This is really scary - it appears that under the current version of the House healthcare bill, Americans who choose not to buy health insurance could be charged with a felony and sent to prison for five years. Has our country gone mad?
Jesse, I saw this too. It's indeed scary if not outright tyranny. If it ever came to independence (Hopefully never), this would be one of the grievances listed on the new Declaration.
I can tell you now that I will never pay this tax and I don't plan on going to prison, either. They have us backed into a corner, and we need to come out fighting -- this trash can be reversed by a liberty congress!
I have health insurance now because my employer provides it. But in less than 7 years, I will be required by law to sign up for Medicare. I will most emphatically not do so. Nor will I sign up for social security. Both programs are theft, pure and simple. The fact that the government has been stealing from me for decades does not justify me in stealing from future generations. If they prosecute me, my defense will be four simple words that our ruling class seems to have forgotten: Thou shalt not steal. If a government brainwashed jury disagrees with those words, I guess my future lies in a jail cell. So be it. Or I might escape this country, which is so quickly becoming the Fourth Reich.
Ever hear of citizen nullification? Let's begin right now to recruit one million citizens to refuse to sign up for the criminal health insurance scam. Let's see; how many prisons do they have?
We need state legislatures to enact tough legislation against offering any assistance what-so-ever leading to the conviction of persons charged with being in violation to this clause of the Federal healthcare mandate. I'm going to contact my state rep. Tony Sellier and demand that we get an option to opt-out of this crap.
I agree with the jury nullification idea, as well.
I really hope the Judge gets a show on the T.V. Network. Freedom Watch is great but a lot of people are missing out—especially since it isn't the easiest thing to find somewhere out there on Fox's website.
I think the Judge has done a lot of good for Glenn Beck. Hopefully he can keep working with him until Beck comes fully on board.
Of course, hopefully Beck would stay on board. I sometimes get the impression that he's so ingrained in the left-right spectrum that he might forget to speak out against tyranny if the RINOs get back into power.
But the Judge was critical of Bush during his administration, so if anyone has credibility, Andrew does.
Dr. Paul will be on CNN's Larry King Show tonight at 9:27 pm ET to repsond to Michael Moore's interview and attack on capitalism in the shows first half. Should be terrific!
Although there is a lot that Michael Moore and Ron Paul would disagree upon, I think there is also common ground. For one thing, Michael Moore misinterprets the libertarian understanding of capitalism.
A couple areas of common ground between Ron Paul and Michael Moore would be the war on terrorism and corporate bailouts. Though they probably have different views on why these issues are problems, as well as, differing solutions.
In the end I think they simply disagree upon what freedom is. Michael Moore feels that a free person has free access to medical care, education, etc. While Ron Paul feels that a free person is free through less government involvement.
Michael Moore stands for entitlement.
Ron Paul stands for liberty – personal freedom.
At the end of the day, I think even though we disagree with Michael Moore's idea of government, we should respect what he has to say. Just like Ron Paul has respect for someone like Dennis Kucinich.
I think stating Michael Moore stands for entitlement is a good summary of the situation. As I reflect on this I would like to point out a few things and maybe it can help us understand an angle to reach these people. Just from watching interviews from Michael Moore on his new book, and even Dennis Kucinich's viewpoints I have learned that these attitudes of entitlement seem to stem from an attitude of victimization. Perhaps the following people feel victimized by the special interests, various results of corporatism and how it oppresses pretty much all of us. When those who feel victimized realized they are being conned, anger seems to be the direct reaction.
Instead of attacking what is enabling these events to happen those feeling victimized want to gain even ground instead. They want to be entitled to the same privileges or equal to something similar. It is not at all far from how some high school students would get sucked into bullying freshmen once they became seniors, even though they too were freshmen not too long ago. Instead of just rebuking the practice all together, they participate in it to become some warped version of what they think makes them equal. Therefore, we need to enforce the viewpoint from an angle that shows that continued resistance at Corporatism, special interests through use of their same tactics just enables them even more, and that the best course of action is to disable their very tactics. Perhaps we could take even the unexpected (Michael Moore) to understand our cause and the best course of action to stop our dreaded growing leviathan.
I hurried this thought out, so if anyone can make my thoughts more elegant or just think it is total bunk let me know.
Will they actually be debating back and forth? Because that would be amazing! Even still, if the clip is posted on here, can we see the Michael Moore parts too as well as the Ron Paul parts. It really hurts the quality of the response when you don't see what he's responding to.
"...even though we disagree with Michael Moore's idea of government, we should respect what he has to say."
