South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley Says No to NAACP Call to Remove Confederate Flag From Capitol | TheBlaze.com

South Carolina Republican Gov. Nikki Haley said she has no intention of removing the Confederate flag that flies beside the Statehouse, despite the head of the NAACP calling it a “contradiction” for Haley, an ethnic minority, to allow the flag to fly.

The Confederate flag has flown beside the South Carolina Statehouse since 2000. Gov. Nikki Haley rejected NAACP President Benjamin Jealous' call Monday to remove it.

NAACP President Benjamin Jealous called on Haley to remove the flag during an NAACP conference in Los Angeles on Monday, comparing African American slavery and segregation to the oppression Haley’s ancestors in India faced under British colonialism.

“Perhaps one of the most perplexing examples of the contradictions in this moment in history is that Nikki Haley, South Carolina’s first governor of color, continues to fly the Confederate flag in front of her state’s Capitol,” Jealous said. “Given the similarities between our struggles to end slavery and segregation, and her ancestors’ struggle to end British colonialism and oppression in India, my question to Governor Haley is one that Dr. King often asked himself: What would Gandhi do?”

Haley’s spokesman, Rob Godfrey, said the governor has no intention of renewing the flag debate, which has come under fire before from the NAACP and others who say the flag represents slavery and white supremacy.

“More than a decade ago, under the leadership of a Democratic governor, South Carolinians — Republican and Democrat, black and white — came to a compromise position on the Confederate flag,” Godfrey said. “Many people were uncomfortable with that compromise, but it addressed a sensitive subject in a way that South Carolina as a whole could accept. We don’t expect people from outside the state to understand that dynamic, but revisiting that issue is not part of the governor’s agenda.

According to South Carolina newspaper the State, the flag has flown on the north end of the Statehouse near a monument to Confederate soldiers since 2000. It was placed there as part of a legislative compromise to remove it from the Statehouse dome

via theblaze.com

Good.

What Happens When You Put a Coffee Table at a Bus Stop? - Transportation - GOOD

Forget Disneyland, the Hollywood Sign, the Getty. Designer Julie Kim is interested in L.A.'s neglected, forgotten attractions, places like its sidewalks and public transit systems. "It bothers me when outsiders have a perception that Angelenos are all blond surfers that hang out at the beach and drive everywhere," she says. To show the other side of L.A., Kim placed a coffee table she designed at a bus stop on a busy corner in Koreatown (6th and Vermont, to be exact) and shot video from a far enough distance that people didn't know they were being filmed. The resulting 1.5-minute video is pretty fun to watch.

The table—set with a newspaper and a vase of flowers—becomes a hub of interaction for the corner. People not only flock to the table, they end up talking to each other about it. Kim says she was surprised to see so many serendipitous moments in what amounted to only eight minutes of video. "The number and variety of people milling about—workers, kids, the elderly, of every ethnic group—surprised me," she says. "I thought I'd have to shoot for at least an hour to capture anything worthwhile."

Kim thinks that creating better environments for transit riders is certainly a missed opportunity for the city. "People wait for a while at these stops, 15 to 20 minutes," she says. "This is an opportunity for the city to engage them." Included in her growing ideas of creating "surreal, out-of-place" situations, is the idea of building exercise equipment at stops, so people could squeeze a few pull-ups in. Sadly, she's got her work cut out for her, since most corners in L.A. offer the same ugly, uncomfortable bus benches, and not much else. "Many neighborhoods in L.A. still lack built features that stimulate the senses and elicit interest at pedestrian scale," she says. "Perhaps the coffee table filled that role momentarily."

via good.is

Cool

Michigan Woman Charged for Starting a Vegetable Garden

Visit the Mercola Video Library

Julie Bass of Oak Park, Michigan was faced with a possible 93 days in jail after being charged with a misdemeanor -- planting a vegetable garden in her own front yard.

The garden consists of 5 raised beds, where she grows squash, corn, tomatoes, flowers, and other vegetables. Bass received a warning from the city telling her to remove the vegetable garden, because they claimed it violates an ordinance stating that only "suitable" plant material is allowed in a front lawn -- although exactly what is suitable is not defined.

According to Treehugger:

"When she refused, she was ticketed and charged with a misdemeanor. Her trial, before a jury, is set to begin on July 26th. If she is found guilty, she can be sentenced to up to 93 days in jail."

Fortunately, the jury trial never took place, as on July 14 Bass wrote on her blog that the city had dropped the charges. However, although the case was dismissed, the charges could be reinstated at any time.

via articles.mercola.com

Is this America?

What We Don't Know about History Can Hurt Us - HUMAN EVENTS

"It ain't so much the things we don't know that get us into trouble. It's the things we know that just ain't so."
   
That famous line, attributed to many authors but apparently said by humorist Henry Wheeler Shaw (aka Josh Billings), applies to history as much as anything.
   
What liberates oppressed people? I was taught it's often American power. Just the threat of our military buildup defeated the Soviet Union, and our troops in the Middle East will create islands of freedom.
   
Unlikely, says historian Thaddeus Russell, author of "A Renegade History of the United States."
   
"As a matter of fact," Russell told me, "in general American military intervention has increased anti-Americanism and hardened repressive regimes. On the other hand, American popular culture -- what was often called the worst of our culture in many cases -- has actually done more for liberation and our national security than anything that the 82nd Airborne could do."
   
I told him that I thought that the Soviet Union collapsed because the Soviets spent so much trying to keep pace with Ronald Reagan's military buildup
   
On the contrary, Russell said, "it collapsed from within. ... People simply walked away from the ideology of communism. And that began especially when American popular culture -- jazz and rock and roll -- began infiltrating those countries after World War II."
   
I demanded evidence.
   
"American soldiers brought jazz during World War II to the eastern front. Soviet soldiers brought it back. Eastern European soldiers brought it and spread it across those countries. ... Stalin was hysterical about this."
   
The authorities were particularly concerned about young people performing and enjoying sensual music.
   
"Any regime at all depends on social order to maintain its power. Social order and sensuality, pleasures of the body, are often at odds. Stalin and his commissars understood that."
  
American authorities 30 years earlier also feared the sensuality of black music, said Russell, attacking it "as primitive jungle music that was bringing down American youth. Stalin and his commissars across Eastern Europe said exactly the same things with the same words later."
   
Then rock and roll came.
   
"That was even more threatening," Russell said. "By the 1980s, disco and rock were enormously popular throughout the communist world."
   
The communists realized they had to relax the rules or risk losing everything, but it was too late. One of the most amazing and significant spectacles was Bruce Springsteen's concert in East Germany in 1988, when a crowd of 160,000 people who lived behind the Iron Curtain sang "Born in the USA."
   
I'm skeptical. I don't know how much effect Reagan's military buildup had versus rock and roll, but I bet ordinary consumer goods had an ever bigger effect. People trapped behind communist lines wanted the stuff we had. When I was in Red Square before the fall of communism, I sold my Nikes and jeans to eager buyers.
   
People want choices, and you can't indoctrinate that out of them.
   
Which leads me to the most destructive myth about history: the idea that if we are to prosper, government must make smart plans for us. I was taught that in college, and despite the failure of the Soviet Union, many government leaders still believe it.
   
