Friends of Liberty VOL 123,
Jan 8th, 2012 Usually when a CEO gets into hot water over a secretary it involves an R-rating, divorce court and hundreds of millions of dollars of alimony. Not Warren Buffet. Perhaps it's because Warren is as old as dirt---or maybe his secretary is not a woman---or maybe he's just a stand-up guy. In any event, Warren Buffet had no "Clinton/ Gore / Kennedy / Edwards/ Weiner" moment. He had no sordid affair with his secretary, didn't drown her, insist she give him a massage or send photos of his genitals across the internet---he just paid a lower tax rate than she did. This revelation garnered a nation's attention nearly as long as the one in which Democrat John Edward?s cheated on his dying wife. How can a CEO pay a lower tax rate than his secretary? Isn't that a shocking indictment of our entire capitalist system? Shouldn't we be outraged? Should we be marching on Wall Street demanding action. Warren Buffet seems to think so. He implores President Obama to raise his taxes. Maybe he should implore Congress---since that's where the legislation has to originate. Last I heard, Obama is not Prince John of Robin Hood fame who could arbitrarily raise taxes---though I'm sure he'd like to be.

Friends of Liberty VOL 124,
Jan 15th 2012 The socialist economic model appeals to a great many people around the world, even in this country. Early after World War II Western Europe fell under its spell, mostly due to the massive Government assistance required to rebuild the ruined societies of Europe. Along the way they got hooked on Socialism like an addict hooked on crack---even with Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union providing dark, ghastly examples of its worst effects, just on the other side of the border. Still, people in Britain, France, Sweden, Spain, Denmark and Germany called for stronger and stronger central governments with greater and greater power to influence industry, drive markets and provide guaranteed outcomes. Of course, Western Europe socialism stopped just short of communism and free elections remained relatively uncorrupted. Their belief in benign socialism seemed to have stemmed from their ability to freely elect their economic tyrants. Many in this country believe in the same political philosophy---a benign tyranny, freely elected by the People, working on behalf of all men. They believe that the inequities of capitalism, the chaos of a free market and the booms and busts of the economic cycle must be replaced by an engineered economy, based on social justice, slow, steady growth, miniscule risk-taking and equality of outcome for all.

Friends of Liberty VOL 125,
Jan 29th 2012 We are rapidly approaching an era where achievement is no longer hailed, but vilified. America has traditionally been a place where individuals with the drive, ambition, courage and brains can create, achieve and fulfill their potential. The "home of the brave" line in the closing of our National Anthem does not just refer to our military heroes. It takes great courage to risk your livelihood and reputation in search of a dream. Henry Ford, Alexander Graham Bell, the Wright Brothers, Thomas Edison, George Westinghouse, Walter P. Chrysler, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and thousands of others took great risks to lay the foundations of their respective industries. Capital was invested, risks were taken, raw materials were forged into machines with purpose and excellence prevailed as these men pushed their dreams into reality with the sheer force of human ingenuity and perseverance. This happens daily in this country. That is the miracle of America. Men and women working with their hands and minds have a novel idea or believe they can do something better than it's been done before. These people quit their jobs, invest their savings, then get others to invest in them as well. They risk everything to make their particular dream a reality, whether it's a small retail store, a restaurant, a sports bar, an industrial service, a machine shop, a software package or some manufactured good.

Friends of Liberty VOL 126,
Feb 5th, 2012 Just as the ancient Confucian curse says, "May you live in interesting times", we are indeed about to witness something historic---the end of the Republican Party, at least the Party as we know it. Think of it. We have the most unpopular president of the last century, with approval ratings below even Jimmy Carter at this stage of his term---and we are about to blow this election. We have the most liberal, progressive, socialist, even fascist, regime in recent American history and the Republican elite want to run a liberal, East Coast RINO against him in November. We have a President that forced an unpopular, socialist, takeover of the healthcare industry down our collective throats and we want to oppose him with the man who invented and implemented the original blueprint of ObamaCare. We have a president who has vastly expanded Government power over our lives and racked up more public debt in three years than all the presidents from Washington to Clinton. We have a grass roots Conservative movement called the Tea Party, composed of hundreds of thousands, if not millions,of citizens who came out of nowhere to show outrage at outrageous spending, taxation and out of control Government expansion---and the Republican elite want to squash all attempts at a candidate that will fix our fiscal mess.

