Libertarian – Page 3 – Zombies Uncensored

Ron Paul Brings Change, Hope, Accountability, Transparency

White House Wonder Twins Blocking Fed Audit

The “Wonder Twins” referred to in this video are Treasury secretary, Tim Geithner, and White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel. The video has an interesting point about what might happen if the Audit the Fed bill passes.

This clip points out there is bipartisan support for the bill in the house and the senate, and yet the White House is opposed.

The White House is trying to prevent change and hope and accountability and transparency. If they lose, and we accidentally get change–sorry Obama–through the senate and the house. Well, then Obama is going to have a very interesting decision to make.

Is he going to veto financial reform to protect the Fed and Wall Street? Well if he does that, then it’s game over. There is no way that anybody in the country can pretend that Obama is for actual change.

The video fails to mention the person who has been working on this issue for thirty years. The person behind this bipartisan bill to bring change, hope, accountability and transparency is Ron Paul.

Free Trade is like Good Sex

John Stossel – Is free trade good?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iN74HmXrvE#t=4m30s

In this segment of John Stossel’s on free trade, Stossel and Tom Palmer discus the connection between free trade and war. Palmer points out countries that trade with one another are much less likely to go to war with one another.

The correlation between trading countries and warfare can not be stressed enough. As long as there is positive activity between countries the chances of war are diminished. Even countries with opposing political systems are less likely to go to war when trade is involved.

We all of know couples that can’t get along and constantly bicker, but manage to stay together because they are still having sex. Trade has the same impact as sex in how countries interact. Trade pushes countries with bad relationships to at least try to get along.

The reverse of the trade and sex analogy should pointed out as well. Just as sex withheld in a relationship is likely to escalate into a fight, withholding trade (tariffs, embargoes, restrictions) is likely to escalate tensions between countries.

When countries are threatening to go to war, we look at the underlying problem–how long has it been since they had some good trading?

GOP Inconsistent on Defense

SA@TAC – Republicans War Fetish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuMJ0TEnvUQ&feature=player_embedded#!

Jack Hunter takes the GOP to task on the one issue too many Republicans still consider non-negotiable. I agree with Hunter and want to add my frustration with the GOP’s inconsistent view of the Department of Defense.

The rule that waste, fraud, duplication, mismanagement, abuse, and inefficiency are natural consequences of major federal programs and departments applies to the Defense department as well.

In particular, the rule that all federal departments grow in size and scope is overlooked by many Republicans when it comes to defense. The original mission of federal defense was to defend only the United States , but has grown to defending the world.

This map shows (AOR) Area of Responsibility for the six regional Combatant Commands. The original AOR for the Defense Department (originally called the War Department) was basically only one sixth of what it is today.

The Defense Department is run by an out of control government and subject to the same mismanagement and abuse by the President and congress as all other departments. Pointing this out should not be considered blasphemy.

Pointing out the inconsistent view within the GOP should not be seen criticizing the US Armed Forces personnel. Its a compliment to America’s fighting forces that they’ve repeatedly shown they are effective despite being run from DC.

At Some Point You’ve Made Enough: Fill in the Blank

Obama: “You’ve Made Enough Money”

President Obama says, “I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.” This is one of those perfect setups that would be difficult to pass up without commenting. Here some responses found on the internet to the Presidents remark:

I think at some point the Government has printed enough money.
I do think at a certain point you’ve served enough days as President.
I do think at a certain point you’ve told enough lies.
I do think at some point you’ve got enough power.
I do think at a certain point that your welcome has expired.
I do think at a certain point the government has spent enough money.

The list of snappy retorts is far from complete, so here are some more I haven’t seen yet. At some point you’ve…

Broken enough campaign promises.
Divided the country enough.
Ignored the Constitution enough.
Spent enough on bailouts.
Borrowed enough money.
Created enough federal agencies.
Bullied enough countries.
Created enough regulations.
Preached enough on how we should live our lives.
Sold enough future generations into slavery.
Run our lives enough.
Created enough entitlements.
Distributed enough wealth.
Vilified making money enough–time to let it go.

