Roger Simon: Ron Paul remains media poison

I admit I do not fully understand Ron Paul and his beliefs. But I do understand when a guy gets shafted, and Ron Paul just got shafted.
. . .
And I don’t disagree that some of his beliefs — legalizing heroin, the right of states to secede — are strikingly peculiar (though he has been elected to a congressional district in Texas 12 times).


Let me help. Agreed, Paul gets shafted by the media and people in his own party.  People in his own party are so used to using government for their own ends, even if they say they are for limited government, they just cannot let go of the power.  Look at the reaction to Paul’s desire for the U.S. to reduce military spending.  Conservatives treat military spending as sacrosanct as liberals do welfare programs.  Neither party wants to let go of the power and control they can exercise through government.

Part of the problem is the wording of questions during discussions and debates. My guess is not that Paul wants to actually legalize heroin and for states to secede from the Union. Those actions are the outcome of limiting the power of politicians and regulators, letting people make more of their own decisions, and confining Federal and state government to its constitutional limits.

Biden: Tea stands for ‘terrorist’

Vice President Joe Biden yesterday condemned Tea Party Republicans for “acting like terrorists” during the debt fight, sources said.

Biden made the shocking statement during a closed-door meeting with House Democrats to try and whip up support for the debt-limit deal, according to the sources.

The vice president was reacting to an irate Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.), who said Democrats “have negotiated with terrorists,” reported.

“This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money,” Doyle added.

Biden agreed, saying, “They have acted like terrorists,” the report said.

To which Tea Party champion Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) replied:

“With the president holding the American economy hostage, I would prefer to think of myself as a freedom fighter,” . . .

“The only people taking hostages around here are those who want to continue our path toward economic ruin.”

Here. At least some elected officials got the memo that we are out of frick’en money, such as Sen. Paul. Others, like Biden, are clueless.

The Bully State

There’s just something about people who run for office. Many lust to lord it over people. We’ve heard the phrase, “nanny state” for years. But as the busybodies pass more rules, America is becoming more like a “bully state.” Politically unpopular folk are pushed around by those who are intoxicated with their power.
. . .
Don’t smokers have rights too? Banning smoking in public is the tyranny of the majority.


Here’s a tune to accompany that.

Overweight Politicians Wants to Restrict Your Dining Choices

“If we can get parents and the food chains to create healthier eating habits to instill in young children at an earlier age, it will definitely impact their eating habits for life,” said Councilman Leroy Comrie (D-Queens).

Blah, blah, blah. The futility of this social engineering comes a few paragraphs later when the loopholes to current laws are discussed:

The bill would still allow toys in some of the healthier kids’ meals: those under 500 calories or with fewer than 600 milligrams of sodium.

“Taking away toys from kids’ meals won’t solve childhood obesity,” McDonald’s regional VP Mason Smoot said.

“We offer nutritionally-balanced Happy Meal” choices, such as substituting Apple Dippers for fries, in order to stay under the 500-calorie mark, he said.

Yet this customer brings her child to McDonald’s but thinks the toys should be removed. Why did you bring your child to McDonald’s if you tink it serves “junk food”?

“I think it’s a good idea to remove the toys,” said Cristina Delvalle, 23, of Jackson Heights, Queens, as her 6-year-old son noshed on a 510-calorie chicken McNugget Happy Meal at a Times Square McDonald’s.

“McDonald’s is not good for kids, it’s junk food,” she said.


U.S. – Mexico Relations

The U.S. and Mexico reached a deal resolving a longstanding dispute over cross-border trucking that has subjected the U.S. to billions of dollars in punitive tariffs.

This dispute caused Americans to pay an additional $2.4 billion in annual punitive tariffs for more than 20 years.  In addition to the added dollar cost, “[T]the disagreement has forced goods headed from Mexico into the U.S. to be re-loaded into U.S. trucks at the border.”  That means longer waits and wasted resource.  In other words, this problem has been yet another disaster harming the American people.

There is a phase-in period and bureaucratic red-tape.  In the meantime, we have to pay more for goods imported from Mexico.

Relations between the two countries was strained because Mexico’s government foolishly escalated its own War on Drugs.  Didn’t they learn from the U.S. and other countries that is a war the government is guaranteed to lose?  Now, Mexico’s government wants the U.S. government to tighten gun laws and work to lower drug use.  Our civil liberties are already abused and they want us to be subjected to more?  Going backwards.  We want, and need, more freedom, not less.

A fine example of more government leads to even more government.


The Kochs vs. Soros: Free Markets vs. State Coercion

Timothy P. Carney:

So, is Soros’ money really different from the Kochs’ money?

On one level, they’re equivalent: They are rich people using their wealth to advance their favored policies.

But the core CAP claim — that the Soroses and Peter Lewises of the world are trying to help the poor, while the Kochs are not — is ungrounded.

The Kochs argue, with plenty of evidence, that economic freedom and the prosperity it yields are the best things a government can offer to the poor.

And the accompanying liberal claim — that pro-free market donations boost the donors’ profits while pro-big government donations don’t — is also false.

First off — and this was the point of a talk I gave Sunday at the Koch conference — many of the industrialists in the audience could profit more through regulations and subsidies than they could through the free market. Some oil executives, for example, have supported California’s strict refinery regulations because they kept out competitors. Natural gas companies like Enron have backed cap and trade because it hurt oil and coal. As for bankers — the Wall Street bailouts made it clear that big government is their mother’s milk.

Second, until Soros discloses all the investments and short positions of all his funds and all his personal wealth, it’s not possible to conclude whether his advocacy is motivated by public interest or personal gain. Is he short coal? Has he invested in GE’s Greenhouse Gas Services, which, dealing in greenhouse gas credits, depends on a cap-and-trade law in order to be profitable?

We know that other liberal philanthropists use their wealth to advance big-government positions that enrich them. Take Warren Buffett, that relentless champion of the estate tax. His support for a high inheritance tax could be civic-mindedness, but it could also be related to his life insurance holdings and his tendency to buy up successful family businesses forced to sell out by the death tax — that’s how he got the Buffalo News.

Finally, while Soros money and Koch money are superficially equivalent, there’s a crucial distinction. If we take both sides at their word, Soros and other liberal donors spend in order to impose their preferences on others while the Kochs and other free-market donors spend in an effort to be left alone to buy and sell with willing parties.

The moral difference is this: Only one side is trying to compel others to conform to its preferences.

Consider how each side profits from its favored policies: The Kochs benefit if government takes less of their profit. To be sure, they could pocket the difference and not make charitable contributions to the poor. In moral terms, that would be selfish or just plain greedy.

Soros and his wealthy supporters profit from the government taxing or threatening to tax the children of a business owner. That’s the moral equivalent of mugging.