Wednesday, September 23, 2009
They Voted for the Lesser of 2 Evils
"they voted for the lesser of 2 evils?" It's just sad. They wouldn't hire a lawn company if both were horrible ..."Well what did you want me to do? so I hired the better of the two worst employees". I scratch my head... we have nine rent a car companies but only two political parties (allowed to run). We vow never to go back to restaurant ever again because their food is bad but we vote with lessor regard than that. "I'll never buy a car from them again!" ... but I vote to a lesser standard?
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
He Lies!
As far back as George Bush the First Republicans have been growing government, foreign aid, military adventurism, debt, taxes, regulations, bailout and intrusiveness. Now that a Democrat is President we're suppose to believe they have changed their ways; that they are misunderstood, and ready to bring us what we need true freedom. You heard the phrase "Fool Me Once ..." Well you didn't fool me once, nor twice surely though I'm not stupid enough to buy that misleading lie a third time. They are grasping at whatever message they can get their their failed power back. "He Lies!" was that for Obama or his own party leadership? Hard to tell.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Libertarians respond to President Obama's health care speech
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 10, 2009
Contact: Wes Benedict, Executive Director
E-mail: wes.benedict@lp.org
Phone: 202-333-0008 ext. 222
Libertarians respond to President Obama's health care speech
Remind voters about Republican-initiated government-run health care plans
WASHINGTON - In the wake of President Obama's speech to Congress, America's third-largest party wants to remind voters about Republican support for government-run health care plans.
William Redpath, chairman of the Libertarian National Committee (LNC) commented, "Make no mistake, the Libertarian Party is opposed to President Obama's health care plans, and his speech last night has not budged us. But we also opposed Republican plans for big-government health care, many of which have been implemented in recent years."
In 2003, President Bush and the Republican Congress enacted a Medicare prescription drug expansion. It was originally expected to cost $400 billion, but just two years later the cost was revised upward to $1.2 trillion.
In 2006, Republican Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney supported and signed a bill that required all residents to purchase health insurance, and increased state health insurance funding.
In 2007, Republican Texas Governor Rick Perry issued an executive order to force sixth-grade schoolgirls to receive HPV vaccinations.
This year, congressional Republicans put forward the "Patients' Choice Act of 2009," which would increase federal government spending and control of health care in a variety of ways.
The Libertarian Party has put a poll on on its home page to allow voters to choose which Republican plan is the most hypocritical.
Redpath said, "Republicans are living in glass houses when they complain about the President's health care plans and the bills in the Democratic-controlled Congress."
Redpath continued, "It's time for President Obama to be intellectually honest, himself, and to stop inferring that his ideas of health care reform are the only ones out there. With neither of the major parties is there any serious discussion about letting individuals control their own health care dollars, moving away from employer-provided health insurance, and increasing competition among insurance companies by letting people purchase health insurance across state lines and among providers by taking a good, long look at medical education and licensure laws to allow potential providers to freely respond to health consumers' needs."
Redpath continued, "But, before the President and the Gang of 535 even do that, it would be refreshing to at least hear them debate whether the federal government is empowered to be in the middle of all of this. An honest reading of the Constitution might stimulate the right move -- punting this to the states and the people."
The Libertarian Party favors a free market health care system. The party's platform states, "We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want, the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions."
For more information, or to arrange an interview, call LNC executive director Wes Benedict at 202-333-0008 ext. 222.
The LP is America's third-largest political party, founded in 1971. The Libertarian Party stands for free markets and civil liberties. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party at our website.
September 10, 2009
Contact: Wes Benedict, Executive Director
E-mail: wes.benedict@lp.org
Phone: 202-333-0008 ext. 222
Libertarians respond to President Obama's health care speech
Remind voters about Republican-initiated government-run health care plans
WASHINGTON - In the wake of President Obama's speech to Congress, America's third-largest party wants to remind voters about Republican support for government-run health care plans.
William Redpath, chairman of the Libertarian National Committee (LNC) commented, "Make no mistake, the Libertarian Party is opposed to President Obama's health care plans, and his speech last night has not budged us. But we also opposed Republican plans for big-government health care, many of which have been implemented in recent years."
