Fwd: Libertarian Republican

Libertarian Republican

---

• Ayaan Hirsi Ali: Islam is Slavery
• Libyan Rebels supported by Obama administration now beheading Loyalist soldiers
• Mozel Tov to Britta Hanson and Track Palin
• Giuliani stakes out middle-of-the-road stance on Gay Marriage
• MAJOR DEVELOPMENT!! Florida GOP Senate Primary
• MSNBC leftist blowhard embarrasses herself over Eco Degree
• "Virtually Impossible" to raise taxes if GOP gets their way
• Generic Democrat in 2003: How to Read Match-ups early in the Presidential Election Cycle
• Rasmussen confirms: Obama loses badly to Generic Republican

Ayaan Hirsi Ali: Islam is Slavery Posted: 21 Jul 2011 07:26 PM PDT From Eric Dondero Worldwide Libertarian Human Rights Activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali interviewed last week on the Canadian TV News program "On the Map." At the 2:30 mark Ali states unequivocally: Islam means submission to the will of Allah. A docrtine that requires an individual to become a slave. ... [[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]

Libyan Rebels supported by Obama administration now beheading Loyalist soldiers Posted: 21 Jul 2011 07:26 PM PDT "Sub-Saharan Africans... lynched" by mostly Arab forces From Eric Dondero: The London Telegraph is now reporting on massive human rights abuses by Libyan rebel forces. The headless corpse, the mass grave and worrying questions about Libya's rebel army... The five corpses floated... [[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]

Mozel Tov to Britta Hanson and Track Palin Posted: 21 Jul 2011 07:25 AM PDT From Clifford Thies: Army Reservist Track Palin and his beautiful wife (and childhood sweetheart) Britta Hanson are expecting their first child. The London Daily Mail notes: Sarah Palin is going to be a grandmother again - her 22-year-old son Track is expecting his first child. The Republican... [[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]

Giuliani stakes out middle-of-the-road stance on Gay Marriage Posted: 21 Jul 2011 07:13 AM PDT Describes his view as "libertarian Republican" From an interview on CNN via WYNC.org blog: I don't see harm. Although, I think it would be better for stability of families if we kept marriage between a man and woman. I see more harm, however, by dwelling so much on the subject of gays and lesbians... [[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]

MAJOR DEVELOPMENT!! Florida GOP Senate Primary Posted: 21 Jul 2011 07:04 AM PDT From Eric Dondero: Karl Dickey at The Examiner reports: Former state House Representative Adam Hasner has less to competition in his effort to gain entry to the U.S. Senate office currently held by Bill Nelson. Thanks to state Senate president Mike Haridopolos dropping out of the race for... [[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]

MSNBC leftist blowhard embarrasses herself over Eco Degree Posted: 21 Jul 2011 08:20 AM PDT From Eric Dondero: Meet Mo Brooks. He is the conservative Republican congressman from northern Alabama (Huntsville area). Brooks was a guest on Contessa Brown's MSNBC show, and she asked him a question about his academic background. She didn't quite get the answer she was expecting. From... [[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]

"Virtually Impossible" to raise taxes if GOP gets their way Posted: 21 Jul 2011 06:32 AM PDT QUOTE OF THE DAY! From CNS: In order to pay our bills, Republicans would require us to pass a Constitutional amendment that would permanently enshrine their partisan budget priorities in law and make it virtually impossible to raise revenue -- House Minority Whip Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland... [[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]

Generic Democrat in 2003: How to Read Match-ups early in the Presidential Election Cycle Posted: 21 Jul 2011 06:54 AM PDT LR SPECIAL REPORT! by Clifford F. Thies "It's a good thing Barack Obama won't be running against 'Generic Republican,' says one blogger. "There's little chance of another Mr. Smith going to Washington," says another. "There's just one small problem," says a third, "any time an actual candidate... [[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]

Rasmussen confirms: Obama loses badly to Generic Republican Posted: 21 Jul 2011 06:26 AM PDT From Cliff Thies: Last time we commented on the U.S. national polls, it was Gallup showing Generic Republican ahead of President Obama by 8 points. We now have a similar showing in the Rasmussen Poll. Generic Republican ahead by 6 points, 47 to 41. President Obama now earns his lowest level of... [[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]

You are subscribed to email updates from Libertarian Republican To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.	Email delivery powered by Google
Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

LOST KID IN STORE . Absolutely Priceless!!!

LOST KID IN STORE . Absolutely Priceless!!! Steve | July 21, 2011 at 11:13 am | Categories: Culture War, Humor, Idiots In General, Islam | URL: http://wp.me/pKuKY-8eY

A young Muslim kid can't find his mother in the supermarket.

The store attendant says 'What does your mother look like?'

The kid says "How the hell should I know?"

watch?v=XnRrR9eMmk4&feature=player_embedded

~Steve~          H/T    QVJean

Add a comment to this post

WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress! Manage Subscriptions | Unsubscribe | Reach out to your own subscribers with WordPress.com.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://subscribe.wordpress.com

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Allen West is a socialist!!!!

Yep..... them socialists are in ghettos and in gangs! Them socialists
have rhythm unlike patriotic true Americans! Them socialists have big
lips and big butts! A lot of socialists are in the NBA! True Americans
play hockey and watch NASCAR. Allen Keys, Hermann Cain,Michael Steel
and Larry Elder are all socialkists! Doncha hate code words? I
don't....I love it?
Wheeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

[Fwd: census]

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

census

They sent my Census form back!! In answer to the question, 'Do you have any dependents?', I put ...   '12 million illegal immigrants, crack heads, unemployable bastards, the cast of The Jerry Springer Show, 140,000 people in our 133 penal establishments in California, leftovers from Katrina, half of Mexico, much of the Congress & staff, most of the Senate and a President!'  ... Apparently this wasn't an acceptable answer.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

The Gunwalker and Fast and Furious scandals and can Holder duck them also

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/gunwalker-testimony-reveals-eric-holders-obfuscation-tactics/?singlepage=true

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

The Allure of Respectable Welfare

The Allure of Respectable Welfare
by Anthony Gregory

Ludwig von Mises noted that by calling their program "welfare" the economic interventionists slanted the debate in their favor, for who could oppose such a thing? Everyone wants welfare in the broad sense. Indeed, the "general welfare" is a principle, however confused, affixed in the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution.

