"Sam's "Politically Incorrect" Pages for the Laissez-Faire Republic and Against

Time 2021-05-08 10:16:04

Web Name: "Sam's "Politically Incorrect" Pages for the Laissez-Faire Republic and Against

WebSite: http://laissez-fairerepublic.com

ID:175138

Keywords:

for,the,Laissez,Laissez,laissez-faire,LAISSEZFAIRE,Republic,Right-Wing,Individua

Description:

This webpage is dedicated tothe principles of individual human rights, private property, free marketsand limited constitutional government. Please allow several seconds forthe web page to be fully displayed. For many years I have been hoping and dreamingof a true American Backlash (http://www.americanbacklash.com/) againstthe Liberal-Left miasma into which the U.S. has been sinking. Enough isenough! November 8 was at least a partial realization of that hope andI am extremely happy about it. It was certainly a repudiation of HillaryClinton, Obamacare, the past eight years of liberal-left policies, themess that Obama and Clinton made in the Middle East and in foreign policygenerally, and the bigotry of the pro-Democrat news media -- as well asthe legacy of scandal and criminal activity of the Clintons. My concern now is: how lasting is this revolution?Can it be reversed? How stable are the victories in Ohio, Pennsylvania,North Carolina, and Florida? Will further immigration/invasion by New Yorkersinto North Carolina and Florida threaten to turn those states to "blue"forever? What about the political education of the millennials? How durable is this American backlash? And, of course, the exact nature of the alternativeresponse to the past several decades of the Liberal Establishment rulingclass will depend on President Trump and what his administration does.I would be much more comfortable and hopeful if this were a President TedCruz, whose ideological inclinations are known and much closer to mine.What can we expect from President Trump? Will President Trump be able tokeep his campaign promises? Will the border be secured? Will the in-placemachinery of statism be dismantled, at least in part? With a Republicanmajority in the House and a very slim majority in the Senate, this newpresident has more opportunity than any in a long time to actually gethis reforms passed. Will the Republicans be able to keep those majoritiesin future elections? Will the new president wimp out and negotiate awaythe victory and mandate of November 8? Given the anti-Trump/anti-reform negativity of themedia, academia, and the Democrat Party leadership, which will seek everyopportunity to sabotage Trump's reforms, a lot of positive, encouragingpressures from the grass-roots public will be needed to keep the new administrationon track and to counteract the beltway propaganda. The propaganda war will become more intense thanever before. Ain't no hate like liberal-left hate. It is pure emotion undilutedby logic or reason. The media will give communists like Van Jones and professionallyengineered demonstrations free coverage while putting pro-Trump news onback pages or ignored completely. New conservative, constitutionalist TVand Internet networks must be developed to answer the lies and half truthsof the Establishment Media. We do not know the future, but our chances of achievingless statism are far better with a President Trump than a President Clinton.The hope is great. Analysis ofthe 2016 voting in terms of demographics shows that Trump generally improvedon Romney's showing from 2012. Before November 8, the media told us thatwomen would generally hate Trump and not vote his way, and this seemedlogical because of his remarks on an open microphone from eleven yearsago (when he was still a Democrat). It turns out that he still got at least42 percent of women. We were also told that Latinos would not vote forhim, but he did better than Romney with Latinos in 2012. We were told thatif he did get elected that the stock market would crash. Not only has thisnot happened, but just the reverse -- it jumped up. The expectations andlies of the liberal establishment media did not pan out and many Democratstoeay arte still in cognitive dissonance because of the jarring contrastbetween their ideological template and the real world. Too many on theLeft believe their own propaganda. The media has so demonized Trump duringthe general election campaign that some naive college students think hehas horns and a forked tail. As usual, since they do not have substantivearguments on policy, the Democrats resort to claims of "racism" and bigotryor smear tactics. The depth of denial among out-of-touch Democrats abouttheir stunning defeat is breathtaking. What about Obama's "jobapproval rating"? What does it really mean? The election resultsseem to contradict it. Obamacare (the so-called Affordable Care Act)and Obama regime policies in general were clearly repudiated on November8. The job approval rating is the result of polling, the same typeof polling that proved so wrong about the presiential election. Theconcern about being considered "racist" may have caused poll respondentsto mislead the poll takers by giving a more positive response. Whenspecific individual policies afre asked about, the results were very different. The smackdown of theliberal establishment on November 8 has revealed many assumptions to bea phony "Potemkin village" of false ideological expectatons. Outside oftheir echo-chamber bubbles in areas like San Francisco, New York, Massachusetts,and Oregon, the U.S. of A. is pretty solidly against Obamaism, liberalism,leftism, and anti-Americanism in general. The liberal-left matrix has beenexposed to all as a web of lies and fallacies which are increasingly rejectedby the American People. Probably if the GOP had run a decent positivelyconservative candidate in 2008, Obama would never have been President. Leftists ingeneral want to impose their own whims as a central plan on everyone elseby the force of big government . This is the essence of socialism. Theythink that government bureaucrats somehow know so much better how to runour lives and so they should run everybody's lives and spend everybody'searnings for them. It is called tyranny. By contrast, constitutionalistsand conservatives want the government for the most part to get out of theway of peaceful people and allow them to pursue their own plans, spendtheir own earnings, and run their own lives as long as they don't use violenceor fraud. This is the clear distinction politically that must be made tothe American people and between which they must ultimately choose.THE CAUSE AND CUREOF MONOPOLISTICCONSPIRACIESby Sam Wells Special-interestgroups and power elites are inevitable as long as the political state canuse its power to tke from peaceful citizens and give to others for any reason.As long as people continue to sanction interventionism/socialismas a legitimate means to obtain any goal for any reason (noble orevil), there always will be vested-interest groups and lobbies clusteringaround Congress and the regulatory agencies competing for favorsfrom the public trough at the expense of everybody else. Only when themachinery of interventionism and socialism (the ultimate in politicalinterventionism) has been dismantled, and the false ideas, myths, fallacies,and lies behind interventionism/socialism are discredited and abandoned,can the final cure for all monopolistic conspiracies be realized. The ultimate solutionis not more controls and regulations from government, but toimpose on government a policy of "hands off" the private property, money,and all voluntary activities of production and exchange among peacefulcitizens. Controls and regulations belong on government, not onpeaceful citizens. With the government thus constitutionally limitedto dealing with violence and the threat of violence (broadly, crime andexternal threats), while leaving peaceful adult citizens alone as muchas possible, America could be assured a bright future of freedom andprogress through market capitalism. How to "bell the cat"of government to its legit functions? The U.S. founders were on theright track. Constitutional limits on the SCOPE of government, backedup by a strong desire by a sufficient number of people to keep governmentin its proper place -- that's the ultimate solution in the longrun. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance on the part of enough peopleand their leaders to keep government in its proper place. Not toblindly trust government officials but to bind them down from mischiefand tyranny with the chains of the Constitution.TRADE DEALS VERSUS FREEDOMOF TRADE During some of the debatesMr. Trump, Sen. Rubio, and others used such terms as "tradedeficit" or "trade surplus" as if those terms meant something relevantto the economy. There is no such thing as a "trade deficit" or "tradesurplus" outside of highly artificial and arbitrary assumptions.The terms deficit and surplus are legitimate accounting terms which refer tobudgets and reflect the balance one way or another. Theydo not refer to exchange, either national or personal. One does not incura "deficit" when goes to a grocery store and buys a loaf of bread.Yes, the bread can be said to be "imported" to the buyer, but aftrer all thesupermarket imported the dollar as the price for it. The exchange automatically"balances"; otherwise it would not take place. The terms "trade deficit"and "trade surplus" are just warmed-over mercantilist fallaciesrefuted in the 18th century by Adam Smith and others and by FredericBastiat in the 19th century. Yet, the fallacies still hang on even into the21st century. If foreign governmentswant to subsidize the American economy by giving U.S. consumerslower prices, I say let them do so. It is true this is at the forced expenseof the foreign governments' taxpayers and thus harms their own economyby reducing effective demand and/or aggregate savings,but it is the U.S. economy I am most concerned about after all, andI have no power at all over foreign governments' taxation policies.Some call such practices "cheating" and object to them because they areseen as threats to those U.S.-based businesses which produce similarproducts, but no matter how deserving these are of sympathy they areonly small special interests and do not represent the economy as a whole.Policies should be judged on how they affect the whole U.S. economy,not just a part of it. Of course I realize that in Washington, D.C. justbecause a legislative package is labeled "free trade" does not necessarilymean it has anything to do with true freedom of trade, especiallyif its contents are kept secret. I don't trust politicians in generaland especially don't trust Obama and the Obamacrats to negotiatepolitical trade deals for special-interest corporations.Unless there is some real national security issue involved, governments shouldnot block or impede trade -- nor should the government artificiallystimulate U.S. exports with subsidies from the taxpayers. Such federalgovernment entities as the Export-Import Bank and the Commodity CreditCorporation should be abolished.WHY THE OPEC OLIGOPOLYIS DEADSam Wells2015 Doespredatory price cutting work to lead to monopoly and monopoly profits in a marketfree of government intervention? No. Here's why, and why I don't believewe will see $100 per barel oil again. In a free market ofvoluntary relations a person serves himself only by serving the wants ofothers. He cannot receive what he wants from others unless he produces(or already has from inheritance or gift) something they wantand are willing to exchange for. Under such circumstances, howwould a businesman acquire an exploitative monopoly in the absenceof government favoritism or interventikon?? What if a large, richcompany kept out its competitors by undercutting prices -- selling ata loss -- to such an extent that its competitors could no longer stay in business?Would it not then be a monopoly in its field, and then begin to chargehigh monopoly prices in order to recupe its loses? Coulda company lower the price of its product below cost to drive out its competitors,and then later raise its price well above the old competitive marketprice to make up for its losses? By cutting the priceorf its product below what it costs to produce it, that company is taking aloss, not making a profit, at least in the meantime. Furthermore, the largerthe share of the market that the company gains by this tactic, thedeeper are its losses. Not only is it not making any profit, which is thewhole purpose of getting a monopoly in the first place, it is sustaininglosses. Not very exploitative so far. From the consumer's point ofview, this is a bargain. The consumer doesn't have to pay as much as hedid before. He has money left over. It is true the companymay now be a "monopoly" since it has driven out its competitors (ormore accurately, the consumers have driven out his competitors by buyingfrom the price-cutting company and not the others), but so what?It may be the only seller in its market but consider what it hadto do to get that way, namely sustain large losses. It may have the satisfactionof seeing its competitors driven out of business by its "predatory"price-cutting tactic, but it does not gain any monopoly profits asa result. It is sustaining losses and in the process giving the customersan excellent sale on that product which they will take advantage of bypossibly stocking up on that product at its cheap price. What about the firmsthat went our of business? They can go into another field of productionor temporarily shut down to re-open later when the monopoly companyraises its prices to try to recupe its losses. Or theymight buy up the cheap product of the dominant firm for their own inventoriesto sell later when the monopoly company has had its fill of lossesand tries to raise its price above a competitive level. The mere possibilityof companies re-entering that field of production to make money would oftenbe enough to keep the price down below exploitative levels.The freer the capital markets, the more likelihood of companies, either newor former producers, going back into competition with the monopoly companywhen it tries to raise its price too high. As soon as it tried toraise its price above the market level -- which it would have to do if it wantedto recupe the losses it sustained from its below-cost pricing-- it would inevitably invite competition from many other firms who couldproduct the same product at a lowr price and still make money. Thecompetition for market share would tend to bring the prevailing price downto market levels and thwart high monopoly pricing. Also, the firms temporarilydriven out by the price cutting could go to the dominant firm's customers-- who are presumably now facing the possibility of beingovercharged later on -- and obtain a contract to supply their needsat a more competitive price, thus undercutting and thwarting any threatof monopoly pricing. These companies have the advantage that theydon't have the losses to recupe that the would-be monopoly firm has sustained. No firm can continuea policy of selling at a loss indefinitely. Its investors will pullout. Even if it is a very wealthy company, if it doesn't concern itself withrecuping those losses it will be defeating its original prupose in gettinga monopoly in the first place: which is to get even richer. On afree market a monopoly is an expensive rarity. It is very difficult if not impossibleto achieve and has a very short life if it exists at all. Leftists and monopolistsgenerally denounce "destructive competition" in the market.Destructive competition is just a label that a firm uses when another firm isselling the product at a lower price and thus giving the customers a betterdeal. Price "wars" are always to the benefit of the consumers.Price wars are not