In 2003, President Bush and the Republican Congress enacted a Medicare prescription drug expansion. It was originally expected to cost $400 billion, but just two years later the cost was revised upward to $1.2 trillion.
In 2006, Republican Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney supported and signed a bill that required all residents to purchase health insurance, and increased state health insurance funding.
In 2007, Republican Texas Governor Rick Perry issued an executive order to force sixth-grade schoolgirls to receive HPV vaccinations.
This year, congressional Republicans put forward the "Patients' Choice Act of 2009," which would increase federal government spending and control of health care in a variety of ways.
The Libertarian Party has put a poll on on its home page to allow voters to choose which Republican plan is the most hypocritical.
Redpath said, "Republicans are living in glass houses when they complain about the President's health care plans and the bills in the Democratic-controlled Congress."
Redpath continued, "It's time for President Obama to be intellectually honest, himself, and to stop inferring that his ideas of health care reform are the only ones out there. With neither of the major parties is there any serious discussion about letting individuals control their own health care dollars, moving away from employer-provided health insurance, and increasing competition among insurance companies by letting people purchase health insurance across state lines and among providers by taking a good, long look at medical education and licensure laws to allow potential providers to freely respond to health consumers' needs."
Redpath continued, "But, before the President and the Gang of 535 even do that, it would be refreshing to at least hear them debate whether the federal government is empowered to be in the middle of all of this. An honest reading of the Constitution might stimulate the right move -- punting this to the states and the people."
The Libertarian Party favors a free market health care system. The party's platform states, "We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want, the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions."
For more information, or to arrange an interview, call LNC executive director Wes Benedict at 202-333-0008 ext. 222.
The LP is America's third-largest political party, founded in 1971. The Libertarian Party stands for free markets and civil liberties. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party at our website.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Video Poker and McHenry County
Wednesday September 9th McHenry County will vote to disallow video poker in the county. We should all disagree with this vote because it's based on flawed and dishonest research. Let me explain.
The ordinance is based off of two statements. The first statement is "WHEREAS, states such as Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina have abandoned experiments with the legalization of video poker". That might be true however they conviently left out that 22 other states have passed legislation and find it successful. Is their “Whereas” an error, misstatement or just plain slant? If they are going to include such line in an ordinance they should be required to add all of it or none of it.
The worse however is the second statement: “WHEREAS, electronic gaming is designed to entice people to play longer, faster, and at higher rates of wagering, according to a study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology” . This statement is just plain false. The study from MIT they site is not an MIT study at all but a book review by Sharon Schorow on Natasha Schull Book "Machine Zone: Technology Design and Gambling Addiction in Las Vegas," is scheduled to be published by the Princeton University Press in 2010. This book review was published in the MIT newspaper. Yes some people, such as myself actually looked up the so called study.
If we’re not against this ordinance on the freedom and liberty idea and believe we don’t need government telling us what we should or shouldn’t do with our money we should be against it for the sole reason of having the county lie, mislead or falsely report their own supporting documents concerning this inaccurate ordinance.
The ordinance is based off of two statements. The first statement is "WHEREAS, states such as Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina have abandoned experiments with the legalization of video poker". That might be true however they conviently left out that 22 other states have passed legislation and find it successful. Is their “Whereas” an error, misstatement or just plain slant? If they are going to include such line in an ordinance they should be required to add all of it or none of it.
The worse however is the second statement: “WHEREAS, electronic gaming is designed to entice people to play longer, faster, and at higher rates of wagering, according to a study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology” . This statement is just plain false. The study from MIT they site is not an MIT study at all but a book review by Sharon Schorow on Natasha Schull Book "Machine Zone: Technology Design and Gambling Addiction in Las Vegas," is scheduled to be published by the Princeton University Press in 2010. This book review was published in the MIT newspaper. Yes some people, such as myself actually looked up the so called study.
