Politics by Elise

Where Is That Money Going?

2010-09-30T15:48:00.000-07:00

Take a look at this graph.

For the entire article, go here.

Public Education

2010-07-09T09:49:00.000-07:00

Public schools. Obviously, public schools are a socialist program. I am opposed to socialist programs because they don't treat people equally. Public schools are another type of legal plunder. Or, as Jefferson put it, a form of tyranny:

“To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical; even forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern.”– Thomas Jefferson

Yes, I believe it is morally wrong to force anyone to pay for the education of someone else.

"I am opposed to free education as much as I am opposed to taking property from one man and giving it to another… I do not believe in allowing my charities to go through the hands of robbers who pocket nine-tenths themselves and give one tenth to the poor… Would I encourage free schools by taxation? No!" (Brigham Young)

“If it would be wrong for the government to adopt an official religion, then, for the same reasons, it would be wrong for the government to adopt official education policies. The moral case for freedom of religion stands or falls with that for freedom of education. A society that champions freedom of religion but at the same time countenances state regulation of education has a great deal of explaining to do.” – James R. Otteson, The Independent Review, Spring 2000, “Freedom of Religion and Public Schooling”

But if we approach it from the other side--rather than sticking to principles we look at results (always the wrong approach in my book)--is it still a bad idea? Does it do some good? Is it really that awful to make education available to anyone without cost? Is that really the purpose of public education?

“If the only motive was to help people who could not afford education, advocates of government involvement would have simply proposed tuition subsidies.” – Milton Friedman,1976 Nobel Prize in economics.

So, then, what is the motive of public education? If it isn't really to help the poor (though this is naturally touted as the sole reason), what is it?

“The aim of public education is not to spread enlightenment at all: it is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed a standard citizenry, to put down dissent and originality.” – H.L. Mencken

“State education is a mere contrivance for molding people to be exactly alike one another, …in proportion as it is efficient and successful, it establishes a despotism over the mind, leading by a natural tendency to one over the body.” – John Stuart Mill (1859)

Of course, controlling the education of children is the easiest way to control the way they think.

“The education of all children, from the moment that they can get along without a mother’s care, shall be in state institutions at state expense.”– Karl Marx (1848)

Obviously, I don't think every public school teacher is out there to turn my child into a drone. Or a lemming. Or whatever. For the most part, I think they are doing the best they can with a fundamentally immoral system. And even those in Washington who are proponents of public education--most of them probably have altruistic motives.

But it has to come down to the fact that socialist programs like public schools are morally wrong.

And if I believe that, what can I do but try to convince you of the same?

Fundamental Rights

2009-09-11T18:43:00.000-07:00

"Fundamental Rights are those rights which all people can simultaneously claim without forcing people to serve their needs."

Without telling you who said this, what do you think of it? How does it apply to free education, free health care, etc.?

Now, who do you think said this?

Pursuit of Happiness

2009-08-29T09:50:00.001-07:00

What is the "pursuit of happiness"?

Today many people seem to think that the right to pursue happiness is the right to have a happy, peachy life. Therefore, they think they have the right to free education, health care, social programs, etc.

On the contrary, the pursuit of happiness simply refers to "the right to pursue any legal activity as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others." Therefore, it is basically an extension of your right to liberty. You are free to do what you will as long as it doesn't infringe upon others' rights.

The Governmnet Can!

2009-08-28T09:44:00.000-07:00

How Much is Obama Really Cutting from the Budget?

2009-07-19T19:58:00.000-07:00

Don't Politicians Frustrate You?

2009-03-27T18:13:00.000-07:00

"I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaida in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future," Obama said. "That's the goal that must be achieved. That is a cause that could not be more just."

Whatever happened to the "exit strategy" he was talking about last weekend? And all throughout his campaign?

Read the full article here.

The Bee-Watcher Watchers

2009-02-19T05:58:00.000-08:00

Have you ever thought how pertinent this was to government? Read this poem, and keep in mind all of the agencies in the cancerous growth called the Administrative Branch of the government.

Did I Ever Tell You How Lucky You are?

by THEODORE GEISSEL
(Dr. Suess) 1973

Oh, the jobs people work at!
Out west, near Hawtch-Hawtch,
there’s a Hawtch-Hawtcher Bee-Watcher.
His job is to watch...
is to keep both his eyes on the lazy town bee.
A bee that is watched will work harder, you see.
Well...he watched and he watched.
But, in spite of his watch,
that bee didn’t work any harder. Not mawtch.

So then somebody said,
“Our old bee-watching man
just isn’t bee-watching as hard as he can.
He ought to be watched by another Hawtch-Hawtcher.
The thing that we need
is a Bee-Watcher-Watcher.”
WELL...
The Bee-Watcher Watcher watched the Bee-Watcher.
He didn’t watch well. So another Hawtch-Hawtcher
had to come in as a Watch-Watcher-Watcher.

