Economic Policy Journal: Veronique De Rugy- 'Stop Calling The GOP The Party of Small Government'

Source:MNSBC- Donald Trump's GOP.

Source:The New Democrat

"There was a time when GOP lawmakers called for the elimination of entire federal agencies. Today, milquetoast promises to pursue smaller government are followed by votes for ever bigger government."

From Economic Policy Journal

Source:Special Reports- Reagan Administration OMB Director David Stockman. 

"David Stockman- Spend, Cut & Borrow: The GOP is Heading to Fiscal Calamity"

Listening to Republicans today talk about the need for limited government and limiting the size as well as growth of government, is like talking and listening to a 400 pound man ( perhaps in New Jersey, to use Donald Trump's reference ) talk about the need for diet and exercise. It's hard to listen to it with a straight face, because they're only speaking from bad experience. Sort of like hearing a parent tell their kids not to do exactly what they did when they were the exact same sage. Like staying out late, eating too much junk food, playing video games, etc.

Source: Democratic Underground- The King of debt Donald Trump

When I want to hear advice, I want to hear advice from someone who knows what they're talking about. I know, that sounds crazy and perhaps next you might say that I would only jump out of an airplane with a parachute or when I'm completely drunk, but I want to hear advice from people who know what they're doing. Who can say, "you should look at doing this, because this is what I did and it worked out very well from me." Instead of someone saying, "don't screw up like me. Trust me, it doesn't work because that's exactly what I did. "

Source: The Nation Magazine- Vice President Mike Pence & the House GOP Leadership- Fiscal responsibility, LOL!

The Republican Party, is no more the party of limited government and fiscal responsibility, as they're the party of individual freedom and federalism. They believe in freedom for the individual, if that person lives like them and shares their same cultural and religious values. They're the party of federalism, if states and localities are doing exactly what they want them to do. This case with Attorney General Jeff Sessions and immigration, with so-called sanctuary cities is a great example of that. Marijuana where the Trump Administration, wants to interfere with state marijuana laws and say that the states can't have their own marijuana laws, is another example of that.

And perhaps more important than anything else because it affects our economy with things like interest rates and banking, the Republican Party is the party of fiscal responsibility, only when Democrats are in power and deficits are high. Once Republicans retake the White House again and have a Republican Congress as well, they act like fiscal responsibility is something they've never heard of. Or deficits and debt are no longer major concerns, because they're back in power and know how to manage those things. Or as Vice President Dick Cheney said back in 2003 on Meet The Press, "deficits don't matter." Or as Donald Trump has said, he's the king of debt and knows how to manage it.

This Republican Congress hasn't done much in how the year in a half that they've been in power. But they did manage to pass three big spending bill with big spending being the two key words. I guess Republican would be another key word as well, but they passed a gigantic federal budget, a gigantic spending bill with both of those bills only making the most obese person in the world happy with how they big and porky they are. With Congressional Republicans and the Trump Administration essentially saying that, "why should we be worried about the national debt and deficit, when we're not going to be the people who have to pay for it?" And of course the so-called tax reform bill, which is another way of saying borrow two-trillion-dollars to pay for tax cuts, so we can tell the Republican voters that we actually did something while we're in power.

Vice President Joe Biden, back in 2010 while he was campaigning for Congressional Democrats on the campaign trail, said in a speech, "that this is not your father's GOP." Meaning this is not the same Republican Party that he worked with in Congress as a Senator for 36 years, or the party he saw while growing up in the 1950s and 1960s. The Republican Party today is not even the Republican Party of 2010, 2011, 2012, that actually believed in fiscal responsibility. They're now the Donald Republican reality TV show party that only seems to be in the business of trying to stay in power. Where the only principal is winning elections and defeating Democrats. And as a result they by themselves are killing fiscal conservatism and fiscal responsibility. Which is a shame, because it means that everyone else gets to pay for borrow and spend big government.