If we’re not against this ordinance on the freedom and liberty idea and believe we don’t need government telling us what we should or shouldn’t do with our money we should be against it for the sole reason of having the county lie, mislead or falsely report their own supporting documents concerning this inaccurate ordinance.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Mixed Messages
Let me get this straight. We teach sex ed to all ages of school kids and we even give them condoms because, as we've heard for years, they're going to do it anywy. We have also hear from the left that we have no business telling kids not to have sex. With me, because here's the kicker? We now charge school aged boys 17 and under for rape if the girl is under 18.
What wacky land is this? We give Johnny and Sally condoms, teach them to use them but then tell Johnny if he does use them he will be charged for raping Sally. We also then tell Sally that if she and Johnny have sex, he raped her and needs to bring it to the authorities attention.
I'm wondering with this new climate we're in if we can bring the school administration and nurses up on charges for conspiracy to commit rape?
What wacky land is this? We give Johnny and Sally condoms, teach them to use them but then tell Johnny if he does use them he will be charged for raping Sally. We also then tell Sally that if she and Johnny have sex, he raped her and needs to bring it to the authorities attention.
I'm wondering with this new climate we're in if we can bring the school administration and nurses up on charges for conspiracy to commit rape?
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Candy tax
I just wonder since candy is taxible now in Illinois if the jack boot thugs will be raiding our houses for making our own candy.
Remember, the next kid that asks you to buy candy from them to support their school will be bootlegging and comitting RICO
violations.
Ppssst hey buddy, wanna buy some starburst? Sssshhhh
Remember, the next kid that asks you to buy candy from them to support their school will be bootlegging and comitting RICO
violations.
Ppssst hey buddy, wanna buy some starburst? Sssshhhh
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
UNCLE SAM'S WAY-TOO-NOSY SURVEY
By Meghan Clyne (a DC writer)
WHERE'S the outrage?
With all the recent ob sessing over the "rights" of terrorists in Guantanamo, and the idea that President Obama's Supreme Court nominee should support "the constitutional right to privacy," you'd expect the civil-liberties crowd to be inflamed by the federal government forcing Americans to disclose sensitive information about their finances, health and lifestyles.
You would be wrong.
Recently nearly 3 million Americans were sent the American Community Survey. An annual supplement to the decennial Census, the 28-page survey pursues obnoxious nanny-state details such as whether your home has a flush toilet, what kind of fuel you use for heat and how much you spend on everything from electricity and flood insurance to your mortgage and property taxes.
Then come the really nosy questions, ranging from your college major and your health insurance to how you spend each day at the office. The survey even asks what time you leave for work, down to the hour and minute.
It also asks whether, "because of a physical, mental or emotional condition," you have difficulty "concentrating, remembering or making decisions," "walking or climbing stairs," "doing errands alone such as visiting a doctor's office or shopping" or "dressing or bathing."
So much for keeping government out of the bedroom. The survey also demands your current marital status; whether you've been married, widowed or divorced in the last 12 months, and how many times you've been married. If you're a woman between the ages of 15 and 50, you must also answer whether you've given birth in the last 12 months. The Census Bureau says this "measure of fertility" is used to "carry out various programs required by statute, including . . . conducting research for voluntary family planning programs." What was that about a "woman's right to privacy"?
It's tempting to toss the survey in the circular file, but recipients are required by law to respond. According to the Census Web site, the fine for nonparticipation can be as much as $5,000, and filing false information can pack a $500 punch.
Why all this intrusion? The Constitution allows for the "enumeration" of Americans for the purposes of taxation and apportioning political representation -- but this survey isn't part of the head-counting. The information is used by the government to spread around your tax dollars and justify federal bureaucracies; it can also be distributed to private businesses.
The feds say the data will stay secure, but after recent episodes in which personal records were compromised by the State and Veterans Affairs departments, some skepticism is understandable.
Jim Harper, a privacy expert at the Cato Institute, calls the survey "a classic example of mission creep over the decades -- this constitutional need to literally count how many noses are in the United States has turned into a vast data-collection operation." Toss in the push for the 2010 Census to be run out of the White House, and it adds up to a real intrusion into private lives, with the goal of further expanding government's reach.
There is spirited opposition to the survey, ranging from libertarian bloggers to Rep. Ron Paul, who has called it "insulting." Yet civil-liberties groups are strangely quiet.