And today all the Hawtchers who live in Hawtch-Hawtch
are watching on Watch-Watcher-Watchering-Watch,
Watch-Watching the Watcher who’s watching that bee.
You’re not a Hawtch-Hawtcher. You’re lucky you see.

This reminded me particularly of the Federal Department of Education. What a waste of money! They have a watch-watcher job to the T. They just have to watch the State Depts. of Education. I mean, we wouldn't want the local people to have to be in charge of deciding what to teach their kids! Oh, I guess the Fed Dept. also gets to waste our money on TV shows like "Dragon Tales." That makes you feel just great, doesn't it?

What watch-watchers bug you the most?

Stimulis

2009-02-06T09:58:00.000-08:00

200 Economists Against the Stimulus

2009-01-28T06:17:00.000-08:00

"There is no disagreement that we need action by our government,
a recovery plan that will help to jump start the economy."
—PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA, JANUARY 9, 2009

With all due respect
Mr.President,that is not true.

Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that we all support a big increase in the burden of government, we the undersigned do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance.
More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s.
More government spending did not solve Japan’s “lost decade” in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today. To improve the economy, policymakers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the
burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth.

BURTON ABRAMS, Univ.of Delaware
DOUGLAS ADIE, Ohio University
RYAN AMACHER, Univ.of Texas at Arlington
J.J.ARIAS,Georgia College & State University
HOWARD BAETJER, JR., Towson University
STACIE BECK,Univ.of Delaware
DON BELLANTE,Univ.of South Florida
JAMESBENNETT,George Mason University
BRUCE BENSON,Florida State University
SANJAI BHAGAT,Univ.of Colorado at Boulder
MARK BILS,Univ.of Rochester
ALBERT OBISIN,New York University
WALTER BLOCK,Loyola University New Orleans
CECIL BOHANON,Ball State University
MICHELE BOLDRIN,Washington University in St.Louis
DONALD BOOTH,Chapman University
MICHAEL BORDO,Rutgers University
SAMUEL BOSTAPH,Univ.of Dallas
SCOTT BRADFORD,Brigham Young University
GENEVIEVE BRIAND,Eastern Washington University
GEORGE BROWER,Moravian College
JAMES BUCHANAN,Nobel laureate
RICHARD BURDEKIN,Claremont McKenna College
HENRY BUTLER,Northwestern University
WILLIAM BUTOS,Trinity College
PETER CALCAGNO,College of Charleston
BRYAN CAPLAN,George Mason University
ART CARDEN,Rhodes College
JAMES CARDON, Brigham Young University
DUSTIN CHAMBERS, Salisbury University
EMILY CHAMLEE-WRIGHT, Beloit College
V.V. CHARI, Univ.of Minnesota
BARRY CHISWICK,Univ.of Illinois at Chicago
LAWRENCE CIMA, John Carroll University
J. R. CLARK, Univ.of Tennessee at Chattanooga
GIANLUCA CLEMENTI, New York University
R. MORRIS COATS, Nicholls State University
JOHN COCHRAN,Metropolitan State College
JOHN COCHRANE,Univ.of Chicago
JOHN COGAN,Hoover Institution,Stanford University
JOHN COLEMAN,Duke University
BOYD COLLIER,Tarleton State University
ROBERT COLLINGE,Univ.of Texas at San Antonio
LEE COPPOCK,Univ.of Virginia
MARIO CRUCINI,Vanderbilt University
CHRISTOPHER CULP,Univ.of Chicago
KIRBY CUNDIFF,Northeastern State University
ANTONY DAVIES,Duquesne University
JOHN DAWSON,Appalachian State University
CLARENCEDEITSCH,Ball State University
ARTHUR DIAMOND,JR.,Univ.of Nebraska at Omaha
JOHN DOBRA,Univ.of Nevada,Reno
JAMES DORN,Towson University
CHRISTOPHER DOUGLAS,Univ.of Michigan,Flint
FLOYD DUNCAN,Virginia Military Institute
FRANCIS EGAN,Trinity College
JOHN EGGER,Towson University
KENNETH ELZINGA,Univ.of Virginia
PAUL EVANS,Ohio State University
EUGENE FAMA,Univ.of Chicago
W. KEN FARR,Georgia College & State University
HARTMUT FISCHER,Univ.of San Francisco
FRED FOLDVARY,Santa Clara University
MURRAY FRANK,Univ.of Minnesota
PETER FRANK,Wingate University
TIMOTHY FUERST,Bowling Green State University
B. DELWORTH GARDNER, Brigham Young University
JOHN GAREN,Univ.of Kentucky
RICK GEDDES,Cornell University
AARON GELLMAN,Northwestern University
WILLIAM GERDES,Clarke College
MICHAEL GIBBS,Univ.of Chicago
STEPHAN GOHMANN,Univ.of Louisville
RODOLFO GONZALEZ,San Jose State University
RICHARD GORDON,Penn State University
PETER GORDON,Univ.of Southern California
ERNIE GOSS,Creighton University
PAUL GREGORY,Univ.of Houston
EARL GRINOLS,Baylor University
DANIEL GROPPER,Auburn University
R.W. HAFER,Southern Illinois University,Edwardsville
ARTHUR HALL,Univ.of Kansas
STEVE HANKE,John Hopkins
