The title alone is proof positive that the occasional liberal viewpoint appears on Fox News. A quick read of the article confirms what most RedStaters probably surmised before getting through the first paragraph-that the author has trotted out the same tired, inaccurate slop that attempts to equate “government” with “government overreach.”

From her introduction:

When I hear conservative critics of government getting in the way of business, I always think about a trucking executive I know who shared the same complaints — until I pointed out that he made his fortunate running rigs across the government highway system.

Now, according to the Constitution, the Federal Government is actually responsible for creating roads. Part of Congress’s enumerated power is the creation of Post Offices and Post Roads. Of course, the federal highway system we have in place today would be considered overkill if it were merely designed for the movement of mail. Nevertheless, there is a constitutional basis for federal involvement in road-building. But Sally Kohn’s point was that the shipping executive’s complaints about government overreach were invalid because he made his living (or “fortune”, as Kohn called it) utilizing public roads. I fail to see how creating roads, an actual function of government, is an activity that gets in the way of business. Roads are a great way to encourage commerce, so I doubt the shipping executive included roads in his complaints. Unfortunately, Sally Kohn neglects to mention any of the shipping executives specific complaints, possibly because those complaints are much more difficult to attack. It’s much easier to simply toss up a straw man in an orange vest leaning on a shovel somewhere along interstate 95.

Kohn’s bio says that she is the Chief Education Officer of a “grassroots think tank”, which might be why she decided to use the fact that 90 percent of American children attend public schools.  For generosity’s sake, let’s assume that she was thinking deep, very important thoughts when she trotted out public schools as an example of the myriad ways government benefits our lives. These deep, very important thoughts she was thinking must have had nothing to do with schools; most likely she was contemplating string theory as a way to unify Quantum Theory and Relativity, or perhaps musing on the many obstacles one faces when trying to make a dollar out of fifteen cents. Whatever she was thinking, she didn’t pause to contemplate the dismal state of American public schools, or the fact that, as with many government-citizen interactions, the citizens have very little choice in the matter. Public schools are funded primarily with property taxes, which people have to pay whether or not they have children in the local school system. For the most part, parents have very little choice over which public school their children attend, and attempts to give parents choices are often met with outright hostility. Compulsory education, limited school choice, and teachers who can’t be fired without the Finger of God piercing the heavens and nudging them out the door all combine to create horrible educational outcomes for those “served” by public schools.

For example, the 2008 and  NECAP results in Rhode Island show that 68 percent of Rhode Island students were proficient in reading, while 53 percent were proficient in math. I couldn’t find more recent data readily available, but if there is some drastic change, I never read about it.  If you happen to be in that 68 or 53 percent, good for you! You’re the proud recipient of government help! Sally Kohn has a special place in her heart for you. I can only guess what Sally Kohn thinks about the unacceptable amount of kids who weren’t proficient, because she was thinking deep and important thoughts about other things, while those kids are forced to attend the same schools that “help” them with our tax money. I imagine that Sally Kohn’s rebuttal would include large amounts of stammering, peppered with phrases like “inadequate funding” and “uncontrollable socioeconomic factors”.

Refusing to rest on her laurels, Kohn goes on to point out that 89 percent of Americans receive their water from public utilities. I’m in the 11 percent who do not, but from what I understand, most people receive a bill each month for the water that the government so generously provided for them. Sally Kohn was still in the middle of thinking her deep thoughts, because she failed to mention that most of these public utilities are locally run, and that most conservatives really don’t have any problem at all with locally-run public utilities providing water and power.  For that matter, fire and police departments are also under local control, and most people are fine with that as well. When one is busy thinkin’ tryin’ to be another Lincoln, such oversight is excusable.

Do you own a home and benefit from favorable mortgage interest deductions? At least 60% of Americans who do also don’t think they get government help.

Since when is keeping your own money “government help”? Helping themselves to less of my hard-earned cash is nice, but it hardly constitutes action on their part. In a strange way, Sally Kohn is actually agreeing with conservatives, though I doubt it’s what she intended to do. Yes, keeping Uncle Sam’s sticky fingers out of my wallet is quite helpful, but wasn’t it my money to begin with? Should I thank the schoolyard bully who agrees to take only half of my lunch money in exchange for not drowning me in the toilet? Sally Kohn seems to think so.

