See

Martinez press release: http://martinez.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=NewsReleases.View&ContentRecord_id=89001ad0-4718-47ed-8145-7c7398179489&IsTextOnly=False

Heritage Foundation on the issue: http://blog.heritage.org/2008/06/09/obama-among-supporters-of-national-fingerprint-registry/

“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.

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.”   

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. Just as free-trade means the freedom to deal with whom one wishes and free speech means that you can both speak and pay for a venue to make your speech heard, freedom of association implies it can be private if you wish. A State in which all communication is monitored is a police state. A police-state is a very safe state, everyone is an informer, everyone an informee. Everyone is safe both because everyone else is afraid to act, and no one can do anything without being informed upon. No rational person who wants to be free wants to live in such a state though. That is, unless you intend to be the jailer or the minister of information who knows everything about everyone. There can only be one jailer, one minister in charge, and many hundreds of thousands of others plotting to get and keep those jobs.

Mike McConnell wants the Federal Government to become the Nation’s jailer, the entity which knows everything about everyone. You can trust Washington not to abuse that power. Just as much as we trusted Presidents Kennedy, Nixon, and Clinton not to use the IRS to investigate enemies - Kennedy against right-wing fundamentalist Christians, Nixon against many enemies of any stripe, Clinton against right-wing enemies. Just as we trusted Roosevelt not to try to pack the Supreme Court. Just as…on second thought…

Whether McConnell is in charge or someone opposite him on the current political spectrum, the result will be the same. There will be corruption of the monitoring apparatus, and fights for power over who will be the beneficiary of it. Just as the fights over who can divide the spoils of the tremendous yearly tax windfall in Washington have grown with the budget, so too will the fights over who knows all the secrets of the nation and who will be able to exploit them. A person without privacy is a miserable animal, sub-human, existing at the whim of the state. Even the most scrupulously honest person should fear that power in anyone’s hands.

While McConnell’s motives may very well be good, the potential for abuse here is tremendous. Instead of “protecting” the United States and the internet Mike McConnell is preparing the way to ensure that the first totalitarian elected will be able to easily enslave the people of the United States. Who needs to let Islamofascism win when we are faced with a misguided proposal like this, we might as well have our thoughts monitored like Iran and the old USSR. The United States might well be safe from Islamofascism, but the United States as we know it would no longer exist. Nothing would be left to protect. Spying for security is only done for expediency. Thumb-screws and the rack would no doubt get many more confessions and therefor crimes solved, but would we really want that?

McConnell must rethink the plan. You don’t protect American values by ignoring them. You don’t protect the Constitution by destroying it. You don’t defeat evil by adopting its traits. You don’t protect privacy by removing it. You don’t protect your fundamental principles by abandoning them. Compromise on principles means you have no principles. Compromise on principles is a contradiction in terms.

Any compromise on Freedom means freedom loses. Any compromises on Liberty means liberty loses. Those who wish to force you to act as they want, in no matter how little a way, are no better than those who want to force you to act as they want in every way. Every bit of force means lost liberty. A low flush toilet? A different light bulb? All lead to total control by the state. Inch by inch, minute by minute, good intention by good intention, we lose the freedom that heros fought for. Freedom that will exact a terrific cost to regain. Freedom that will be impossible to regain if no one can discuss regaining it in private. Year after year the forces of corruption, and statism push for one small loss after another “for a good cause.” Year after year freedom recedes. Are we still freer than other countries? Sure, but our standard of measure of freedom should be our own history, not the socialist states of the world.

Hancock, Henry, Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Reagan, Goldwater, and many others are all turning over in their graves. The creation that was to enshrine liberty is instead being used to justify its destruction. People say “the Constitution is not a suicide pact” in order to justify any power grab they want. Statements such as that are not only ignorant but fallacious, intended to immediately divide and thereby conquer. The relentless force of power hungry statist politicians continues to chip away at the foundations of our freedom, the Constitution of the United States. Those who are willing to give up freedom for security deserve neither.

Mike, read the 4th Amendment. If you wish a copy and can not find one, I suggest you look here:

4th Amendment. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

And the complete Constitution of the United States can be found here. Read it, but please don’t weep, at least while we still have the freedom to fight for our freedom. By the time you should weep, it will be too late because your weeping will be monitored.

“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? 

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? 