Economic Policy Journal: Walter Block: 'Why This Push Toward Milton Friedman?'

Source:Economic Policy Journal- Professor Milton Friedman.

Source:The New Democrat

"Dr. Walter Block responds to an inquiry from  Sadaf Hussain of the Centre for Civil Society, New Dehli...

From the Economic Policy Journal

Source:Sidewinder- Professor Milton Friedman in 1978.

"A student poses a series of question on based on Friedman's notion that people should pursue their own self-interest. The student points out that he'd read that Friedman had previously come out against disaster aid for victims of a flood in Pennsylvania. Friedman corrected the questioner and noted that he did not come out against private aid for flood victims but instead was against the Federal Government providing discounted flood insurance in advance to home purchasers which motivated people to build houses in areas where they otherwise would not have been able to obtain insurance privately. If not for the discounted insurance, it's likely many of the flooded houses would never have been built in the first place as it wouldn't have been in peoples self-interest."

From Sidewinder

I don't agree with Milton Friedman on everything once you get part the message of maximize freedom for everyone as long as they aren't hurting any innocent person with what they're doing. Which I agree with him on probably 99% of the way. I support the safety net as an insurance system, but only for people who truly need it and to be used to help people get themselves on their own feet and off of the safety net all together. And here's another area where I agree with Professor Friedman on. Even though he wouldn't have created the New Deal and Great Society, he said that as long as we have a public social insurance system it should be used to lift people up and not keep them down. That people on Welfare should be looking for work and be able to earn money on the side while on Welfare.

I basically look at my politics from the standpoint as a Classical Liberal (not Libertarian) who is influenced by Jack Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Martin O'Malley today and other what are called New Democrats. (The Real Liberals in the Democratic Party) People who believe success in life shouldn't be determined on whether you have wealthy parents, or not. But the quality of your parents and the opportunities that you create for yourself based on what your parents gave you and what you created for yourself. That the success of the individual should be determined based on the quality of their parents, community, education and at the end of the day what the individual does for themselves. Did they complete their education, find a good field for them and made the best out of that, that they could. Not whether their parents are wealthy, or not.

Milton Friedman is part of my political influence. Part of my political package that I use to voice my own politics and views. That it's not the job of government to take care of people, but to protect our freedom. Now my role for government while still very limited is a bit bigger than Milton's, we look at a lot of things the same way. That individual freedom, success, wealth and even extreme wealth, are actually good things. And that the problem is not that we have rich people, but that we don't have enough rich people and too many people in poverty. And where I differ with Milton is that I believe an effective limited government can be used to see that everyone has the access to the tools that they need to create their own freedom. Education, infrastructure, economic development, a safety net again for people who only need it, but is used to expand freedom and not government dependence. But I believe Milton and I share most of the same goals when it comes to freedom in America.

Economic Policy Journal: Yonathan Anselem: 'Progressivism is a Blob of Alleged Rights That Results in Nothing But Structural Disorder'

Source:Economic Policy Journal- publisher Robert Wenzel.

Source:The New Democrat 

"Progressives are often good people with good intentions. However, modern Progressivism has evolved into something so shapeless and amorphous as to amount to little more than a belief in “things that sound nice.” Mainstream Progressives have done an abysmal job of outlining precisely, in their view, the proper role of government and what (if any) limiting principle(s) apply to the state as a whole." 

You can read the rest of this article at the Economic Policy Journal 

"Classical Liberalism and Modern Progressivism - Presenter Todd Puterbaugh" 

Source:Commonsense Community- from Todd Puterbaugh's lecture.

From Commonsense Community 

It use to be Liberals and liberalism that right-wingers use to talk about when talking about anything that seemed Un-American and statist to them, at least coming from the Far-Left either in America or outside of America. But as Americans are learning more about Liberals and liberalism, as well as Classical Liberals (which are really just Liberals) and classical liberalism) which is really just liberalism) including Conservatives, more Americans on the Center-Right now see themselves as Liberals, or at least Classical Liberals, people who are considered Center-Right in the rest of the developed world. 