NARAL didn't respond to a request for comment and an American Civil Liberties Union spokeswoman said last week that she "couldn't find anyone to talk." But an organization fact sheet says the survey is not unconstitutional, adding that the Census "serves a vital role in our democracy . . . it determines apportionment for voting, as well as helps allocate other government benefits such as anti-poverty programs."
So, we shouldn't listen in on terrorists to save American lives -- but intrusions into your privacy to support causes the left likes are just fine.
The good news is that I called the help number on my form and a Census representative finally conceded that the government was unlikely to pursue punishment if I didn't respond, saying it would be "a waste of time and money."
Maybe that's enough to risk telling the government what to do with its survey. But if you do end up facing a harassing Census-taker -- well, don't count on the civil-liberties crowd for help.
WHERE'S the outrage?
With all the recent ob sessing over the "rights" of terrorists in Guantanamo, and the idea that President Obama's Supreme Court nominee should support "the constitutional right to privacy," you'd expect the civil-liberties crowd to be inflamed by the federal government forcing Americans to disclose sensitive information about their finances, health and lifestyles.
You would be wrong.
Recently nearly 3 million Americans were sent the American Community Survey. An annual supplement to the decennial Census, the 28-page survey pursues obnoxious nanny-state details such as whether your home has a flush toilet, what kind of fuel you use for heat and how much you spend on everything from electricity and flood insurance to your mortgage and property taxes.
Then come the really nosy questions, ranging from your college major and your health insurance to how you spend each day at the office. The survey even asks what time you leave for work, down to the hour and minute.
It also asks whether, "because of a physical, mental or emotional condition," you have difficulty "concentrating, remembering or making decisions," "walking or climbing stairs," "doing errands alone such as visiting a doctor's office or shopping" or "dressing or bathing."
So much for keeping government out of the bedroom. The survey also demands your current marital status; whether you've been married, widowed or divorced in the last 12 months, and how many times you've been married. If you're a woman between the ages of 15 and 50, you must also answer whether you've given birth in the last 12 months. The Census Bureau says this "measure of fertility" is used to "carry out various programs required by statute, including . . . conducting research for voluntary family planning programs." What was that about a "woman's right to privacy"?
It's tempting to toss the survey in the circular file, but recipients are required by law to respond. According to the Census Web site, the fine for nonparticipation can be as much as $5,000, and filing false information can pack a $500 punch.
Why all this intrusion? The Constitution allows for the "enumeration" of Americans for the purposes of taxation and apportioning political representation -- but this survey isn't part of the head-counting. The information is used by the government to spread around your tax dollars and justify federal bureaucracies; it can also be distributed to private businesses.
The feds say the data will stay secure, but after recent episodes in which personal records were compromised by the State and Veterans Affairs departments, some skepticism is understandable.
Jim Harper, a privacy expert at the Cato Institute, calls the survey "a classic example of mission creep over the decades -- this constitutional need to literally count how many noses are in the United States has turned into a vast data-collection operation." Toss in the push for the 2010 Census to be run out of the White House, and it adds up to a real intrusion into private lives, with the goal of further expanding government's reach.
There is spirited opposition to the survey, ranging from libertarian bloggers to Rep. Ron Paul, who has called it "insulting." Yet civil-liberties groups are strangely quiet.
NARAL didn't respond to a request for comment and an American Civil Liberties Union spokeswoman said last week that she "couldn't find anyone to talk." But an organization fact sheet says the survey is not unconstitutional, adding that the Census "serves a vital role in our democracy . . . it determines apportionment for voting, as well as helps allocate other government benefits such as anti-poverty programs."
So, we shouldn't listen in on terrorists to save American lives -- but intrusions into your privacy to support causes the left likes are just fine.
The good news is that I called the help number on my form and a Census representative finally conceded that the government was unlikely to pursue punishment if I didn't respond, saying it would be "a waste of time and money."
Maybe that's enough to risk telling the government what to do with its survey. But if you do end up facing a harassing Census-taker -- well, don't count on the civil-liberties crowd for help.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
