Jeff Neal for C.U.R.E. - Certain Unalienable Rights Endowment

Archive for the ‘Recommended Reading’ Category

More on “Reagan” on HBO

In Opinion, Recommended Reading on December 24, 2011 at 3:00 pm

Michael Reagan stands up for his father’s legacy in a piece on FoxNews.com.

Link Here

What the media is doing to the memory of Ronald Reagan is at best a disservice to the consumers of their propaganda and at worst an offense to the truth.  He was not the great compromiser or the great communicator.  He was a thoughtful, intelligent man who knew that the essence of America was its promise of freedom to individual men and women.  He knew that the battle with the Soviet Union was a battle for men’s souls and that the battles he waged against Tip O’Neill were about how much of a free man’s life the government could take from him.

To portray Ronald Reagan as just another clever politician is a lie.  To tell that lie speaks volumes about the liar’s misunderstanding of history and his ignorance.

Advertisements

Regulation Revolution

In Financial, Health Care Reform, Recommended Reading, Regulation on April 16, 2011 at 12:24 pm

Wall Street Journal is on the right trail.  Labor unions will win by regulation what they can’t get by democratic or other means of policy making that hinge on the merits of an argument.  (See Editorial here)

The democrats and their bosses/enablers (union leaders) know that regulatory control is their best, most effective weapon.  The GOP-controlled the House can’t stop actions taken and rules written by any of the innumerable commissions and agencies.  Parts of the Financial Regulatory Reform and Health Care Reform laws are going to be used against all of America’s businesses and individuals to revoke liberties and freedoms we thought were protected by the Bill of Rigths.

Those laws are littered with provisions that empower regulators to do whatever they deem to be “good” and “fair”. Put those laws together with BHO’s executive order of a few months ago (HERE) and you have an all-powerful government controlled exclusively by the unelected bureaucrats of the executive branch; and the legislature has rendered itself powerless to stop it.

Congress has passed laws that grant the POTUS enormous unchecked power.  Recent laws set “goals” and establish comissions with the authority to write rules (aka laws) to accomplish those ill-conceived goals. It’s plainly unconstitutional, but no one is watching.  Instead the focus is on who or what industry shall get the next tax credit or a grant or subsidy from Uncle Sam-ta Clause.  All the while Cass Sustein is busy, behind the fog, rewriting every regulation on the books and laughing at the food fight Paul Ryan and John Boehner are having with Harry Reid and Barack Obama.

Guest Letter – Reply to Elmo/Army

In Recommended Reading on February 17, 2011 at 4:32 pm

A friend replied as follows:

“Like taking candy from a baby.”

The problem I’m seeing in the budget discussions occurring across the country is not so much that they undervalue children, but rather that they under value my children. Every special interest in the United States is standing in line to take more money from the government trough for their needs.  As a small business man/entrepreneur I have to write real checks to pay for these “needs”.  Money that I earned by the labor of my hands and the sweat of my brow; money I earned for the benefit of my children was taken from my children’s mouth by special interests who banded together to elect politicians who would take more of my money.  What I want to know from those who have practiced this and are now demanding that I not “give” less are, “Do you really think that your causes and children are more valuable than my children?”  If you do believe that, then say so. Other parents will figure out you don’t care about their children, and you will be deemed useless. If you don’t believe your children are more valuable than mine, then stop stealing my kid’s money.

Oprah on Obama – Does she OWN the rule book?

In Opinion, Recommended Reading on February 15, 2011 at 5:45 pm

A friend (Jon Kraushar) just published a story on FoxNews.com  (Link Here).

Jon takes issue with recent comments from Oprah Winfrey, who suggests that any criticism of Barack Obama should be muted out of respect for the office of the presidency.  His analysis is thoughtful and thorough.

I was curious about his readers’ response, so off I went to the Comments section.  Reading those inspired these thoughts, also posted to his comment section.

While our friend, Mr. Kraushar, presents his case in civil terms, there seems to be a somewhat belligerent tone to some of the comments.  Oprah and her followers will listen if we speak to her in rational, civil terms – as did Mr. Kraushar.  Screaming will get us nowhere.

I’m no apologist for the leftists’ point of view.  I’m all for converting all of them to the right (and correct) way of thinking.  However, I believe that the minister who emotes some sympathy for his ‘flock’ gets more converts with his fire and brimstone sermon than does the preacher who tells his congregation they’re all sinners.

We need converts, not more angry antagonists.

FOUR words summarize America’s miracle.  Certain. Unalienable. Rights. Endowed.

