-Journal interview, provided by the left-wing site ThinkProgress.org:<br /><br /> <blockquote>Interviewer: But under your philosophy, it would be OK for Dr. King not to be served at the counter at Woolworths?<br /><br /> Paul: I would not go to that Woolworths, and I would stand up in my community and say that it is abhorrent, um, but, the hard part--and this is the hard part about believing in freedom--is, if you believe in the First Amendment, for example--you have too, for example, most good defenders of the First Amendment will believe in abhorrent groups standing up and saying awful things. . . . It's the same way with other behaviors. In a free society, we will tolerate boorish people, who have abhorrent behavior.</blockquote><br /><br />Again, Paul could have given a "straight" answer to the question--a flat "no"--that made clear his personal disapproval of discrimination while evading what was really a question about his political philosophy. Far from being evasive, Paul has shown himself to be both candid and principled to a fault.<br /><br />We do mean to a fault. In this matter, Paul seems to us to be overly ideological and insufficiently mindful of the contingencies of history. Although we are in accord with his general view that government involvement in private business should be kept to a minimum, in our view the Civil Rights Act's restrictions on private discrimination were necessary in order to break down a culture of inequality that was only partly a matter of oppressive state laws. On the other hand, he seeks merely to be one vote of 100 in the Senate. An ideologically hardheaded libertarian in the Senate surely would do the country more good than harm.<br /><br />It's possible, though, that Paul's eccentric views on civil rights will harm the Republican Party by feeding the left's claims that America is a racist country and the GOP is a racist party. Certainly that's what Salon's Joan Walsh is hoping. Here are her comments on a Rand interview with MSNBC's Rachel Maddow:<br /><br /> <blockquote>You've got to watch the whole interview. At the end, Paul seemed to understand that he's going to be explaining his benighted civil rights views for a long, long time--but he seemed to blame Maddow. "You bring up something that is really not an issue . . . a red herring, it's a political ploy . . . and that's the way it will be used," he complained at the end of the interview. Whether the Civil Rights Act should have applied to private businesses--"not really an issue," says Tea Party hero Rand Paul.<br /><br />It's going to become increasingly clear that the Tea Party movement wants to revoke the Great Society, the New Deal and the laws that were the result of the civil rights movement. Paul may be right that his views are "not really an issue" with his Tea Party supporters, although I have to think some of them won't enjoy watching him look like a slippery politician as he fails, over and over, to answer Maddow's questions directly.</blockquote><br /><br />When Paul says this "is really not an issue," he is speaking in the present tense. It is quite clear that he means that the Civil Rights Act, which has been the law for nearly 46 years, is politically settled; there is no movement to revoke it. In this, he is correct. Walsh's assertion that this is what the tea-party movement seeks is either a fantasy or a lie.<br /><br />It's a curious role reversal: Rand Paul is a politician; Joan Walsh is a journalist. He is honest, perhaps too honest for his own good. She is playing the part of the dishonest demagogue.</blockquote>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4871124746437074910.post-81403380507526715382010-05-11T00:48:00.000-07:002010-05-11T09:50:13.394-07:00Big Government destroys Real DemocracyThere is a common misconception that more government control of the economy leads to more democratic control. Leftists like MIT linguist and lifelong socialist Noam Chomsky often make this claim while criticizing private corporations as "totalitarian", due to their top down control management style where the shareholders have absolute say and the workers none. Both of these are faulty precepts.<br /><br />Let us break each argument down and evaluate their merits. The idea that bigger government leads to more democratic control springs from the fact that governments are democratically managed, and therefore when they control resources, those resources become democratically managed as well. This is true at a theoretical level, but in practice governments are controlled by a political elite, and the electorate is generally ignorant about the issues being decided on, let alone participating in the decision making.