really wars at all. A "price war" is just companies tryingto outdo one another in offering products at lower prices or better quality.No one is killed or wounded. The companies are not competing todestroy. They are competing to produce and offer a better deal to consumers.There is no coercion or violence involved. People are free toaccept an offer or not. But some anti-freedommentalities complain that "cut-throat competition" (in whichno ones throat is cut) can be excessive and they call for governmentintervention on behalf of a company through so-called "fair trade"laws or government-mandated price floors. At the same time governmentuses the alleged lack of sufficient competition to justify anti-trustlegislation. If they don't get you for "too much" competiton (price toolow) or "too little" competion (price too high or not low enough), they canget you for "collusion" if your prices are the same as the other firms.You can't win. Once government is permitted to interfere in the voluntaryrelations of peaceful people. there is no end to the pernicious consequencesthat will result. Newly applied methodsof oil and gas extraction in the United States have now made the U.S.A.one of the main oil producing countries in the world. Oil'sprice has plummeted from over $100 a barel to less than $50. TheSaudis have kept their production up at previous levels in the hope of drivingthe U.S. firms out of business by keeping prices too low for them tostay in business. The Saudis have little choice. If they try to raise oilprices back to $100 a barel, the U.S. fracking firms will go back into productionand keep supply up and undercut any attempt by the Saudisto hike oil prices up high. If the Saudis reduce their output, othermajor oil-producing countries will supply the difference and theworld price of oil will be kept low. OPEC is impotent. Unless government intervenes,I doubt we will see $100 per barel oil again, at least notfor any length of time, as it would invite the U.S. companies back intoproduction. OPEC cannot keep competition out permanently.* *Hope and Tragedyby Sam WellsMarch 2009 revisitedIn the past, the hope of the world has been based on two things: Market capitalism andU.S. military strength. It was capitalism (to the extent it was allowedto exist) that rescued hundreds of millions of children from shortmiserable lives and death by starvation. It was capitalism that broughtEngland and America out of pre-industrial squalor to advancedeconomic status with improvements in life for the majority of people.It was U.S. military strength that liberated the world from Hitler's nationalsocialism and Tojo's imperialist Japan, rescued millions from slavelabor and death camps, helped South Korea to remain free from communistinvasion from the north, and it was U.S. strength (especiallywhen Reagan was President) that at least pushed back the advance ofcommunist imperialism and helped to quicken the fall of the BerlinWall and the independence of countries once under Soviet control. Itwas U.S. military capability that dragged the brutal dictator Saddam Husseinoff the backs of the people of Iraq. People around the world atleast began to hope that more freedom and economic opportunitieswould be possible.Unfortunately, what is left of true market capitalism in America has been undercut by manydecades of government regulations, controls, monetary manipulations,taxation, and various socialistic programs. America has been coastingon the momentum from its past more-free days when it was closerto being a pure capitalist economy. The heavy burden of socialismis catching up to us now. The new president, Barack Obama, is doinghis best to destroy what is left of market capitalism in Americaand will likely destroy the U.S. dollar completely in the next few years.This will mean economic disaster for the people of the world as well asAmericans here at home.Meanwhile, President Obama is reducing spending on military defense and is pursuinga foreign policy that kisses up to tyrants and in effect tells oppressedpeople to go to Hell -- that he will do nothing to help them while hepals around with socialist thugs and bows to fascist dictators. If America'sstrength is allowed to wane significantly, this will certainly encouragea resurgence of both communist imperialism and jihadist terrorismaround the world. I predict terrible times ahead for the people of the worldas a result of these policies. And Americans will be increasingly targetedby their envious enemies. I wish I could be more optimistic. The worldwill be a much less safe place now that the U.S. has a socialist cultleader as President.Despite all the socialistic programs and interventions that have been piled on top ofthe U.S. economy over the past several decades, it is surprising thatit is still within the top ten most economically free countries. Sadly, withthe Obamacrats now in full control of the economy, I predictthat the United States will fall below the top ten most free countries in thenext year or two.I do not think it is a coincidence that at least 7 out of the top 10 most economically freenations were British colonies at one time or another: Hong Kong,Singapore, Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, United States, Canada,Denmark, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom itself. (See the currentIndex of Economic Freedom). Where there is capitalism there ishope and progress.It is also no coincidence that the main troublemaker regimes in the world today are amongthose countries with the least amount of economic freedoms (seenear bottom of list), including mainland China, Russia, Syria, Iran,Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea.It is a shame that instead of the U.S. and U.K. becoming more free and less socialistic,we seem to be following the failed policies of the loser countries nowunder full socialism. At least that is what the election of Obama andthe Democrats portends here in the United States.Increasing the top marginal tax rates on income (the rich folks) does not really hurtthe wealthy people, but makes less capital available for funding businessstarts and economic growth and results in fewer jobs and fewer economicopportunities for regular people like myself who are just strugglingto pay bills. Yet, the Obamacrats continue to use the "soak-the-rich"mantra to fool their gullible followers. As an American, I apologizeto the people of the world for the election of Barack Obama and forthe current backward regime. It's high time for a pro-capitalist, pro-Americanbacklash but no one knows when that will come.DECEMBER 5, 2013KEEPING THE IDEAL IN MIND AS AN ACHIEVABLEGOAL FOR THE FUTURE Marketsrequire the existence of government for them to operate, but let's not blur thedistinction between proper government functions and improper governmentactivities as there is a clear line of demarcation. Markets presupposeprivate ownership and well-defined and government-protectedprivate property boundaries, not just in land but in all ownable things.To own something is to have exclusive right of control over it.A proper function of government is to protect peoples' property rights fromviolation. There are laws against theft, murder (theft of life), trespass,burglary, shoplifting, embezzlement, etc. which make it a crime to use violenceor fraud to violate the exclusive right of control over person and property. It is a very different(and indeed opposite) thing for government to contradict that properfunction of protecting private property rights by itself violating themwhich it does when it seeks to redistribute wealth or "organize" societyor meddle in the private affairs or market (i.e., voluntary) relationshipsof peaceful citizens. The Laissez-Faire Republicwould limit the scope of government to its legitimate functionswhile socialism (the opposite of laissez faire) seeks to institutionalizethe annihilation