Your driveway is no longer private property.
Government agents can sneak onto your property in the middle of the night, put a GPS device on the bottom of your car and keep track of everywhere you go. This doesn’t violate your Fourth Amendment rights, because you do not have any reasonable expectation of privacy in your own driveway — and no reasonable expectation that the government isn’t tracking your movements.
That is the bizarre — and scary — rule that now applies in California and eight other Western states. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which covers this vast jurisdiction, recently decided the government can monitor you in this way virtually anytime it wants — with no need for a search warrant. (See a TIME photoessay on Cannabis Culture.)
It is a dangerous decision — one that, as the dissenting judges warned, could turn America into the sort of totalitarian state imagined by George Orwell. It is particularly offensive because the judges added insult to injury with some shocking class bias: the little personal privacy that still exists, the court suggested, should belong mainly to the rich.
This case began in 2007, when Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents decided to monitor Juan Pineda-Moreno, an Oregon resident who they suspected was growing marijuana. They snuck onto his property in the middle of the night and found his Jeep in his driveway, a few feet from his trailer home. Then they attached a GPS tracking device to the vehicle’s underside.
After Pineda-Moreno challenged the DEA’s actions, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled in January that it was all perfectly legal. More disturbingly, a larger group of judges on the circuit, who were subsequently asked to reconsider the ruling, decided this month to let it stand. (Pineda-Moreno has pleaded guilty conditionally to conspiracy to manufacture marijuana and manufacturing marijuana while appealing the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained with the help of GPS.)
In fact, the government violated Pineda-Moreno’s privacy rights in two different ways. For starters, the invasion of his driveway was wrong. The courts have long held that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their homes and in the “curtilage,” a fancy legal term for the area around the home. The government’s intrusion on property just a few feet away was clearly in this zone of privacy.
The judges veered into offensiveness when they explained why Pineda-Moreno’s driveway was not private. It was open to strangers, they said, such as delivery people and neighborhood children, who could wander across it uninvited. (See the misadventures of the CIA.)
Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, who dissented from this month’s decision refusing to reconsider the case, pointed out whose homes are not open to strangers: rich people’s. The court’s ruling, he said, means that people who protect their homes with electric gates, fences and security booths have a large protected zone of privacy around their homes. People who cannot afford such barriers have to put up with the government sneaking around at night.
Judge Kozinski is a leading conservative, appointed by President Ronald Reagan, but in his dissent he came across as a raging liberal. “There’s been much talk about diversity on the bench, but there’s one kind of diversity that doesn’t exist,” he wrote. “No truly poor people are appointed as federal judges, or as state judges for that matter.” The judges in the majority, he charged, were guilty of “cultural elitism.” (Read about one man’s efforts to escape the surveillance state.)
The court went on to make a second terrible decision about privacy: that once a GPS device has been planted, the government is free to use it to track people without getting a warrant. There is a major battle under way in the federal and state courts over this issue, and the stakes are high. After all, if government agents can track people with secretly planted GPS devices virtually anytime they want, without having to go to a court for a warrant, we are one step closer to a classic police state — with technology taking on the role of the KGB or the East German Stasi.
Fortunately, other courts are coming to a different conclusion from the Ninth Circuit’s — including the influential U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. That court ruled, also this month, that tracking for an extended period of time with GPS is an invasion of privacy that requires a warrant. The issue is likely to end up in the Supreme Court.
In these highly partisan times, GPS monitoring is a subject that has both conservatives and liberals worried. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit’s pro-privacy ruling was unanimous — decided by judges appointed by Presidents Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton. (Comment on this story.)
Plenty of liberals have objected to this kind of spying, but it is the conservative Chief Judge Kozinski who has done so most passionately. “1984 may have come a bit later than predicted, but it’s here at last,” he lamented in his dissent. And invoking Orwell’s totalitarian dystopia where privacy is essentially nonexistent, he warned: “Some day, soon, we may wake up and find we’re living in Oceania.”
Cohen, a lawyer, is a former TIME writer and a former member of the New York Times editorial board.
Society’s Rules Don’t Create Wealth
Society’s Rules Don’t Create Wealth
Wednesday, August 25, 2010 – by Staff Report
Dr. Tibor Machan
In olden days people were forced to labor for the king and his minions in return for being allowed to live within the realm. This kind of extortion finally got tossed over and people’s basic right to their lives became acknowledged – in the political philosophy of John Locke and the Declaration of Independence, for example. You don’t belong to society, to other people. Your life is yours to live as you choose, although, admittedly, you could live it bad or well but not in terms set by others who claim a portion of it.
