Archive for the ‘National’ Category
1. Rights belong to individuals, not groups; they derive from our nature and can neither be granted nor taken away by government.
2. All peaceful, voluntary economic and social associations are permitted; consent is the basis of the social and economic order.
3. Justly acquired property is privately owned by individuals and voluntary groups, and this ownership cannot be arbitrarily voided by governments.
4. Government may not redistribute private wealth or grant special privileges to any individual or group.
5. Individuals are responsible for their own actions; government cannot and should not protect us from ourselves.
Read more by Ron Paul at LewRockwell.com
–SNIP– In the realm of non-legal services, these are some of the reported cases of people being penalized for refusing to provide services for events celebrating homosexuality for religious reasons.
- A 70-year-old florist, Barronell Stutzman, was fined by the State of Washington for not providing flowers for a “gay” wedding. Now her home and personal savings are at risk. The state and the plaintiffs propose to bankrupt her personally and the court has ruled that her personal property is available to execute any judgment. They intend to render her destitute in her old age.
- Photographer Elaine Huguenin was ordered by the State of New Mexico to give a lesbian $7,000 for declining to photograph her same-sex wedding.
- Bakers, Aaron and Melissa Klein were fined $150,000 by the State of Oregon for refusal to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding based on religious objections.
- Blaine Adamson was ordered by the city of Lexington, Kentucky, to undergo ’sensitivity training” for refusing to print T-shirts for a gay pride festival.
Read more by Jack Golbert at AmericanThinker.com
A professionally shot video of Barack Obama from 1995 has recently surfaced. Shot at the Cambridge, Mass. Public Library, the video captures a skinny, youthful Obama promoting his then newly released memoir, Dreams from My Father.
In this hour-long presentation, Obama openly talks about his relationship with his mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, a Communist and pornographer. Perhaps more importantly, Obama gives us a much clearer picture of who he was in 1995, on the cusp of his political career, than we had seen before. Some observations:
The Obama of 1995 was not a very good speaker. He had a halting delivery, stuttered, was obviously nervous, and, although congenial enough, could not tell a joke. What Obama did do well was read. He read a dramatic passage from his book for a full fifteen minutes uninterrupted and used multiple voices halfway credibly.
Read more by Jack Cashill at AmericanThinker.com
. . . and a tax is a fine for doing well.
Well said . . . by whom?
P.S. So, government will get you either way?
P.P.S. Income taxes are due today!!
When newsrooms run with stories too good to be true, they should diversify their ranks.
“So, basically, my butt refuted The New York Times.”
The Times had editorialized that the NRA was a bunch of hypocrites because although attendees with gun permits were allowed to carry guns on the convention floor, those guns were actually neutered by having the firing pins removed: “Seventy-thousand people are expected to attend the National Rifle Association’s convention opening (last Friday) in Tennessee, and not one of them will be allowed to come armed with guns that can actually shoot. After all the NRA propaganda about how ‘good guys with guns’ are needed to be on guard across American life, from elementary schools to workplaces, the weekend’s gathering of disarmed conventioneers seems the ultimate in hypocrisy.”
A damning assertion of hypocrisy — except that it wasn’t even close to true. The only guns with firing pins removed were the display guns on the convention floor. In fact, several gun bloggers tweeted a photo of themselves carrying fully functional firearms from the press room, forcing The Times into an embarrassing — though still incomplete — correction. It was especially embarrassing because a simple check of the NRA website or The Tennessean would have revealed the truth. But The Times‘ editors saw a chance to score a cheap shot and got carried away in their excitement. (MSNBC got burned, too.)
Read more by Glenn Harlan Reynolds at USAtoday.com
In an industry where only liberal ideas are “allowed,” many libertarians and conservatives keep their political views secret.
Deep in Silicon Valley, where the free market reigns and the exchange of ideas is celebrated, a subset of tech workers are hiding their true selves. Working as programmers and software engineers, they don’t want the stigma that comes with revealing who they really are.
They’re the tech company employees, startup founders, and CEOs who vote for and donate to Republican candidates, bucking the Bay Area’s liberal supremacy. Fearing the repercussions of associating with a much-maligned minority, they keep their political views fiercely hidden.
“It’s a liberal echo chamber,” Garrett Johnson, a co-founder of Lincoln Labs, which was started in 2013 to connect the right-of-center outsiders in Silicon Valley, told National Journal. “People have been convinced that Silicon Valley is reflexively liberal or progressive. And so their response is to conform.”
Read more by Rebecca Nelson at NationalJournal.com
The controversy surrounding Dr. Ben Carson illustrates a national crisis that has been ignored – and tolerated – for far too long.
