Rights.com

“If anything, we need higher gas taxes.” - Alice Rivlin, former Clinton White House budget office, now Barack Obama supporter, May 6, 2008

Hillary Clinton and John McCain agree that the Federal gas tax should be eliminated for the summer. Barack Obama advisors argue for a higher gas taxes.  Experience shows that one who is willing to raise one tax or not cut taxes is much more likely to raise others.  

Hey Rivlin, it is our money.  Donate more if you wish yourself.  Put your money where your mouth is, or is that too much to ask?  

“It’s time for a president who is ready on day one to be the commander in chief of our economy. ” Hillary Clinton, March 27, 2008

 ”I don’t want to run the national economy!  I want your national economy runners to leave me alone!”  Dagny Taggart, Atlas Shrugged  

The nature of freedom is being in charge of your own life.  Freedom means freedom in every sense, from the economy to your personal life.  A free people do not need a “commander in chief” of our economy.  Liberty means you can live on a commune in Wisconsin or a free city in Florida. A free economy implies capitalism. All other statist systems from communism to socialism to fascism, rely on force to take your freedom away from you. The people who say “capitalism does not work” are saying “freedom doesn’t work.” And what they mean by that is they want power over you to force you to change reality for them and make the economic systems based on force work.

Barack Obama describes his white grandmother as a “typical white person.”  Can you imagine the outrage if Hillary Clinton described someone as a “typical black person” or a “typical asian person”?  What if Hillary said something about Obama being a “typical black man”.     Geraldine Ferraro was castigated for her comment about “if [Barack] was a white man”  Where is the outrage now?

In part he said: “She is extremely proud, and the point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn’t. But she is a typical white person who, you know, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn’t know, there is a reaction that has been bred into our experiences that don’t go away…” 

“I firmly believe that changing the rules now, and seating delegates from Florida and Michigan at this point would not only violate the Democratic party’s rules of fairness, but also would be a grave injustice. … I knew the rules, abided by them, and ultimately accepted the consequences. Changing the rules in the middle of a presidential contest is patently unfair both to the candidates (including Senator Edwards) and to Democratic voters everywhere. ” - Al Sharpton, February 13, 2008, part of Rev Sharpton’s letter.

Reverend Sharpton, you are exactly right, thank you for stating that.  Changing the rules in the middle of the game is patently unfair.  As a Florida resident I don’t like the handling of the delegates for the Democrats or Republicans, but the rules were set by both parties for 2008 and we are stuck with them now.  Perhaps for 2012 the parties will revise their rules in light of these events. 

In a letter released on the evening of February 4, 2008, Monday, by Senator McCain’s campaign, Dole strongly defended the senator’s conservative credentials, noting that his voting record is opposed to abortion and supportive of gun-owner rights. 

Let’s hear what Senator Goldwater would likely say to some of the nonsense that Senator McCain has spouted.

“This is a party - this Republican Party is a party for free men. Not for blind followers and not for conformists.”

The most critical statement is that the Republican party is the party for free men.  Goldwater was and is right.  The Republican party is the party for a free people.  The candidate for such a party must agree with that key principle.  In fact, the candidate must have a guiding principle.  When the President or candidate for President does not have guiding principles, you get things such as “read my lips, no new taxes” and then “new taxes.”

 1. McCain-Feingold -  Goldwater would say something like “I say further that for this great legislative body to ignore the Constitution and the fundamental concepts of our governmental system is to act in a manner which could ultimately destroy the freedom of all American citizens…”.  The Constitution is the bulwark of our freedoms.  When it becomes common (more so) to ignore it or reinterpret the Constitution as is convenient, the Constitution becomes meaningless and freedom will quickly die. This bill did huge damage to the concept of the freedom of speech.

2. Amnesty for Illegals:  ”The conservative movement is founded on the simple tenet that people have the right to live life as they please, as long as they don’t hurt anyone else in the process. ”  Breaking the law by definition hurts people.  Immigrants are welcome, sure, but either follow the rules or change them.

 3. Government expansion via more programs (McCain-Lieberman on Global Warming, McCain on the reimportation of prescription drugs), including extending Social Security to illegal immigrants: “A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away.”  