But this realization that each individual has the right to his or her life got a bit arrested when later thinkers, like Auguste Comte and Karl Marx, argued that your property does belong to everyone else, not you. (In the case of Marx this didn’t quite fit his labor theory of value, but skip that for now.) Among some of today’s most prominently placed intellectuals, such as Professors Cass Sunstein of the Harvard Law School and Thomas Nagel of New York University, private property rights are taken to be nothing but a myth. (As one of Nagel’s co-authored book, The Myth of Ownership, announces, wealth is a collective phenomenon, never mind that some produce hardly any while others make gobs of it!)
Since one’s life is intimately dependent upon property – no way to live without some stuff, to be plain about it – if all property is owned by the public at large, collectively, that pretty much means one’s life is too. So the liberation from serfdom, one of the greatest achievements of classical liberal thinking, is to be undermined, reversed, by the idea that it is after all society that owns our resources, not we individually or corporately (in each others voluntary company). Taxes, then, amount not to a coercive taking but a rightful claim by the government that’s standing in for society as a whole (or so statists love to pretend). Taking private property for public use need not be very carefully justified as the fifth amendment to the U. S. Constitution insists, no. Such taking is really just government’s way of affirming its ownership of everything while generously leaving bits of it for the people to use.
But this is all nonsense and a ruse, to boot. For there is no society as such apart from the people who comprise it. Like my classes at the colleges where I teach – they do not exists as some kind of separate entity, only as a group of individual students with a common purpose. So then when it is argued that in fact society owns all the resources, the cash value of this is that some people who have laid claim to speaking for the rest of us own it all or at least get to use it as they see fit.
One retort to this is that without society’s rules and laws property could not exist. So society must, after all, own the stuff. But this is like claiming that because without the rules of tennis or football or any other game there could not be points scored or touchdowns run, it really isn’t the players who score the points or achieve the touchdowns but the referees! This is complete bunk. The referees, like governments, have a job, namely, to make sure the rules are observed as the people or players go about their tasks. They aren’t’ the ones who carry out those tasks and may not lay a claim to the results, either.
There have always been those who were insistent on lording it over other people, including their lives and property. In ancient times they rationalized this by reference to some alleged special status among us – natural aristocracy, superior race or class, God’s assignments, etc. But then it was discovered and finally driven home in many places that no one has any claim to lording over others, not without their consent (as when members of an orchestra consent to the conductor’s role). But this doesn’t sit too well with those who wish to rule us all. So they are now inventing different reasons, such as their supposed role of speaking for society, which is used by them justify their rule. Let us not fall for this, please.
Endorsement of John Jay Myers for Congress
I am pleased to endorse John Jay Myers for US Congress in TX Congressional District 32. Mr. Myers promises to follow one rule if elected to serve in Congress: Restore individual liberty by following the Constitution. He will also work hard to repeal unconstitutional laws and abolish unconstitutional agencies. He strongly believes in States’ rights and the protection of individual rights.
As a Republican Precinct Chair, people have asked me why I am not supporting the party’s nominee and incumbent, Pete Sessions.
Here are just a few reasons why:
1. Sessions voted for the 2008 Wall Street Bailout – twice.
2. Sessions voted for the Patriot Act – twice.
3. Sessions voted for foreign aid – numerous times.
4. Sessions voted for the second largest expansion of government healthcare
When deciding on an endorsement, I always vote based upon principle not party. See the Endorsement page for my rationale of choosing a person to support.
Reposted from breakthematrix.com
Any objection whatsoever to some new, tax-funded government program elicits a consistent response from liberals or progressives. “You just don’t want to pay your fair share,” or “I guess we won’t see you driving on any of those government roads or calling the government police or fire departments.” The underlying assumption is that taxation is an all or nothing proposition. Either there is nothing that the government can collect taxes for or there is nothing that the government cannot collect taxes for. There are no principles upon which to base an answer to the question, “Is this a legitimate function of government?”
While there are probably thousands of different services that governments spend money on, they can generally be divided into three broad categories: security, public services, and wealth redistribution. Libertarians[1] argue that the only legitimate government spending is on security. Conservatives generally approve of security and some public services with their rhetoric while engaging in all three types of spending when in public office. Liberals generally endorse all three types of spending with both their rhetoric and their actions while in public office.
“Security” includes all government functions which attempt to defend citizens from aggression against their rights by other human beings. These would include the military, various police forces, and the civil and criminal courts. These are the functions of government whose purpose is to secure the individual rights of life, liberty, property, etc.