<br /><br />A large government empowers those closest to the political decision makers, and allows them to circumvent the most democratic of all forums: courts of law. Courts of law are where the people make decisions based on what they believe is just. In courts, the people who make up the jury are armed with all the facts of the case, and are given the time to study them and the complete power to make a decision on it. <br /><br />With legislation, the politically connect can insulate themselves from the decision of courts. They can change the terms of contracts, re-allocate the wealth of society, and dictate the actions of individuals, all without having to convince any court of law. <br /><br />As far as the second argument: that corporations are totalitarian, it is simply empty rhetoric as it ignores the defining quality of totalitarianism: <span style="font-weight:bold;">government</span> control of all aspects of society. A corporation alone has no governmental powers to impose its will. <br /><br />There is a fundamental difference in the exercise of government power compared to other forms of power. Government power supersedes the will of courts and as such can ignore the protections granted to people by common law (which is essentially the law as created by the most democratic of institutions, courts). <br /><br />It is ironic that those who call for big government in the name of increasing democratic control and fighting totalitarianism, are in fact doing the opposite by diminishing the role of courts and increasing the power of the only organization capable of exerting totalitarian controls.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4871124746437074910.post-43063948798048548012010-04-18T20:43:00.000-07:002010-05-15T20:31:48.436-07:00Palin's criticism of Obama undermines US security<a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000558-503544.html">Sarah Palin's public criticisms of the Obama administration</a> for taking a critical stance on Israel's controversial announcement of new settlement construction undermine US national security.<br /><br /><a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20100309/wl_mcclatchy/3447129">Israel announced new settlement construction in East Jerusalem</a>, a move which violates the road map for peace, before a visit by Vice President Joe Biden to Israel intended to jump start peace talks between the Palestinian Authority and Israel. This was widely seen as a snub to the US, and eliminated any possibility of the US initiative producing any results.<br /><br />A major American opposition figure, like Sarah Palin, taking the side of a foreign nation, after it insults the US president and sabotages a major American foreign policy initiative, creates a perception of American political disunity and weakens American credibility as it tries to pressure Israel into making a necessary stop to its settlement building activity. <br /><br />Given the level of US military involvement in the middle east, and how much the Israeli-Palestinian conflict contributes to tensions in the middle east, peace between Israel and Palestine is a vital US national security interest, as <a href="http://action.fcnl.org/list/iraq/19Mar10/">affirmed by General David Petraeus</a>, head of US Central Command. Palin's repeated attacks on Obama for justifiably reacting harshly to Israel's derailment of the peace initiative are inexcusable for a figure who aspires to be a major player in American politics.<br /><br />The best US foreign policy would be military disengagement from the middle east, as Ron Paul proposes, but barring that, it is essential that American political figures not undermine American efforts to create lasting peace in the region, for the sake of <a href="http://www.nysun.com/national/obamas-pressure-on-israel-gives-birth-to-jewish/86918/">scoring points with America's powerful Israel lobby</a>.<br /><br />The attachment to a foreign nation, which motivates this kind of political behavior from Sarah Palin and her supporters, is something George Washington warned about:<br /><br /><blockquote>So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.<br /><br />As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.<br /><br />Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.<br /><br />The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities. <br /><br /><a href="http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp">Washington's Farewell Address 1796</a> </blockquote>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4871124746437074910.post-28438819786680958782010-03-31T05:08:00.000-07:002010-03-31T07:56:29.488-07:00Joe Biden's 'Entitlement' Comment is WrongIn a recent interview, Joe Biden rebuffed claims that the Democrats' policies were redistributive by stating:<br /><br /><blockquote>"It's a simple proposition to us: Everyone is entitled to adequate medical health care," Biden says. "If you call that a 'redistribution of income' -- well, so be it. I don't call it that. I call it just being fair." <br /><br /><a href="http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/455245/Joe-Biden-on-Taxes%3A-You-Call-It-%22Redistribution-of-Wealth%2C%22-I-Call-It-%22Just-Being-Fair%22">source</a></blockquote><br /><br />Joe Biden is wrong. No one is entitled to health care. People are only entitled to that which they produce themselves. They are not entitled to something others need to provide or buy for them. No one is entitled to the pay check or labor of a perfect stranger.<br /><br />Joe Biden's comment reflects the faulty precept of socialism, which expresses itself in the modern liberal/social-democrat political school of thought.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0