Now that more Americans are learning more about who Liberals really are ideologically and what liberalism actually is (or Classical Liberals and classical liberalism, if you prefer) Progressives and progressivism are becoming the new boogymen for hyper-partisan right-wingers, Conservative and Libertarians, to talk about anything that they see as statist and Un-American that's coming from the Far-Left. 

What progressivism really is: "Progressivism is a political philosophy in support of social reform.[1] Based on the idea of progress in which advancements in science, technology, economic development and social organization are vital to the improvement of the human condition, progressivism became highly significant during the Age of Enlightenment in Europe, out of the belief that Europe was demonstrating that societies could progress in civility from uncivilized conditions to civilization through strengthening the basis of empirical knowledge as the foundation of society.[2] Figures of the Enlightenment believed that progress had universal application to all societies and that these ideas would spread around the world from Europe.[2]

The early-20th century concept of progressivism emerged from the vast social changes brought about by industrialization and the Second Industrial Revolution of the late 19th century. Progressives took the view that progress was being stifled by vast economic inequality; minimally regulated monopolistic corporations; and the intense and often violent conflict between laborers and economic elites, arguing that measures were needed to address these problems." 

From Wikipedia

This blog uses terms like Socialist, Democratic Socialist, Social Democrat, New Marxist, Neo-Communist and New-Left, to describe people who we at least see are to the left of what would be called Progressives, in the Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, LBJ, New Deal and Great Society sense. 

Real Progressives (not the right or left-wing definition of Progressives) do have a big role when it comes to government and using government in America to create progress. Create an environment where everyone can  succeed in this country, but on their own. Where you don't need to come from wealthy parents to succeed in America, because everyone has the access to a modern infrastructure system, a quality education through higher education. A public safety net for people who truly need it, but not a welfare state to manage everyone economic and personal affairs for them.

The so-called Modern Progressive (who are really Democratic Socialists in the Bernie Sanders and back in the 1970s George McGovern) believe that the New Deal and Great Society simply didn't go far enough. They see the private sector is too big, the Federal Government too small, too much individualism in the American economy, taxes too low across the board. And as a result the Democratic Socialist believes the American economy is an economy where people can do too well in their view and where everyone else doesn't have enough. 

So according to Democratic Socialists (not Progressives) they would say you need a big Federal Government to make up the difference and pick up the slack for the shortcomings of the private sector. You need to tax everyone at high amounts so everyone has what they need to live well that is provided by the Federal Government. And heavily tax the wealthy to take care of the poor.

So when this blog talks about lets say Franklin Roosevelt and his presidency, we do talk about the New Deal, the modern infrastructure system, but we also talk about World War II and the national security state that his administration created. Because progressivism, is a modern mainstream Center-Left philosophy, that generally sees America as a force for good (to sound corny) and America as a great country, to the point that it is worth defending. And that we need to be strong enough to defend ourselves, but also defend our liberal values around the world of freedom and human rights and help people who are struggling to obtain those things for themselves. Where we and our allies can make a positive difference. Because Progressives understand power and aren't anti-military and use of force.

It is not just that Democratic Socialists today, tend to see government as too small and taxes too low and that government doesn't do enough for the people, but that our military are the real terrorists in the world. And that they believe that minorities deserve special protection and some right never to be criticized, at least not by majorities. And that masculinity is a bad thing and that men tend to be bad and what America stands for tends to be bad things. 

Today's Socialists (not Progressives) are way to the left of what the Roosevelt's and Harry Truman and LBJ ever were ideologically. They are a new leftist political movement that might considered mainstream in Europe, but look like Far-Left radicals in America. And even make Progressives look like Conservatives, at least in comparison. Just like the Christian-Right may look mainstream in the Middle East and South Asia, but look like Far-Right radicals in America.