STEPHEN HAPPEL,Arizona State University
FRANK HEFNER,College of Charleston
RONALD HEINER,George Mason University
DAVID HENDERSON,Hoover Institution, Stanford University
ROBERT HERREN,North Dakota State University
GAILEN HITE,Columbia University
STEVEN HORWITZ,St.Lawrence University
JOHN HOWE,Univ.of Missouri,Columbia
JEFFREY HUMMEL,San Jose State University
BRUCE HUTCHINSON,Univ.of Tennessee at Chattanooga
BRIAN JACOBSEN,Wisconsin Lutheran College
JASON JOHNSTON,Univ.of Pennsylvania
BOYAN JOVANOVIC,New York University
JONATHAN KARPOFF,Univ.of Washington
BARRY KEATING, Univ.of Notre Dame
NAVEEN KHANNA, Michigan State University
NICHOLAS KIEFER, Cornell University
DANIEL KLEIN, George Mason University
PAULKOCH,Univ.of Kansas
NARAYANA KOCHERLAKOTA,Univ.of Minnesota
MAREK KOLAR,Delta College
ROGER KOPPL,Fairleigh Dickinson University
KISHORE KULKARNI,Metropolitan State College of Denver
DEEPA KLAL,UCLA
GEORGE LANGELETT,South Dakota State University
JAMES LARRIVIERE,Spring Hill College
ROBERT LAWSON,Auburn University
JOHN LEVENDIS,Loyola University New Orleans
DAVID LEVINE,Washington University in St.Louis
PETER LEWIN,Univ.of Texas at Dallas
DEAN LILLARD,Cornell University
ZHENG LIU,Emory University
ALAN LOCKARD,Binghampton University
EDWARD LOPEZ,San Jose State University
JOHN LUNN,Hope College
GLENN MACDONALD,Washington University in St.Louis
MICHAEL MARLOW,California Polytechnic State University
DERYL MARTIN,Tennessee Tech University
DALE MATCHECK,Northwood University
DEIRDRE MCCLOSKEY,Univ.of Illinois,Chicago
JOHN MCDERMOTT, Univ.of South Carolina
JOSEPH MCGARRITY, Univ.of Central Arkansas
ROGER MEINERS, Univ.of Texas at Arlington
ALLAN MELTZER, Carnegie Mellon University
JOHN MERRIFIELD,Univ.of Texas at San Antonio
JAMES MILLERIII,George Mason University
JEFFREY MIRON,Harvard University
THOMAS MOELLER,Texas Christian University
JOHN MOORHOUSE,Wake Forest University
ANDREA MORO,Vanderbilt University
ANDREW MORRISS,Univ.of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
MICHAEL MUNGER,Duke University
KEVIN MURPHY,Univ.of Southern California
RICHARD MUTH,Emory University
CHARLES NELSON,Univ.of Washington
SETH NORTON,Wheaton College
LEE OHANIAN,Univ.of California,Los Angeles
LYDIA ORTEGA,San Jose State University
EVAN OSBORNE,Wright State University
RANDALL PARKER,East Carolina University
DONALD PARSONS,George Washington University
SAM PELTZMAN,Univ.of Chicago
MARK PERRY,Univ.of Michigan,Flint
CHRISTOPHER PHELAN,Univ.of Minnesota
GORDON PHILLIPS,Univ.of Maryland
MICHAEL PIPPENGER,Univ.of Alaska,Fairbanks
TOMASZ PISKORSKI,Columbia University
BRENNAN PLATT,Brigham Young University
JOSEPH POMYKALA,Towson University
WILLIAM POOLE,Univ.of Delaware
BARRY POULSON,Univ.of Colorado at Boulder
BENJAMIN POWELL,Suffolk University
EDWARD PRESCOTT,Nobel laureate
GARY QUINLIVAN,Saint Vincent College
REZA RAMAZANI,Saint Michael’s College
ADRIANO RAMPINI,Duke University
ERIC RASMUSEN,Indiana University
MARIO RIZZO,New York University
RICHARD ROLL,Univ.of California,Los Angeles
ROBERT ROSSANA,Wayne State University
JAMES ROUMASSET,Univ.of Hawaii at Manoa
JOHN ROWE,Univ.of South Florida
CHARLES ROWLEY,George Mason University
JUAN RUBIO-RAMIREZ,Duke University
ROY RUFFIN,Univ.of Houston
KEVIN SALYER,Univ.of California,Davis
PAVEL SAVOR,Univ.of Pennsylvania
RONALD SCHMIDT,Univ.of Rochester
CARLOS SEIGLIE,Rutgers University
WILLIAM SHUGHARTII,Univ.of Mississippi
CHARLES SKIPTON,Univ.of Tampa
JAMES SMITH,Western Carolina University
VERNON SMITH,Nobel laureate
LAWRENCE SOUTHWICK,JR.,Univ.at Buffalo
DEAN STANSEL,Florida Gulf Coast University
HOUSTON STOKES,Univ.of Illinois at Chicago
BRIAN STROW,Western Kentucky University
SHIRLEY SVORNY,California State University,Northridge
JOHN TATOM,Indiana State University
WADE THOMAS,State University of New York at Oneonta
HENRY THOMPSON,Auburn University
ALEX TOKAREV,The King’s College
EDWARD TOWER, Duke University
LEO TROY, Rutgers University
DAVID TUERCK, Suffolk University
CHARLOTTE TWIGHT, Boise State University
KAMAL UPADHYAYA, Univ.of New Haven
CHARLES UPTON, Kent State University
T. NORMAN VANCOTT, Ball State University
RICHARD VEDDER, Ohio University
RICHARD WAGNER, George Mason University
DOUGLAS M. WALKER, College of Charleston
DOUGLAS O. WALKER, Regent University
CHRISTOPHER WESTLEY, Jacksonville State University
LAWRENCE WHITE, Univ.of Missouri at St.Louis
WALTER WILLIAMS, George Mason University
DOUG WILLS, Univ.of Washington Tacoma
DENNIS WILSON, Western Kentucky University
GARY WOLFRAM, Hillsdale College
HUIZHONG ZHOU, Western Michigan University

