Showing posts with label Free Speech. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Free Speech. Show all posts

Friday, August 10, 2012

Who produces the wealth of America?

Life, Liberty, & the Pursuit of Happiness

I found this opinion of one Ricky Poff to be very precise and straight to the point.  He outlines the position of who builds the wealth in this country that pays the taxes and helps people find jobs.  If it were not for the private sector's wealth, the government would not be able to coerce any taxes from citizens,  Obama is very much in favor of empowering the government at the expense of the private sector.

I am afraid that if we keep Obama in for one more term as President, government will become something of a lethal parasite devouring the wealth and energy of the private sector; which will have consequences on our national security, and economic viability throughout the 21st Century.


Monday, July 04, 2011

The Declaration of Independce

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connecte3d them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the cause's which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among,\ men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, then to right themselves by abloslig\shing the forms to which they are accustomed.  But when a long train of abuses and usurpation, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is  their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.  Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government.

The history of the present king of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states.  To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary of the public good.
He has forbidden his governnors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large district's of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has endeavored to present the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

He has made judges depedent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

Opinion: In the name of James Madison - Roger Hodge - POLITICO.com

Opinion: In the name of James Madison - Roger Hodge - POLITICO.com

It is high time that American liberals rediscovered the Founding Fathers. This suggestion may come as a surprise, because for many on the left, Madison and the other Founders are an embarrassment. Appeals to their authority are often dismissed as reactionary or inherently conservative. The republican principles of Madison and his great ally Thomas Jefferson usually receive little more than condescension or caricature — as an obsolete agrarianism at best, pro-slavery apologetics at worst.


- Sent using Google Toolbar

Tuesday, February 08, 2011

Hizb Ut-Tahrir

Hizb Ut-Tahrir: Shariah Takes Precedence over U.S. Constitution: Imam Promises to Fight "Until Islam Becomes Victorious or We Die in the Attempt" :: The Investigative Project on Terrorism

Oak Lawn, Illinois - Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT), the international movement to re-establish an international Islamic state ­ or Caliphate - kicked off a new campaign to win American recruits Sunday afternoon in this Chicago suburb. Nearly 300 people packed the Grand Ballroom of the Hilton Hotel for its Khalifah Conference on "The Fall of Capitalism and the Rise of Islam" to listen to HT ideologues blame capitalism for World War I and World War II; the U.S. subprime mortgage meltdown; the current violence in Iraq and Afghanistan; world poverty and malnutrition and inner-city drug use.

A speaker identified as Abu Atallah even blamed capitalism for the late singer Michael Jackson's decision "to shed his black skin." Hizb ut-Tahrir aims to restore the Caliphate that existed during the Ottoman Empire in Turkey. Turkish leader Kemal Ataturk abolished it in 1924 in an effort to create a secular, Europeanized state.


- Sent using Google Toolbar

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Renewed Push to Give Obama an Internet "Kill Switch" - Tech Talk - CBS News

Renewed Push to Give Obama an Internet "Kill Switch" - Tech Talk - CBS News: "A controversial bill handing President Obama power over privately owned computer systems during a 'national cyberemergency,' and prohibiting any review by the court system, will return this year.

Internet companies should not be alarmed by the legislation, first introduced last summer by Sens. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine), a Senate aide said last week. Lieberman, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, is chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

'We're not trying to mandate any requirements for the entire Internet, the entire Internet backbone,' said Brandon Milhorn, Republican staff director and counsel for the committee.

Instead, Milhorn said at a conference in Washington, D.C., the point of the proposal is to assert governmental control only over those 'crucial components that form our nation's critical infrastructure.'

Portions of the Lieberman-Collins bill, which was not uniformly well-received when it became public in June 2010, became even more restrictive when a Senate committee approved a modified version on December 15. The full Senate did not act on the measure.

The revised version includes new language saying that the federal government's designation of vital Internet or other computer systems 'shall not be subject to judicial review.' Another addition expanded the definition of critical infrastructure to include 'provider of information technology,' and a third authorized the submission of 'classified' reports on security vulnerabilities.

The idea of creating what some critics have called an Internet 'kill switch' that the president could flip in an emergency is not exactly new.