4. “Gang of 14″ Now, my fellow Americans, the tide has been running against freedom. Our people have followed false prophets.  We must, and we shall, return to proven ways - not because they are old, but because they are true.

5. McCain attempting to extend the Constitution to terrorists or unlawful enemy-combatants.  By definition the Constitution does not apply to those attacking the country and trying to destroy it.  Guantanamo Bay closure.

Goldwater might respond: “Now those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth, and let me remind you they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyranny.

No offense to the two Senators, but getting a letter from Bob Dole defending how “conservative” you are, is not much of an endorsement.  The Nixon-Ford-Bush(41)-Dole wing of the party is the establishment-country-club wing.  If McCain is truly as conservative as he says, he needs to clearly and quickly address the issues that relate to freedom and the rule of law.  

Remember: Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice;  moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

And one final quotation from President Reagan:  ”I don’t know about you,” said Reagan in 1975, “but I’m impatient with those Republicans who, after the last election, rushed into print saying we must broaden the base of our party, when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents.”   

Given Senator McCain’s victory in Florida yesterday, the Senator needs to answer a few questions before Super-Tuesday. Unquestionable, someone in their 70s can be President, President Reagan was 69 when he took office, Senator McCain will be 72 when he would take office, if he wins. Senator Clinton and Governor Romney would be 61 in January 2009. Senator Obama would be 47.1. How will he counter the age argument when it comes up in the election?  How will he counter the different generation argument?  Both Senator Clinton or - even more so - Senator Obama will raise it?2. Will Senator McCain run for a second term in 2012?  This is an important question because in 2012 Senator McCain will be 76.  President Reagan was 77 when he left office and the media played up the age angle.  No matter how good his press is now, the media will abandon him once the primaries are complete and even more so in 2012.  3. Given his age, he needs to consider a  younger Vice Presidential running mate.  As we advocated last week, Mitt Romney or Rudy would make good choices as would J.C. Watts. We advocated that President Bush switch Vice Presidents in 2004 in order to anoint a liberty-oriented successor, and Senator McCain needs to consider this question.Mitt Romney should also consider the running mate questions because Super-Tuesday could be Mitt’s day.  However, given the history of age of former Presidents Senator McCain should be considering the questions now. 

Some advice for Mitt Romney or John McCain:  approach J.C. Watts as your Vice Presidential running mate for 2008.  J.C. Watts is a well known Republican and well liked in the mid-West.  He has relative youth (particularly compared to McCain) and is regarding as being a bright guy. Whomever the nominee is, Rudy Giuliani would also make a good running-mate.  Adopt Rudy’s tax simplification plan, get Rudy out there explaining it, and the team will be on its way. Even if you don’t pick Rudy, pick his plan.

If Senator John McCain loses in Florida or suffers a large defeat on Super-Tuesday, expect that Senator Hillary Clinton will offer Senator McCain the Vice President spot. He might take time to consider it and wait until the convention to announce, but Senator McCain must realize that 2012 will be too late. Will he jump at the chance to be Vice President? Will Hillary actually offer it? The two politicians are friendly and share many similar views, so it is not out of the realm of possibilities. Is the reverse likely (McCain choosing Clinton as running-mate) if by some small chance Hillary Clinton does not win the Democratic nomination?   Not at all, McCain would pick Huckabee for a running-mate (or at least some high-level position) if he helps enough.

United States Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, is drafting a plan that is supposed to protect America’s cyberspace. The plan, according to The New Yorker (January 14, 2008) is that “the government must have the ability to read all the information crossing the Internet in the United States.” Yes, you read it right, in order to protect us, we must give up all our rights to privacy. Prisoners in jail have given up their right to privacy, not voluntarily of course, as we are asked to do. Prisoners can be moved, strip searched, cavity searched, and have their mail search at the whim of their jailers. But they are safe. Oh yes, very, very safe. As will be the people of the United States with the Federal Government as our Jailer, at least that is the plan. The prisoners who are following the rules of the jail have nothing to fear, they are told. And yet they still must submit whenever they are ordered. The United States can be both free and safe. A false choice is being created in order to increase the power of the Federal Government. Do we want to be a nation of prisoners? Do we want to be a nation that must watch every word or spend months explaining what was meant by a particular sentence. When all dissent is monitored, dissent becomes impossible.