Robert Ringer: The Individual Versus the State

I’ve been reading going on for about five years or so now since I started blogging about what is called Laissez-Fair capitalism. Which means government out of the economy.

Well lets think about that for a minute to examine what that actually means. Gone would be a public welfare state or safety net. Gone would be government regulations. Gone would be taxpayer funded government subsidies to business’s. Gone would be anti-union and union-busting laws. Because again government would be out of the economy. Remember Libertarians are supposed to be anti-union, but want government out of the economy. Yet they support anti-union union-busting laws. They are trying to have it both ways.

Instead of the “individual versus the state” how about we have the individual working with the state. The state there to protect people from predators. Which is really is what government regulations are supposed to be about. With the individual having complete control over their own personal and economic affairs as long as they aren’t hurting innocent people either personally or economically. And yes that is where government comes to deal with predators. As well as have government there to see that all individuals have the opportunity to succeed in life. Whether they are currently kids in school, or low-skilled adults working or not.

What I’m talking about is liberal capitalism which is different from both social democracy which is built around the central government being there to take care of everyone. Or Laissez-Fair capitalism that gets the government completely out of the economy and lets nature take its course so to speak.

Its liberal capitalism and what Americans have done to take advantage of those opportunities that has built America. Not social democracy that is built around one big central government to take care of everyone. Or Laissez-Fair capitalism with government doing nothing.

Robert Wenzel: Happy New Year From The Freedom Socialist Party!

Source:The New Democrat

The Freedom Socialist Party, hum that is a title that makes me want to go well, hum. Yes I know there are Democratic Socialists and Bernie Sanders comes to mind pretty quickly. But when I and a lot of other Americans and myself perhaps less than the average American think of socialism at least the economic form of it, I think of really high taxes, lots of regulations, huge centralized government, huge welfare state and that is assuming that the private sector and private enterprise is left in place. In most socialist countries today there is a private sector and private enterprise. But every other socialist characteristic is also in place. So I don’t tend to think of freedom when it comes to socialism, at least not economic freedom.I think of all sorts of centralized government programs and services. With people not being able to decide for themselves how they receive these services.

Robert Wenzel: 'Murray Rothbard On Socialism's Incentive Problem'

Source:Robert Wenzel- Economist Murray Rothbard. 

“Murray Rothbard on Socialism’s Incentive Problem” 

From Robert Wenzel

The main problem with state-ownership, or Marxism (named after Karl Marx) is the lack of incentives that comes from competition and individual choice. People making decisions and then seeing for themselves how they worked and didn’t work.

When you have a central authority in charge of an economy, with the central government responsible for the management of the national business’s, those companies don’t have to succeed and produce in order to stay in business for those employees to keep their jobs. The state up to a certain point anyway, can simply just bailout the failing business’s and borrow the money up to a point to do that. When you don’t have competition, you don’t have to produce a good product to stay in business, because your customers have no other choices.

So to sort of pick up on what Murray Rothbard was saying about socialism: if everyone is equal and entitled to same benefits in life, you’ve eliminated the incentive to individuals to be individuals and for them to produce, contribute, to self-improve, to be creative, to learn, because you are telling them that everyone is equal regardless of what they bring to society and therefor entitled to the same benefits in life, that of course will come from government. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Robert Wenzel: 'Barack Obama's Plan to Obliterate The Republican Party'

Source:Economic Policy Journal- blogger Robert Wenzel.

"The lefty Saul Alinsky is generally considered to be the founder of modern community organizing. He is often noted for his book Rules for Radicals. In a recent op-ed at Politico, Douglas E. Schoen a former pollster for Bill Clinton and Patrick H. Caddell a former pollster for President Jimmy Carter explain  President Obama is employing Saul Alinsky tactics in the sequestration game and beyond:

"Federal prosecutors will have to close cases and let criminals go,” President Obama said last week, flanked by uniformed firefighters and law-enforcement officers. “Tens of thousands of parents will have to scramble to find child care for their kids.” He went on: “Border Patrol agents will see their hours reduced. FBI agents will be furloughed.”