A draft Senate proposal that CNET obtained in August 2009 authorized the White House to 'declare a cybersecurity emergency,' and another from Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) would have explicitly given the government the power to 'order the disconnection' of certain networks or Web sites. House Democrats have taken a similar approach in their own proposals.

Lieberman, who recently announced he would not seek re-election in 2012, said last year that enactment of his bill needed to be a top congressional priority. 'For all of its 'user-friendly' allure, the Internet can also be a dangerous place with electronic pipelines that run directly into everything from our personal bank accounts to key infrastructure to government and industrial secrets,' he said.

Civil libertarians and some industry representatives have repeatedly raised concerns about the various proposals to give the executive branch such broad emergency power. On the other hand, as Lieberman and Collins have highlighted before, some companies, including Microsoft, Verizon, and EMC Corporation, have said positive things about the initial version of the bill.

But last month's rewrite that bans courts from reviewing executive branch decrees has given companies new reason to worry. 'Judicial review is our main concern,' said Steve DelBianco, director of the NetChoice coalition, which includes eBay, Oracle, Verisign, and Yahoo as members. 'A designation of critical information infrastructure brings with it huge obligations for upgrades and compliance.'

In some cases, DelBianco said, a company may have a 'good-faith disagreement' with the government's ruling and would want to seek court review. 'The country we're seeking to protect is a country that respects the right of any individual to have their day in court,' he said. 'Yet this bill would deny that day in court to the owner of infrastructure.'

- Sent using Google Toolbar"

Life, Liberty, & the Pursuit of Happiness

Advocate of Violence - WSJ.com

Advocate of Violence - WSJ.com: "In a unanimous unsigned opinion, the justices overturned Brandenburg's conviction: 'The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.'

- Sent using Google Toolbar"

Life, Liberty, & the Pursuit of Happiness

Thursday, January 20, 2011

Thou Shalt Not Offend Islam by Thierry Baudet - City Journal

Thou Shalt Not Offend Islam by Thierry Baudet - City Journal: "A firsthand account of the Dutch trial of Geert Wilders
19 January 2011

Last year, I attended the Dutch trial of the century: that of Geert Wilders, leader of the third-largest party in the Dutch parliament. Sparking the charges against Wilders were about 50 statements that he had made about Islam. Three of the most widely circulated, from newspaper columns that Wilders wrote, will give an idea of the rest: “The heart of the problem is the fascist nature of Islam, the sick ideology of Allah and Mohammed as laid down in the Islamic Mein Kampf: the Koran”; “We have a huge problem with Muslims which crosses boundaries in every field, and we come up with solutions that wouldn’t make a mouse go back into its cage”; and “Islam is a violent religion. If Mohammed were living here today, Parliament would instantly agree to chase him out of the country in disgrace.”

Wilders was charged under articles 137c and 137d of the Dutch penal code, which forbid group insult, hate speech, and incitement to discrimination. The trial was hugely controversial, partly because the articles—which were passed in the 1930s as an attempt to halt rising anti-Semitism—have rarely been invoked. Further, the fact that the leader of a powerful anti-establishment party was standing trial for his opinions inevitably cast a political shadow over the affair.

The trial dominated public debate in the Netherlands for months and captivated Europe as well. It will probably continue to do so for at least another year, because Wilders’s lawyers successfully appealed for a declaration that the judges in the Amsterdam District Court had appeared biased. The trial will now have to start all over again. What follows is an account based on my firsthand observations of this tawdry episode.

Wilders’s prosecution came about in a most unusual way. The public prosecutor, Paul Velleman, initially refused to prosecute him because, in his view, Wilders’s statements did not break the law. In refusing to press charges, Velleman acknowledged that Wilders’s statements “may have been insulting for Muslims,” but concluded that Wilders was not guilty of lawbreaking, since the statements were made “in the context of public debate.” Velleman added that Wilders didn’t incite hatred or call for discrimination, as his comments “concerned Islam the religion and not Muslims as human beings.” The relevant laws did not forbid merely criticizing a religion, he maintained.