People act is if there is a difference between civil liberties and liberty. There isn’t. We will be free in all areas or will be in none. There is no difference between those who wish to limit our economic liberty that those who wish to limit or “civil” liberty. Limiting our liberty in one area necessitates its loss in all other areas. The ramifications of one small loss of liberty multiplies across all others. We will be free or not. Half-free and half-slave is a contradiction in terms and impossible in reality. … Read the rest of this entry »

“No woman is illegal,” Clinton said, to cheers. (http://www.lvrj.com/news/13702902.html)

From someone sworn (as a United States Senator) to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the United States, this is disgraceful.  Yet again Hillary Clinton shows her disdain for the laws that she expects everyone else to obey. 

A pragmatist is someone who would have compromised with King George.  Do we really want pragmatists guarding our liberty? 

Bloomberg has a story today about the United Nations (UN) Climate Summit in Bali (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601170&refer=home&sid=aPbfclqokwcw) and how the summit will produce as much pollution as 20,000 cars in a year (7.3 million cars in one day).  Yes, you read that right, 20,000 cars in a year. Do as they say, not as they do because they are the special elite, while the masses of people need to be ruled.  Freedom is lost bit by bit, and once lost more difficult to reclaim. 

Check out this video of a Utah Highway Patrol Officer tasering a man for refusing to sign a speeding ticket. (Video on YouTube) Abuse of power, the officer needs to be in jail and certainly in no position of power.  If you wish to talk the the Utah Highway Patrol and let them know your thoughts, the number is 801-965-4518, http://highwaypatrol.utah.gov/ 

Nothing reflects the result of hyperpartisanship more than the current immigration debate, which has become so toxic that anytime a practical proposal is put forward, it is shot down before it can even be weighed on its merits. New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer, November 14, 2007

One wonders what Gov. Spitzer would have said about Patrick Henry saying “give me liberty, or give me death!”Governor Spitzer, it is not hyperpartisanship to defend freedom, liberty and the rule of law. The steps to immigration are well spelled out. Immigrants are great. Illegal immigration is breaking the law by definition.Anyone who decries so-called “hyperpartisanship” wishes to confuse the issue, marginalize people in order to increase their own power, and decrease the liberty of the people of the United States.  The “hyperpartisans” are those who are willing to trade your liberty for their power.  Compromise over freedom only has one result - loss of liberty.  When the choice is freedom or anything else, freedom by definition will lose in any compromise.  And once lost, freedom is much more difficult to regain.  Gov. Spitzer, there are at least three steps:1. Border security.2. Encourage freedom and the rule of law elsewhere to make life better for the citizens of the countries there.3. Then deal with the problem here.It is not Hyperpartisanship to point that out.  It is not “hyperpartisanship” to state the freedom should not be compromised on.  It is “hyperpartisanship” to defend liberty. 

“And [Buffett] has said, and I think a lot of us who have been fortunate are willing to pay a little bit more to make sure that a senior citizen who is struggling to deal with rising property taxes or rising heating bills, that they’ve got the coverage that they need.” Barack Obama, November 11, 2007 (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/11/11/obama-i-deserve-a-tax-increase/)  

Barack, just as we said to Warren Buffett - if you really believe what you say about paying more in taxes, why haven’t you been doing so?  No one is stopping you.  So, why haven’t you paid more for the past 2 or 10 years?  Why aren’t you starting to pay more today? The Social (In)Security System would love it.  The hypocrisy continues.  Just remember that Congress’ retirement does NOT come from Social Security, Senator Obama.  What does Congress know that they don’t want the  rest of us to know? 

With all the grousing about the AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax) and the plans to “do something” about it, the following factors must be considered. Charles Rangel, Democratic Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee’s plan is to raise taxes (don’t worry, you won’t be left out) elsewhere to “pay for” reducing the AMT. First, Charles, you don’t have to borrow money to “pay for” a tax cut. You borrow money to spend. Everything else is just dissembling and an attempt to confuse people. Power-hungry politicians love to use words like that … Read the rest of this entry »