Even 44% of Social Security recipients, 39% of Medicare recipients, and a whopping 27% of welfare recipients — the mother of all government social programs that conservatives love to hate — don’t believe they are beneficiaries of government social spending.

Actually, I think Social Security and Medicare are the Conjoined Twin Mothers of all social programs. Neither of these programs give people any choice. If  you can fog a mirror, you’re in, and good luck trying to get by without a Social Security Number, or even better, decide that having a Social Security Number is too big a risk to your privacy, and opt out. If Sally Kohn could bring her staggering intellect back from the cognitive gymnasium that her Think Tank must be, she might see that these programs will soon be paying out much, much more money than they are taking in, and in fact will one day consume the entire federal budget. That doesn’t sound particularly helpful.

After all of this deep thinking, it’s remarkable that Sally Kohn has anything left in the tank. But she calls up all her reserve dendrites and axons and aligns her synapses just right, and produces this:

Chances are your kids will not become one of the 400 very, very wealthy millionaires and billionaires in America but one of the 307,000,000 of the rest of us who serve them. If that’s your idea of success, then by all means support conservative anti-government rhetoric that denies your children the government stepping stools on which big business and the rich so heavily depended.

I had a look at my pay stub, just to see which millionaires and billionaires were forcibly removing money from it. I was hoping to perhaps see a monthly deduction for Red Sox season tickets, or perhaps a Playstation 3 entitlement program, but apparently that one was voted down in the Senate. I looked closely, but on my check, the only people who have decided that they are more qualified than I am to spend my money were the ones Sally Kohn says are “helping” me. Their idea of  “help”  is taking money that I earned and giving it to other people.

With the leftovers, I get to choose which products and services best suit my needs. This is where the millionaires and billionaires come in. Their companies compete with each other to offer me the best goods and services at the lowest prices.  Contrast the amazing improvement in quality, versatility and price of the home computer with the quality of a Rhode Island public school education, and consider, why on earth anyone would want the kind of “help” Sally Kohn’s government miracle workers are busy providing.

When Sally Kohn writes about government “stools” I don’t think the word means what she thinks it means.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/07/12/government-helps-whether-like-it-or-not/

“I don’t think we should live our lives in relationships based off old traditions that don’t suit our world any longer.”

Where I disagree with Dr. Albow is with this statement:

“And, make no mistake about it, marriage that includes cohabitation is a really tough environment in which to preserve such passion. The vast, vast majority of men and women, in fact, are no longer physically attracted to their spouses after five or ten years (that’s being kind), if they have seen one another most of that time. Human beings just are not built to desire one another once we have flossed in the same room a hundred times and shared a laundry basket for thousands of days.”

Sex is certainly a part of marriage, but it isn’t the only part. I think Dr. Albow has unwittingly hit on the root of the problem, which can claim failing marriages as a symptom. Modern technology has helped us create a culture of instant gratification. There’s an underlying assumption in modern society that since we can do a certain thing, we should. Since we can watch movies on our phones, we should, and if we’re deprived of it for some reason, it’s a problem that needs to be solved. The same can be said for sex. Since drugs and other methods allow us to, for the most part, determine when a women conceives, we can partake without undue risk of pregnancy. However, just because we can do something does not mean we should.  Marriage based solely on sexual gratification (what he calls “passion”) is almost certainly doomed to failure. Strangely enough, studies have shown that happily married people live longer, healthier lives. Apparently, these strange people must be doing something right.

Dr. Ablow ends with marriage’s death sentence:

It’s only a matter of time now. Marriage will fade away. We should be thinking about what might replace it. We should come up with something that improves the quality of our lives and those of our children.

Dr. Ablow’s solution is a sad one. It consists of just accepting a lower standard for personal behavior, of conceding victory to the most destructive forces arrayed against our civil society, and equating pleasure and gratification with real happiness and fulfillment.

I guess I’ll just enjoy my abnormal closeness with my wife and hope that Dr. Ablow doesn’t find out about me and commission some sort of study about my “condition”.

“One of the more comical features of the budget debate is to watch the ways in which Republicans refuse to engage on the issue of economic fairness.”

