Posts
ObamaCare Is Not Pro-Choice -- for Anyone | Michael F. Cannon | Cato Institute: Commentary: "Whatever your views on abortion, the fight over abortion in the Obama health plan illustrates perfectly why government should stay out of health care.
When the government subsidizes health care, anything you do with that money becomes the voters' business. And rather than allow for choice between different ways of doing things, the government typically imposes the preferences of the majority — or sometimes, a vocal minority — on everybody."
"The bill's subsidies would be so pervasive that prohibiting the use of taxpayer dollars for abortion coverage would restrict access to such coverage even for women who don't use the subsidies."
That shows how little freedom you will have to do anything outside of the government system!
Monday, November 30, 2009
A Real Team of Rivals | Malou Innocent | Cato Institute: Commentary
A Real Team of Rivals | Malou Innocent | Cato Institute: Commentary: "'If we don't have a government we can point to that has some basis of legitimacy in the country, the best generals, the best strategy isn't going to help turn it around.'
Now in its ninth year in Afghanistan, the United States finds itself in the unenviable position of assisting and sponsoring a corrupt, illegitimate, and slightly autocratic regime, which itself is contributing to the collapse of public confidence and to the resurgence of the Taliban insurgency."
Now in its ninth year in Afghanistan, the United States finds itself in the unenviable position of assisting and sponsoring a corrupt, illegitimate, and slightly autocratic regime, which itself is contributing to the collapse of public confidence and to the resurgence of the Taliban insurgency."
Underpinning U.S. strategy in Afghanistan is the belief that remaining will keep America safe, despite evidence to the contrary. For example, a 2004 Pentagon Task Force that reviewed the Bush administration's anti-terrorism efforts found that the underlying sources of threats to American interests were America's direct intervention in the Muslim world. This was the same task force that reported: "Muslims do not 'hate our freedom,' but rather, they hate our policies."
Campaign For Liberty — Questions Regarding The Fort Hood Massacre ��| by Chuck Baldwin
Campaign For Liberty — Questions Regarding The Fort Hood Massacre ��| by Chuck Baldwin: "So, how is it that these intensely trained, disciplined, rugged, highly qualified warriors are not allowed to carry their own weapons on base? This makes about as much sense as the policy forbidding airline pilots from carrying their own handguns on board commercial airliners, or teachers not being allowed to carry their own handguns in the classroom. After all, judges are granted the authority to carry their own firearms into the courtroom. If we can trust lawyers, we should be able to trust soldiers, airline pilots, and teachers."
"If the federal government--including the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, etc., with billions of dollars worth of technology; tens of thousands of snoops, spooks, and intelligence gatherers; and myriad Patriot Act-type laws--could not protect US soldiers on one of the most tightly secured and heavily guarded military installations in America, how can anyone in the country possibly not break out in cacophonous laughter when politicians tell us we need to surrender more liberties so that they might pass more laws to protect us crummy little peons?"
"Are we now really supposed to believe that all these Patriot Act-type laws, which allow the federal government to trash the Constitution and Bill of Rights--and poke its ubiquitous and meddlesome nose into every corner and crevice of our lives--are actually doing anything to make us safer? You've got to be kidding! The only thing they are doing is stealing our liberties. If the Fort Hood massacre proves anything, it proves that."
"Furthermore, this was an all-or-nothing, kill-or-be-killed environment: something these men are trained for. If untrained civilian passengers on flight 93 on 9/11 could rush and thwart armed attackers on board a commercial airliner from a narrow aisle way and stop a hijacking--a task infinitely more difficult than for a group of highly trained professional soldiers outnumbering an attacker by scores or hundreds in a large building--tell me again how Hasan was able to open fire with only two handguns, kill and wound scores of people, and calmly walk out of the building unscathed? Again, this makes no sense. "
"If the federal government--including the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, etc., with billions of dollars worth of technology; tens of thousands of snoops, spooks, and intelligence gatherers; and myriad Patriot Act-type laws--could not protect US soldiers on one of the most tightly secured and heavily guarded military installations in America, how can anyone in the country possibly not break out in cacophonous laughter when politicians tell us we need to surrender more liberties so that they might pass more laws to protect us crummy little peons?"