It is important to remember that even if these are legitimate functions of government, it does not mean that they cannot be abused. For example, a small suburban village in a low-crime area may not need more than the county sheriff for a police force, but may instead bear a tax burden of village, town, county, state, and even federal police forces. However, these debates revolve around how efficiently the services are being provided, not whether they should be provided by the government at all.
“Public services” generally refers to services provided to all members of society. What makes a service a “public service” is that it can be reasonably assumed that every member of the society has an equal opportunity to utilize it. Examples include roads, bridges, public libraries, garbage collection services, and fire departments. Libertarians argue that these are goods and services that the private sector can provide. Their objection to providing them with tax dollars is that those who do not consent to purchase them are still forced to pay. While this is also true of security services, libertarians acquiesce to those on the assumption that it would be impossible to exercise property rights without a government in place to defend them.
Certainly, a bridge between a new suburb and the city may improve commerce for the entire city. However, it is not necessary to protect anyone’s rights. Therefore, libertarians argue that those who want to build the bridge should provide the capital for it themselves and are perfectly within their rights to charge a fee to those who wish to use the bridge. Conservatives have traditionally argued that these services can be funded by the government and provided by private corporations under government contracts. Liberals generally support public services as well, although they sometimes object to them being provided by private firms.
Like security services, public services are prone to abuse and corruption, even if one accepts that they are legitimate functions of government. Public funds are often wasted on services that are not needed or services that are poorly rendered because they are provided by politically-connected government employees or private firms, rather than by the most qualified. Consider the “bridges to nowhere,” the roadwork construction projects that never end, or the multitude of scandals where it was discovered that $500 was spent on a single nail or some other gross abuse of public funds occurred.
The third category of government spending is wealth redistribution. Wealth redistribution collects taxes from one group of people in order to provide services to another group. What makes this type of government spending different from public services is the fact that the goods or services provided do not benefit all members of society equally. For example, health benefits under Medicaid are paid for by all taxpayers but are only available to people whose income is under a defined eligibility level. Thus, those funds are literally taken from one group and redistributed to another. Both libertarians and conservatives argue that this is nothing more than legalized theft, although conservatives have often led or acquiesced to expansion of this type of spending once in office. President Bush’s expansion of Medicare is one of the most recent examples. Liberals and progressives generally support this type of spending, arguing that it is each person’s moral responsibility to “contribute.”
In order to have an informed debate about a new government program, one must identify which category the proposed program belongs in. Too often the distinctions between these categories are blurred by both critics and proponents. Most often, a program that would properly be categorized as wealth redistribution is represented as a public service in an effort to persuade those that must pay for it that it is their civic duty to do so.
For example, if the federal government issues a grant to build a commuter train in Florida, it is really redistributing the wealth of all of those outside of the service area of the train, especially those in other states who were taxed to underwrite the grant. It is certainly not reasonable to assume that citizens of Montana have an equal opportunity to utilize that train, yet they were taxed to fund it. Therefore, a commuter train to benefit Floridians does not fit the definition of a “public service” for the entire nation. Interestingly, it is exactly this type of government spending that the 2010 Census form cites as its primary reason for collecting data (so that your community receives its “fair share” of federal funding).
Similarly, Social Security and Medicare purport to be public services which provide a plan for wage earners to save for their retirement. However, everyone knows that since the beginning of both of those programs, the taxes collected to fund them have gone to pay current beneficiaries, not into some mythical trust fund. In fact, when Social Security did run surpluses in the past (when contributions exceeded the payouts to current beneficiaries), the government spent the excess money and replaced it with its own bonds, which are just promises to pay based upon future taxes! So, Social Security is and has always been a wealth redistribution program. The same is true for Medicare.
Wealth redistribution can even be disguised as security with the right amount of government propaganda. The military is a security function insofar as it defends its citizens against aggression by foreign nations. However, when the military grows beyond what is reasonably necessary for defense of U.S. citizens and into a worldwide institution, surrounded by multi-billion dollar corporations which exist solely to support it, and which both attacks nations that have not committed aggression against the United States and stations troops in over 130 nations, one must ask the question, “Who is benefitting from this tax-funded monstrosity?”
It is hard to make an argument that the security of the United States depends upon the tens of thousands of troops stationed in Germany, Korea, or Japan. U.S. troops arrived in those countries during a war that ended 65 years ago and remained there supposedly because of a Cold War that ended 20 years ago. At this point, the only Americans benefitting from the continuation of the U.S. troop presence around the world are the defense contractors who sell goods and services to the government to support the operations. Is this not wealth redistribution disguised as security?
