.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Milton J. Madison - An American Refugee Now Living in China, Where Liberty is Ascending

Federalism, Free Markets and the Liberty To Let One's Mind Wander. I Am Very Worried About the Fate of Liberty in the USA, Where Government is Taking people's Lives ____________________________________________________________________________________________ "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Tolerance in the face of tyranny is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater-

Thursday, August 30, 2012

Amazon.com: The New Leviathan: The State Versus the Individual in the 21st Century (9781594036323): Roger Kimball: Books

Other people see the leviathan.

Amazon.com: The New Leviathan: The State Versus the Individual in the 21st Century (9781594036323): Roger Kimball: Books

Tuesday, August 28, 2012

Unilever sees 'return to poverty' in Europe - Telegraph

I just cannot wait for this poverty to happen across the globe....
"Poverty is returning to Europe," Jan Zijderveld, the head of Unilever's European business told the Financial Times Deutschland in an interview.

"If a consumer in Spain only spends €17 when they go shopping, then I'm not going to be able to sell them washing powder for half of their budget."

Unilever has already started to change the way it sells some of its products. In Spain, the company sells Surf detergent in packages for as few as five washes, while in Greece, it now offers mashed potatoes and mayonnaise in small packages, and has created a low-cost brand for basic goods such as tea and olive oil.

"In Indonesia, we sell individual packs of shampoo 2 to 3 cents and still make decent money," said Mr Zijderveld.
European socialism I guess just did not work. And European style socialism won't work in the US either. One day, we have to admit that. But maybe not until Tide is sold in 5 wash packets.

Unilever sees 'return to poverty' in Europe - Telegraph

Feds: Too few Americans ‘turn to government for assistance’ | WashingtonExaminer.com

The government thinks that American are not dependent enough upon government. This kind of nonsense sickens me.

Feds: Too few Americans ‘turn to government for assistance’ | WashingtonExaminer.com

Sunday, August 26, 2012

Invest alot in journalism but still get crap output....

The reason that the New York Times is no longer a serious newspaper is that it no longer so much reports the news as it pushes its political agenda. And the the public editor says as much albeit in an obtuse manner....
I still believe that, but also see that the hive on Eighth Avenue is powerfully shaped by a culture of like minds — a phenomenon, I believe, that is more easily recognized from without than from within.

......Across the paper’s many departments, though, so many share a kind of political and cultural progressivism — for lack of a better term — that this worldview virtually bleeds through the fabric of The Times.

As a result, developments like the Occupy movement and gay marriage seem almost to erupt in The Times, overloved and undermanaged, more like causes than news subjects.
Foolishly progressive and whacky in their editorial positions, when one speaks of extremism, a NY progressive and the New York Times comes to mind. They can not fathom the depth of their Marxist ideology since it pumps through their veins an infects every sinew of their being.

As a result, developments like the Occupy movement and gay marriage seem almost to erupt in The Times, overloved and undermanaged, more like causes than news subjects.

Success and Risk as The Times Transforms - NYTimes.com

Thursday, August 23, 2012

This is probably one of the most stupid opinion pieces that I have read in a long long time. It is stunning in its stupidity...

The only way to deal with such rabid thinking and bankrupt morality by liberal Democrats is to approach it line-by-line and deal with these idiotic thoughts individually. It is truly difficult to contemplate what core belief such lunatics embrace (Ina Hughs writing is in italics).

"Our rights come from God and nature, not from government."

Those words brought rousing ovations in Norfolk, Va., as Paul Ryan accepted his candidacy as Mitt Romney's running mate.

Rousing ovations IS the right way to react to such words. This is the foundation of the American experiment in liberty. The basic thinking in the creation of a free people as the American experiment in liberty as conceived, dealt with the concept of inalienable and unalienable rights of the people. I have written about this topic ad nauseum in the past. The thinking simply follows as such...
Natural and legal rights are two types of rights theoretically distinct according to philosophers and political scientists. Natural rights are rights not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable. In contrast, legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by the law of a particular political and legal system, and therefore relative to specific cultures and governments.
Therefore, those rights conferred upon us by the simple virtue of being human are those that God grant us and cannot be taken or given away. Conversely, those that are granted to us by government, such as the right to have certain goods or services given to us or other rights created to benefit us can be taken away or not delivered due to various reasons including arbitrary ones.