The AMT was created by the Democratic Congress 1969 and became effective in 1970, after being signed by President Nixon. It was intended to collect taxes from approximately 155 households who under the then-current law were not required to pay taxes. Let’s be perfectly clear, everything they were doing was completely legal.

In 2007, estimates are that 20 million people will be impacted by the AMT. Now it is all about votes. The lesson to be learned here is that as long as a minority is small enough and unpopular enough, then anything goes. 155 people, no problem. 20 million votes, err, people, big problem. For the Democratic party, it is perfectly acceptable to go after a particular minority if they are small enough. Just remember the smallest minority is a minority of one – you, an individual. And if you are on the wrong side of the “unpopularity” at some point in the future, well, get ready to pay the price.

A winning (consequently Republicans in Congress won’t adopt it) strategy should be this: instead of eliminating the AMT, reduce the rate to somewhere around 15-17%. Then allow people to opt in to the AMT permanently. This is essentially a flat tax, with all the large advantages attendant thereto. The result would be a pro-growth tax cut for people who opted in, reduce Charles Rangel’s “cost” and implement a flat tax instantly.

In 2008, the Republicans in Congress would then have something to run on – lower, flatter and more fair taxes.

As is typical for the Episcopal Church, the Church again injected politics into the pulpit, at least this time, it was something that people could -and should- do to help.

The statement begins: “Imagine waking in the middle of the night with a raging fever and sore throat. Or even worse, your child wakes up feverish and covered in chicken pox. Now, imagine there is no aspirin, Tylenol, or Benadryl in your home because these products are simply not available for purchase in your country. For our brothers and sisters in Cuba, this is everyday life.” It goes on to request prescription drugs – antibiotics and antiparasitics. Imagine a country where you can’t go to the store and get them with a prescription when needed. Imagine a filmmaker stating that should be the goal of the United States. Moore is right, it does take a Sicko to advocate that.

A big thank you to the Episcopal Church for stating the truth about Cuba and Cuba’s Michael Moore touted health care system. Let’s be clear: Cuba is a totalitarian dictatorship without freedom. The health care system in Cuba is horrendous unless you are in the top 1000 government officials – or are Michael Moore, ready and willing to manipulate the American people into ceding their freedom for a socialized, extremely expensive (in both dollars and lives lost) health care system. Everyone else is out of luck.

Before you buy into the socialized health care system that sicko Michael Moore advocates, look at the facts of Cuba, Britain and Canada. Do you really want a country where even multivitamins are unavailable? Where toothpaste, soap, and shampoo are too? That is the goal of Michael Moore and his ilk – centralized control of your life by power-hungry people and politicians like him.

Let’s see what Buffett has actually done instead of said: Buffett is giving away is fortune (http://money.cnn.com/2006/06/25/magazines/fortune/charity1.fortune/). Good for him, great choice, it is nice that he has the right and freedom to do as he sees fit with the money he has earned. Too bad Buffett doesn’t think that others should have that same freedom.

What precisely is Buffett doing? He is giving his fortune to tax-exempt foundations. So, if you REALLY want to pay more taxes, Warren, why do this? Why take the steps that he is taking to avoid ALL taxes on the money you are giving away? Oh that’s right, higher taxes are only for those poor schmoes who don’t have millions to spend on attorneys and tax exempt foundations.

Everyone ELSE should act as Warren Buffett, “the hypocrite of Omaha,” thinks they should act while Buffett avoids taking his own advice. And he expects his “advice” to be enforced at the point of the government’s gun and jail. You should be force to pay more taxes because Buffett thinks it is the right thing – even though Warren Buffett will take big steps to avoid doing so himself.

Perhaps it is coincidence, perhaps not, but let’s recall one method Warren Buffett used to get rich - estate sales. Not in the “estate sale in the front garden” type, but the one caused by the estate taxes Warren Buffett so dearly loves for everyone except him. “What?” you say. Well, Buffett has been great at buying companies at low valuations. Valuations that are often caused by the necessity to raise money to pay estate taxes quickly - ask Warren Buffett about the events leading up to his purchase of Dairy Queen and the Buffalo News. Owners died, 55% (or more at various times) of the value of their holdings in the company are due with 9 months of the date of death. Here comes Warrent Buffett to the rescue, the hero, willing to buy a stake in the company at a big discount. A going-out-of-business sale on a founder’s life, ripe to be taken advantage of by Buffett. Need insurance on your life in order to have some way to pay the estate taxes? GEICO is a great place to buy it from. Oh, does Warren Buffett’s company have something to do with GEICO?

