Originally
posted from 11-07-02 to 11-24-02
REAL Election Reform - Pt. II
by Lewis J. Goldberg
On 4 February of
this year, I wrote the Part
I to this piece, and now in the aftermath of the 2002 elections
come more revelation of reform concepts that would create a more fair
process of choosing leaders.
Primaries:
A creation of certain States that should never have been implemented
at the national level. What primary elections do is ensure that the
average man has no chance to run against the real enemy, instead being
body-slammed by the party's ordained. An election should be an election,
not a party filtering process. The Constitution does mention primary
elections, but those men weren't infallible. Primaries have become the
last hope for parties to keep non-conformists out. I want to see Joe
Blow running against the real opponents of the election, not the anointed
few. If it's no big deal, let them all stand together and let the people
pick.
Filing Deadlines:
Once we've gotten rid of primaries, we can open the County Clerks' Offices
for filing to run, say a month before the election, and close them leaving
just enough time to print ballots. This will take nearly all the big
money out of campaigning and open the process to people who are incapable
of thinking months in advance [which means they won't be able to conceive
of any long-running schemes to extort us either.]
The Federal Election
Commission: Who needs this nonsense? The Constitution already has
enough rules regarding elections. What do these people do all day, 365
days a year, year in and year out? I want a refund!
News Coverage:
Wouldn't it be wonderful if broadcasters were prohibited from taping
or taking pictures of politicians, whether sitting or running for office?
It does violate the First Amendment, but just as they have defined driving
as a privilege [trashing the Fourth Amendment] maybe broadcasting could
be likewise considered. It is a privilege to be able to beam gigawatts
of TV and radio signals right through our bodies 24/7, so we should
be able to have some say about what is carried on those waves.
Campaign Ads:
Hey; Messrs. McCain, Feingold, Shays, and Meehan - Now that your campaign
finance reform act is in effect, might as well add in a clause to keep
candidates from ever mentioning their opponents. It's too easy for a
disreputable contender to say something derogatory and unprovable two
or three days before polling. Make it so that no one can talk about
anything except themselves and what they intend to do in office. Any
candidate violating the restriction is out of the race, any journalist
caught goading a politician into breaking the rule gets fined $50,000.
This may open up a new genre of pre-election entertainment...getting
the wives to duke it out.
Concession/Victory
Speeches: Save it for the drunks in the ballroom. No one ever says
anything intelligent at these things anyway. They should go home to
their families and prepare to take office. Reading the Constitution
would be a dandy start.
News Anchor Analysis about What it All Means: Who gives a fruit pie
what BrokawJenningsRather thinks about anything? The people voted, they
went home, they ate dinner, and they went to bed. Incredible.
It's Morning
in America Again! We'll see. I look around, and I still see socialists...millions
of them. What is anyone going to do about that?
Lewis
J. Goldberg is the editor of The Patriotist, and an internet political
columnist.
Originally
posted from 09-15-02 to 09-22-02
Do
We Need a Healthcare 'System?'
by Lewis J. Goldberg
Subtle brainwashing
is occurring on a daily basis, as news reports consistently feature
the phrase healthcare system, or the even more insidious our nation's
healthcare system. How is it that we have progressed from doctors, clinics,
and hospitals to systems, and why do we tolerate this change of terms
in the healthcare venue and not in others?
Do we purchase
milk at the grocery system? Do we eat at the fast food system? Of course
not...so why do we have a healthcare system, or any systems, for that
matter? Government seems to be able to infiltrate best industries that
have products that are somewhat intangible, i.e. healthcare, insurance,
energy, education. If I am a criminal and I want a new stereo, I break
into Best Buy at midnight and take what I need. If I am a criminal and
I want a triple bypass, I need the government's help.
I can remember being
taken to the doctor's office as a boy, and recall clearly the sign on
the receptionist's desk saying "Exam Fee $2.00." There was
no insurance for regular visits to the doctor, and Mom paid in cash.
Dr. Davenport would come in the examination room smelling of smoke -
Benson & Hedges sticking out of his smock pocket - and when you
left the room, everything that could be done was done...no follow-ups.
Dr. Davenport* provided a service to customers who came to him, and
he charged a reasonable price.
Dr. Davenport was
not a healthcare system, he was a salesman, as were all doctors back
in his day. A good record of patient care, friendly disposition, and
reasonable rates would ensure a growing clientele. Otherwise, another
doctor down the street or in the next town stood willing and eager to
fill the void. This is how things used to work in America: products
and services meeting needs and drawing customers. For those unable to
pay for healthcare, there have always been doctors willing to look the
other way for needy families - which is how charity should work.
