I’m reading Levin’s great book The Liberty Amendments: Restoring The American Republic and came across a quote from Montesquieu that reads:
When legislative power is united with executive power in a single person or in a simple body of magistracy, there is no liberty because one can fear that the same monarch or senate that makes tyrannical laws will execute them tyrannically.
This goes to the heart of the argument against the administrative state we have become. The philosophers read by our founders knew it and so should we. It is the people and the state’s abdication of their responsibilities implied by our Constitution that has led us here. Chapter 6 of Mark’s book has his proposal for reversing this.
I whole-heartedly endorse this provision.
Juliet Eilperin has a piece on the Washington Post today titled “Former EPA head Lisa P. Jackson becomes Apple’s top environmental adviser.” The shakedown of Apple from last week worked. They will now become good corporate citizen and hire lawyers and former federal government employees.
Many of us said that Obama is nothing but a socialist in moderates clothing while he was running. Most of us knew what he was about simply by listening to what he has said and looking at who influenced him. Clearly, he had a socialist/Marxist view.
Cut to today where the White House says they aren’t sending a representative to Britain for Margaret Thatcher’s funeral while having sent a delegation to the funeral of the Marxist dictator Hugo Chavez. Obama has clearly marked his views: Marxism over Freedom. Hopefully, everyone was watching.
The Senator from California and chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee told ABC News “it it a terrorist incident… It could be foreign, it could be homegrown.”
Sheer brilliance. I’m sure the depth of your analysis comforts those affected by the tragedy.
And to think she is the one solving our problems.
Ever wonder how people of meager means go to Washington, D.C., make $160K +/- in one of the most expensive cities to live in or around, and come out millionaires? Well, ZeroHedge shows you how.
I guess insider trading laws are just for the little people.
The federal government is so corrupt. “Crony capitalism” is alive and well, only crony capitalism isn’t capitalism at all. We have allowed the liberals and progressives to corrupt our language in their attempt to demean the greatest economic philosophy in human history. Crony capitalism is bribbery and/or blackmail under the rules established by the political class to enrich themselves and their supporters. It only worsens the economic lives of those the progressives and liberals say they want to improve.
You just have to love the political plays the Dems are doing now. Ms. Feinstein, who has never foregone an opportunity to reduce our collective liberties in the name of safety, is now going after your guns. While this doesn’t impact me now, it could in the future if I decide to purchase a weapon thereby limiting my liberty.
Why do we let people in D.C. pass laws which don’t solve the stated problem their attempting to solve, and reduce all of our freedoms?
This is the same group of Democrats who have chaired the worst recovery in the history of the U.S., never solved any problems, and are always coming back for more power. Why should we give it to them? Have they demonstrated the ability to exercise this with respect for our rights? No.
Let’s put D.C. and all the ruling class into a recession.
You have heard the Republican leadership say we have to have immigration reform in order to get Hispanic vote. Well Jeb and others, you will never get them to vote for you, so move on.
Hispanics vote for Democrats because they believe in the things the Democrats believe it. You’re not a Republican if you believe in those. You’re also not going to win elections trying to be Democrats or out Democrat the Democrats.
News Busters has a story on Bill Maher’s offensive rhetoric intending to threaten Romney voters. I have an idea. If Romney wins, we should ship Bill Maher to Benghazi to become ambassador.
This solution solves two problems for the left at once. First, it should stop global warming given there would be a lot less hot air. Second, power usage would go down given it takes a lot of power to produce, edit and run a show no one watches.
Mitch Rapp, there’s your tango.
I have many friends who graduated from Ivy Leagues schools that are Obama supporters. For the life of me, I don’t understand why.
They may have majored in liberal arts, so perhaps math, economics and accounting weren’t in the curriculum they chose to study. But, at some point, you live life and understand the basics of economics. You personally suffer through debt crises where you outspend your earnings and face an insurmountable level of debt.
Why can these people not see that this is happening to our nation? They continue to buy the class rhetoric thrown around by the Democrats that taxing the rich solves all the problems. But, if they simply stopped, took out a pencil and piece of paper and did the math, they would see that the equation doesn’t work. They could take 100% of the wealth, not income but wealth (i.e. everything they own for those of you in Rio Linda), of the Forbes 400 richest people and not come close to covering the government’s current year’s deficit, much less paying down the outstanding debt. Even worse, you can only steal their wealth one time. After that, the government’s income drops because the rich no longer have the means to earn income as their wealth has been stolen.
Now, I could go on to quote Obama and his “I want to fundamentally change America” and say what he has done has in fact change America. Or, that he wrecked the economy on purpose to pursue his personal goal of getting even with American and its history and bringing America down to the Venezuela’s of the world. However, doing so only drives the other side to reject you as a cook. So, forget all of that stuff my liberal friends and focus on my challenge to you.
Show me the math. Show me how it works in a way in which our children and grandchildren will not have to pay 70%+ in taxes on their income to pay for debts we’re running up. Keep the math simple so everyone can follow along. To borrow a phrase from Dirty Harry, “Go ahead. Make my day.”
We now welcome you back to reality.
Rush had a great point on his program the other day. Successful liberals don’t want others to succeed, and it is a point I have made for years.
You can see this in the progressive nature of their preferred taxing regimes (i.e. progressive taxation) as well as their rhetorical condemnation of success and capitalism. But, do their constituents look at how these people became rich? Or, do those rich liberals get a pass by saying they should be taxed at a higher rate than they currently are?
Education use to be considered a path to success and you needed to be educated on the basics to succeed. However, the past 60 years of liberal domination of the public school system has led to reduced educational requirements and increase social engineering requirements.
The results of the social engineering have been pretty much as anticipated: a reduced educational level on the basics, a less informed electorate, a cultural change that views success as evil, and buy-in that socialism is the path to success for the nation.
History has zero examples of societies succeeding under socialism or communism. Our decline as a country maps nicely to the increase in socialism imbedded in our country. However, the general population is seemingly unaware of those facts.
The dumbing down of society in general helps those liberals attempting to circumvent our constitution and fundamentally change our society away from a success orientation towards the banana republics.