|
Obama To Repeat History’s Mistakes |
|
Unemployment is high and heading upward. The Dow Jones is bouncing up and down for the last several months. The talk of the town this summer is whether or not we will hit a double dip recession. Many people say the government should continue the bail outs and keep on spending. Still, others say that we should cut spending because it will preclude any downturns in the economy.
Unfortunately, FDR was faced with the same decisions and now Obama appears poised to repeat FDR’s mistakes. Obama and Congress seem to only be looking at the debt and whatever God forsaken stimulus plans they dream up. They are not taking into consideration any other factors like taxes, real employment and the entrepreneurs that are the lifeblood of this country.
FDR ignored these factors as well resulting in the double dip. Taxes should be seen as an obvious area of concern. The Bush era taxes are about to expire. These will rise when they expire. The Administration claims the added taxes will be needed for budgetary and social necessities. Using the old constant message that the wealthy should pay their “fair share” will create a stronger economy. The Administration is also going after businesses for more money and will add a value added tax on partnerships that sell their business.
FDR went after the same duality of revenue and social good. He signed into law what eventually became known as the “soak the rich” law. He spoke of and instituted very high taxes. He went after companies with a tax trap on undistributed profits which hit companies that did not distribute its cash as either dividends or wages. The goal was supposed to be to get companies to get into action developing and stimulating the economy.
Of course, that is not what happened. Businesses stopped buying equipment and delayed all expansions because of the new tax threat. They hired lawyers to get around the taxes and keep the funds. It took months of double-digit unemployment figures for the Democrats controlling Congress to get the hint and got rid of the law.
FDR took control of money businesses and nationalize them. Obama has done the same across several sectors of the economy including but not limited to auto, banks, health care and Wall Street. Obama even wants to award contracts to firms with the most generous benefit packages similar to FDR. Like FDR this administration wants wages high and will use unions to accomplish such.
Roosevelt nearly killed the economy chasing the same dream. The Industrial Recovery Act and the Wagner Act were enacted under the FDR Administration. These gave workers the power to demand higher wages. While it worked and the ones that were employed got higher wages, employers did not hire new people that they otherwise would have. Economists have done studies and determined that this was a huge factor into the double dip.
The laws and problems that FDR created caused major uncertainty within the markets. It is the same with what the Obama Administration is doing as well now. You see the fluctuations in the market on a daily basis. Obama build his campaign on change, change you can count on. The problem is, you cannot count on it. Changes that occur too quickly, too often and with no seemingly rational reason, scare businesses away from spending and expansion. They would rather hold on to cash in case of unexpected consequences of said changes. We have seen in history how government injecting them selves into the market causes skittishness. We are seeing it again today.
For years the debate has always been between spend or save. Now I grant you, under the current economic style, spending will play a part in rolling the economy along. That part will be minor at best. What saved us in the 30’s was that Roosevelt turned to Foreign Policy and the mid term elections saw Republicans take control of Congress. These Republicans began rolling back FDR’s meddling in the economy and the “New Deal” era began winding down.
With everything that is on the table now in the Obama Administration, those roll backs of the 30’s is what will be relevant to what needs to be done for us today. However, it appears that the current Administration. Instead of learning from history, is about to be doomed by repeating those same mistakes FDR made.
By Jim Kearney
www.LibertarianViewpoint.com
|
|
Underdog Snitker Makes It A Four Way Senate Race |
|
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
TAMPA – In what is shaping up to be the common man vs. the political elite in Florida this election season, underdog Alex Snitker crossed another threshold in his bid for the U.S. Senate seat.
In a poll released Tuesday by Public Policy Polling (PPP), Snitker, the Libertarian nominee, grabbed 4% of the vote in a four-way race between him, Charlie Crist, Marco Rubio, and Kendrick Meek. Even more surprising is that he enjoyed 8% support among coveted independent voters.
Snitker, whose political contributions are estimated in the tens of thousands of dollars, is up against political heavyweights Crist, Rubio and Meek, who all have at least seven figures in their bank accounts. Throw in self-financed billionaire Jeff Greene, and it's easy to count Snitker out on the balance sheets.
But what the working-class Libertarian lacks in funding, he makes up for in passionate, grassroots support. “We've got a core campaign staff of about 20 people, all unpaid, another 250 or so boots on the ground volunteers, and thousands of supporters and social media fans,” said Kelly Lobean, Snitker's campaign manager. “And from what we've seen, our supporters are far more motivated than those of Crist, Rubio or the Democrats – and our ranks are growing everyday.”
