MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Republicans’

Questions That Only Libertarians Are Asking

Posted by M. C. on October 26, 2024

by Laurence M. Vance

It is only libertarians who are asking these questions and getting to the real issues. It is only libertarians because libertarianism is based on the timeless principles of individual liberty, economic freedom, private property, and a government limited to the protection of these things. Libertarians don’t just hold to these principles when it is expedient or popular to do so. This is what sets them apart from the proponents of every other political philosophy.

Although on the surface, Democrats, liberals, socialists, and progressives seem to be ideological opposites of Republicans, conservatives, nationalists, and constitutionalists, and although both groups are often contrasted with moderates, populists, centrists, and independents, in reality, every one of these groups has something in common: their opposition to libertarianism.

Libertarianism

Libertarianism is the philosophy that says people should be free from individual, societal, or government interference to live their lives any way they desire, pursue their own happiness, accumulate wealth, assess their own risks, make their own choices, participate in any economic activity for their profit, engage in commerce with anyone who is willing to reciprocate, and spend the fruits of their labor as they see fit — as long as their actions are peaceful, their associations are voluntary, their interactions are consensual, and they don’t violate the personal or property rights of others.

Libertarians maintain that as long as people don’t infringe upon the liberty of others by committing, or threatening to commit, acts of fraud, theft, aggression, or violence against their person or property, the government should leave them alone and not interfere with their pursuit of happiness, commerce, personal decisions, economic enterprises, or what they do with their body or on their property.

Libertarians thus believe that —

Individuals, not society or the government, should be the ones to decide what risks they are willing to take and hat behaviors they want to practice.

Everyone should be free to pursue happiness in his own way — even if his choices are deemed by others to be harmful, unhealthy, unsafe, immoral, unwise, stupid, destructive, or irresponsible.

Every crime needs a tangible and identifiable victim who has suffered measurable harm to his person or measurable damages to his property.

Markets should be completely free of government regulation, licensing, restriction, and interference.

No industry or individual should ever receive government grants, subsidies, loans, or bailouts.

The functions of government should be limited to prosecuting and exacting restitution from those individuals who initiate violence against, commit fraud against, or violate the property rights of others.

Contrary to Democrats, liberals, socialists, progressives, Republicans, conservatives, nationalists, constitutionalists, moderates, populists, centrists, and independents — who all may claim to believe some of these things — libertarians believe these things consistently and without exception.

The issues

Be seeing you

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Republicans Can’t Make Up Their Mind on Education

Posted by M. C. on August 13, 2024

Close the federal Department of Education? Ronald Reagan proposed abolishing the Department of Education while campaigning for president in 1980. The Republican Party platforms of 1980 and 1996 likewise called for the department’s elimination, yet, the federal education budget increased under President Reagan (with a GOP-controlled Senate) and exploded under President George W. Bush (with GOP control of the Congress for over four years). The Republican Party platform during the age of Trump (2016 and 2020) did not call for the department’s elimination.

by Laurence M. Vance

The new Republican Party platform was adopted at the Republican National Convention last month in Milwaukee, their first platform in eight years.Republicans can’t make up their mind on education.
[Click to Tweet]

Every four years at their convention, Republicans adopt a new party platform, but at the 2020 convention in Charlotte, the Republican National Committee (RNC) “unanimously voted to forego the Convention Committee on Platform, in appreciation of the fact that it did not want a small contingent of delegates formulating a new platform without the breadth of perspectives within the ever-growing Republican movement.” Instead, it resolved that “2020 Republican National Convention will adjourn without adopting a new platform until the 2024 Republican National Convention.”

The 2024 Republican platform has 10 chapters. Chapter 7, which contains nine paragraphs and a preamble, covers education: “Cultivate great K-12 schools leading to great jobs and great lives for young people.” The ninth paragraph contains a proposal that on the surface seems quite radical for Republicans:

9. Return Education to the States

The United States spends more money per pupil on Education than any other Country in the World, and yet we are at the bottom of every educational list in terms of results. We are going to close the Department of Education in Washington, D.C. and send it back to the States, where it belongs, and let the States run our educational system as it should be run. Our Great Teachers, who are so important to the future wellbeing of our Country, will be cherished and protected by the Republican Party so that they can do the job of educating our students that they so dearly want to do. It is our goal to bring Education in the United States to the highest level, one that it has never attained before!

Close the federal Department of Education? Ronald Reagan proposed abolishing the Department of Education while campaigning for president in 1980. The Republican Party platforms of 1980 and 1996 likewise called for the department’s elimination, yet, the federal education budget increased under President Reagan (with a GOP-controlled Senate) and exploded under President George W. Bush (with GOP control of the Congress for over four years). The Republican Party platform during the age of Trump (2016 and 2020) did not call for the department’s elimination.

Because the Constitution nowhere gives authority to the federal government to have a Department of Education, however, the department should be eliminated. And because we have a federal system of government, as James Madison explained in Federalist No. 45, the powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite—any government provision of, regulation of, oversight of, or spending on education must only take place at the state level if it is to take place at all.

But Republicans can’t make up their mind on education. Before they get to their ninth paragraph in which they call for the elimination of the Department of Education, Republicans propose to do the following in their preamble and first eight paragraphs:

  • offer a plan to cultivate great K-12 schools.
  • support schools that focus on excellence and parental rights.
  • support ending teacher tenure, adopt merit pay, and allow various publicly supported educational models.
  • emphasize education to prepare students for great jobs and careers.
  • support project-based learning and schools that offer meaningful work experience.
  • expose politicized education models and fund proven career training programs.
  • support overhauling standards on school discipline.
  • support universal school choice in every state in America.
  • advocate for immediate suspension of violent students.
  • support hardening schools to help keep violence away from our places of learning.
  • restore parental rights in education.
  • enforce our civil rights laws to stop schools from discriminating on the basis of race.
  • ensure children are taught fundamentals like reading, history, science, and math, not leftwing propaganda.
  • defund schools that engage in inappropriate political indoctrination of our children.
  • champion the First Amendment right to pray and read the Bible in school.
  • reinstate the 1776 Commission to support patriotic education.
  • promote fair and patriotic civics education.
  • support schools that teach America’s founding principles and Western Civilization.