Often, conservatives will argue that America is protecting her allies by stationing troops in Europe, Asia, and the rest of the world. However, even this argument does not hold up to scrutiny. If the money to support these operations is collected from Americans but really benefits German, Japanese, or other foreign citizens, is this not still wealth redistribution disguised as security? This is one of the main reasons that Washington, Adams, and Jefferson told us not to make those alliances in the first place and spent most of their presidencies trying to keep America out of foreign wars.
Liberals represent the latest government foray into the health care industry as a public service. They claim that this will provide coverage for the 45 million Americans who are not currently covered by some form of health insurance coverage. While this number is widely disputed by opponents as being grossly inflated, it still only represents 15% of the population, even if accurate. It then follows that 85% of the population already has some form of health care coverage. Therefore, how can it be argued that all U.S. citizens will benefit equally from this program?
The program will also provide subsidies to those who cannot afford to buy health insurance coverage on their own, which is mandated for everyone.[2] This aspect of the program is undisguised wealth redistribution, as taxes will be collected from all Americans and used to purchase services only for those who qualify due to their income. There is not even a scheme in place for this program to make it look as if the recipients are funding the benefits, as there is with Medicare or Social Security.
The history of federal government spending in America can be separated into three eras. The first was dominated by the ideas of Jefferson and classical liberals (now called “libertarians) and enshrined in the Declaration of Independence. “To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.” That document unambiguously limited government’s role to security.
Thirteen years later, Alexander Hamilton and his conservatives succeeded in drastically expanding the role of government with the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. That document does not limit the government’s role to “securing rights,” but also to “promote the general welfare” and “form a more perfect union.” It grants the U.S. government the power to tax for the purposes of “promoting the general welfare.” This expansion of the role of government to include public services was then increasingly exploited by conservatives throughout the next century to institute wealth redistribution programs for the benefit of a wealthy elite, all disguised as public services or security. These included subsidies to corporations to build roads and canals, subsidies to railroads, and the establishment of a large, standing military force.[3]
Once the conservatives succeeded in establishing government as wealth redistributor to the wealthy, liberals abandoned the philosophy of government limited to security and instead began to advocate government as wealth redistributor to the poor and middle classes. This transformation can be traced roughly to the Woodrow Wilson administration, which combined elements of the conservative philosophy with modern liberal ideas of social justice. With the FDR administration, the transformation of liberal philosophy was complete. The liberals now sought to redistribute wealth to the poor and middle classes, while the conservatives continued to redistribute to the wealthy. These are the choices presented to Americans to this day.
There are large grassroots movements forming with one rallying point in common: they are all opposed to a federal government that spends $3.6 trillion dollars a year and shows no sign of slowing down. If the movements are to succeed, their constituents must clearly understand the three types of government spending and which one really costs the most. True security makes up so small a percentage of the federal budget that no income tax, national sales tax, or “value added tax” is necessary to fund it. Truly public services are also insignificant in terms of cost. Even the hapless postal service, for all of its inefficiency and waste, does not make up a significant portion of the federal budget.
No, it is not spending on security or public services that has bankrupted the federal government and destroyed the U.S. economy. The true cause of the problem has been the massive redistribution of wealth, perpetrated by conservatives for the benefit of the wealthy and by liberals for the benefit of everyone else. It is this type of government spending that must be recognized in all of its disguises and eliminated if the United States is to be saved.
[1] I use the term “libertarians” to describe those who advocate limited government. There are also many libertarians who advocate a completely stateless society, with even security functions provided by private firms in a free market.
[2] This is a gross violation of liberty and property rights as well.
[3] See Tom Dilorenzo’s excellent body of work on this, including Hamilton’s Curse, How Capitalism Saved America, and The Real Lincoln.
© Thomas Mullen 2010
Socialized School Spending Doubled in Last Decade
From: Empower TexansAs we close out this school year, taxpayers may wonder want kind of bang we’re getting for our educational buck. Texans now spend more than $11,000 per year on public education – with less than half going toward instructional expenses.
In the 2008-2009 school year — the last for which data is available — Texas schools spent $11,084 per kid. Ten years ago, Texas spent was spending just $5,857.
If per-pupil spending had risen with inflation, the cost after 10 years would have approximately been $7,545. So where is the money going? Well, it’s not going to the classroom.
