Showing posts with label libertarian 2010. Show all posts
Showing posts with label libertarian 2010. Show all posts

Thursday, December 2, 2010

Is Ron Paul the Republicans' Dennis Kucinich?

He was one of just three Republicans in the US House to vote with the Democrats today to send a bill to the Senate which extends the Bush tax cuts only to those making less than $250,000/$200,000.

Can't wait to hear from Dennis Ron the chapter and verse from the US Constitution which allowed him to vote Yea on a tax increase for only "wealthy" Americans.

TheHill.com reports here the independent Democrats who voted against Pelosi's class-warfare tax increase bill on the "rich":

Here are the Democrats who voted against the bill (nine of whom lost their reelection bids):

Rep. Brian Baird (Wash.)
Rep. Dan Boren (Okla.)
Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper (Pa.)
Rep. Artur Davis (Ala.)
Rep. Lloyd Doggett (Texas)
Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (S.D.) 
Rep. Ron Klein (Fla.)
Rep. Jim Matheson (Utah)
Rep. Mike McIntyre (N.C.)
Rep. Mike McMahon (N.Y.)
Rep. Jerry McNerney (Calif.)
Rep. Walt Minnick (Idaho)
Rep. Gwen Moore (Wis.)
Rep. Jim Moran (Va.) 
Rep. Collin Peterson (Minn.)
Rep. Earl Pomeroy (N.D.) 
Rep. Bobby Scott (Va.)
Rep. Gene Taylor (Miss.)
Rep. Mike Thompson (Calif.)
Rep. Pete Visclosky (Ind.)

Among the brave above who were re-elected to return next year I count Dan Boren, Lloyd Doggett, Jim Matheson, Mike McIntyre, Jerry McNerney, Gwen Moore, Jim Moran, Collin Peterson, Bobby Scott, Mike Thompson, and Pete Visclosky. 

Why couldn't the three Republicans have been more like these eleven Democrats and voted No?

Libertarians are nuts.

Thursday, November 11, 2010

Uncalled House Race Update: VA-11 a Democrat Hold

Real Clear Politics has been showing this race a Democrat hold since yesterday.

Politics Daily shows the incumbent Democrat Connolly with just 920 votes more than the Republican challenger Fimian.

Three third party candidates could be blamed for the Republican's loss. The Independent garnered 1,838 votes, the Libertarian 1,381 votes, and the Green 959 votes. All together those votes represented barely 1.75% of all votes cast.

Net Republican gains remain at 61 with 6 races still not called: CA-11, CA-20, IL-8, KY-6, NY-25 and NY-1.

Sunday, November 7, 2010

Of 8 More Close Uncalled House Races, 3 Look to go Republican

With a net gain to date of 61 seats, 3 more defeats of Democrat incumbents look possible.

Bloomberg.com reports similarly here:

“It’s expected that Republicans will hold on and pick up a total of 63 or 64 seats, though recounts can occasionally produce a surprise,” said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics.

Vote totals taken from PoliticsDaily.com show Republican Vidak overturning Democrat Costa in CA-20 50.8% to 49.2%.

In IL-8, the Republican Walsh looks to overtake Democrat Melissa Bean 48.5% to 48.3% thanks to Green Party Scheurer siphoning off 3.2% on the Democrat incumbent's left. This was conservative Republican Phil Crane's old seat.

And in NY-25 the Republican Buerkle has a similarly razor thin lead over incumbent Democrat Maffei 50.2% to 49.8%.

Other races don't look as promising for Republicans, close as they are.

A constitutionalist third party candidate in CA-11 has managed 5% of the vote in a race leaning to the incumbent Democrat McNerney over the Republican Harmer by just .3%.

Incumbent Democrat Chandler in KY-6 has a .2% lead over Republican challenger Barr.

Three third parties in VA-11 have bled off 1.8% of the vote in favor of the Democrat incumbent Connolly vs. Republican Fimian who trails by .4% of the vote. Libertarian and Green parties strike again.

