Monthly Archives: January 2012
“For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform, and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest…”
- Thomas Paine, Common Sense (1776)
There were not many surprises in President Obama’s 2012 state of the union addresson Tuesday. He touted what he claims are the accomplishments of his administration and pushed his left-leaning economic agenda. For the president, all economic growth has its roots in some sort of government intervention, including “help financing a new plant, equipment, or training for new workers,” giving “community colleges the resources they need to become community career centers,” or trying to “spur energy innovation with new incentives.” Of course, further expanding a government that already spends about 50% more than it collects in taxes can only be accomplished one way – by collecting a lot more taxes.
To this end, the president resorted to the perennial liberal/progressive mantra that everyone “pay their fair share.” Obama used this term three times during the speech in regard to taxes. As even many of the Republican presidential candidates seem to buy into it, the president was also unable to resist the urge to promote the latest left-wing myth that millionaires like Mitt Romney pay less in taxes than their secretaries. This is complete nonsense, of course, but it is effective in eliciting the appropriate outrage from people who don’t stop to do either some simple math or even a little critical thinking.
For the president, there doesn’t seem to be a ceiling on what anyone’s fair share might be. However, he does have a clearly defined floor. “If you make more than $1 million a year, you should not pay less than 30 percent in taxes.” Exactly why that number is “fair” or even the millionaire’s “share” is somewhat difficult to determine. Neither does Obama answer the question that should logically follow. If you make under $1 million per year, what is your fair share in taxes?
Doug Wead adviser for Ron Paul 2012 joins Daily Paul Radio with Kurt Wallace for ‘Inside the Ron Paul Campaign’ to discuss how the campaign sees the results of the first three states. He discusses the delegates and then sheds some light on the mainstream media.
Elizabeth Warren an American bankruptcy expert, policy advocate, Harvard Law School professor, was asked by John Stewart her thoughts on Ron Paul’s free market ideas?
Warren fear-mongered the Stewart audience ‘We will have no future’ and then she began selling government as the solution to many problems that government cannot solve. Warren is a Democratic Party candidate in the 2012 United States Senate election in Massachusetts.
This exchange on Ron Paul’s ideas begins at 4:50 into the video:
This interview is a follow up to the recent attack by O’Reilly during the O’Factor Bill tries to tie child molestation to Ron Paul. Doyle defended Congressman Paul and then during his show stated that Fox News has tried to essentially shake him up with threats.
Jack Hunter defends Ron Paul against Bill O’Reilly during the interview with Jerry Doyle. Hunter explains the absurdity of O’Reilly’s hit piece calling it ‘completely disgusting and completely dishonest. Jack then points out the character of Dr. Paul and his true positions on ending the war on drugs vs. putting drugs in the hands of children as O’Reilly also states during his show.
Bill O’Reilly hits a new low with his latest attack on Ron Paul. Thanks to Jerry Doyle for bringing to light an amazing attempt by O’Reilly to attached the Joe Paterno sex abuse scandal and Ron Paul’s fight to end the war on drugs. O’Reilly has stepped over the line once again and is sure to receive some more massive Blowback from Paul supporters.
Meanwhile the plot thickens, during Jerry Doyle’s show he exposes some unsavory behind the scenes shakedown attempts by Fox News, Roger Ailes and Bill O’Reilly. They called Doyle and threatened to find a way to take him down after his endorsement of Ron Paul. Doyle wasn’t phased by this and he came out today saying that he has dirt on Bill O’Reilly, he has the names and the places?
Folks, all I can say is that this is getting really interesting. What does Jerry Doyle know about Bill O’Reilly?
Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul was detained Monday by the Transportation Security Administration in Nashville, Tenn., after refusing a full body pat-down, POLITICO has confirmed.
“I spoke with him five minutes ago and he was being detained indefinitely,” Paul spokesperson Moira Bagley said. “The image scan went off; he refused patdown.”
It does not matter if our mandatory vaccinations hurt, deform, impair or kills your child. The reason it doesn’t matter is that your child is sacrificing their health or their life is for the greater good of society that will benefit from this vaccine.
Do you think this sounds extreme? Let me show you an excerpt from the American Medical Association Journal of Ethics:
“If progression of promising vaccines from the lab to the clinic is to remain unaffected and financial inducement is an ethically unacceptable solution to the recruitment shortage, other strategies need to be considered. Compulsory involvement in vaccine studies is one alternative solution that is not as outlandish as it might seem on first consideration. Many societies already mandate that citizens undertake activities for the good of society; in several European countries registration for organ-donation has switched from “opt-in” (the current U.S. system) to “opt-out” systems (in which those who do not specifically register as nondonors are presumed to consent to donation) , and most societies expect citizens to undertake jury service when called upon. In these examples, the risks or inconvenience to an individual are usually limited and minor. Mandatory involvement in vaccine trials is therefore perhaps more akin to military conscription, a policy operating today in 66 countries. In both conscription and obligatory trial participation, individuals have little or no choice regarding involvement and face inherent risks over which they have no control, all for the greater good of society.”
So, they have a shortage of citizens who are willing to roll up their sleeve to get a shot full of something that the citizens have no idea what effects it will have, so “the professionals” are considering “COMPULSORY INVOLVEMENT that works like MILITARY CONSCRIPTION”? Really? I don’t think so – there is no way you (whoever you are writing and participating in this ludicrous discussion) will EVER make a vaccine mandatory, for myself and especially for any child that is under my care. You can have your vaccinations, but I will CHOOSE if I am taking them, and I will CHOOSE for that child if they are taking them. And if you plan on attempting to stick me with your toxic substance, as my good friend and mentor Michael Badnarik said, “you bring the syringe, I’ll bring my .45, and we’ll see who makes a bigger hole”. Not gonna happen.