But even high-octane tea drinkers from the Grand Old Party surely don't intend for our government to renege on its responsibility to ensure not only our civil rights, but our safety, our productivity, our well-being and our freedom.

This is the illness that most Liberals and Democrats suffer from. Conflating and misrepresenting the rights of individuals and the additional responsibilities that were delegated to the several states are lumped, now, into national responsibilities whereas they just are not. These frothing at-the-mouth liberals think of government as a government without limits. Take one example as this writer says later, arguing that government forcing people to insure automobiles as being an important and reasonable responsinbility of government. However, where the slight of hand comes in is that government does not force you to buy a car but makes you buy the insurance if you do. Additionally, this is in no way the responsibility of the Federal State and is, still, the responsibility of the 'several states'. No one in the Republican party is question this at all. So what relevance does this have?

The beauty of the American system is that when states overstepped their authority, one can vote out the politicians that violated the sanctity of individual rights, fight them in court or ultimately leave the state if these obligations proved to be against one's better judgement, a violation of ones religion or morality or economically stupid. One can seek greater liberty down the road. One does not as readily have that option, the option to leave or vote with one's feet, if it is forced upon you by the Federal authority.

How silly to say government isn't the arbiter of our rights as Americans, the protector and safeguard of democracy. Maybe Ryan wants to play on the emotional issues of gay rights and reproduction rights, both of which the Republican platform seeks to convince Americans are anti-their-religion and anti-Mother-nature. How silly to say that this is what is being said by either the framers or the lines cited above said by Paul Ryan. This is the bankruptcy of the Liberal Democratic left. This is not the argument or the choice, it is a false argument since a government of free people does exactly that, it Is the arbitrator of individual rights. Clearly, governments, even a government of free people are to restrict the rights of individuals by enforcing the inalienable rights that we have by being human.

Furthermore, gay rights and reproductive rights are rights that are conferred upon you by government and therefore are not inalienable but unalienable. These rights can be restricted or taken away. For example, reproductive rights that are code words for abortion are not available to males, obviously, but males are not allowed to terminate a pregnancy, even one that they may have been intimately involved with and therefore responsible for. What kind of right is it to have an abortion if a fetus is unwanted by the male? So is this a right conferred upon us by God and ergo inalienable? If true, then this seems like a God that I just do not know. So, therefore, I think that abortion rights are nothing but a construct of government. I argue that under current 'reproductive rights' thinking that males should have the right to terminate a pregnancy too. Contemplate that for for a while..

They like to posture government as a bogeyman that strips us of our freedom, religious and otherwise. But setting up a government that gives us all — rich, poor, black, white, old, young, powerful, marginal, majority, minority, liberal, conservative, born-again Baptist or Wiccan — the right to pursue happiness and live in peace was the patriots' dream long ago and what we have fought to sustain in every war since.

Government does not have the right to take away ones life, liberty or pursuit of happiness (property). So? What kind of frothing at-the-mouth is this nonsense? This is nto at all what Republicans are arguing for, the exact opposite what the writer was claiming earlier? There must be drool coming out of the writer's mouth by now.

Without government's intervention and participation, how else will we know, for a simple example, that meat at the supermarket is safe to eat? Can we really depend on the kindness of others to make sure our medications have been tested and come with proper warnings?

Sometimes the meat in supermarket and sometimes in our refrigerators are sickening. It has guaranteed nothing and government has over-and-over in many areas has proven incompetent or even complicit in making things worse. As far as food safety, I argue that the legal framework and the ability to gain just compensation from damaging practices does much more to protect people's food than government. Furthermore, by taking this portfolio out the people's hands, government continues to intervene beyond these supposed important and necessary interventions for our protection and restrict products that actually may save life and make us more healthy through regualtion and product restriction. I argue that the FDA has killed many many more people than they have saved through regulation and have made it all much more expensive for us.

What about our right to drive highways and interstates knowing others zooming along beside us have been checked out for basic skills, and should someone bash into us, they have coverage to help us with damages they caused? Rely on "human nature" to see to such requirements? This line is not just stupid, its idiotic. This is not what the central authority has done at all. Its been done by the 50 states again conflating an overarching central government with real and necessary organization of daily life. in fact, we also enforce rules that all cars drive on the correct side of the street and it would be moronic to argue that anyone would want or desire to drive on the other side as a 'right' as contemplated by bozos such as Ina Hughs. So is the writer arguing that requiring people to drive on the same side of the street somehow is a restrictive right of government? Its truly stunning to make statements like this.