So, no wonder Warren Buffett wants to keep the estate tax and keep everyone -except him of course, he knows better that you do- paying high tax rates: all the better to rake everyone else over the coals when people are in dire straits. This is a typical move: instead of letting people have the freedom to decide to do something, he’ll require everyone else to lose the freedom, while he avails himself of it.

Kind of nice that the so-called “Oracle of Omaha’s” new name is the “Hypocrite of Omaha.” Warren, our advice is stick to investing, leave the control of other people’s lives to them. It is called freedom. Just because you don’t value your freedom, doesn’t mean the rest of us want you to take it away.

It seems like Judge Sentelle is the one who missed the entire Constitution. The proper question to be asking is, if one reads the Constitution, is where the power to regulate whether terminal patients can get medicine that could save their lives in the first place? Judge Sentelle apparently missed the concept of enumerated powers in the Constitution. Judge Sentelle, please return to law school and pay attention this time.

I have a million ideas. The country can’t afford them all. - Senator Hillary Clinton, October 11, 2007 (Boston.com)

Hey Senator Clinton, thank you for letting us know you have a million ideas. I have a million ideas too, the key difference is that I am not using force to make everyone else pay for them. I raise money voluntarily to implement my ideas. I’m not trying to get my ideas enacted at the point of a gun.

Instead of being able to strive for their own ideas, the citizens of the United States will be voting on whether to force others to support Senator Hillary Clinton’s ideas. In reality it is a million ideas on how to spend the hours of each person’s life implementing the Presidential candidate’s ideas.

It’s not charity if it’s at the point of a gun and it’s not charity if it’s someone else’s money.
Volunteering to spend someone else’s time and money to support your ideas doesn’t make you a saint.

That is completely anit-freedom and anti-liberty and completely the opposite of the morals and principles the United States was founded upon. It is totalitarianism, socialism, communism, and facism all rolled into one.

Look at those little Napoleon police. Pathetic officers.

Capt. Jeff Holcomb of the University Police Department and the officers involved should be fired.

see
http://www.gainesvillesun.com/article/20070918/NEWS/709180325/1007/NEWS
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3ec_1190097717&p=1

It might be that people think he has nothing worthwhile to say and won’t donate. Or it might be that they don’t know what he has to say since they haven’t been able to hear it to decide if they wish to donate. Either way McCain loses his chance to influence the political process because he has limited everyone else’s opportunity too. Certainly McCain’s (theoretical) base knows many of his positions and disagrees with his anti-freedom views, however there could have been more people who agreed with him, but won’t hear his message. He can thank himself and Senator Feingold for that.

That is the nature of free speech. You are free to speak when you want, but it costs money to get your speech out there in front of many people. That means convincing people you have something worth saying and can express it. McCain has ensured that he can’t do that, and who knows how many other candidates he has shut out of the marketplace of ideas.

Sounds like Warren Buffett has a perfect argument to lower his secretary’s tax rate to 17.7% (or lower). How about that Warren? Of course, that is unlikely to happen since Buffett has made his stance clear - that he wants everyone to pay MORE taxes, not less.

While the Times Online artcile is headlined “Buffett blasts system that lets him pay less tax than secretary” that is clearly misleading. He was paying at a lower rate. He is, of course, free to pay the 30% that his secretary paid if he is as concerned as he claims. Think that would happen? Just as Buffett blasts the estate tax reform, while at the same time ensuring his estate has to pay no income taxes, he is un-happy about tax rates he is paying, and yet still never volunteers to pay more.

Warren Buffet hypocritical? You think?

While the Supreme Court should have tossed out all restrictions on television ads airing close to elections and campaign funding as contrary to the First Amendment (among other things), the Supreme Court today did loosen restrictions on ads airing near an election.

Every small victory for freedom and freedom of speech is welcome.

Chief Justice Roberts said:

Discussion of issues cannot be suppressed simply because the issues also may be pertinent in an election. Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor.

Commenting Mitt Romney stated:

Score one for free speech. Today the Supreme Court reaffirmed the First Amendment by rejecting a key feature of McCain-Feingold. The law trampled the basic right of the American people to participate in their democracy. It also purported to reduce the influence of money in politics, but we now know that influence is greater than ever. McCain-Feingold was a poorly crafted bill. Today’s decision restores, in part, to the American people a right critical to their freedom of political participation and expression.