The column can be found here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/in-budget-debates-gop-runs-afoul-of-fairness/2011/04/14/AFJezmeD_story.html

Mr. Pearlstein goes on to describe the cruel and heartless Republicans ignoring the plight of malnourished mothers and all the other downtrodden, helpless folks who would be bereft of all sustenance were it not for the benevolent fairness of federal assistance programs. He writes:

“If it’s legitimate to decry the immorality of leaving our grandchildren a legacy of crushing debt, which Ryan and the Republicans do ad nauseam, then it is no less legitimate to talk about the immorality of reducing deficits by cutting nutritional support for pregnant women and infants rather than raising taxes on millionaires.”

Mr. Pearlstein is wrong when he accuses the Republicans of refusing to engage in the issue of Economic Fairness. Certainly his overly generalized blather about the finanical wherewithal of small business owners is ridiculous on his face, as is the violin-in-the-background lament about the plight of the dusty, huddled masses of government dependent children. However, there is a deeper misconception that Mr. Pearlstein exploits in his column, which is the very thing at the core of everything wrong with statist thought. He is wrong because the issue of Economic Fairness isn’t an issue at all. “Economic Fairness” is a pleasant way of describing the forced redistribution of wealth based on the whims of a small, powerful group of people. “Economic Fairness”, as Mr. Pearlstein describes it, might sound like a noble and worthy goal, if you don’t mind having some politically connected desk-jockey deciding who wins and who loses, in the name of “fairness.”

What is missing from Mr. Pearlstein’s logic is conveniently located in the Preamble to the Constitution: We The People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice…

Justice. Not fairness. Justice. It’s a simple word, one that requires no modifier in order to be understood. The word has several definitions, most of which include words such as “honest”, “rightful” “impartial”, but there are two that stand out when viewed in the context of government. Justice, according to Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary, is the use of authority and power to uphold what is right. In the second, and even more important definition, justice is the administration of law.

In the context of government, justice cannot exist without impartial law. To abide by laws that were created by representatives of the people upon whom those laws will be applied is the foundation of a just and civil society. Justice demands that these laws be applied equally to all people, regardless of their race, their gender, or any other arbitrary classification used to separate one group of people from another. If, as Jefferson boldly wrote in the Declaration of Independence, “all men are created equal”, then the only manner this fundamental truth can be honored is by enacting laws that apply equally to all. To enact and abide by such laws would constitute the establishment of justice described in the Preamble.

Mr. Pearlstein’s idea of “Economic Fairness” tosses the idea of justice out the window in favor of an arbitrary system that punishes some and rewards others based on a set of criteria that shifts much more quickly than the ponderous bureaucratic machine can respond. For example, there is a natural inclination among those on the left to raise taxes on a certain, group of Americans known as “the rich”. However, the constantly changing value of fiat currency means that it is impossible to define who is rich and who is not, and so anyone classified as rich and taxed a greater proportion of his wealth is the victim of arbitrary government. By the same token, the purchasing power of a dollar changes almost daily, as well as varying according to where one resides, and so determining how much money will provide adequate nourishment for pregnant women and infants must also be the work of arbitrary government.

F.A. Hayek sums it up far better than I can:

“From the fact that people are very different it follows that, if we treat them equally, the result must be inequality in their actual position, and that the only way to place them in an equal position would be to treat them differently. Equality before the law and material equality are therefor not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time.” (Taken from “Broke” by Glenn Beck, page 235)

Mr. Pearlstein’s notion of “Economic Fairness” is either woefully naive or intentionally misleading. Bandying about moral falsehoods like “Economic Fairness” distracts us from the real pursuit of justice, such as securing tax reform that requires each citizen to contribute the same proportion of their earnings, and a Balanced Budget Amendment, to protect those citizens from the depredations of an unrestrained government.

Mr. Pearlstein would better serve his readers by calling things by their proper names, instead of covering up the obvious holes in his logic with band-aids made from “Economic Justice”.

Here’s the quote from the email:

CPAC 2011 demonstrated clearly that our numbers are growing and young people are rising up in great numbers to support of our principled message.

As one pundit at the conference put it, “Looking around at CPAC, seeing the students here and watching the excitement, it’s clear to me that the youth coming up today have their own hero, and his name is Ron Paul.”