Show Me ALL Your Papers!

Planning Racial Profiling Incidents In Arizona

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hH7znLIkCRg

I’m glad to see Americans concerned about police stopping people and asking to see their papers. Unfortunately, a lot of the debate has centered around the racial aspects of the Arizona’s immigration enforcement rather than the civil liberties violations.

Not that there isn’t a racial aspect to the Arizona law. If the subject was only about the civil liberty aspects, however, maybe people would see broader implication: People have to be prepared to prove to the police they are not breaking the law.

There have been several cash seizures by police where people have the option of forfeiting their cash or be arrested for money-laundering. Your money can be arrested if you are unable to prove it was obtained legally.

States that allow concealed firearms require you to carry the registration. Again, papers are needed to prove you are allowed to conduct a legal activity, rather than assuming a constitutionally protected right to defend yourself.

The idea of a needing to carry papers to prove you are not doing anything illegal is not new–however, the idea we shouldn’t be considered guilty unless we can prove innocence is new to some.

Remember the First Time Social Security went Bankrupt?

Ron Paul vs Chris Matthews on Hardball

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpchEdtS0e4

Listening to Ron Paul and Chris Matthews debate the virtues of Social Security brought back memories of my grandmother and the first time Social Security went bankrupt. I remember my grandmother being glued to the news for several months as she nervously followed the developments in Washington D.C.

I was a kid and didn’t really understand my grandmothers concerns and frustration at the time. The thought of my grandparents not receiving Social Security would have meant they would move in with us. I loved my grandparents and relished the idea of living with them.

One day, Grandma was very upset. She threw up her hands, shook her head, and said, “They just mailed out the checks; they have no money, but they mailed the checks anyway.” Grandma thought it was incredible the government could function that way.

Grandma angrily went on. “Social Security, Social Security! They said, ‘You don’t have to worry, because you’ve got Social Security.’ We would have never sold our business if we’d known this was going to happen.”

They had sold their small business to their son-in-law, and at the time, it made perfect sense. My grandparents would have their needs taken care of by Social Security, and the business would still be helping to support their daughter’s family.

I saw firsthand how government programs create dependency and the resulting fear, frustration, and anger caused by mismanagement. I still resent the government for the suffering caused by catching my grandparents in their “security net.”

Sometime in the near future, millions of Americans will be reliving the pain my grandparents went through. On the plus side, there may be some very happy grandkids.

Remember the First Time Social Security went Bankrupt?

Ron Paul vs Chris Matthews on Hardball

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpchEdtS0e4

Sometime in the near future, millions of Americans will be reliving the pain my grandparents went through. On the plus side, there may be some very happy grandkids.

Maybe Life is Obscene, But Profit is Not

Stossel Show – Lies, Myths and Stupidity! (Part 2/6)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kmc7MFcymXU

In this segment of the show, Michael Medved and John Stossell discuss the phrase “obscene profits.”

Michael Medved: “One of the things that I hate is this term ‘obscene profits.’ There are no obscene profits.”

The debate over the which transactions in our lives one can morally profit from has been going on for some time and is not likely to be settled any time soon. Just look at the history of morality in moneylending–it will still be debated thousands of years from now.

The term “obscene profits” is usually applied to oil and health insurance companies, or basically any business that supplies things necessary for survival. “Obscene” in these cases means they made a lot of money in an area some believe it immoral to seek profit.

Profit is one of those words that people have multiple definitions for and as a result, debates and discussions often become convoluted because people end up arguing about the morality of profit, without first clarifying what profit means to them.

Generally profit is viewed as experiencing a gain from a transaction. I know of no voluntary transaction between people that won’t result in at least some type of gain or profit for both sides. Even acts considered selfless result in a profit of well being, so simply profiting from an action isn’t inherently immoral.