And even in the ninth paragraph in which they call for the closing of the Department of Education, Republicans propose to cherish and protect teachers and “bring Education in the United States to the highest level, one that it has never attained before!”

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Did House Republicans and Democrats Commit Treason, Again?

Posted by M. C. on March 19, 2024

House Republicans passed H.R. 7521, legislation to give Biden the power to decide what apps go on your phone. That’s right, Republicans think it is a good idea to give Biden the power to decide what apps and websites you view.

This legislation is not really about Tic Tok. In the near term, it appears to be about finding a  way to censor X.com as well as blocking access to Yandex.com. Yandex.com is the Russian search engine that is quickly becoming the search engine of choice for many liberty activists when doing research.

Dr. Joseph Sansone

https://josephsansone.substack.com/p/did-house-republicans-and-democrats

A common denominator of all totalitarian societies is that they censor information. They label it heretical or misinformation, and simply prohibit its distribution. Up until 2020, this was something associated with countries like North Korea, Communist China, the former Soviet Union, NAZIs, and oppressive countries around the world. The West cherished its tradition of free thought and the free exchange of ideas. It appears today, this tradition of freedom of speech, is being targeted. 

In the 1400s Gutenberg’s printing press revolutionized the Western World. The invention of the printing press made books more readily available spurring an age of information and decentralization of knowledge, essentially giving birth to a new broader marketplace of ideas. This history changing invention coincided with the fall of Constantinople and the collapse of what was left of the Eastern Roman Empire. The exodus of classical manuscripts from Constantinople to Rome spurred the Italian Renaissance and the broader European Renaissance.

This European rebirth of civilization, with the spread of classical knowledge, amplified the force of individual liberty in Western Civilization. The somewhat uniquely Western concept of freedom of consciousness that was forged in the Dark Ages and Medieval Ages, in the tug of war between ecclesiastical and secular authorities, had a platform for expression in the mass production of books. 

In the 1990s and early 2000s the internet was viewed in many ways like Gutenberg’s invention. It spurred an information revolution that was a force for decentralization of information comparable to the printing press. It wasn’t just that information could be easily shared across the planet, it was also revolutionary, because anyone could establish a website, become a publisher of that information, and share that information across the planet.

Search engines, including Google, became analogous to user friendly libraries with a seemingly infinite number of books in the form of websites. Social networks eventually came about where people could share information and connect with each other more easily. I didn’t really get this at first. I didn’t understand why people would want to put their data on someone else’s website and promote someone else’s website rather than their own.

The deep state enabled specific search engines and social networks to end up dominating the market. The dark side of the web slowly began to emerge over the past ten to fifteen years as censorship started creeping in. Acting under the color of law censorship became more overt. This was first only in the form of shadow banning websites on search engines and individuals on social networks, then, the censorship became more overt, and then outright oppressive during 2020 with the advent of the plandemic. Since 2020, the advent of oppressive censorship has not been limited to search engines and social networks. The censorship has grown as banks and financial institutions have interrupted payment processing and companies have shut down the webservers for websites all based on political ideology.

As a result of the censorship, new platforms have emerged and are viewed as direct threats to authoritarianism. 

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Hey, Republicans! America Doesn’t Need a Second “Government Party”

Posted by M. C. on November 13, 2023

Meanwhile, it just so happened that Wednesday was also the day on which the run rate of interest on the public debt crossed the $1 trillionper year mark. That implies a fiscal catastrophe of staggering dimensions is fast barreling down the pike.

Yet in their closing statements did even one of the five candidates address this issue? Did these wanna be standard bearers for the Republican Party even know that the safeguarding of fiscal sobriety in the tussle of American democracy is the very reason for the GOP’s existence?

By David Stockman

David Stockman’s Contra Corner

The GOP debaters in Miami Wednesday night might as well have been swathed in war paint. After two hours of endless blathering about Foreign Wars, Border Wars, Culture Wars, Drug Wars, China Wars etc. it was hard to form any other impression about the agenda of today’s GOP.

To be sure, Vivek Ramaswamy gets a hall pass on the matter because he did nail the worst warmonger in the group, Nikki Haley, with his “Dick Cheney in three-inch heels” zinger. Indeed, the entire quote is worth replicating because it’s obvious that as a Republican no one ever heard of, Vivek hadn’t gotten the neocon memo about Washington’s duty to police the planet:

I want to be careful to avoid making the mistakes from the neocon establishment of the past. Corrupt politicians in both parties spent trillions, killed millions, made billions for themselves in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, fighting wars that sent thousands of our sons and daughters, people my age to die in wars that did not advance anyone’s interests. Adding $7 trillion to our national debt. And Joe Biden sold off our foreign policy. Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, got a $5 million bribe from Ukraine. That’s why we’re sending $200 billion back to that same country.

The fact of the matter is, the Republican Party is not that much better. You have the likes of Nikki Haley, who stepped down from her time at the UN, bankrupt or in debt, as was her family. Then she becomes a military contractor. She joins the board of Boeing and otherwise and is now a multi-millionaire. So I think that that’s wrong when Republicans do it or Democrats do it. That’s the choice we face. Do you want a leader from a different generation who’s going to put this country first, or do you want Dick Cheney in three-inch heels?

Still, there is actually something more deeply awry in Republican land than merely its zealous embrace of the neocon Forever Wars. The modus operandi that all the above-mentioned GOP wars have in common is the active deployment of government power to purportedly do good and thwart evil.

That is to say, the pitch amounts to “elect Republicans and we will power-up the state to make domestic society better and the world safer because we are more virtuous than the Dems”.

Yet what in the world does that have to do with the core anti-state mission of the Opposition Party in the contest of democratic politics?

After all, the do-gooder agenda has already been pre-empted by the Dems’ Government Party with its legions of liberal pols, well-fed interest groups and statist constituencies of every shape and form. There is no point now, and never has been, in me-tooism, RINO fakery and junior status in the Washington Uniparty.