Today, welfare has lost its rhetorical advantage. Ever since the bipartisan welfare reform of the 1990s, the word "welfare" has not had the positive connotations of the past. Liberals rarely talk openly about how we need more of it. Conservatives talk freely about how it should be discarded. Even in substance, the debate has changed somewhat.

So too has the center left abandoned its talk about redistribution for the very poorest among us. Liberals used to complain about homelessness, calling it an epidemic. Their programs have not improved upon the situation. Now it is mostly ignored.

It makes strategic sense to neglect it when the welfare state is much more palatable when directed not toward the very bottom of the ladder, but to voters of the middle class. This helps explain why those opposed to welfare by name have won the linguistic struggle that Mises long ago identified, and yet have lost the entitlement war. Also important is that when conservatives denounce welfare, they are mostly condemning payments to the poor – programs like the long-maligned Aid to Families with Dependent Children and food stamps.

These programs are socially destructive and should be abolished. That will do only so much good, however, because the preponderance of the Bismarckian welfare state is not just tolerated but defended by all the respectable people, the conservatives and middle class.

When the financial crisis hit in late 2008, across the spectrum were pleas to do something to save middle class homeowners from losing houses they probably shouldn't have bought but did because of credit expansion, Fannie and Freddie, Bush's Ownership Society and the entire insane bipartisan project to stuff all of bourgeois America into increasingly expensive houses at increasingly declining costs. Few people saw the desire to shore up universal home ownership as a welfare scheme.

In attempting to oppose expansions of government in late 2008, such as Bush's TARP bailout, the conservatives were in a bind, for they had been cheering on the biggest welfare statist president since Lyndon Johnson. Bush's Medicare plan was the most obvious example. Today we see that Medicare and Social Security – Great Society and New Deal plots that conservatives once called socialistic – are now favored by nearly everyone. The left is shrewd to frame its argument for nationalized medicine in terms of "Medicare for all," since it demonstrates that the premise of health care subsidies has already been accepted by the conservative movement. Most opponents of Obamacare said they would support guaranteed coverage for those with preexisting conditions, and many attacked Obama's plan for threatening the existing welfare apparatus. We've all seen the Tea Party activist holding up the sign warning Obama: "Hands off my Medicare!"

The idea that the elderly are entitled to this money has enticed the entire right. The intellectual purpose of the entitlement state – conditioning people over generations toward dependency with vows to loot future taxpayers to maintain the system – has worked perfectly. But no one has a right to Social Security or Medicare, any more than they have a right to food stamps or other welfare. Yes, they were robbed for years, but that money has been spent already. Their victimization at the hands of the state gives them no moral claim to victimize current workers, any more than an abusive father having been brutally beaten as a child can use this as an excuse for his own abusive behavior.

Another key feature of the welfare state universally accepted is the disaster called public education. This is fundamental to the modern state, much more than direct handouts to the poor, as it inculcates the principles of collectivism in the young. Conservatives used to at least call for decentralization, removing Washington's influence from state indoctrination. Whether this would immediately mean more liberty for students and parents is not a priori obvious, but it would likely allow for pockets of freedom to emerge and perhaps the eventual separation of school and state in some places. In the post-No Child Left Behind era, the nationalist conservatives have a position essentially identical to that of the social democrats. They may call for charter schools, as does the Democratic president, or even advance the program of school vouchers – an expansion of the welfare state even further into private education. The omnipresence of federal aid in higher education is also a mark of the respectable classes' comfort with welfare. Needless to say there is not the stigma attached to sending children to public school that exists with other welfare. Whether there should be, it is indisputable that this component of contemporary welfarism is accepted by all but the radicals. However, until public education is abolished or seriously compromised, statism will dominate the culture.

Vast cultural approval also exists for more conventionally identified forms of welfare. Receiving unemployment insurance is regarded as less contemptible than accepting traditional handouts. Apparently, having had a good job and losing it privileges one to feed at the public trough, whereas never having such an opportunity means one is simply a bum. One can counter that a fraction of one's income goes into this "insurance" program, but in the end if it is justifiable to receive money financed through taxation, then the principle must be observed more consistently. As Walter Block argues, it is not unlibertarian to take money from the government. The point here is not to condemn those who do it but to recognize their daunting number – many in the bourgeois sector should therefore not find themselves to be holier than a typical welfare case.

The whole society clamors in defense of subsidies not seen as welfare at all. Agricultural aid is particularly popular on the corporatist right, as are obscenely expansive patent protections, certain "uncontroversial" avenues of scientific research, space exploration, new resources for law enforcement, and protectionist trade policy. As for the various public servants, especially those doing some of the most harm – fighting the state's wars, enforcing its laws, teachings its values to students – they are regarded as respectable members of society. They are said to work for their share, although in most cases what they do is socially deleterious and they'd be on better moral footing if they just accepted handouts. Not only is their income considered by virtually everyone to be in a different class from welfare, so too are their cushy benefits and pensions. Veterans' benefits in particular have obtained a nearly sacred status in this society. A conservative who cheers on these programs and argues for their aggrandizement and then condemns welfare mothers in the next breath may wonder why the left finds his views so hard to swallow. It is at least in part because they make no sense.

Foreign policy presents an interesting case. Most Americans think the U.S. has some sort of duty in some instances to elevate the beleaguered peoples of the world. The conservatives argued for invading Iraq to save the Iraqi people. The liberals argued the U.S. couldn't leave until this job was done. Americans fancy themselves generous in their warmongering. Few Americans recognize the immorality of seizing tax dollars to pay for wars of occupation, putting aside the fact that they are utterly immoral in themselves and fail to bring about freedom and prosperity worldwide, but rather spread despotism and mass death.