Scared yet? In his Saturday radio address, the president made clear who was at fault for this impending Armageddon: “Are Republicans in Congress really willing to let these cuts fall on our kids’ schools and mental health care just to protect tax loopholes for corporate jet owners? Are they really willing to slash military health care and the Border Patrol just because they refuse to eliminate tax breaks for big oil companies?”

The president is obviously going all-out — but not to avoid the $85 billion in spending cuts, known as the sequester, set to kick in on Friday. Obama doesn’t want to make a deal with Republicans. His fear-mongering is part of a concerted plan that extends far beyond the sequester crisis: to obliterate the Republican Party as a viable force in American political life.

His self-righteous rhetoric obscures a bitter truth: Obama is not trying to unite the country. He’s waging a class-based battle for political gain. His goal is to win back the House for Democrats in 2014, giving him a united Congress for his last two years in office and allowing him to pursue the most expansive government in American history.

Listening to Obama, an ordinary American might assume that the Republicans were forcing these harsh spending cuts on the president. In fact, they were the president’s idea, part of a compromise to make the 2011 debt-ceiling deal. And as Bob Woodward reminded readers in an op-ed last on Sunday, that agreement did not include the “new revenue” (i.e., tax hikes) that Obama pretends he asked for then: “When the president asks that a substitute for the sequester include not just spending cuts but also new revenue, he is moving the goal posts….that was not the deal he made.”

Obama, then, is not being truthful — nor is he making even minimal efforts to find a compromise with Republicans. It actually made news last week when the White House made a few perfunctory calls to GOP leaders.

So here we are again, stuck in America’s ongoing political groundhog day: Obama makes the same claims, with the same results. Republicans dig in, vow no more compromises, then surrender wholesale. Neither side levels with the American people or speaks to their real anxieties — from rising food and gas prices to chronic and pervasive unemployment.

It seems increasingly clear that Obama’s legacy will not be balancing the budget or bringing together a divided country, but rather, expanding the size and scope of government like no one since Lyndon Johnson — but without the revenue or political support that LBJ enjoyed. In 1965 and 1966, when Johnson was at the peak of his power, he passed major legislation with bipartisan support. Still, he overreached, and eventually he lost his huge majorities. Obama’s overreaching is much worse. He thinks he can do whatever he wants, even without Republicans votes.

Two factors fuel his overconfidence: a visionless, disorganized Republican Party, and a docile, shamelessly partisan media.

Republicans lack an agenda and a message. Even when their instincts are correct, they can’t seem to communicate with the American people. With no competing narrative, they continue to take a drubbing in the court of public opinion as “the party of the rich.”

The media, meanwhile, remain determined to protect the president. Only when they found out, belatedly, that Obama played golf with Tiger Woods did they become angry with the White House for not letting them in on the photo op. They are silent about Obama’s failure to address the nation’s fiscal challenges, his stonewalling on Benghazi, or the refusal of his unqualified Defense nominee to release his records. But a secret golf game with Tiger Woods — that’s beyond the pale.[...]

Obama has brought partisanship to a new low by creating a full-time political advocacy organization — Organizing for Action — funded by secret contributions from corporate elites. OFA’s founding is historically unprecedented. No president has ever affiliated himself with a national organization other than reelection campaigns. Obama has taken the Saul Alinsky organizing vision to a national level.

Note: I am not a fan of the Republican Party. They do just as much evil, when they are in charge as the Democrats. But, it's what Obama would do in the face of an even weaker Republican Party that is the problem. The best we can hope for is logjam, to at least slow some of the evil coming out of the place. Smooth sailing for Obama is not a good idea. The more battling between the two groups of criminals, the less time they have to harass the rest of us.

