They say, “To cook a frog, don’t toss it into boiling water, put it into cool water and turn the heat up slowly”.
Our government would tell us that for the right (they call it a privilege) to fly on a commercial flight, we must submit either to a dose of radiation and provide a naked rendering of our body or submit to a government groping. . . or both. Either option, would be considered a crime if committed without a claimed “government authority”. The history of airline/airport security for the past forty years clearly shows that security is not the goal
Although airline hijackings have existed since, at least, the 1930′s, they didn’t “come into vogue” until the 1960′s with demands from hijackers to be taken to Cuba or some other political venue or for the payment of a ransom. This changed in 1970 when three airliners were hijacked by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. The aircraft were forced to fly to Jordan where the passengers were ultimately released and the aircraft were destroyed. Today, this would be classified as a major “terrorist” event. In reality, they were political hijackings, which occurred only because they were allowed to occur. In 1970, as today, the existing security measures did not address the problem nor were they meant to correct the problem. At best, they were (and are) all theater meant to provide a sense of security.
Each of these hijackings could have been prevented – at minimal cost, without government involvement and without the sacrifice of personal liberties. Simple: lock and reinforce the cockpit door. Although, we’ve all been herded through metal detectors, emptied our pockets and had our bags x-rayed, nobody thought to “lock the door” for more than thirty years; until after 9/11.
The fix is in. That’s right, and by “fix” I really mean dreadfully broken. Check out the latest effort from the Institute for Justice:
Imagine if Nancy Pelosi wanted to run for governor. If she decided to run as a “Clean Elections” candidate, every time her opponent would raise a certain amount of money from private donors, she would receive the same amount from taxpayers. That’s right, publicly funded elections.
This allows the government-subsidized candidate to “match” the spending—and thus the speech—of the independent group or privately funded candidate opposing him or her. The harder an independent group or traditionally financed candidate works, the more the government-subsidized candidate benefits. The system curbs speech, discourages participation and limits what voters will hear about politics.
Ron Paul appeared on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” this morning to discuss true free markets. Paul has previously called inflation a “hidden tax”. Now he’s calling it taxation without representation.
When asked about recent Economic Nobel Prize winner, Paul Krugman’s Keynesian worldview. Paul shakes his head, laughs, and half-jokes that he prays every night that Krugman’s ideas would just disappear.
In reading local newspapers and channel surfing through TV political commentary programs, it is quite apparent that the Mainstream Media has taken on the Herculean task of trying to discredit the Tea Party movement. With the results of the recent national election in hand, media pundits try to claim every Republican loss as attributable to their meddling and every Democrat win a repudiation of their beliefs. Tea Party-supported victors are seen as an anomaly.
But nowhere is this new crusade more evident than in the Mainstream Media’s newly-concocted premise that the Tea Party was responsible for Republican losses in the Senate. Christine O’Donnell, Sharon Angle, and Ken Buck were all puppets of the Tea Party and all losers at the ballot box, so they got theirs. Ha-ha!
Nevertheless, if one swallows the Mainstream Media’s thinking, it must then follow that the Mainstream Media itself was responsible for the Democrat losses in the House. While Tea Party miscalculations might have contributed to Republican defeats, it appears that Keith Olberman’s secret Democrat donations, Chris Matthew’s thrill up his leg, and the open bias seen in the body language of news anchors of the Top Three television networks all worked together to defeat the Democrats pulling Nancy Pelosi’s rickshaw.
But what a spectacle America was treated to in the days before November 2nd and what a comparison between these two competing titans: if the Tea Party was strident, the Mainstream Media was shrill; if the Tea Party was energized, the Mainstream Media was dour; if the Tea Party looked away from the establishment, the Mainstream Media was the establishment; if the Tea Party labored for free, the Mainstream Media feasted off campaign advertising revenue; and if the Tea Party fought for the freedom inherent in capitalism and democracy, the Mainstream Media worked to enforce the enslavement built into big government and socialism.
The Tea Party represented the spirit of independence that wrested this country from wilderness and brutality, the Mainstream Media represented the sloth and oppressiveness of the British Monarchy.
Given the choice, was it really the Tea Party which lost in this election or the Mainstream Media?
Rand Paul was interviewed on ABC’s “This Week” by Christiane Amanpour. I thought it was a good interview, but of course, I’m a bit biased. One item that Paul reiterated from his campaign was that we have “to look everything” for cutting government spending. Check it out below.
Well, to be quite fair Ron Paul said they talked about introducing a bill to end or audit the Fed on their first day in office together. Here is the entire long and excellent interview with David Asman on Fox Business channel.
Ron Paul also talks about becoming the new Chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy with the GOP taking control of the House.
The subcommittee’s jurisdiction includes domestic monetary policy, and agencies which directly or indirectly affect domestic monetary policy, multilateral development lending institutions such as the World Bank, coins and currency including operations of the Bureau of the Mint and the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, and international trade and finance including all matters pertaining to the International Monetary Fund and the Export-Import Bank.
I don’t think there could be a more perfect subcommittee for Ron Paul.
Later in the interview Judge Napolitano joins the discussion. Check it out below.
In one of the several interviews Liberty Maven did with Rand Paul I asked a question about strategy that I believe is the main reason Rand Paul won and is now Senator-elect Rand Paul. Here is that question and Rand’s excellent response again:
LM: Your recent op-ed in USA Today discussing libertarianism and conservatism where you deemed yourself “not quite” a libertarian seemed to be another (rather successful in my view) effort to unite conservatives and libertarians by focusing on where there are agreements. Is one of your fundamental campaign strategies to foster agreement between these groups?