of private property always and everywhere. Inreal-world practice socialism amounts to a monopoly clique acting throughpositive government intervention to control all major industries andresources. As Gary Allen said, socialism is the royal road to monopolypower for the super wealthy.NOVEMBER 25, 2013 CONSTITUTIONALREPUBLIC VERSUS WHIMARCHY The Principleof Individual Rights Versus Arbitrary Whim Left-wingactivists are now in control of the government and these arrogant control freakspretend that they know so much better than everyone else how torun our lives for us and spend our earnings for us. But if we are not smartenough or competent enough to run our own lives and spend ourown earnings, how can we be smart enough or competent enough tochoose the politicians and bureaucrats who will do all those things forus? And why would somebody else's vote to do so bind the rest of uswho do not choose to delegate those freedoms? The statists hastilypushed through their so-called Affordable Health Care Act without evenreading it. Have they thought their scheme through very well?Apparently not, judging from the on-going failures of implementation. Notbeing content to try to persuade us to part with our liberties, Obama andhis gang are simply imposing their momentary whims on the rest ofus through the full force of political government. Government by whim istyranny. Our founders knew this. That is why they opposed whimarchyby binding government officials down with the chains of the Constitution,which sets forth the basic rules and limitations on thescope of the federal government. Government isNOT instituted to do anything anybody's whim happens to dictate. The legitimatefunctions of government are limited to the proper uses of violenceforce -- national military defense against foreign threats, law courtsfor the ultimate settlement of disputes, and the police power to defend againstand justly retaliate against crime. The role of government does notextend to those activities and areas of human life which by their naturedo not and should not involve the use of violent force. It is not theproper function of government to provide health insurance, medicalcare, dentistry, public education, electric power, retirement income,school lunches, housing, community development, day care, etc. Ignoring the limitsplaced on the scope of government spelled out in the Constitution hasbrought America to its current sorry state under the present corrupt regime.The Ninth and Tenth amendments -- which forbid fedgov fromgetting involved in areas not specified in the body of the Constitution itself-- are routinely ignored as if they had been repealed. And the morethe political schemes fail, the more the schemers scheme upmore schemes to impose. The Constitutionis just words after all. The ultimate price of liberty is eternal vigilance onthe part of enough people to keep government in its proper place. I forone would like to believe we still have enough people who understand thatthe scope of government must be limited to prevent tyranny andto preserve liberty. Isn't it time for a new American Revolution to takeback our country?NOVEMBER 22, 2013FALSE CONSPIRACY THEORIESFOR POPULAR ANDINDIVIDUAL MANIPULATIONThe climate of left-winghate speech is hotter than ever.There are political conspiracies of course, but for every genuine instance conspiracythere are scores if not hundreds or false conspiracy conjectures whichcirculate among the populace and are accepted by some people as absolutefact. Unraveling all the phony plots and setting history straight wouldbe a full-time job and would take years of research and publication ofbooks and articles by an organization of professional historians who did nothave an ideological ax to grind. Justtaking the murder of JFK in 1963 as one historic example, there are severalconspiracy theories which purport to explain what "really" happened.There is the one that claims that President Kennedy was going totell the public about what our government knows about extraterrestrial aliens,and that he had to be killed to prevent that horrible scenario to avoid publicpanic, according to that claim. There is no real substance to that theory.There is also the claim that JFK wanted to stop the War in Vietnam andwithdraw some or all troops and bring them home, and that he wrote a memoindicating that. But in the real world no such memo ever existed outsideof the Olive Stone propaganda movie JFK. There was never any realindication that President Kennedy was just about to end the war in supportof South Vietnam against the invading communists, despite what manynow believe as a result of Stone's fictional movie. Then there is conspiracytheory which claims that JFK wanted to stop borrowing from the FederalReserve System and instead have the U.S. Treasury print its own papercurrency. Again, there is no real evidence that JFK wanted to do anythinglike that on any large enough scale -- or that "the powers that be" wouldhave him taken out for doing so. But those who believe in one of aboveconspiratorial tales are not likely to change their minds by the lack of evidence. Iwould further point out that the same claim has long been made about AbrahamLincoln's assassination -- the notion that President Lincoln was killedat the behest of powerful banking interests because Lincoln had signedthe greenback legislation instead of borrowing from the bankers to payfor the war against the Confederacy. Not only is there no evidence allfor this belief, but the greenback legislation itself was largely written abanker from Albany (then a major banking center) and one could much moreeasily argue that bankers had more of a vested interest in the greenbacksas they would serve as additional reserves against which the bankscould inflate in their fractional-reserve demand deposit system. Theycould make much more money that way than they had done under thepartial gold standard which had limited the extent of their inflation. Lincolnwas not "money martyred" at all. He was assassinated by a fervent supporterof state sovereignty and secession, someone who perceived Lincolnas a traitor to American freedom and true federalism. Left-wingideologues and professional prevaricators from Mark Lane and FletcherProuty to Oliver Stone and Michael Moore have always put out whateverspin they consider helpful in distracting people from the truth or inmuddying the waters enough to confuse the public about who really did whatto whom. Most of the widespread JFK murder stories have one thing atleast in common: they all seek to distract the public away from the history,personality, and motivations of Lee Harvey Oswald -- either to claimhe was not acting alone or to exonerate him altogether as merely apatsy who had nothing to do with anything. The latest line from the left-wingestablishment is that LBJ was behind the assassination. Again,anything to distract the public from understanding that a U.S. Presidentwas murdered by a Far Left zealot. Thepoint is that some of these conspiracy theories or political spins -- as wrong-headedas they may be -- are nonetheless taken as Gospel by somepeople -- propaganda being as effective as it is -- and that includes individualswho are mentally or psychologically unhinged or unbalanced. Andsometimes some of these persons act on their false beliefs. A key aspectof paranoia and schizophrenia involves losing perspective by taking factstotally out of context, disengaging from reality, or perceiving "facts" relationshipsthat are not true or do not exist at all. Basedon his reading of various left-leaning internet sites, self-styled "liberal"Steve Kangas believed that businessman Richard Mellon Scaife wasthe center of a great "right-wing conspiracy" and that he was evil. beliefmotivated him to try unsuccessfully to murder Richard Mellon Scaife. JaredLoughner, a troubled individual who believed in various left-wing