Carson, a renowned neurosurgeon, burst onto the national scene with his resounding National Prayer Breakfast address in February. His conservative views have made him the Right’s newest star. The inconvenient fact that he is an African-American conservative does not sit well with the Left, however, which has hammered away at Carson since Day One with a variety of methods ranging from dismissing him, ridiculing him, attempting to drive a wedge between Carson and conservatives, and (most recently) a full-on attack over Carson’s gay-marriage remarks last week (a matter that should not have provoked a controversy, as I wrote on this site).
Read more by AJ Delgado at Mediaite.com
ONCE upon a time in America, baby boomers paid for college with the money they made from their summer jobs. Then, over the course of the next few decades, public funding for higher education was slashed. These radical cuts forced universities to raise tuition year after year, which in turn forced the millennial generation to take on crushing educational debt loads, and everyone lived unhappily ever after.
This is the story college administrators like to tell when they’re asked to explain why, over the past 35 years, college tuition at public universities has nearly quadrupled, to $9,139 in 2014 dollars. It is a fairy tale in the worst sense, in that it is not merely false, but rather almost the inverse of the truth.
Read more by Paul F. Campos at NYTimes.com
Tax: a payment to government for doing something good
Fine: a payment to government for doing something bad
Fee: a payment to government for doing business
Thursday, April 23, 2015, 5:00 PM - 9:30 PM
Location: Wisconsin Center - Downtown Milwaukee, 400 W. Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, WI US 53203
Join us for an amazing evening on Thursday, April 23, 2015 in support of the Wisconsin Right to Life Education Fund. Our featured keynote speaker is Michelle Malkin.
Michelle Malkin is one of the most highly-sought commentators on current events in the United States today. Her provocative insights can be found on major national editorial pages and heard on appearances on the Fox News Channel.
Come hear Michelle Malkin’s viewpoint on the important life issues facing the country. We promise you won’t be disappointed!
The gala evening includes a cocktail hour with Silent Auction from 5:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. and a delicious dinner served at 6:30 p.m. The evening is black-tie optional. Individual tickets are $100 and tables of ten are $900.
Info at Wisconsin Right To Life
Every year, the International Federation of Health Plans — a global insurance trade association that includes more than 100 insurers in 25 countries — releases survey data showing the prices that insurers are actually paying for different drugs, devices, and medical services in different countries. And every year, the data is shocking.
The IFHP just released the data for 2012. And yes, once again, the numbers are shocking.
This is the fundamental fact of American health care: We pay much, much more than other countries do for the exact same things. For a detailed explanation of why, see this article. But this post isn’t about the why. It’s about the prices, and the graphs.
One note: Prices in the United States are expressed as a range. There’s a reason for that. In other countries, prices are set centrally and most everyone, no matter their region or insurance arrangement, pays pretty close to the same amount. In the United States, each insurer negotiates its own prices, and different insurers end up paying wildly different amounts. That’s what Steven Brill’s explosive article was about, and it’s why you see U.S. prices expressed as a range rather than a single number.
Read more by Ezra Klein at WashingtonPost.com
Rand Paul sends Snapchats, Jeb Bush makes his own Instagram videos, and Hillary Clinton comments on current events and policy through Twitter. Soon, they may all be broadcasting major speeches and private events through Meerkat—if they haven’t already. In the social-media-driven world of modern politics, “digital first” is the mantra of presidential campaigns.
As if to underscore that point, Ted Cruz announced the official launch of his campaign for the Oval Office through a simple tweet just after midnight Monday morning. “I’m running for President and I hope to earn your support,” said the tweet, which included a link to a 30-second video. The conservative firebrand is the first potential candidate to enter the 2016 race, and will kick off his campaign at Liberty University on Monday, the fifth anniversary of the signing of the Affordable Care Act.
Digital strategies—once novelties in 2004, add-ons in 2008 and must-haves by 2012—are now the engine rooms of presidential campaigns. The considerations about digital, touching every aspect of presidential bids, even influence how and when the campaigns for the White House will launch, experts told RCP in interviews.
Read more by By Alexis Simendinger & Caitlin Huey-Burns at RealClearPolitics.com
Does the road to the White House start in Wisconsin?
Scott Walker is running for president, but he can’t say that just quite yet. “I hate the word ‘explore,’ ” he tells a group of activists at a private meeting in the strip mall offices of Our American Revival, the political organization through which Walker is exploring a presidential bid. Walker says that lawyers tell him he has to use that word when discussing his “likely campaign” in order to avoid running afoul of campaign finance rules. In case there’s any doubt about how likely that campaign is, Walker concludes his remarks by saying, “We’re going to beat Hillary Clinton.”
Read more by John McCormack at WeeklyStandard.com