Quote of the Day: “It is my living sentiment, and by the blessing of God, it shall be my dying sentiment. Independence now, and independence forever.” – Daniel Webster, in an August 2, 1826 eulogy to Thomas Jefferson and John Adams; both had died on July 4th.
Every Election Day tens of millions of Americans consent to be governed, at least in theory. The politicians constantly point back to the election as justification for the things they do. But is this really valid? What about all the people who now feel betrayed by the office-holder? What about all the people who…
* voted for the lesser evil or
* voted for candidates that lost or
* would have voted for “none of the above” if the option had been available or
* didn’t vote at all because they didn’t want to endorse or encourage any of the candidates?
Do elections really confer consent? We don’t think so.
What does confer consent? Silence.
If we don’t inform our elected representatives that we object to their policies, then we shouldn’t be surprised if they assume their election to high office implies consent to their actions.
Those who mostly favor what our government is doing can celebrate July 4th content in the knowledge that they’re getting what they want. But what about the rest of us?
Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence…
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
Jefferson and the other Founders withdrew their consent and listed their reasons for doing so. Shouldn’t we do the same on this July 4th, and on every July 4th for as long as our government violates our inalienable rights?
Please use your personal comments to tell your Representatives in Congress that you don’t approve of the job they’re doing. Let them know that you’re tired of them expanding the government’s size, power, and expense far, far beyond what the Constitution provides. Read More »
Sometimes, out of curiosity (or perhaps some masochistic tendency), I’ll listen to neoconservative talk radio (Limbaugh, Hannity, or a local personality) to see what they have to say about the day’s events. Usually I am quickly sickened with complaints about how suddenly everything is going to hell in a handbasket now that Obama is president. They conveniently ignore the fact that President Bush was much like Herbert Hoover (only worse). He increased the federal budget enormously (much of it on domestic spending) and worked to give unprecedented (and unconstitutional) powers to the executive branch, among other things.
Yes, Bush was a terrible president. Some argue that his abuses should be considered traitorous and he should be convicted for treason. Then today I ran across an interesting article by Bush-hater Ted Rall in which he pines for the “good old days” of George Bush:
I haven’t forgiven George W. Bush for stealing two elections, starting two wars, bankrupting the treasury and doing his damnedest to turn the U.S. into a fascist state. He deserves one of hell’s hottest picnic spots for refusing to lift a finger to bring the 9/11 murderers to justice. Bush was stupid. He was vicious. He should be in prison.
He was the worst president the U.S. had ever had. Until this one.
On major issues and a lot of minor ones, Obama is the same as or worse than Bush. But Bush had an opposition to contend with. Obama has a compliant Democratic Congress. Lulled to somnolent apathy by Obama’s charming manners, mastery of English (and yes, the color of his skin), leftist activists and journalists have been reduced to quiet disappointment, mild grumbling and unaccountable patience.
I don’t care about window dressing. Sure, it’s nice that Obama is intelligent. But policies matter–not charm. And Obama’s policies are at least as bad as Bush’s. [Continue Article]
Directly inspired by DownsizeDC.org, California businessman Jerrol LeBaron has the idea that his state legislators should also be required to read the bills. One advantage in California is he doesn’t have to pressure the State Assembly and Senate — he can go directly to the people. Through California’s initiative-and-referendum process, LeBaron intends to put California’s own version of a Read the Bills Act on the ballot for voters to pass. LeBaron has created Honor in Office to accomplish this.
It is gratifying to see DC Downsizer ideas spread through the country. Success in California will inspire movements in other states and hasten success at the federal level. As the name of the California group suggests, reading the bills really is a matter of honor. An elected legislator really has no other job but to understand what he or she is doing to the people. Otherwise, why have elected representatives at all?
Yet, over the past three weeks, the House and Senate combined to pass 50 bills totaling 2,904 pages. These bills were not read on the floor. They weren’t read by members in their personal time. Most weren’t even read in committee.
As Cap and Trade races through Congress, here is a question – Who will benefit? The environment and us or Government Sachs?
by Jake Towne, the Champion of the Constitution
Originally published Sunday, June 28, 2009 at http://www.nolanchart.com/article6573.html
Last week the House voted 219-212 to pass HR 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, whose intent is to “create clean energy jobs, achieve energy independence, reduce global warming pollution and transition to a clean energy economy.” I’ve only had time to browse the 1,092 page bill and sincerely believe it will not achieve a single one of its purposes.
The creation of clean energy jobs is very vague and the parts that are clear center not on industry but on educating people about global warming – this appears to signal the creation of a new class of bureaucrat-teachers, not industrial jobs.
Energy independence? Transition to a clean energy economy? Get real, there is nothing of substance in the document that details such a plan, and this is a pipe dream for government to create this. What will you ask? Only a free market, driven by the consumer and free from government interventions can do so, in my opinion.
“Reduce global warming pollution?” Somehow I missed the scientific debate where the global warmers square off against the global coolers and those who believe that ‘the weather just changes, weather you want it to or not’ as I suggested here “Anthropogenic Global Warming or an Ice Age, Which Is It? (PART 2/2)“. Is carbon dioxide really a pollutant? Don’t plants need it to live and don’t we all respire it? It would be a lot cheaper and a lot more useful than HR 2454!
As I write this right now, Republican Minority Leader John Boehner (who also is a cosponsor of HR1207) has been talking on the House Floor for about 50 minutes. He is stepping through (almost page by page) the 300+ page addition to the Cap and Trade (Climate Bill) that was added around 3am this morning.
He’s actually making many great points about the horrible details in the bill.
