Posted by Shana on 01/10/09
Last updated 02/03/09

United Liberty

http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/the-folly-of-the-economic-stimulus-package

The Folly of the Economic "Stimulus" Package

The news is dominated by all the talk and debate of the so-called economic "stimulus" package...

...as long as the national debt is allowed to increase, there will be a corresponding tax increase in its most insidious form: inflation..

What is the solution? We can begin by moving in exactly the opposite direction of that proposed by the administration and congressional leaders. Spending must be cut, at the very least to the extent possible to balance the budget, so that the insidious practice of inflation can be stopped. The most politically plausible place to begin make spending cuts would be in the area of foreign policy and military spending, which can be accomplished by ending our current imperialist/interventionist policy and the myriad of activities that accompany this policy. A small amount of the savings could be used for needed infrastructure projects, which ideally should be administered by the states (something that would required a transition from the current system of federal funding). A complete reassessment of what the role of government ought to be, in light of the Constitution, is essential to determining the remaining budget cuts, from which should follow tax cuts, including the elimination of the income tax and IRS, and the repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment. All of these things together would provide for the best possible economic stimulus, but none of them can happen without acknowledging that our nation, through its government, has lived well beyond its means. It will require a change of attitude on the part of many Americans who have become accustomed to looking to government to solve problems...

...The "stimulus" package is so large and multifaceted as to require a series of articles to discuss its many implications. The purpose here has been to provide an overview. Articles from this writer will soon follow to discuss the many hidden and insidious aspects of this massive piece of legislation that few members of Congress have actually read....

Link to Ron Paul's Texas Straight Talk column:

http://www.house.gov/htbin/blog_inc?BLOG,tx14_paul,blog,999,All,Item%20n...

...Read the whole article...

Posted by Shana on 01/09/09

United Liberty

Banned! Hazardous Material

http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/banned-hazardous-material

In an effort to save our children, the nanny-state has struck again.  The Consumer Product Safety Act of 2008 was recently passed, and it’s sure to wreak havoc where ever it goes.  It essentially requires testing for dangerous chemicals in almost all products that are intended for children 12 and under.  This includes clothing, shoes, books, toys, jewelry, cds, board games and more.

While this law may not pose much of a problem for large retailers, for those who operate small businesses or own resale shops (including charity stores such as Goodwill), this legislation is potentially devastating.  In most cases, the costs for having the products tested greatly outweigh any potential profit and talks of fines up to $100,000 and possible jail time will probably keep most from bucking the law.

This bill effects more than just retailers however.  Many lower-income families depend on finding quality merchandise at deeply discounted prices at charity thrift stores.  And of course, the inability to sell the merchandise limits the ability of charities to use their retail profit to continue assisting those in need.  With an unstable economy overshadowing our country, hand-cuffing organizations such as this is foolish.

Now, for our readers- one guess as to the lone Congressman who voted against this intrusive and outrageous bill?

Posted by Shana on 01/06/09
Last updated 01/06/09

United Liberty

UK Hacking Home Computers Sans Warrants Likely to Increase

http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/uk-hacking-home-computers-sans-warrants-li
kely-to-increase

Though news of this sort cannot be considered unusual any longer, I still find it insufferable and mildly shocking.  The likelihood of a British citizen having their personal home computer hacked by government authorities, secretly and without a warrant, has increased.  Even more infuriating, this intrusion may be at the behest of a foreign nation, thanks to a recent plan adopted by the EU.

Since the hacking may proceed if an officer believes there is sufficient reason to believe it would help prevent or detect a serious crime, the obvious question is, who decides what is considered “sufficient reason” and what is to prevent abuse of these over-reaching powers?  If there is truly sufficient evidence, why wouldn’t a judge simply grant a warrant?  This would at least grant some oversight.

In our own country, powers of this sort already exist, though I hope things haven’t gone so far that evidence gained in this way is being turned over to foreign authorities as well- though I don’t suppose I’d put much past the current administration.

Though these violations of privacy rights are appalling, far more alarming is the blasé acceptance by EU, UK and US citizens alike.  Even worse are those who view it as good and necessary.

Last October, I attended a local university’s student Presidential debate, in which the college Democrat, Republican and Libertarian groups represented the candidate of their party.  Both the Democrat and Republican students bore good testimony of their belief in the Constitution and the need to uphold it, and yet each found reason to ignore certain parts of it in order to achieve ends they believed vital.  After the debate, I spoke at length with the Democrat representative, who was very angry with the Republicans’ belief that the civil liberties delineated in the Bill of Rights could be ignored for reasons of homeland security.  But he had no qualms of going beyond the scope of the Constitution in regards to foreign aid or the federal welfare system.  When I asked why he had the right to ignore the Constitution in order to achieve his goals, and yet the Republicans did not, he had to admit he had a double standard.  But he still believed that his mission was honorable enough to make the exception.

This is the problem when we ignore the rule of law and each does what is “right in their own eyes”, especially when it is the lawmakers  and law-enforcers that are most culpable.  There is no accountability, no one to say “enough”.

I issue the same challenge to those who would runover or ignore our Constitution for their own “good intentioned” objectives that I gave to the Democrat student I spoke to at that debate.  If your goals are so honorable and necessary that they must be accomplished, then work to change the Constitution, not disregard it.