I slightly disagree with Medved when he said there are no obscene profits. Theft is an obscene profit, when only one side gains from a violent transaction. Medved’s use of the word profit was meant in terms of a free and fair exchange for goods or services. There is no such thing as an obscene profit when it comes to non-coercive transactions between free people.

Non-coercive is the key word here. People that use that term “obscene profits” often believe profiting from selling goods or services necessary to survival is a form of coercion. Since life forces you to eat, you must buy food from those who sell food if you do not produce your own. The people offering their goods and services are then equated with being uncaring.

Business doesn’t determine the rules of life; nature does. Call life obscene if you want, but don’t blame the people that make life a lot more bearable.

Peter Schiff: Congress, Wall Street, Goldman, AIG, SEC

Peter Schiff April 21st 2010 on the Financial Regulation Bill

Peter Schiff quickly sums up the tangled web between congress and Wall Street.

Congress is trying to tell us, that one of the reasons that we need this financial regulation is to make sure that taxpayers are never again forced to bailout these too big to fail firms.

Well, who was it that forced us to bail them out in the first place? The same guys that say we need this bill, it was congress, congress bailed them out, and they did it despite the fact that they had no legal authority to do so, in fact bailing them out was unconstitutional.

We don’t need new laws, we just need to force congress to obey the laws that already exist. What congress is saying is that we need rules to prevent us from doing again, what we never should have done in the first place.

Schiff also explains the Goldman Sachs, AIG, SEC relationship.

These securities that Goldman Sachs is being accused of fraudulently marketing, these are the very securities that brought down AIG. AIG went bankrupt because they insured securities like this.

In fact they insured some of the very securities that the SEC in now charging Goldman Sachs with fraudulently creating and marketing. And as a matter of fact, when AIG went bankrupt, twenty billion dollars of the money passed through AIG hands right to Goldman Sachs hands.

So they can collect the money that they made wagering against their own securities, that the SEC is now accusing them of fraudulently creating. I mean come on, the right hand is bailing them out and left hand is slapping them on the wrist.

This whole thing is a complete fiasco. If congress had simply allowed AIG to fail, Goldman probably would’ve been bankrupt. That would have been a much bigger punishment if they’d been involved in fraud than simply making them pay a small fine…

I keep hearing the free market regulating itself is a fantasy. In this climate, it really is a fantasy because congress bails out companies that should have failed. Maybe someday we’ll live in the fantasy world where unwise and fraudulent companies just go out of business.

Peter Schiff: Congress, Wall Street, Goldman, AIG, SEC

Peter Schiff April 21st 2010 on the Financial Regulation Bill

Peter Schiff quickly sums up the tangled web between congress and Wall Street.

Congress is trying to tell us, that one of the reasons that we need this financial regulation is to make sure that taxpayers are never again forced to bailout these too big to fail firms.

Well, who was it that forced us to bail them out in the first place? The same guys that say we need this bill, it was congress, congress bailed them out, and they did it despite the fact that they had no legal authority to do so, in fact bailing them out was unconstitutional.

We don’t need new laws, we just need to force congress to obey the laws that already exist. What congress is saying is that we need rules to prevent us from doing again, what we never should have done in the first place.

Schiff also explains the Goldman Sachs, AIG, SEC relationship.

These securities that Goldman Sachs is being accused of fraudulently marketing, these are the very securities that brought down AIG. AIG went bankrupt because they insured securities like this.

In fact they insured some of the very securities that the SEC in now charging Goldman Sachs with fraudulently creating and marketing. And as a matter of fact, when AIG went bankrupt, twenty billion dollars of the money passed through AIG hands right to Goldman Sachs hands.

So they can collect the money that they made wagering against their own securities, that the SEC is now accusing them of fraudulently creating. I mean come on, the right hand is bailing them out and left hand is slapping them on the wrist.

This whole thing is a complete fiasco. If congress had simply allowed AIG to fail, Goldman probably would’ve been bankrupt. That would have been a much bigger punishment if they’d been involved in fraud than simply making them pay a small fine…