During the fallout following the government bailout of banking, investment, insurance, and the auto industry, President Obama justified the extension of corporate welfare by informing the American people that these businesses were “too big to fail.”
Regardless of the logic of such a stance, in the history of republican political thought, the opposite of the Obama Doctrine has been asserted as axiomatic. As the theory went (goes), a republic cannot function properly toward the end of preserving liberty if it grows too large. One might say of republics that they can be “too big to succeed.”
That is the sentiment behind a recent collection of essays addressing the increasingly untenable size of the federal government and the possibility and desirability of its perpetuation.
Rethinking the American Union for the Twenty-first Century is a collection of seven essays compiled and edited by Donald Livingston. The collection is an extension of the Abbeville Conference held in Charleston, South Carolina in 2010. Contributing scholars include Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo, Yuri Maltsev, Kent Masterson Brown, Marshall DeRosa, Kirkpatrick Sale, and Rob Williams.
Shequita Walker, a 40-year old disabled woman from Atlanta, Georgia, asserts that she was arrested merely for sitting outside in a chair. Her account of the events indicates that she was sitting outside when she was approached by a police officer, who asked her to move from her chair. When she refused, she said she was thrown to the ground and arrested.
The Atlanta Journal Constitution provides some background:
Shequita Walker, 40, suffers from severe joint pain and has a limited range of motion. For several years, Walker has enjoyed sitting in a metal chair in the vacant lot next to her apartment complex on Boulevard. Walker says she isn't on the sidewalk or in anyone's way, and has spent many hot afternoons waiting on the ice cream truck to drive by so she can buy a cold treat.
On April 21, however, police officer Kenneth Thomas asked Walker to move from her usual spot. Walker replied that she was not in violation of any law and was within her rights to remain in place. She also told Thomas that other officers had seen her in that spot on numerous occasions and had never given her any trouble.
An atheist group has turned its attention to the federal tax code, but not because of its astronomical size and scope. Instead, the Freedom from Religion Foundation is concerned with what it alleges to be an unconstitutional exemption for Christian ministers.
The Freedom from Religion Foundation, which typically launches battles to ensure the oft-used maxim of “separation of church and state,” has joined three of its officers in filing a lawsuit against Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman.
A portion of the lawsuit reads:
Section 107 has the effect of fostering governmental entanglement with religion, precisely in order to limit the tax break provided by §107 to religious clergy; the IRS must make complex, intrusive and subjective inquiries into religious matters when applying §107 in order to limit its preferential scope to ministers of the gospel.
Many in the media and in politics have gone ballistic over the fact that Texas Governor Rick Perry called Social Security "a Ponzi scheme."
Although many act shocked, shocked, as if Rick Perry had said something unthinkable, Governor Perry is not even among the first thousand people to call Social Security a Ponzi scheme. Not only conservatives, but even some liberals, have been calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme for decades.
Moreover, neither the media nor the politicians who are carrying on over the use of the words "Ponzi scheme" show the slightest interest in any hard facts that would tell us whether Social Security is or is not a Ponzi scheme. It is a "gotcha" moment, and that is apparently what some people live for.
What makes this nonsense become fraud is the insinuation that calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme means advocating that people who are depending on Social Security be abandoned and left with nothing to live on in their retirement years. That is the big scare — and the big lie.
The Washington Post called it the "laughing stock of conservatives." The Washington Times dubbed it just plain "creepy" (albeit "amateurish"). But any way you look at last week's launching of Team Obama's interactive website, "Attack Watch," there is more to it than a casual mouse-click.
The only news entity that provided serious detail, complete with photos and an updated video ad promoting “Attack Watch” was Tom Mannis in a report published at Chicago News Bench’s online service on September 13. Mannis has long been following Obama’s career, given that Obama came out of nowhere and suddenly shot to liberal stardom in Chicago:
As the battle to become the Republican nominee for President heats up in advance of next year’s primary elections, one of the most mine-ridden fields is that surrounding Social Security and its future solvency.
One of those competing to represent the GOP in 2012 made a now-infamous remark on the subject during a debate held September 7 in Simi Valley, California at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. Texas Governor Rick Perry was asked to explain his position on Social Security as it impacts the right of states to govern themselves. He responded:
Next to President Barack Obama, probably the last person in Washington who expected a challenger in the 2012 primary election was House Speaker John Boehner. The Ohio Republican, one of the most powerful politicians in the country, won a three-way primary race in 2010 with 85 percent of the vote. Who in his right mind would try to take him on?
David Lewis would. According to the Cincinnati Enquirer, the Batavia, Ohio, resident will officially announce his candidacy for U.S. Representative for the Eighth Congressional District on Monday — and to make sure voters know he means business, Lewis will announce his candidacy at Boehner’s office in West Chester.
Lewis, a 26-year-old married father, is a Tea Party and pro-life activist who has been arrested at the offices of both Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) while protesting federal funding of Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers.
The fiscal and monetary crisis confronting America today is more than an economic problem, it is a threat to our liberties and the nation's sovereignty, constitutional lawyer Edwin Vieira said at a Constitution Day celebration in Portsmouth, N.H. on Sunday. Unless a sound currency is established, the coming economic collapse will result in America "falling victim to a domestic totalitarian police state with the loss of American sovereignty and independence and lead to some sort of regional or global system, i.e. a new world order," he said.
Citing Italy and Germany in the 1920s and 1930s as examples, Vieira warned of the hyperinflation that occurs when a government dramatically increases its printing of dollars to cover its mounting debts. No form of government has ever survived a national debt that equal to more than 41 percent of its annual budget, he said, adding that in the United States today, it is 44 percent. "Our country is set up to fail," he said, as jobs and technology are shipped overseas, artificial "bubbles" are created in the domestic economy and banks and large-scale investors turn to the federal government for relief.
Despite the mainstream media’s intentional disregard of Rep. Ron Paul as a top-tier Republican presidential candidate, widespread evidence of his popularity is apparent. On Saturday, the Texas Congressman won a landslide victory in the California Republican Party straw poll, a feat which continues to be ignored by the media. Likewise, military donation receipts for Republican candidates for the second quarter of this year reveal that Paul has received twice as much money from military members as all other GOP presidential candidates combined.
Digital Journal reports:
Although Texas Republican Congressman Ron Paul may be ignored throughout the mainstream media, one report shows that the presidential candidate may have strong support from the country’s military personnel.
America got a perfect exposition of the great progressivist myth in the September 12 CNN/Tea Party Presidential debate. The great progressivist myth is this: If government doesn't do it, then it won't happen. If the government doesn't do it, it doesn't count. If a person is against government intervening, he therefore must favor the ends the liberal or progressive claims will happen without government intervention. In short, the great progressivist myth is that you either favor government intervention, or you are an awful person who wants some horrible consequence.
During that debate, Dr. Ron Paul, an obstetrician and Texas congressman, had the following exchange with moderator Wolf Blitzer:
Wolf Blitzer: "You're a physician, Ron Paul. So you're a doctor, you know something about this subject. Let me ask you this hypothetical question. A healthy, 30-year-old young man has a good job, makes a good living, but decides, 'you know what, I'm not going to spend $200 or $300 a month for health insurance, because I'm healthy. I don't need it.' But you know, something terrible happens. All of a sudden, he needs it. Who's going to pay for it if he goes into a coma, for example? Who pays for that?"