Welfarism has moreover corrupted the immigration debate. The right complains that immigrants, illegal as well as an excess of legal ones, drain the public treasury. This is an empirical question much more complicated than often assumed, as both citizens and foreign nationals pay taxes. Yet the obvious solution – ending the welfare state wherever it exists – is much harder to sell than it should be, precisely because the welfare state's permanence is unchallenged. If the notion is framed as though they are taking our public benefits, the whole collectivist premise has already been stipulated. Signing up for government aid has become part of the very identification of being American, and so is it seen as inappropriate for non-Americans, however defined, to get in on the nationalist socialism. There are enough conservatives in America to push for welfare reform that would undercut any actual problem with illegal immigration, insofar as welfare is the problem as they claim. But they do not mobilize to do it. They are as invested in maintaining and solidifying the idea of the modern American welfare state as is the left, and so in response to immigration they mostly propose violations of commercial freedom and police state measures to strengthen the national collective rather than undermine it through a frontal assault on the entitlement state.

The welfare state has won over all of society. It has succeeded in making the entire culture dependent on it. Middle class conservatives condemn welfarism even as they clamor for better public schools, apply for student loans for their kids, hold jealously onto their Medicare and Social Security benefits, accept unemployment checks when they're expedient, and resist any talk about cutting back the government's support for its police and soldiers. Liberals today say they are realists on welfare but never cease to agitate for more ways to put us all on the dole. As we find ourselves in the wake of fiscal catastrophe, we must recognize that only a tiny portion of government expenditures go to the easy targets – the earmarks, the welfare mothers, the roads to nowhere, the Woodstock museums, the funding to study bird migrations, even the salaries of bailed out CEOs. America is, despite the conservative and liberal propaganda to the contrary, essentially as much a welfare state as most other nations of the West, and the hugest chunk of the entitlement expenditures are going not to the easily scapegoated classes, but rather to the respectable masses.


http://rationalreview.news-digests.com/archives/49454

Over-Insured America

Over-Insured America
by Eric Peters

I wish more people would stop to think about what making any product mandatory will necessarily do its cost – as well as to the "service" provided. If you can't say no, there's little, if any, incentive for the manufacturer/provider to keep costs in line, or please its "customers" – a term that's sickeningly inappropriate when coercion is involved (as is the case today with mandatory car insurance and soon-to-be-mandatory health insurance).

More globally, this is also the simple truth behind the debacle that is government itself. Consider the current dog-and-pony show about federal spending – and taxing:

Why should government spend less – or operate more efficiently? What's the incentive?

In fact, the incentive is – spend more. Be less efficient. Why not? If you can legally force people to hand over their money, why would you voluntarily (leaving moral considerations aside) ask for less? The more inefficient you are, the more money you need.

Government worker ants, too.

The only way we'll ever see "efficient" or "responsible" government is when we are finally free to decline its "services."

This lesson not lost on insurance companies. And it's the reason why insurance, like government, is rapidly becoming inescapable; a legal requirement that must be dealt with – and paid for – want it or not, like it or not. They'll force you to be their "customer" regardless.

And that, in turn, is the reason why insurance underwriting is one of the few big profit centers (other than Internet porno – and, of course, government itself) left in this country.

It all began with mandatory car insurance.

There was a time when people were free to choose to have it – or not. Many people chose not to, because they did the math, evaluated their own potential risks and decided it wasn't a good buy for them. Then the Clovers mewled that no one should be permitted to drive around without having purchased insurance coverage first. This has a superficial appeal, but think on it some more.

The need for car insurance – that is, it's value – varies considerably from person to person. If, for example, you are a good driver (not just skilled but possess good judgment) the chances of your being involved in a wreck caused by lack of skill/poor judgment are very, very low. Note I did not use the term, "accident." This is an important distinction. Most wrecks are in fact caused by poor driving – or poor judgment. They are not accidents – because for the most part, they could have been avoided.

An accident, properly defined, is something unavoidable. For example, a deer suddenly darting into the road and startling the driver, resulting in loss of control.

Most accidents (so-called) are the result of actions (or non-actions) such as failure to pay attention, excessive speed for conditions (or ability), following too closely, misjudging the closing speed of other traffic as when merging or changing lanes – etc. In other words, driver error. Not deliberate, perhaps. But certainly avoidable.

My point being, a good driver – someone competent in terms of skill and who also has (and exercises) good judgment – can avoid most of the situations that lead to bent metal and personal injury. He is a very low risk, as far as being the cause of a motor vehicle wreck. And, to a great extent, liability insurance is only a wise purchase if you are someone who is likely to be the cause of a motor vehicle wreck, and so financially responsible for damages caused.

If you are not such a person, then buying insurance is money out the window. Money you'd probably have been better off putting into your savings account.

If you could.

We all know people who go decades, a lifetime, without having caused an accident. Ipso facto, they did not need insurance. (The other driver – the one who caused the accident – is financially and legally responsible.) Yet they're forced – in most states – to buy insurance anyway, thanks to the Clovers. If you own several vehicles, you have to buy coverage for each one – even though you can't drive more than one at a time. If you own motorcycles, and live in an area that has winter weather, the bikes may not even leave your garage for months at a time. But the law says you still have to buy coverage, and maintain it, year round.

Over several decades, this can amount to tens of thousands of dollars. Money that could have been put to productive purposes such as long-term investments toward retirement.

Example: I'm a "good driver" according to insurance industry standards. Not one wreck (or claim) in 25 years; no traffic tickets on my DMV rap sheet (thanks, Mike Valentine) ; in my 40s, married, good credit, etc. I qualify for every discount my insurer offers. None of my vehicles are high-dollar (two compact pick-ups with four-cylinder engines) so I have the bare minimum liability-only coverages. Yet because I have multiple vehicles, I end up paying close to $800 annually to the insurance Mafia. This may not seem exorbitant – and relative to what many others are being forced to pay, it isn't. But multiply that $800 annually over 25 years. That's $20,000 – gone forever.

For nothing.

The Clovers will screech about all the What Ifs: What if you'd had an accident? What if you'd hurt someone? But what if I did not have an accident? That never occurs to the Cloverian mind. It also never occurs to the Clovers that it's not the responsible people who need insurance – it's the irresponsible ones. And of course, it's the irresponsible ones who very often drive without insurance, the law be damned (just as "gun control" is of little concern to criminals, etc.). Another thing never occurs to the Clovers, too: Had I not been compelled to hand over the $20k to the insurance arm-breakers, if I'd had that money to invest in something productive, I'd probably now have a lot more than $20,000. Just like Social Security "contributions" – had I been allowed to keep/invest my own money rather than surrender it to the government in return for, well, nothing. (Many people don't realize they're not even legally entitled to receive SS "benefits," notwithstanding a working lifetime of "contributing" to the scam.) The money would still exist. It would be available to draw upon if I ever needed to pay for damages to my property or someone else's property. And if no damages occur, then I'd still have the money – instead of the insurance Mafia.