It's no coincidence that the countries with the least economic freedom, according to the Heritage Foundation -- Cuba, Zimbabwe, North Korea -- are the worst places to live. They not only lack freedom, they are also poor.
   
Who's at the top of the economic freedom list? Hong Kong. (The United States is ninth.) Hong Kong has low taxes, and as I demonstrated in an ABC special years ago, they make it easy to become an entrepreneur. I got permission to open a business there in one day. In my hometown, New York City, it takes months.
   
Hong Kong doesn't even have democracy, but because its rulers protected people's personal safety and property and left them otherwise free, Hong Kong thrived. In 50 years, it went from horrible poverty to income levels that are among the highest in world. Prosperity, thanks to economic freedom.
   
We should try that here.

via humanevents.com

How true.

Glenn Beck's Co-Author a Poster Child for 'The Original Argument' - HUMAN EVENTS

Joshua Charles—co-author of Glenn Beck ’s latest work,  The Original Argument—never thought that at 23 he would be cast into the national spotlight for writing a book with his hero.  A piano performance major at the University of Kansas, Charles spent most of his life planning to be a concert pianist.  But last summer, he felt inspired to modernize the Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay so today’s generation would understand the underpinnings of our republic.  Glenn Beck took an interest in the manuscript and turned it into a No. 1 New York Times best seller.  Charles talked to HUMAN EVENTS editor Jason Mattera about his inspiration for the book and how he hopes it will impact conservatives, both young and old.
 
You’re 23 and you have a book co-authored with Glenn Beck.  That’s not the usual course for many 23-year-olds.  How did this all come about?
 
I saw the movie Amazing Grace, and then read about the abolitionist William Wilberforce.  I was very inspired by it all.  I had just finished reading the Federalist Papers for the second time, but it just wasn’t an enjoyable reading experience.  It was very difficult, mind-numbingly boring.  I just felt that if the language was simply updated, the amazing foundational, very powerful ideas the Founders were talking about could be brought to light in a much better way for a modern audience.  I had decided to do it kind of half-heartedly.  I sent a few examples to some friends, and they liked it.  They thought it was easy to read, more enjoyable to read.  Literally two or three days later, I was watching Glenn’s program on TV and he advocated someone doing the exact same thing.  That was the point at which my resolve really increased and I decided that this really needed to be done.  I decided to save money so that over the summer I could have the option of just working on this project, and in May, that’s exactly what I did.  I finished the original rough draft on July 4—all 85 Federalist Papers. 
 
How did you get connected with Glenn Beck?
 
Initially, I called into his radio show and was on hold for four hours.  I almost got on, but it didn’t quite work.  I sent manuscripts to Fox, to Glenn, letters, but nothing was getting through.  I actually did get offers from two much smaller publishers and I almost moved forward with them, but in December some friends and I decided to take a trip to Wilmington, Ohio, which Glenn highlighted on his show as being absolutely devastated by the recession but came together in Christian love and charity.  My main contact there ended up being the main contact for Glenn’s show, and she had told them about us because they were looking for updates on the Wilmington story.  I knew then that there was more to this trip than met the eye, so I gave her the PDF of the book and asked her to show it to them.  After the trip, they asked me to come to New York to do the show on Wilmington.  Before we started recording on Tuesday, I handed Glenn a full manuscript.  He seemed very moved by it, and said if it was any good he’d publish it.  I got an e-mail from the head of publishing at Glenn’s company less than a week later, and the rest is history.
 
What went in to choosing the 33 Federalist Papers you eventually published out of the original 85?
 
All the Federalist Papers are important and interesting in one way or another, but there are definitely some that are more applicable to the time in which they were written.  They focus much more on the actual problems with the actual Articles of Confederation.  They focus much more on providing examples of the exact same problems being exhibited in history—in Belgium, and Greece, and the Holy Roman Empire, etc.  So we tried to choose the papers that would be most directly relevant to the modern debate and modern issues we’re dealing with.  And we explain it and give background and relevance to today, but when reading it, we wanted it to be pretty obvious so the reader could make the connection easily.  Some of the topics that we felt needed to be particularly emphasized were federalism—what that really means—the difference between a republic and a democracy, taxation, American exceptionalism, and the balance between liberty and security, in light of the whole post-9/11 world we live in now.
 
Now that  The Original Argument has been released, what’s next for you?
 
Right now I’m doing book publicity for  Original Argument, public speaking, and working with Glenn Beck on other projects.  I’m also finishing up my term as president of my fraternity at University of Kansas.  Next fall, I’m planning on going to law school at Regent University Law School, hopefully in constitutional law.  The last few months have been pretty crazy, so I’m hoping to do whatever Providence has in store for me.
 
What advice do you have for young conservatives?
 
One thing that strikes me about young people is that many of them have great intentions.  Many can say the right words, but a lot of what they say is based in cliché.  There’s not a whole lot of substance to it in terms of our founding, in terms of our history and in terms of the actual Constitution.  Our dialogue has been forced into this mold of catchphrases and sound bites.  If the conservative movement is going to survive in the way that it must survive for the country, people need to know the actual arguments, they need to know their basis in the Constitution, and their basis in the experience of the Founders themselves, historically.  I love the Tea Party, but I’m also a little nervous about the cliché.  You can believe in less government all you want, but I think very few people can really make the case for it.  If someone provided one quote from Hamilton in a Federalist Paper that maybe lends itself to a bigger view of government, they wouldn’t be able to respond, because they would have no context, and they have to fall back on the same clichés.  So I think young conservatives should strive to be more informed on these documents, beyond what they get in school about checks and balances and a living Constitution.

via humanevents.com

interesting.

The Unanswered Questions for GOP Leaders from Freshmen | RedState

Forget the tax issue or the timetable for a moment; any proposed “spending cut” deal that fails to slash funding for discretionary spending and welfare programs to pre-Obama levels, as proposed in Paul Ryan’s budget, is worthless.  As Congressman Dennis Ross (R-FL) tweeted earlier today, “debt “deals” that count on 10 years worth of spending cuts are the Mr Snuffleupagus of budget tricks. No one sees them except pols.”

If House leaders fail to stand by their own budget, freshmen members like Ross might pose the following question: was the entire Republican majority of the 112th Congress a waste of time?

A record number of freshmen Republicans were swept into Congress to downsize government in general, and repeal/defund Obamacare in particular.

In April, Republicans had their first chance to fulfill their mandate by passing a continuing resolution for FY 2011 that slashed government and defunded Obamacare.  As the clock ticked down to a government shutdown, GOP leaders retreated in fear.  They forced the conference to pass a spending bill that maintained funding for Obamacare and only trimmed a paltry $352 million from the deficit, thereby abrogating their popular mandate from just five months before.

But we were told that the CR was not our fight, and that we should remain patient until we are presented with real opportunities; the debt ceiling fight and the Paul Ryan budget for FY 2012.

The Ryan budget, unlike the impending debt ceiling deal, more or less fulfills the mandate of the 2010 freshmen by defunding Obamacare and downsizing government to pre-Obama levels.  This is not the RSC plan or a Tea Party plan; it is the plan of the entire conference, supported by leadership.  Ever since the budget resolution was adopted on April 15, the House has worked diligently to carry out the budget blueprint and implement comprehensive cuts in every appropriations bill.

But what will come of all those cuts, including Obamacare, when the rubber meets the road in late September?