The quote comes from “CPAC: Reagan, Gingrich, and Paul” by Neil Stevens. If one were to read this without knowing the context in which it was first presented by Mr. Stevens, one might think that Mr. Stevens was a Ron Paul supporter, or at the very least, an unobjective observer who happened to note Mr. Paul’s popularity. I find this use of Mr. Stevens’ words very dishonest, as the diary itself does not in any way promote Ron Paul as a positive force. Another excerpt from Mr. Stevens’ diary says quite the opposite of what the C4L email seems to suggest:

“To the young people wearing Campaign for Liberty stickers, Ron Paul isn’t the porker who hasn’t accomplished anything in his long DC career but to spin conspiracy theories about the Federal Reserve. He is the idea of small government, respect for the Constitution, and a stable economy. It doesn’t matter that his monetary ideas would be a disaster for every American with a mortgage – not just all Americans who got in over their heads, but all Americans with debt – because that doesn’t matter yet to college kids. The details don’t matter; it’s the spirit that counts.”

By taking Mr. Stevens’ remarks out of context, C4L resorts to the same underhanded, dishonest tactics that propelled Michael Moore to his darling-of-the-left status. Moore got rich by distorting the facts, taking quotes out of context, ambushing people, conducting interviews under false pretenses, all the while calling himself a “documentary filmmaker” who was fighting for the “little guy”. And just as Moore used these tactics to squeeze money out of unsuspecting rubes, the C4L email attempts to get people to donate to some new training program.
An organization professing to stand in the name of liberty has no business using the same tactics as Michael Moore to achieve its ends. Its unfortunate that the work of a RedState contributor was hijacked to serve a purpose he never intended. It’s clear that over at C4L, the ends justify the means. Liberty is predicated on principles of righteousness and personal responsibility and when we abandon those principles, we abandon the cause for freedom. C4L’s shameless distortion of Mr. Stevens’ diary exposes them as just another lobbying group, one willing to sacrifice truth in pursuit of cash.

“To offer up such a high number is a harsh lie — that’s a made up number. There’s no way to come up with a number like that. The only way you could prove a number like that is if you visited everyone, took their medical history and gave them a physical. ”

First of all, conducting the study with the intention of producing actual data would violate federal medical privacy laws. HIPAA, the Health Information Portability and Accountability Act, requires health care providers to provide safeguards to protect their patients’ medical information. With privacy rules in place, the only way HHS could gather data from medical records would be to violate its own rules. While it’s within the realm of possibility, it’s difficult to believe that HHS managed to conduct this study of over 100 million people in such a short amount of time.

If the lack of sources isn’t enough, the conclusions reached by the study should be enough to call its validity into question. What kind of study has a margin of error of 79 million people? Only the federal government could come up with with a “scientific” study that results in an insinuation rather than a conclusion. It’s not much of a stretch to see the shameless, self-serving motive behind the timing and content of this so-called “study”. The Department of Health and Human Services is tasked with implementing Obamacare, drastically increasing its budget and its bureaucratic clout. Believing that HHS intentionally manufactured a study that supports their naked power grab is a lot more believable than the medical fantasy they’re expecting us to swallow.

Just like Dr. Manny, I’m not buying what Ms. Sebelius is selling.

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2011/01/10/band-brothers-commander-dick-winters-dies/

Richard Winters served his country, and indeed, the world, leading men in combat while wanting nothing more than to live in peace. Larry Alexander, author of “Biggest Brother”, writes:

“Dick Winters is an American success story; a humble man, coming as he did from humble beginnings. Like many of his generation, he went off to war, did his duty in the service of his country, and was one of the lucky ones to come home relatively unscathed. Back in the states, he got a job, found a wonderful woman to share his life, raised two fine children and ran a successful business…an exceptional leader, a good man and my friend.”

Damian Lewis, who played Maj. Winters in “Band of Brothers”, had this to say about him:
“He treated me like a son and told me that he thought I’d done a pretty good job portraying him, although he was unsure at first! I thought, yup, that’s him. Authoritative, nurturing, and honest all at once. I felt immensely proud that I’d had the opportunity to portray this man, a decorated war hero whose story I’d been entrusted with. ”

Dick Winters embodies everything that is good and exceptional about our country. All Americans, whatever their political leaning, can find some quality in him that is worthy of emulation. It’s fashionable, perhaps, to entertain the notion that people like Richard WInters do not exist anymore, but I disagree. They’re still around, and unsurprisingly, still found in the same place: serving their country on the battlefield.

