As a bonus, here is my favorite passage from Goldwater's classic The Conscience of a Conservative:
I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is 'needed' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents' interests, I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.
Below is a quotation from a recent article by Judge Andrew Napolitano that I found to be quite true and well put. I recommend you read the article in its entirety, as well.
And we hear it from the Progressives that the government must take our freedoms in order to keep us safe. That’s hogwash. Freedom is our birthright. It doesn’t come from the government; it is part of our humanity. America is the only country in the history of the world dedicated to the truism that we are endowed by our Creator, as Jefferson wrote, with certain inalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The government has forgotten basic civics: "Endowed by our Creator" means that our rights come from God and not from the feds. "Inalienable" means that we and our freedoms cannot be separated, unless and until we are convicted by a jury of violating someone else’s rights. What is the value of being safe if we are not free? Did our forefathers flee the kings and despots of Europe and come here to be safe? Did Patrick Henry say "Give me safety or give me death?" Here is the mistake that the Big Government crowd wants to thrust upon us: They want to balance liberty and safety. There is no such thing as balance when it comes to freedom.
Here is a new video from Young Americans for Liberty. I wanted to pass it along to you. Moreover, I was pleased to see some of my friends scattered through the video pledging to liberty. Way to go guys!
Here is a great video of Dr. Paul on the Rachael Maddow Show. I absolutely despise Maddow, not because I disagree with her (though I assure you I do), but because of her demeanor, ignorance, and pompous attitude. Listen to her opening remarks for a good example of this. She is an absolute disgrace along with many in cable news from the right and left, but what sets her apart is her "high school drama student" interviewing technique. Notice her forced nods and smirks as she squints as if to say, "look how intently I am listening." What a joke! I stay away from cable news most of the time because the talking heads make me sick. Maddow makes me downright ill time after time.
Moreover,in this clip notice how the segment producers only display the most extreme of the tea party activists' signs to caricature the movement set against the words of Dr. Paul.
Despite Maddow, Dr. Paul is honest, informed, and at the top of his game.
Today there have been multiple reports that congressional Democrats intend to craft the next round of healthcare legislation in secret (here and here). In order to go before the president the current House and Senate versions of the bill must be reconciled. And, according to reports, the Democratic leadership wants to exclude Republicans as well as the public eye from this reconciliation process.
Sadly, this type of behavior is nothing new from a Democratic leadership which once claimed its desire to for transparency and bipartisanship. Of course, we have received much of the same actions from the Democrats that they spoke against--done, however, at an accelerated and, therefore, even more dangerous pace. There has been no transparency, no working together (not that I am saying this particularly must exist), and no honesty. Rather, unconstitutional measures have been continually rammed down our throat at an increasingly alarming rate.
I fear this latest development merely because I have witnessed what has occurred in our recent legislative history. We have seen bloated bill after bloated bill hastily passed without anyone reading its contents. Stuffed with pork, unconstitutional mandates, and the vilest of measures, we have seen bills continually ram-rodded through Congress.
Surely, if a bill is scripted in secret, behind closed doors, we can bank on the bill being presented for passage without proper time for reading and research. Moreover, why the need for secrecy? Even if you desire for the Republicans to be left out of the discussion, why can't they sit in the hearings and see what the legislation will contain? Even more puzzling is this: Democrats won't even let the public know what will be going on in their closed doors meetings.
This is truly troubling. We must demand transparency and keep an eye on this as it develops. It smacks of ill intent and is too important to go unchecked. This legislation will alter the lives of people for generations to come. Hopefully, the right thing will be done.
To these Congressional Democrats I echo the words of former-President John F. Kennedy:
The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers, which are cited to justify it.
Washington and the state legislatures have bleached out the reality of the well-regulated state militia from the American fabric. Meanwhile, Americans have been hoodwinked into fighting about whether or not they can carry a gun with or without a permit, or packing heat in a bar or restaurant. While those turf wars raged, Washington absorbed the sovereignty of the states, and made the states into serfdoms.
How to Change the Culture--Interesting article that addresses the common criticism that capitalism kills culture.
He concludes:
It was Mises's fundamental point about the cultural critique of capitalism that capitalism makes more of everything available to the consumer. That means more trashy novels and rotten music, but it also means more great literature and high-level music, all of which is accessible as never before.
But today, cultural entrepreneurs are seriously inhibited in their innovations by high taxes, regulations, and mandated benefits. This produces fewer attempts to improve our world than there would otherwise be. Some markets are hobbled to the point of near inaction, such as the education market, and others are less vibrant than they would otherwise be.
So what we need is not the overthrow of private property but more freedom for cultural entrepreneurship, and more individual initiative to do more than complain that the world is not conforming to your own values. The next time someone complains about what the market is doing to the culture, ask that person what he or she has done to enter the market and make a difference. And ask what that person has done to make the world freer for those who seek to make the world a more beautiful place.