But Gerard Spong, a prominent defense lawyer and critic of Wilders’s, appealed Velleman’s decision to the Court of Appeal, which, according to Dutch law, can order the prosecutor to prosecute anyway. On January 21, 2009, that’s just what it did. After stating that they “disagreed with the public prosecutor,” the court’s three judges concluded that Wilders’s statements were “punishable under Dutch law” and added that “in the past, others, including politicians, have been convicted for less.” (In an accompanying footnote, the court referred to only one case.) By ruling that Wilders “abuses the liberty of expression” and “incites discrimination and hatred against a group of people or a community of believers,” the Court of Appeal scandalously exceeded its authority. The presumption of innocence is, after all, one of the central principles of a fair trial. It is not up to the Court of Appeal to decide whether the accused is guilty, only to decide whether a prosecution is warranted. If Wilders is ever found guilty and chooses to appeal the verdict, he would have to appeal to a court that had pronounced his guilt before trial.

- Sent using Google Toolbar"

Life, Liberty, & the Pursuit of Happiness

Saturday, January 15, 2011

2011 Problems

China, Russia quit dollar:

What PROBLEM(s) will Barack Obama SOLVE in 2011?
  • Airport security (TSA)
  • Afghanistan 
  • Unemployment
  • Iran 
  • North Korea 
  • Inflation / Deflation (which?)
  • Economic growth
  • Terrorism
  • "Too big to fail"
  • Union Pensions
  • Stability of American Dollar ($)
  • Federal deficit
  • Federal debt
  • Federal spending
  • Federal taxes
  • Health Care
  • Consumer confidence
  • Energy  independence
  • Over-Regulation of American Business
  • Balance of trade with China
  • Prosecution of Terrorists

- Sent using Google Toolbar"

Life, Liberty, & the Pursuit of Happiness

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Talk radio under siege - On Media - POLITICO.com

Talk radio under siege - On Media - POLITICO.com:



As ... reported on the main site today, conservative media figures’ fears that the left will use Tucson to clamp down on them are not entirely unfounded.

Rep. Jim Clyburn wants to bring back the Fairness Doctrine – a move aimed directly at talk radio – while Media Matters CEO David Brock asked Rupert Murdoch to rein in or possibly even fire Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin.

It’s hard not to read today’s news that Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee plans to ban state employees from appearing on talk radio during work hours within the same frame, though Ben Smith points out that likely has more to do with local beef than the current national debate about 'tone.'

- Sent using Google Toolbar"

Life, Liberty, & the Pursuit of Happiness

The Bill of Rights - Amendment II

A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Friday, January 07, 2011

» Why The Economy Won’t Come Back For Obama - Big Government

» Why The Economy Won’t Come Back For Obama - Big Government: "The Media is aflutter these days about the imminent return of the economy. Of course, it marks a stark contrast to the manner in which they covered the Bush economy. In the months leading up to the 2008 election, the Media was talking the economy down. Now they are attempting to talk it up. No amount of Media optimism, however, will change some basic dynamics which will keep the economy in its weakened state or worse for years to come. As you go through these reasons, keep in mind that consumer spending makes up, and has for years, approximately 70% of the US economy.

- Sent using Google Toolbar"

Life, Liberty, & the Pursuit of Happiness

Tuesday, January 04, 2011

Importance of Issues - Rasmussen Reports™

Importance of Issues - Rasmussen Reports™: "With a new Congress scheduled to swing into action this week, the number of voters who rate the economy as a Very Important issue has reached its highest level since early August 2008.

A new national telephone survey finds that 87% of Likely U.S. Voters view the economy this way, well above the importance they place on any other issue on a list of 10 regularly tracked by Rasmussen Reports. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

The new finding is up five points from 82% in late October and has consistently been the issue voters place the highest level of importance on since regular tracking began several years ago.

Republicans will have majority control of the House in the new session of Congress, and voters continue to trust the GOP more than Democrats on the issue of the economy as they have since June of last year.

Voters trust Republicans more on seven of 10 issues, with the two breaking even on the issue of health care which earns the second highest level of concern: 71% of voters describe it as a Very Important issue.

Separate polling finds that voters still strongly support repeal of the national health care law passed by Democrats last March, to update and in mid-December, a majority of voters for the first time since March said they believe the law will be repealed by the new Congress.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.