WA-2 is a different matter with 95% of the precincts reporting because of voting by mail. The Democrat Larsen is ahead of Republican Koster 50.7% to 49.3%.

The race in NY-1 has looked like Democrat incumbent Bishop's over Republican Altshuler 51% to 49% until the report of a closer count in the Bloomberg story. The Republican says many absentee ballots have not yet been counted. 

Third Party Candidates in Colorado Senate Race Hand Victory to Democrat Bennet

Where the difference between the Democrat winning and the Republican losing was only 16,000 votes.

The Independent Reform candidate, a self-described social liberal and economic conservative, in other words a libertarian, siphoned off 18,000 votes. A non-originalist crank, he thought two bad innovations of the past have been good for the country, as in this:

The graduated income tax and direct election of senators were originally third party ideas adopted by the major parties to win back votes.

The Libertarian Party candidate in the race bled off 21,000 votes.

Two unaffiliated candidates trying to capitalize on opposition to bailouts and ineffective stimulus spending siphoned off another 16,000 between them. One was a dope advocate who subsequently took credit for stopping the election of the Republican Buck.

That's 55,000 votes on the more or less economic right to the environmentalist wacko Greens on the left who bled off 36,000 votes of their own.

Stronger candidates from the two major parties admittedly would have reduced this hemorrhaging. On the right, however, it's evidence of the voters' justifiable distrust of the Republican commitment to economic conservatism. 

Saturday, November 6, 2010

4 Libertarians, 1 Conservative Cost Republicans 5 Victories in US House

In AZ-8, the Libertarian took 4% of the vote in a 2 point race between Democrat Giffords and Republican Kelly.

In IN-2, the Libertarian took 5% of the vote in a 1 point race between Democrat Donnelly and Republican Walorski.

In IA-1, the Libertarian took 2% of the vote in a 1 point race between Democrat Braley and Republican Lange.

In MO-3, the Libertarian took 3% of the vote in a 2 point race between Democrat Carnahan and Republican Martin.

And in NY-23, the Conservative Hoffman took 6% of the vote in a 2 point race between Democrat Owens and Republican Doheny.

By garnering less than 40,000 votes these pests managed to disappoint the hopes of half a million Republicans in just five races. Democrats just love third parties.

Pricks.

Jesse Kelly Loses a Heartbreaker in Arizona 8th

See his remarks here.

A third party Libertarian candidate bled off over 10,000 votes to allow the liberal incumbent Democrat Gabrielle Giffords to win by less than 4000 votes. Thanks a lot, pest.

That leaves 7 House races still not called. Republicans still have 64 pickups.

Better luck next time, Marine.

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

In Victory, Representative Justin Amash Already Disappoints

In televised remarks last night thanking his supporters and outgoing Michigan 3rd Congressional District Representative Vern Ehlers, who stood out like a sore thumb in a sea of young faces assembled for the event, Justin Amash made two statements which sounded incredibly tone-deaf to his Republican political base.

He pledged himself to the cause of transforming America and transforming Michigan, and to the cause of bipartisanship. The former has been the clarion call of the Obama led Democrats, which the voters of America soundly rejected yesterday in an historic Tea Party inspired Republican takeover of the US House of Representatives: We don't need no trans-for-ma-tion, they might have been singing. The latter, bipartisanship, is hardly the message being trumpeted by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, whose  radio program's commercial breaks have been saturated with Justin Amash for Congress political ads in recent days. Americans have had quite enough of the (demolition) work being accomplished by a Congress controlled by Democrats and don't want Republicans to join in the destruction, but reverse it.

One can chalk it up to rookie mistakes, but Kent County Michigan voters would do well to prepare themselves for many more such disappointments from Justin Amash, whose kinship to president Obama's ideological habit of mind was revealed by the faux paus. Libertarians and Marxists have more in common than American liberals and conservatives have at issue between them.