The case was Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, 06-969, and McCain v. Wisconsin Right to Life, 06-970.

Politico.com quotes him as stating:

“We are not a taxpayer organization … We get no federal funds, state funds, local funds. We get our money from you. You give us a nickel a month when you pay your bills, and that’s how we operate here.”
(See the original article here.)

Brian, to “give” means FREELY transfer. Somehow I missed where I could opt out of my monthly “gift” to you. We may pay it in return for supposedly unbiased coverage, but we don’t “give” it. Please consider this a request to opt out and for a refund of my previous “gifts.”

This is a completely elitist attitude encapsulating a hidden form of payment to support the left leaning C-SPAN.

Come on, at least be honest, there is enough spin to go around. Regarding Savage, I don’t listen, but Brian Lamb of C-SPAN needs to know who butters C-SPAN’s bread. This is no “gift” to C-SPAN, at best it is a payment, at worst a hidden tax.

Looking forward to your reply on when I can stop “giving” to C-SPAN.

The most ardent tax reformer of the Republican hopefuls, the candidate who scored at the top of all online polls after the MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News debates, and one of the most Christian members of the Republican field was excluded here? Insanity.

One wonders why? What can you do? Drop the people in charge of the debate a nice note (see their email and contact information below), asking that they include Ron Paul, and asking why he wasn’t included in the first place.

Ron Paul will be attending the August 5th debate in Des Moines.

————
Contact Information

Edward Failor
Iowans for Tax Relief
2610 Park Avenue
Muscatine, Iowa 52761
Phone: 563-288-3600 or 877-913-3600
Fax: 563-264-2413
E-mail: itr@taxrelief.org

Steve Sheffler, President
Iowa Christian Alliance
939 Office Park Road, Suite 115
West Des Moines, Iowa 50265
Phone: 515-225-1515
Fax: 515-225-1826
E-mail: slscheffler@iowachristian.com

Katie Koberg
Public Relations Director
Iowans for Tax Relief
515-875-4936
kkoberg@taxrelief.org

Abolishing the property tax would be a boon for the State of Florida for many reasons:
* Increased property values: people can afford more for their money without worrying about property taxes each year.
* Increased growth: lower taxes increase growth; meaning more jobs and better wages.
* Easier Home sales: people will be able to afford a more expensive house and be more mobile because they won’t fear a huge tax increase that a move currently would cause.
* Eliminate the need for anyone to sell because taxes are to high for them to afford.
* Increase Equality: everyone will be treated equally under the law instead of basing your taxes on when you purchased your home. (For example: Consider two identical houses with identical market values, one could be assessed $500 per year in property taxes while another could pay $5000. The difference is due to one being purchased in 2005, the other in 1995. Is that fair? Eliminate the issue by eliminating the tax).
* Non-residents currently pay higher rates than residents. For residents (like me), that seems good, but is it really? Probably not, elimination would help increase the number of non-residents who can buy houses, increasing property values.
* Lower Rents: Renters will benefit due to lower rents since landlords will owe less in taxes.

Entrenched special interests are trying to scare people into opposing this needed reform. An email I received recently complained about possible cuts in subsidies to the local symphony. My response is: let the people who use a service pay for it. If you have several thousand dollars more per year through property tax savings, you’ll easily be able to pay $8 more to hear - and support - the Symphony. Why should a poor single mother (or anyone else) who needs to rent, subsidize my symphony attendance? Why should someone who doesn’t like the Symphony be asked to pay for it? The answer is that they should not be forced to do so. We don’t ask that movie theaters be subsidized, why should other - even ‘high brow’ - entertainment be subsidized? Do you expect your neighbor to chip in to buy your food? Do they have to support the musicians you enjoy listening to? Of course you don’t, then why should you be forced to support something much less important than food?

Let’s be perfectly clear: only people pay taxes. Taxes on business are passed on to the consumer. Taxes on real estate are paid by the owner or passed on to the renter. Taxes on wages that are remitted by business are really paid by the employee in the form of a lower salary than you might have earned. Politicians love to hide taxes in this way so that you don’t realize the taxes you are paying. They can then be magnanimous by giving your money back to you. As long as the government can, it will drain the days and weeks of your life without your consent to support its power-hungry politicians.