"Are we now really supposed to believe that all these Patriot Act-type laws, which allow the federal government to trash the Constitution and Bill of Rights--and poke its ubiquitous and meddlesome nose into every corner and crevice of our lives--are actually doing anything to make us safer? You've got to be kidding! The only thing they are doing is stealing our liberties. If the Fort Hood massacre proves anything, it proves that."
"Furthermore, this was an all-or-nothing, kill-or-be-killed environment: something these men are trained for. If untrained civilian passengers on flight 93 on 9/11 could rush and thwart armed attackers on board a commercial airliner from a narrow aisle way and stop a hijacking--a task infinitely more difficult than for a group of highly trained professional soldiers outnumbering an attacker by scores or hundreds in a large building--tell me again how Hasan was able to open fire with only two handguns, kill and wound scores of people, and calmly walk out of the building unscathed? Again, this makes no sense. "
Campaign For Liberty — Our Financial Dependence on China ��| by Peter Schiff
Campaign For Liberty — Our Financial Dependence on China ��| by Peter Schiff: "While the peg certainly is responsible for much of the world's problems, its abandonment would cause severe hardship in the United States. In fact, for the U.S., de-pegging would cause the economic equivalent of cardiac arrest. Our economy is currently on life support provided by an endless flow of debt financing from China. These purchases are the means by which China maintains the relative value of its currency against the dollar. As the dollar comes under even more downward pressure, China's purchases must increase to keep the renminbi from rising. By maintaining the peg, China enables our politicians and citizens to continue spending more than they have and avoiding the hard choices necessary to restore our long-term economic health.
Contrary to the conventional wisdom, when China drops the peg, the immediate benefits will flow to the Chinese, not to Americans. Yes, prices for Chinese goods will rise in the United States �€' but so will prices for domestic goods. As a corollary, the Chinese will see falling prices across the board. As anyone who has ever been shopping can explain, low prices are a good thing.
In addition, credit will expand in China while it contracts here. When China abandons the peg, it will no longer need to swell its currency reserves by buying Treasuries or other dollar-denominated debt instruments. Other nations will no longer feel the pressure to keep their currencies from rising, so they too could throttle down on their onerous dollar purchases.
As demand falls for both dollars and Treasuries, prices and interest rates in the United States will rise. Rising rates will restrict the flow of credit that is currently financing government and consumer spending. This change will finally force a long overdue decline in borrowing. So, not only will Americans lose access to the consumer credit that funds their current spending, but the things they buy will also get more expensive.
Our short-term loss will be in sharp contrast to the gain felt by foreigners, who will be rewarded with falling consumer prices and a more abundant supply of investment capital. In other words, the American standard of living will fall while that of our trading partners will rise. "
Contrary to the conventional wisdom, when China drops the peg, the immediate benefits will flow to the Chinese, not to Americans. Yes, prices for Chinese goods will rise in the United States �€' but so will prices for domestic goods. As a corollary, the Chinese will see falling prices across the board. As anyone who has ever been shopping can explain, low prices are a good thing.
In addition, credit will expand in China while it contracts here. When China abandons the peg, it will no longer need to swell its currency reserves by buying Treasuries or other dollar-denominated debt instruments. Other nations will no longer feel the pressure to keep their currencies from rising, so they too could throttle down on their onerous dollar purchases.
As demand falls for both dollars and Treasuries, prices and interest rates in the United States will rise. Rising rates will restrict the flow of credit that is currently financing government and consumer spending. This change will finally force a long overdue decline in borrowing. So, not only will Americans lose access to the consumer credit that funds their current spending, but the things they buy will also get more expensive.