I've been arguing for years that insurance – mandatory insurance – is a major contributing factor in the bankrupting of the American middle and working class.

The typical person has:

• Car insurance
• Home insurance
• Health insurance
• Life insurance

Combined, the annual cost of the premiums for all this "coverage" can easily be $5,000-$10,00 a year. Over twenty or thirty years, this adds up to a very large sum – as much as $100,000 or more. That's without taking into account the potential growth of that principle, had it been devoted to actual productive purposes.

How many working/middle class people can afford to devote such a large percentage of their income to insurance?

It's a con. A Bamboozlement.

And it's about to get much worse with ObamaCare – yet more mandatory insurance.

Does anyone really believe we'll be paying less as a result?

Unfortunately, the answer sure seems to be – yes.

See you at the soup kitchen, I guess. But the good news is we'll be "covered."

Right?

http://epautos.com/2011/07/17/over-insured-america/

Who's Afraid of Ron Paul?

Who's Afraid of Ron Paul?
by Robert Bonomo

Bankers, War Mongers, Drug Dealers, The New York Times, The Military Industrial Complex, the Neo-Cons, The Wall Street Journal, The DEA, Organized Crime, The CIA, the FBI, The FDA, The Department of Education, The Federal Reserve and the IRS.

"With politicians like these, who needs terrorists?" ~ Ron Paul

Ron Paul is neither a big man nor a loud one and his polite demeanor effectively disguises a vicious fighting spirit. No other politician in recent history has been the been lone dissenter on so many congressional votes. From Mother Teresa to Gaza, only one man dissented: Ron Paul. He transcends party lines, confusing the mass media who are not sure whether he is a radical left wing peace nick or a John Birch Manchurian candidate.


Right or Left?

"We can achieve much more in peace than we can ever achieve in these needless, unconstitutional, undeclared wars." ~ Ron Paul

As shocking as it may seem to The New York Times, Fox, The Wall Street Journal, and CNN, The Constitution and The Declaration of Independence actually call for a peaceful, free Republic unencumbered by Government.

What other member of Congress is for ending the war on drugs, phasing out Medicare and Medicaid, making Social Security optional, legalizing prostitution, ending The Fed, halting all aid to Israel, lowering taxes, and closing all American military bases abroad? How do you define Ron Paul within the current political spectrum? You can't. He simply doesn't fit into any of the convenient labels available for the two party charade. The Ivy Leagued Wall Street/Washington nexus doesn't know what to make of man who is against two of the most dreaded things in life: war and taxes.


Is Ron Paul a Radical?

"I am just absolutely convinced that the best formula for giving us peace and preserving the American way of life is freedom, limited government, and minding our own business overseas." Ron Paul

This is probably the most vexing question regarding Ron Paul. He is so sensible that he is considered radical. Take for example his foreign policy. He believes Europe, Israel and South Korea are all wealthy and capable enough to defend themselves and considering the enormous US budget deficits, he thinks we should close our foreign bases and bring our soldiers home. This is called radical.

On the other hand, jumping into the fray with Libya while we are engaged in Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen is considered mainstream. How many politicians could even articulate, for example, why we fought the war in Iraq?

What is fascinating about the Ron Paul phenomena is that even in mainstream newspapers there is not one columnist as "radical" as Ron Paul. From The Wall Street Journal, to The New York Times, and The Washington Post, there is no one who consistently calls for an end to all foreign wars and a peaceful, mind your own business foreign policy.


The Great One

The war in Iraq had to be the biggest lie ever told to the American people, until Barack Obama was elected President. Tax cuts for the rich and more wars for the weary. Never again should the American people allow themselves to be sold a "brand" instead of an agenda.

Paul Newman was a fine actor, but he couldn't hold a candle to The Great One. Jackie Gleason had something unmistakably, unabashedly real about him. We should have listened to him in 2008; we didn't. Will we listen to him in 2012?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=x4vtCTFljNw


The Challenge

Ron Paul is 75 years old and this is certainly his last shot at being president. Before the 2008 financial crisis he was a voice in the wilderness, but that voice has come of age. Many members of the Republican party became Ron Paul followers after the eight long years of war and bailouts under George W. Now, many liberal Democrats completely disillusioned with both Party and Obama are becoming supporters of Dr. Paul.

The essence of his philosophy is peace, prosperity and a strictly Constitutional Government that minds its own business at home and abroad. Is it so shocking that this message resonates with both Republicans and Democrats? People are "waking" up at an accelerated rate and flocking to Dr. Paul. His sound money policies could be the catalyst that sends him to the White Houses if we experience another financial shock event between now and November 2012.

Ron Paul believes in people's liberty, in their innate intelligence, ingenuity, and capacity to fend for themselves. Both the condescension of the Ivy Leagued and the corporate fascism of those who want us to all speak and eat the same garbage has become repellent. They have lied, plundered and war mongered long enough.


Ron Paul as Rocky

Can he win? The author could give two hoots. All we ask of Dr. Paul is that he stay on his feet and land a few good punches. The rest will take care of itself.


http://www.thecactusland.com/2011/07/whose-afraid-of-ron-paul.html

House Fails to Pass BULB Act

House Fails to Pass BULB Act
Written by Raven Clabough   
Friday, 15 July 2011 16:45

On Tuesday, the U.S. House of Representatives failed to pass the Better Use of Light Bulbs (BULB) Act. Though the vote was 233-193, which normally would have been enough, the measure required a two-thirds majority for passage. While House Republicans may still try to adopt the measure by simple majority, most expect that it will not pass the Democrat-controlled Senate. The BULB Act would repeal Subtitle B of Title III of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which ultimately bans incandescent light bulbs.

The Kansas City Star reports:

The original legislation, signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2007, requires all new bulbs to use at least 27 percent less energy than standard incandescent light bulbs. It will go into effect next year and gradually phase out traditional 100-, 75-, 60- and 40-watt incandescent bulbs by 2014.

