.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Free Citizen

This writer espouses individual liberty, free markets, and limited government.

Location: Jackson, Mississippi, United States

Thursday, August 27, 2009

The Passing of Senator Edward Kennedy

This piece states that Kennedy was elected minority whip of the Senate in 1969. Actually, he was majority whip (assistant leader), as the Democrats were the majority in the Senate from 1955 until 1981.

It's also worth noting that the Kennedy family was largely responsible for turning Massachusetts into a solidly Democratic state. When Tip O'Neill became speaker of the Massachusetts House in the 1940s, he was the first-ever Democratic speaker. ~~ SR


by Peter Marshall | August 27, 2009

“The times they are a’changin'.”

Bob Dylan’s famous lyrics came to mind as I pondered the Tuesday death of Ted Kennedy, following his 15-month battle with brain cancer. His death puts an end to a 47-year tenure in the U.S. Senate – the third longest in history, after Strom Thurmond of South Carolina and Robert Byrd of West Virginia, who is still serving. But Kennedy’s passing marks an even more significant milestone: it signals the passing of an era – in several respects.

First, with Teddy’s death the Kennedy mystique is finally over. Camelot is finished. To that I can say a hearty “thank God!” In the four decades plus that Teddy was in the Senate, people all over the country used to ask me: “why do you people up there in Massachusetts keep electing this guy?” My answer always was: “You have to understand the Kennedy mystique. It makes no sense until you understand that.”

It was partially that the Irish have run Massachusetts politics forever (remember Speaker of the [U. S.] House Tip O’Neill?), and the Kennedys were the Irish Mafia’s “Dons.” (By the way, an ironic fact about the Kennedy’s control of the death-grip the Irish have had on Massachusetts politics is that in 1946, when the Kennedy family began their carefully calculated entry into politics by having Jack Kennedy run for the U.S. House, the Kennedys were very unpopular with the “better” Irish in Boston. The reason? Patriarch Joe Kennedy’s alleged illegal rum-running during Prohibition days, and his unsavory remarks in 1940 about “democracy being dead in England” when Britain was fighting for its life against German bombers during the Battle of Britain. He was U.S. Ambassador to Britain at the time, and that effectively ended his political career. But, Joe determined that if he could never be President of the United States that his naval veteran son Jack would be, and he devised an extremely clever way to insinuate the Kennedys into the good graces of the Boston Irish. Joe and his wife Rose hosted teas to introduce their handsome and eligible son Jack to the women of the city, specifically inviting the ladies and their daughters. Jack won easily, and the Kennedys were off and running).

Another extremely important factor in Teddy being returned to the Senate for term after term was the unholy alliance between the left-wing Harvard intellectual crowd, the labor unions, the homosexual activists, the educational elite, and the media. All of these people tend to define politics as the government doing things for the common man, or the “little people,” to put it in patrician Beacon Hill terminology. And Teddy Kennedy was the icon of this mindset in the Northeast, and certainly in the U.S. Senate. He didn’t just subscribe to this way of thinking – he embodied it. He totally believed it.

To him, it was the essence of compassion. Government existed to help people, to care for them, to provide for them. It was all part of being a Catholic Christian. Government-run healthcare was just like... Read more>>>>

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

Con-Fusion in South Carolina

South Carolina is one of the states that allows fusion, which means that more than one party may nominate the same candidate. The Palmetto State law stipulates that, when a candidate wins a minor party's nomination and then runs unsuccessfully for a major party's nomination, he must give up the minor party's nomination and cannot run in the general election.

In 2008, Eugene Platt received the Green Party's nomination for a state legislative seat. He then ran in the Democratic primary and lost, so the state would not permit his name to be placed on the ballot as the Green Party nominee. Platt brought a federal lawsuit against the state, and U. S. district judge Cameron McGowan Currie, a Clinton appointee, today upheld the state law. His reasoning was that the Green Party could have replaced Platt with another nominee.

This is an interesting case, and I hope Platt and the Greens appeal.

Click here to see the ruling.

Thanks to Ballot Access News.

Friday, August 07, 2009

Obamacare Will Cost More, Not Less

Dr. Arthur Laffer, the famous guru of supply-side economics, voted for Bill Clinton for president in 1992 and 1996. Laffer moved from San Diego to Tennessee because the Volunteer State lacks an income tax. ~~ SR


by Forrest Jones | Newsmax.com | August 5, 2009

President Barack Obama's healthcare reforms will jack up costs because people will demand more services and pay less for them, says Reagan adviser and economist Arthur B. Laffer.

“When healthcare is subsidized, no one should be surprised that people demand more of it and that the costs to produce it increase. Mr. Obama’s healthcare plan does nothing to address the gap between the price paid and the price received,” Laffer wrote in a Wall Street Journal column.

“Instead, it’s like a negative tax: Costs rise and people demand more than they need.”

To pay for the increased healthcare costs, the administration will boost taxes on businesses as well as the rich.

That will result in more layoffs while patients demand more medical services they don't need because they won't have to pay for them, Laffer says.

As an alternative, Laffer suggests, the country should focus on “patient-centered” healthcare plans such as heath savings accounts. Such high-deductible policies take money pre-tax from patients’ paychecks and place them in bank accounts to pay healthcare costs.