The two techniques that are in use here are, first, that special interests are trying to scare you about cuts to local budgets and second, politicians are trying to hide their spending. When property taxes have doubled in 5 years and yet some politicians still complain about there not being enough revenue, you know who has your interests at heart and who is only after power.

If you are interested in higher wages, higher growth, and a fairer system, eliminating the property tax is a great start. Opportunities like this do not come around very often, so action now is important.

What can you do? Email, call or write the people below, plus your local State Representative and State Senator, letting them know you’d support eliminating the property tax. It might not seem important, but it is. And timing is important since the special session begins June 12, 2007 and ends June 22, 2007.

Christian Riley
——-
Include your NAME and ADDRESS and just state you’d like the property tax eliminated in the subject and body.

Who to contact:
Charlie Crist
420 E. Jefferson Street
Tallahassee, FL 32301 (850)487-0801

Ken Pruitt, Pres of the Senate
pruitt.ken.web@flsenate.gov
(772)344-1140 (Local)
(850)487-5088

Marco Rubio, Speaker of the House
marco.rubio@myfloridahouse.gov
(350) 442-6911 (local)
(850) 488-4092

Find your local Representative here.

Find your local State Senator here.

Some references:
Sun-Sentinal “The House plan would be a major boon” (April 20, 2007)

The problem is illegal immigration and the current proposed legislation rewards lawbreakers – it is amnesty for breaking the law while millions of people who do not break the law are still waiting to come here legally. A pig in a parlor is still a pig. A pig in the Capitol is still a pig too. You may say, what about the fines? Does anyone really believe that they won’t be waived? Or that they’ll be upheld in court? Or that they won’t be changed by future legislative revisions? It is amnesty plain and simple whether acknowledged or not.

After the 1986 Immigration Act (The Immigration Reform and Control Act), the current wave began and without fixing the root causes, we will be dealing with the same issue again in 15 or 20 years. To prevent further illegal immigration, the root causes must be fixed: first, the porous border needs to be patched so as to prevent more waves of illegal immigration. Second and most importantly, the United States must help the countries of the Americas improve their laws, social systems, and economies to provide opportunities for their own citizens. Freedom, low taxes, sound money, property rights and the rule of law are necessary ingredients for economic opportunity. Without opportunity and freedom in their home countries people will seek it here.

Until the United States solves those two problems, any reform such as this is going to be a pyrrhic victory. This legislation will only damage the rule of law and consequently the United States itself.

What is right for America is this: legal immigration, with no rewards for breaking the law. The 2007 Immigration plan is nothing more than surrender to law-breakers. The President has refused embrace surrender in Iraq and should refuse surrender to the left’s demagoguery here.

1. Cancel the concert, and get all those people who are driving to stay home.

2. Keep the stars in their jets from wasting fuel - and increasing by carbon emissions - by staying home. A tele-concert would be the greenest option.

3. Eliminate all the disposable paper products for snacks and drinks at Live Earth too. Composting is a good start, but instead of “reducing,” why not just eliminate?

4. Donate the money from tickets to the environmental group of your choice - it makes more sense than paying it to organizers and stars who have to take their cut first.

5. Don’t forget that the “environmentally friendly” compact fluorescent (CFL) lightbulbs contain mercury, a neurotoxin. Hopefully Live Earth will be using some other more environmentally friendly replacement.  Ten years from now we are going to be hearing about lawsuits from people towards the companies manufacturing these “environmentally friendly” bulbs because governments have forced them to stop manufacturing the older bulbs. 
6. Replace diesel and biodiesel generators with taps into the much more efficient power company networks. Generators are inherently polluting. To truly reduce carbon emissions, if possible, use nuclear, wind or solar power. (Of course nuclear is still better due to much less significant carbon manufacturing footprint as compared to solar and wind power.)But again, it is really about throwing a concert to help the stars careers while lecturing the rest of the world not to behave like the stars do.The most environmentally friendly Live Earth concert, is no Live Earth concert. Let alone seven concerts.

———Update: July 7th.A nice Daily Mail article on the environmental impact of Live Earth.Some high points in the article:

1. Superstars are flying 222623.63 miles to get to the various concerts.

2. Carbon emissions will total around 31,500 tonnes for the live events.

3. Total emissions around 74,500 tonnes

4. 1025 tonnes of waste is generated at the sites, most going to landfills. (Wembley states 2/3s will do so.)