Somewhere along
the line, government decided to get involved in healthcare delivery
by setting up clinics, which then progressed to subsidising needy patients
at regular doctor's offices. This all looks neat on paper, but all subsidies
affect prices eventually. For instance: a doctor who charges patients
$7.00 per visit, who then enrolls in a government program that pays
up to $9.00 per visit will naturally raise his fees to $9.00 for everyone.
Today, government pays for a huge chunk of total healthcare expenditures,
and naturally the largest customer has sway over the way business is
done. And when the largest customer can write legislation that affects
the way business is done, the doctor tends to obey the customer and
will even help it to gain more control.
The very root of
our healthcare system is criminal, which sounds like an exaggeration,
but there can be no other conclusion when all or part of a fee for service
comes at gunpoint from someone who is not involved in the transaction.
Sound like another exaggeration? Try refusing to pay your Federal Medicare
tax...you can send me an e-mail from prison to tell me how it went.
We all know this is true, but we decide to live with it. We are conditioned,
from birth, to participate in sin, and call it good. I know there's
a Bible verse on that somewhere...
* Dr. John C. Davenport
was our family doctor until his death in the early 1990's
Originally
posted from 09-08-02 to 09-15-02
Lady Liberty is pleased
to share the
following essay with her visitors. Permission has been granted by the
author to copy, reprint, forward, and share this commentary everywhere.
The author ( to the best of our knowledge) is credited. Unfortunately,
we do not know his e-mail address and so will be unable to forward any
of your comments.
Do Not
Forget
credited
to Ed Evans, MGySgt., USMC (Ret.)
I sat in a movie
theater watching "Schindler's List," asked myself, "Why
didn't the Jews fight back?"
Now I know why.
I sat in a movie
theater, watching "Pearl Harbor" and asked myself, "Why
weren't we prepared?"
Now I know why.
Civilized people cannot fathom, much less predict, the actions of evil
people.
On September 11,
dozens of capable airplane passengers allowed themselves to be overpowered
by a handful of poorly armed terrorists because they did not comprehend
the depth of hatred that motivated their captors.
On September 11,
thousands of innocent people were murdered because too many Americans
naively reject the reality that some nations are dedicated to the dominance
of others. Many political pundits, pacifists and media personnel want
us to forget the carnage. They say we must focus on the bravery of the
rescuers and ignore the cowardice of the killers. They implore us to
understand the motivation of the perpetrators. Major television stations
have announced they will assist the healing process by not replaying
devastating footage of the planes crashing into the Twin Towers.
I will not be manipulated.
I will not pretend
to understand.
I will not forget.
I will not forget
the liberal media who abused freedom of the press to kick our country
when it was vulnerable and hurting.
I will not forget
that CBS anchor Dan Rather preceded President Bush's address to the
nation with the snide remark, "No matter how you feel about him,
he is still our president."
I will not forget
that ABC TV anchor Peter Jennings questioned President Bush's motives
for not returning immediately to Washington, DC and commented, "We're
all pretty skeptical and cynical about Washington."
And I will not forget
that ABC's Mark Halperin warned if reporters weren't informed of every
little detail of this war, they aren't "likely-nor should they
be expected-to show deference."
I will not isolate
myself from my fellow Americans by pretending an attack on the USS Cole
in Yemen was not an attack on the United States of America.
I will not forget
the Clinton administration equipped Islamic terrorists and their supporters
with the world's most sophisticated telecommunications equipment and
encryption technology, thereby compromising America's ability to trace
terrorist radio, cell phone, land lines, faxes and modem communications.
I will not be appeased
with pointless, quick retaliatory strikes like those perfected by the
previous administration.
I will not be comforted
by "feel-good, do nothing" regulations like the silly "Have
your bags been under your control?" question at the airport.
I will not be influenced
by so called," antiwar demonstrators" who exploit the right
of expression to chant anti-American obscenities.
I will not forget
the moral victory handed the North Vietnamese by American war protesters
who reviled and spat upon the returning soldiers, airmen, sailors and
Marines.
I will not be softened
by the wishful thinking of pacifists who chose reassurance over reality.
I will embrace the
wise words of Prime Minister Tony Blair who told Labor Party conference,
"They have no moral inhibition on the slaughter of the innocent.
If they could have murdered not 7,000 but 70,000, does anyone doubt
they would have done so and rejoiced in it?"
There is no compromise
possible with such people, no meeting of minds, no point of understanding
with such terror. Just a choice: defeat it or be defeated by it. And
defeat it we must!"