Source:Robert Wenzel

"President Barack Obama discusses the state of the Republican Party and how he feels about their presumptive nominee Donald Trump."

Source:The Tonight Show With Jimmy Fallon- President Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois) 44th President of the United States.

From The Tonight Show With Jimmy Fallon

Robert Wenzel: Murray Rothbard On Milton Friedman's Negative Income Tax (1968)

Source:Robert Wenzel- Murray Rothbard, perhaps in 1968 or 69.

"Murray Rothbard On Milton Friedman's Plan to Make Welfare Payments Efficient" 

From Robert Wenzel

I don't think Professor Milton Friedman was ever in favor of any type of public safety net. But in the late 1960s, like with crime, racial and civil unrest, crime and Welfare were major issues in America. To the point that Professor Friedman felt the need to speak out about Welfare, since he was an economics professor and thought he would get into the debate and offer a serious compromise to either government doing nothing on Welfare, or government giving people in poverty large, taxpayer funded, Welfare payments, to support themselves and their families.

What Professor Friedman proposed in I believe 1968, was what he called the Negative Income Tax. It would replace the entire Federal safety net in America and replace it would one, big Welfare check, that people in poverty could use to cover their housing, food, health care, etc. But no more Medicaid, Aid To Dependent Families, Food Stamps, etc. William F. Buckley thought the Friedman plan was so interesting, that he had Professor Friedman on his Firing Line program in 1968 to debate the Friedman plan with Professor Friedman.

Economic Policy Journal: Robert Anderson: 'Gun Registration Is as Bad as Seizure'

Source:Economic Policy Journal- publisher Robert Wenzel.

"Silence rarely conveys knowledge, especially when it’s the result of intimidation. There are moments when it’s prudent to remain silent, but hardly when you’re in the midst of a gun ownership debate. The political class, and its anti-gun proponents, are today engaged in a massive legal assault on citizen gun ownership through regulation and/or abolition. Their arguments are well-known and much has been written on the subject, both in favor and in opposition to the idea.

Unfortunately, silence due to "political correctness" is hampering a frank and honest discussion of the fundamental issue of citizen gun ownership. While gun ownership for personal protection or sporting uses are being heatedly defended, these are only secondary considerations to the more critical concern over citizen ownership of guns. The preeminent and fundamental case for gun ownership by citizens is to secure and preserve the means for individuals to safeguard their lives and property from a potentially threatening oppressive government.

Of course this tends to sound paranoid, for after all, most citizens today view our government as a responsive political institution, primarily engaged in helping its citizens to secure a better quality of life. Such common sentiments about one’s government are not new. Even the Germans shared such a view of their own government at the beginning of the 20th century. So, to express concerns today that our politicians and bureaucrats could someday turn against their own citizens and inflict violent harm upon them is harshly condemned by many as being ludicrous.

After all, many politicians and anti-gun proponents today are convinced no democratic government could ever become so oppressive and dictatorial, certainly not our own. But what we believe and what may prove true are not always the same. We know the face of the future is forever veiled by the hand of God and none of us can ever know with certainty where we’re headed. But acquiring an understanding of the past is another matter, and we’d all be wise to heed it. Too often the past is prologue to the future so it’s always prudent to remind ourselves of Edmund Burke’s famous line, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." And it’s equally important to remind ourselves that the essence of government is a sovereign power with a monopoly over initiating force upon others, a coercive power which has become deadly and violent many times throughout the ages.

For anti-gun proponents to ignore the ravages of 20th century history and believe today’s citizens should be denied the means to protect themselves from the risk of future oppressive tyranny is both dangerous and foolhardy. Have we forgotten how Germany, Russia, and China disarmed their citizens in the 20th century, and shortly thereafter their governments slaughtered tens of millions of their own citizens? Have we forgotten the "killing fields" of Cambodia where disarmed citizens were slaughtered close to annihilation in the 1970’s by their own government? Those slaughtered were the helpless victims of their well-intentioned citizen ancestors who acquiesced to government mandated gun control.