Rand Paul: Yes, it is. The views that unite many conservatives and libertarians are grounded in deference to the Constitution and its principles, and a belief in limited government. These ideals have not been acted upon by many in Washington recently, and that’s why I’m running. It’s also why the Tea Parties exist – frustration with a lack of accountability on spending and the size of government.
These ideals – and the joining of all limited government advocates — form the basis for my campaign this year, one that has struck a chord with Republicans, independents, libertarians, and Tea Party activists. For the country’s sake I hope we can keep these groups in agreement and united against those who do not hold the same respect for those Constitutional principles.
Yes. I believe that about sums up why Rand Paul was successful. He united all flavors of voters. The Republicans, libertarians, independents, conservatives, and tea partiers joined together to support him. He also united progressives pretty well too. They were downright venomous for some reason. I guess that’s the way they roll when they disagree with someone.
A little less than a year ago I posted an article entitled, “Why Rand Paul Will Win“. I listed three reasons: public sentiment, fund raising, and the “it” factor. In retrospect it was mostly public sentiment that turned the tide in his favor in both the primary and general.
Also of note, Rand Paul’s father Ron, won his race. There’s a slight chance Ron Paul could be in line for a committee or sub-committee chairmanship now that the House is changing control to the GOP. It’s likely we’ll all be seeing more of the always-entertaining hearing sessions with Ben Bernanke tap dancing around Ron Paul’s questions. I also believe it to be quite likely we’ll see Ron Paul running for president in 2012 given the results and public opinion. Fox News even threw some love Ron’s way by mentioning him as the catalyst for his son’s and the tea party’s victories. Prepare your bank account for an onslaught of money bombs next year and in 2012.
Admittedly, I’m conflicted on this particular election eve. I’m excited at the potential for actual change if many of these so-called “tea party” candidates get elected. That potential is based upon hope more than expectation. If I decide to vote, I’ll vote for the Libertarian candidate in my district. I’m glad I have that choice since I can’t stand the GOP candidate (30 year incumbent Frank Wolf) nor can I stand the Democrat (Obamacare supporter).
That being said I have some questions. Most won’t be answered in the near term, but will be answered within the next 2 years.
Will Rand Paul win in another “Randslide”?
If Sharon Angle defeats Harry Reid will Chuck Schumer become the leader of the Senate?
Should Rand Paul win, will he lose the support of the Tea Party during his term as Senator?
Will Ron Paul’s supporters be happy with the way Rand Paul votes on foreign policy?
If the GOP takes control of the House will Ron Paul become the Chairman of the Financial Services Committee?
Will the Republicans be able to repeal Obamacare?
Are the Republicans going to to water down the Tea Party message by playing the same old political game?
Will Sarah Palin become the GOP nominee in 2012 due to her perceived influence on the Tea Party candidates winning in 2010?
When will Ron Paul announce he is running for President in 2012 (My guess is sometime in January of 2011)?
When Republicans gain control of the House and nothing changes will a Third Party option become truly viable in 2012?
Those are the main questions I have. Do you have any to add?
Michele Bachmann wants her fellow lawmakers to go back to school. She’d like to make Constitution classes available to our elected officials.
I’m all for our representatives learning more about the Constitution, but isn’t it a bit backwards to ask them to swear an oath to defend something and then ask them to go to school to learn about what they just swore to defend?
For the Tea Party soldiers worried that the young upstarts they’re poised to send to Congress will lose their constitutional druthers once they get to Congress, Rep. Michele Bachmann has a message: Fear not, she’s going to set up constitutional classes.
Bachmann spokesman Sergio Gor says, “It was something she’s always wanted to do. There’s so many folks that come to Capitol Hill to discuss obscure and mundane topics, but no one coming regularly to discuss bill of rights or the role of government.”
Bachmann won’t be teaching the classes, Gor says, but will help organize sessions with constitutional scholars, experts, and judges likely to be held in one of the committee rooms on the Capitol Hill complex. The classes will be open to any members — not just freshman — looking to continue their study of America’s founding documents. They will not be open, however, to staff or members of the press, and the list of speakers won’t be made public.
I can think of only one appropriate “speaker” or teacher of the U.S. Constitution for these lawmakers. And no, it’s certainly not our constitutional scholar President of the United States. When I read “constitution” and “class” in the same sentence I can think of no one other than Michael Badnarik. I wouldn’t trust anyone else with the task.
The recent appearance by Ron Paul on MSNBC demonstrated perfectly the tactic, used repeatedly by the MSM, called concision. Concision is essentially when commercial broadcast media uses the time constraints of the medium to their advantage. The host extracts a view or statement held or made by the guest that is unconventional or outside of the realm of the agreed upon limits of any given debate by the corporate media. For example, a popular agreed upon debate question is, ”Are we fighting the war in Afghanistan correctly,” rather than, “Should we be fighting the war in Afghanistan at all?” Once the view or statement is introduced the host forces the guest to defend their statement within the confines of the MSM commercial broadcast setting.
The most infamous recent example of this tactic being used against a Liberty candidate was when Rachel Maddow attacked Rand Paul for stating he would not have supported one of the ten titles of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The title that assumed the Federal Government owns all private property and therefore can impose their will on the property owner. The key to that interview was Maddow’s demand for a yes or no answer to the question, “Should Walworth lunch counters should [sic] have been allowed to stay segregated, just yes or no please.” Because Maddow asked the question in a yes or no format, the average viewer may have been tricked into believing that Rand Paul’s answer was evasive. However he was trying to lay out the context necessary to properly answer the question while remaining loyal to his convictions. However, the time frame allotted for his response was disproportionate to the complexity of the question.
Liberty Maven
Loading ...