From tax policies favoring the nuclear family to support for the defense of the state of Israel, Republicans may all too soon learn that the libertarian and pro-Arab ideas which undergird Amash's thinking can and will lead to some surprising votes in the next Congress. And one can well imagine how Amash may use his pledge to vote NO on bills he has not read as an excuse to avoid difficult votes in the US House. Illinois voters got plenty of that political cowardice from one Barack Hussein Obama during his tenure in their state senate, where he often voted PRESENT to avoid taking politically inexpedient stands. Look what that has got us. Amash's assiduous courting of the support of the fiscally moderate and pro-TARP Vern Ehlers should have already warned voters to regard Amash's incessant appeals to principle and consistency as expressions of politically winning aspirations, not of the reality. But you can fool most of the people most of the time, especially with lots of money from outside the district.

Buyer beware!

The story was reported here:

In his victory speech at Kent County GOP election night headquarters, he said the party should work to bring more Democrats and independents into the party to "transform this state" and "transform this country."

The congressman-elect thanked his predecessor, U.S. Rep. Vern Ehlers, calling him a model of integrity. Ehlers did not seek re-election.

Sunday, October 24, 2010

A Libertarian Defends Local Bankers

An analyst of the banks and an increasingly visible commentator on the foreclosure mess, R. Christopher Whalen puts in a good word for local bankers on his blog at Reuters.com:

The bad guys in the housing bust are not the banks who must foreclose on homes, but the politicians in both political parties who used reckless housing policies to further their personal interests. This is a bipartisan national scandal. Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Phil Graham, Alan Greenspan and their contemporaries are the authors of our collective misery, not the local banker who must clean up the mess created by government intervention in the housing market.

Read the rest here.

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Freedom Absolutists

Birds of a feather flocked together:

Think of an economy where people could be an artist or a photographer, a writer without worrying about keeping their day job in order to have health insurance. Or that people could start a business and be entrepreneurial and take risks, but not be job-locked because a child has asthma or diabetes or someone in the family is bipolar. You name it, any condition is job-locking.

-- Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, dependent of the American people

[C]ommunist society ... regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, as the spirit moves me ...

-- Karl Marx, unemployed academic and journalist, dependent of Friedrich Engels

Without the notion of patriotism and national borders, people would live wherever and however they prefer, practice the religions they want, marry whomever they desire, and produce, exchange, and prosper in whatever way they see fit.

-- Kel Kelly, libertarian author and ingrate, here

It should bother more Democrats and Republicans that their country and political parties have been invaded by people who all drink from the same well of failed utopianism, whether they be socialists in the Democrat party, or libertarians in the Republican. Vote for such at your peril.

Monday, July 12, 2010

"THE MOST DANGEROUS AND INCOMPETENT PRESIDENT WE HAVE EVER HAD"

Not my words, but those of the Jewish atheist Nat Hentoff:


July 12, 2010

Health Care Rationing Obama Believes In

By Nat Hentoff

As a reporter, I do not use euphemisms - such as calling murderous terrorists "militants" or "activists." And as an American, I can exercise my First Amendment right to say plainly that President Obama is a liar with regard to our new health-care law, often referred to as Obamacare.

When a number of critics of Obamacare, including myself, warned that it would bring the rationing of treatments, medications and research into new procedures, the president said to the American Medical Association (June 15, 2009) that this rationing charge was a "fear tactic."

The next month, he said flat out: "I don't believe that government can or should run health care" (firstthings.com, May 31, 2010).

But in May of this year, the president nominated Dr. Donald Berwick, a professor at Harvard Medical School, to head Health and Human Services' Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) - the most powerful health-care position. As Hal Scherz underlines (RealClearPolitics.com, May 26): "CMS covers over 100 million Americans, has an annual $800 billion budget that is larger than the Defense Department's and is the second-largest insurance company in the world."

Unlike Obama, Berwick is enthusiastically, openly candid in his support of Britain's socialistic National Health Service. In a 2008 speech to British physicians, our new health czar said: "I am romantic about National Health Service. I love it (because it is) 'generous, hopeful, confident, joyous and just.'"