Though Snitker's 4% showing in the first poll to include him could be easily dismissed as inconsequential, it does come as a bit of a surprise considering he has not run one TV, radio or print advertisement. Plus, his big name rivals enjoy roughly a 200-to-1 advantage in state and national media coverage.
Snitker claims that his Constitutional approach to government, and his strong defense of individual liberty, will draw voters from both the left, right and center. He says that his conservative positions on reducing the size and power of the federal government, along with his non-interventionist foreign policy and defense of personal freedoms, make him the real “big tent” candidate.
The latest poll may bear him out. Though Snitker is a darling of the tea party movement, he also enjoys a 27% favorable rating among Obama voters, compared to Rubio's 7% favorable rating with the same group.
Campaign media director, Adrian Wyllie points out that Rubio supporters are starting to migrate to Snitker because of Rubio's weak stance on states rights issues and illegal immigration. He also says that since the Democrats have turned hawkish on Iraq, Afghanistan and possibly even Iran, Snitker is the only one who will return to “our Founders' vision of free trade with all, and entangling alliances with none,” said Wyllie.
Ever the optimist, Snitker says that he's the only candidate in this race that can beat Crist. “Many Crist supporters are behind him for no other reason than he's not a Republican or Democrat. He's a political weather vane that changes direction with the political winds. He's the default option, but not someone who inspires excitement or confidence,” said Snitker. “I truly believe that I give Floridians something to vote for, and that is Constitutionally-limited government and individual liberty.”
Snitker suggests that there are many people across the political spectrum that believe in limited government and sound fiscal policy, but they no longer trust the Republicans or Democrats to deliver. He says that Rubio is a good example of a politician that says the right things during campaigns season, but there is an underlying distrust, even among his base.
“Alex is the real deal,” said John Conrad, the campaign events director. “He's the antithesis of the career politician. What you see is what you get with him – there's no window dressing and no political doublespeak.” Snitker, a former U.S. Marine, has never run for political office.
Snitker's supporters also say that his "regular guy" persona is a big asset. Even though he attends as many as a dozen campaign stops across the state per week, sprinkled with TV and radio interviews, he still manages to hold down a regular job as a office equipment salesman.
“I'm putting everything on the line for this campaign, and I'm doing it because because I want my son to grow up in a free and prosperous America,” said Snitker.
What started out as a whisper campaign has seemingly grown into a low, grassroots murmur. And with a bit of funding, the Snitker campaign could become a loud, anti-establishment roar in November.
July 21, 2010
Contact: Adrian Wyllie
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
website: http://www.snitker2010.com/
phone: 727-403-7735 |
|
Constitutional Usurpation |
|
Many a time I have tried to explain how the Constitution was a usurpation of power away from the people. Of course, I get all sorts of flack when presenting the theory. I am amazed at how often I get arguments from sophisticated Libertarians who fight for the Constitutional government formed by our forefathers. The very idea that we were supposed to be free and yet they still created a coercive government seems to be lost on even the most die-hard libertarians around me.
OK, so let’s make the premise clear. I believe that any government is, by nature, coercive. I challenge anyone from any place in the entire world to prove otherwise.
Don’t get me wrong here. I think the creators of our Constitution did the very best job they could possibly do with what little they had to work with. The completed document was the finest ever created in its time. It was designed to make the government minimal at best... but… none-the-less… it STILL created a coercive government. Why people do not see this is beyond my comprehension.
The Constitution was the effort of a committee that met for many months to dispute, parley & compromise.
The Declaration was undoubtedly the work of the comprehensive belief of a single individual. It does NOT contain any compromising lingo. It unmistakably stated not only that the colonies should be independent of British rule, but also that people were sovereign as well and were independent of rulers, endowed by their creator with unalienable rights.
Now, THAT was the real American Revolution.
The Constitution (a political document) in fact, reversed the entire philosophy of the Declaration of Independence (an ideological document) ... even though it was the best such document ever written to date and STILL created a coercive government.
Since moving here to California I have come to find out there will be a freedom conference in Hollywood. I encourage everyone who can make it to attend. The ideas of liberty will be heavily discussed. I am hoping to meet more like-minded individuals there who will see that in order to turn things around we need to be OUTSIDE the government not INSIDE it. Please visit www.libertopia.org for more information on the conference. If you can make the conference – look for me, I would be interested in meeting you.
On May 14, 2010 Robert Ringer wrote an article that explained this phenomenon fairly well. I have included it here for your enjoyment. You may see of Robert’s work by visiting his web site http://www.robertringer.com/
Yours in Liberty
Jim Kearney
http://www.LibertarianViewpoint.com |
|
|
Extending Unemployment Benefits; A Moral Question |
|
Do you believe that it is moral and just for one person to be forcibly used to serve the purposes of another? And, if that person does not peaceably submit to being so used, do you believe that there should be the initiation of some kind of force against him?