So by definition, the Opposition Party needs to ground itself in conservative constitutionalism and advocacy for personal liberty and free markets at home and peaceful commerce abroad. Everywhere and always, therefore, the first priority of the Opposition Party must be shackling, minimizing, draining and constraining the power and resources of the state because by the very nature of the beast, government is self-aggrandizing and expansionary. And that’s most especially true on the Warfare State side of the equation.

Moreover, in the case of whatever societal problems the state might productively address, if any, the “Government Party” of the Dems will inherently grab first dibs. The Opposition Party will never out-bid them and shouldn’t try. As a matter of political competition, therefore, its strategy should be to throw endless shade on government and all its misbegotten works.

Accordingly, the Opposition Party’s brand should center on:

  • Celebrating the capacity of private society, free markets, civil institutions, families, citizens and other non-government actors to achieve the goods things of life, which humans in all their varieties and stations inherently strive for.
  • Debunking, exposing, attacking and ridiculing the inherent tendency of the state and its agencies and apparatchiks to abuse government power, waste the resources its has extracted from the public and to succumb to capture by nefarious actors, ranging from the military-industrial complex to Big Pharma, the farm lobby, the teachers’ unions and all the other feeders at the public trough.

Needless to say, the “war against….” rhetoric of today’s GOP embodies exactly the wrong tone and message. It essentially involves a misguided attempt by the putative “conservative” party to identify an alternative slate of societal problems which require government ministrations, albeit in a business-like Republican-style.

For instance, nearly to a man and woman, the five candidates took turns declaiming against the plague of fentanyl, promising to bring down the wrath of Washington on the alleged Chinese suppliers of the precursor components and the Mexican cartels which formulate it and bring it across the border. DeSantis even said he would “smoke” them on the Mexican side of the Rio Grande—the implied invasion of another country to the contrary notwithstanding.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Republicans, Foreign Policy, and Federalism – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on March 4, 2023

Congressional Republicans are horrible on such key issues as foreign policy and federalism. They share equal blame with the Democrats for the destruction of the Republic.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2023/03/laurence-m-vance/republicans-foreign-policy-and-federalism/

By Laurence M. Vance

Although the Republicans regained control of the U.S. House of Representatives in the November midterm election, they were the opposition party for the first two years of Joe Biden’s presidency. But just what did the Republicans oppose?

I have every so often for the past fifteen years referred to a tool I use to judge Republicans in Congress. I am referring to “The Freedom Index: A Congressional Scorecard Based on the U.S. Constitution.”

The Freedom Index “rates congressmen based on their adherence to constitutional principles of limited government, fiscal responsibility, national sovereignty, and a traditional foreign policy of avoiding foreign entanglements.” It is published by The New American magazine, where I am a contributing columnist.

The new edition of the Freedom Index is the last for the 117th Congress, and looks at ten key measures. Scores are derived by dividing a congressman’s constitutional votes by the total number of votes cast and multiplying by 100. So, the higher the score the better.

This edition tracks congressional votes in the Senate on semiconductor incentives, foreign aid, declaration of war, expanding NATO, targeting parents as domestic terrorists, the Inflation Reduction Act, hydrofluorocarbons reduction, terminating Covid-19 national emergency, marriage, and the omnibus 2023 spending bill.

It tracks votes in the House on the U.S. military in Syria, abortion access, expanding NATO, semiconductor incentives, assault weapons ban, the Inflation Reduction Act, electoral count procedures, federal police grants, marriage, and the omnibus 2023 spending bill.

The average Republican Senate score was a pathetic 60 percent. The average Republican House score was 71 percent. A brief look at some of the things Republicans voted on shows us that the Republicans did not oppose much of anything when it comes to an interventionist U.S. foreign policy and an assault on federalism.

During the consideration of a veterans healthcare bill, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) offered an amendment to prohibit the distribution of foreign-aid funds, other than to Israel, for 10 years. Only 7 Republicans voted in favor of it.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Republicans Want To Take Your Guns – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on March 31, 2021

Now, some would argue that felons shouldn’t be allowed to own guns. What qualifies a felon? Well, according to the 1986 Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, if you’ve loaded this web page and are reading this right now, you’ve committed a felony. Specifically, you’ve obtained information and are engaging in interstate or foreign communication. According to the CFAA, those are felonies

The Democrats want to take our guns, but the Republicans will swindle us out of them. Having depression or PTSD or opening your mother’s mail for her could result in a gun ban under Republican legislation. Republicans are not the gun advocate saints they claim to be. Their ideas are far more harmful than they claim to be. The Democrats will tell you that they’ll take your guns. The Republicans will tell you everything’s fine while robbing you blind.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/03/dakota-hensley/republicans-want-to-take-your-guns/

By Dakota Hensley

Republicans like to portray themselves as the most ardent and dedicated protectors of gun rights and the Second Amendment. Those like Ted Cruz claim that it’s Democrats that want to take away “guns from law-abiding citizens because that’s their political objective.” Republicans claim that if you put them in the driver’s seat, your guns will be protected. Is that true? No. It hasn’t been true for a long, long time.

Which is worse: being robbed or being swindled? If someone robs you, you’ll know they’re robbing you. You can stop it from happening again. If someone swindles you, you may not know about it for days or weeks or more. Democrats will rob you of your guns. Republicans will swindle you out of your guns and you’ll be none the wiser.

Ted Cruz claims Democrats want to take your guns. Republicans would never do that. Is that why he co-sponsored the Protecting Communities and Preserving the Second Amendment Act  of 2019, a bill that bans the mentally ill and felons from owning guns? That sure seems like gun control to me. Cruz was endorsed by GOA, the no compromise gun lobby. I guess they’re ok with compromise as long as it “preserves communities.”