PAID FOR BY THE CATO INSTITUTE, WWW.CATO.ORG

Oh No.

2008-12-17T19:59:00.000-08:00

Project Vote Smart

2008-11-13T19:41:00.000-08:00

This is an amazing site that gives you access to pretty much everything you need to know about your politicians. Voting records being the most important thing, but also bios, ratings, "scores" according to different interest groups, etc. Try it out.

8

2008-11-11T10:39:00.000-08:00

So, I kind of missed the boat on posting about the whole proposition 8 issue. While I am surprised that the LDS church spoke out so strongly, I am shocked at how many of the members went belly-up over the whole issue.

And now, some words from prophets of the Lord:

Harold B. Lee:

“You may not like what comes from the authority of the Church. It may contradict your political views. It may contradict your social views. It may interfere with some of your social life. But if you listen to these things, as if from the mouth of the Lord Himself, with patience and faith, the promise is that ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name’s glory’ (D&C 21:6).” (THBL, 526)

Joseph F. Smith:

“The fact of the matter is, when a man says you may direct me spiritually, but not temporally, he lies in the presence of God–that is, if he has got intelligence enough to know what he is talking about. If he has not intelligence enough to know, then he only makes a mistake. But if he has intelligence enough, he knows that the spiritual and the temporal are one, indivisible and inseparable, and that you cannot direct a man spiritually without you direct him temporally as well. The spiritual and the temporal are blended in men. No man can act upon the promptings of the Spirit but it will affect him spiritually and temporally. It is true, we are dual beings, and the body and the spirit make the soul of man; but while that is so, whatever will affect you temporally will affect you more or less spiritually, and whatever will affect you spiritually will affect you temporally. So that this splitting of hairs, this dividing of very small things, is not manly, is not brave, is not honorable, is not intelligent, but is ignorance and foolishness in the sight of the Lord. I am in this Church to be directed body and spirit to the doing of the will of the Father in heaven, and I shall not stop short of that whether it affects me temporally or spiritually.” (CD, 5:125)

Russell M. Nelson:

“From time to time, I hear people speculate on the question, ‘When does the prophet speak as a prophet, and when does he speak otherwise?’ This query seems curious to me, as if one were presumptuous enough to sit in judgment on a prophet. In my close associations with President Kimball, spanning two decades and the spectrum from suffering to sublimity, I have never asked that question. The only question I have asked has been, ‘How can I be more like him?’” (Spencer J. Condie, Russell M. Nelson: Father, Surgeon, Apostle, 176)

So True

2008-07-15T07:38:00.001-07:00

Interesting Article

2008-07-15T07:15:00.000-07:00

I have been slacking on this blog.