If GOP leaders could not expend their political capital and fulfill their mandate through the 2011 CR for fear of a gov’t shutdown; if they will not hold the line with the debt limit on August 2 for fear of default, will they hold the line on the Ryan budget on September 30?  Will they suddenly exhibit newfound courage in the face of a government shutdown, or was the entire Ryan budget just a charade?  They certainly won’t have more fortitude when we reach the next debt limit under this new “two-tiered debt ceiling plan.”

When will the conservatives deliver on their promise to defund Obamacare?

An overwhelming majority of voters support repeal of Obamacare; 66% of adults support Cut, Cap, and Balance; 74% of adults support a balanced budget amendment.  Throughout the debt negotiations, Obama has incurred record disapproval, while the GOP has made gains among the young and the poor – those most affected by Obama’s pernicious policies.

If such resounding support is not enough for them to pull the trigger, they will never have the guts to engage in brinkmanship over the Ryan budget in September.  There will be no other “bites at the apple” if Democrats know that Republicans will never force the issue.

The bottom line is that Democrats will never willingly sell out, and will go to the brink for their principles.  If Republicans don’t match their intransigence with a parallel degree of gumption, all of their promises will remain empty.

Those conservative freshmen will have nothing to show their constituents beyond a non-binding commission and unenforceable baseline spending cuts.

In order to preclude such disappointment, GOP leaders must hold the line on Cut, Cap, and Balance.  Additionally, they should opt for a “two-tiered” approach by bringing the Full Faith and Credit Act to the House floor, along with CCB.  This would force the Treasury to prioritize its payments to our soldiers and Social Security recipients.  Consequently, any default that ensues would be Obama’s prerogative.

To that end, our good freshmen won’t find themselves pondering this depressing question:  Is there any purpose of assuming power other than for its own sake?

via redstate.com

Good question.

Their Worst Week EVER (For Now) | Personal Liberty Digest

via personalliberty.com

Good news.

Oil: Idiocy Or Conspiracy? | Personal Liberty Digest

July 20, 2011 by John Myers 

WWW.AMERICANTHINKER.COM

No President before Barack Obama has bowed so diligently and committed so much to Saudi Arabia.

With oil priced at just two-thirds of its highs set three years ago, President Barack Obama launched yet another spend-now-pay-later program. But this time, the President has done it with something much harder to replenish than fiat dollars. He is spilling out the nation’s emergency crude oil reserves.

A year after Obama began limiting domestic petroleum exploration, he has begun siphoning off America’s last energy bulwark — the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). Thirty billion barrels of oil have already been frittered away by Obama, yet oil prices are now higher and supplies are tighter than they were before these precious emergency reserves were drained away.

Obama’s actions are so blatant that I refuse to give him the benefit of the doubt. Not only is the price of crude far lower than it was in the summer of 2008, but there is no physical shortage. Just the opposite; oil inventories in June were close to historic highs. There can be no doubt, however, that they will decline. The President has choked off domestic offshore oil exploration and has refused to open up potential petroleum-rich regions like Alaska for onshore exploration.

Does the President really believe we are in a crisis now? Or does he want to make things worse by throwing away our last line of defense, the SPR?

 

Last week, Congressional leaders grilled Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke as to why Americans are facing rising prices even in the face of a stagnant economy. Crude oil is traded in U.S. dollars, meaning that petroleum exporters like OPEC are insisting on higher well-head prices for finite amounts of oil in a world where Washington is able to create an infinite amount of dollars. It all translates to higher prices at the pump — if not this summer, then certainly by the end of the year.

Worldwide oil supplies are not keeping pace with global demand. Emerging markets’ demand for oil is rising, while mature fields in Russia, the North Sea and Mexico start to wind down.

Congressman Bill Cassidy (R-La.) along with 26 other lawmakers, signed a letter to the President on the drawdown of the SPR. They openly question why the Administration tapped the SPR without adopting a national energy policy that will lessen America’s dependence on foreign oil. The letter begs the question: Why not develop America’s energy resources and remove regulations on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico?

The letter from those members of Congress states:

It’s time to adopt a national energy policy which develops America’s natural resources, creates jobs and lessens our dependence on foreign oil. By tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the administration acknowledged that rising gasoline costs and increased dependence on foreign oil are unacceptable. Yet, the Department of the Interior continues to delay the issuance of new permits for offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

The current energy policies damage not only Louisiana’s economy but also exacerbate America’s energy problems. The president has often expressed interest in alternative energy. These polices can be pursued without ignoring domestic energy resources and the associated good paying jobs.

Is Obama acting out of stupidity or is something more sinister going on? That’s a reasonable question, considering that the President is driving America toward an energy maelstrom.

Obama apologists argue that the President simply doesn’t know better, that he and his team of energy advisers really do believe that the draining off of America’s emergency energy reserves makes sense so that the country can afford one last summer’s trip to Nantucket.

I don’t buy that Obama is stupid, not for one second. Say what you will about the President, but he is intelligent, probably too much so for the country’s own good. Obama is a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School. Ivy League universities don’t graduate dummies. I have had two friends who graduated from Yale. Both are remarkably smart.

So what does that leave us with? I believe we have a President who is pressing forward an energy policy that will backstop Saudi Arabia at any cost.

Bandar Barry

Because of the Bush family’s close relationship with the Saudi royal family, Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdul-Aziz, Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the United States from 1983 to 2005, was nicknamed Bandar Bush.

And while each President since Richard Nixon has supported the House of Saud, no President before Obama has bowed so diligently and committed so much to Saudi Arabia. It seems the Saudi Kingdom dictates policy to Obama rather than the other way around.

Two years ago, another Saudi former ambassador to the United States, Turki al-Faisal, wrote an essay for Foreign Policy badgering “misguided” U.S. politicians who promote American energy independence from the Kingdom. According to the former ambassador, it is “political posturing at its worst.”

I am offended that our President would take such lectures on decency from a tribal prince living in a brutal Muslim regime.

PhillyBurbs.com had the same conclusion on July 11.

It’s not just that Obama has presided over the near-end or slow crawl of new domestic drilling. The administration has been dragging its feet on approving a game-changing new pipeline (from Canada) that would, according to a December 2010 study commissioned by the Obama administration itself, effectively eliminate our dependence on oil from Saudi Arabia…

Our dependence on, in many cases, anti-American oil — Saudi oil, Nigerian oil, Venezuelan oil and the rest — will continue to rise, transferring our remaining wealth to the stand-out Shariah states, kleptocracies [SIC] and Marxist states of the world, further entrenching that ‘oasis of interdependence and cooperation’ Saudi royals talk about. It’s the Saudi dream come true. But it’s an American nightmare.

I can’t speculate as to why the President of the United States is selling out the nation to appease Muslim oil exporters. I believe Obama’s energy policies are inconsistent with those of a President working for America’s best long-term interests.

Action to take: Obama’s policies are leading to a depreciating dollar and higher oil prices. My expectation is that within the next 18 months, crude will surpass $150 per barrel. I urge you to buy blue chip North American petroleum stocks. Suncor Energy, one of Canada’s leading oil sands producers (SU, NYSE, $39.50), remains one of my favorite picks.

In the end, all of Obama’s horses and all of Obama’s men won’t be able to put the House of Saud back together again.

Yours in good times and bad,

–John Myers
Myers’ Energy & Gold Report

via personalliberty.com

???

