Read the Bill before you Sign it!

Before becoming president, Obama said he would post bills for five days before signing them so that Americans would know their content. Read Jim Harper's comments on Obama's Failure to do so here.
I think jeers should go to Congress as well. It's bad enough when they don't read the bills before they sign them, but then they hire a speed reader to make fun of the fact that people want them read! Extremely bad form. This is our future you are messing with.
If I were a congresswoman I would read every bill before I voted on it. Who cares where your degree is from or your level of experience if you don't read the darn bill. If they were trying to pass a bill without allowing enough time to read it, I know that happens.... I would hire enough readers to break the thing down into a sensible outline and get the info I needed so I could read all the important passages. But they should just give them enough time.
My two other 'campaign promises' are: I would strive to take over the ranking of 'Most Conservative Congressman'
And I would continue to cut my own hair.

Family Politics

Political debates at family gatherings? yes or no

When you come from a large family there will usually be quite a spectrum of political belief and political involvement. My Dad has always loved a good debate. As a child I remember sitting in the hot van ready to get my scratchy dress off after church, while he was standing out in the parking lot waving his arms in a heated debate over some scripture passage. Not exactly how a Sunday lesson is meant to be, I know, but lets just say strong emotions run deep in our family when it comes to our beliefs.

I’m pretty sure among my siblings we have supporters of Obama and Ron Paul, liberals and conservatives, activists, and people who would rather live ‘off the grid’ and let it all go by.

So what happens when you get together and a family gathering turns into a heated political debate? Are there topics you just avoid or do you just let the opinions fly? We’ve had some hurt feelings before, and I personally believe that the more heated an argument gets the stupider people become. It’s the adrenaline I think.

If I were hosting a dinner party with friends I would steer the conversation clear of divisive topics, but do you do that with your own family or just revel in your differences?

Alternately, we like to get together with people who are pretty much on our side of the fence, where we can discuss political happenings at ease. But you can’t do that with family. You can’t (or at least I can’t) invite just the right wingers to a gathering.

The love I have for my family goes way beyond their political identity. But the debate always starts, and like they say, it’s all fun and games until someone looses an eye.

So how do you handle it?

Alexis de Tocqueville On Democracy

“ Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom, socialism restricts it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.” –Alexis de Tocqueville, 1848

---“Discours prononcé à l’assemlée constituante le 12 septembre 1848 sur la question du droit au travail,” Œuvres complètes d’Alexis de Tocqueville (1866) IX, 546

I haven’t read Alexis de Tocqeville since back in the school days, but I feel like I should get a hold of some to add to my summer reading list.

-Lynnae

Planned Economy or Planned Destruction

I Saw this on Cato@Liberty and had to pass it along. It fits with our recent conversations. It is from the 1938 Chicago Tribune. If it is too small to read please follow this link. It's well worth it!

The Road to Serfdom

I have a borrowed copy of the 50th Anniversary Edition of "The Road to Serfdom" with an introduction by Milton Friedman. My husband was about to return this copy by the time I saw it floating around here so he may have to wait till I finish, I say may because I already plan to go out and get my own copy. I'll write a 'book report' when I'm done, but along the way I'm finding little gems I'd like to share.

The theme is Hayek's warning that going down the path of Socialism leaves a country susceptible to totalitarianism, dictatorships, fascism, etc. Published in 1944, with the rise of Nazi Germany as a backdrop, Hayek sets forth to explain how many of the socialist ideals the British and Americans are accepting could lead us down the same path.

Here is an interesting and timely quote from the 1956 preface:

" It is for this reason that I rather hope that the time may now be more favorable in America for a serious consideration of the true argument of the book than it was when it first appeared. I believe that what is important in it still has to render it's service, although I recognize that the hot socialism against which it was mainly directed-that organized movement toward a deliberate organization of economic life by the state as the chief owner of the means of production- is nearly dead in the Western world. The century of socialism in this sense probably came to an end around 1948. Many of it's illusions have been discarded by it's leaders, and elsewhere as well as in the United States, the very name has lost much of it's attraction.

[Oh how I wish that were true!-L.P.]

........If few people in the western world now want to remake society from the bottom according to some ideal bluepoint, a great many still believe in measures which, though not designed completely to remodel the economy, in their aggregate effect may well unintentionally produce this result. And, even more than at the time that I wrote this book, the advocacy of policies which in the long run cannot be reconciled with the preservation of a free society is no longer a party matter. The hodge podge of ill-assembled and often inconsistent ideals which under the name of Welfare State has largely replaces socialism as the goal of the reformers needs very careful sorting out if its results are not to be very similar to those of full fledged socialism. This is not to say that some of it's aims are not both practicable and laudable. But there are many ways in which we can work toward the same goal, and in the present state of opinion there is some danger that our impatience for quick results may lead us to choose instruments which, though perhaps more efficient for achieving the particular ends, are not compatible with the preservation of a free society. The increasing tendency to rely on administrative coercion and discrimination where a modification of the general rules of law might, perhaps more slowly, achieve the same object, and to resort to direct state controls or to the creation of monopolistic institutions where judicious use of financial inducements might evoke spontaneous efforts is still a powerful legacy of the socialist period which is likely to influence policy for a long time to come."

I will bring you more great quotes and information as I go through the book.

Stand Up!

It is difficult to stand up for what you believe in.

Surrounded by people who accept the commom line.

Challenged for your beliefs when you just want to enjoy

the baby shower

or shop in peace,

get through a days work,

or watch your childs performance.

To have a simple ready answer when your position was gleaned from years of reading, observing, and study.

Sometimes your passionate love of freedom can come as a shock to those who take it for granted.

Sometimes you want to run away but your love of freedom tells you to stand up.

This is the 20th Anniversary of the massacre at Tiananmen Square.

Let's keep our freedom, that our future generations won't have to fight to get it back.

Obama and the Constitution

A number of years ago our Current President Obama made the following Statement:

“And the Warren court interpreted it generally in the same way — that the Constitution is a document of negative liberties, says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted.”- audio from 2001 Obama interview.

This is the man who has sworn (at least on the second try) to uphold our great document.

Our Constitution is all about limits. Inspired by God, it was created by men who had seen tyranny, injustice, and the impenetrable classes of British society at the time. It was created by men who thought seriously about the extent of reach the government should have on the lives of the citizens. The Constitution lays out the method by which our majority law would be accomplished, The Bill of Rights sets forth the personal rights that the majority, or the government, cannot encroach upon.

The beauty of the Constitution is found in it’s limits. The freedom of the people is ensured by it’s limits. Frankly, to have a leader who feels constrained by these limits worries me.

But then Maybe President Obama would prefer this reading……

-Lynnae