Here is an article I found on my friend Ben Crowder's blog. It is called Fascist America, in 10 Easy Steps. Very eye opening.

But, just to be safe, you'd better read the criticism of this article here.

This and that

2008-06-10T11:15:00.000-07:00

Read this and read that.

Mike is the bomb. What more need I say?

What about the needy?

2008-05-19T11:56:00.000-07:00

Republicans, Libertarians, and Constitutionalists (I semi-affiliate with all three) are often called heartless, self-serving, and a number of other unkind things. They are accused of not caring about the poor. I find this a bit insulting. I do care about the needy. I just think there is a better way to care for them than stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. Furthermore, charity forced by the government always backfires.

Ezra T. Benson wrote, "Most other countries in the world have attempted to use the power of government to meet this need. Yet, in every case, the improvement has been marginal at best and has resulted in the long run creating more misery, more poverty, and certainly less freedom than when government first stepped in."

Henry Grady Weaver wrote, "Most of the major ills of the world have been caused by well-meaning people who ignored the principle of individual freedom, except as applied to themselves, and who were obsessed with fanatical zeal to improve the lot of mankind-in-the-mass through some pet formula of their own... The harm done by ordinary criminals, murderers, gangsters, and thieves is negligible in comparison with the agony inflicted upon human beings by the professional "do-gooders," who attempt to set themselves up as gods on earth and who would ruthlessly force their views on all others with the abiding assurance that the end justifies the means."
I second both of these quotes. That is all.

Who's Deceiving the Liberals?

2008-04-15T17:33:00.000-07:00

Today I read a book called Who's Deceiving the Liberals? Although I didn't agree with everything in there, I thought it made several good points. One of them was something the author called "Victimhood."

Victimhood is the whole idea that America is filled with victims who need to be saved. The poor, the Black, the Hispanic, the women, the handicapped. And who is going to save them? The Liberals. This is their main philosophy behind every socialist program. Those poor victims need to be saved.

The book made the point that without "victims," the whole socialist/liberal philosophy wouldn't make sense. It is what they are riding on to change America. Thus, it is important that the victims remain victims.

Whereas true patriots have the underlying principle of freedom behind their philosophy, the liberals rely on victimhood to get them into office.

Here's a quote from the book:

In this scenario the Elites portray themselves as the great providers for these “victims,” who, in turn, come to see their very existence as dependent upon the generosity of the Elites. As we might expect, this has resulted in a massive co-dependent relationship across society: the “victims” become dependent on the Elite, and the Elite are able to rely on the votes of the “victims” in order to stay in power.

If the Elites actually helped the downcast rise out of their “victimhood,” they would lose power. They perpetuate this dependence by promoting hate. Ironically, these hate-breeders convince the “victims” that there is so much hate in America that they cannot survive without the protection the Elites provide."

Which is Worse?

2008-04-10T07:38:00.000-07:00

At a time like this when it seems we are forced to choose "the lesser of two evils" when deciding a president, which really is worse?

John McCain--I'm actually afraid he'll start WWIII. At the very least, he'll get us involved in another costly, pointless war besides continuing the one we're in now. How on earth did he become the Republican front runner? And why have Republicans all turned into such warmongers?

Hillary & Obama--Either of these would attempt to drastically increase socialism in America. In their attempt to "rescue" the poor by expanding Medicare, Medicaid, and turning health care into a government-run disaster, they may ruin what is left of the economy.

Both Republicans and Democrats would likely increase government spending (either on wars or social programs), and thus likely increase taxes. Is it better to waste America's money overseas or waste it with more inefficient government programs?

I'm really at a loss on this one. I believe voting for either party's nominee is going to violate both my economic sense and my moral compass.

Politics by Elise: Redistribution of Wealth

2008-02-22T12:50:00.000-08:00

Redistribution of Wealth is a philosophy that used to be considered dangerously communist. Today, Americans don't even realize that they are being saturated by it. Programs and systems like Medicare, Medicaid, the graduated income tax, and the whole welfare system are forms of the redistribution of wealth.

It is my understanding that government spending (specifically the redistribution of wealth) is ALWAYS damaging to the economy. It interferes with the free market–damaging initiative and effectually hurting the middle class (well, it hurts everybody, but especially the middle class). As proven by communist and socialist governments, capitalism is always the most economically beneficial system; communism and socialism always lead to eventual bankruptcy–thus requiring a revolution and reconstruction of the government. Because increasing our government spending increases our socialism, and socialism is always economically unwise, I believe in restricting the Federal government to only the things which are outlined in the Constitution. This seems to me to be the wisest course of action in keeping our economy safe.