Allen West Obama Sad Pathetic Fear Mongering Debt Ceiling | Breaking news and opinion on The Blaze

Rep. Allen West pulled no punches in his biting critique of President Obama’s handling of the debt ceiling negotiations. In this interview with CNSNews, the Congressman decried Obama’s implied threat that social security checks might not go out if the debt ceiling is not raised, and referred once again to this lapse in leadership as “sad, pathetic, fear mongering.”

Rep. West draws upon his experience as a military officer to describe how any executive with managerial experience learns to prioritize resources. Rep. West believes the President must find a way to extend current revenues such that seniors and veterans continue to receive their benefits regardless of the debt ceiling.

Watch the clip below of the CNS interview to get the full Rep. West critique:

(h/t CNS)

As an aside: Rep. West has also taken to Twitter to make his opinion about the debt ceiling and how it plays into the federal government’s spending habits clear:

via theblaze.com

Do you agree?

Govt Debt, Overreach Choking Economy

Facing more than a decade of egregious moral and financial failures by our government, Americans are on the verge of being treated to yet another rendition of theatrical political farce.

After recently celebrating the 235th birthday of the most profound and enduring experiment in redefining the relationship between the people and their government, we face the frightening prospect of watching that unravel at the hands of arrogant and disingenuous politicians.

The current posturing over the debt ceiling is merely a metaphor for the unwillingness of entrenched elected officials to accept their responsibilities and to deal honestly and courageously with issues concerning the running of our great nation.

As the chief financial officer for the fourth largest state and one of the world’s largest economies, I have been charged by my fellow Floridians to, among other things, audit local governments, manage a regulatory framework, wisely invest the people’s tax dollars, oversee the disbursement of payments and investigate statewide allegations of fiscal impropriety.

I see firsthand evidence of job-choking regulations, overreaching involvement of government in the lives of Florida’s families and businesses, fiscal profligacy, and outright fraud.

We have acted with a single-minded commitment to root out that mindset in Florida. In partnership with the Florida Legislature and Cabinet, we have reduced spending and resisted attempts to grow government or increase regulations.

We have embraced the ethical obligation to free future generations of Floridians from suffocating debt and put those tax dollars back into the pockets of individuals where they can be employed to build businesses and generate jobs.

Aided by a balanced budget amendment which the voters of Florida had the wisdom to pass, we have identified the path to economic growth and prosperity.

That path is not littered with tax increases or criminal spending habits. There are no crushing debt obligations or stifling regulations. Throngs of angry and arrogant bureaucrats do not cheer us on our way.

Our Constitution establishes clear and unmistakable principles of governance. Returning to those principles requires foresight and courage. Time is not on our side. Nero has already set the standard for fiddling. It is now up to Congress to assume a nobler mantle.

Jeff Atwater is Chief Financial Officer of the State of Florida and oversees the Department of Financial Services.

via newsmax.com

Yes.

Rubio Opposes McConnell Debt Plan

Conservatives seem to be shying away from supporting Mitch McConnell's debt plan, and rising GOP Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., is at the top of the list.

On Sunday he said strongly voiced his opposition to the plan on CBS' 'Face the Nation.'

“The way the deal is currently structured right now … it gives the president the ability to raise the debt limit, but as I’ve said already on the program, the debt limit’s not really the problem here. The problem is the debt,” Rubio said and The Hill reported.

Rubio worries the nation's credit rating is at stake if the country does not make significant steps at reducing the deficit. 

“I don’t believe this plan, as it’s been outlined to me, is a credible solution to our debt problem,” Rubio said.

Other conservatives voicing opposition include Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), one of the Senate’s most outspoken advocates for deficit reduction.

“I am only going to support something that actually solves the problem, and if we don't solve the problem -- and not the political problem,” he said on 'Face the Nation.' “If it doesn't solve the policy problem for this country, I am not going to support it.”

Others joining their ranks include Sens. Jim DeMint of South Carolina and Mike Lee of Utah, as well as Sens. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, Rand Paul of Kentucky, and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin

via newsmax.com

I agree... what do you think.

British Open 2011: Darren Clarke Holds on to Win - WSJ.com

SANDWICH, England—There was a spell on Sunday afternoon when the 2011 British Open looked as if it might be one for the ages.

Darren Clarke, the third-round leader, had eagled the par-five seventh a few minutes earlier to reclaim the outright lead from Phil Mickelson. Mickelson, playing three groups ahead, was in the midst of an unholy charge up the leaderboard. He had shot an astounding five-under-par 30 on the front nine, including an eagle on the same seventh hole, and at precisely 4:01 p.m. rolled in a 20-foot birdie putt on the 10th to reclose the gap with Clarke to a single stroke.

More British Open

• Final leaderboard

Let's pause for a moment right there, because it's how the 140th rendition of golf's oldest championship ought to be remembered.

Clarke, 42 years old, of Northern Ireland, was the clear local favorite. He has won 14 times on the European Tour and will almost certainly one day be the European Ryder Cup captain.

But he'd never won a major, despite playing in 53 of them before this week, including 19 previous British Opens, and there was a prevailing sense that this may be his last, best chance. After shooting opening rounds of 68, 68 and 69, he said Saturday that he was playing some of the best golf of his life.

But Mickelson, with 39 PGA Tour wins including four majors, was only slightly less popular than Clarke around the Royal St. George's course. And at 41 years old, there was a sense that this might be one of his last, best chances to finally win a British Open.

He had predicted Saturday that he needed to shoot at least four or five under par to give himself a chance of hoisting the Claret Jug. Through 10 holes, Mickelson was dead on pace. His front-nine 30, which might have been a 29 but for a 10-foot birdie effort on the ninth that lipped out of the hole, had the verve and excitement of a back-nine charge at Augusta National. The historically minded were recalling Greg Norman's closing-round 64 on the same course in 1993, arguably his finest moment.

Royal St. George's is known for its brutality. The wind for most of Mickelson's front-nine run was blowing steadily at 20 to 25 miles an hour, with gusts to 35 miles and hour, and it was punctuated by brief lashes of driving-hard rain. Afterwards Mickelson called that stretch of holes among the most-exciting of his competitive career. "It was one of those times where you're not thinking birdie and things were just happening," he said. "I'm not planning about making a 50 footer for eagle (on No. 7), but it just happens. I hit some of the best shots I've ever hit in the wind."

Clarke's front nine wasn't as incendiary, but given the pressure he must have been feeling as the leader, it was just as impressive. He holed a nervy 20-footer for par on the first, amid wind that was whipping his trousers; curled in a tricky left-to-right five-footer for par on the third; and effortlessly drained a 15-footer, after a super downwind layup, for the eagle on No. 7.

So there you have it: the British Open in a nutshell. There are a few subsequent details, but alas they're sadly anticlimactic

Mickelson missed a didly two-foot par putt on the 11th hole, to fall back to five-under. And then, in an attempt to make up lost ground, he began pressing for more birdies and made bogeys instead on 13, 15 and 16. He finished with a 68 for a two-under-par total, but he was out of contention before Clarke got started on the back nine.

Dustin Johnson, playing with Clarke, briefly took up the dramatic slack. The long-hitting American, who missed some crucial up-and-down opportunities on the front, birdied the 10th and 12th holes to move to five-under par, two behind Clarke. But on the inviting par-five 14th hole, entirely birdieable for the tournament's driving-distance leader, he shockingly sliced his two-iron approach shot out of bounds, leading to a double-bogey.