A second set of standards in 2020 will require most light bulbs to become 60 to 70 percent more efficient.

According to the BULB Act author, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), the 2007 Energy Act is an example of government overreach:

The unanticipated consequence of the '07 act ­ Washington-mandated layoffs in the middle of a desperate recession ­ is one of many examples of what happens when politicians and activists think they know better than consumers and workers. From the health insurance you're allowed to have, to the car you can drive, to the light bulbs you can buy, Washington is making too many decisions that are better left to people who work for their own paychecks and earn their own living.

While supporters of the 2007 act claim it will save Americans billions in energy costs every year, opponents contend it is a threat to the free market and that the alternative bulbs are too expensive.

Representative Fred Upon, who helped co-sponsor the legislation in 2007, has changed his stance after pressure from House Republicans. He explains, "It was never my goal for Washington to decide what type of light bulbs Americans should use."

Where House Republicans will go from here remains to be seen.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/8238-house-fails-to-pass-bulb-act

Space Program Was Our Biggest Bridge to Nowhere

Space Program Was Our Biggest Bridge to Nowhere
by Gene Healy
This article appeared in The DC Examiner on July 12, 2011.

Friday marked the space shuttle's swan song, as the Atlantis lifted off from the Kennedy Space Center for the program's 135th and final flight.

It was President George W. Bush who announced the shuttle's retirement with his 2004 "Vision for Space Exploration," which included a moon base and "human missions to Mars and to worlds beyond." But it was President Obama who put the kibosh on that vision, canceling the moon project and leaving "worlds beyond" in doubt.

"We are retiring the shuttle in favor of nothing," Michael Griffin, Bush's NASA administrator, wailed to the Washington Post recently.

Here, as usual, "nothing" gets a bad rap. I'll be "in favor of nothing" until the advocates of federally funded spaceflight can come up with an argument for it that doesn't make me spray coffee out my nose.

Outside of avoiding the hypothetical horror of Martian gulags, what does the ordinary taxpayer get from the space program?

NASA's Griffin failed that test in 2005, when he gave an interview to the Washington Post insisting it was essential that "Western values" accompany those who eventually "colonize the solar system," because "we know the kind of society we would get if you, for example, carry Soviet values. That means you want a gulag on Mars. Is that what you're looking for?"

Well ... is it, punk?

Outside of avoiding the hypothetical horror of Martian gulags, what does the ordinary taxpayer get from the space program?

Not much, says Robin Hanson, a George Mason University economist and research associate at Oxford's Future of Humanity Institute: The benefits are "mostly like the pyramids ­ national prestige and being part of history."

Space partisans often point to the alleged technological breakthroughs that come from solving hard problems like keeping humans alive in an environment never meant to sustain them.

But, as Hanson points out, you could get similar technological boons from any ambitious project you convince the feds to spray money at ­ whether it's robot butlers or floating cities. If we wanted to, we could surely "find other projects with larger direct payoffs."

The argument for federally funded spaceflight ultimately boils down to "spacecraft as soulcraft," the quasi-religious notion that, as Post columnist Charles Krauthammer puts it, we go "not for practicality," but "for the wonder and the glory of it."

Space must be an alluring muse indeed, given that it makes Krauthammer, normally a hardheaded neoconservative, sound like a yoga instructor gone lightheaded during a juice fast.

He calls space skeptics "Earth Firsters," deaf to "the music of the spheres." Apparently there's nothing more "isolationist" than wanting to stay on your own planet.

Krauthammer's obsession makes sense, in a way, since federally funded spaceflight is the quintessential neoconservative project: a giant, wasteful crusade designed to fill Americans' supposedly empty lives with meaning.

Sorry, Charlie: The public's not buying it. A 2010 Rasmussen poll showed that more Americans think private enterprise should pay for space exploration than think government should fund it.

By nearly 2-to-1 margins, they also oppose sending federally funded astronauts to the moon or Mars. As far as Americans are concerned, space is the ultimate "bridge to nowhere."

It's true that, with a $1.5 trillion deficit, NASA's $18 billion isn't what stands between us and our fiscal day of reckoning. But every little bit counts, and this is the rare cut that won't make the public squeal.

Moreover, there's a matter of principle at stake here. The threat of force lies behind every tax dollar the government collects. You might demand that your neighbor help defend us against a foreign invader ­ but would you really hold a gun to his head to help him appreciate "the music of the spheres"?

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=13342

The Magical Delusion

The Magical Delusion
By Nicholas Snow
Published: 19 July 2011

The call for government action continues to grow. More and more we hear, "We need more jobs," "we need better highways," "we need affordable health care," etc. And it is the government who needs to provide these "needs." But just who is supposed to pay for these needs? In short, we do. In today's document, November 28, 1955 Business Tides column article "The Fourth Dimension," Henry Hazlitt explains the delusion most people have towards government spending.

As economist Wilhelm Röpke put it, "When demanding assistance from the state, people forget that is a demand upon the other citizens merely passed on through the government, but believe they are making a demand upon a sort of fourth dimension which is supposed to be able to supply the wants of all and sundry to their hearts' content without any individual person having to bear the burden."

It is as if the state has become an entity that owes us all a living, and its ability to provide that living is almost magical. Individual's expectations of what the state can do seem to belong more in a Harry Potter novel than reality. As English historian T. B. Macaulay put it, "it is supposed by many that our rulers possess, somewhere or another, an inexhaustible storehouse of all the necessaries and conveniences of life, and from mere hardheartedness, refuse to distribute the contents of his magazine among the poor."

In reality, we all live in a world of scarcity. Everything we do has trade-offs. This is why Milton Friedman said there is no such thing as a free lunch. When a resource is used in one manner, then the next highest valued use, or the opportunity cost, is given up. Who pays for the goods and services we have in this life, no matter how essential to our lifestyles, is not irrelevant. How resources are allocated is also not irrelevant. If one does not pay for something, but gets it provided nonetheless, then there is a good chance that good will be overused and wasted, and this is no accident.