America’s C.U.R.E.

WE CAN DO BETTER.  Spread the word.

Rand Paul – It’s a Start

In Economics, Opinion, Recommended Reading on February 7, 2011 at 12:54 pm

The GOP leadership is being timid about cutting government spending (see WSJ Editorial here).   They seem to have heeded the advice of the left-wing media, who tell them to fear being out-manuevered by the Democrats.  The theory is they’ll be at a political disadvantage if they ‘go first’ and propose significant entitlement reform and other cuts that are necessary to end the ‘unsustainable’ (they all use that word, but I don’t think it means what they think it means!) budget deficits and reduce the national debt.

Instead, one LEADER, Rand Paul, has the guts to take the first shot.  (See his WSJ piece here).

He’s taking heat for beginning the debate.  Support his efforts.  We know he’s right.

WE CAN DO BETTER, AMERICA.  Yes YOU Can.

Can we predict innovation? Our government thinks so.

In Economics, Recommended Reading on February 7, 2011 at 11:18 am

Professor Boudreaux makes the point well in his recent post on Cafe Hayek.

An oxymoron – Politically favored Innovation

So President Obama wants to encourage investment in innovation and new technology so the USA can compete with other countries.

As it turns out, Mr. President, this country of freedom-loving men has been doing that for generations with no help from politicians or any big-government ideas.  By definition, one can’t anticipate or get ahead of innovation or creativity.  It is spontaneous, it happens at the hands and in the minds of free men participating in mutually beneficial exchanges and in the pursuit of money and profit.  The government can only stifle that activity by redirecting labor and capital into some preferred use.

Let freedom produce good things in abundance, as it always has.

WE CAN DO BETTER, AMERICA.  Yes YOU can.

ObamaCare vs. Freedom

In Opinion, Recommended Reading on February 6, 2011 at 12:00 pm

Deborah Sloan form American Thinker posts this lively and substantive defense of truth and freedom in the wake of Judge Vinson’s finding that the individual mandate hinges on powers not granted the government in the constitution.

ObamaCare vs. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Any “right” that imposes an obligation on another man can only be ‘exercised’ by use of force.  The granting of any such ‘right’ must be accompanied by a gun, and in the case of health care law, that gun is in the hands of the President of the United States and his delegates.  May God save us all from such acts of tyranny.

Freedom, our Certain Unalienable Rights Endowment from our creator, is our only CURE.

AMERICA’S C.U.R.E. – WE CAN DO BETTER.

CPI – Does it measure anything?

In Economics, Everyday Life, Recommended Reading on February 6, 2011 at 7:39 am

Professor Donald Boudreaux asks (at some length) whether the CPI conveys any useful information.  He looks at the 1975 Sears & Roebuck catalog and analyzes the price of many of its items.  Link to Cafe Hayek — where orders emerge.

It’s an interesting read about the things CPI attempts to measure.  I ask an additional question to which he alludes but doesn’t ask explicitly – How can we compare with a statistic the price of something we take for granted today (the computer screen you’re reading at the moment, e.g.) which didn’t exist at any price in 1975?

Not everything can be measured in terms of money.  The value of the truth and the freedom to innovate is incalculable.

The gap between rich and poor

In Economics, Financial, Opinion, Recommended Reading on February 1, 2011 at 10:30 pm

Don Boudreaux again.  Several examples that make the point that wealth is not necessarily sticky or bias.  Wealth is created by worthy, hungry and hard-working men.  It isn’t static or loyal.  It, absent government intervention that favors the well-connected, flows freely to and from the productive and the moochers, respectively.

See his piece HERE. on Cafe Hayek.

Another point.  About the purported problem of a concentration of too much wealth in too few hands….those who are for ‘distributive justice’ seem to favor a set of government policies to ‘correct’ that problem might check their math.  Taxation to spread the wealth would give 535 men and women control over the wealth of millions of ‘rich’ people (1% of the population is > 3 million people, and they possess a mathematically disproportionate % of the wealth in America).

535 is 0.000147% of the population.

WE CAN DO BETTER.

Saving money by reducing freedom

In Economics, Financial, Recommended Reading, Regulation on February 1, 2011 at 4:55 pm

Economist from GMU, Don Boudreaux, strikes again.  Please, Mr. President, let us buy whatever lightbulb (or wine, or automobile or health care) we, as free men and women, choose.

Incandescent Arrogance

Regulating by banning things for which people would otherwise pay a premium is typical of our government’s arrogance.

WE CAN DO BETTER.