Clarke, calm and steady all day, never faltered. He poured in a half-dozen knee-shaking five- to 10-foot putts on the day. Playing cautiously with a four-stroke lead, he bogeyed the final two holes to finish at five-under par and joyously claimed the prize.

In truth, this was as much a victory for the Royal St. George's 7,211-yard layout as it was for Clarke, who became the oldest player to win a major championship since Ben Crenshaw at the 1995 Masters.

Through four days, the world's best golfers were tormented by this wet and windswept course. Just six players shot under-par rounds on Sunday, while only four finished the championship better than par. The world's top two players, Luke Donald and Lee Westwood, didn't even make the weekend.

The back-nine collapses by Johnson and Mickelson extinguished what had promised to be a resurgent day for U.S. golf. Heading into Sunday's final round, 10 of the top 16 players on the leaderboard were from the U.S., but Clarke's deserved triumph extended the country's streak of major championships without success to six, the longest drought since John McDermott became the first American major winner in 1911.

Mickelson joined legions of golf fans in being sincerely happy, as long as he couldn't win, about Clarke's victory. Two years ago, Mickelson's wife, Amy, and his mother, Mary, both came down with breast cancer. Among the first people to call him when news hit was Clarke, whose own wife, Heather, died of cancer in 2006.

"He's been through this and couldn't have been a better person to talk to," Mickelson said after his round. "We talked for a few hours a couple of times. He's a tremendous person and a very good friend, and I couldn't be happier for him."

via online.wsj.com

Horaaa!

Obama Plans Pricey Birthday Bash on Default Day

As America’s poorest wait for Social Security checks that may never come on Aug. 3, President Barack Obama will be out celebrating a milestone birthday at a party where tickets cost up to $35,800 each.

Obama has chosen the first day of the potential default to throw his 50th birthday bash, combining it with raising money for next year’s election. His actual birthday is Aug. 4.

Republicans are slamming the decision to have the party as “insensitive.”

“This really shows how unserious he is,” Republican Rep. Joe Walsh, a fellow Chicagoan, tells Newsmax exclusively. “I realize it’s his birthday, but he is a president who has said he doesn’t know if social security checks will go out that day.

“If that’s the case, I cannot believe he will be having a big party that very day.”

Obama said on Tuesday that he cannot guarantee that social security checks will go out from August 3 unless a deal can be reached on raising the nation’s $14.3 trillion debt limit. “There may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it,” he told CBS’ Scott Pelley.

Unless the deal is reached, government services across the board will be cut and in many cases closed down.

“My first thought was that he will have to fly to Chicago before the third because I can’t imagine airports will be open,” said Walsh. “And he’ll have to have a huge supply of candles because the lights are going to go out.

“I am amazed he will be able to have a party at all.”

Walsh said he hopes to be in Chicago on Aug. 3 himself to be with his family in case the calamity that Obama has warned about comes to fruition. “I just doubt I’ll get an invitation to the party,” he said.

Oscar winner Jennifer Hudson is expected to perform at the birthday bash at the historic Aragon Ballroom in Chicago. The event will be one of the president’s biggest fundraisers of the year. Publicity literature featuring a red, white and blue Happy Birthday logo has already been produced.

The event will be “multi-tiered,” the Chicago Sun-Times reported. The Hudson concert would cost $50; admission to the party $200; a premium seat $1,000; a souvenir photo with the president $10,000; and VIP seating and dinner with Obama $38,500.

Another GOP Congressman, Louie Gohmert of Texas was incredulous about the timing. “That’d be as crazy as setting up golf games in the middle of going after Osama bin Laden,” he said. “I’m sure he wouldn’t do something like that – or maybe he would.”

Obama has been leading contentious talks all week with leaders of both parties in the House and Senate to avoid the August 2 deadline. On Friday he warned of financial “Armageddon” if a deal cannot be reached.

via newsmax.com

Unbelievable... or not.

Why the Left Hates Rupert Murdoch

I arrived in London last week — July 4th — to be greeted by a media storm overtaking the mother country.

This news hurricane currently overtaking the media should really be re-titled “Time to Beat Up on Rupert Murdoch.”

As a journalist, it is always exhilarating to be in a great city when great news is being made, though I took strong issue with the media slant of this particular story.

Missing from all the sensational reporting is the fact that Murdoch is not well liked by the liberal establishment in Britain or in the United States. But this bias against Murdoch cannot deny the fact that Murdoch has played a key role in shaping our world today, including helping the West to defeat communism.

The allegations coming out of Britain are serious and should be investigated by the authorities, though I don’t believe Murdoch himself would ever have sanctioned criminal activities. During the mid 1990s, I worked briefly for the Murdoch empire at the New York Post. Such practices that have surfaced in Britain simply would never have happened at the Post.

Murdoch has, justifiably, moved to close his newspaper, The News of the World, and taken other serious actions to address these abuses.

In fact, many of the recent sensational press disclosures were actually provided to the official investigators by Murdoch’s own media company, which has been working closely with the police since the hacking allegations first arose two years ago.

Now, there is significant evidence that the details of this scandal were systematically leaked to the press here as Murdoch’s company, News Corp., was on the brink of getting government approval to gain 100 percent control of BSkyB, the satellite provider of cable channels for the United Kingdom.

Murdoch had created BSkyB from the ether, investing billions over time, to make it a powerhouse throughout the U.K. His news channel Sky News is the “must-watch” news channel of Britain. (Interestingly, Sky News’ coverage of this scandal has been harshly critical of News Corp.)

Murdoch’s company owns 40 percent of BSkyB, making him the controlling shareholder. He made a bid to purchase the remaining outstanding shares, and having gone through a dizzying regulatory process, he was nearing his last and final government approval when the proverbial dung hit the fan this week.

Being an eyewitness to the news, I have had a front-row seat to the unfolding drama.

For sure, there is triumphant glee among Murdoch’s longtime critics that he, his company, and his influence are under fire. And, these same critics are hoping the scandal may actually derail the final approval of BSkyB’s ownership by News Corp.

If that happens, it will be a sad day for British and American interests in Europe.

The Conservative Party government in Westminster, led by Prime Minister David Cameron, was set to give its final stamp of approval to the deal. But more than 100,000 complaints have flooded in. Now, the government moved to put the application before another regulatory authority.

Interestingly, these “complaints” were received with the help of all-too conveniently organized left-wing websites that had been set up just in case some major “news” broke about Murdoch’s papers. What a coincidence!

And this really gets me to the guts of my story, the real backdrop: The left hates Rupert Murdoch.

Most Americans don’t know that it was Rupert Murdoch, an Australian and “outsider,” who came to Britain in the late 1960s and began shaking up the media establishment.

It was Murdoch and his newspapers that elected Margaret Thatcher, taking Britain out of its socialist coma. Were it not for Murdoch, it is doubtful the Iron Lady would have ever emerged.

Thatcher, with Murdoch’s support, broke the power of the labor unions and their lock grip over the British economy. Without Murdoch, there would never have been a Reagan-Thatcher alliance defeating the Evil Empire. And Britain would not be today a first-rate European power.
Murdoch was not just a player in this. He was the key player.