Now, some would argue that felons shouldn’t be allowed to own guns. What qualifies a felon? Well, according to the 1986 Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, if you’ve loaded this web page and are reading this right now, you’ve committed a felony. Specifically, you’ve obtained information and are engaging in interstate or foreign communication. According to the CFAA, those are felonies. Ted Cruz and Chuck Grassley, the bill’s original sponsor, think you should now be banned from owning a gun. Possessing marijuana can also be a felony. So is posting fraudulent information on someone’s social media account, egging a mailbox, opening mail not addressed to you, downloading music without paying for it, giving a friend viagra, and failing to report your tips. Under the Grassley-Cruz bill, if you’ve done any of this, you’ll be banned from owning a gun.

There’s also the deal with mental illness. Mental illness is not as rare as politicians claim it to be. 1 in 5 people have depression and 1 in 5 have anxiety. 1 in 100 have schizophrenia. Almost 8% have PTSD, including 30% of veterans. Should all these people lose their guns? Should almost a third of veterans lose to their Second Amendment rights? Some say mass shooters justify this idea yet only 25% of them have a mental illness. Over 51 million people have a mental illness. Who’s going to take all those guns?

Modern Republicans like Cruz and Grassley aren’t the only ones who endorse gun control without really saying it. Ronald Reagan, as Governor of California, signed into law the Mulford Act, banning open carry. The bill was introduced because of the horror of black people walking around carrying guns. The Act was even endorsed by the NRA. Reagan also endorsed the Brady Bill in a 1991 op-ed. In 1989, he said, “…I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed in defense of a home” and should be banned with other “assault weapons.” In 1983, however, he told the NRA in a speech that, with gun control, “…police would be so busy arresting handgun owners that they would be unable to protect the people against criminals. It’s a nasty truth that those who seek to inflict harm are not phased by gun control laws. I happen to know this from personal experience.” Republicans like Reagan and Cruz say one thing in public yet do another in private. It’s rather swamp-like behavior. Conservatives deserve better.

According to the Daily Caller, this swamp-like behavior continues. Mitch McConnell and Pat Toomey are open to compromising on gun control. Cruz and Grassley are even discussing resurrecting the PCPSA act I mentioned earlier. Reading these words could get your guns taken away. Excessive? Maybe, but we all know that the government always deals in excess.

The Democrats want to take our guns, but the Republicans will swindle us out of them. Having depression or PTSD or opening your mother’s mail for her could result in a gun ban under Republican legislation. Republicans are not the gun advocate saints they claim to be. Their ideas are far more harmful than they claim to be. The Democrats will tell you that they’ll take your guns. The Republicans will tell you everything’s fine while robbing you blind.

Dakota Hensley [send him mail] is from Harlan County, Kentucky. He’s a writer and an individualist anarchist. You can find him on Twitter at @DakotaAHensley

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Republicans Have Always Dictated What Americans Can Think, Smoke, and Do with Their Money – The Future of Freedom Foundation

Posted by M. C. on March 13, 2021

We should never forget that Republicans do not for a minute believe that Americans can decide for themselves “how best to live their lives.”

https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/republicans-have-always-dictated-what-americans-can-think-smoke-and-do-with-their-money/

by Laurence M. Vance

Democrats may want to censor what Americans can read and watch, but it is comical to hear Republicans complain about it, since they have always dictated what Americans can think, smoke, and do with their money.

We should never forget that Republicans do not for a minute believe that Americans can decide for themselves “how best to live their lives.”
[Click to Tweet]

Late last month, Democratic Representatives Anna Eschoo and Jerry McNerney, both of California, and both senior members of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, sent a letter to “12 cable, satellite, and streaming TV companies urging them to combat the spread of misinformation and requesting more information about their actions to address misinformation, disinformation, conspiracy theories, and lies spread through channels they host.”

Reads the letter,

Our country’s public discourse is plagued by misinformation, disinformation, conspiracy theories, and lies….

Nearly half of Americans get their news primarily from TV. However, not all TV news sources are the same. Some purported news outlets have long been misinformation rumor mills and conspiracy theory hotbeds that produce content that leads to real harm. Misinformation on TV has led to our current polluted information environment that radicalizes individuals to commit seditious acts and rejects public health best practices, among other issues in our public discourse.

The good members of Congress urged these companies to “combat the spread of misinformation” and requested of them information about their actions to address “misinformation, disinformation, conspiracy theories, and lies spread through channels they host.”

Two days after the letters went out, the House Subcommittee on Communications and Technology of the Committee on Energy and Commerce held a hearing on “Fanning the Flames: Disinformation and Extremism in the Media.”

In his opening statement, Committee on Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) acknowledged that “the First Amendment prohibits us from passing laws that inappropriately limit speech — even when it is controversial or overly partisan,” but then tried to justify Congress’s looking into “the spread of misinformation that causes public harm.”

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology Chairman Mike Doyle (D-Penn.) likewise affirmed the First Amendment, but then tried to justify Congress’s examining and evaluating media outlets “and the role they play in disseminating disinformation and fomenting extremism.”

The letter and the hearing did not go unnoticed by House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.).

In a speech on the House floor the same day as the hearing, McCarthy warned that Democrats are trying to censor what Americans can read and watch:

It has never been Congress’s role to define and enforce journalistic standards. The 1st Amendment expresses [sic] prohibits the government from controlling what the press says, but Democrats are trying to give themselves the power to dictate what you can read and watch in your own home, and their assault on free speech goes beyond today’s disgraceful hearing….

These are members of Congress who are using their official position to coerce and control the information Americans can watch and access in their own homes.

They’re demanding more censorship, more de-platforming, and more control of what Americans can watch….

Democrats’ actions this week make it clear that the greatest threat to free speech today is not a law from Congress, which is bound by the 1st Amendment. The greatest threat is politicians who bully private companies to silence dissenting views.

McCarthy said that Americans can decide for themselves “how best to live their lives,” and they deserve to decide how to take care of their families or open their businesses during a pandemic, and they “deserve to decide to watch the news, judge the information they choose and draw their own conclusion about its accuracy.”

Now that they control both Houses of Congress and the presidency, the Democrats are clearly trying to do everything in their power to silence dissent, even if it means violating the First Amendment.

But who are Republicans to talk? They have always dictated what Americans can think, smoke, and do with their money. This is certainly just as bad as Democrats’ dictating what Americans can read and watch.

