This blog was developed as a place for discussion about our great Republic, the Founding Fathers and their wisdom, and everything that makes America great.
It is President’s Day once again. Many
people have the day off today; and many of them are out shopping, visiting
tourist attractions, or simply staying home for a nice day of rest. However,
this celebration on the third Monday of February is not meant to celebrate all our
past presidents, but it was intended to be a day to celebrate George Washington’s
birthday and his contributions to this great nation.
Since the creation of the holiday on
February 22, 1879, we have celebrated the birthday of our first president of
the Federal government. Why not honor and remember the accomplishments of the
man who lead our Continental Army to victory and helped to win the
Revolutionary War; or the man who would serve as our first president, “The
Farther of our Country?”
Naturally, we also began celebrating
Lincoln’s birthday of February 12 (on the state level, not Federal) after he was
credited with “preserving the Union”. This new holiday gave people two days off
from work. In 1968, the Uniform Holidays Bill combined the two holidays to
create the observance that we have today on the third Monday of the month. At
some point, the day combined to celebrate all of the presidents; however, I
suggest that we restore the holiday to its original intent. I am not the only
one who has proposed this suggestion.
On February 6, 2001, Roscoe Gardner
Bartlett, former U.S. Representative for Maryland’s 6th congressional district,
proposed the “Washington-Lincoln Recognition Act of 2001” (HR 420). The bill proposed
that “The legal public holiday known as Washington’s Birthday…shall be referred
to by that name and no other.”[1]
Join in with me by calling it George
Washington’s Birthday. It should not be a day to celebrate any other
presidents. If you fill so inclined to celebrate Lincoln’s birthday, do so on
February 12th.
[1]
Roscoe Gardner Bartlett, “Bill Text, 107th Congress (2001-2002),
H.R.420.IH,” accessed on February 17, 2014, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.420:.
Depressions and mass unemployment are not caused by the free
market but by government interference in the economy.
– Ludwig von Mises
Minimum
wage does not help the poverty stricken; in fact, the continual raising of
minimum wage is not only hurting the poor, but it is hurting the job market.
President Obama and all those who agree with his call to raise minimum wage are
wrong. This is the wrong way to help our struggling citizens.
There
is clear evidence that raising minimum wage will not work. Between the years
2003 and 2007, 28 states across America raised their minimum wages without any positive
economic result.[1]
According to economists from Cornell and American University, they “found no
trace of lower poverty rates associated with these wage hikes.”[2]
The reason why the poor and not getting richer with a pay
raise is simple economics. If a company is not bringing in more profits to
adjust to the raise in employee wages, the employer has to either reduce
employee hours or terminate some of their employees to adjust for new
compensation plans. Businesses are not like the Federal Reserve, they cannot
just print up extra cash to “fix” their problems.
Naturally, the employees with the least experience or minimal
skill will be let go first. Minimum wage jobs typically are entry-level jobs
for people with little to no skill. As the minimum wage increases, the chance
of these people finding a job decreases. If the wages are increased, as the
President and the Federal government insists, it is estimated that 988,000 jobs
will be lost.[3]
The majority of the lost jobs will be in the retail and food industries.[4]
The government and economists have known of this cause
and effect phenomenon for years. In 1938, the Department of Labor reported that
a minimum wage hike at that time resulted in 30,000 to 50,000 people losing their
jobs.[5] In
1977, the Minimum Wage Study Commission, established by Congress, even
developed a mathematical equation related to the negative effects of raising
minimum wage: “time-series studies typically find that a ten percent increase
in the minimum wage reduces teenage employment by one to three percent.”[6] Economist
William Dunkelberg said, “after the July 2009 increase…nearly 600,000 teen jobs
disappeared, even with nearly four percent growth in the economy.”[7]
In 2007, the Federal government forced a minimum wage
increase on American Samoa and the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands
(CNMI). The United States General Accountability Office (GAO) later reported in
2008 that as a result of the forced wage increase, there was “19 percent
decline in employment in the workforce.”[8]
Businesses like Chicken of the Sea and Starkist on Samoa laid off thousands of
workers.[9]
Government regulation and control of the economy leads to
poverty, more than it will help to prevent or solve it. A free market system is
the best way to help create jobs and raise wages. As Milton Friedman said: “The great virtue of a free market
system is that it does not care what color people are; it does not care what
their religion is; it only cares whether they can produce something you want to
buy. It is the most effective system we have discovered to enable people who
hate one another to deal with one another and help one another.”
John Stossel - Real World Effects of Minimum Wage
Does the Minimum Wage Hurt Workers?