In the United States, Murdoch has also made his mark in several significant ways.

Arguably, his first great triumph happened soon after he arrived in the United States — he bought the New York Post in 1976.

Murdoch and his paper saved our greatest city, New York. Back in the ’70s, the Big Apple was on the brink of insolvency.

Indeed, New York was on the path to become another Detroit; that is, until Murdoch decided to use the Post, then the third-most-read daily, to endorse Ed Koch, a dark-horse candidate and Democratic congressman in the 1977 mayoral election. Murdoch cleverly used a lottery style marketing program called Wingo, which, in the months leading up to the mayoral election, caused the Post’s circulation to mushroom.

Koch won that election handily, thanks to Murdoch. In my book, Koch saved New York by rolling back the power of the municipal unions that were a key factor in leading the city toward bankruptcy.

Just a few weeks ago I saw my longtime friend Ed Koch in New York.
I raised the subject of Rupert Murdoch, and Koch bluntly said he would never have been mayor of New York had it not been for him.

Today, Murdoch is best known for owning Fox News. We all know that Fox News, which trounces its cable media competitors (combine their audiences and multiply by 3 — that’s how badly Fox drubs them), is anathema to the liberal establishment.

In 1996, in a brilliant move, Murdoch tapped Roger Ailes to head this fledgling cable network. With Ailes’ genius and $1 billion in capital, Murdoch gave Fox a lift for a flight that is still ascending.

Back in Britain, the official investigations into the phone-hacking scandal will continue, as they should. But it’s important to remember that there is much more to the story not being reported — that the establishment doesn’t like Rupert Murdoch.

Why don’t they like him? As the venerable Margaret Thatcher might say, “He’s one of us.”

via newsmax.com

Interesting.

Texas Rep. Ron Paul to Retire From Congress

AUSTIN, Texas — Texas Rep. Ron Paul says he will retire from Congress when his term runs out in 2012 and will focus on his campaign for president.

The 75-year-old Republican said Tuesday that he has been criticized in the past for running for Congress and the presidency at the same time. He says he believes he can fight for the issues he believes in from outside of Congress.

Paul says he will serve out his term through December 2012.

Paul's supporters made him the top online vote-getter in an unscientific survey sponsored by Time magazine. Time asked readers to predict the winner of the 2012 GOP presidential nomination, with a mail-in vote and via an online vote. Mitt Romney was the top pick by mail-in voters, but Paul easily won the online vote.

via newsmax.com

Interesting.

THE VIRTUAL PRIMARIES: CAIN V. OBAMA; BACHMANN V. PALIN

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on DickMorris.com on July 11, 2011

Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain are hot on the heels of GOP front runner Mitt Romney.  But even as they vie with each other and with the former Massachusetts Governor for the lead, they are both really locked into virtual but invisible primaries of their own which will do a lot to determine if either of them emerges as the eventual nominee.

Every time Michele Bachmann speaks in public or on television, her viewers are always asking themselves one question: How does she compare with Sarah Palin?  The Republican base was so energized and enthused by Sarah's emergence onto the national stage in the summer of 2008 -- and so shell-shocked by the way she was pelted by the mainstream media -- that it can only see a new female candidate through the prism of that experience.

Like it or not, Michele Bachmann is in a virtual primary with Sarah Palin.  She is always to be measured against the Alaska Governor - for good or ill - and she will thrive or fail depending on how she does in this comparison, even if Palin does not run for president.  The former Governor of Alaska will always be the invisible metric against which Bachmann will be measured.

On the positive side, Michele's viewers ask themselves how she measures up with the Alaska Governor.  Is she as attractive?  Are her comments as zingy?  Does she have the same instinct for the jugular?  Is her life experience as emblematic of her principles?  Is she as refreshing a change from the uniformity and conformity of the liberal male professional political establishment?

But, at the same time, Bachmann is the un-Palin.  Sarah had no experience in Washington; Michele is well steeped in its ways.  For all of her energy, ambition, and knowledge, Palin lacked a stellar formal education.  But Bachmann holds a Masters degree in tax law from The College of William and Mary, one of the oldest universities in the United States. The Alaska Governor was new to the national stage and needed to get up to speed on issues.  Bachmann has lived her life on that stage and knows her stuff backwards and forwards.  Palin was challenged on foreign policy issues.  Michele serves on the House Intelligence Committee.

But we still worry that Bachmann will be subject to the same unfair, sexist calumny as undermined Palin.  We are concerned that she might not be able to weather the trial by fire she is about to endure. When George Stephanopoulos asks Bachmann about her comment that the founding fathers fought to eradicate slavery, we hold our breath hoping that this is not about to be a Katie Couric/Sarah Palin moment.  (It wasn't.  Michele handled it beautifully).  But we still worry about the next interview.  Like Palin, Bachmann will be asked questions no male politician has ever had to answer.  And we pray she passes the test.

Even as the invisible Bachmann/Palin primary unfolds, another contest will increasingly grip the national stage: the comparison between Barack Obama and Herman Cain.  When they only had their race in common, the comparison was not especially salient.  But since Obama has tacked to the left and based his campaign on class warfare, Cain has an important and impressive opportunity to turn the president's flank and speak out against pitting one group of Americans against the other.  

Coming from a poverty more dire than Obama's and an American experience that is perhaps more authentic than a president whose youth was divided between Hawaii and Indonesia, Cain can speak for those who are at the bottom with passion and skill.  He can make the fundamental point that you do not help the poor by vilifying the rich.  You do not advance the one by attacking the other.  You don't create jobs by demonizing and taxing those who create them.

Cain, as a businessman who worked his way up from poverty, can speak to the futility of class warfare and call upon the chief executive to become the president of all Americans, rich and poor.  He can slam the president's attempts to paint the rich as greedy and the Republican Party as their tool.  When Obama declares, as he did in the Twitter debate, that the GOP is using the debt ceiling as a gun to hold to America's heads so its "friends can ride on corporate jets,"  Cain must call him to task and decry this blatant attempt at class warfare. He should emphasize that we are all in this together than that a tax on anyone hurts everyone.  You cannot attack America's consumers and entrepreneurs without killing off any recovery we might be having.  Herman Cain can make this point in a way nobody else can.

So we will judge Bachmann and Cain in the shadows of Palin and Obama.  We will hold them to a standard we do not use for anyone else.  They are both superb candidates and we pray for their success.  Either one would be the change we need!

Senators Introduce Legislation To Remove Tax Burden On Gold And Silver Coins | Personal Liberty Digest

On June 28, Senators Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) introduced the Sound Money Promotion Act, which would allow legal tender gold and silver coins to be considered in the same manner as United States currency for taxation purposes. Thirteen states have recognized gold and silver coins as legal tender, but currently those coins are taxed as if they were not part of U.S. currency.

“Thanks to the government’s reckless over-spending, continued bailouts, and the Federal Reserve’s easy money policy, this year the purchasing power of the dollar hit an all-time low in the several decades since we went off the gold standard,” DeMint said when introducing the bill to the Senate, according to a press release. “This legislation would encourage wider adoption of sound money measures, and that’s a step in the right direction.”

The State of Utah was the first to recognize gold and silver coins as legal tender; the legislation passed in May of this year. Since then, 12 other States have recognized the hard currency, including South Carolina.