conspiracytheories, hated Congresswoman Giffords because it became increasinglyclear she was not left wing enough for him. She had greatly disappointedhim when she sided with the conservative Republicans and stayedand even participated in the reading of the U.S. Constitution when almostall other Democrats had rudely walked out. There ain't no hate like left-winghate. Thisphotograph taken by Oswald's wife in their back yard shows Oswald holdingup the gun that was later used in shooting President Kennedy. Alongwith the gun, the photograph shows Oswald proudly holding up two Marxistnewspapers, The Militant and The Worker. The picture was taken afterhe tried to assassinate Gen. Edwin Walker, an outspoken anticommunist. LeeHarvey Oswald's supposed fondness for President John Kennedy turnedto anger and hate when he was convinced by the Marxist literature heread avidly that Kennedy had tried to unseat and even assassinate his communistidol Fidel Castro in Cuba. In his attempted assassination of GeneralWalker and his murder of JFK, Oswald saw himself as a Marxisthero. He had motive as well as opportunity in Dallas in November of1963. Of course I am under no illusion that people will notcontinue to believewhat they already believe about the Kennedy assassination, and thatmany Americans will always be confused and uncertain about communistLee Oswald's role in that event. Theprogramming of individuals by propaganda sets them up to do things theywould not do otherwise. Considering the barrage of inflammatory left-winghate speech and slanderous rhetoric against such outspoken patriotsas Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sarah Palin, and others, might yetanother militant leftist emerge to try to do harm to peaceful American citizens?How many potential Loughners or Oswalds are out there waiting tobe triggered into acts of evil? Oneshould always ask, "Who benefits?" Will the result be less governmentinterference with the freedoms of peaceful adult citizens -- or moregovernment control over us all? Will it advance a freedom/constitutionalistagenda or a socialist/tyrannical world view? Also,another question to ask is: who will be next? Will some left-wing kooktry to murder Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Ted Cruz, or some other pro-freedomadvocate? I only hope people will be on their guard against a newwave of left-wing violence.* *SOAKING THE RICH? Outsideof direct confiscation of existing wealth, there is not much the governmentcan do to really hurt the rich. Hiking the income tax a few pointson high earners won't make much difference to their lifestyle. Theyare already rich. The people hurt by "soaking the rich" are the rest of uswhose jobs and living standards depend on private savings and investmentand more capital accumulation to pay for new and expanded businesses.With less money saved or invested in new tools and machinesand wages, fewer job opportunities are the consequence. Targetingthe rich on the basis of "fairness" does little or nothing to improvethe lives of low-income or middle-income families. What it does tendto do is to make it more difficult for low-income or middle-income peopleto rise to the high-income level, as income taxes are on current incomesand do not affect already-acquired wealth of those already on top. Behindthe socialistic idea of "soaking the rich" is the false notion that richpeople got that way by somehow taking advantage of the poor. The neuroticurge to "redistribute the wealth" comes from false ideas of wherewealth comes from and the notion that all wealth is static, so that if someonehas more than others then it must have come from those others.The exploitation theories of Marx and Rodbertus and others have beenthoroughly refuted by von Boehm-Bawerk, von Mises, Thomas Sowell,George Reisman, and other competent economists. What remainstoday is the moribund, dishonest religion of the Left still being pushedby the momentum of the emotions generated by those past fallacies.The Left's stale, counterproductive nostrums are dying a slow death.The control freaks will no longer be able to hide their lust for powerbehind the pretense of helping the common man. In the meantime,will they take the rest of us down with them? * *Proposalfor a Bill of Rights for the United StatesConstitutionalRepublicI. Fundamental Individual Rights in Person, Liberty, PropertyII. Freedom of Production and Voluntary ExchangeIII. Freedom in Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, and PetitionIV. Freedom in the Keeping and Bearing of FirearmsV. Personal Freedom and Responsibility in the Ingestion ChemicalSubstancesVI. Freedom in EducationVII. Freedom in Money and Banking VIII.Freedom in Personal AssociationsIX. Limitations on the Means of Financing the GovernmentX. Prohibition Against Unwarranted Searches and SeizuresXI. Standards and Procedures to Protect the Criminally AccusedXII. Retained Rights and Reserved PowersFullText* *Guy Fawkes Masks and OccupayWall Street It isinteresting that a mask representing the face of Guy Fawkes, the mostnotorious of the infamous would-be bombers of Parliament and the Britishgovernment of 1605, is seized upon by some of the Occupy WallStreet leftists as some kind of badge of protest. If Fawkes and his zealouscronies had been successful and had had their way and did manageto blow up the legislative, judicial, and executive officials of government(since they were all there on that day), the result would havebeen far more statism, far more tyranny, not less, as these radical Catholicsplanned to have the King of Spain over and impose the SpanishInquisitin and his own religious faith on all, as Bloody Mary Tudorhad tried to do. By contrast, the relatively moderate policies of JamesI helped set the stage for development of protolibertarian thought duringthat century and ultimately helped to make possible the Glorious Revolutionof 1688. If one is a genuine libertarian one would assiduouslyeschew the gunpowder plot of 1605 and celebrate its foiling by burningFawkes's image on November 5.* * * OBAMA'SPOLICIES DISCREDITED Ideally,the proper function of government, essentially, is NOT to govern peacefulpeople in their private lives or voluntary exchanges. It is limited togoverning criminals -- those convicted of violating the rights of peacefulpeople. It is not to set prices, regulate what vitamins we may take, establishracial quotas, manage healthcare, or redistribute wealth among non-criminals.If Obama's true goal was to help the economy recover, his policies of massivefederal spending and indebtedness have failed. This administration hasspent more than all previous administrations combined. Yet, they have destroyedfar more jobs than they have created. Trying to "stimulate" the economyback to health through government spending is like trying to gain nourishmentby drinking your own blood! The government cannot put back into the economymore than what it takes out of it -- and given the huge overhaed and wasteinvolved in government programs -- on net it puts back in less than ittakes away while artificially stimulating some sectors at the forced expenseof others. When FDR tried this, it kept the country in depression for manyyears unnecessarily and causing widespread economic anguish. What mustbe done is to slash federal spending to the bone, cut taxes generally,abolish the capital gains tax, repeal Dodd-Frank and many other laws, andreplace the Federal Reserve legal counterfeiting monopoly with a sound(golden) monetary system.2012 YEAR OF OPPORTUNITY Toomany "libertarians" nowdays use a lot of the old anarcho-Trotskyite crackpotrhetoric of the seventies and eighties and there is a simple-minded blame-America-alwaysattitude when it comes to foreign policy that offends many who encounterthese self-styled libertarians. But there was a time when libertarianmeant someone who supported the classic position of