I will force myself to:
- hear the weeping
- feel the helplessness
- imagine the terror
- sense the panic
- smell the burning
flesh
- experience the
loss
- remember the
hatred
I sat in a movie
theater, watching "Private Ryan" and asked myself, "Where
did they find the courage?"
Now I know.
We have no choice.
Living without liberty is not living.
Keep this going until every living American has read it and memorized
it so we don't make the same mistake.
Originally
posted from 08-29-02 to 09-08-02
Invade Iraq, and Sarah Brady Will Love You
by Jeffrey Quick
There are a group
of people who believe that individuals shouldn't have deadly weapons,
that such weapons should be illegal, and that if somebody is caught
with them, they should be severely punished. Whether they use the weapons
or not doesn't matter, Of course, these people believe that those
doing the punishing should have weapons, to make the disarmament possible.
These folks are commonly called liberals.
There are a group
of people who believe that nations shouldn't have deadly weapons, that
such weapons should be outlawed, and that if a nation is caught with
them, they should be severely punished. Whether they use the weapons
or not doesn't matter. Of course, these people have the same weapons
they don't want the other nation to have. These folks are commonly called
the Bush Administration.
Seriously, some of the same people who claim to believe in the right
to keep and bear arms are arguing that Iraq doesn't have the right to
arm itself, and want to disarm Iraq before it gets a chance to use its
toys. Saddam Hussein, just like David Koresh, is not the kind of guy
our government likes to see in charge of an arsenal. He's a prior offender
in a Kuwaiti knife fight, so no way will we let him have a machine gun.
But we keep on saying
that it's about the Weapons of Mass Destruction, that we have to keep
them out of his hands, just as Sarah Brady and the rest of her evil
crew say it's about the guns. If it's about WMD, then why do WE still
have nukes? Are we in a position to get all moral about Iraq's
WMD? And why aren't we moving against Israel, Pakistan or India? And
if it's about Saddam, then why is he still breathing? Why didn't we
take him out in '91? Why hasn't he committed suicide with 4 bullets,
like Abu Nidal?
With the exception
of Kuwait, Hussein has only beat up on his own people. According to
international law, this is just fine. Robert Mugabe is kicking out all
his white farmers while his people starve, and nobody is planning an
invasion of Zimbabwe. By international law, initiating the use of force
on another nation is a no-no, one case where international law is more
libertarian than our own. After all, our jack-booted thugs can and do
shoot all kinds of people who haven't hurt anyone, just as we are proposing
to do to Iraq. And Iraq has far less reason to accept us as their cop
than we individuals have to accept our own police, given that there's
not even that mythical "social contract" between nations.
Do I like having
Uncle Sad in the neighborhood? Uh-uh. But the terrible truth is that
he has to throw the first punch...unpleasant as that thought might be.
To strike first brands us as the aggressor, and can lead to much worse
consequences. Note that I am not a peacenik. Should Saddam strike first,
I am all for making Iraq the 51st state, forcing Iraqis to learn English,
and force-feeding Saddam his own extremities, genitalia first. But he
hasn't even brandished, much less shot. And if private gun owners played
the way Bush & Co. are proposing, it really would be the Wild West
on the streets here, with people being shot just because they looked
dangerous. Sarah Brady is afraid of the Wild West. Let's not export
it to the Mideast.
Originally
posted from 05-09-02 to 05-16-02
Cynthia McKinney: Crazy…Like a Fox?
by Chris Lilik
Fellow Georgia Democrat
and Senator Zell Miller calls her Oliver Stone conspiracy theories "dangerous
and irresponsible," as well as just plain “loony”. Her
hometown newspaper, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, brands her "the
most prominent nut" among conspiracy-peddling "nut cases."
And fellow African American Democrat and New York Congressman Major
Owen, upon hearing her most recent allegations, refused to comment on
supporting her reelection. “African Americans have always known
that a little bit of paranoia was healthy for us,” she told The
Progressive in 1996. But is Georgia Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney a
few pickles short of an eighth grade sex-ed class, or crazy…like
a fox?
Last
month the left leaning Congresswoman set off a firestorm of controversy,
implying that President Bush envisioned the 9-11 terrorist attacks before
they occurred, yet did nothing so friends could profit from a military
reaction. “Persons close to this administration are poised to make
huge profits off America’s new war," McKinney told a Berkeley
radio station, "We know there were numerous warnings of the events
to come on September 11th. . . . What did this administration know and
when did it know it, about the events of September 11th? Who else knew,
and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly
murdered? . . . .. What do they have to hide?"