Besides, both God and nature send mixed messages. Remember when one American right here in Knoxville heard God tell him to go to the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church on Kingston Pike and shoot up the congregation during Sunday worship? Not long ago, a whole bunch of white people's God convinced them that black people were inferior, and they had scripture from the Good Book to prove it. Think about godly people who, except for government intervention, wanted to deny women full citizenship, the right to ownership, a place at the head of the table. This is delving deeper and deeper into the pit of complete stupidity. God is not sending anyone messages on murder or on rights. God does not wake up every morning and grant us our rights. We, by virtue of being human, have these rights. A gratuitous swipe at Christians here and claiming that God tells believers to kill in some kind of message is relevent. These kinds of silly attacks on Christians is the blue blood of hard liberal left Democrats. It not just stupid to tread here is is monotonously idiotic.

Appointing nature — human or Mother — as dispenser and guardian of our civil rights instead of a government would undo the whole concept of democracy. What happens when human nature's inclinations clash, as certainly they do in a complex, diverse society like ours? Left to a certain segment of our population's "nature," guns would be outlawed. Plus, I doubt anybody could convince me that the God I know and believe in wants his children to walk around carrying rapid-fire assault weapons. Somebody might ought to tell Ryan that it's government, not God or nature, that gives us our rights as Americans.

Ina Hughes goes even deeper and asserting that Republicans or Ryan is asserting that anarchy is what is being argued for? A 3rd grader would be able to distinguish the difference but apparently not Liberal Democrats? And then going into guns. Usual Liberal Democrat tripe. Some people choose to go without arms, some choose to. It is truly the liberty that we have to protect ourselves. God never argues that we be doormats to despotism and I would never be a doormat that the despotism as offered up by the socialism promoted by Democrats. I thank God that I still have access to a weapon.

It's a catchy sound bite, but you cannot have 313 million people turned loose under the same flag and expect them to grant and protect rights as defined by their different religious beliefs and their various definitions of acceptable human behavior.

No one is even saying that this is the case. We have the right to worship as we see fit. But if Ina Hughs is arguing that religions that advocate violence are to be allowed to behave like this, then this is just plain silliness. No one, Republicans or anyone else is arguing for this kind of life.

It reminds me of the story about the city guy who says to the farmer, "This is a wonderful place God gave you."

"Yeah," says the farmer. "But you should've seen the conditions it was in when it was just God looking after it."

The grass may not be greener on the other side after all. Statements like this are pure fertilizer — for weeds.

Ina Hughs is a clown. She shows us how ridiculous Democrats are these days. using logic like this to continue socialism as contemplated by Democrats displays how bankrupt this immoral philosophy truly is.

Ina Hughs: Rights come from government, not God » Knoxville News Sentinel

18-New-Tax-Hikes-On-Their-Way-Via-Obamacare.png (PNG Image, 749 × 871 pixels)

18-New-Tax-Hikes-On-Their-Way-Via-Obamacare.png (PNG Image, 749 × 871 pixels)

Tuesday, August 21, 2012

Friday, August 17, 2012

Headline of the Day.....

White House defends Biden, says remarks not racist
Of course not. Because he is a Democrat. But, of course, if he were a Republican, we would never hear the end of it from sycophants in the press.

White House defends Biden, says remarks not racist | WashingtonExaminer.com

Thursday, August 16, 2012

Maher on voter ID: Black people don't have photo ID since 'they take the bus because they're poor' | The Daily Caller

Potty mouth Democrat Bill Maher encapsulates the bankrupt thinking of the hard left. Liberals continue to mouth the mantra that there is no proof that there is voter fraud. There is plenty or proof of voter fraud and sometimes, as in Minnesota in 2008 it actually has an impact. But what really amazes me is that liberals argue against ensuring that people are properly identified at polls using identifications that are mandatory in many many aspects of daily life due to "POOR BLACKS." Poor blacks? I hear about these poor blacks all of the time. Are they only just poor? Are all blacks poor? Or is it just blacks that are stupid and incapable of living their own lives and therefore poor? Since when are blacks stupid and incapable? And why would one hold a different or lower standard of behavior solely because one is black or in this case 'poor black?" I am under the impression that black folks are pretty capable. They are quite capable of getting into cars and driving, going to the a store, making their choices and living like normal humans. Just because they are poor does not make them drooling morons.

