It seems a small publishing company called Wilder publishing has been putting warning labels on their reprints of the U.S. Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and the Federalist Papers:
Apparently the warning label is causing quite a stir. Just check all the scathing reviews over at Amazon.com. This is a great opportunity to allow the free market to work: all those who are offended by this idiocy will boycott and/or speak out about the publishing company, and their sales will take a hit.
Following up yesterday’s great interview on Rush Limbaugh with guest host Walter Williams, Rand Paul spoke with Sean Hannity today on Hannity’s radio show. Listen to it in two parts below.
Rand Paul was Walter Williams’ guest as he guest hosted the Rush Limbaugh radio show earlier today. They spoke for about 20 minutes. Listen to it below in two parts.
Ron Paul introduced the aptly named “Private Option Health Care Act” yesterday. It is meant as a replacement for Obamacare, to:
correct the mistake it made last month by replacing the new health care law with health care measures that give control of health care to individuals, instead of the federal government and politically-influential corporations.
Interestingly, but not surprisingly given the author of the bill, it utilizes the Constitution’s Commerce Clause the way it was intended, to keep commerce between the states “regular”. The clause is invoked to permit health insurance consumers to obtain health care plans across state lines.
This bill also creates a competitive market in heath insurance. It achieves this goal by exercising Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause to allow individuals to purchase health insurance across state lines. The near-monopoly position many health insurers have in many states and the high prices and inefficiencies that result, is a direct result of state laws limiting people’s ability to buy health insurance that meets their needs, instead of a health insurance plan that meets what state legislators, special interests, and health insurance lobbyists think they should have. Ending this ban will create a truly competitive marketplace in health insurance and give insurance companies more incentive to offer quality insurance at affordable prices.
There’s so much to say about the recent Rand Paul and Rachel Maddow event that it’s difficult to know where to begin. By now every reader of this site has probably seen Rand Paul’s appearance on Maddow’s show last week when he answered Maddow’s questions about the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with philosophy instead of soundbites. He answered like a libertarian academic rather than a Republican politician. I find this to be refreshing rather than flawed unlike most of the surface-dwelling progressives castigating and misrepresenting Paul following his remarks.
The question, as it pertains to the Civil Rights Act is, should the government make it illegal for a private business owner to discriminate or should consumers in the marketplace determine whether a private business owner stays in business due to his discriminatory practices?
Market forces, if they are truly free from regulation, produce equality far more pure than any government can create through force of law. Unfortunately, it is human nature to intervene and humans run the government so it is unlikely this assertion will ever become provable beyond doubt.
There are many people better than I am at arguing these points and defending Rand Paul on this issue.
The state of South Carolina has been an independent republic and nation twice in history, first in March of 1776 and again in December of 1860. History here certainly shows how it is far easier to get into a political union than to get out again. In South Carolina, we have found that once in a voluntary union, the open door slams shut as political and monetary elites who benefit from this arrangement seldom give up their power to tax, inflate the currency, protect special interest monopoly rights and engage in mercantilism without fighting to retain their distant dictatorial controls.
The photos below aren’t of terror bombing of London, Berlin or Dresden but rather Columbia, SC (small photo) and Charleston (large photo). There were no land battles fought in either city but rather Columbia was burned at the end of the war by union forces and the civilian areas of Charleston were targeted by a union naval bombardment which lasted longer than the World War Two German siege of Leningrad (St. Petersburg) Russia.
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” ~ Benjamin Franklin
Ron Paul and Alan Grayson appeared together on MSNBC earlier today to discuss the prospects for auditing the Federal Reserve and the banking reform bill being debated in the Senate right now.
This effort illustrates the ability of Ron Paul’s message to resonate with principled progressives and principled conservatives. When Jim DeMint, Alan Grayson, and socialist Bernie Sanders are on board it doesn’t get more trans-partisan than that.
Many believe that the Federal Reserve controls interest rates. But what if they do not? Here is a case for readers to decide on.
The Federal Reserve, myself, and many others, have made the claim that the FED controls both the interest rates and supply of dollars and credit. [For those unfamiliar with the FED, you can learn just about everything you need to know from the links at the bottom of my Federal Reserve plank, and this article "Fractional Reserve Banking in Pictures."] Several weeks, I had a conversation with Karl Denninger from Market Ticker on the gold market, and we also discussed his theory that while the FED can jawbone and could theoretically move the federal funds rate wherever it wants, it still follows the marketplace. In other words, its control of interest rates may be all bluster and a false charade.
by John Browne, Senior Market Strategist, Euro Pacific Capital
From all outward appearances, it seems that a grim chapter in U.S. economic history has come to an end. Newsweek magazine declares that “America is Back,” government statistics indicate revival, and our stock market has put in a rally for the record books (by rate of ascent, not highs – we are still more than 25% below the 2007 peak).
And yet, despite massive federal stimuli and subsidies, American unemployment clings stubbornly to the 10 per cent level, with the “underemployment” rate closer to 20 per cent. The IMF does not appear to buy into Washington’s optimism; it projects a “double dip” contraction by the second half of this year. With so much conflicting sentiment, it is difficult for investors to know whether the cup is half-empty or half-full.
On a technical basis, stock market gains of 50 per cent or more in a twelve month period should indicate dangerous downside potential. On the other hand, the markets of early 2009 had priced in the likelihood of financial Armageddon. The meltdown did not happen, so traders and brave investors have been quickly buying up the deeply discounted equities.
However, many remain suspicious, believing that the catastrophe had been postponed rather than overcome. Read More »
I feel like I’ve become a bit of a collector, so to speak, of attacks on Ron Paul. There really haven’t been any new attacks on Ron Paul since 2007. The attackers all parrot one another while flapping around in a self-congratulatory, moronic bubble of intellectual laziness.
Let’s dig a little deeper and attempt to un-attack Ron Paul. Here is my collection.
The “guilt by association” attack:
This is probably the most commonly-used attack on Ron Paul. Paul was criticized for “accepting” a $500 donation during his campaign from a white supremacist. Of course, the Paul campaign didn’t find out about the donor until it came to light after the donation was made. He refused to return the donation. Instead he argued that it would be better to spend the money wisely in the name of freedom for all rather than returning $500 to a known white supremacist. Some see this as a cop-out. It could also be argued that it was Paul upholding freedom of speech found in the First Amendment. Yes, unfortunately for some, the First Amendment does protect all speech, not just agreeable speech.
People choose to support any given candidate for all kinds of odd reasons. It’s quite common for people to vote for the most likable candidate regardless of the candidate’s political views. I can’t fathom this reasoning (or lack thereof). There are probably some really “scum of the earth” type of people who voted for and supported Barack Obama and John McCain. The reality is that candidates cannot choose their supporters; therefore, they should not be condemned through them.
Liberty Maven
by John Browne, Senior Market Strategist, Euro Pacific Capital
Loading ...