I would say this is “out of control” but that would be giving these people way too much credit. They can write about what they are going to do all day long, I want to see them try and enforce it, because if I know my community, and if I know the American people, we will put a stop to this before it ever becomes an actual issue.
We have “professional”, “publicly-funded” think-tanks and organizations coming up with this stuff, and it is time we realize that there are no professionals that can make choices for what we put in and on our bodies. Humans have existed for quite awhile without the atrocious and heavy hand of government mandating to them what they need to do to be healthy, and it has worked out quite well. We are going to get back to a system of common sense and integrity. The American people will not have a conscription process for mandatory vaccines on my watch.
Thank you to the good folks at Freedom Link Radio for sending us this link!
On December 18, 2011, Vaclav Havel the longtime Czech dissident passed away. Havel ’s role in the Velvet Revolution – the uprising of Czechs and Slovaks against their government is one of the great ironies of that autumn of 1989, when the Iron Curtain fell.
Havel, a dissident, in and out of jail, in and out of trouble with his government, got out of prison just long enough to join fellow dissidents and to oversee the crumbling of his government, during which time his fellow countrymen gathered in the streets and medieval squares calling for his installation in Prague Castle.
In a turn of poetic justice, Havel in a matter of weeks went from a prison cell as a political prisoner to President of Czechoslovakia. He chased his former tormentors from office in a popular revolution and then replaced them in office, in hopes that he would succeed at stripping the power to torment from that office. But during the 1960s, 70s, and 80s few in society had any idea that the government would collapse. It was a great surprise to many when that collapse took place. Opposing the government was opposing an entity that looked like it would be omniscient and omnipotent for all eternity. Havel ’s death has caused me to ask myself “Would you have stood against such an entity?”
His plays were not welcomed by the censors to be part of official culture – government didn’t want him having a voice. He couldn’t go to university because his parents were considered class enemies. Havel was unable to find work that matched his artistic skill set; that wasn’t because of job shortages, but because the government didn’t like him and got to control who worked. In Communist Czechoslovakia, where unemployment was illegal, you either went to work or you went to jail.
How many people would today act on conscience, knowing that doing the right thing might not only land you in jail, but would prevent you from travelling abroad, prevent you from success in your career, and prevent your children from attending the university of their choosing? All were considered legitimate punishments for standing against the government.
Today in the U.S. it is controversial to simply speak a name like Ron Paul or to share a pro-freedom viewpoint on a host of topics from guns, to healthcare, to the FDA. Anyone who would speak pro-freedom viewpoints on such topics is seen as a kook. This isn’t bold action I’m referencing; it’s just talking. We have somehow found ourselves in a place in the history of the “land of the free and home of the brave” where talking is controversial.
There are some freedom-lovers who believe Ron Paul is the answer, yet giving to Ron Paul’s campaign is too great a task for those same freedom lovers. To speak his name to family and friends is too great a challenge. We are called today to move in such effete ways that we can barely even rise to the challenge of. It’s part of our situation in the world today where so many feel that no single moment in life seems to matter. When compared to a man like Havel , nearly anything we do through a ballot box will appear minimal.
In his Civil War, Julius Caesar talks about his rationale for invading his homeland and destroying the 500-year-old Roman Republic . He had felt insulted by its government. He had been dishonored. I realize that he is the dictator in history’s eyes, the tyrant killed by his buddy Brutus, but can you imagine someone doing that today? Can you even picture that an American would feel dishonored by the U.S. Government and resolve to invade Washington D.C. ?
No. Few of us will take any real risks in favor of freedom. If you’re a daring person you might obediently protest in a free speech zone, holding up some slogan and avoiding the even more socially risky behavior of talking to a fellow human being about ideas that are important to you. You will shout slogans at strangers, but you might not have the courage to sit down with your grandma and have a conversation (which by definition involves both listening and expressing). Again, that’s because talking is controversial.
What would you have done in Havel ’s homeland in the last century? Would you have hidden Jews when society tended to be anti-Semitic and government punishments for aiding Jews were severe? Would you have been the one who didn’t send his children to indoctrination camps as a “pioneer” even though everyone else was doing that, even though being a pioneer would help your child secure a spot in the Party and to later find a good job? These are factual situations of the past, but are intended as metaphor. The greatest task a person of conscience is called to is to rise to the occasion in his own times.
Our times today do not equate to those times. It’s hard to find comparison. No party rules all aspects of life. There is no deportation of Jews. There are other ills in the world, but those ills won’t be clear to most of society without many years of hindsight. Distance makes the black and whites easier to recognize.
We can force our actions into an ideology of freedom that has been tested over time – constantly being against all government encroachments on freedom. But even blanketed inside such an ideology, you will not protect yourself from the know-it-alls of the future who judge you with 20-20 hindsight.
When you truly take a stand you likely find yourself risking life, fortune, and position. The last of those is the most difficult. It’s relatively easy and romantic for a person to give his life. It’s easy for a person to give his wealth. What can be hard to justify is the lost opportunities that you will never regain when you are punished with a loss of position. By sticking your neck out, there are opportunities you lose.
I don’t know what I would have done. I would like to think that I can be the Havel of our day. I would like to think that I am constantly on the watch for injustice and do my best to remove myself from participation in that injustice. The deaths of dissidents like Havel give us time to reflect. For a week in December, every newspaper in the world was eulogizing Havel, giving us a special time to see into the past of communist Czechoslovakia .
This gives us a moment to ask ourselves – “What would I have done?” and more importantly “What should I be doing?
Bio: Allan Stevo is an American author who writes about Slovak culture and freedom at 52 Weeks in Slovakia. He is the author of the forthcoming book How to Win America for Ron Paul and the Cause of Freedom in 2012.