If you think of each kid the way school bureaucrats do — as bags of money — and consider your average third-grade class capped at 22 students per teacher, that’s $243,848 sitting there.
But the money isn’t going to the teacher. Average teacher pay was $47,313 in the 08-09 school year (up from $34,357 a decade ago).
So where’s the other $200,000 derived from our average classroom going? Seems a bit much for overhead, doesn’t it?
Of the $11,084 spent per pupil on public education in 2009, only $4,831 went for anything that could even remotely be considered “instructional” expenses as defined by the Texas Education Agency.
Over the last decade, student enrollment has risen 15 percent — from 3.9 million students to 4.6 million students. In that same period, the number of teachers grew accordingly, at 19.3 percent. We now have 14.4 students for every teacher (in 1999 it was 15.2 students per teacher).
But non-teachers? That’s where the growth is. We had 22 percent more in 2009 than in 1999.
So for all this spending, and for all these new, non-classroom employees, surely there’s been some marked improvement in academic performance. Right? I mean, that’s why we spend money in public education…
Actually, there’s been a decline in results. The average Texas SAT score in 1999 was a 992. Over 10 years it has fallen to 988. The SAT may not be a perfect barometer, but it’s a pretty consistent outside measurement. Given what we’re paying per kid, surely it’s reasonable to expect a little improvement, right?
Our public schools are spending dollars almost faster than the taxpayers can earn them. We’re told to support public education spending for the sake of the children. But not too much actually seems to make it to where the kids are.
As parents and taxpayers, we have to demand that more dollars flow to the classroom, not from our pockets but from the over-fed bureaucracy whose bloated weight is dragging down our teachers and academically endangering our kids.
So when your superintendent or school board next asks you for more money, bigger budgets and growing staff, we should demand they show us precisely how it will directly improve the education Texas’ kids receive. Right now, we’re clearly not getting our money’s worth.
The Role of Government
Due to the pending bond election for the City of Richardson, I feel this article by Dan Denning is very timely.
Apr 20th, 2010 | By Dan Denning | Category: Economics, Featured, Politics
We’re going to paint with a broad brush and say most well-meaning government interventions in public and private life are designed to promote equality of outcome, social justice, or reduce the seeming unfairness and volatility of life in market economy.But have you ever wondered if, in the earnest attempt to eliminate risk in our society (financial, physical, emotional), we’re actually make people less safe and society more inherently risky?
Wear your seat belt. Don’t binge drink. Don’t drive too fast. Be politically correct. Be tolerant. Be diverse. Be multi-cultural. All these commandments coming down from the Nanny State on high are given to us presumably because we are too stupid or unthinking to look out for ourselves, or too unsensitive to the feelings of self-worth held by others.
We won’t eat right unless told what to eat…or invest enough to provide for our retirement unless compelled to. And the world would be better, in the words of Principal Skinner, “If nobody was better than anybody else and everybody was the best.”
But what if all this bullying, nonsense, nannying, and government coercion is eroding the very healthy and natural ability to identify and manage risk? We’d argue that in nature, the ability to identify risk promotes survival. The amygdala — that tiny part of our brain that controls the fight or flight instinct — is evolution’s way of keeping us on our toes. It reminds us that in the tens of thousands of years human history, the margin between life and death has been pretty small.
Over most of human history, people haven’t had surplus time or energy to think about what to do with surplus, quantitatively or qualitatively. You spent most of your time surviving and finding food. And this pursuit, knowing what to fear was probably your most important survival skill.
But we live in a world of profound and seemingly endless abundance and surplus today. It’s a product of the division of labour (which has been so successful most people don’t even know what it is), cheap energy, and cheap credit. We’d argue that all of these things have dangerously dulled our sense of risk and exaggerated our expectations of what to expect from life, each other, and our public institutions.
Wealth, material wealth anyway, is a product of surplus. And surplus is another way of saying profit. It means combining raw materials, labour, and your talent to make the whole worth more than the sum of the parts.
In this respect — by communicating accurate prices so people can make informed decisions about what to buy and sell — the free market delivers extraordinary outcomes. It unleashes the sheer productive capacities of millions of people who do completely unpredictable and unplannable things with their life that no central committee could possibly organise.
The trade off for such an open system that produces so much surplus, choice, and income mobility is instability and relative inequality. Unless you are in a rocking chair, you can’t really be moving and staying put at the same time. But for some reason, some people find this instability — a natural feature of a dynamic system — threatening. They want to freeze things and give up growth and change for the sake of predictability and security, which they would choose as personal goals.