Our short-term loss will be in sharp contrast to the gain felt by foreigners, who will be rewarded with falling consumer prices and a more abundant supply of investment capital. In other words, the American standard of living will fall while that of our trading partners will rise. "
Campaign For Liberty — A Gun-Free Zone at Ft. Hood ��| by Jacob Hornberger
Campaign For Liberty — A Gun-Free Zone at Ft. Hood ��| by Jacob Hornberger: "There are strict gun-control laws on military bases, including a prohibition against concealed-carry, even if the state in which the base is located permits concealed-carry.
Thus, at Ft. Hood, the shooter knew that the likelihood of anyone being able to defend himself from the coming onslaught was virtually nil. He knew that since this was a federal gun-free zone, he would be able to shoot his gun and kill his victims until he ran out of ammunition or until the local police arrived and gunned him down.
Why do shooters select gun-free zones to commit their massacres rather than, say, gun shows? No doubt that question continues to befuddle the gun-control crowd."
Thus, at Ft. Hood, the shooter knew that the likelihood of anyone being able to defend himself from the coming onslaught was virtually nil. He knew that since this was a federal gun-free zone, he would be able to shoot his gun and kill his victims until he ran out of ammunition or until the local police arrived and gunned him down.
Why do shooters select gun-free zones to commit their massacres rather than, say, gun shows? No doubt that question continues to befuddle the gun-control crowd."
Former NIH Chief: Ignore Government's Mammography Recommendations - FOXNews.com
Former NIH Chief: Ignore Government's Mammography Recommendations - FOXNews.com: "The first female to head the National Institutes of Health said Sunday she is advising women to ignore new recommendations by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which last week changed guidelines for mammographies from annually starting at age 40 to every other year starting at age 50."
What happens when government regulation prevents you from ignoring those new recommendations?
What happens when government regulation prevents you from ignoring those new recommendations?
Gov't Wastes $98B in Taxpayer Dollars in 2009 - FOXNews.com
Gov't Wastes $98B in Taxpayer Dollars in 2009 - FOXNews.com: "In all, about 5 percent of spending in federal programs in fiscal year 2009 was improper, according to new details of a government financial report that were released Tuesday. Saying the overall error rate was similar in 2008, officials attributed the $26 billion jump to some changes in how to define improper spending as well as an increase in overall spending due to the recession."
Lawmakers Slam Administration for Faulty Job Data on Government Web Site - FOXNews.com
Lawmakers Slam Administration for Faulty Job Data on Government Web Site - FOXNews.com: "One recipient of stimulus funds, Talladega County of Alabama, claimed that it had saved or created 5,000 jobs from only $42,000 in government money -- which would amount to $8.40 in annual income per job if each position received an equal amount of funding.
New Mexico Watchdog, a project of the Franklin Center for Government & Public Integrity, said in all, nearly $6.4 billion was used to 'create or save' nearly 30,000 jobs in 440 non-existing districts, including in New Mexico's 4th, 22nd, 35th and 40th Districts. New Mexico has three Congressional Districts.�"
New Mexico Watchdog, a project of the Franklin Center for Government & Public Integrity, said in all, nearly $6.4 billion was used to 'create or save' nearly 30,000 jobs in 440 non-existing districts, including in New Mexico's 4th, 22nd, 35th and 40th Districts. New Mexico has three Congressional Districts.�"
USDA: Number of Americans Going Hungry Increases - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News - FOXNews.com
USDA: Number of Americans Going Hungry Increases - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News - FOXNews.com: "More than one in seven American households struggled to put enough food on the table in 2008, the highest rate since the Agriculture Department began tracking food security levels in 1995."
"The USDA said Monday that 5.7 percent of those who struggled for food experienced "very low food security," meaning household members reduced their food intake."
So only 0.83% of Americans actually went hungry. Exaggerating doesn't help.
"The USDA said Monday that 5.7 percent of those who struggled for food experienced "very low food security," meaning household members reduced their food intake."
So only 0.83% of Americans actually went hungry. Exaggerating doesn't help.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)