[1]
Michael Saltsman, “Statistical problem of minimum wage and poverty,” Political March 31, 2013, accessed on February
10, 2014, http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/statistical-problem-of-minimum-wage-and-poverty-88824.html.
[5]
Doug Bandow, “Raising Minimum Wage Will Hurt More than Help,” Cato Institute, April 9, 2013, accessed
on February 10, 2014, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/raising-minimum-wage-will-hurt-more-help.
[8]
Samuel Hearne, “Minimum Wage Law Backfires in American Samoa,” Action Institute, July 6, 2011, accessed
on February 10, 2014, http://www.acton.org/pub/commentary/2011/07/06/minimum-wage-law-backfires-american-samoa.
The Affordable Care Act or Obamacare needs to be nullified by the States. This is simply government control over our freedoms. This is just another step that leads toward socialism in our country. Listen to the several warnings against social medicine.
Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine (1961)
Milton Friedman - Socialized Medicine (1978)
Dangers of Socialized Medicine: Richard Baker (2009)
This video is an excerpt of the testimony of Richard Baker to the Health
Care Solutions Committee on July 23, 2009. Mr. Baker offers examples of
problems he has personally witnessed with the Canadian single payer
health care system. Mr. Baker was one of four expert witnesses
testifying against plans to adopt a government heath care system in the
US.
Ron Paul slams Obama's plan for socialized healthcare reform on CNN (6/15/09)
Obamacare : Dr Ben Carson Socialized Medicine is the Keystone to a Socialist State (Oct 10, 2013)
Socialized Healthcare and Socialized Policies Destroying America, by Ezra Taft Benson
Ezra Taft Benson was Dwight D. Eisenhower's Secretary of Agriculture.
He was predicted by the press to be the first casualty of the Eisenhower
cabinet, unable to stay in because of his severe, intense anti-New
Deal, anti-Socialist policies. The New American Magazine, writing of
this, stated that Benson being asked into the cabinet is one of the
greatest political mysteries of the 20th century. Indeed it is. And
the press was somehow wrong, for it was Ezra Taft Benson, that for some
reason was kept in the cabinet the full 8 years.
Obamacare is unconstitutional and goes against the very principles of American liberty and freedom. Socialism is taking rook in our country. It has been creeping in for decades now. It is time to wake up and do our civic duty to stop its progress. Remember what Thomas Jefferson said:
"If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson
The Liberal news anchor in this clip says that there is a long overdue debate about guns in our society. He says that this country has not had a "rational debate." There is no need for a debate or a discussion over our unalienable rights. What is there to discuss about a right that "shall not be infringed?" Kieth Morgan sets this Liberal straight. Watch and listen to Kieth's rational words.
Here are several other quotes that will add to the "rational debate:"
"The
strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last
resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in
Government."
- Thomas Jefferson
(1743-1826)
"The
right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense ofhimself or the State, is
absolute. He does not derive itfrom the State government. It is
one of the "high powers"delegated directly to the
citizen, and 'is excepted out of the general powers of
government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it,
because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."
- Texas Court
DecisionCockrum v. State,
24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]
"Necessity
is the plea for every infringement of humanfreedom.It is the argument of tyrants; it is the
creed of slaves."
- William Pitt (1759-1806), Speech - British
House of Commons, Nov. 18, 1783
"I ask, sir, what
is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public
officials." — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
"That the said Constitution shall never be
construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press
or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States
who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... "
--
Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston,
1850)
"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be
used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by
partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish
every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be
enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental
law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the
laws, and ever for the support of the laws."
--John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the
United States 475 (1787-1788)
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must
be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme
power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the
whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any
band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United
States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws,
but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they
will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the
inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust
and oppressive."
--Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles
of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is
it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own
bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and
every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an
American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of
either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will
ever remain, in the hands of the people."
--Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
"Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential
that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught
alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from
this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion.
The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly
anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice
upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for
carefully guarding against it."
--Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20,
1788.
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to
prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty ....
Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the
people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an
army upon their ruins."
-- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during
floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750,
August 17, 1789
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and
debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense?
Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under
our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our
defense be the real object of them under the management of Congress? If our
defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they
be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own
hands?"
-- Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several
State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836
"Certainly
one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how
popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms ... The
right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary
government, one more safeguard, against the tyranny which now appears remote in
America but which historically has proven to be always possible."
-- Hubert H. Humphrey, Senator, Vice President, 22 October
1959
"The militia is the natural defense of a free
country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and
domestic usurpation of power by rulers. The right of the citizens to keep
and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the
liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against
the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally ...
enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
-- Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice, Commentaries on
the Constitution of the United States, p. 3:746-7, 1833