Even if the redistribution of wealth were beneficial to society overall–and it isn’t–I believe it is morally wrong. As stated in the Declaration of independence, each person has three natural, inalienable rights–life, liberty, and property. These rights are for EVERYONE. When the government taxes people unequally in an attempt to redistribute wealth, it violates that third right. Even if someone does make $1 million every year, why should they be forced by government to pay half of that to be “redistributed” to the poor? That is effectually saying that they don’t have as much of a right to their own property simply because they have MORE property. It is saying, “Those with little or no property have the right to that property, but those with a lot of property don’t have that same right, because, well, I WANT SOME OF IT TOO!”

I find this “Robin Hood” philosophy to be fundamentally immoral (despite loving the movie). Taking from the rich simply because they are rich is violating their right to own and control property. I am not triumphing the rights of the rich because I think they are all of infallible and august character, but I recognize that just because someone has more does not mean that they deserve less.

Those are my beliefs as to why it is imperative that we cut back on government spending and the redistribution of wealth. Not only does it damage our economy and eventually lead to bankruptcy, but it is fundamentally immoral.

P.S. To read more on the immorality of the Robin Hood philosophy, take a crack at Atlas Shrugged. Who is John Galt?

Politics by Madison: Property

2008-02-20T17:22:00.000-08:00

"This term [property] in its particular application means, "That dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual."

In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces everything to which a man may attach a value and have a right, and which leaves to everyone else the like advantage.
In the former sense, a man's land, or merchandise, or money, is called his property.
In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.

He has a property of particular value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.

He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.

He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties, and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.

In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights."

"Property," March 27, 1792 (Madison, 1865, IV, page 478)

Politics by Madison: A well-instructed people alone can be permanently a free people.

2008-02-15T11:15:00.000-08:00

"The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse."

Speech in the Virginia State Convention of 1829-'30, on the Question of the Ratio of Representation in the two Branches of the Legislature, December 2, 1829 (Madison, 1865, IV, page 51)

Politics by Jefferson: The rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals

2008-02-13T09:24:00.000-08:00

"What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:455, Papers 15:393

"We certainly cannot deny to other nations that principle whereon our government is founded, that every nation has a right to govern itself internally under what forms it pleases, and to change these forms at its own will; and externally to transact business with other nations through whatever organ it chooses, whether that be a King, Convention, Assembly, Committee, President, or whatever it be. The only thing essential is, the will of the nation." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Pinckney, 1792. ME 9:7

"With respect to [a foreign nation's] government or policy as concerning themselves or other nations, we wish not to intermeddle in word or deed, and that it be not understood that our government permits itself to entertain either a will or opinion on the subject." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Pinckney, 1792. ME 8:369

"Unmeddling with the affairs of other nations, we presume not to prescribe or censure their course, happy could we be permitted to pursue our own in peace, and to employ all our means in improving the condition of our citizens." --Thomas Jefferson to Mme de Stael, 1807. ME 11:282

"The whole body of the nation is the sovereign legislative, judiciary, and executive power for itself. The inconvenience of meeting to exercise these powers in person, and their inaptitude to exercise them, induce them to appoint special organs to declare their legislative will, to judge and to execute it. It is the will of the nation which makes the law obligatory; it is their will which creates or annihilates the organ which is to declare and announce it. They may do it by a single person, as an emperor of Russia (constituting his declarations evidence of their will), or by a few persons, as the aristocracy of Venice, or by a complication of councils, as in our former regal government or our present republican one. The law being law because it is the will of the nation, is not changed by their changing the organ through which they choose to announce their future will; no more than the acts I have done by one attorney lose their obligation by my changing or discontinuing that attorney." --Thomas Jefferson to Edmund Randolph, 1799. ME 10:126

Politics by John Adams: There is no good government but what is Republican

2008-02-12T09:06:00.000-08:00

From Adam's Thoughts on Government:

"We ought to consider what is the end of government, before we determine which is the best form. Upon this point all speculative politicians will agree, that the happiness of society is the end of government, as all divines and moral philosophers will agree that the happiness of the individual is the end of man. From this principle it will follow, that the form of government which communicates ease, comfort, security, or, in one word, happiness, to the greatest number of persons, and in the greatest degree, is the best.

"All sober inquirers after truth, ancient and modern, pagan and Christian, have declared that the happiness of man, as well as his dignity, consists in virtue. Confucius, Zo- roaster, Socrates, Mahomet, not to mention authorities really sacred, have agreed in this.

"If there is a form of government, then, whose principle and foundation is virtue, will not every sober man acknowledge it better calculated to promote the general happiness than any other form?