I believe our nation’s problems are moral, not just economic. The above is a simple moral question and can be answered with a simple yes or no answer. If you ask this of virtually any politician, you won’t get a straight answer. The reason is simple; your politician cannot give a simple yes or no answer to that question because he is sly enough to know that either answer would be troublesome for his agenda.
Charlie Crist has shown that he is not only a wishy-washy, flip-flopping, disloyal politician, but a man of questionable moral character. Gov. Charlie Crist issued an executive order on Friday that will make nearly a quarter million Floridians who have been out of work for a long time eligible for additional benefits. Earlier in the week he had been unsure if he had the unilateral authority to make the change to existing laws without the legislature’s approval. House Speaker Larry Cretul, R-Ocala, said Thursday that lawmakers would probably try to address the issue when they return for a special session next month or in September. But on Friday U.S. Senate Candidate, Crist, said he had determined he had a “constitutional duty” to authorize the use of available federal funds.
I’ve read both the US and Florida constitutions, I can’t find a place where he has the authority much less “duty” to change the existing law.
Charlie Crist has loudly and clearly answered the question - Do you believe that it is moral and just for one person to be forcibly used to serve the purposes of another? His answer is a resounding Yes. Christ agrees with the principle that one American has a right to live at the expense of another American. Crist is typical of liberal, progressive, socialists in this country, like Obama, and George Bush before him; they have no moral foundations for their actions, and simply react in a method that they best think will preserve their power.
This is a very basic question of morality. If you accept the premise is that I am my private property and you are your private property, then the simple answer to the question is NO, it is not moral and just for one person to be forcibly used to serve the purposes of another. What's complex is what percentage of me belongs to someone else. If we accept the idea of self-ownership, then certain acts are readily revealed as moral or immoral. Acts such as rape and murder are immoral because they violate one's private property rights. Theft of the physical things that we own, such as cars, jewelry and money, also violates our ownership rights.
So we see that if a politician answers with No, it puts them in the uncomfortable position of having to come out against taking the earnings of one American to give to another in the forms of farm and business handouts, ObamaCare, unemployment benefits, food stamps and thousands of similar programs that account for more than two-thirds of the federal budget. Government spending on wealth redistribution, including charity, amounts to legalized theft. This is not an argument against paying taxes. Paying for the constitutionally mandated and enumerated functions of the federal government is a moral obligation we all have. Taking tax dollars from some Americans and giving them to other Americans for purposes other than those enumerated in the constitution is quite simply wrong and immoral.
Charlie has clearly shown that he has no moral basis for his political decisions. Do you want to elect as your nest US Senator a man who thinks that one American has a right to live at the expense of another American?
I’ve posted Alex Snitker on his FaceBook account, I’m eager to see how he answers the moral question: Do you believe that it is moral and just for one person to be forcibly used to serve the purposes of another? And, if that person does not peaceably submit to being so used, do you believe that there should be the initiation of some kind of force against him?
Tom Rhodes
Editor, LPF Newsletter
Sunday 7/25/2010
|
|
Response to "10th amendment victory!” |
|
In response to my “10th amendment victory!” article I received the following letter. It was addressed to JJ McCurry, Chairman of the LPF. JJ did not write the short article, so it is not his opinion, but mine.. Below are both Zack’s letter and my response.
From: Zack ****** [mailto:********@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 7:24 AM
To:
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Subject: [From the LPF website] On DOMA and the 10th Amendment
Mr. McCurry,
As a young man becoming more involved in politics, my open and rational mind eventually led me to become very attracted with the Libertarian party's stances on many issues. As a Floridian, my desire to help like-minded state candidates led me to this website.
However, on the main page, you have an article entitled "10th amendment victory!" While I agree with the judges' ruling on the case that the issue should not be taken up by the federal government because of what the Constitution says, I do not think that even a state government should have the ability to dictate the definition of marriage through sheer, democratic fiat. My train of thought is in accordance with the Libertarian Party's platform, section 1.3.
In the article, you understand that we live in a republic and are subject to the rule of law, not mob rule (democracy) yet you assert that as a "Christian Libertarian, I firmly believe that marriage should be protected." How can you reconcile that statement with actual Libertarian social thought? You have every right to be a Christian and, for example, go to church, as a homosexual has the right to solidify a relationship through marriage. If the bill was to be introduced here in Florida, you are implying you would support it, and because there are many Christians here, the bill would likely pass, and the rights and liberties of homosexual couples in Florida would be entirely infringed by the majority.
Any clarification on this issue would be great.
