The Michigan Senate passed a bill banning smoking in “all workplaces including bars, restaurants and even casinos.” This takes Michigan residents one step closer to a huge loss in private property rights. It’s even closer, knowing that Granholm has stated her willingness to sign any bill aimed at banning smoking.
Even for someone who dislikes smoke in any type of establishment, I see this as a blatant violation of the rights of business owners. Any legislation that allows the state to restrict a voluntary action within the confines of a private establishment, opens the doors for further encroachments on our liberty.
Health concerns are completely irrelevant to this issue. Patrons of bars and restaurants are not obligated to enter any of these establishments, and they have no right to impose their will on the owners or the other patrons. No one has a right to a smoke-free restaurant or bar as a consumer. That would place an illegitimate obligation on business owners to provide such a service. Legitimate rights never impose positive obligations (requiring a smoke-free establishment) on anyone; instead they impose a negative obligation (ex. one cannot deprive another of free speech).
An owner absolutely has the right to ban smoking within their establishment, which has been done successfully in many cases. In doing so, the owner imposes no positive obligation on anyone else. Business owners are offering us something, not forcing anything on us. We can choose to do business with them or not; and our health decisions are much better left in our own hands.
It probably doesn’t come as a surprise to most, that some congressmen use taxpayer funds to treat themselves to expensive cars. It was Charles Rangel’s (D-New York) pathetic defense of his $774/mo lease that struck me. “The car isn’t just a vehicle for getting around; it’s an important part of doing my job, and my constituents appreciate it.” The actual cost to individual taxpayers may amount to nothing more than a few pennies, but it’s statements like that, that highlight the attitude that many of these arrogant politicians have. It’s the principle, and Rangel has none. What gives these politicians the idea that they are entitled to use money taken from the people, and use it to fund their excesses?
Detroit residents are all too familiar with this abuse of power. I bet if people looked close enough, they’d discover that it occurs more often than not within the political class. The founders of this country never intended for elected representatives to be held higher than the average citizen. Yet we turn a blind eye and keep electing them.
We tend to be outraged when we hear reports of record profits earned by oil companies. How can they be making so much money and still have the nerve to raise gas prices to near $4 per gallon? The outrage stems mostly from the media and politicians, who typically only give one side of the story, leaving people with a skewed perception of reality. They rarely report the profit margin which is a better gauge of the profitability of a company.
In order to sustain any company, a portion of the profits must be invested back into the company and used to cover the cost of production. In the case of Shell, they use much of their profit for oil exploration, general maintenance, marketing, taxes, developing cleaner, more efficient blends, etc. If you look at the profit margins of Shell you’ll notice that they are near the average for companies of that size.
As Glenn Beck points out in the following video, the profits of grain companies have gone through the roof despite rising prices, and food shortages throughout the world (mainly due to government meddling and the biofuels boondoggle). Why aren’t people expressing their outrage with grain companies?
John McCain recently provided more evidence to support my claim that oil has played a significant role in the decision to send young men and women overseas to fight.
The sentence of concern:
My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will - that will then prevent us - that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East.
Of course he quickly derailed his “straight talk” express and claimed that he was referring to the first Gulf War — as though that somehow legitimizes starting a war over a commodity. Strangely though — or maybe not so strangely — his response when asked by a reporter, whether or not he was “thinking about the first Gulf War,” was “No.”
To suggest that he, or any other politician, seeks personal gain from securing Middle East oil, is probably off base. But, regardless of their intentions, the result of that policy is disastrous. I can’t find a way to justify sending Americans to kill and be killed for something that doesn’t even belong to us.
You can read some of the reviews written by Amazon.com customers, to get an idea of how remarkable this book is. It’s extremely well written; clearly demonstrating Dr. Paul’s thorough knowledge of economics, foreign policy, monetary policy, the Constitution, and many other topics that are key components of our government. Just like Ron Paul’s presence in this year’s presidential election, his book is going to have a significant impact on the course this country takes in the coming years.
Have we reached a point where solar power is more cost efficient than oil? Joe Schembrie thinks so. In fact, in his column, The Solar Revolution and the End of Big Energy, he calculates that at the projected world oil consumption of 2030, the true cost of oil is far greater than that of the equivalent energy which could be generated by solar panels.
He comes to this conclusion by factoring in the cost of the Iraq war which adds $180 per barrel of oil (The war is costing us $400 million every day!).