Friends of Liberty VOL 127,
Feb 12, 2012 Recently on Egyptian television Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg said any modern nation looking to write a constitution in 2012 should not use the US Constitution as a model. She indicated the Constitution of the United States was antiquated and did not guarantee the right to food, shelter, education or healthcare. President Obama himself has referred to the US Constitution as a list of negative liberties and its great fault lies in its limiting of Government power. The Constitution says what the Government cannot do to the individual, but not what the Government must do for the individual. This seems to be the majority opinion of the Democrat Party and liberals in general. Obama recently said some of the things he'd like to get done in America are proving difficult due to obstructions placed on him by the Constitution. Back when Obama was running for state senator he said in a 2001 radio interview in Chicago although the courts made progress in equal rights during the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, he felt it fell short by not mandating redistributive change (see full transcript of Obama's comments below). These people now run the United States, Friends of Liberty. These are the stewards we have put into power to safeguard our nation and its Constitution.

Friends of Liberty VOL 128,
Feb 26th, 2012 Rick Santorum is too socially conservative, too religious, to win in November. Heard that lately? Probably. Who has said this? I'd be willing to bet you either read it or heard in the Mainstream Media or from a Republican supporting Mitt Romney. Is this true? Must a Republican downplay his or her belief in God to win? Must he or she flip flop all over the abortion issue so as to provide cover from all angles? Likewise, must Democrat candidates profess a belief in God, with a wink and nod, in order to win over Independents? You ever notice if a Republican professes a belief in God, such as Reagan or Bush or Santorum, the Media makes them out to be religious radicals. If Santorum says marriage should be defined as between and a man and a woman, he's too religious, too socially conservative to be president. When Barack Obama took the exact same position---the media never said a word. When Obama said the most beautiful sound in the world is the Muslim "Call to Prayer" the Media did not blink. When Obama said his plan to raise taxes was supported by the Gospel and something Jesus would approve of---the media said nothing. If Santorum mentions Jesus or, the ecumenical opposite, Satan, the media lashes out over his religious radicalism. I'm fairly sure Obama heard the word Satan in Reverend Wright's church in Chicago?along with many other "radical" words. The media swept Reverend Wright and his racist, anti-American rants under the rug. Obama never had to answer for the man he called "his spiritual mentor."

Friends of Liberty VOL 129,
March 4th, 2012 Recently, a 30 year old, female, Georgetown law school student and Democrat Activist appeared at a press conference designed to resemble a congressional committee to testify that the purchase of contraceptives was too expensive and presented too much of a financial hardship for her and other twenty and thirty-something students attending law school---an expensive, private Jesuit Catholic law school at that. She testified birth control would cost her $3000 over her entire law school experience. She supported the Obama Administration's mandate that contraceptives be included in all private healthcare plans and be free of charge. Not only do they have to be covered by health insurance under the law, their costs cannot be included in the cost of the health insurance premiums. Yes, you heard right. The Government is telling private companies they must provide goods and services for free---in this case, birth control and morning after pills. First of all, this is patently impossible. Anyone who understands the basics of commerce knows nothing is free. If dollars and goods change hands, someone is paying. The intent is for the contraceptives to come out of health insurance company profits. Okay---where do the funds that constitute a company's profits come from? If a health insurance company has to buy birth control pills or morning after pills or abortion inducing pills, the money going to the pharmaceutical companies comes from the health insurance company customers. Bottom line.