Republicans have always dictated what Americans can think.

The federal government outlaws discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, age, and other factors. Most states have similar laws. But to ban discrimination is to ban freedom of thought and freedom of association. In a free society, everyone has the natural right to think whatever he wants to think about any individual or group and the right to choose to associate or not associate with any individual or group on the basis of those thoughts. His thoughts may be erroneous, illogical, irrational, unreasonable, or nonsensical, and his opinions may be based on stereotypes, conjectures, prejudice, bigotry, or racism, but in a free society everyone is entitled to his own thoughts and opinions. And who supports discrimination laws? Republicans of course.

Republicans have always dictated what Americans can smoke.

Marijuana is classified by the federal government as a Schedule I controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act. As a Schedule I drug, marijuana is said to have “a high potential for abuse,” “no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States,” and “a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug under medical supervision.” Possession of marijuana is a violation of federal law punishable by a maximum sentence of one year in jail and a minimum fine of $1,000 for a first conviction. Who supports marijuana prohibition laws on the federal level? Republicans of course. There are thirty-five states where the medical use of marijuana is legal, and fourteen states where the recreational use of marijuana is legal. Who opposes the legalization of marijuana on the state level? Republicans of course.

Republicans have always dictated what Americans can do with their money.

Although gambling in the United States is technically legal under federal law, the federal government does have a number of laws that regulate gambling. Each state can prohibit or regulate various forms of gambling within its borders. Only Nevada and Louisiana permit casino-style gambling statewide. Others states allow commercial casinos in some form, but generally restrict them to certain geographic areas. They also require state licensing and heavily restrict and regulate the gambling industry. Private gambling not done under the regulatory eye of the state is generally illegal in any form. And who supports gambling laws? Republicans of course.

Although it is legal for people to be paid to have sex — in front of a director, camera, and crew, and then, after production and distribution, in front of hundreds, if not thousands, of strangers — it is illegal for people to be paid to have sex in the privacy of their car, home, or hotel room. Although it is legal for consenting adults to have sex as often as they want and with as many different partners as they want, it is illegal if one of the parties pays the other for it. And although it is legal to pay for dinner and a movie to get some moments of intimacy with someone of the opposite sex, it is illegal to pay someone directly and skip the dinner and movie. And who supports prostitution laws? Republicans of course.

In a free society, people have the freedom to do what they will with their own money. Whether they “waste” it on gambling or prostitutes is their business and none of the government’s business.

But don’t Democrats support laws against discrimination, drugs, gambling, and prostitution? Of course they do. But Democrats don’t claim to be the party of the Constitution and recite a mantra of limited government, individual freedom, private property, free enterprise, and the free market.

The Democratic assault on the First Amendment is real. But we should never forget that Republicans do not for a minute believe that Americans can decide for themselves “how best to live their lives.”

This post was written by: Laurence M. Vance

Laurence M. Vance is a columnist and policy advisor for the Future of Freedom Foundation, an associated scholar of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, and a columnist, blogger, and book reviewer at LewRockwell.com. He is the author of Gun Control and the Second Amendment, The War on Drugs Is a War on Freedom, and War, Empire and the Military: Essays on the Follies of War and U.S. Foreign Policy. His newest books are Free Trade or Protectionism? and The Free Society. Visit his website: www.vancepublications.com. Send him e-mail.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Why Republicans Are Powerless against Socialism

Posted by M. C. on January 4, 2020

If we are to believe the Republicans, they are all that is holding back the forces of socialism from taking over the United States and replacing a free and capitalist society with an authoritarian and socialist society.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

After suffering the humiliating loss of the House of Representatives in the 2018 midterm election, and having to deal increasingly with the fallout from the govern-by-Twitter pronouncements of Democratic bogeyman, Donald Trump, Republicans needed a bogeyman of their own to feign horror over in order to help them convince moderate and independent voters (and on-the-fence Republicans) that they should be afraid of the policies pushed by Democrats and vote Republican in the 2020 election. That bogeyman is socialism. As Republicans gear up for the 2020 campaign, they are pressing their case that a vote for Democrats is a vote for the policies of socialism.

Republicans don’t have an easy road ahead of them. A Gallup poll taken last year found that 37 percent of Americans feel positive about socialism, including 16 percent of those who lean Republican. Young people are especially likely to view socialism positively, with about half of Americans under 30 (51 percent) responding that they had a positive view of socialism. That accords with other polls that reveal that an increasing number of Americans support progressive ideas such as government-mandated paid maternity leave, tuition-free college, government funding for child care, increasing the minimum wage, and Medicare for All. Popular political figures such as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), as well as an increasing number of progressives, embrace the label “democratic socialist.” Even so, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has told reporters that the path to Republican success in the 2020 election is “running to be the firewall that saves the country from socialism.”

Back in April, Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah) received approval from the U.S. House of Representatives for the creation of the Anti-Socialism Caucus. According to a press release that was posted on the congressman’s official website, “The purpose of the caucus is to inform lawmakers and the public on the dangers of socialism and to serve as a bulwark to stop the advancement of socialist policies and legislation.” According to Representative Stewart,

Socialism is a folly. Not only is it doomed to fail wherever it rears its head, it leaves a wake of destruction in lives and freedoms lost.

So much time has passed from the fall of the Iron Curtain that many have internalized — or never experienced — socialism’s ultimate price. If we fail to recall those dangerous times, the primitive appeal of socialism will advance and infect our institutions.

Our adversaries have one thing in common: they want to destroy freedom, democracy and the rule of law, for the life-affirming principles which define our liberal democracy represent an existential threat to their existence.

The Anti-Socialism Caucus will play a part in how we will defeat socialism once again.

“This caucus will defend individual liberty & free markets and highlight the dark history of socialism,” tweeted Stewart upon receiving approval from the House for the formation of the caucus.

At the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) held earlier this year outside Washington, D.C., White House economic advisor Larry Kudlow, Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), former White House deputy assistant Sebastian Gorka, head of the Republican National Committee Ronna McDaniel, and Vice President Mike Pence all played the socialism card.