To be fair, change freaks some people out. To be ideological, the people (usually in government) opposed to the instability of the free market just don’t like what other people choose to do with their economic liberty. They find prosperity morally vulgar and are offended by obvious inequality — failing to see that free markets have elevated all people everywhere to standards of living that would have been unimaginable even 100 years ago.
One possible explanation is that the meddling central planners of the world are just egomaniacs who get off on telling other people how to live. More worrying is that these people actually believe they are right and that someone should have the role of regulating, with the power of the State to coerce, how people behave in the minutest detail.
That’s not to say that you can’t have good government. But we’d say it would be much smaller and less morally ambitious than today’s institution. Today’s big government exists for the sake of perpetuating itself. It’s finding that harder and harder to do as it sucks up — and eventually kills — the lifeblood of the productive economy, taxes in the form of suplus on personal and corporate incomes.
Mind you, none of this is in defense of the predatory financial capitalism run by Washington and Wall Street oligarchs that’s been masquerading as the free market. As Ron Paul correctly pointed out last week, the current system is more accurately described as “corporatist” in which the banks, the defense contractors and corporations of size (to use a PC term) lobby, cajole, and generally purchase favourable laws from legislators (on the right and left) that are themselves bought and paid for.
Frankly, the whole thing could use a little creative destruction. And no matter how badly its defenders (like Bernanke) fight for it, the system is inherently fraudulent and wasteful of resources and capital.
And in addition to that, it’s just ethically offensive. We won’t miss it or mourn it when it’s gone. As we mentioned last week, we don’t encourage people to get involved with that political system at all. It’s like snogging with a vampire. We’d urge you to deprive that system of your time, talents, and creative energies.
The best defense of liberty begins with financial independence. And taking care of your own money and your own life is something you don’t need to go to the ballot box to do. And you don’t have to take anyone else’s money either. It also puts you in the position of helping people you really can help — your friends, family, and neighbours.
So why isn’t financial independence the highest calling in public life? Hmmn. Granted, a high material standard of living is not the same thing as a high quality of life. And we’d even say that spiritually, there are more important things. But it’s something to think about.
Regards,
Dan Denning
The Daily Reckoning Australia
Whiskey & Gunpowder
City of Richardson: 2nd Fastest Rising Taxes
One of the reasons I decided to buy my home in Richardson 10 years ago was because of low tax rates and the fiscally responsible management of our tax dollars. Unfortunately, during the last 10 years, Richardson’s tax rate change is the second fastest rising tax rate in Dallas County: 28.58%! (Sources: DCAD 1999 DCAD 2009)
Do we really want to be #1 in that category during this economy where people are losing jobs and houses?
| Tax Rate Change – 1998 – 2008 | ||
| 1 | Lancaster | 40.93% |
| 2 | Richardson | 29.58% |
| 3 | Seagoville | 18.08% |
| 4 | Rowlett | 16.75% |
| 5 | Dallas | 15.22% |
| 6 | DeSoto | 14.45% |
| 7 | Addison | 13.38% |
| 8 | Farmers Branch | 12.39% |
| 9 | Garland | 10.42% |
| 10 | Mesquite | 10.06% |
| 11 | Irving | 9.66% |
| 12 | Carrolton | 2.25% |
| 13 | Cockrell Hill | 2.11% |
| 14 | Balch Springs | 0.00% |
| 15 | Cedar Hill | -0.20% |
| 16 | Sunnyvale | -0.53% |
| 17 | Coppell | -1.10% |
| 18 | Grand Prairie | -1.47% |
| 19 | Hutchins | -3.00% |
| 20 | Duncanville | -3.06% |
| 21 | Sachse | -9.59% |
| 22 | Glenn Heights | -13.21% |
| 23 | Highland Park | -18.31% |
| 24 | Wilmer | -26.42% |
| 25 | University Park | -39.02% |
| AverageForDallasCo.Cities | 3.17% | |
City of Richardson $66 Million Bond Election
At a time when the City of Richardson faces approximately $300 million in debt, this bond election calls for over a 10% increase in your city property taxes. Not to mention, 5% of this $66 million will be to finance salaries.
While some of our roads and municipal buildings do need repair/improvement, the propositions lump the “necessary” with the “unnecessary” together so that voters cannot pick one and not the other. I recommend voting “NO” on all four propositions at this time. As another blogger writes, “Am I willing to drive on worse roads for a couple of years in order to send a signal that the city shouldn’t try to bloat up bond props? Yes, I am.”