“Good monetary policy is an important part of a healthy and prosperous economy,” Lee reportedly said. “Since the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, the dollar has lost approximately 98 percent of its value. This bill is an important step towards a stable and sound currency whose value is protected from the Fed’s printing press.”

via personalliberty.com

Good.

Newsmax/InsiderAdvantage Poll: Voters Don't Want Debt Ceiling Hike

Republican and independent voters are strongly opposed to any deal to increase the federal debt ceiling, and any GOP politician who dares to do so could be vulnerable to a primary challenge, according to a Newsmax/InsiderAdvantage poll.

Overall, voters oppose raising the debt ceiling by a strong 45 percent to 32 percent margin, with the remainder undecided.

But the real eye-opener in the poll is the stiff Republican and swing-voter opposition to a deal. Sixty-seven percent of GOP voters and 51 percent of independents think raising the debt ceiling is a bad idea.

Democratic voters, by comparison favored raising the debt ceiling by a 44 to 21 percent margin. Interestingly, 35 percent of Democrats say they are either undecided on the question, or don't know enough to have an opinion.

InsiderAdvantage CEO Matt Towery tells Newsmax the poll strongly suggests GOP candidates backing a debt-ceiling hike do so at their own political peril.

"What this tells me is if you are an incumbent Republican in the House and the Senate," Towery says, "and you go to raise the debt ceiling, you can pretty much be sure you'll have a major primary opponent the next time you're up for re-election."

Along with the disastrous employment numbers released for June, it's another indication Republicans could have all the leverage in their negotiations with the Obama administration.

"These numbers serve as a warning that as we address the debt limit increase, we shouldn't do so in a way that raises taxes and impedes the ability of small businesses to create jobs and get people back to work," House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said Friday following the news that unemployment jumped to 9.2 percent in June.

Towery says the results indicate Republicans have a political opportunity to make serious cuts. But he hastens to add that GOP leaders "have got to show that they're serious."

Other key insights from the Newsmax/InsiderAdvantage poll:

• Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, a candidate for the GOP nomination for president, was second only to President Barack Obama as the leader who "cares the most about the future of America." Obama had 33 percent, followed by Bachman with 21 percent and Romney with 12.2 percent.
• While Obama drew the most support on that question, Towery comments that, "I look at it completely differently ... only 33 percent of Americans believe that the president of the United States cares the most about the future of America."
• Asked which leader is best suited to solve America's fiscal and economic problems, 32 percent selected Obama compared to 17 percent for Romney, 11 percent for House Speaker John Boehner, and a rock-bottom 3.7 percent who are willing to put their trust in Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.
• Among independents even fewer -- just 3.2 percent -- say Geithner is the one best equipped to resolve the nation's economic malaise.

Overall, Towery says the poll reflects strong GOP and tea party support for Bachmann.

"What Bachmann stands for right now is the best hope, for the moment, of a viable candidate who is aligned with the concepts of the so-called tea party," he tells Newsmax. "I think that's what she is. And until somebody knocks her off her throne -- and I'm not sure that's going to happen -- she is going to have their vote."

via newsmax.com

Interesting.

The College Scam - HUMAN EVENTS

What do Michael Dell, Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates and Mark Cuban have in common?

        They're all college dropouts.

        Richard Branson, Simon Cowell and Peter Jennings have in common?

       They never went to college at all.

        But today all kids are told: To succeed, you must go to college.

        Hillary Clinton tells students: "Graduates from four-year colleges earn nearly twice as much as high school graduates, an estimated $1 million more."

        We hear that from people who run colleges. And it's true. But it leaves out some important facts

        That's why I say: For many people, college is a scam.

        I spoke with Richard Vedder, author of "Going Broke by Degree: Why College Costs Too Much," and Naomi Schafer Riley, who just published "Faculty Lounges and Other Reasons Why You Won't Get the College Education You Paid For."

        Vedder explained why that million-dollar comparison is ridiculous:

        "People that go to college are different kind of people ... (more) disciplined ... smarter. They did better in high school."

        They would have made more money even if they never went to college.

        Riley says some college students don't get what they pay for because their professors have little incentive to teach.

        "You think you're paying for them to be in the classroom with you, but every hour a professor spends in the classroom, he gets paid less. The incentives are all for more research."

        The research is often on obscure topics for journals nobody reads.

        Also, lots of people not suited for higher education get pushed into it. This doesn't do them good. They feel like failures when they don't graduate. Vedder said two out of five students entering four-year programs don't have a bachelor's degree after year six.

        "Why do colleges accept (these students) in the first place?"

        Because money comes with the student -- usually government-guaranteed loans.

        "There are 80,000 bartenders in the United States with bachelor's degrees," Vedder said. He says that 17 percent of baggage porters and bellhops have a college degree, 15 percent of taxi and limo drivers. It's hard to pay off student loans with jobs like those. These days, many students graduate with big debts.

        Entrepreneur Peter Thiel, who got rich helping to build good things like PayPal and Facebook, is so eager to wake people up to alternatives to college that he's paying students $100,000 each if they drop out of college and do something else, like start a business.

        "We're asking nothing in return other than meetings so we make sure (they) work hard, and not be in school for two years," said Jim O'Neill, who runs the foundation.

        For some reason, this upsets the left. A Slate.com writer called Thiel's grant a "nasty idea" that leads students into "halting their intellectual development ... maintaining a narrow-minded focus on getting rich."

        But Darren Zhu, a grant winner who quit Yale for the $100,000, told me, "Building a start-up and learning the sort of hardships that are associated with building a company is a much better education path."

        I agree. Much better. Zhu plans to start a biotech company.

        What puzzles is me is why the market doesn't punish colleges that don't serve their customers well. The opposite has happened: Tuitions have risen four times faster than inflation.

        "There's a lot of bad information out there," Vedder replied. "We don't know ... if (students) learned anything" during their college years.

        "Do kids learn anything at Harvard? People at Harvard tell us they do. ... They were bright when they entered Harvard, but do ... seniors know more than freshman? The literacy rate among college graduates is lower today than it was 15 or 20 year ago. It is kind of hard for people to respond in market fashion when you don't have full information."

        Despite the scam, the Obama administration plans to increase the number of students getting Pell grants by 50 percent. And even a darling of conservatives, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, says college is a must: "Graduating from high school is just the first step."

        We need to wake people up.

via humanevents.com

I agree.

New York Smoking Ban Angers Smokers And Non-Smokers | Personal Liberty Digest

A recent addition to the smoking ban laws that have rippled through major cities was enacted in White Plains, N.Y., this week, taking away a smoker’s right to light up in parks, plazas, playgrounds and trails, the Lower Hudson Valley News reports.

Even non-smokers have voiced their opinion about the law’s intrusion on personal liberties. “I think that people who want to smoke should be allowed to smoke in parks,” Max Gaujean, a non-smoker, told the media outlet.

Smokers who violate the new law will face fines of $25 for their first offense, $50 for a second and $75 for any citations thereafter, CBS New York reported.

Barry H. Colvin of the Lower Hudson Valley News argues that lawmakers are enacting laws based on personal value judgments, and working to impose those values on others through law.

“As far as I know, you are still allowed to smoke in your own home,” he wrote in a recent column, “although that liberty may well be on a short rope as well.”