According to the Associated Press and Business Insider, Kudlow implored conference attendees to “join us to keep America great and join us to put socialism on trial and then convict it.” Meadows, chair of the House Freedom Caucus, warned Republicans that Democrats are “embracing socialism.” Gorka asked and answered a question: “What is America’s biggest problem? Not socialism in Russia, but in America!” McDaniel told the conference that the GOP would look to “go out and educate” voters about socialism. Pence said in his speech that the choice in the next election is “between freedom and socialism, between personal responsibility and government dependence.” “The moment America becomes a socialist country is the moment America ceases to be America,” said Pence to the friendly crowd.

A Trump campaign official who spoke on the condition of anonymity said the campaign was exploring ways to use the “socialism” message to drive a wedge between Democratic voters and independents. It was a surprise that Trump did not mention socialism in his speech to the crowd of conservative activists. But of course, he has mentioned it numerous other times. Just before the 2018 election in which Democrats regained control of the House, he predicted,

If Democrats win control of Congress this November, we will come dangerously closer to socialism in America. Government-run health care is just the beginning. Democrats are also pushing massive government control of education, private-sector businesses, and other major sectors of the U.S. economy.

In his State of the Union Address in February, the president again warned of the dangers of socialism:

Here, in the United States, we are alarmed by new calls to adopt socialism in our country. America was founded on liberty and independence —not government coercion, domination, and control. We are born free, and we will stay free. Tonight, we renew our resolve that America will never be a socialist country.

Socialism in theory

The term “socialism” is increasingly bandied about by pundits and presidential candidates, resulting in much confusion. What is socialism? Although Republicans are increasingly trying to demonize Democrats with the label, they rarely stop to define the term in its specific historical sense or in its more general modern sense. Akin to that is their insistence that they believe in free markets and that the United States is a capitalist country that must be saved from socialism.

In its essence, socialism is the government ownership and control of the means of production, distribution, and exchange. That is why socialist parties, once in power, seek to nationalize major industries. Under socialism, government central planning, not markets, determines what should be produced, by whom, and in what quantities — at least in theory.

The Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises, in his 1944 book Bureaucracy, contrasted capitalism and socialism:

The main issue in present-day political struggles is whether society should be organized on the basis of private ownership of the means of production (capitalism, the market system) or on the basis of public control of the means of production (socialism, communism, planned economy). Capitalism means free enterprise, sovereignty of the consumers in economic matters, and sovereignty of the voters in political matters. Socialism means full government control of every sphere of the individual’s life and the unrestricted supremacy of the government in its capacity as central board of production management.

More recently, economist Walter Williams succinctly explained the difference between the capitalist and socialist systems: “The key features of a free-market system are private property rights and private ownership of the means of production. By contrast, socialist systems feature severely limited private property rights and government ownership or control of the means of production.”

But as Mises’s disciple and Nobel laureate economist Friedrich Hayek made clear in the preface to the 1976 edition of his classic work The Road to Serfdom (1944), the meaning of socialism evolved in the second half of the twentieth century from meaning “unambiguously the nationalization of the means of production and the central economic planning which this made possible and necessary” to mean “chiefly the extensive redistribution of incomes through taxation and the institutions of the welfare state.” Modern-day socialists and their fellow travelers aren’t calling for the nationalization of industry or the abolition of private property. They want a mixture of government ownership, government control by regulation, and government redistributive programs to ensure social justice and economic equality.

Socialism in practice

In spite of Republican rhetoric, and contrary to what most Americans think, the United States, like every democratic country, has — in the words of economist Thomas DiLorenzo — “islands of socialism in a sea of capitalism.”

Socialized education. Public education is one of the most blatant forms of socialism in the United States. Every state government has a provision in its constitution for the operation of K–12 schools, colleges, and universities in the state. K–12 schools are funded by local property taxes as well as the federal and state governments. Public universities are funded directly by state governments and indirectly by federal Pell grants, other federal educational grants, and federal student loans. Teachers are employed by local school boards (in the case of K–12 schools) or state governments (in the case of colleges and universities). Textbooks are selected, and curricula are designed, by government entities.

Every state, as well as the federal government, has a department of education. The states have mandatory-attendance laws and standardized-testing requirements. Government agencies mandate teacher-education requirements and certify teachers. The federal government has math and science initiatives, special-education mandates, bilingual-education mandates, research grants for colleges and universities, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the Higher Education Act, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, Common Core, Title IX anti-discrimination mandates, the No Child Left Behind Act, and school breakfast and lunch programs. The accrediting agencies of colleges and universities are government agencies.

Socialized medicine. Americans who criticize the socialized medicine that exists in Canada and European countries forget that we have several forms of socialized medicine in the United States. Medicare is government-funded health care for Americans 65 years old and older and for those who are permanently disabled, or have end-stage renal disease or ALS (Lou Gehrig’s disease). It covers more than 55 million Americans, most of whom become eligible for Medicare when they reach age 65, regardless of their income or health status. Medicaid is government-funded health care for poor Americans of any age and people with certain disabilities. It is the primary source of health-insurance coverage for low-income populations and nursing-home long-term care, and covers about 70 million Americans. Medicaid is jointly financed by the federal and state governments, but designed and administered by state governments within federal guidelines. The Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) is a partnership between federal and state governments that provides federally funded health insurance to children in families with incomes too high to qualify for Medicaid.

Government insurance exchanges help millions of Americans purchase health insurance subsidized by the federal government. The federal government has a National Institutes of Health (NIH), federal laboratories, a Food and Drug Administration (FDA), a Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), HIV/AIDS prevention initiatives, vaccination programs, and nutrition guidelines.

Social Security. This is the largest socialist program in the United States. There are actually two parts to Social Security (OASDI). The Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) program provides monthly benefits to retired workers, families of retired workers, and survivors of deceased workers. The Disability Insurance (DI) program provides monthly benefits to disabled workers and families of disabled workers. More than 60 million Americans receive some sort of Social Security benefit. The government pays the benefits, determines the benefits, sets the retirement age, decides on cost-of-living adjustments, and makes the rules for eligibility.