A Warning to the Tea Party Nation
A Warning To The Tea Party Nation
by Chuck Baldwin
February 12, 2010
As far as grassroots activism goes, the surge in Tea Parties across America is one of the more encouraging developments to recently take place. It reminds me of the “Conservative Revolution” of 1994, when the GOP reclaimed both the US Senate and House of Representatives. At that time, it had been over 40 years since the Republican Party controlled both the US House and Senate. And, between the two, the House victories were the most significant.
Spurred mostly by the election of Bill Clinton in 1992, a host of young, energetic freshman Republicans marched into Washington, D.C., determined to return a burgeoning and out-of-control federal leviathan to the constitutional precepts of limited government. I’m talking about then-freshman House members such as Helen Chenoweth, Steve Largent, Bob Barr, Joe Scarborough, Sonny Bono, John Shadegg, J.C. Watts, etc. These young conservatives went to Washington, D.C., determined to reduce the growth and size of the federal government.
The vehicle used to transport these young conservatives from grassroots activism to US House and Senate seats was the highly touted “Contract with America” (CWA), which was orchestrated by House Speaker-to-be, Newt Gingrich. The CWA included a promise to the American people that if they would give the GOP a majority in Congress, they would eliminate up to 5 federal departments–such as the Departments of Energy and Education–and many federal agencies.
Obviously, not only did the GOP-controlled Congress not eliminate a single federal department or agency–or even shrink the size of the federal government at all–it expanded the size and scope of the federal government at every level. And there is one reason for it: Big Government neocons posing as champions of conservatism co-opted and destroyed the Conservative Revolution of 1994.
If one wants to put names to these treasonous wretches (and I do), I’m talking about charlatans such as Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott. Anyone who thinks that Newt Gingrich is a real conservative or that he will do anything to reduce the size and scope of the federal government needs to speak with any of those Republican members of the freshman class of 1994. (Sadly, too, some of the members of that great freshman class went on to become Big Government toadies themselves. Such is the power of that Putrid Province by the Potomac.)
The Tea Parties of 2010 remind me very much of the Conservative Revolution of 1994. And if the Tea Party Nation is not very careful, they will succumb to the same fate. The signs of a silent takeover of the movement are already appearing.
First of all, the Tea Parties were actually born during the Presidential campaign of Congressman Ron Paul of Texas in 2007 and 2008. For all intents and purposes, the Tea Parties and the Ron Paul Revolution were one and the same. These were (mostly) young people, who were sick and tired of the same old establishment Republican Party. They were tired of establishment Republicans selling out the principles of limited government; they were tired of the US Constitution being ignored and trampled by both Republicans and Democrats; they were tired of an incessant interventionist US foreign policy that keeps sending US forces overseas to advance a burgeoning New World Order (NWO); they were tired of perpetual war; they were tired of the bank bailouts; they were tired of the Federal Reserve; etc.
I know this because I met–and spoke before–the Tea Party Nation in State after State as I campaigned for Dr. Paul during the Republican primaries back in 2008. And I met them again all over America, as I was running as an Independent candidate for President–with Ron Paul’s endorsement, no less. I was with them in scores of meetings (big and small) from Washington, D.C., to Spokane, Washington, and all points in between.
But now many of the Tea Parties are distancing themselves from Dr. Paul and embracing establishment players such as Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. Even Newt Gingrich is being courted. Watch out, Tea Party Nation: you’re in danger of losing your soul! Newt Gingrich is not one of you. He is not your friend. He is an imposter. He will destroy you just like he almost single-handedly destroyed the Conservative Revolution of 1994.
Plus, be careful about Sarah Palin and other establishment Republicans. Palin is currently playing both sides. She is promoting Big Government neocons such as John McCain on the one hand, and sincere conservative-libertarians such as Rand Paul on the other hand. But if one wants a real barometer of Palin’s true colors, look no further than her endorsement of Rick Perry in Texas.
Perry is the quintessential establishment Republican. Perry has been in office for some 9 years, and what has he done to thwart the NWO in Texas? Nothing! Perry is even a Bilderberg Group attendee. What has he done for State sovereignty in Texas? Nothing! In fact, he supports the North American Union and the NAFTA superhighway. What has he done to resist Obama’s universal health care proposals? Nothing! What has he done to protect the citizens of Texas against an emerging Police State? Nothing! What has he done to fight illegal immigration? Nothing!