The last time that I voted at a polling place, I had to show an ID. In that case, it was a driving license. It probably cost me $50 for 10 years. Yes, kind of expensive but I guess necessary. Some argue that this is too much money for 'poor blacks.' Maybe it is. And maybe some do not drive. But these states also offer non driving ID's but these also cost money. Need these ID's many more purposes than just voting. So if this is such a gigantic problem, the ID thing, there seems to be an avenue to solve this problem. I suggest private charity. Liberals can donate money, create organizations and/or donate time to assist these 'poor blacks' in getting an ID that will not only impact their lives in the voting process but also has positive impacts in other aspects where an ID would assist them or allow them to do other things.

As far as the voting fraud nonsense. there is not only proof, the Democrats for decades has admitted that voter fraud has been part of their electoral style and them even joking about it....
"I have just received the following telegram from my generous father: 'Dear Jack: Don't buy a single vote more than is necessary. I'll help you win this election, but I'll be damned if I'm going to pay for a landslide!'" -Joe Kennedy on his son's, JFK, election-
And then there were electoral shenanigans in the Democratic machines of Chicago, Kansas City, Texas to name a few. Here is a more modern example of what voter fraud looks like...
two Troy city officials, the city clerk and a councilman, along with two Democratic political operatives, have pled guilty to forging absentee-ballot signatures and casting fraudulent ballots in the 2009 Working Families Party primary. The WFP is the political party associated with ACORN.

One of the citizens whose votes were stolen was stunned at what happened. She said that she was “sure this goes on a lot in politics, but it’s very rare that they do get caught.” This voter was right on the money with that observation — fraud is so easy to commit in our election system that it is rare that fraudsters get caught and even rarer that they get prosecuted.

As for the constant liberal claims that voter fraud does not occur, one of the Democratic operatives who pled guilty, Anthony DeFiglio, told New York State police investigators “that faking absentee ballots was a commonplace and accepted practice in political circles, all intended to swing an election.” And whose votes do they steal? DeFiglio was very plain about that: “The people who are targeted live in low-income housing, and there is a sense that they are a lot less likely to ask any questions.”
and one can read about other examples here.

Honestly, it appears as if voter fraud is a very local problem and gigantic conspiracies that generate 1000's or 10s of thousand votes are probably difficult to execute. However, the requirement of showing a valid identification seems logical in this day and age where even welfare or food stamp recipients get their benefits on electronic cards presumably after proving who they are in this process.

Maher on voter ID: Black people don't have photo ID since 'they take the bus because they're poor' | The Daily Caller

Wednesday, August 15, 2012

Revealed: Wisconsin Officials Selectively Enforcing Voting Laws

Illegal voting and cheating in elections is traditionally a Democratic tactic. The entitled Democrats think they not only can do this but also since they are wonderful and 'care' about the poor that they are just in their cheating.

Revealed: Wisconsin Officials Selectively Enforcing Voting Laws

Paul Ryan Drove The Oscar Mayer Weinermobile | Mediaite

This guy is for me!!! Anyone that has driven the Oscar Mayer Weinermobile for his work is my kind VP material...
According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “One of his summer jobs in college was as an Oscar Mayer salesman in Minnesota, peddling turkey bacon and a new line called ‘Lunchables’ to supermarkets. He drove the Wienermobile once.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 4/26/09]

Paul Ryan Drove The Oscar Mayer Weinermobile | Mediaite

Tuesday, August 14, 2012

Obama: "A New Vision Of An America In Which Prosperity Is Shared"

Can anyone say... "Communism?"

Obama: "A New Vision Of An America In Which Prosperity Is Shared"

Monday, August 13, 2012

Quote of the Day....