My sincerest respect and admiration for Major Richard Winters, 506 Regiment, 101st Airborne Division, and to all the brave men and women who wear the uniform today. You are all heroes.

That didn’t happen, but only because Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell accomplished a mini Christmas miracle. The Kentuckian devoted yesterday to making the arguments—both principled and political—to the Spending Nine. He was ultimately persuasive enough, and the earmarkers wise enough, to pull back their support. A very unhappy Mr. Reid was forced to yank the omnibus last night. He will now work with Republicans on a short-term funding bill, a process that should give the incoming GOP House far more influence over upcoming spending decisions.

Now I have to admit that I don’t follow the Senate with any degree of closeness, since I don’t have TV at all. Mr. McConnell gets criticized fairly often here on RedState, and I’m wondering if, in the eyes of more politically informed RedStaters, Mr. McConnell deserves the praise he has received from Strassel. I notice there’s no mention of Senator DeMint’s insistence that the bill be read in its entirety.

So, for all of you C-Span regulars and more closely connected folks in the trenches of the Senate, is this praise warranted or is it just a bit of media fluff?

PORTLAND, Maine — The Maine Republican who made headlines with his “go to hell” remark aimed at President Barack Obama says he’s looking forward to meeting his commander in chief on Thursday.

His commander in chief?

That sounded a little fishy, so I went back and reread Article II of the Constitution. It does indicate that the President of the United States is the commander in chief of the armed forces, but it doesn’t say anything about the President’s authority over the governors of the several states.In fact, the 10th Amendment says that any powers not specifically delegated to the federal government automatically revert to the states, and to the people.

I find this little throwaway comment troubling. It’s an AP article, probably appearing in any number of newspapers in Maine. This means that 1) Reporters at the Associated Press are either ignorant of the concept of federalism and the enumerated powers of the federal government’s  Executive Branch, or they’re steeped in FDR-pining, Kennedy-Worshiping Obamalove, and are hoping to push their warped understanding of how the government is supposed to function on to millions of unsuspecting readers.

Of course, there are federal laws that supersede state law, but that is a different bag of apples. Laws don’t write executive orders or have beer summits or spend lots of time playing golf or getting hit in the mouth on the basketball court.

Paul LePage is the Governor-Elect of the State of Maine. As far as I’m concerned, that makes him answerable to the people of Maine, not to President Obama. When we start calling the President the Commander in Chief of Governors, how close are we to having him declared Commander in Chief over individuals? With odious bills such as Health Care Reform, Wall Street Reform, and the Stimulus passing across his desk, it’s possible that he already believes this to be the case.

It’s my sincere hope that the “commander in chief” bit actually fell out of the deluded brain of some AP reporter, and not from Mr. LePage himself. I would hate to think that the man I voted for would in any way believe that he should be taking orders from President Obama.

Mr. Rasumssen brings up a number of very good points about the election. His projections match what we’ve been hearing from the pundits for the past few weeks. However, Mr. Rasmussen believes that the coming GOP wave isn’t a vote for Republicans, but a vote against Democrats.
Essentially, it comes down to changing the mindset of the people elected to public office. As soon as they get to Washington, our elected officials lose all perspective. They begin to believe the hype, and think of themselves as more important, more intelligent, and better informed than the people who sent them there.

This mentality was on clear display in the Filner/Popaditch debate. Filner referred to the audience as “babies” and treated them with a disdain that can only be forged in Washington’s halls of power.

November second will only be historically significant if we hold our elected representatives to the high standards they talked about on the campaign trail.  Like Rasmussen says, this election isn’t a win for one party or another, it’s an assertion of our desire to manage our own lives. The American people have decided it’s time “for some one in Washington who understands that the American people want to govern themselves.”

It’s go-time for our representatives in Washington, but it’s also go-time for us. If we want to govern ourselves, we’d better be prepared to do it.

Am I a citizen, or a subject? Will I be governed by law, or ruled by regulation?

Our current President and his allies in Congress have spent the last two years passing legislation that moves us collectively toward the latter. Everyone knows about the ill-advised Troubled Asset Relief Program, in which billions of our dollars were doled out to arbitrarily selected companies that were deemed “too big to fail.” We’ve all heard about the wild success of the Stimulus Bill, which thankfully took an 8 percent unemployment rate and made it into a much more exciting 12 percent, so that the 24 hour news channels would have something to talk about besides Miley Cyrus.