What he is doing right now is giving great ammunition for supporting the “Read the Bills” Act in the near future.
“Is there anything that we aren’t regulating in this bill?”, Boehner yells.
At about 20 minutes in, Henry Waxman interrupted and asked how long Boehner would be permitted to speak. The chairwoman stated that it is customary to hear the leadership speak, forcing Waxman to sit down and allow Boehner to continue (to great cheers from the GOP side of the House).
We live in interesting times folks.
Please continue to contact the Reps who are on the fence regarding the bill. For a list see this page from the NTU.
Apparently, President Obama thinks that any pocket knife that can be opened with one hand should be considered a “switchblade” and should therefore be banned from being imported.
The Washington Times reports:
The Obama administration wants to expand the 50-year-old ban on importing “switchblades” to include folding knives that can be opened with one hand, stirring fears the government may on the path to outlawing most pocket knives.
Critics, including U.S. knife manufacturers and collectors, the National Rifle Association, sportsmen’s groups and a bipartisan group of lawmakers on Capitol Hill, say the rule change proposed by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) would rewrite U.S. law defining what constitutes a switchblade and potentially make de facto criminals of the estimated 35 million Americans who use folding knives.
Pocket knives of this sort are already illegal in England and Australia, prompting grassroots advocacy groups such as Knife Rights to pop up. Can it get any more asinine? I fear the answer is yes.
It’s Friday again. Here is this week’s installment of “quick hits”.
It has been quite a busy week. The news outlets have had a lot to talk about. At least 4 people died this week, one of them politically, the other 3, physically.
Ed McMahon died earlier this week. There are three things I think of when I hear his name, other than being Johnny Carson’s sidekick on the “Tonight Show”.
The first is the impression of Ed McMahon on the “Carsenio Hall Show“, an SNL skit with Dana Carvey playing Carsenio and the late great Phil Hartman playing McMahon. Next, I recall McMahon hosting the talent show “Star Search“, an 80’s version of “American Idol” with several other talent categories. Finally, and perhaps most of all I remember McMahon as being the guy in the “American Family Sweepstakes” commercials (see one here). RIP Ed.
The next “death” of the week was purely political. I’m talking, of course, about Mark Sanford. There’s not much to say that hasn’t already been said. I realize many people liked Sanford and thought he may be the guy in 2012, but I was never completely sold on the guy for some reason. Now, we all have a reason.
Author’s Note: Hello all. The editors of Liberty Maven have graciously agreed to include me as a contributor to this fine site. As they are always on the ball with breaking news, it may be a challenge to keep up with valuable content. So, for my first post, I’d like to start with a rhetorical, philosophical open letter that I wrote directed at all those who think that more government regulation will solve all of our nation’s ills. I hope you enjoy it!
—————————————
I’ve gotten some feedback on the subject of deregulation, and the effect of greed. Many are quick to demonize it, but I think we all need to slow down and take a look at what greed really is, before we admonish the “greedy”.
Interestingly, greed, is one of the 7 deadly sins, so we should strive to not be greedy, right? Well, greed is defined in several different ways, but the most unbiased true definition (not relating to material wealth – I’ll explain why this is important in a moment) of greed is: An eager desire or longing; greediness; as, a greed of gain. Is this not merely an extension of self interest? What is self interest? Self interest is defined as personal interest or advantage. Everyone acts in ways of self interest, some more than others. The reason is because life is a competition, like it or not. You cannot beat the self interest out of anyone, and that is the paradoxical nature of self interest, i.e., greed. To clarify my point, allow me to give several examples.
1. Early in life, we play games. The object of a game is to win. The desire to win is an act of self interest. Yes it is fun to play, but winning and losing is part of the game, and the desire to win is part of human nature. If the true object of the game is only to have fun, why do we keep score? Why do we play at all? Can we not find more fun and productive things to do if the object is “fun”?
2. When we go to school, we get graded on our performance. We strive to get good grades based on our performance, and to gauge how we are faring against our peers. Some learn faster, or in different ways, than others. It is in our self interest to get the best grades possible, so that we not only know we are learning, but to ensure that our future will be bright, by being accepted into higher educational facilities which boast better educational practices than others.
Here at Liberty Maven we’ve mentioned Mark Sanford a number of times as one of the “Ron Paul Republicans” who might step into Ron Paul’s role in the future. But now Sanford has gotten himself into a fine mess by getting caught red-handed in an extramarital affair and then lying about it. So in one fell swoop his political ambitions have been completely nullified due to the fact that he’s now toast in the court of public opinion.
But should we really care about his personal dilly-dallying?
Personally, I’m sickened by the media’s fascination with the personal lives of politicians and celebrities. Mainstream media outlets have become tabloids, plain and simple. And let’s not overlook the hypocrisy that the liberal media said the indiscretions of President Clinton were none of our business and no big deal. Even more disgusting is that the majority of celebrities and politicians play the politically-correct role and go along with the fallacy that it’s any of our business and readily agree to fully air their dirty laundry in front of TV cameras.
Having said that, I’m personally disappointed in the latest revelations. The man cheated on his wife and then lied about it. This country needs a lot more honesty, and Sanford didn’t have the balls to be honest with his own wife. And even more disturbing are the revelations that at least one of his trips to Argentina was taxpayer-funded. More and more, Sanford is turning out to be just a typical sleazy politician.
Despite the fact that his political views have not changed overnight, Sanford will clearly not be the man to be the next “Ron Paul”. Right now he’s more like Fred Sanford, and broken man with little future prospects.
Liberty Maven
Ready for Knife Control?
Here at Liberty Maven we’ve 
Follow LM on Twitter