He makes the assumption that the Iraq war is being fought — if not with the outcome of keeping oil prices from rising more rapidly than they are — at least with the intended goal of securing oil and maintaining significant control over its price. Though I once regarded this view as simply a knee-jerk reaction by democrats who opposed the war, I have come to discover that I can’t find a solid argument against it. In discussions with Iraq war sympathizers (even now), I find that they generally default to an argument about oil after having every other justification debunked. They say, “well, maybe so…but what about oil? We need it.” They speak as though we won’t have oil if we don’t use war to gain control of middle eastern oil wells. The idea that we should use war to secure oil anywhere, whether or not it has an effect on the price, is immoral in my view.
Using the cost of the war as a factor in the cost comparison of oil and solar energy only makes sense if you believe the Iraq war is having a significant, beneficial (it’s keeping prices down, or at least preventing them from increasing more than they otherwise would) impact on the price of oil. Otherwise, it would be more cost efficient to simply end the war and maintain the use of oil in lieu of solar power, according to the authors calculations. It seems to me that the war has only caused the cost of oil to rise significantly. I am more inclined to argue that the cost of war, though real and tragic, is independent of the cost of oil and should not be factored in to this analysis.
Moreover, the author treats solar power as an energy source that is readily interchangeable with oil. Unfortunately, I don’t think this is true yet. An efficient means of storing and transporting energy generated by photoelectric conversion has not yet been developed, that I am aware of. As far as I could tell, this inefficiency was not accounted for in his analysis.
Though I agree that the government greatly distorts the market when it comes to energy production, leading to mis-allocation of funds and resistance in the development of alternative energy sources, I’m not convinced that solar energy has the efficiency to replace oil yet. Maybe someday.
The Nevada Republican party held their state convention this past Saturday in an attempt to elect delegates to the national convention. The result was instead unresolved chaos due to party officials’ dissatisfaction with the outcome.
Ron Paul came in second earlier this year at the caucuses, coming in well ahead of McCain who largely ignored Nevada. Paul also gave a speech to the convention. It should come as no surprise then that the convention was packed with Ron Paul supporters, eager to send as many Ron Paul delegates to the national convention as possible. After some success in doing just that, frustrated party officials began to worry, and eventually took desperate measures which resulted in illegally (according to party rules) postponing the convention and voiding the results. A better account of the confusion that occurred at the convention can be seen in the following local news report.
An insider account that describes more accurately, the shenanigans of the party officials can be read here.
Below are links to the speech given by Ron Paul at the convention:
Despite being anointed by the Republican Party elites, 27% of Pennsylvania voters, voted against McCain yesterday, in a closed (only registered republicans could vote for the republican candidates) primary. 16% voted for Ron Paul even though he has drastically slowed his campaigning and made a somewhat confusing announcement, leading most people to believe he has dropped out of the race.
Clinton won PA and took 80 delegates over Obama’s 66. Obama still leads in overall delegate count.
The following video is an analysis of the effect media have had on the presidential primary campaign. It appears that the popularity of candidates is Dependant on the amount of attention they are given by the main stream media. And this seems to be independent of the trends observed on internet sources. This comes as no surprise to me since I have been getting my news from both main stream cable network and internet sources. What the video creator doesn’t consider, is that the trends that occur on the internet do not necessarily reflect those of the population as a whole. There are still many Americans who receive their news from traditional sources, like news papers and television.
Michigan Attorney General, Mike Cox declared in a recent ruling, that offering a free beer with a haircut requires a liquor license. Grand Rapids barbershop owner, Thomas Martin has a problem with that:
“It’s just a nice benefit,” Thomas said Wednesday. “It’s like the old-fashioned service.”
Dan Shapley at The Daily Green notices a study published by The American Geological Institute Workforce Program, that further solidifies what Ron Paul has been saying for quite some time now: Gas prices are rising because the value of the dollar is falling. And as he points out, this is due to the fact that our government debases our currency by printing more money in an attempt to maintain its bloated, unconstitutional, overreaching existence. The study concluded that had the Federal Reserve not destroyed the value of the dollar, oil may very likely be around $65 per barrel, in contrast to the current $114 per barrel record.
The American people are sending a clear message to those responsible for this atrocity: Not only are we going to sit back and let you rob us through inflation, we’re going to elect a president who will perpetuate this fraud.
Senate Democrats introduced a nonbinding resolution stating that John McCain is eligible for the presidency despite being born outside US territory. Co-sponsors of the resolution include Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. I find this comical for two reasons:
1.) Democrats must REALLY want to make sure that McCain gets the nomination because they know he has no chance of winning the general election. Republicans are out of their minds for nominating him, and this gesture only helps to support that claim. Of course, this would have been the case with any of the potential nominees except for Ron Paul.