One would think that bankrupting the country with lavish spending would be enough to keep Congress busy between vacations, but Pelosi’s Wrecking Crew still had some gas in the tank. Congress has given more power to the Federal Reserve, seized control of health care only to hand it over to the director of DHHS, seized control of the auto industry and the financial services industry, which have been placed under the control of the Treasury Department through TARP. That’s just the legislation they’ve passed so far. Cap and Trade is still looming, as well as legislation that countermands the Supreme Court’s free speech decision in the Citizen’s United case. But as egregious as these moves are, they pale in comparison to what’s being done outside of Congress.

Julius Genachowski, the head of the FCC, wants to seize control of the internet by reclassifying it as a public utility-the same as a telephone-so that his agency can tell ISPs how to route their traffic, and given the FCC’s track record at regulating content, it won’t be long until they’ll tell the ISPs which websites you’re allowed to see. The FDA already decides which medicines you should be allowed access to, but now it wants to decide how much salt, fat, and sugar you should be allowed to eat. The FEC wants to decide who can and can’t exercise the right to free speech. The SEC wants to decide how much risk you can take when investing your money. The EPA wants to classify carbon dioxide, the same gas we breathe out and plants use to synthesize their food, as a toxic pollutant, so that they can tell you what kind of car to drive and replace your relatively harmless incandescent light bulbs with highly toxic CFL bulbs. The Department of Health and Human Services will soon be determining what insurance plan you should have, and then it will force you to purchase one whether you like it or not, with a little help from their friends at the Internal Revenue Service.

Citizens, or subjects?
What we say, what we eat, what we use for transportation, our opinions, and even our bodies, all subject to regulations issued by entities staffed by people no one elected. The heads of these organizations are not beholden to the people because they are not chosen by the people. These unelected rulemakers are a blatant attack on rights guaranteed by the 10th Amendment, which declares that any power not specifically given to the federal government is reserved to the states or to the people. Article 1 of the Constitution makes no mention of Congress having the power seize private companies, to tell private citizens what to eat or what to buy, or even tell the separate states how to educate children. Yet these agencies do these things on a daily basis, with the blessing of our elected representatives, and with very little outcry from the people who vote, pay taxes, and have to navigate the astonishingly broad sea of federal regulations that gets larger and larger each year.

Their directors are appointed, and the bureaucrats that support them are hired like any other public sector job. Despite the complete lack of accountability to the people, these agencies exercise an extraordinary amount of influence in our lives. While our actual elected representatives campaign, take recesses, argue incessantly about things like steroids in baseball, the real threat to our liberty creeps into our lives like mildew, silent and invisible, only showing its fetid existence when it’s too late to do anything about it. But instead of blaming the mold, we ought to look to the ones who let things become moldy in the first place. We ought to be looking at the people who think that the solution to large, incompetent, porn-surfing federal agencies like the SEC is an even larger federal agency like the Department of Homeland Security or the soon to be unveiled Consumer Financial Protection Agency, headed by another unelected official who will have broad power to tell private banks and private citizens how they can and can’t interact. Since this new agency doesn’t represent you or the banks, you won’t have any way of firing them if they end up working as hard as the SEC did before the crash. Of course, with looming tax hikes, shortfalls in Medicare and Social Security, mandated insurance purchases, and the treat of skyrocketing energy costs if Cap and Trade becomes law, you probably won’t have any money to invest anyway.

Governed or ruled? That’s the underlying question we need to answer.

We either choose legislators that will limit the size and scope of government in our lives, or we continue to choose legislators who are willing to squander their constitutional authority and ignore their obligation, under oath, to protect our individual liberty. I urge all free citizens, regardless of party affiliation, to vote out the people who would sell our sacred freedom for a salary and a pension. Let us go to the polls and remind those in power that public office means public service, and that we hold our new representatives to the oath they will take to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic. We will either by governed by law or ruled by the faceless regulators in the only growth industry our nation has left. That’s the choice that we are faced with. It’s either liberty, or captivity; there is no third choice.
I, for one, will choose liberty.