Thank you,
Zack ******* from Jacksonville
Here is my response to Zack.
Hi Zack,
Thank you for your reply. JJ didn’t write “10th Amendment Victory!” article, I did, my name is Tom Rhodes and I am editor of the LPF newsletter, Vice-Chair of the Libertarian Party of Citrus County, and editor of the lpcitrus.blogspot.com blog. Thank you for your response. I believe that your assertion that “a homosexual has the right to solidify a relationship through marriage” not logical if you believe that rights are unalienable, and not granted by government or society. Exactly where does this right come from? It is not based upon any traditional or natural right.
We live in a constitutional republic not a democracy; as such both the federal and state governments are limited by their constitutions. Please re-read the preamble to our constitution. You will note that the constitution is established to “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity” not just to secure those blessings for the current generation. Establishing in the first sentance of our constitution the protection of children. Both thousands of years of tradition and research have shown that the best environment to raise children and pass down family and societal values is through an intact family unit consisting of a married man and woman and their children. I agree with the national platform that “Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the rights of individuals by government”. I also agree that the Federal government is limited and “does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships.” Based on the writings of our founding fathers our rights are based on “natural” law, which are basically the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The pursuit of happiness (in some documents just termed property), is generally be considered a combination of life and liberty, meaning you have the right to the fruit of your labor (property), and the right to use and protect that property as you see fit so long as you don’t infringe upon the rights of another.
The special purpose of marriage for thousands of years has been to create a family to protect the upbringing of children, holding the woman and man who enter into this covenantal contract accountable to the family. A marriage is based on people agreeing to sacrifice their rights for the good of a family and progeny not to "solidify a loving relationship." Since you own your own body, and a spouse owns their own body, a marriage traditionally blurs this distinction to create a single entity, a family. Children are physically and emotionally part of that couples body, and traditionally treated somewhat like property until they reach the age where they can be considered an independent person, at such time their parents are no longer responsible for the actions of their child nor providing for the child’s welfare (this age has varied in societies over the ages but the principle has remained for thousands of years). As such parents are both responsible for the upbringing and at liberty to determine what values and property are passed on to their “posterity,” not the state. A states interest in marriage is both financial and moral; traditional marriage has proven to be the best way to secure the blessings of liberty for our posterity, and traditional families have proven to be more financially stable and hence less burden on the state, and a better source of taxes.
I disagree with the portion of section 1.3 of the LP platform which states that “marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws” are rights.
Marriage is not a right, it is a covenantal contract sanctioned by both the church and the state for the expressed protection of passing down both property and values to future generations. This has proven over thousands of years to be what’s best for society. There are individual cases where this is not the case, but overall nothing has proven better. We do not have to accept the perversion of the meaning of marriage because a very small group of society wants to force its values upon the rest of society. Consenting adults should be free to engage in any behaviors they wish so long as they don’t infringe upon the rights of another. This does not give them the right to force others to accept their behavior as normal, acceptable, desired, or moral. Nobody has the right to feel good about their behavior, nor to silence others who criticize their behavior, nor to restrict the rights of another for how they feel or what they say about a specific behavior. Hence Christians have no right to stop homosexuals from engaging in and enjoying whatever consensual acts they choose, and homosexuals have no right to silence Christians when they declare that homosexuality is an abomination, deviant, immoral and socially unacceptable. Marriage laws do not violate anybody’s rights; they do promote a behavior that has been considered desirable for thousands of years, through legal protection and tax incentives without punishing other behavior. But on U.S. constitutional grounds that authority is reserved to the states or the people, not the federal government.
Ask yourself, does the state or do parents own children? Is the state or are parents responsible for children? Marriage laws place a moral and legal obligation on parents to children. Child custody and adoption are an extension of property rights, and nobody has the right to any specific property that they don’t own, conditions of acquiring property are subject to the whims of the current owner. Both child custody and adoption are contractual agreements for one party to assume the responsibility and benefits of rearing a child as if they were that child’s natural parents. There is no natural, moral, or traditional right to have a child you didn’t create yourself. Therefore whomever has the custodial rights to a child can and should have the right to determine the contractual obligations and conditions of transferring that custodial right.
I agree that immigration should have no limits, but practicality it must remain limited and controlled so long as there is a welfare state, the libertarian idea of open borders is both foolish and unwise without first ending all state sponsored charity (this includes social security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, unemployment benefits, etc.) Until state charity is ended, a secure border and limited immigration policy is a must or our country and liberties will be destroyed.