Despite the name of the program, many Americans think that they are entitled to receive Social Security benefits because they earned them by contributing to the system over the course of their working life. But there is no contractual right to receive Social Security benefits. Congress can reduce benefits at any time, increase Social Security taxes at any time without increasing benefits, and raise or eliminate the wage base upon which Social Security taxes are figured at any time without increasing benefits. The federal government can even pay Social Security benefits in perpetuity regardless of the amount of Social Security taxes that are collected.

Socialized charity. There are in the United States about 80 means-tested welfare programs that offer benefits on the basis of the beneficiary’s income or assets. U.S. welfare programs provide cash, food, housing subsidies, utility subsidies, and social services to poor, disabled, and lower-income Americans.

The most egregious of the means-tested welfare programs is the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program. It pays cash directly to welfare recipients to spend as they please. States receive block grants from the federal government to design and operate TANF programs. In an average month, approximately 3.5 million Americans receive TANF benefits. The majority of poor families with children receive some form of cash assistance from the government.

The Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program gives cash assistance to people who are disabled, aged, or both and who have low income and few assets. More than 5 million low-income households in the United States receive federal rental assistance through the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program. Most recipients of federal housing assistance pay 30 percent of their adjusted income toward rent, with the government paying the rest up to a certain amount.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP [formerly known and still referred to as food stamps]) is administered by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, but operated by the states. Recipients of food-stamp benefits receive a deposit on an EBT card each month that can be used only for prepackaged food items. About 13 percent of the population are on food stamps.

Other means-tested welfare programs include the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP); the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP); Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); Head Start; Healthy Start; the National School Lunch Program (NSLP); the School Breakfast Program (SBP); the Special Milk Program (SMP); the Elderly Nutrition Program; the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), and subsidized low-income phone service. Some welfare programs aren’t means-tested at all, such as Unemployment Compensation, which is overseen by the U.S. Department of Labor and administered by the states. It provides benefits to those who become unemployed who meet certain eligibility requirements.

Socialized services. Governments at all levels in the United States provide services that could be provided by the free market. The most infamous example is the U.S. Postal Service (USPS). And to make matters worse, by law, only the Post Office is allowed to deliver regular mail. The federal government’s National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) costs taxpayers more than a billion dollars a year in subsidies. The federal government’s Transportation Security Administration (TSA) provides security at airports and forbids airlines to provide their own security.

Government “public works” projects are not only socialism on a grand scale, they are also the epitome of the term “boondoggle.” In many states, counties, and cities in the United States, it is the government that collects the garbage; operates mass transit; supplies electricity, water, and natural gas; operates fire departments; owns the airports; operates health clinics; provides ambulance services; operates hospitals; inspects restaurants; operates the liquor stores; and picks up stray and dead animals. Other things that are done by private businesses are also done by government-run enterprises.

According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), “In 2017, U.S. government spending for national, state and local budgets was 38 percent of GDP.” Almost two-thirds of the federal budget goes for transfer payments and subsidies.

The Republicans

Will the Republicans save us from socialism? To think so is to dream the impossible dream. Republicans are powerless against the onslaught of socialism, and for two reasons. One, they support the same socialist policies as the Democrats. And two, they did nothing to roll back socialism when they had the chance.

Republicans support the three biggest socialist programs in the United States: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Just read what it says in the Republican Party platform:

As the party of America’s future, we accept the responsibility to preserve and modernize a system of retirement security forged in an old industrial era beyond the memory of most Americans. Current retirees and those close to retirement can be assured of their benefits. Of the many reforms being proposed, all options should be considered to preserve Social Security.

We intend to save Medicare by modernizing it, empowering its participants, and putting it on a secure financial footing. We will preserve the promise of Medicaid as well by making that program, designed for 1965 medicine, a vehicle for good health in an entirely new era.

Even worse, Republicans sometimes create new socialist programs of their own accord. In 1997, the Republican-controlled Congress created the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP, now just called CHIP), a partnership between federal and state governments that provides federally funded health insurance to children in families with incomes too high to qualify for Medicaid. The program has been reauthorized with Republican support ever since then.

After many years of Democratic control of both houses of Congress, Republicans captured the Senate during the presidency of the Republican Ronald Reagan and held on to control of it for six years. They did absolutely nothing to stop the onslaught of socialism. In fact, they raised the Social Security and Medicare tax rates to bolster those socialist programs. If only we had control of the House, said the Republicans. During the last six years of the presidency of the Democrat Bill Clinton, Republicans had a majority in both houses of Congress. They did absolutely nothing to stop the onslaught of socialism. In fact, they increased the refundable Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) every year to redistribute even more of the incomes of American taxpayers. If only we had a Republican president, said the Republicans. When the Republicans finally got their Republican president in George W. Bush they had a perfect opportunity to abolish the federal government’s socialist programs and restore the United States to a free and capitalist society. The Republicans controlled both houses of Congress for more than four years during the Bush presidency. They had not had absolute control of the government since the first two years of Republican Dwight Eisenhower’s presidency. Again, they did absolutely nothing to stop the onslaught of socialism. In fact, they expanded Medicare, created the TSA, and tremendously increased the budget of the Department of Education. The Republicans had another chance to roll back socialism when they controlled both houses of Congress during the first two years of Trump’s presidency. But again, they did absolutely nothing to stop the onslaught of socialism. In fact, they could not even come together to repeal Obamacare, even though they had railed against it since the day the Democrats passed it in 2010.

The conclusion is inescapable: Republicans are powerless against socialism because — as shown by their words and deeds — they are socialists themselves.

This article was originally published on the Future Freedom Foundation website and in the August 2019 edition of Future of Freedom.

Be seeing you

TSA

Your Alternative to Facial Recognition

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

The Problem With Republicans and Conservatives – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on July 16, 2019

That the federal government should not have a Corporation for Public Broadcasting, fatherhood programs, job-training programs, and foreign aid is rarely, if ever, pointed out.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/07/laurence-m-vance/the-problem-with-republicans-and-conservatives/

By

Republicans and conservatives have a problem.