That "just" National Health Care Service decides which care can be too costly for the government to pay. Its real-time decider of life-or-death outcomes is the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Here is how "nicely" it works, described by Michael Tanner, senior fellow and health-care expert at the Cato Institute (where I, too, am a senior fellow):

"It acts as a comparative-effectiveness tool for the National Health Care Service, comparing various treatments and determining whether the benefits the patients receives - SUCH AS PROLONGED LIFE - are cost-efficient for the government" (lifenews.com, May 27).

So listen to our very own decider of how the Obama administration will lower our national debt by cutting inefficient health-care costs. After declaring his ardent romantic attachment to the British system, Berwick said: "All I need to do to rediscover the romance is to look at health care in my own country." He will, of course, be too busy to attend the funerals of the sacrificial Americans whose lives - not only those of the elderly - may thereby be cut short.

Tanner makes a grim point as Berwick rediscovers the romance of government cost-effectiveness: "Recent reports suggest that the recently passed health-care bill will be far more expensive than originally projected. As it becomes apparent that Obamacare is unsustainable, the calls for controlling its costs through rationing will grow louder. With Donald Berwick running the government's health-care efforts, those voices have a ready ear" (dailycaller.com, May 27).

By then, Berwick will be involved in the government-controlled health of more than 100 million Americans and - notes Michael Tanner - "Maybe those worries about death panels weren't so crazy after all."

Keep in mind that already, in May, "the Congressional Budget Office updated its cost projections (of Obamacare). It found that the new health legislation would cost $115 billion more than estimated when it was enacted ("ObamaCare's Ever-Rising Price Tag," Wall Street Journal, June 3).

How soon will the romantic rhythms of health rationing follow?

Wesley Smith, an invaluable investigative reporter on the dangers of government-controlled health care, describes the consequences if Obamacare is not repealed by the next Congress after the midterm elections:

"Once the centralized planning of medical delivery is complete - with cost-containment boards controlling the standards of care and the extent of coverage for both the private and public sectors - insurance companies, HMOs and the government will be able to legally discriminate against the sickest, most disabled and most elderly in our country. In other words, those whose care is most expensive."

For what to watch for during the reign of Berwick, whom Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sibelius recently glorified as "absolutely the right leader for this time" (CNSNews.com, May 26), I bring back Michael Tanner:

In the British Health Service Berwick loves, "750,000 patients are awaiting admission to NHS hospitals. ...The latest estimates suggest that for most specialties, only 30 to 50 percent of patients are treated within 18 weeks. For trauma and orthopedic patients, the figure is only 20 percent. ... Every year 50,000 surgeries are canceled because patients become too sick on the waiting list to proceed."

And, again unlike the president, Berwick tells it like it frighteningly is in a June 2009 interview for the magazine, Biotechnology Healthcare:

"It's not a question of whether we will ration health care. It is whether we will ration with our eyes open."

There are many reasons why it is vital for Americans to vote in the midterm elections - and, of course, in 2012, to prevent a second term for the most dangerous and incompetent president we have ever had - but for many Americans, it is particularly important this year to vote against supporters of Obamacare. The question for many voters should be whether, in the years ahead, they will be in condition to vote if they are on waiting lists for government-controlled health care.

More of us are learning that during the Obama administration, it is essential to continually keep our eyes open on all it does.

Nat Hentoff is a nationally renowned authority on the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights. He is a member of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and the libertarian Cato Institute, where he is a senior fellow.

This piece appeared here.

Saturday, April 3, 2010

The Dodd Bill Makes Moral Hazard Government Policy

An Opinion from The Washington Examiner
Run against Wall Street

By: Michael Barone

Senior Political Analyst

04/01/10

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, after spending some time negotiating with committee Republicans Bob Corker and Richard Shelby, has decided to advance major financial regulation legislation without bipartisan support. Democratic spin doctors will try to portray the fight over this legislation as a battle between Republicans favoring lax regulation of Wall Street and Democrats favoring tough regulation.

But is the Dodd bill really tough legislation, particularly in its treatment of the major financial entities? My American Enterprise Institute colleague Peter Wallison argues that it is not, because it gives Too Big To Fail status to the big entities—Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. This is done by setting up a resolution process for a failing firm which protects creditors more than ordinary bankruptcy proceedings would. Wallison writes:

“From the perspective of its effect on the economy, it does not matter what happens to the company, or to its shareholders and management. The only thing that matters in a government resolution of a failing company is what happens to the creditors--because it's the creditors that will provide the funds preferentially and at favorable rates to large companies rather than small ones.

"In this respect, the Dodd bill does it again--it signals to creditors that they will get a better deal if they lend to the big regulated firms rather than their smaller competitors, and it does this by making it possible for creditors to be fully paid when a too-big-to-fail financial firm is liquidated, even though this would not happen in bankruptcy. There are a number of ways that this can be done, including through a simple merger with a healthy firm. As a prescription for moral hazard, this can hardly be surpassed. The creditors will line up to provide cheap money to the too-big-to-fail firms the Fed will be regulating.”

Wallison is not alone in taking this view. Clive Crook, writing in National Journal seems to agree:

“You do not deal with ‘too big to fail’ by keeping a list of systemically significant institutions: By itself, that makes things worse. You do not deal with it by promising to let most failing financial firms, including those on your list, go bankrupt: Nobody will believe that promise. You deal with it by combining early FDIC-like resolution for all financial firms, banks and nonbanks alike, with stricter and smarter requirements on their capital, liquidity, and leverage.”

Libertarian economist Arnold Kling suggests an even tougher approach, though he doesn’t say how to put it into effect: break up the big banks.

I think as a matter of both policy and politics, Republicans ought to oppose the Dodd bill’s provisions that effectively grant Too Big To Fail status to a handful of financial institutions (and perhaps to other companies, Wallison has argued). They should oppose giving preferred status to the very largest firms as compared to smaller competitors. They should be prepared to argue that the Democratic bill gives vast advantages to firms whose employees have gotten huge compensation (and who, as it happens, tend to give more money to Democrats than Republicans). The cry should be, no favor to the big Wall Street fat cats. Mainstream media is unlikely to transmit this message but, as we have seen in the health care debate, messages can get through without them.

Wednesday, March 31, 2010

The Left's Anti-American Slander

When leftists and socialists compare Americans who believe in limited government to Nazis, they forget that many of them had fathers who left wives and children behind to join in the effort to defeat Hitler. To such Americans, the comparison is an outrage, and the left would do well not to underestimate the consequences of stoking this anger. The following appeared here:


March 31, 2010

The Hostility Follies

By Jonah Goldberg

Apparently there's a self-proclaimed militia leader named Mike Vanderboegh who runs an obscure, low-traffic blog out of Pinson, Ala. (population 5,007). Mr. Vanderboegh recently called on his fellow "sons of liberty" to break the windows of Democrats who voted for healthcare reform.

So let's start with the obvious: Vanderboegh is an idiot, and anyone who followed his advice is an idiot too. These people are buffoons, not just because such tactics help Democrats but because such behavior is simply wrong, reprehensible and clownish.

Equally wrong, reprehensible and clownish: The reaction to Vanderboegh and his alleged ilk.

The Daily Beast's John Avlon insists that Vanderboegh's rallying cry, combined with some threats and broken windows, make "the parallels, intentional or not, to the Nazis' heinous 1938 Kristallnacht . . . hard to ignore."

Actually, it's really, really easy to ignore the parallels. During Kristallnacht, Nazi goons destroyed not just 7,000 store windows but hundreds of synagogues and thousands of homes. Tens of thousands of Jews were hauled off to concentration camps by the Nazis, who had been in total power for half a decade.

This combination of state power and murderous, genocidal intent is nowhere on display in America today, not in the Obama administration (contrary to what some overheated right-wingers claim) and certainly not among out-of-power conservatives and "tea partyers." It's amazing anyone needs to point this out, but a few libertarians throwing bricks is not the same thing as the tightening fist of the Third Reich. Indeed, it's an anti-American slander to suggest anything like it is going on here, and it cheapens the moral horror of the Holocaust.

Don't tell that to the Democrats and their media transmission belt, who largely turned a blind eye to partisan vandalism and extremist rhetoric against Republicans for eight years but now express horror at what they claim to hear from the right.

Columnist Paul Krugman, who encouraged liberals to hang Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) in effigy, is concerned about right-wing "eliminationist rhetoric." The Washington Post's Courtland Milloy can't stand the incivility of the tea partyers, which is why he wants to "knock every racist and homophobic tooth out of their Cro-Magnon heads." Frank Rich says the mantra "take our country back" is now code for a white racist backlash -- though it was an apparently fine Democratic applause line when George W. Bush was president.

So what's the evidence for this new reign of terror? Those broken windows, some nasty voice and e-mail messages (not counting those aimed at Republicans, naturally), a coffin "left" at a Missouri congressman's home, a few repugnant signs at rallies and allegations from Reps. Emanuel Cleaver II (D-Mo.)and John Lewis (D-Ga.) that they were spit on and insulted with the "N-word," respectively.

But wait. The coffin was part of a protest over the death of "our freedoms" and was toted by the protesters, not left anywhere. And videos make it clear that what Cleaver called spitting was a protester spraying too much saliva while talking, the racist pig.

As for the epithet aimed at Lewis, if it happened, it's disgusting. But going by the video, there's nothing to back it up, and Rep. Andre Carson's (D-Ind.) claim that the N-word was chanted 15 times is pure dishonesty.

Let's assume it is true. I thought liberals rejected guilt by association as McCarthyism. Or are we to believe that every opponent of Obamacare is a racist?

On March 3, Politico broke a story about a leaked PowerPoint presentation delivered at a GOP retreat in Florida. It laid out, in cartoonish terms, a fundraising strategy exploiting "fear" of President Obama's "socialist" agenda. Ranking Republicans condemned and repudiated it.

Now, Obama's political arm, Organizing for America, is fundraising based on fear, sending out e-mails insinuating that Republicans are unleashing a lynch mob to repeal Obamacare. Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), chairman of the Democrats' Congressional Campaign Committee, insists we all should be very scared.

Heaven forbid anyone suggest a coordinated strategy is at work here. That would be distracting us from the Kristallnacht unfolding before our eyes.

Thursday, February 25, 2010

Not Your Daddy's CPAC

Ron Paul won the straw poll at this year's Conservative Political Action Conference because this year's meeting was infested with libertarians, which is why this happened:

CPAC is perhaps the nation's premiere conservative gathering, a convivial opportunity for impassioned right-wing activists to network, plan for upcoming elections and listen to the biggest names in the conservative movement. It's the sort of atmosphere in which the casual observer might expect someone like Ryan Sorba to receive a warm welcome.

Sorba, who wrote a book entitled "The Gay Gene Hoax," took the podium at this year's CPAC and immediately expressed his unhappiness that the conference had allowed a gay Republican group called GOProud to be a sponsor.

He didn't get very far. After delivering a rambling condemnation of homosexuality, Sorba was essentially booed offstage, prompting him to angrily complain to his conservative audience that "the lesbians at Smith College protest better than you do."

To read more, go here.

Sunday, January 24, 2010

Libertarianism Has No Moral Compass


Do you think it is ethically permissible to call a senator and urge him or her to vote against Ben Bernanke or to vote against healthcare and to lie about being a resident of their state? I don't, but the libertarian's remarks appearing below advocate just that.

Think about this the next time someone asks you to contribute to a political campaign outside of your congressional district, or in another state. How would you feel if someone else's money gave you representation which turned out not to represent you?

The rot which runs through American politics is not restricted to the politicians or "the system." It runs through every human heart, which is why the Founders frequently resorted to the principle of the separation of powers, to put checks and balances on the evil they knew was in every man. And it is also why they spoke favorably of the role played by religion, because they knew it was an indispensable support for the morality without which even simple honesty would not be possible.

Conservatism in a nutshell.


How You Can Help!

Whether they are in your state or not, please call all 5 undecided senators.

Concentrate on the senate. The house has no say on this.

What To Say: Make it simple so as to not tie up the lines ... "I am opposed to the reappointment of Bernanke [give your personal reason] and I think we should start all over on health care [or whatever you think about that issue]."

Be prepared to name your city and give a zipcode. Here is the Zip-Code Database.

Next call your senators with the same message.
Look up the phone numbers in the Online Directory For The 111th Congress .

Send A Message

Remember it takes 60 votes for confirmation. All it takes to send Bernanke flying is a change in a handful of undecided senators!

Call Now!

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Saturday, January 16, 2010

On the Dangers Posed by Libertarians

Consider this popular and influential enthusiast for Ron Paul.

He appears to favor a single payer system of federalized healthcare, an enormous interference in the personal liberties of individual Americans, many of whom freely eschew health insurance, from students in their twenties to the rich and successful like Rush Limbaugh. This from the same guy who wants to end the Federal Reserve because of its role in debasing the currency. It should bother him that he would swap debased healthcare for debased currency, but it doesn't.

He realizes, quite rightly, that a single payer system implies rationing of health care. But he's all for that, which means government will most certainly deny services when you desperately need them:

The press seemed concerned with a fear of rationed health care. Some republicans have raised the issue as well.

Mr. President I am concerned there will be no rationing of health care. . . .

Mr. President, unless something is done to rein in costs taxpayers will be footing the bill for a lot of things they shouldn't. In every country that has a single payer system, there is some degree of rationing.

Somehow you have us believe benefits will not be reduced, everything will be covered for everyone, there will be no rationing and somehow health care will cost less because of reduced paperwork. Mr. President, no one believes that, not even the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

Mr. President, to prevent costs from spiraling out of control rationing is mandatory. Unfortunately, you do not have the courage to admit it. Yet until you do, it can't happen.


Then fast forward a few months and he considers it a flaw in the Senate version of the bill that abortions will not be covered (which happens not to be true). Sounds like rationing to me. Yet he's clearly upset abortion will not be paid for:

The bill does allow states to opt out of paying for abortions. This is folly given the huge ongoing costs of unwanted births.


Suddenly the advocate for personal liberty is transformed into a statist potentially as dangerous to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as the crew of clowns now infesting Washington, D.C.

My Stand? I am all in favor of the right to die.


Liberty is not all. When it is, it becomes license, not liberty, and exposes one and all to the whims of the powerful, who make it all up as they go. In our time its young victims already approach 50 million since 1973. Now ask yourself how many elderly and infirm are in the gun sights of the rationers of today?

No, law and order must exist before there can be any semblance of liberty, and the sources of our law are too deep, ancient, and complex to be sacrificed to the caprices of the simplifiers of our age.

Saturday, January 2, 2010

Arguments Against Libertarianism


1. Liberty is like fire. It is necessary, but not everywhere and at all times and in all circumstances.

2. The American Revolution was not successful because George Washington exercised his right to free speech with the British, but because he shot them.

3. Tolerance ends where fanaticism begins because fanatics with power will never reciprocate.

4. Opinions arrived at under the pressure of the moment are oblivious to the lessons of the past.

5. Individuality is but a step away from the odd, the strange, the weird, the freakish, the nutty, the screwy and the kooky.

6. Eccentricity flies at great speed at the outer edges of the great spiral of the galaxy, threatening to disintegrate at any moment.

7. Libertarians would set free from their cages parakeets in winter.

8. If a traditionalist conservative is like a Protestant Christian, a libertarian conservative is like a Buddhist Christian.

9. Conservatives graze in the pasture. Libertarians are the flies on their backs.

10. Libertarianism is another form of materialism, for which metaphysics is an utter impossibility.

11. Liberty is not primary but is dependent upon law and order for its existence.

12. The cement of society is gratitude, friendship and brotherly love, not self-interest.

13. Human institutions are imperfectible because human nature is an irresolvable mixture of good and evil.

14. Governments which recognize that the state is instituted by God and fear Him restrain human passions, making life richer, more civilized and long.

15. Conservatives recognize others as fellow-travelers to the grave. Libertarians are Ebenezer Scrooge.