laissez faire as theproper scope of constitutional government -- that government's scope shouldbe limited to strongly policing, isolating, and punishing criminals anddefending against foreign threats while leaving peaceful adult citizensalone as much as is possible. This was the position of those whofounded the Libertarian Party such as John Hospers and David Nolan andthose scholars who influenced the cause of constitutional liberty suchas John Locke, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Frederic Bastiat, HerbertSpencer, Ludwig von Mises, Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, F. A. Hayek, HansSennholz, Roger MacBride, Leonard Read, Isabel Paterson, George Reisman,and others. The anarcho-Trotskyiteleftover types kind of glombed onto the libertarian movement perhaps mistakenlythinking that "anti-statist" meant "anti-state" and many even became activein the LP, though one wonders how they squared working within a politicalparty with their vaunted anarchism. This is not the only reason libertarianismhas acquired a bad name with the public but it is at the root of why manyof the more rational people have become alienated from anything with thelabel "libertarian" on it. The cause that started out withso much hope decades ago has become distorted almost beyond recognitionby left-wing reactionaries who claim to embrace free-market economics butat the same time advocate a whimarchist politics of gang wars and unlimitedviolence in which free markets cannot exist. Since a member of theLDS church is running for President this year, the only real alternativeto four more years of disastrous Democrat rule, whatever his deficits,those who support constitutional liberty must now try to make him and hiscandidacy as good as they can be. I am not a Mormon, but I stronglyagree with the political position expressed so eloquently by the late EzraTaft Benson, LDS leader, in his small book On the Proper Role of Government.It should be required reading by all Americans, especially in the year2012. Indeed, given the opportunity before us, this may well be thebest way to spread true libertarian ideas.* *The War in Iraq, Libertarians,and Ron PaulThe war in Iraqissue has divided libertarians or has exposed divisions which were alreadythere. I believe many libertarians and some conservatives sincerely opposethe war on essentially procedural grounds -- that the word "war" was notexplicitly used in Congress's grant of military authority to the Presidentin going into Iraq. Even though there is disagreement among constitutionalistsabout whether Congress's authorization amounted to a "real" declarationof war or not, this is at least an argument which tries to refer back tothe Constitution and I understand it even if I do not necessarily agreewith it. I see that as perhaps their strongest legitimate argument againstthe war in Iraq. It at least appears to be a libertarian or constitutionalistargument. (Yet some of the same people who claim this as their basis foropposing the war in Iraq nevertheless supported the war in Afghanistan,which had no explicit declaration of the word "war" from Congress either.Inconsistent constitutionalism, it seems to me.)But I also believe many ofthe "anti-war" libertarians have accepted certain Democrat media talkingpoints as the basis for their opposition, even though they are not true.They have absorbed the hate-Bush propaganda which is so ubiquitous in themedia, especially Democrat Party establishment house organs such as NPR,NBC, ABC, CBS, Time magazine, Washington Post, L.A. Times, and the NewYork Times, just to name a few. Those who rely for their news and interpretationson such sources are apt to be misled, especially on the issue of the warin Iraq. Many Americans have been led to believe, for example, that Bushand Cheney "lied us into war" and that Scooter Libby exposed Valerie Plameas a "covert" CIA agent and that this was in revenge for her husband'sclaim that Saddam Hussein never sought "yellow cake" uranium in Africa.None of these claims of this scenario are true. The statements of ValeriePlame's husband, Joseph Wilson, have been shown to be without credibility.Libby was not the person who "outed" Valerie Plame (who was not a covertagent anyway). Yet, because most Americans get only "impressions" of newsand generally get those impressions from watching television every night,the constant barrage of propaganda has caused many, including even somelibertarians, to buy into this chain of false claims disseminated by anti-Bushpartisans within the federal bureaucracy and their Democrat allies in themedia.A clash between the U.S.and Saddam Hussein was virtually inevitable and not avoidable in the longrun. My position has been that the U.S. had little choice: either dealwith Saddam Hussein and his military buildup now (ASAP) or have to fighthim years later when confrontation could not be avoided any longer andwhen his forces would have been far stronger and more destructive in termsof weapons of mass destruction and alliances. That being my view, I'd rathersee it done now and with Bush 43 as President rather than put it off whenSaddam would have been more dangerous and when the U.S. President mightbe some doofus Democrat like Kerry or Gore or Hillary Clinton. Whatevermistakes the Bush Administration has made in the war against the jihadists,I am easily persuaded in my mind that a Democrat President would have donefar worse. Despite my consistent opposition to President Bush's liberalpolicies on other issues, it is clear that things would be far worse ifKerry or Gore had been elected, especially with regard to foreign policy,national security, and defense. (Again, as I have said before, it's notthat I think Bush is so good, but that the Democrat alternatives were sobad. Unfortunately, too many Americans still do not have a clue about howmuch damage Bill Clinton did as President to this country's national securityand too many people continue to underestimate the extent of duplicity onthe part of the current Democrat leadership.)The U.S. (or anyone elsefor that matter) had both the legal and moral right to take down Saddamand his regime. In addition, it was in the geopolitical interests of theU.S. to do so. The Iran-Iraq War was long over. He had ceased to be an"ally" long ago. He was harboring anti-American terrorists including Zarqawiand Abu Nidal. (There is even evidence of terrorist training camps insideIraq going back to the 1990s.) Intelligence from all over the world indicatedSaddam's military buildup included weapons of mass destruction and programsfor developing WMDs. He had already used WMDs against Iraqis, killing Kurdsin great numbers. How would he use them in the future? Might some of themfind their way into the hands of terrorists like those who attacked theU.S. on 09/11/01? Sadam had been properly slapped down by Bush 41 afterhis unprovoked aggression against neighboring Kuwait, with whom the U.S.had a defense agreement. Saddam continued to violate the terms of the ceasefireafter that first Gulf War, Anyone who claims that the U.S. did not havea right to strike Saddam Hussein and curtail his military buildup in retaliationfor his military actions and threats ignores what was happening or wasjust not paying attention.Contrary to Democrat talkingpoints and anti-Bush partisan political propaganda, the evidence indicatedSaddam Hussein did have WMDs, did have programs for developing WMDs,and was seeking to get "yellow cake" uranium (despite Joseph Wilson's claimsto the contrary). Some WMDs and evidence of WMDs were later found by theU.S. military in Iraq, but there is evidence that most of the WMDs weretransported out of Iraq prior to the arrival of U.S. and allied troops.There was plenty of time to accomplish this as the Bush Administrationclearly telegraphed its punches.Whether the U.S. invasionof Iraq is seen as a rescue of the Iraqi