Sending other peoples money is easy. Why should you care how much it costs as long as you can get the highest value out of what you get? And when we spend other people's money on other people, we again, don't care about the cost but also put much less concern into the value others get out of it. In contrast, when we spend our own money we typically want the highest value for the lowest cost we can find. This is why a world in which the consumers foot the bill is more likely than not going to be more efficient and wealthy (and even for the least well off).

The common belief in what the government can provide is indeed a delusion. There is no forth dimension. The government's ability to provide so-called essentials comes at a cost and is typically very inefficient. If we leave the responsibility to the individuals, the world will work much better than most seem to think. Remember, this is not an argument against charity. There is nothing wrong with voluntarily helping those in need. But a world where individuals are forced to provide for others is unsustainable. We must abandon the fantasy that the state operates outside of constraints and scarcity. We must wake up to the reality, whether we like it or not, that prosperity is created by the desire of man to improve his own lot in life. And, in general, this requires personal responsibility.

Download Henry Hazlitt's "The Fourth Dimension" here.

http://www.fee.org/from-the-archives/the-magical-delusion/

The Profound Hypocrisy of a Clintonian State Department

The Profound Hypocrisy of a Clintonian State Department
By Anthony Gregory
Wednesday July 20, 2011 at 10:02 PM PDT

Hillary Clinton, whose State Department has been involved in overseeing renditioning, who ran for president in 2008 on a more pro-torture platform than John McCain, has condemned Turkey for human rights abuses. In particular, Turkey has cracked down on journalists and has plans to restrict internet freedom.

In 1998, responding to the internet gossip about her husband's sex scandals in the Oval Office, Clinton lamented that the World Wide Web had no "kind of editing function or gatekeeping function," presumably wishing there were such functions to be handled by the federal government. She elaborated:

I don't have any clue about what we're going to do legally, regulatorily, technologically­I don't have a clue. But I do think we always have to keep competing interests in balance. I'm a big pro-balance person. That's why I love the founders­checks and balances; accountable power. Anytime an individual or an institution or an invention leaps so far out ahead of that balance and throws a system, whatever it might be­political, economic, technological­out of balance, you've got a problem, because then it can lead to the oppression people's rights, it can lead to the manipulation of information, it can lead to all kinds of bad outcomes which we have seen historically. So we're going to have to deal with that.

One could note that this was thirteen years ago and perhaps Clinton, although she was in a sense very close to power back then, was not actually in charge of a major governmental department as she is now. In any rate, maybe she has changed her tune. We should remember, even insofar as this is true, that her instinct was to want to control the internet to prevent unseemly discourse about the president's love life. Although all excuses for censorship fall apart upon closer examination, hers did not even rise to the level of superficial urgency that comes to mind in evocations of the incitement of riots or yelling fire in a crowded theater.

Yet we have a fresher example of Clinton's authoritarian impulse on the question of free speech on the 'net­one that relates directly to the question of the journalistic freedom that she finds so imperiled in Turkey: Last November, she condemned WikiLeaks for its truth telling about U.S. diplomatic vagaries and the ugly side of America's allied regimes, and she vowed to take " aggressive steps" against those abusing internet freedom in such ways that she did not approve. You see, the internet, like all technology, is a double-edged sword, presumably one to be regulated by the benevolent planners in DC:

[A]mid this unprecedented surge in connectivity, we must also recognize that these technologies are not an unmitigated blessing. These tools are also being exploited to undermine human progress and political rights. Just as steel can be used to build hospitals or machine guns and nuclear energy can power a city or destroy it, modern information networks and the technologies they support can be harnessed for good or ill. The same networks that help organize movements for freedom also enable al-Qaeda to spew hatred and incite violence against the innocent. And technologies with the potential to open up access to government and promote transparency can also be hijacked by governments to crush dissent and deny human rights.

What's more, the threats to internet liberty have only mounted under the Obama administration, although I personally believe it is loath to go all out and trample America's remaining frontier of true freedom. The backlash would be immense. Yet the president has surrounded himself with folks who have more than toyed with the idea of systematic, centrally administered, strategically implemented acts of covert political thought control.

We live in interesting times, and our rulers are especially brazen in their two-faced pronouncements of loving liberty while demanding more control. But Clinton's State Department hypocrisy is simply par for the course for the U.S. empire and its audacious diplomatic posturing. The U.S. government kills civilians by the thousands with cluster bombs and other assorted ghoulish means, then condemns other regimes for doing the same, even to a smaller degree. The U.S. government rules a nation with the world's largest prison population in both real and absolute terms, dispenses torture, spies on its citizenry, and abuses civil liberties and human decency in myriad ways while sanctimoniously admonishing other nation-states for their sins, usually with the implication that only it, the U.S. government, can and should promote human rights worldwide. With Clinton the hypocrisy is particularly conspicuous and ghastly, yet she is only the latest in a long line of elites at the reigns of American military and political hegemony to manifest such disingenuous finger-pointing.

http://blog.independent.org/2011/07/20/the-profound-hypocrisy-of-a-clintonian-state-department/

The Importance of Doing it Right

The Calling
The Importance of Doing it Right
There's no substitute for sound argument and accuracy.
Steven Horwitz
Posted July 21, 2011

Libertarians, especially younger ones, are always on the lookout for "intellectual ammunition." We want to find arguments and evidence that support our view of the world, and we want to bring it to others, whether in our own writing or on blogs or social networks or in conversation. Certainly one of the motivations for me to write this column every week is that it can serve that purpose for others.

But there's also a danger in viewing everything we read as potential intellectual ammunition: We start to judge people's work by how well their conclusions line up with our priors rather than how well they've made their case. Finding that perfect article that appears to make an argument you've long thought was right but could never articulate well, or didn't know evidence for, is a wonderful feeling, but it's important not to let that adrenaline rush get in the way of your better judgment. Just because you agree with an author's conclusions doesn't mean he or she has done the job well, and it does not help the libertarian cause to make arguments based on erroneous theories, bad data, or incomplete evidence. In fact it is ultimately counterproductive because those who do know the facts will eventually find those errors and will rightly dismiss the conclusions, even if those conclusions might still be right and capable of a better defense.