5. Madonna has an average annual carbon footprint of almost 1018 tonnes, compared with an average of 10 tones per British family.The full article shows more of the Live Earth hypocrisy.

Update: July 7The Washington Post has more to add:The article begins with ” ‘If you want to save the planet, I want you to start jumping up and down!’ Thus Madonna revealed her plan to combat global warming.”

1. Carbon Footprint’s John Buckley stated that Live Earth would produce about 74,500 tons of carbon dioxide gas.

2. 100,000 trees would need to be planted to effectively counter “Live Earth”

In fact, the often disparaged “race to the bottom” is in fact a race to freedom. The “race to the bottom” is a race to give each individual person the liberty to control their own lives in the manner they see fit without interference from others. Only those who are trying to control someone else via the state view you as being unable to make your own intelligent decisions about what is best for you. Using the term “race to the bottom” is a bit of intellectual dishonest that the authors use to attempt to subconsciously alter your opinion based on emotion rather than fact.

So, when you hear the phrase “race to the bottom” read a little closer and see who is advocating more individual choice and who is advocating more regulation and government control. Protect your rights.

The fact that Brandeis, a Supreme Court Justice, coined the phrase is disgraceful in someone who is supposed to weigh law, not emotion. In a Supreme Court Justice sworn to uphold the Constutition of the United States it is even worse.

Christian H F Riley

“The person on the other side is not evil — they just have a different perspective.” - Chris Mathews, NBC ‘journalist’ (Speech to political science students at the University of Toronto, November 20, 2005)

For anyone who believes that Chris Mathews ever had any credibility his statement Monday should disabused them of that belief. Purposefully killing innocent civilians is evil. It is not a “perspective.”

Let us ask Chris Mathews a question: If President Bush decided to use nuclear weapons on terrorist training camps, that would be just “a different perspective”? Right? Of course not - Republicans can’t have “a different perspective” only liberals, socialists and communists. The left would condemn it in a second. What Mathews is saying is, “Everyone’s opinion is equally valid, unless they are a Republican. There are no facts, just perspectives.”

People who consistently fight for everyone’s freedom are derided while those who fight to control others are lauded? The principles must be clearly stated: there are differences, but they are NOT “perspectives” they are absolutes - freedom or slavery. Life or death.

See:http://torontosun.canoe.ca/News/TorontoAndGTA/2005/11/21/1315976-sun.html

Senator Kennedy’s assertion (Wall Street Journal, July 25, 2005) that Commerce Clause jurisprudence is settled is laughable for many reasons.

1. First and foremost, Commerce Clause jurisprudence was “settled” in favor of freedom and liberty until the Supreme Court of the 1930s gutted the doctrine in order to make way for a socialistic, big-government nanny state.

2. Secondly, Senator Kennedy is one of many who believe the Constitution is a “living document” in which case NOTHING is EVER settled. Under that view - which ignores the Constitutional Amendment clauses not to mention many other facts - Constitutional law is therefore always open to the whim of a majority of five people on the Supreme Court.

Between the 1930s lack of jurisprudence and the “living document” insanity, the Constitution has become a shadow of its original self, something that can be twisted by the whims of whomever sits on the court. Until the Constitution is restored to its previous stature and impregnability, it will remain nothing but a document behind which those who wish to pervert its words to keep power over the rest of the people, can hide.

Think about the protective power of a “living” First Amendment: there is none, it provides no protection for anyone since it is subject to the caprice of the moment. Hearing a huge proponent of the “living document” theory state that *any* law is “settled” is ludicrous.

Recognize those who argue for a ‘living document’ for what they are - power-hungry politicians who recognize that the Constitution as written provided very strict limits on their power. Only by perverting the document’s plain meaning and twisting its words to suit their own purposes can they hope to exercise power over the people of the United States.

Note that you will see the statists arguing that the Constitution is “living” until it has been twisted into something that is plainly not in its words. Once it reaches that point, its meaning is then “settled” and it becomes not a tool for protecting freedom, but a tool for destroying it. It becomes not a tool to protect individual liberty, but a tool to impose someone else’s thoughts and dreams upon you.

The Constitution has a meaning that was fixed when it was written, to argue otherwise is to argue that it is meaningless - the goal of many in Washington who care more about their own power than our god-given and Constitutionally protected freedoms. Hiding behind his statements about looking out for the little guy, Senator Kenney is in reality one of the most power-hungry politicians in Washington.