But
fifth term Congresswoman McKinney isn’t new to controversy. In
1996 she called supporters of her Jewish Republican congressional opponent
“holdovers from the Civil War days” and “a ragtag group
of neo-Confederates.” Even Democrats aren’t safe. “Gore’s
Negro tolerance level has never been too high,” she said during
campaign 2000. “I’ve never known him to have more than one
black person around him at any given time.”
After
the majority-black district that first elected her to Congress was struck
down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutionally gerrymandered, she lashed
out at the court as racist,” writes Slate’s Chris Suellentrop.
“[McKinney] compared the verdict to Dred Scott, the decision that
declared slaves were nothing more than chattel, and Plessy v. Ferguson,
which legitimized separate-but-equal American apartheid.” After
her new white majority district reelected her, “she declared that
Georgia’s kaolin industry engineered the case that eliminated her
district, as payback for her fights against the industry in Congress.”
And last month McKinney was still going on record stating that the Republicans
stole the 2000 election, something even Gore is over by now.
The
War on Terrorism is where McKinney’s mouth really stated to shine.
McKinney penned a Washington Post op-ed, writing “I believe that
when it comes to major foreign policy issues, many prefer to have black
people seen and not heard.” McKinney tongue-lashed New York Mayor
Rudy Giuliani for turning down a $10 million donation from a Saudi Arabian
prince who declared that U.S. Middle East policies were partly to blame
for 9-11. Unlike Democrat Senator Hillary Clinton and Republican Congressman
John Sununu, McKinney even refused to return large campaign contributions
from Abdurahman Alamoudi, who proudly voiced support for terrorists
group Hamas and Hezbollah at an October 2000 White House demonstration.
But what does it all mean?
Is
McKinney just some harmless partisan loose cannon, or a wily fox? The
Southeastern Legal Foundation discovered that between Sept. 11 and Dec.
31, 2001, 100 of the 108 McKinney contributors of more than $100 were
identifiably Arab or Middle Eastern. "If we are to give any credence
to her baseless [Bush] claims, the American people deserve to know that
McKinney's financial 'relationships' - her campaign contributors - are
heavily represented by Arab and Middle Eastern-connected individuals,
as well as organizations which have expressed sympathy for terrorist
organizations,” adds Phil Kent, SLF President. “If McKinney's
standard of review is 'relationships,' then her 'relationships' - and
the influence those relationships have on her actions - must also be
investigated."
Human
Events finds that “unlike previous election cycles, when she got
20% to 40% of her campaign cash from outside Georgia, McKinney received
more than 90% of her itemized individual contributions from outside
her state in 2001.” The question of whether or not there
is method to McKinney’s madness might not be as important as who’s
exactly pulling her strings. Throw in McKinney’s seats on the House
Armed Services and International Relations Committees, and you have
yourself lots of interesting questions.
During
World War II, we had Tokyo Rose sending demoralizing messages to our
troops. During Vietnam, we had Hanoi Jane Fonda sending her treasonous
messages to our boys in Southeast Asia, while aiming the Communists'
cannons at them. And in this War Against Terrorism, we have Congresswoman
Cynthia McKinney…Jihad Cindy – to demoralize us and give aid
and comfort to the enemy,” writes columnist Debbie Schlussel.
“McKinney has a strong record of hating America. During the recent
U.N. World Conference Against Racism, she attacked the U.S. with the
rest of the Arab world (now our ‘moderate’ partners in the
‘Coalition Against Terrorism’) and Third World republics in
her push for slavery
reparations, saying the White House is ‘just full of latent racists.’”
Congresswoman
Cynthia McKinney is many things to many people. To conservatives
she is a dangerous leftwing voice and a terrorist sympathizer. To prominent
Democrats she is a brilliant woman who simply needs to listen more and
talk less. To Muslim fringe groups she is an empathetic ally on key
Congressional committees. To late night talk show hosts she is a walking
talking conspiracy theory joke machine. And to many African Americans,
she’s someone the national media won’t treat fairly simply
because she’s black. But like Barbara Lee, the infamous Berkeley
Congresswoman who proudly voted against US retaliation to the 9-11 World
Trade Center and Pentagon terrorist attacks, McKinney will always be
one thing to the vigilant eye of the American eagle: an enemy from within.
Chris Lilik is founder of
the award winning Villanova Times newspaper, and has appeared on Fox News’s
O’Reilly Factor, C-SPAN’s Book TV, given an Accuracy in Academia
speech on C-SPAN and has been featured on the nationally broadcast Eagle
Forum Radio program. Lilik has been covered in the Philadelphia Inquirer,
Washington Times, NBC-10, his reporting has been published in the Scranton
Times, and Campus Magazine, and his editorials have been featured in the
Towanda Daily Review. Lilik is currently a Villanova Senior, and looking
forward to graduation.