Of course, today’s anti-gun proponents and their political allies will argue, those places were all different and such horrors could never happen in our country, so why do our citizens need to own guns? Indeed, citizens may not need guns to secure their lives and property from our government today, but can anyone argue with certainty that future citizens will never need guns for that purpose? After all, today’s anti-gun proponents are essentially betting on the lives of future citizens, and while making such a costless bet among themselves, do so by placing a deadly bet on the lives of future citizens, should their bet today prove horribly wrong tomorrow!

Every decision imposes costs in our imperfect world, and the issue of citizens owning guns is no exception. We all know gun ownership will surely bring some harm as long as evil and ignorance remain a part of the human condition. Without question, guns will continue to be used in many gruesome and horrible murders by deranged and evil people. But peaceful citizens must have the means to protect themselves from not only the isolated acts of criminals but also from an oppressive government tomorrow with the capacity for evil mass murder. These threats far outweigh any perceived "benefit" from permitting an intrusive government to disarm its citizens today. Such a threatened act, at the very least, would transform future citizens into helpless victims, should an evil authoritarian government someday try to subdue them.

Citizen gun ownership is ultimately a form of "insurance" for a future, unknowable risk. Switzerland, as well as our own country, has acknowledged and practiced this form of "insurance" for a long time. We all know gun ownership by citizens can impose heavy costs, but they are costs dwarfed by the greater horror of millions of future citizens being denied any means to defend themselves against an evil government slaughtering them with impunity.

We would like to believe such a future scenario unimaginable, but we know it’s not, as our violent 20th century history has tragically reminded us. Governments murdering millions of their own citizens have inflicted monstrous horrors in our lifetimes, and there is nothing in the history of the human experience to give absolute assurance it will not happen again. The drafters of our Constitution understood this, and hopefully today’s citizens will remember it, even though mentioning such a horror makes people uncomfortable, a reaction usually encountered when discussing unpleasant truths.

Finally, there are few instances in a citizen’s relationship with government where non-intervention in their personal affairs is more vital than with gun ownership. The Second Amendment was established as a safeguard for citizens, should the government they created ever become evil and oppressive, to have an effective means to defend themselves against that government. With that thought in mind, what would be more devastating than for a future evil government to possess individual records on every citizen who owns a gun, what kind of guns they own, and where he lives? Draw your own conclusions: Is it either prudent or wise to surrender individual gun ownership information to any government today which could become your evil oppressor tomorrow? Can’t happen? Tell it to the Germans and Russians a century ago!

Robert Anderson taught economics at Hillsdale Collage and was executive secretary of FEE." 

From the Economic Policy Journal

Robert Wenzel: 'US Tells UK That It Should Stay in European Union'

Source:Economic Policy Journal- blogger Robert Wenzel.

"Yup, the collapsing EU is just where the US wants Britain to stay. In other words, the former Empire is getting a little lesson on how Empires treat underlings. The Guardian reports:

The Obama administration issued a direct challenge to David Cameron over Europe, on Wednesday when it warned of the dangers of holding a referendum on Britain's membership of the EU.

A senior US official questioned the merits of holding a referendum as the prime minister's campaign to reset the terms of Britain's EU membership also came under assault from Brussels and Dublin.

With just weeks to go until Cameron delivers a landmark speech in which he is expected to promise to hold a referendum on a "new settlement" for Britain in the EU, the US assistant secretary for European affairs warned that "referendums have often turned countries inwards".

"We welcome an outward-looking European Union with Britain in it. We benefit when the EU is unified, speaking with a single voice, and focused on our shared interests around the world and in Europe," Philip Gordon said during a visit to London, adding: "We want to see a strong British voice in that European Union. That is in the American interest."

From Robert Wenzel