Revisionist History

This problem is particularly challenging for libertarian revisionist history. To take one example I know well, consider the Great Depression. When libertarians want to argue that Herbert Hoover was a proto-New Dealer, or that FDR's policies did not really improve matters much, or that World War II did not end the Great Depression, or that laissez faire didn't cause it, it's not enough just to make those claims. We had better back up our arguments with unimpeachable statistical and documentary historical evidence. After Keynesian economics won the day, many classical-liberal writers criticized it, but it wasn't until Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz's A Monetary History of the United States in the early 1960s that the tide began to turn. That book did the trick because it was meticulously researched and documented, and was able to convince many people that their view of the Great Depression was wrong. We libertarian economists and historians need to bring the same commitment to research excellence to our work.

When libertarians offer revisionist histories of even more controversial topics, such as the Civil War or the origins of the Fed, we have to have that same commitment to doing it right. When we are sloppy with the historical sources, when we distort quotes to serve our priors, or when we ignore sources that challenge our views, we set ourselves up for failure. Our books and articles will eventually be read by our critics, who will properly take us to task for violating the canons of good scholarship. The damage to our reputations, both individually and for libertarians generally, will linger.

Many libertarians are also tempted to dismiss criticisms of scholarship as disguises for disagreement with an author's conclusions. Others wonder why we should worry about what seems like "nitpicking" if the broader argument is correct. The answer to both is that the details matter. The way to persuade people is to have truth on your side, and if we play fast and loose with arguments and evidence, those we are trying to persuade will not trust anything we have to say.


Cultivating Critical Thinkers

I spent last weekend talking about teaching with a group of libertarian faculty and grad students. A recurring issue was how "out of the closet" we should be about our libertarianism in the classroom. The experienced faculty said it's okay to be honest about what one believes, but the first responsibility is to cultivate students who are good critical thinkers and who have a commitment to finding truth. If we believe libertarian ideas are true, then students who care about truth and who are good critical thinkers will find them eventually. We don't need to "force" them on our students. The same goes for what we write.

So how can you as readers know what's good and what's not? One answer is to read the other side. Read books critical of libertarian views and see if libertarian authors seem to have it right. Read reviews of libertarian books both by other libertarians and by nonlibertarians. See what flaws they find, especially when fellow libertarians find them. See what sources they point to. And most of all, don't think that one author has all the answers or that libertarianism is a finished system of truths. We don't have all the answers, which is why being committed first and foremost to finding truth is so important. Anything else is a recipe for failure.

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/headline/the-importance-of-doing-it-right/

They Also Hate Us for Our Hypocrisy

Wednesday, July 20, 2011
They Also Hate Us for Our Hypocrisy
by Jacob G. Hornberger

The front page of today's New York Times details another instance of the rank hypocrisy that underlies U.S. foreign policy. According to the article, U.S. officials are hopping mad at their partner and ally, the Pakistani government, for trying to tilt U.S. foreign policy in favor of Pakistan's position in its longtime dispute with India over Kashmir.

The feds have indicted two U.S. citizens over the matter. They work for a Washington-based organization named the Kashmiri American Council, which "lobbies for and holds conferences and media events to promote the cause of self-determination for Kashmir" and also donates around $100,000 to U.S. political campaigns.

What's wrong with that? Well, it turns out that a major donor to the organization is the Pakistani government and, specifically, the ISI, which is Pakistan's counterpart to the CIA. Apparently, the feds are claiming that the Kashmiri American Council is just a sham or a ruse to enable the Pakistani government to influence U.S. foreign policy.

What's wrong with that? Well, U.S. officials consider it evil or bad or morally wrong for foreign governments to be interfering with the U.S. political system. That's why they've made it illegal for foreign governments to donate to American political candidates.

Imagine that.

The U.S. indictment of those two American citizens is as audacious ­ and, of course, hypocritical ­ example of U.S. foreign policy as one could ever hope to find.

After all, virtually all of U.S. foreign policy is oriented toward influencing the political situation in foreign countries. That's what foreign aid to dictators and others, financial aid to NGOs, the CIA's secret funneling of money into countries, CIA front companies, embargoes, sanctions, invasions, occupations, coups, regime-change operations, and assassinations are all about.

Indeed, how much money has the CIA funneled into the coffers of "pro-democracy" groups in Cuba, Venezuela, and other countries whose rulers are not among U.S.-favored dictators? We don't know because it's all secret. They won't let us know because, they say, if we were to know how they distributing the money that the IRS forcibly collects from us, "national security" would be threatened.

How many millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars have been funneled into the coffers of dictators in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world? Isn't the point of such government-to-government "donations" to keep the dictatorship in power? Examples: The Shah of Iran, who the CIA installed into power through a coup, the military dictatorships installed in Guatemala through a CIA coup, the CIA's interference in Argentina to prevent Salvador Allende from being democratically elected, Iraq's Saddam Hussein, Pakistan's Pervez Musharraf, and Afghanistan's Hamid Karzai, one of the most corrupt dictators in history.

How much U.S. taxpayer money has been used to finance and subsidize torture centers in U.S.-favored dictatorships, especially ones that have tortured people pursuant to torture partnerships between such regimes and the U.S. government? Syria and Egypt come to mind.

Let's not forget those 1,000 military bases in some 130 countries around the world. How many foreign regimes have military bases inside the United States? Why are they not permitted to do what the U.S. Empire does? Could the reason be that they might be perceived as influencing U.S. policy with a strong military presence within the country?

Let's not forget the CIA's regime-change operations in Iran, Guatemala, Vietnam, Indonesia, Cuba, Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other nations.

In fact, let's not forget the CIA's decades-long obsession with Cuba, which has included terrorist attacks inside the country and even assassination attempts on Cuba's president, Fidel Castro. Pardon me, but wouldn't trying to assassinate a ruler of a foreign country constitute more direct interference with the internal political affairs of another country than simply making campaign contributions to some candidates?

Let's also not forget the case of Alan Gross, who has been jailed in Cuba for the last year for spying. Sure, the CIA denies that he works for the CIA but the CIA would deny it even if he were, so the denial is worthless. According to the BBC, at the very least Gross was "working for the Cuba Democracy Programme, a U.S. government programme aimed at promoting political change in Cuba."

And we really shouldn't forget the military invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan ­ or, for that matter, Panama, Granada, Cuba, and others ­ for the purpose of ousting the rulers of such countries and installing a U.S.-appointed ruler in their stead.