“PBS is indoctrinating our kids,” says Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO). PBS recently aired an episode of the children’s show “Arthur” which “featured—and celebrated—a same-sex wedding.” Lamborn says that “it is time to stop sending our hard-earned tax money to support programming that is objectionable to many Americans.” He has reintroduced a bill “to cut off all federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which funds PBS.” “Parents and churches should be the ones discussing marriage and family with their children—not PBS,” says the indignant Lamborn.

“Responsible fatherhood programs continue to hold the promise of expanding the emotional, educational, financial, and other resources millions of children need to thrive,” says Matt Weidinger, a resident fellow in poverty studies at the American Enterprise Institute. The federal government spends over $75 million per year on fatherhood programs. “’Many federal departments have initiatives and programs supporting responsible fatherhood and fathers in the community,’ including the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, HHS, HUD, Justice, Labor, and Veterans Affairs.” But despite the proliferation of programs, “very few rigorous evaluations have been done to test their effectiveness.” Concludes Weidinger: “Given the stakes for families and children, it is well worth continuing current efforts while also striving to determine which are the most effective.”

“Government job-training programs appear to be largely ineffective and fail to produce sufficient benefits for workers to justify the costs,” says Tomas Philipson, a member of President Trump’s Council of Economic Advisers. According to the White House: “There were more than 40 federal worker-training programs spread across nine different agencies serving more than 10 million Americans in the 2017 fiscal year.” Yet, “Most federal job-training programs produced insufficient data to be clearly evaluated, and the ones that were studied weren’t producing the desired results.” Philipson “suggests the government should be looking for ways to subsidize private programs or create private-public partnerships.”

“The United States must ensure that American taxpayer-funded relief reaches those most in need,” says Jessica Trisko Darden, a Jeane Kirkpatrick fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Darden reports that “since January 2015, USAID’s Office of the Inspector General — an independent agency tasked with monitoring US foreign assistance — has documented more than 350 allegations of fraud, theft, armed group involvement, bribery, and other issues involving US aid in Iraq and Syria alone.” Darden concludes that “it’s time for everyone to acknowledge that without better oversight and management of humanitarian assistance, their well-intentioned work may go to waste — or worse, prolong the very crises this aid is intended to ameliorate.”

Republicans and conservatives have a problem. But in spite of what they say about government television stations, government fatherhood programs, government job-training programs, and government foreign aid, their problem is not with government television stations, government fatherhood programs, government job-training programs, and government foreign aid…

When conservatives get enough Republicans elected to gain control of Congress (like during the last six years of Clinton’s presidency and the last two years of Obama’s presidency) or Congress and the White House (like during four plus years of Bush’s presidency and the first two years of Trump’s presidency), they not only do absolutely nothing of substance to reverse the progressive polices enacted by Democrats, they often increase their funding, expand them, and supplement them with new progressive policies of their own.

The Republican and conservative ideal of limited government is a government limited to control by Republicans free to carry out a conservative agenda.

Be seeing you

wp-1555692458658.jpg

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Republicans Love Socialism Too – The Future of Freedom Foundation

Posted by M. C. on June 27, 2019

https://www.fff.org/2019/06/25/republicans-love-socialism-too/

by

Today’s New York Times is carrying a video op-ed entitled “I’m Republican. I Never Thought I’d Fight for Medicaid.” The op-ed calls for an expansion of Medicaid in North Carolina and other states to cover people who are uninsured and do not qualify for Medicaid because they make too much money.

First things first. While Republicans have traditionally despised welfare programs for the poor, such as food stamps, they are among the fiercest proponents of socialist programs for the middle class and wealthy.

Examples of the Republican embrace of socialism abound: Social Security, Medicare, public (i.e., government) schooling, school vouchers, education grants, state support for colleges and universities, foreign aid to dictators, farm subsidies, corporate grants, and many others.

Every one of those programs is based on using the coercive apparatus of the state to tax one group of people in order to give it to another group of people. In his great little book The Law, the French free-market legislator Frederic Bastiat called that type of system “legal plunder.”

Thus, while it might be shocking for a Republican to find himself supporting a welfare program for poor people, he is being disingenuous if he suggests that he opposes socialism in general. While he might disagree with Democrat Bernie Sanders in degree, he shares a deep commitment to socialism in principle with that self-labeled socialist.

Americans once had the finest healthcare system in the world — a free-market healthcare system. It was so reasonably priced that hardly anyone had medical insurance, with the possible exception of catastrophic insurance. It was a system in which people in all income categories were being treated. Doctors, who at that time loved their profession, would voluntarily provide free healthcare services to poor people simple out of sense of moral obligation.

The enactment of Medicare and Medicaid succeeded in destroying that healthcare system. That’s when healthcare costs began soaring, launching an ever-increasing set of healthcare crises, followed by healthcare reform after healthcare reform. Meanwhile, doctors began hating what they do in life and began checking out with early retirement.

Of course, no reform has ever worked to resolve the healthcare crises. There is a simple reason for that: Socialism cannot be made to work, even when it’s not referred to as socialism and even when it’s run by American bureaucrats…

There is only one way to get America back on the track toward the finest healthcare system in history: the repeal (not the reform) of Medicare and Medicaid and the total separation of healthcare and the state. There is no other way. Socialism cannot be made to work, not with Medicaid expansion, not with Medicare for all, and not with a full socialist government takeover of healthcare.

Finally, and most important, there is no way to reconcile a system of mandatory charity, which is what Medicare and Medicaid are based on, with the principles of a genuinely free society. Thus, Americans have to make a choice: Do you want freedom or do you want the “security” that supposedly comes with Medicare, Medicaid, and other socialist programs? You can’t have both because freedom and mandatory charity are opposites. The choice must be made: Freedom or “security”?

I say: Let’s go with freedom. Let’s repeal, not reform, Medicare and Medicaid. Let’s cast America’s horrific experiment with healthcare socialism into the dustbin of history and restore a free-market healthcare system to our land.

Be seeing you

propertyn tax

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »