Archive for March 12th, 2007
None of the other Presidential hopefuls can not hold a candle to Ron Paul’s values, principles and knowledge. His knowledge and understanding of economics, alone, can set the tone for the reduction of taxation and wasteful spending by the government.
Yes he is a long-shot candidate and, GASP, a libertarian. To that I say, how many of you really understand what Ron Paul is all about? You are the voters and it is in your best interest to familiarize yourself with his positions. Sure, there may be a couple of points you don’t agree with, that is not important. The big picture is what counts.
Deep down you know that if a Hillary, Obama, Rudy, McCain or Romney win, things will not change. If you had the chance, you would probably vote for Thomas Jefferson, well, you do have the chance. Ron Paul is as close as you can get.
HOUSTON — Ron Paul, a nine-term Texas congressman who describes himself as a lifelong libertarian, announced his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination Monday.
Appearing on C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal,” Paul said he was at first reluctant to run, but that “a lot of people want to hear my message and I’m willing to deliver it.”
Paul, who formed an exploratory committee in January, said he has raised more than $500,000 in the past month “with very little effort.”
“So far, the amount of money raised isn’t competitive with those establishment candidates who will raise $100 million, but with the Internet and the amount of money and enthusiasm, I think we can become very competitive,” he said.
An obstetrician-gynecologist from just south of Houston, Paul is ideologically far afield from the Republican mainstream. He has acknowledged that he has been largely shunned by the national party.
Among other differences with his party’s base, Paul has criticized President Bush for acting unconstitutionally in sending U.S. troops to Iraq and has said he would support an investigation into whether Bush “deliberately misrepresented” his reasons for doing so.
“I’m very confident the Republican party has gone in the wrong direction,” Paul said in his C-SPAN appearance. “We used to be the party of small government. Now we’re the party of big government.”
You can watch Ron Paul’s announcement below or visit CSAN for the full 33 minute video. On the CSPAN main page, click on recent programs and look for Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), 2008 Presidential Candidate, it is a 33 minute video packed with goodness.
UPDATE: This is the full 33 minute video of Ron Paul’s presidential announcement.
Technorati tags: Ron Paul, announces, presidential candidate, 2008, republican, libertarian, cspan, video, youtube
Bill Online Easily, Fast & Free with PayPal. No Software Needed. Sign Up Now!
The difference is freedom or tyranny.
So what’s the difference between republican and democratic forms of government? John Adams captured the essence of the difference when he said, “You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe.” Nothing in our Constitution suggests that government is a grantor of rights. Instead, government is a protector of rights.
In recognition that it’s Congress that poses the greatest threat to our liberties, the framers used negative phrases against Congress throughout the Constitution such as: shall not abridge, infringe, deny, disparage, and shall not be violated, nor be denied. In a republican form of government, there is rule of law. All citizens, including government officials, are accountable to the same laws. Government power is limited and decentralized through a system of checks and balances. Government intervenes in civil society to protect its citizens against force and fraud but does not intervene in the cases of peaceable, voluntary exchange.
Contrast the framers’ vision of a republic with that of a democracy. In a democracy, the majority rules either directly or through its elected representatives. As in a monarchy, the law is whatever the government determines it to be. Laws do not represent reason. They represent power. The restraint is upon the individual instead of government. Unlike that envisioned under a republican form of government, rights are seen as privileges and permissions that are granted by government and can be rescinded by government.
— Walter E. Williams
Source: A Return to republican (small “r”) Government | Voice For Liberty in Wichita
Technorati tags: republic, democracy, republican, freedom, tyranny, liberties, Constitution
Netflix Delivers DVDs to your home. NO LATE FEES. Try for FREE!
One again, Eliot Spitzer is skirting his promise of no new taxes. Expanding the bottle bill to increase revenues may not technically be a tax, but the result is the same. More money will be taken from state residents to fund ever increasing state spending.
Grannis presented Spitzer’s plan Monday at a meeting of the New York State Conservation Council.
Among the changes would be to use the “I Love New York” tourism program to promote hunting and fishing opportunities; use increased funding to the state from expanding the bottle bill to cover non-carbonated beverages and water to fund creation of new fishing sites and boat launches; and consulting with sportsmen’s groups before any new gun laws are introduced.
The New York State Conservation Council should look up the definition of the word conserve.
con·serve (k?n-sûrv‘)
v., -served, -serv·ing, -serves.v.tr.
- To protect from loss or harm; preserve: calls to conserve our national heritage in the face of bewildering change.
- To use carefully or sparingly, avoiding waste: kept the thermostat lower to conserve energy.
Source: Spitzer wants to boost NY outdoors - Business First of Buffalo:
Convention wisdom (public opinion) favors government programs that purport to help the poor. Libertarians generally do not. The amount of taxes on people, to support the government’s programs, drains the economy of capital necessary to create more jobs that would eliminate much of the current poverty. The amount of poverty that would be left could easily be addressed by the voluntary compassion of society.
Is the best way to reduce poverty always a government program?
Take the case of Wal-Mart. Many self-proclaimed advocates for the poor attack Wal-Mart ad nauseam as some kind of devil. But last year a study showed that the huge company lowers prices on products that poor people happen to buy. So much so, in fact, that Wal-Mart’s financial benefit to the poor proved greater than the federal government’s entire Food Stamp program. The facts haven’t yet stopped the attacks on Wal-Mart, though.
Now comes a new study by Matthew Ladner of Arizona’s Goldwater Institute and Paul Gessing of New Mexico’s Rio Grande Foundation. It’s entitled “Hood or Robin Hood? State Governments and the Reduction of Poverty.”The study found, “Although there are doubtlessly some who benefit from high state government spending, the poor do not seem to be among them.”
Those states with the lowest per capita direct spending on the poor substantially lowered their poverty rates. But top spenders “not only failed to reduce poverty rates, they actually suffered an increase in poverty rates of 7.6 percent.”
Quite a difference.Governments claim to help the poor. But when taxes injure the businesses providing the jobs that lead out of poverty, and poverty programs tempt people to act in ways that lead to more poverty, governments do more harm than good.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Comic Richard Jeni Dies in Apparent Suicide
LOS ANGELES — Richard Jeni, a standup comedian who played to sold-out crowds, was a regular on the “Tonight Show” and appeared in movies, died of a gunshot wound in an apparent suicide, police said Sunday.
Police found the 49-year-old comedian alive but gravely injured in a West Hollywood home when they responded to a call Saturday morning from Jeni’s girlfriend, Los Angeles Police Officer Norma Eisenman said.Eisenman said the caller told police: “My boyfriend shot himself in the face.”
Jeni died at a nearby hospital.
He was always one of my favorites. Richard Jeni pokes fun at politics in this clip. Rest in peace.
I had to blog this story just for the great photo of Cheney.
Halliburton moving to Dubai to avoid taxes
Texas - Halliburton, the oil services company formerly headed by Vice-President Dick Cheney, is moving its headquarters from Texas to Dubai to reduce its US tax burden.
The company said it hoped the move to the United Arab Emirates would help it expand its business in the Middle East.
Business analysts say the real reason is the huge reduction in taxes it will have to pay.
(click the picture)
I take this as a sign that Bush will not be getting his way with Congressional funding for continuing his warring ways.
Source: Halliburton moving to Dubai to avoid taxes
Technorati tags: halliburton, Cheney, Dubai, taxes, move, relocate
Below are just a few links to prominent scientists who don’t support the global warming scenario as presented by a large group of political alarmists.
- Why a leading French atmospheric scientist and socialist politician recanted
- Climate scientist Roger Pielke Sr discover what looks like a big mistake in the IPCC summary.
- Scientist Roy Spencer points out the serious deficiencies of global climate models.
- Gorey Truths: 25 Inconvenient Truths for Al Gore
- A Skeptic’s Guide to An Inconvenient Truth
Next up we have a video, here’s a description of what you will see:
Are you green? How many flights have you taken in the last year? Feeling guilty about all those unnecessary car journeys? Well, maybe there’s no need to feel bad. According to a group of scientists brought together by documentary-maker Martin Durkin, if the planet is heating up, it isn’t your fault and there’s nothing you can do about it. We’ve almost begun to take it for granted that climate change is a man-made phenomenon. But just as the environmental lobby think they’ve got our attention, a group of naysayers have emerged to slay the whole premise of global warming.
The implications from implementing the measures put forth by the global warming alarmists have dire consequences without the requisite scientific justification. In other words, the risk of doing nothing is far less than what the global warming theorists propose.
HT to Ray, writing on the Free New York Blog, for finding this video.