"Fear is the foundation of most governments; but it is so sordid and brutal a passion, and renders men in whose breasts it predominates so stupid and miserable, that Americans will not be likely to approve of any political institution which is founded on it.

"Honor is truly sacred, but holds a lower rank in the scale of moral excellence than virtue. Indeed, the former is but a part of the latter, and consequently has not equal pretensions to support a frame of government productive of human happiness.

"The foundation of every government is some principle or passion in the minds of the people. The noblest principles and most generous affections in our nature, then, have the fairest chance to support the noblest and most generous models of government.

"A man must be indifferent to the sneers of modern English men, to mention in their company the names of Sidney, Harrington, Locke, Milton, Nedham, Neville, Burnet, and Hoadly. No small fortitude is necessary to confess that one has read them. The wretched condition of this country, however, for ten or fifteen years past, has frequently reminded me of their principles and reasonings. They will convince any candid mind, that there is no good government but what is republican. That the only valuable part of the British constitution is so; because the very definition of a republic is "an empire of laws, and not of men." That, as a republic is the best of governments, so that particular arrangement of the powers of society, or, in other words, that form of government which is best contrived to secure an impartial and exact execution of the laws, is the best of republics."

Politics by Washington: The happiness of the people may be made complete by the preservation of the Constitution

2008-02-11T10:36:00.000-08:00

From Washington's Farewell Address:
He pleaded that

"Heaven may continue to you the choicest tokens of its beneficence; that your union and brotherly affection may be perpetual; that the free constitution, which is the work of your hands, may be sacredly maintained; that its administration in every department may be stamped with wisdom and virtue; than, in fine, the happiness of the people of these States, under the auspices of liberty, may be made complete, by so careful a preservation and so prudent a use of this blessing, as will acquire to them the glory of recommending it to the applause, the affection, and adoption of every nation, which is yet a stranger to it."

Why I Say "No" to Mitt

2008-02-07T11:46:00.000-08:00

#1. I am not overly concerned about his flip-flops, however, politicians give us no choice but to look primarily at their actions and disregard their words. Take President Bush for example. He consistently touts conservative rhetoric, but then goes right ahead and increases government spending, increases government legislation, and violates the Constitution (Iraq war). Romney has not proven himself at all to me, and therefore I cannot cast my vote in his favor.

#2. His health care plan in MA. First of all, he needs to stop bragging. The plan was only put into effect as of January 2008. That's right. Last month. Therefore, he has no idea of what the success or the repercussions of his government mandate will be. Secondly, he constantly insists that he did it without raising taxes. Hmmm. He openly says that he put more people on Medicaid and Medicare, therefore increasing the amount of money the government already spends on such programs. Maybe he didn't increase taxes in MA, but he still increased Federal government spending. Thirdly, a government mandated health care plan violates the whole purpose of government. The role of government is not to take care of you like your mommy. It is merely to protect your three basic rights--life, liberty, and property. And no, health care does not fall under your right to life. Romney's mandate was the wrong solution to the problem of the free-riders.

#3. He supports a pointless war. America has no business in Iraq. Everyone who has done their research knows that the war was NOT a result of 9/11. The Iraq war has cost America over a trillion dollars. There is no possible way to "win" in Iraq. Read this link for more: http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr091002.htm

#4. Education. While I agree with some of Romney's ideas, he still supports the Federal Department of Education. He voted in favor of "No Child Left Behind," which increases Federal Authority. On the other hand, Ron Paul is in favor of abolishing the Department of Education all together and giving the power back to the States.

Ron Paul

2008-02-06T21:33:00.000-08:00

This is a post from December 13th, 2007.

Well, some of you have asked me why I support Ron Paul, so here I am blogging about it (this is for you, Steph :)).

Ron Paul believes the government is unconstitutionally regulating this country out of liberty and into bankruptcy. He is the only presidential candidate whose voting record is 100% aligned with the Constitution.

Here is a summary of his most important views:

Iraq War: Ron Paul opposed the Iraq War from the outset. He believed that Iraq was no threat to us and was not involved in 9/11 (none of the 9/11 bombers were even from Iraq; most were from Saudi Arabia). The Iraq War is currently unconstitutional because President Bush ignored the constitutionally required Declaration of War (by Congress). Ron Paul does not believe we should launch preemptive strikes; he would end our interventionist foreign policy and bring the troops home from Iraq. These are his words:

"The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them. This war has cost more than 3,000 American lives, thousands of seriously wounded, and hundreds of billions of dollars. We must have new leadership in the White House to ensure this never happens again.

Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Today, we have troops in 130 countries. We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America. And now, there are new calls for a draft of our young men and women.

We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home. No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution.

Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations.

