If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

This video is awesome.

But it makes me ask, “Yes we can what?” Knowing Obama’s politics, I have to assume it’s something along the lines of “Yes we can create a government that believes we can’t do anything for ourselves.”

Yes we can? I can only reply with “Please don’t.”

Popularity: 16% [?]

I just read a blog post about Ron Paul at IMAO called “I Fear Ron Paul for the Same Reason Terrorists Don’t.”  It’s not that good and I don’t really recommend it.  But it did make me shake my head.  Harvey, a professed Libertarian, believes Ron Paul would not be feared by terrorists.

It might be right that they wouldn’t fear Paul, as he’d stop trying to fight them (and they’d stop fighting us).  But that doesn’t mean they want him to be President.  Quite the opposite.

In fact, Michael Scheuer, the 22-year veteran of the CIA who was the former head analyst at the CIA’s bin Laden unit  says that Ron Paul is the only Presidential candidate that Bin Laden has to worry about.

At the time, there were 18 serious Republican and Democratic presidential candidates.  Scheuer stated 17 of those candidates would not be a problem for Al Qaeda.

That video is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-o3oMuwXGY

And another extremely enlightening video with Scheuer is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZNfuIvtLos

Popularity: 55% [?]

Hi Mike,

I haven’t listened to your show in a few years. Nothing personal, but I got tired of hearing you hatin’ on people. I suppose that’s what your audience likes, but I couldn’t take it anymore.

Recently I heard your voice in one of Air America’s ads during the commercials. You said you didn’t think someone should profit when your appendix ruptures… or something like that. Maybe it was kidney failure. But that’s not the important part.

Why shouldn’t someone profit when providing a service? Profit is a reward. I want to reward people for providing me a service. The great thing about offering a reward for help, is that many people will compete for that reward by offering better and better service at a more and more reasonable price.

Competition is very valuable to buyers. I know that for a fact from running my own business. When I’m competing, I either lower my price or find a way to provide more value. In both cases, my customer wins.

So when I’m looking for a service, I’d like to be on that winning side too. I want health care providers to compete over me both on price and quality. That way I get the best service for the most reasonable price.

Popularity: 79% [?]

I recently watched incredulously as John Edwards told an interviewer that “Internet access” is a right.

What in the sam hill is he talking about?  As long as we’re making stuff up, I’d like the right to go on a date with Megan Fox.

It goes without saying that I’m against having others pay for my Internet access (and vice versa, me paying for theirs).  But what may not be so obvious, is what’s really being debated when we talk about rights.

To me, Internet Access as a right literally doesn’t make any sense.  It’s like saying the desk I’m writing on is made of philosophy, instead of wood.

If that sentence makes no sense to you, then you know how I feel.

As a (classical) liberal,  I believe I was born with my rights.  The rights to life, liberty and that other stuff are inalienable.  They were never given to me by the government.   And they can never be taken away (although they can be ignored.)

John Edwards believes he can give me the right to Internet access.  That’s because he believes our rights come from the Government instead of our creator.  His philosophy implies anything that’s popular could be turned into a right.  There could be a right to health care, affordable housing, education and so forth… but also cars, and clothes and other personal items.

The Government can only create those ‘rights’ if they ignore our inalienable rights.   The only way to give me a right to Internet access, since I wasn’t born with that right, would be to make someone else pay for it.  And that’d be a violation of their liberty.

Popularity: 78% [?]

The slogan, “Pro Choice” does not accurately describe the abortion debate. (Not to mention that those who are ‘pro choice’ are usually only pro choice on a single issue.)

The debate centers around murder. Is it murder to abort a baby, or is it not. If it is murder, of course you don’t have a choice. If it is not murder, of course you do have a choice.

Of course, that doesn’t get us any closer to a definitive answer.

Popularity: 74% [?]

Advocates of a single payer system have asked if there’s any more basic need than health care. The answer is obviously yes: Food. National food banks?

People who don’t understand the difference between a constitutional republic and a democracy have no problem voting for smoke free establishments.

Message to single payer health care advocates… get your laws off my body!

After Democrats spent the last century shredding the constitution, it always puzzled me when they stood up for the document. Until I realized they don’t want to lose all their hard work!

Crummy education has kept generations from understanding freedom’s relationship with Democracy, which is a rocky one. The founders understood this, that’s why they wrote a Bill of Rights to RESTRICT democracy. The current attitude seems to be all of our rights are up for a vote.

If people were given a choice whether to participate in Social Security, it would fall to pieces. And rightly so. It’s criminal to force people in to the worst retirement system devised.

Democrats can’t help but be big government. They’re constantly in need of a law to fix the outcome of the last one.

“People who think that they are getting something for nothing, by having government provide what they would otherwise have to buy in the private market, are not only kidding themselves by ignoring the taxes that government has to take from them in order to give them the appearance of something for nothing.” ~ Thomas Sowell

Popularity: 73% [?]

Dear Thom Hartmann,

Thanks for your radio show on 1090 KPTK. I enjoy listening on a fairly regular basis, but think you are confused. If you’re not, I am. Let’s talk about it.

Today (the 8/08/07 broadcast) you stated that the Boston Tea Party was an attack on Laissez-faire capitalism. But the British government was the culprit, not the free market. They allowed the British East India Company an artificial monopoly by giving the company a tax cut, while still enforcing the tax on other companies. That’s not a free market, that’s another example of a government created monopoly.

Government force is the easiest way for a monopoly to arise. Just look at the public school system, a service Americans must pay for whether they use it or not. How can competition stand a chance, when people are required to pay their competitor whether they use the service or not?!

Because of the government imposed monopoly on education, quality is suffering. That should be no surprise, quality always suffers when a monopoly is present. That’s why the Government tears apart “monopolies” when they arise naturally. I think it would do us all some good if the Government would also refrain from creating monopolies artificially.

Then maybe the Boston Tea Party would never have taken place.

Popularity: 100% [?]

Jimmy Liberty lives in the US. He favors freedom over democracy, and so would be considered a classical liberal. He supports Ron Paul for President in 2008.

Popularity: 76% [?]