On the mainstream media's reaction to the Paul Ryan choice as VP on the Republican ticket...
I’m sure they are looking right now for a girl who was in the first grade with Ryan 40 years ago, who is willing to go on record that he pulled her hair or stole her cookies off her lunch tray.
... Hahaha, from here. It would be so amusing if it wasn't so very sad and pathetic. The clowns in the media that claim to be journalists are nothing but propagandists for the Democrats and socialism. After doing almost no work or digging on the Obamessiah during the last election cycle, that allowed him decades of unaccountable behavior, the media raged and lashed out against Sarah Palin since she dares to not fit the 'feminist' mold and deigns to think for herself. And remember this media fiasco brought to you by the prestigious Washington Post lackeys recently...
A few days later, Friedemann entered Stevens Hall off the school’s collegiate quad to find Romney marching out of his own room ahead of a prep school posse shouting about their plan to cut Lauber’s hair. Friedemann followed them to a nearby room where they came upon Lauber, tackled him and pinned him to the ground. As Lauber, his eyes filling with tears, screamed for help, Romney repeatedly clipped his hair with a pair of scissors.
Yup, one can sure tell alot about the future of a man given single incidents in high school nearly 50 years ago. Maybe sophmoric acts are part of preparation to be a titan of industry and earning oneself $250mm? This is an interesting angle that I would have explored. So why, again, did they not do ANY checking up on the Obamessiah?

Thought of the day.....

James Madison is one of my heroes. His thinking and capabilities are, in my opinion, one of the reasons that the nation was able to weather storms and perform so well over many many decades. The founding principles of the nation worked and it appears to me that socialism, no matter what one wants to call it, justice, altruism, blatant corporatism, etc. is doomed to fail. As George Will so wrote this week is both precise and beautiful....
When Ryan said in Norfolk, “We won’t replace our Founding principles, we will reapply them,” he effectively challenged Obama to say what Obama believes, which is: Madison was an extremist in enunciating the principles of limited government — the enumeration and separation of powers. And Jefferson was an extremist in asserting that government exists not to grant rights but to “secure” natural rights that pre-exist government.
But the line that I liked the most about about today's president...
underscores what the president has become — silly and small.
is both true and sad as we see a man, elected not due to his capabilities but due to his abilities to give a speech and probably due to the color of his skin, flail about helplessly. The current president of the United States is an embarrassment, never deserved to be President and I hope that the nation recognizes his shortcomings and failings and elects those that can actually lead the nation and restore it to not only its former greatness but restore what made it great.

George Will: Romney’s presidential pick - The Washington Post

Friday, August 10, 2012

Disater ahead for the progressive entitlement state? Probably yes since what cannot last forever will not..

Thoughts very similar to my own...
In my opinion, none of the psephologists mentioned above has reflected on the degree to which the administrative entitlements state – envisaged by Woodrow Wilson and the Progressives, instituted by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and expanded by their successors – has entered a crisis, and none of them is sensitive to the manner in which Barack Obama, in his audacity, has unmasked that state’s tyrannical propensities and its bankruptcy. In consequence, none of these psephologists has reflected adequately on the significance of the emergence of the Tea-Party Movement, on the meaning of Scott Brown’s election and the particular context within which he was elected, on the election of Chris Christie as Governor of New Jersey and of Bob McDonnell as Governor of Virginia, and on the political earthquake that took place in November, 2010. That earthquake, which gave the Republicans a strength at the state and local level that they have not enjoyed since 1928, is a harbinger of what we will see this November.
Look at the disaster in Europe where the secular progressive entitlement state is destroying nations there.

Landslide on the Horizon - Ricochet.com

Wednesday, August 08, 2012

The Disaster of Fracking as Industrial Natural Gas Prices Fall to the Lowest Level in Recent History

This totally sucks as prices for natural gas to consumers and businesses have fallen dramatically....

How is the nation going to survive this private capitalism that is going to save consumers billions of dollars and allow industry a competitive advantage over other nations? And this mess was not the fault of our overreaching government!! So, for a change it was not their screw-up and fault. I just don't know how we will survive!

CARPE DIEM: America's Energy Jackpot: Industrial Natural Gas Prices Fall to the Lowest Level in Recent History

Rare South African snowfall....

Just another fine example of global warming. Snow!!!

News from The Associated Press

Tuesday, August 07, 2012

York: When 1,099 felons vote in race won by 312 ballots | WashingtonExaminer.com

When people do look at voting fraud, we find that it is actually much more than the media is claiming is diminimous. In Minnesota alone, in the 2008 election, there were more than a 1,000 ineligible voters from a small identified sliver of the voting population that voted.

Also, it would not surprise me at all that these fraudulent voters vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. This is how Democrats have operated for a very long time and this is how they continue to operate today.