Too often we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised. Then, we become despised. Too often we have supported those who turn on us, like the Kosovars who aid Islamic terrorists, or the Afghan jihadists themselves, and their friend Osama bin Laden. We armed and trained them, and now we’re paying the price.

At the same time, we must not isolate ourselves. The generosity of the American people has been felt around the globe. Many have thanked God for it, in many languages. Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations."

Taxes: Ron Paul wants to get rid of the income tax. Do you know what your income taxes are even spent on? Listen to this: "100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal debt and by Federal Government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government”(Reagan Grace Commission). Furthermore, the amount our government spending has increased in the last seven years exceeds the entire amount of money collected by the IRS. Cut back to what we were just seven years ago and we'd have no need for the income tax. Ron Paul says:

"Lower taxes allow more spending, saving, and investing which helps the economy — that means all of us.

Real conservatives have always supported low taxes and low spending.

But today, too many politicians and lobbyists are spending America into ruin. We are nine trillion dollars in debt as a nation. Our mounting government debt endangers the financial future of our children and grandchildren. If we don’t cut spending now, higher taxes and economic disaster will be in their future — and yours.

In addition, the Federal Reserve, our central bank, fosters runaway debt by increasing the money supply — making each dollar in your pocket worth less. The Fed is a private bank run by unelected officials who are not required to be open or accountable to “we the people.”

Worse, our economy and our very independence as a nation is increasingly in the hands of foreign governments such as China and Saudi Arabia, because their central banks also finance our runaway spending.

We cannot continue to allow private banks, wasteful agencies, lobbyists, corporations on welfare, and governments collecting foreign aid to dictate the size of our ballooning budget. We need a new method to prioritize our spending. It’s called the Constitution of the United States."

Social Security: Excessive government spending has created a crisis in Social Security. The proposed solutions, ranging from lower benefits, to higher taxes, to increasing the age of eligibility are NOT solutions. Ron Paul believes that young people should be able to opt out of Social Security. He says:

"Our nation’s promise to its seniors, once considered a sacred trust, has become little more than a tool for politicians to scare retirees while robbing them of their promised benefits. Today, the Social Security system is broke and broken.

Those in the system are seeing their benefits dwindle due to higher taxes, increasing inflation, and irresponsible public spending. ...

We must also address the desire of younger workers to save and invest on their own. We should cut payroll taxes and give workers the opportunity to seek better returns in the private market.

Excessive government spending has created the insolvency crisis in Social Security. We must significantly reduce spending so that our nation can keep its promise to our seniors."

Education: Ron Paul is for abolishing the Federal Department of Education. As one Paul supporter commented, “You do realize the Department of Education’s only role is telling state run schools what they should have on their curriculum?" This is from my brother Nate:

"People were educated better than they are today before federal management and even way back at the time of the founding fathers. People forget that elimination of the department of education was one of the rallying cries of the republicans up to just a few years ago.

You need to remember that primarily Ron Paul is working to get rid of FEDERAL management of things. Why have self-interested lobbyists and corrupt congressmen determine what will be done with your money or what will be taught in schools? The department of education is a joke when they give us things like “No Child Left Behind.”

The states could do things INFINITELY better than the federal government. Even better, a prosperous, unopressed middle class would produce services far better than state or federal government. Eventually, people will wake up and realize that there are far better ways than having federal involvement. As I’ve said before, the more complex an issue the more it should be decentralized and locally dealt with."

And from Dr. Paul:

"The federal government does not own our children. Yet we act as if it does by letting it decide when, how, and what our children will learn. We have turned their futures over to lobbyists and bureaucrats.

I support giving educational control back to parents, who know their children better than any politician in D.C. ever will.

The federal government has no constitutional authority to fund or control schools. I want to abolish the unconstitutional, wasteful Department of Education and return its functions to the states. By removing the federal subsidies that inflate costs, schools can be funded by local taxes, and parents and teachers can directly decide how best to allocate the resources."

Dr. Paul's career in politics was brought on by his interest in economics. On August 15, 1971, President Nixon called for the U.S. dollar's complete departure from the gold standard. That decision led Ron Paul into politics. He recalls, "After that day, all money would be political money rather than money of real value. I was astounded."

Since then, Ron Paul has served 10 congressional terms in the House of Representatives. He uses the Constitution as a guide as to how to vote. He makes it a point of never voting for a bill unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized in the Constitution. As a result, this has earned him the nickname, "Dr. No."

All of the other Republican candidates are essentially the same. I support Ron Paul because he is the only presidential candidate who is committed to bringing our country back to what it was intended to be.

Post #1

2008-02-06T21:29:00.000-08:00

I think to start off this blog I'll copy a bunch of posts off my other blog so I don't have to feel like I'm repeating myself :).