people from the tyranny of SaddamHussein or as an attempt to replace Saddam with a reliable ally in thebroader war against the jihadists, or both, it was certainly not a caseof "U.S. imperialism" or unprovoked aggression by the allies against apeaceful government -- as the anti-American Left would have people believe.In his recent article publishedin the Wall Street Journal ("Libertarians and the War: RonPaul Doesn't Speak for All of Us" July 17, 2007), Georgetown Universityprofessor and libertarian writer Randy Barnett does not appear to addressthe "declaration of war" issue which many anti-war libertarians invoke,but he does point out quite correctly that "[w]hile all libertarians acceptthe principle of self-defense, and most accept the role of the U.S. governmentin defending U.S. territory, libertarian first principles of individualrights and the rule of law tell us little about what constitutes appropriateand effective self-defense after an attack." And, of course, no one everclaimed that they do, at least no one I know of in the pro-Iraqi liberationfaction among libertarians.Strict libertarianism saysit is wrong to initiate force against a peaceful person or regimethat has not initiated force against others. It does not say that you cannotuse force in retaliation against someone who has initiated force, whichSaddam Hussein had done on a massive scale. Specific tactics and strategyof war cannot be deduced from such first principles as self-ownership,private property, rule of law, etc. There is nothing in libertarian principlesor the theory of the laissez-faire constitutional republic which dictatessuch matters. Such specific issues of tactics and strategy are mattersof judgment and prudence by military experts. Other than advocating aninternational gold standard, low or no tariffs, and trying to avoid (ifpossible) foreign wars as a general policy, there can be a wide latitudeof positions among libertarians when it comes to foreign policy and geopoliticalstrategy.By making himself a single-issuecandidate -- especially on an issue on which libertarians are so divided– Ron Paul is sadly distracting from other very important issues and fromthe bedrock libertarian principles on which we all agree. As ProfessorBarnett writes in the closing paragraph of his WSJ editorial, those libertarianswho supported the liberation of Iraq and who support success in leavingbehind a stable ally there ". . . are still rooting for success in Iraqbecause it would make Americans more safe, while defeat would greatly underminethe fight against those who declared war on the U.S. They are concernedthat Americans may get the misleading impression that all libertariansoppose the Iraq war -- as Ron Paul does -- and even that libertarianismitself dictates opposition to this war. It would be a shame if this misinterpretationinhibited a wider acceptance of the libertarian principles that would promotethe general welfare of the American people."I agree. Thank you, ProfessorBarnett.* * worldmoves away from it? Hungarian-born historian and world-renowned concert pianistBalint Vazsonyi, who knows first-hand what it means to live under an authoritarianregime, makes a powerful case that it is. Drawingheavily on his personal experiences living under different versions of socialism,Vazsonyi describes how our hard won freedoms are being gradually eroded. Vazsonyitraces the essence of what makes America unique back to the founders and showshow those who want America as we know it to fail are undermining the founder'soriginal intent. Theauthor documents how America's founding principles of rule of law, individual rights,the guarantee of property, and a common American identity are being graduallyreplaced by government mandated group rights, redistribution, and multi-culturalism. Thethirty year war is being fought between those who promote liberty, rightsfor the individualand a continued need for moral guidance on the one side, and those who believethat the supreme power is human reason which, operating through a central authority,can and will create the perfect world on the other. While the picture is rosy,America has every chance of winning, if the intentions of the two sides exposed,and the consequences weighed. This witty, simple-to-follow, and engaginglypersonal book should aid in the process. Withunmistakable clarity, Vazsonyi shows how every time America moves away itsfounding principles it moves in the direction of a system where a fantasy "socialjustice" is pursued through ever-greater government control. America'sThirty YearsWar is an inspiration to those who have lost touch with our founding principles andammunition for those who believe that our freedoms must be defended every day.To read more short reviews of this bookor to buy a copy for yourself fromAmazon.com, please click on this line!Betrayal: How the ClintonAdministration UnderminedAmerican Securityby Bill Gertz I don't know what will wake up the apathetic, uninformed,and politically naive people who are enamored of the Elmer Gantryin the White House, former President and Criminal in Chief Bill Clinton.Some of us have understood for many years that Bill Clinton is acorrupt traitor. Maybe this book will wake up more people to the disaster heand his advisors have brought about -- and the serious consequences forAmerican national security in the coming decades. Selling out one'scountry in exchange for illegal campaign contributions from Red Chinesedictators -- just so he could have four more years in the Oval Office -- is contemptiblebeyond words. Giving away the military technology store to theruthless Communist regime will be Bill Clinton's outstanding legacy -- andis likely to set back the final triumph of freedom and progress in the world forseveral years if not many decades. People of the future will curse the namesof Bill Clinton and Sandy Berger.What is the proper role ofgovernment, and how should it be limited? With which categoriesof human activity should political government be concerned?Poem About Your Freedom to Spend (or Save) Your Earnings As YouChoose vs Political Meddling Schemes by Others to Take andSpend Your Taxes on Their Foolish SchemesFor a lively dialogue betweentwo friends on the idea of a free society versus Big Government, feel freeto enjoy the following: APoem About Individual RightsHey! Do you know your leftfrom your right? Many Americans don't these days! They are like someonewatching a football game without knowing the rules of the game, which teamis which, or how to keep score! Politics is very confusing to them."Leftand Right" by Joseph Sobran: WhatDo the Terms "Left"and "Right" Mean in American Politics?Or, "Up" versus "Down"?AVertical"Peg" Spectrum? -- A New Slant on an OldConflictWhat is the basic definition of "libertarian" in today's political arena?And, how are libertarians different from conservatives, from liberals,from democrats, from anarchists, from pragmatists? Thisessay seeks to answer these questions in clear English.David F. Nolan, cofounder of the American Libertarian Party, sets forthfive essential platform planks which unite all Libertarians despite anydifferences they may have on other issues."Redefiningthe Political Spectrum" by Joseph Farah Is fascismthe opposite of Communism or is it just another variant of Big Governmentsocialism?"SeattleRiots Reveal Where the Real Threats Are Coming From" by Sam FrancisWhere does the real dangerof violence and terrorism come from in the world today -- from the Right-Wingor the Left-Wing? Controversial columnist Sam Francis gives his answer.MajorityVote in A Republic vs Majority-Rule DemocracyWhat is the difference between a democracy and a republic? Was the AmericanConstitutional Republic a democracy? Here, in a very short, easy-to-readexposition, are the clear answers to those questions .POWERELITES IN AMERICA: OLIGOPOLY AND POLITICAL PULL (Or, Beware the