Christian H F Riley

Regarding the 5th Amendment Takings case (Kelo v. New London) under eminent domain, the Supreme Court has shown what intellectual light-weights, who apparently have never read the Constitution of the United States can do when left to their own whims. And let us make that perfectly clear - five so-called “Justices” of the United States Supreme Court did nothing but substitute their own whim for the law. Every piece of property in the United States is at risk. We have taken another huge step down the road to captivity at the hands of the government. Either the Justices never read the Constitution or they chose to violate their oath to uphold it - either way disgraceful actions.

There are no words for their betrayal of the Constitution and the Founders. This is a decision which should go down in infamy as a defining one in the loss of liberty in the 21st Century along with several from the 20th Century. Their names should be near the top of the list for people who have sold out our liberty for their own power and temporary aggrandizement.

If you never understood the problem with an activist judge, just ask any one of the home-owners who have lost their home to big business via big government. When you, your life, and your property can be disposed of at the whim of a government, you have no freedom, you have no liberty. You live in fear of tyranny. You merely await the politician to cease power and take your liberty. What a fragile thing is liberty, once lost, difficult to regain.

One should note that Justices Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer the so-called ‘liberal’ Justices voted that the takings was Constitutional. If it was not clear already, the main things the group is liberal with are (a) other people’s money, (b) other people’s property, and (c) the words of the Constitution. If nothing else has made it clear, this decision should do so - when the meaning of the Constitution is subject to the whim of the majority of five, instead of the clear language and meaning of the words that are written, the Constitution becomes meaningless.

The dissent from Justices O’Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas stated in part: “Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.” O’Connor argued that the decision eliminates “any distinction between private and public use of property — and thereby effectively [deletes] the words ‘for public use’ from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment”.

Thomas added that “something has gone seriously awry with this Court’s interpretation of the Constitution.” Thomas is absolutely correct - the Constitution rarely needs to be interpreted, the words and history are clear. The problem begins when the Supreme Court begins to make social policy instead of standing as a bulwark of protecting the Constitution.

What are the next steps? Each of the 5 Justices (and that term should no longer be applied to them, they should be named “InJustices”) should have their own homes subjected to a Takings case. Likewise, each member of the New London government who began the process should have their own property subjected to that same.

The case here is another clear example of government over-reaching and no one standing up for your rights. The five members of the Supreme Court who voted for this are disgraceful, intellectual light-weights who should not be sitting on the court.

Supreme Court Justices who voted for taking land: Souter, Stevens, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer
Supreme Court Justices who voted against taking land: takings: O’Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas

For some more commentary on this, through June 29, 2005:
1. “Lost Liberty Hotel” proposed for Justice Souter’s land. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1432150/posts
(this is a great idea and should be proposed for EACH piece of property one of the Justices who voted for this owns. Let them go to the expense of defending themselves from their own stupidity. And it should be done over and over again for various projects.) For current updates on the Lost Liberty Hotel, see this link.

2. The Supreme Court’s reverse Robin Hood’s http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006862

3. Peggy Noonan on various topics: http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110006884

Christian H F Riley, Esq.

Ratcheting down is a big benefit - it keeps the political impulses to spend whatever comes in, in check. In short it promotes efficiency and freedom which depends on limiting government. This is one way to let you keep more of your own money and keep more of your own freedom. With the Supreme Court eviscerating the freedoms protected in the Constitution this week with its abandonment of the Founders’ intent in writing the Commerce Clause and Fifth Amendment, every protection becomes that much more important.

The facts missing from the article are quite illustrative of the bias of Olbermann and mediamatters.org. For example, the article does NOT note that the filibuster has NEVER been used against nominees to the appellate bench (a Congressional Research Service paper shows this). It is quite convenient to attempt to muddy the waters by mixing filibustering of “presidential nominees,” by lumping in judges with other nominees, but disingenuous never-the-less for someone who is claiming to report “the facts.”

In fact, many newspapers reported that the nominees would have won confirmation if they had not been denied up-or-down votes that EVERY appellate court justice who has EVER served has had.

The same people who argue for a “living document” in the Constitution - which means the Constitution has no meaning and that the amendment provisions are meaningless (who needs them if it is ‘living’ after-all) - are the ones arguing that “advice and consent” now (after 200+ years) means a super-majority requirement for judges. That is the beauty of a “living document,” it means whatever you want, whenever you want. And if you can have dishonest people in the media (like Olbermann) who will spin whatever you say without bothering to even look at facts, then you can create enough confusion that people will tire of the discussion and tune out.