Absolutely not. We should respect his right to have an opinion, but his opinion alone does not warrant respect.
See Jonathan Rauch's "Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought":
"Let us remember, then, that the proposition "We must all respect others' beliefs" is nowhere near as innocent as it sounds. IF it is enshrined in policies or practices giving "rights" to minority opinions, the damage it causes is immediate and severe. Liberal science cannot exert discipline if it cannot use its tool of marginalization to drive unsupported or bogus beliefs from the agenda."
"...even though we disagree with Michael Moore's idea of government, we should respect what he has to say."
Absolutely not. We should respect his right to have an opinion, but his opinion alone does not warrant respect.
See Jonathan Rauch's "Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought":
"Let us remember, then, that the proposition "We must all respect others' beliefs" is nowhere near as innocent as it sounds. IF it is enshrined in policies or practices giving "rights" to minority opinions, the damage it causes is immediate and severe. Liberal science cannot exert discipline if it cannot use its tool of marginalization to drive unsupported or bogus beliefs from the agenda."
Hey Jesse, Just saw you on Fox Business with Neil! I think you did a great job! Neil seemed to like talking to you. Thanks for all your work for Liberty!
Sorry, but I didn't like this "interview" at all. It appears to me that Cavuto introduces Benton (and by extension C4L) as someone who is proposing that Congress' pay be cut in half. Is anyone seriously considering this?
I thought in Benton's response (from .28-.45 seconds on the tape) he was trying to make a point that the discussion over Financial Services Executive pay was just a distraction from what was really wrong with our country. Unless I completely missed his point, it was a great response.
But Cavuto takes him seriously and starts discussing how we'd go about actually cutting Congress' pay.
I think I understand what Benton was trying to say when he said we'd be better off is legislators just voted no more often. But what I think most non-conservative viewers (if there were any) heard was "they are the party of no". This is not good PR for C4L.
Lastly, Benton's final points were funny. I've probably yelled that at my TV/radio more than once. But they are not serious ideas.
This was the first time I'd seen Jesse Benton. Perhaps he's always brought on for "comic releif". If so, then I guess this was successful.
This wasn't what I was expecting. Perhaps I'm being too harsh. It's been a busy week at work. I'm glad for the weekend!
Sorry, but I didn't like this "interview" at all. It appears to me that Cavuto introduces Benton (and by extension C4L) as someone who is proposing that Congress' pay be cut in half. Is anyone seriously considering this?
I thought in Benton's response (from .28-.45 seconds on the tape) he was trying to make a point that the discussion over Financial Services Executive pay was just a distraction from what was really wrong with our country. Unless I completely missed his point, it was a great response.
But Cavuto takes him seriously and starts discussing how we'd go about actually cutting Congress' pay.
I think I understand what Benton was trying to say when he said we'd be better off is legislators just voted no more often. But what I think most non-conservative viewers (if there were any) heard was "they are the party of no". This is not good PR for C4L.
Lastly, Benton's final points were funny. I've probably yelled that at my TV/radio more than once. But they are not serious ideas.
This was the first time I'd seen Jesse Benton. Perhaps he's always brought on for "comic releif". If so, then I guess this was successful.
This wasn't what I was expecting. Perhaps I'm being too harsh. It's been a busy week at work. I'm glad for the weekend!
I ask why is pay an issue for those we elect to congress? Did not those who fought for liberity pay for it with their blood and lives so we have a chance at a better future? Why can we not honor their sacrifice with the wisdom to either run for public office with the respect for the Constitution, or vote with the same respect? Why to we run for office or vote for sweets and treats? This is very disturbing to me because reading history shows us were this will take us and it will not be pleasant!
The lil guy is being forced to play this mean 'shell game' with big gov't/fed reserve and their crony buddies big banks. The lil guy loses every time-suckers!!
I actually like when Kiran Chetry does the interview with Dr. Paul because she actually lets him talk and she seems to get along with his views ... well ... who knows... its the media ... but she does let him talk which is great.
She let's him talk now. Not so in the beginning. And, I'm pretty sure the questions to ask are fed to her. Sounds too scripted and still trying to get some concessions out of Dr. Paul. Won't work.
"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."
—Thomas Jefferson
Campaign for Liberty is a 501(c)4 lobbying organization which neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office and claims no responsibility for the actions of individuals or groups of individuals who use the Campaign for Liberty logo or name or who may claim to act as representatives of the Campaign for Liberty without prior written consent of the Campaign for Liberty. [?]
RSS feed