York: When 1,099 felons vote in race won by 312 ballots | WashingtonExaminer.com

Monday, August 06, 2012

Social Security not deal it once was for workers - Yahoo! News

People retiring today are part of the first generation of workers who have paid more in Social Security taxes during their careers than they will receive in benefits after they retire. It's a historic shift that will only get worse for future retirees, according to an analysis by The Associated Press.
This is generalized as a popular government wealth redistribution program. How popular is it going to be when the Ponzi scheme can longer pay out the promised benefits?

The something for nothing crowd will still like it, but regular people, that are being coerced into paying for this scheme will not like it as much as they did.

Social Security not deal it once was for workers - Yahoo! News

Sunday, August 05, 2012

is falling? Economist Richard Duncan: Civilization May Not Survive 'Death Spiral' - Money Morning

The sky is falling?
Richard Duncan, formerly of the World Bank and chief economist at Blackhorse Asset Mgmt., says America's $16 trillion federal debt has escalated into a "death spiral, "as he told CNBC.

And it could result in a depression so severe that he doesn't "think our civilization could survive it."

And Duncan is not alone in warning that the U.S. economy may go into a "death spiral."
Could be and there will be no place to hide.

Economist Richard Duncan: Civilization May Not Survive 'Death Spiral' - Money Morning

Thursday, August 02, 2012

Madison and De Tocqueville saw the nations current problems...

These two interesting thoughts are ones that one should consider. They are important to today's political environment and extremely important to the economic life of the USA.....
Espousing unconstrained majoritarianism, TR disdained James Madison’s belief that the ultimate danger is wherever ultimate power resides, which in a democracy is with the majority. He endorsed the recall of state judicial decisions and by September 1912 favored the power to recall all public officials, including the president.
Madison is somewhat of a hero for me. A framer of the Constitution , he originally opposed the Bill of Rights since he thought that the Constitution was adequate to protect individual rights. He was concerned that by creating a bill of rights that some of the people's rights would not be addressed in the document, that this would create risks and that listing the rights of the people would not be effective at protecting their liberty. However, he was also very concerned that majorities were enacting or prone to enacting laws "adverse to the rights of other citizens". He crafted the Bill of Rights to limit the influence of majority voters and in order to temper the fervor for unrestrained states rights as argued by Patrick Henry and the anti-Federalists on the one side and those that preferred strong central government authority as offered by Alexander Hamilton on the the other side.

So, we also have to consider and take to heart the thoughts of this man too...
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”― Alexis de Tocqueville -
Therefore, Madison crafted the US government as a Republic with strong embedded checks and balances and limits through enumerated powers to central authority. unfortunately, we, as a nation, have effectively overlooked the ninth and tenth amendments which say this...
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
If one considers these 2 simply stated rights, one can see that the American central government has clearly overstepped its authority in many many aspects of American life, particularly in American economic life. The great experiment in individual liberty is no transformed into a central planning model of central government activism. This breach of the Bill of Rights is unfortunate and has allowed for gigantic intrusions and ones that are very difficult to reverse without a cathartic dismantling that in my opinion is inevitable.

Unfortunately, I think that Madison's vision and the people's rights have been eviscerated through single party rule starting in the 1930's and the huge expansion of central government authority in the working of the economy. The foundation of this destruction can be found in Teddy Roosevelt's and Woodrow Wilson's seeming necessary intervention in economic affairs. I am of the opinion that we now have a dictatorship in Washington where economic liberty is being wiped out and individual liberty will begin to evaporate as a result. We will be forced to live. work and eat as dictated by the central authority. We will become dependent upon Washington for so much of our daily lives that the experiment in individual liberty is effectively dead.

De Tocqueville's prescient thinking can be summarized in this quote...
“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.”

George Will: Texas’s Ted Cruz gives tea party a Madisonian flair - The Washington Post

Wednesday, August 01, 2012

The Obamessiah is a distant cousin to George W Bush?

Genealogists seem to be fascinated with the current president's family tree: The site has also traced an Irish branch of Obama's family. And researchers at the New England Historic Genealogical Society claim he is the distant cousin of movie star Brad Pitt and six past presidents, including George W. Bush.
Well well, there must be some good genes from that side of the family. But also, this story yaps about some nonsense that his 11th great grandfather was an indentured slave that become enslaved. But his mixed race children became wealthy Virginia landowners presumably slave owners themselves. Will wonders never cease. But none of this changes that this fellow is an atrocious president and unabashed socialist.