As a result of both Rick Perry’s establishment business-as-usual politics in Texas and the proliferating grassroots Tea Party movement, counterattacking establishment politics, a Tea Partier herself has entered the race for Texas governor. Her name is Debra Medina. As the Tea Party Nation in Texas already knows, Medina is one of you.
Medina is committed to preserving Texas’ independence and sovereignty. She is opposed to the Patriot Act. She will secure the Texas border. She will give Texas Vermont-style open carry freedoms for gun owners. She wants to get rid of unconstitutional property taxes in Texas. She will stop the NAFTA superhighway. Medina is the real deal.
So, what did Sarah Palin do? She went to Texas and endorsed Rick Perry! I’m sorry, ladies and gentlemen, playing political games in order to rake in hundreds of thousands of dollars on the speaking and book-signing circuits is not what the Tea Parties are all about.
Tea Parties are supposed to be about putting principle over politics, supporting and defending the US Constitution, supporting limited government and personal liberty, getting rid of the Federal Reserve, abolishing the IRS, ending preemptive and pervasive wars, and putting truth and integrity back into government.
Don’t get me wrong; there are things about Sarah Palin that I like. I especially appreciate her pro-life and pro-Second Amendment stands. I also appreciate her signing the Alaska State sovereignty resolution while she was governor. By all indications, she did a good job as Alaska’s chief executive. At the national level, however, she favors the Patriot Act–and even wants to expand it. She supported the banker bailouts. And when it comes to foreign policy issues, Palin is just another neocon. Plus, as with most Republicans at the national level, I think she is clueless about the NWO. And please remember, it was Mr. New World Order himself, Henry Kissinger, who vetted Palin on behalf of McCain.
The Tea Party Nation should expect better!
The Nation also needs to be careful about Glenn Beck. He says many of the right things. He is likeable and charismatic; but he’s also dead wrong on a number of issues–issues that are critical to the Tea Party Nation. He’s dead wrong when he attempts to disparage and impugn Congressman Ron Paul, saying Dr. Paul is a “crazy, kooky guy.” He’s dead wrong in supporting the banker bailouts. He’s dead wrong when he supports raising taxes (which he has done on several occasions). He was dead wrong when he supported the Patriot Act. He is dead wrong when he viciously attacks the 9/11 victims’ families who demand further information about what happened to their loved ones on that fateful day. And he is dead wrong when he mocks people such as Alan Keyes and Joe Farah for demanding that Barack Obama release his birth certificate–if he indeed has one.
And now I hear that there are some self-professed members of the Tea Party Nation who are actually running for Congressman Paul’s US House seat in Texas. If this is not a sign that establishment Republicans are hijacking the Tea Party movement, I don’t know what is. Remember, the Tea Party movement began as a support base for the Ron Paul Revolution back in 2007.
I strongly encourage the Tea Party faithful to read Jane Hamsher’s recent column on this subject:
http://tinyurl.com/tea-party-soul
I say again, be careful, Tea Party Nation. You are being infiltrated. You are being compromised. You are being neutered. Stick to your principles. Stick with the Constitution. Keep opposing unconstitutional, preemptive wars. Keep calling for the abolition of the Federal Reserve. Keep fighting for less taxes, reduced federal spending, and states’ rights. Keep opposing the Patriot Act and the New World Order. Don’t abandon Ron Paul. Be wary of people such as Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. You don’t need “big name” celebrities to give you credibility. As Samson’s strength depended on keeping his hair uncut, your strength lies in keeping your principles intact. And unless you want to wind up like the Republican freshmen in 1994, avoid Newt Gingrich like the plague!
GOP Gubernatorial Statewide TV Debate
WFAA Dallas Channel 8 is set to air a one-hour statewide debate between Texas GOP gubernatorial candidates on January 29, at 7 p.m.
Since Debra Medina has risen so rapidly in the polls, the debate will include all three Republican candidates: Hutchison, Medina and Perry. It will originate from WFAA studios in Dallas, and air live on Belo Corp. television stations in Houston (KHOU), San Antonio (KENS), Austin (KVUE) and on Texas Cable News (TXCN). The debate will also be streamed live and archived on the Web sites operated by Belo broadcast and cable companies, and on the Web site operated by A. H. Belo Corporation’s newspaper, The Dallas Morning News.
WFAA veteran news anchor John McCaa will serve as moderator. Panelists for the debate include senior political writer Wayne Slater of The Dallas Morning News, news anchors Len Cannon of KHOU, Sarah Lucero of KENS and Terri Gruca of KVUE.
Currently, there is no debate scheduled with the Democratic candidates.