According to the Surgeon General’s office, following California’s 1998 decision, more than half of the States have now enacted public smoking bans.

via personalliberty.com

Too much.

The Rise of the Independent Voter

Most Americans used to call themselves Republican or Democrat. These days, more call themselves independent. What does that mean for American politics? A lot.

"Independents are everywhere, and they're becoming the largest single voting bloc in the country," Reason magazine Editor Matt Welch says. "They can determine every national election and every . . . election for state office. So independent voters — people who refuse to say, 'I'm a Republican or I'm a Democrat' — that's where all the action is."

Welch and Reason.tv Editor in Chief Nick Gillespie just published a book on what to expect from this change: "Declaration of Independents: How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What's Wrong With America."

The big change they see stems from independents' refusal to be absorbed by any party. "Compare the tea party to the . . . Howard Dean antiwar movement," Welch said.

"Howard Dean became the chairman (of the) Democratic National Committee. But the tea party has kept an arm's length and said, 'No, we're not going to be Republicans. . . . We're going to focus on . . . government spending, deficit, and debt, and that's it' . . . And by maintaining that independence they have retained power."

"Independence in politics means that you can actually dictate some of the terms to our overlords," Welch and Gillespie write, adding that we need independence not just in politics but from politics. Welch said, "When we look at the places where government either directly controls or heavily regulates things, like K-12 education, healthcare, retirement, things are going poorly."

It's very different outside of government where — from culture to retail stores to the Internet — there's been an explosion of choice. "You were lucky . . . 20 years ago [if] you would see one eggplant in an exotic store," Welch continued.

"Now in the crappiest supermarket in America you'll see four or five or six varieties of eggplant, plus all types of different things . . . When you get independent from politics, things are going great because people can experiment, they can innovate . . . We should squeeze down the [number of] places where we need a consensus to the smallest area possible, because all the interesting stuff happens outside of that."

Government is a zero-sum game: Someone wins, and someone loses, unlike in the market, where it's win-win, where merchant and customer thank each other.

"Anytime that you have the government expressing anything," Welch continued, "it's a battle of values. If a government is supporting an art show, people who find that art offensive have a legitimate claim. If a government buys . . . a new baseball stadium, well, my wife hates baseball, so how is that fair to her?"

"Fifty-one percent of the people get to tell the other 49 percent what to do, how much to pay, where you have to show up," Gillespie added. In the private sector, everybody gets to pick what he or she wants.

"There are troubles and tradeoffs," Gillespie said. "But . . . if somebody starts selling stuff you don't like, you don't hold a rally and you don't try and get a bunch of people to vote to change it. You go to the next grocery store . . . or you build your own grocery store. It's hard to do that with schools . . . with healthcare and . . . retirement."

Of course, as government makes more decisions for people and limits competition, it reduces our choices. It's also given us horrible, unsustainable debt.

But, surprisingly, the Reason folks are optimistic.

"There are cases (of big government rollbacks)," Gillespie said. "New Zealand did this. Canada did this. The U.S. did this after World War II — dramatically ramped down the amount of spending, both in absolute terms and in relative terms as a percentage of economic activity. Political change happens."

But for now, the politicians continue to move us in the wrong direction. Last year, the feds alone added another 80,000 pages of rules. Despite talk of cuts, spending keeps growing. So does the debt.

And yet maybe the optimists are right. Maybe the human spirit is so powerful it will overcome the stupidity of politics.

I sure hope so.

via newsmax.com

Yes.

The Foundation Of Liberty | Personal Liberty Digest

Last year, we reprinted the Declaration of Independence for Independence Day. It was well-received for a holiday issue, which traditionally sees fewer visitors than normal days. So we decided to reprint the Declaration again.

I was fascinated by some of the comments last year. More people than I anticipated recognized that our government today has taken on many of the characteristics of the British government that the Founders sought to “dissolve the political bands” of 235 years ago.

For instance, a case can be made that President Barack Obama and/or Congress have:

• “(R)efused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.” Obama’s Justice Department sued Arizona over that State’s immigration law.
• “(F)orbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.” Obama’s Justice Department threatened Texas to halt passage of a Transportation Security Administration anti-groping law. States that have passed laws to guarantee the sale of firearms and ammunition within their borders and to halt the implementation of the Obamacare healthcare bill have been sued by the Obama Administration.
• “(O)bstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.” Obama’s Interior Secretary has refused to abide by a Louisiana judge’s ruling ordering the issuance of drilling permits to companies wishing to drill for oil in the Gulf of Mexico.
• “(E)rected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.” Obama has appointed a growing number of czars (granted, he wasn’t the first to do it), the Department of Homeland Security — in addition to groping, irradiating and peeking beneath Americans’ clothes at airports — is now searching people at train stations, bus stations, shopping malls and sporting events, and vans with special X-ray technology are peering inside our vehicles and homes. The Obamacare bill provides for 10,000 more Internal Revenue Service agents to catch healthcare “cheats.”
• “(C)ombined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation.” The war in Libya was begun under the authority of the United Nations and without the assent of Congress. Obama insists the bombing in Libya is not a war.
• “(I)mposing Taxes on us without our Consent.” Obamacare — opposed by a majority of Americans, according to polls — imposes billions of dollars of new taxes on individuals and businesses.
• “(P)lundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.” The Obama Administration refused to let foreign ships help with the Gulf oil spill cleanup. The combined economic policies of George W. Bush, Obama, Federal Reserve chairmen Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke and Congress have led to high unemployment, hyperinflation and a crash in the housing market. That has left thousands of people displaced, hungry and destitute, and mobs are now pillaging many of America’s cities.
• “(E)xcited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.” First Bush 43 and now Obama have refused to protect America from an invasion of illegal aliens from across the U.S. border with Mexico. Many of them drive without licenses and insurance and hold jobs using fake Social Security numbers (and contribute to high unemployment among America’s youth and minority populations). And again, mobs of black youths are pillaging and terrorizing American cities.

With these truths in mind, let us now contemplate whether we are approaching the time where it is necessary to consider dissolving the political bands that have connected us, as we read what our wise Founders wrote so long ago.

Declaration of Independence

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:

Georgia: Button Gwinnett Lyman Hall George Walton

North Carolina: William Hooper Joseph Hewes John Penn  South Carolina: Edward Rutledge Thomas Heyward, Jr. Thomas Lynch, Jr. Arthur Middleton

Massachusetts: John Hancock  Maryland: Samuel Chase William Paca Thomas Stone Charles Carroll of Carrollton Virginia: George Wythe Richard Henry Lee Thomas Jefferson Benjamin Harrison Thomas Nelson, Jr. Francis Lightfoot Lee Carter Braxton

Pennsylvania: Robert Morris Benjamin Rush Benjamin Franklin John Morton George Clymer James Smith George Taylor James Wilson George Ross   Delaware: Caesar Rodney George Read Thomas McKean

New York: William Floyd Philip Livingston Francis Lewis Lewis Morris   New Jersey: Richard Stockton John Witherspoon Francis Hopkinson John Hart Abraham Clark

New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett William Whipple   Massachusetts: Samuel Adams John Adams Robert Treat Paine Elbridge Gerry Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins William Ellery Connecticut: Roger Sherman Samuel Huntington William Williams Oliver Wolcott New Hampshire: Matthew Thornton

via personalliberty.com

Yes, we all need to know this.