Military service is not a right, it is a contract; all those who choose to enter the military do so voluntarily, and as such agree to all the limitations and contractual obligations in exchange for the training and pay received. Since nobody is forced to join, free people are at liberty to join or not join and accept the terms of the contract. There is no right to be in the military and not meet your contractual obligations because you don’t like the terms of the contract. You are free not to join if you don’t like the terms, just as you are free not to accept a job that requires you to wear a chicken suit and pass out flyers if you don’t like those terms. Our military has proven that an all volunteer force is superior to any conscripted force; as such no leaders in our military want anything to do with the draft.
I believe the portion of LP Platform 1.3 which considers marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service as “rights” is mis-guided and not founded on either true libertarian principles nor natural law, nor the foundational documents and writings of this country, it is not logical for us to “create” these as rights any more than it is logical to “create” a right to a good job, or a right to health care. Unlike the Republican and Democrat parties the LP is clearly open to all liberty loving individuals; as such atheists, anarchists, and many extremists have found a home in the LP. They are all welcome, but so are Christians and traditional lovers of liberty. There are some in the LP who do not like nor accept Christians and their ideology, they fail to realize that it is Christianity and Christian ideology that are the basis for libertarian thought. Only ignorance of history, theology, and philosophy can lead a person to the idea that libertarian ideology is not based on solid Christian doctrine and principles. Please read http://tinyurl.com/25wmsoy.
Regards
Tom Rhodes |
|
Protecting Florida Sugar Industry Hurts Us All |
|
Protectionist Laws for Florida’s Sugar Industry cost us both dollars and health. In the Journal of Clinical Investigation (May 2009), researchers at the University of California, reported that the widespread use of fructose may be directly responsible for some of the ongoing increase in rates of childhood diabetes and obesity. The protectionist laws for Florida’s Sugar industry (and those subsidies for corn growers in the mid west), have made fructose (corn syrup) a more economical sweetener than glucose (table sugar). The UC study showed that consuming fructose-sweetened, instead of glucose-sweetened, beverages increases abdominal fat and decreases insulin sensitivity in overweight/obese people. Worse yet the participants in the study who consumed fructose-sweetened food showed an increase of fat cells around major organs including their hearts and livers, and also underwent metabolic changes that are precursors to heart disease and diabetes.
Noted economist, Walter Williams, currently the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., in response to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius quote, "The U.S. government plans to increase funding to battle obesity and views healthcare reform as an opportunity to encourage better eating habits," professor Williams said, “Rather than spending money and attacking the food industry, the secretary and others concerned with the health of Americans ought to go after the U.S. Congress.”
Ever watch the TV commercial for Corn Syrup? The one where they ask what’s wrong with using high fructose corn syrup, implying that there is nothing wrong with it and it’s as safe and secure a sweetener as table sugar. Kimber Stanhope researcher at UC Davis found that "This is the first evidence we have that fructose increases diabetes and heart disease independently from causing simple weight gain. We didn't see any of these changes in the people eating glucose." Confirming this, Dr. Gerald Shulman and fellow researchers at Yale University School of Medicine have found that diets with significant high-fructose corn syrup lead to elevated risks of high triglycerides, fat buildup in the liver and insulin resistance.
The corn industry point to studies that show there is no difference between corn syrup and sugar. But we can easily trace the increase in the use of corn syrup and the increase in obesity, diabetes, and other health problems associated with high triglycerides. Concerning the Princeton study released in February of this year, researcher Nichole M. Avena says "Our findings lend support to the theory that the excessive consumption of high-fructose corn syrup found in many beverages may be an important factor in the obesity epidemic." The corn industry disputes these finding, but in the 40 years since the introduction of high-fructose corn syrup as a cost-effective sweetener in the American diet, rates of obesity in the U.S. have skyrocketed, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 1970, around 15 percent of the U.S. population met the definition for obesity; today, roughly one-third of the American adults are considered obese, the CDC reported.
Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM) and the Florida Sugar Growers have given millions of dollars to politicians. The result is artificially high sugar prices and artificially low corn syrup prices. The cost of sugar is 25% to 35% less in Mexico than in the U.S.A. That with cheaper labor has resulted in US candy manufacturers moving to Mexico. But it’s not just the cost of labor that made them move. Life Saver’s candy, a namesake American product, is now made in Canada where labor costs are similar but they save $10million dollars per year.
Protectionism for Florida sugar and subsidies for Midwest corn are adding to the pockets of the corporations who have bought off your representative with political patronage. The results are predictable, you paying more for sugar, use more of a subsidized product, and worse yet, the use of artificially less expensive corn syrup in place of good old table sugar has resulted in measurable health problems. Walter Williams is correct we should be going after congress and the Florida legislature whose excessive rules and regulations hurt Floridians and all Americans.
|
|