2.) Since when are any of these people — especially Democrats — concerned with the Constitution and the intent of the founders? Now that they cleared that up, by introducing a resolution that states their understanding of the founders’ intent, they can get back to interpreting the Constitution to further their agenda and benefit them and their constituency.
Frankly, I don’t care where John McCain was born. That is the least of his Constitutional breaches, if you consider that to be unconstitutional. His status as a “natural born citizen” has nothing to do with why he would be an awful president with great disregard for the only protection average Americans have from their government. Unfortunately, the democratic candidates don’t offer a reasonable alternative.
In an equally earnest speech last December, a very Kennedyesque Barack Obama fleshed out his own vision of a national service utopia. His version is (relatively) benign: It isn’t supposed to be mandatory, and only parts have a whiff of “get off your asses, young punks”—namely, his proposal to knock $4,000 off college tuition for any student who agrees to perform 100 hours of community service annually. He does flirt with compulsion, though, setting “a goal of having middle and high schoolers contribute at least 50 hours a year to community service.”
Although Obama and Stengel steer clear of overt calls for conscription, other presidential candidates were happy to beat that drum. Former Democratic contenders Chris Dodd and John Edwards each made national service a campaign centerpiece and floated the idea of requiring public high school students to perform community chores as a prerequisite for graduation. Imagine the Democrats’ utopia: millions of uninspired teenagers skipping homework to perform involuntary servitude. Can’t you feel the civic pride?
As for Republicans, boy, are those guys about to nominate a national service militant. John McCain envisions a robust program of servitude as a crucial part of his creepy crusade to wipe out cynicism about government institutions. With Obama heading full sail toward his party’s nomination, the coming McCain-Obama contest holds great promise for those who hope to see the day when youth are expected to perform nearly free labor as a matter of federal policy.
Former Republican congressman, Bob Barr has launched an exploratory committee, to investigate the feasibility of seeking the Libertarian Party presidential nomination. Though Barr is no Ron Paul — he initially voted for the war in Iraq and the Patriot Act (after the sunset provisions) — he has since denounced his actions, and endorsed Paul’s nomination.
Barr could play a significant role in the general election since McCain, the assumed Republican nominee, is not exactly wooing conservative voters, and the petty bickering of Clinton and Obama is driving Democrat voters away. His candidacy would likely provide a home for Ron Paul supporters. Given his strong conservative record, and being appointed U.S. Attorney by Ronald Reagan, may draw more support from republican voters.
This is shaping up to be an interesting election. It’s might be worth noting that former Democratic presidential nominee, Mike Gravel, is also seeking the Libertarian Party nomination…but that’s a different story.
This is relatively old news, but I haven’t heard anything about it in the mainstream media. It appears John McCain has provided us with another example of a hypocritical politician who can’t abide by his own unjust legislation. Namely, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, penned by John McCain and Russ Feingold, which undermines the First Amendment.
McCain filed for FEC matching funds earlier in his primary campaign, thereby obligating him to limit his spending to $54 million during the primary. Being that the matching funds are delayed — and it takes a lot of money to convince people to vote for a lying warmonger (“[100 years in Iraq] would be fine with me”), who admittedly has a poor understanding of economics — he allegedly exceeded the spending limit. It became more clear when he requested that he be withdrawn from the matching funds program.
There’s a catch though: you can’t just withdraw after being approved. McCain childishly pointed to Howard Dean and John Kerry, claiming that they were able to withdraw. But, as noted in the articled I linked to, both of them had withdrawn before being certified, and before benefiting from the program. This is not true in John McCain’s case.
Ron Paul once again points out that the economic troubles we are currently facing are a direct result of government interference and monetary policy. Why others refuse to acknowledge this is beyond me. And the continued praise of the federal reserve system and government regulation is far more baffling.
“You see, the Fed creates new money and uses it to purchase securities from banks. Flush with funds, these banks seek to put this money to use. During the Fed’s expansionary period, much of this money went to home loans. Through a combination of federal government inducements to lend to risky borrowers, and the Fed’s supply of easy money, the housing bubble took shape. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were encouraged to purchase and securitize mortgages, while investors, buoyed by implicit government backing, rushed to provide funding. Money that could have been invested in more productive, less risky sectors of the economy was thereby malinvested in subprime mortgage loans.
“The implicit guarantee from the Fed is quickly becoming explicit, as those institutions deemed “too big to fail” are bailed out at taxpayer expense. Wall Street made a killing during the housing bubble, reaping record profits. Now that the bubble has burst, these same firms are trying to dump their losses on the taxpayers. This approach requires more money creation, and therefore debasement of all dollars in circulation.”
