Posted in American Exceptionalism, American Independence, American Presidents, Education, Free Society, Leadership, Liberty, Nation-Building, Philosophy, Policy Issues, Progressivism, Representative Republic vs. Democracy, Rule of Law, U.S. Constitution, U.S. Security, Uncategorized

Watch “The Candace Owens Show: Zuhdi Jasser” on YouTube

Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, a devout Muslim, speaks to Candace Owens about the dangers of political/theocratic Islam and its incompatibility with the Constitutional Representative Republic form of government in the USA. He discusses the ideological roots of theocratic Islam and it’s alliance with social collectivism and separtist/fascist movements of the 20th Century. He contends that disruption, by speaking truth to power, within the Muslim communities will be the only force effective enough to bring about reforms compatible with western democracy.

Posted in American Exceptionalism, American Independence, American Presidents, big government, Free Society, Liberty, Neo-conservatism, Philosophy, Progressivism, Quotes from American Presidents, Representative Republic vs. Democracy, Rule of Law, U.S. Constitution, Uncategorized

How to Choose a True Leader in the 2020 Election | Intellectual Takeout | Larry Brownstein

Larry Brownstein

While Joe Biden and Kamala Harris go on and on about leadership we should look back to leadership lessons from Thomas Jefferson’s first inaugural address.

Harris says she wants a mandate, yet Jefferson understood the country was a republic, not a democracy.  In the Constitution, there are no provisions for claiming a governing mandate; claiming to have a mandate based on a majority vote, Jefferson would say violates a “sacred principle” and makes you an oppressive tyrant:

“Though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.”

Many have pointed out that today’s progressives behave like “Medieval Inquisitors.” Jefferson pointed to political intolerance as “despotic” and as “wicked” as religious intolerance:

Let us restore to social intercourse that harmony and affection without which liberty and even life itself are but dreary things. And let us reflect that, having banished from our land that religious intolerance under which mankind so long bled and suffered, we have yet gained little if we countenance a political intolerance as despotic, as wicked, and capable of as bitter and bloody persecutions.

So, what should government do? Jefferson was clear:

A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.

In his address, Jefferson didn’t promise a single new program, but he explored the principles by which he would lead:

Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none; the support of the State governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against anti-republican tendencies…

Source: How to Choose a True Leader in the 2020 Election

Posted in Economic Issues, Education, emotional intelligence, Free Society, Free-Market, Liberty, Philosophy, Policy Issues, Representative Republic vs. Democracy, Rule of Law, U.S. Constitution, Uncategorized

Audio Blog Episode 3: James Keena, author of 2084: American Apocalypse

 

Posted in American Presidents, Bailouts, big government, Dependency, Disease Prevention, Economic Issues, Government Regulations, Government Spending, Government Stimulus, Leadership, Organizational structure, outcomes measurement, Patient Safety, Policy Issues, Poverty, Prevention, Representative Republic vs. Democracy, Rule of Law, U.S. Constitution, Uncategorized, Unemployment

Coronavirus and Federalism | International Liberty

John Daniel Davidson of the Federalist echoes the benefits of having choices made at the state and local level.

The founders wisely chose a federal republic for our form of government, which means sovereignty is divided between states and the federal government. The powers of the federal government are limited and enumerated, while all powers not granted to the feds are reserved for the states, including emergency police powers of the kind we’re seeing states and localities use now. …Much of the media seems wholly unaware of this basic feature of our system of government. …Trump explained that many governors might have a more direct line on this equipment and if so they should go ahead and acquire it themselves, no need to wait on Washington, D.C. This is of course exactly the way federalism is supposed to work. …We should expect the government power that’s closest to affected communities to be the most active, while Washington, D.C., concern itself with larger problems.

Source: Coronavirus and Federalism | International Liberty

Posted in American Presidents, big government, Education, Free Society, Government Regulations, Liberty, Philosophy, Policy Issues, Representative Republic vs. Democracy, Rule of Law, U.S. Constitution, Uncategorized

Without Free Speech, All Speech Becomes Government Speech – Foundation for Economic Education

By Barry Brownstein

A new survey conducted in the United States by the Campaign for Free Speech found 51 percent of Americans agreed with this statement: “The First Amendment goes too far in allowing hate speech in modern America and should be updated to reflect the cultural norms of today.” 48 percent thought, and a majority of millennials agreed, “hate speech” should be outlawed. An astonishing 54 percent of millennials thought jail time should be the consequence penalty for hate speech. Hate speech was not defined in the survey.

In a future democratic socialist administration mired in economic collapse, is it a stretch to predict that protection of free speech will continue to wane making criticism of government policies verboten?

If disagreement over the number of genders can’t be tolerated, surely disagreements on a debt jubilee or a wealth tax wouldn’t be tolerated either.

https://fee.org/articles/without-free-speech-all-speech-becomes-government-speech/

Posted in Consumption Inequality, Cost of labor, Dependency, Economic Issues, Education, Free Society, Liberty, Organizational structure, outcomes, Philosophy, Policy Issues, Poverty, Representative Republic vs. Democracy, Rule of Law, Uncategorized, Wealth

Why the Pilgrims Abandoned Common Ownership for Private Property – Foundation for Economic Education

Governor Bradford recorded in his diary that everybody was happy to claim their equal share of production, but production only shrank. Slackers showed up late for work in the fields, and the hard workers resented it. It’s called “human nature.”

The disincentives of the socialist scheme bred impoverishment and conflict until, facing starvation and extinction, Bradford altered the system. He divided common property into private plots, and the new owners could produce what they wanted and then keep or trade it freely.

Communal socialist failure was transformed into private property/capitalist success, something that’s happened so often historically it’s almost monotonous. The “people over profits” mentality produced fewer people until profit—earned as a result of one’s care for his own property and his desire for improvement—saved the people.

https://fee.org/articles/why-the-pilgrims-abandoned-common-ownership-for-private-property/

Posted in American Presidents, Economic Issues, Free Society, Liberty, Philosophy, Policy Issues, Representative Republic vs. Democracy, Rule of Law, third-party payments

17 Facts on the Reunification of Germany – Foundation for Economic Education

“For decades, German families had been separated from one another between East Germany and West Germany. Post-World War II, the East German government—the German Democratic Republic (GDR)—constructed this physical barrier to define their territory separately from the government of West Germany, the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG). The main distinguishing characteristic between the two governments? A generalized sense of freedom and liberty versus socialism and oppression.

The Berlin Wall served the GDR’s main purpose: “to permanently close off access to the West.” Between 1949 and 1961, West Germany provided East Germans with a pathway toward democracy and capitalism.”

https://fee.org/articles/17-facts-on-the-reunification-of-germany/