Other parts conveniently ignored are the fact that the filibuster wasn’t “discovered” until the 1830s then used (and later abused) until its peak in 1917 when the first “cloture” rule was passed. Since 1917 it has been modified many times and only in recent years has it been used to require everything except the budget to need 60 votes.

Of course he ignores the biggest issue - once the Constitutional limits are ignored and you have a government that is large enough to get into everyone’s business with oppressive taxes and regulation, every nomination and election becomes a life or death issue with someone always wanting to use force to control someone else. That’s the root of the problem - politicians fear the loss of power over your life and mine.

The Internet was exempted from the McCain-Feingold regulations in a 4-2 vote by the FEC in 2002, but U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly overturned the decision during the Fall of 2004. Two things that need to be made perfectly clear:

1. Several people have advocated impeaching the Judge. But the problem is not Judge Kollar-Kotelly.

2. The problem is the entire campaign finance reform idea: The idea that the words of the First Amendment are meaningless because the Supreme Court chooses to ignore them.

The solution is to elect people to Congress and the Presidency who will protect and defend the Constitution, not give in to political expedicency.

The truth about the supposed grass-roots movement on Campaign-Finance reform showed that of the $140 million spent on this type of reform, over $123 million came from EIGHT liberal foundations. And the goal was to only influence members of Congress and the President into being convinced it was a grass-roots movement when in reality it was not. It is clear that the liberal foundations sold out their own liberal base. And now will attempt to convince them that it was a Republican plot to stop blogging.

The solution is clear: repeal McCain-Feingold.

The alternative is to ingore McCain-Feingold in your blog and take it to the Supreme Court and have it over-turned completely then. When there are 500,000 to 5 million blogs ignoring the Unconstitional McCain-Feingold law, it will become clear that the law violates the Constitution.

It isn’t just the under-30s who are fed up with social security. Many of those of us under 40 feel the same way. Right now, I would be happy to just write-off all my previous social security “contributions” (wait, “contributions” are supposed to be voluntary, aren’t they?) if I could have the opportunity to opt out, even partially, with a private account in the future. President Bush ran on reform, yet already Republicans in Congress are blinking when faced with minor opposition. The Republican party is, in theory, the party of smaller government and more freedom, yet too easily caves on that principle.

If a party is truly one of limited government, there is an easy way to test its mettle; a way that does not change tax rates or revenues one iota: eliminate withholding. This is a simple idea, one that would expose the true motives of the opposition. Any party that wants a smaller, less intrusive government in order to increase individual liberty should want to expose the pain and scope of the government.

Withholding is the enabler of big government. The sincerity of those who claim to oppose big government may be judged by their willingness to remove the enabler. Eliminating withholding is like truth in advertising: people will then really know what they are paying for is what they are getting.

Out of every Federal program, withholding does the most to mask the size of the government. Those who favor big, controlling government will favor a ‘painless’ tax system. Those who wish to be free to live their lives will wish to expose the government for what it is: a huge entity controlled by a power-hungry minority willing to pit group against group in order to maintain power.

In 1964 President Reagan said “Today in our country the tax collector’s share is 37 cents of every dollar earned. Freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp.” Forty-one years later, the share is much higher because it is semi-painless - it is more difficult to miss what you don’t see. If the Republican Party really wants an ownership society, a society of opportunity and freedom for all, along with the mandate to make those changes, it must expose the size and scope of government. Otherwise the debates will continue to devolve into one of fear mongering and nothing will be accomplished but polarization, serving only those who want power over you, me, and everyone else.

However, the odds of this are slim though because few politicians believe in the wisdom of the Founders as embodied in the Constitution, and even fewer wish to relinquish their power over the rest of us.

Christian H.F. Riley, Esq.

Our government at work: “A new study [by N.I.H. researchers] based on more than three decades of U.S. data suggests that giving flu shots to the elderly hasn’t saved any lives.”

“We think the best way to help the elderly is to vaccinate them.” CDC epidemiologist William Thompson.

Help them by doing something that doesn’t do any good? Hmmmm.

I question the validity of the NIH study.

(Source for quotations: Wall Street Journal, February 15, 2005).