Let's also not forget that while the U.S. is now charging the Pakistani government with interfering with the political system within the United States, the U.S. government has never been reluctant to interfere with the political system within Pakistan. It was the U.S. government who long propped up Pakistan's military dictator Pervez Musharraf, especially with money, until the Pakistani people were finally able to oust him from power and install a democratically elected ruler. Also, at the risk of belaboring the obvious, it's not the Pakistani government that is assassinating people living in the United States with pilotless drones. It is the U.S. government that is assassinating people living in Pakistan with pilotless drones.

The death and destruction that the U.S. government wreaks around the world, along with its callous indifference to suffering among foreigners that such death and destruction bring, are among the principal reasons that people around the world hate the U.S. government. Another big reason is the rank hypocrisy that runs through U.S. foreign policy.

http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2011-07-20.asp

Majority of Young Hispanic Voters Favor Free Market, Low Taxes

Majority of Young Hispanic Voters Favor Free Market, Low Taxes
Written by Raven Clabough   
Wednesday, 20 July 2011 14:30

According to a recent poll conducted by Generation Opportunity, a majority of young Hispanics believe that the federal government should cut spending and liberate the private sector. As Hispanics historically have voted Democrat and typically supported the Democrats' non-social agendas, the results mark a significant change.

The Blaze notes: " The survey, with a reported margin of error +/- 4 points, reveals 57 percent of young Hispanics agree that "if taxes on business profits were reduced, companies would be more likely to hire." Likewise, a staggering 70 percent of Hispanic young adults say they would "decrease" federal spending if given the chance to "set America's fiscal priorities."

The poll also reveals a number of additional elements:

• By nearly a 3:1 ratio, Hispanic young adults prefer "reducing federal spending" (69 percent) to "raising taxes on individuals" (27%) in order to balance the federal budget....

• In a separate question, a 56%-majority majority concurred "the economy grows best when individuals are allowed to create businesses without government interference."

• 61% indicated their agreement with "American Exceptionalism" ­ described as an ideal of freedom and democracy exclusive and unique to the United States.

Paul Conway, president of Generation Opportunity and a former Chief of Staff of the U.S. Department of Labor, indicates,

The desire to work, the drive to succeed, and the ambition to build financially for the future are shared among all young Americans. Young Americans in every community across the nation have been negatively impacted by unemployment and the lack of opportunity, especially within the Hispanic community, and they know the solution to recovery is not more federal spending, taxes and interference with those who have the courage and resources to create jobs.

If elected leaders in Washington think the generation they encouraged to get involved in reshaping the future of America is now simply going to sit back, take instructions to be patient and remain hopeful as they watch their dreams and country put at risk ­ then they are out of touch with the very citizens who granted them their trust and vote.

The results of the poll were released shortly after Generation Opportunity appeared at the 2011 League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) National Convention in Cincinnati, Ohio, where the economy and opportunity were of significant importance to the 20,000 attendees.

John Hinderaker of Powerline.com contends that the figures should not come as too much of a surprise considering the number of Hispanic Americans that are involved in small business. However, he does note that the results "suggest that the GOP's message on spending and debt will find a receptive audience among young people generally."

Still, regardless of the number of Hispanics engaged in small business, the results may be indicative of a marked change.

In 2007, the Pew Hispanic Center reported that 57 percent of Hispanic registered voters called themselves Democrats, or leaned toward the Democratic Party, while just 23 percent associated themselves with the Republican Party.

An overwhelming majority of Hispanic voters elected Barack Obama and Joe Biden in 2008 by a margin of more than two to one ­ 67 percent versus 31 percent ­ reports the Pew Hispanic Center. Across the nation, all Hispanic subgroups overwhelmingly supported Obama and Biden, including young Hispanic voters. The Pew Research Center reported:

According to the national exit poll, 64% of Hispanic males and 68% of Hispanic females supported Obama. Latino youth, just as all youth nationwide, supported Obama over McCain by a lopsided margin ­ 76% versus 19%.

Obama managed to secure the Hispanic vote in areas where Latinos have historically voted Republican, most notably in Florida, where he won 57 percent of the Latino vote.

Just three years after that election, however, a majority of young Hispanics appear to be changing course and siding with the philosophies of free market economics of those Republicans who are conservative.

The results of the Generation Opportunity poll are seemingly representative of a national trend that encompasses all Americans. For example, a recent Gallup Poll shows that 50 percent of Americans want the deficit to be reduced only/mostly with spending cuts.

Likewise, a July Rasmussen Reports poll reveals that 72 percent of likely American voters favor a free market economy over one managed by the government. A mere 14 percent prefer a government-managed economy, while another 14 percent are unsure. That same poll shows that 56 percent of voters continue to believe that increased competition is preferable over increased government regulation, while only 34 percent take the opposite approach.

Finally, a December 2010 Gallup Poll shows that 80 percent of Americans continue to embrace the notion of "American Exceptionalism." According to that poll, those surveyed contend that the United States, because of its history and Constitution, "has a unique character that makes it the greatest country in the world."

It seems there is an increasingly greater divide between young Hispanic voters and this Democratic administration, and a decreasing divide between Hispanic voters and conservative voters.

http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/8281-majority-of-young-hispanic-voters-favor-free-market-low-taxes

YEEEE H'ALLAH! New mosque/madrassa to be built in Laredo, Texas

So all them mexi-muzzies can have a place to stick their asses in the air. 

YEEEE H'ALLAH! New mosque/madrassa to be built in Laredo, Texas barenakedislam | July 21, 2011 at 4:31 AM | Categories: Islam in America | URL: http://wp.me/peHnV-x9D

We really don't need to build a new mosque, the storefront location we've been using more than meets our needs. But we know a mosque/ madrassa will attract many new muslims to the area which will drive out a lot of infidels so we can buy up their homes for a song. Pro8News (H/T Rob E)

Read more of this post

Add a comment to this post

WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress! Manage Subscriptions | Unsubscribe | Reach out to your own subscribers with WordPress.com.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://subscribe.wordpress.com

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

This has to be one of the funniest columns yet - gotta find out what this guy is smoking - must be good stuff

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2011/07/21/obama___the_reluctant_partisan/

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.