The survey of 1,000 Likely U.S. Voters was conducted on December 29-30, 2010 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

Sixty-seven percent (67%) of voters now view government ethics and corruption as Very Important. For years, this issue fell just behind the economy, but since July it has taken the number three spot in terms of the level of importance voters attach to it.

Sixty-five percent (65%) regard taxes as Very Important, showing little change since early March 2009.

Voters give nearly as much weight to the issue of Social Security, which is seen as Very Important by 64%. This finding has shown little fluctuation for years now.

Americans are receptive to a proposal by President Obama’s bipartisan deficit reduction commission to increase the level of income taxable for Social Security, but most don’t like the idea of raising the retirement age.

Sixty-one percent (61%) of voters rate education as a Very Important issue, the lowest finding since early April.

Showing no change from the previous survey, 57% classify immigration as Very Important. Early last May, this issue jumped in terms of voter importance as the debate over Arizona’s immigration law began heating up.

Despite voter pessimism about the war on terror and the war in Afghanistan, just 54% of voters view the issue of national security and the war on terror as Very Important, the lowest level measured in months.

- Sent using Google Toolbar"

Life, Liberty, & the Pursuit of Happiness

Monday, January 03, 2011

Bombing opens vein of Christian anger in Egypt

Bombing opens vein of Christian anger in Egypt: "CAIRO -- The New Year's Day suicide bombing of a church that killed 21 people has opened up a vein of fury among Egypt's Christians, built up over years of what they call government failure to address persistent discrimination and violence against their community.

Christian protests spread to Cairo from the northern city of Alexandria where the attack took place. Late Sunday, riots erupted outside the cathedral-headquarters of the Coptic Church after the country's top Muslim religious figures and government officials met with Pope Shenouda III.

- Sent using Google Toolbar"

Life, Liberty, & the Pursuit of Happiness

Wednesday, December 29, 2010

Where are the jobs? For many companies, overseas

Where are the jobs? For many companies, overseas: "Corporate profits are up. Stock prices are up. So why isn't anyone hiring?

Actually, many American companies are—just maybe not in your town. They're hiring overseas, where sales are surging and the pipeline of orders is fat.

More than half of the 15,000 people that Caterpillar Inc. has hired this year were outside the U.S. UPS is also hiring at a faster clip overseas. For both companies, sales in international markets are growing at least twice as fast as domestically.

The trend helps explain why unemployment remains high in the United States, edging up to 9.8 percent last month, even though companies are performing well: All but 4 percent of the top 500 U.S. corporations reported profits this year, and the stock market is close to its highest point since the 2008 financial meltdown.

But the jobs are going elsewhere. The Economic Policy Institute, a Washington think tank, says American companies have created 1.4 million jobs overseas this year, compared with less than 1 million in the U.S. The additional 1.4 million jobs would have lowered the U.S. unemployment rate to 8.9 percent, says Robert Scott, the institute's senior international economist.

'There's a huge difference between what is good for American companies versus what is good for the American economy,' says Scott.

- Sent using Google Toolbar"

Life, Liberty, & the Pursuit of Happiness

White House Plans to Push Global Warming Policy, GOP Vows Fight - FoxNews.com

White House Plans to Push Global Warming Policy, GOP Vows Fight - FoxNews.com: "HONOLULU, Hawaii -- After failing to get climate-change legislation through Congress, the Obama administration plans on pushing through its environmental policies through other means, and Republicans are ready to put up a fight.

On Jan. 2, new carbon emissions limits will be put forward as the Environmental Protection Agency prepares regulations that would force companies to get permits to release greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.

Critics say the new rules are a backdoor effort to enact the president's agenda on global warming without the support of Congress, and would hurt the economy and put jobs in jeopardy by forcing companies to pay for expensive new equipment.

'They are job killers. Regulations, period -- any kind of regulation is a weight on economy. It requires people to comply with the law, which takes work hours and time, which reduces the profitability of firms. Therefore, they grow more slowly and you create less jobs,' said environmental scientist Ken Green of the conservative American Enterprise Institute.

- Sent using Google Toolbar"

Life, Liberty, & the Pursuit of Happiness