Regulatory-IndustiralComplex)With references to a varietyof sources from different points of view on the ideological spectrum, thispaper shows how government interventionism and socialism are the politicsof oligopoly and monopoly power, and includes notes and selected bibliography."NotYours To Give" An inspiring shortstory from the legendary Davy CrockettU.S.FOREIGN AID AND UNITED NATIONS VOTING -- THE RECORD: Contraryto what many people believe, U.S. foreign aid is not buying many real alliesaround the world. This Heritage Foundation Backgrounder report (6/11/98)provides continuing proof that recipients of U.S. foreign aid vote againstthe United States more often than they vote with it.TheDisaster of Government-to-Government Foreign Aid Programs : WhoReally Benefits -- and Who Loses -- in These Costly Subsidy Schemes?LETHALCOMPASSION: Why national health care is the curethat kills. Here is the affordable alternativeTheScandinavian Welfare States-- The Future ThatDoesn't Work.TheRise and Fall of the Swedish Model by Mauricio Rojas--an analysis of the roots of the Swedish model, why it seemed to succeedfor a time, and why it collapsed in failure.WhatWent Wrong in Sweden-- a new book which revealsthe truth about the failure of socialism and welfare-statism in SwedenFANATIC"WATERMELONS" PHONY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUESTheTruth About Global Warming Greenhouse Gases"GlobalWarming Hot Air: Angela Antonellireports on why the talks broke down at the Hague 12/04/00"Environmentalism'sMalaria Holocaust" by Dr. George Reisman:Why the Eco-Fascists Have Blood on Their Hands -- the Price in Human Sufferingfrom Unnecessarily Banning DDTTheGreen Gestapo: Environmentalism Gone Insane! byJarret WollsteinTheTruth About Freaky Frogs: A New Report from ScienceDailyJunkScience.comExposesJunk ScienceAnxietyCenter The good news is the bad news from theEco-Fascists is WRONGAccessto Energy a Pro-Science, Pro-Technology, Pro-FreeEnterprise Monthly NewsletterPlanetEarth 'has not got any warmer since 1940'GreenWatch Keeping tabs on the extremist groups, whatthey are up to, and the sources of their fundingthe Anti-Reality Psychology Behind Those Who Yearn to Run Other Peoples'Lives and Spend Other Peoples' Earnings The Irrational Roots of thePolitics of Class Envy, Selective Pity, and Manipulation through GuiltTripping"Liberalism" as one ofthe "Degreesof Busybodyism?"Righton! by David Horowitz This articulate former leftistis one of the most astute and intellectually honest reporters on the politicalLeft in America, past and present. Few can do a better job at explainingthe left-wing cult mindset and its implications. One cannot really understandthe Clinton regime without a sense of its anti-American left-wing rootsof thirty years ago."SocialistHallmarks" by Balint Vazsonyi (Aug 3, 1999, TheWashington Times)Introductory Guideto Political CorrectnessAccuracyin Academia -- monitoring the rot in our colleges universitiesLittleRed Riding HoodLiberalCliches, Fallacies, and False Political ClaimsLeft-WingDemonstrators Miss the MarkDareto Compare the Socialist Agenda of the 1920s-1930sLeft-Wing Cult of MarxismAreyou a Commie Pinko? Do you agree with Karl Marx? Check out the ten planksadvocated by Marx in The Communist Manifesto.Socialism is super busybodyismwith the power of the meddlesome state behind it. What are the degreesof busybodyism?Marx'sManifesto: 150 Years of Evil byDavid HorowitzMarxismWanted Poster -- for the crimes and atrocitiesof the militant cults of MarxismThose Crooks in the Clinton-GoreWhite House: The Sellout of America by Power AddictsHe can't even run his own life-- how dare he try to run ours!Clintonand Missile Defense by J. R. NyquistOurNational Security Nightmare by Frank Gaffney Jr.Chinaholds ace in the hole with Clinton by William SafireTheDeadliest Download by William SafireMilitaryDecline Puts U.S. in a Bind by Bruce BartlettTeachingby Example by Al KnightNoImperial Presidency by Dr. George ReismanTheWhite House Elmer Gantry His Enablers by Sam WellsUnderminingthe Military by Thomas SowellAnApology by Eddie WillersTheClintons versus American Military Personnel and Defense Preparednessby Paul Craig RobertsClintonForeign Policy Screw Ups Endanger Amnericans in the Long Run by FrankGaffney Jr.Clinton'sUtah Coal Lockup: A trillion dollar Lippo payoff? by Sarah FosterSex,Lies Vast Conspiracies by David Horowitz.Telling the truth about the ClintonRegime and its spinmeisters, this former Marxist reveals what's reallyhappening there! "DavidHorowitz [keeps] crusading against injustice. In his writings, he grabsfor the throat and squeezes. Hard. In his followup to his introspectivememoirRadicalSon, heturns the flamethrower on Bill Clinton and the courtier intellectuals whodefend his every move." -- WorldMagazineKingClinton's Incredible Statement!Wanna Support Truth, Justice, andthe American Way? Join That "VastRight-Wing Conspiracy"!"Popa Smoke!" Like Hanoi Jane Fonda, BillClinton's long-standing contempt for the U.S. military and military personnelis well-known -- and morale among the services is at an all-time low becausehe is their Commander in Chief. Here are some candid observations aboutBill Clinton from Marines who served in Vietnam.TwoBelgrade Bombers ComparedJudicialWatch Larry Klayman fights a valiant battlefor a thorough and no-holds-barred investigation of Bill Clinton!Has the democratic welfarestate become that great fiction by which nearly everyone seeks to liveat the forced expense of everyone else? Government cannot give anythingto anybody unless it takes it away from somebody else, and when it doesthis it uses force and coercion in violation of the rights of those fromwhom it takes. The political state -- interventionist government -- cannotbestow any benefit to society as a whole -- it can only take from someand give to others, minus the overhead absorbed by the administering bureaucracy.Comics, Other Fun Stuff!TheHitchhiker-- political humor!P.J. Comix! -- No-holds-barred satirical comic strips(parental discretion advised)TheComics DirectoryJanetPoppins! The new nanny from Amerika has arrived!ASatirical Political Beliefs Assessment Test Ahumorous test to discover if you're a conservative, liberal, libertarian,or a communist.Favorite Columnists CommentatorsCurrentColumn by multidisciplinary scholar Dr. Thomas SowellColumnby conservative diva Ann CoulterRecentcolumns by famed concert pianist and Hungarian-born historian Balint Vazsonyi!CurrentColumn by Dr. Walter Williams of George Mason UniversityWalterWilliams explains why politicians are often so bad.AVery Short Article by Professor Walter Williams on Violent Force the Moral Limits of Governmental ActionCurrentColumn by Black libertarian talk show personality Larry Elder AnalysisDon't make the mistake of dependingon only one source for news and commentary (especially if the one sourceis TV)! Investigate for yourself and get news weeks or even months BEFOREthe "Liberal" Media Establishment decides to finally report on it. TheInternet offers a greater diversity of news and opinion than you will everget watching the Boob Tube.HumanEventsTheDrudge Report-- America's News Page--A Free Press For A Free PeopleAccuracyIn Media-- Watchdog on Media BiasTheWashington TimesRushLimbaugh -- the Web Site! The conservative Republicanweighs in against "liberal" Democrats and environmental whackoes!--Conservative News InformationConservativeNews Service -- An alternative news networkBig Eye!A different way to search the Web anddiscover the best sites.TheKansas City Star -- The Web Edition of the K C Star

TAGS:for the Laissez Laissez laissez-faire LAISSEZFAIRE Republic Right-Wing Individua

<<< Thank you for your visit >>>

This web deals with principles of LIBERTY, PROPERTY RIGHTS, free-market capitalism, the LAISSEZ-FAIRE REPUBLIC, & myths of socialism and the liberal regulatory-industrial complex

Hot Websites