The debate to overhaul the nation's healthcare system has split the country into two camps, according to a CNN poll.

Half of those surveyed in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation said they supported the president's plans to revamp the nation's healthcare systems, with 45 percent opposed.

“Obama's plan is most popular among younger Americans and least popular among senior citizens,” said CNN polling director Keating Holland.

“A majority of Americans over the age of 50 oppose Obama's plan; a majority of those under 50 support it.”

Monday, August 03, 2009

Provocative Videos

A Nurse Describes the Horror Caused by Obama's Support of Infanticide

Proof the Democrats Caused the Housing Crisis by Refusing to Regulate Fannie/Freddie

L. A. Times Endorsed Obama; Withholds Video of Obama Praising Palestinian Terrorist (Times Released Summary of Content When They Endorsed Hillary Over Obama)

Obama Admits He Worked for the "Chicago Annenberg Challenge," Founded and Run by Domestic Terrorist Bill Ayers; Obama Used $50 Million of Foundation $$ to Buy Votes

Obama Mocks the Bible

Obama Violates Logan Act by Using his Office and Taxpayer Funds to Campaign for his Cousin in Kenya; Cousin is Charged by his Government with Ethnic Cleansing

Obama Thinks the Sermon on the Mount Supports Homosexual "Civil Unions"

Notorious Israel-Hater Farrakhan Says Obama has "Captured the Youth," Then he Hails Obama as "The Messiah;" Obama's Church Gave this Evil Man its Highest Award

The Man Who Says "Hitler Was a Very Great Man" Preaches at Obama's Church (Obama Admits he Attended There for Twenty Years, but Claims he Never Inhaled)

Nation of Islam Leader Farrakhan: "White Folks, You Owe us the Whole Country!"

Fannie Mae CEO Calls Obama and Democrats the "Family" of the Mortgage Giant; Obama Took $125,000 from this Organization, a Prime Cause of the Mortgage Crisis

Obama Admits he Does Not Understand our Financial Markets

Saturday, August 01, 2009

The Death of Snail Mail

by Ian Mathias | LewRockwell.com

The U.S. Postal Service is on track for a record $7 billion deficit this year. That’s more than double last year’s loss.

Postmaster General John Potter bumped up his previous projection by a billion bucks yesterday, citing the growing expenses of six-day delivery and employee retirement/health care plans. Potter and his team are scrambling to cut costs left and right – from a yearlong hiring freeze to early retirement offers to branch closures. But we wonder… will it even matter?

The Government Accountability Office recently labeled the USPS a “high risk” federal program, and while we’re hard-pressed to think of any risk-free government program, we’re inclined to agree.

The Postal Service is facing a perfect storm of business risk: The business is already loaded up with debt. Minimum wage and benefit costs are rising while revenues are plummeting. For example, they are expected to handle at least 27 million fewer pieces of mail this year than in 2008. Is there any business in America that isn’t looking to cut shipping costs? (There’s this new technology we’ve heard about called “e-mail.”)

Then there’s UPS and FedEx, two worthy private-sector rivals. And what about Peak Oil? A summer of 2008 redux could cripple the whole industry. Above all, the USPS is run by the government… c’mon.

Snail mail might not be dead, but we suspect the USPS is going the way of Amtrak, at best.

They can’t even deliver our mail without losing money, yet the public looks to the government to manage our health care? Oy…

Through the Eyes of a Child

Daniel Hannan, a member of the British Conservative Party, is also a member of the European Parliament. The socialist Labour Party currently controls the United Kingdom's national government.


by Daniel Hannan

A heart-warming email arrives from a constituent:

"I recently asked my friend’s little girl what she wanted to be when she grows up.

"She said she wanted to be Prime Minister some day. Both of her parents, Labour supporters, were standing there, so I asked her, ‘If you were Prime Minister what would be the first thing you would do?’

"She replied, ‘I’d give food and houses to all the homeless people.’

"Her parents beamed.

"‘Splendid: what a worthy goal.’ I told her ‘But you don’t have to wait until you’re Prime Minister to do that. You can come over to my house and mow the lawn, pull weeds, and sweep my yard, and I’ll pay you £50.

"Then I’ll take you over to the supermarket where that homeless fellow hangs out, and you can give him the £50 to use toward food and a new house.’

"She thought that over for a few seconds, then she looked me straight in the eye and asked:

"‘Why doesn’t the homeless man come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the £50?’

"I said, ‘Welcome to the Conservative Party.’

"Her parents still aren’t speaking to me."

Click here for some great comments.

Mississippi Ranks Number One

In the August 1 print edition of Ballot Access News, publisher Richard Winger rebuts Tara Ross's July 17 piece in the Weekly Standard, "How to Win the Presidency... With 15% of the Popular Vote." She contends that the Electoral College is what prevents Americans from fracturing their votes so that someone could be elected president with as little as 15 percent of the total.

Winger says, "... when the voters are electing a single individual to an office, most voters deduce which candidates are strong enough to potentially win. Then, they choose to vote for one of those candidates." Winger backs up this statement by presenting an interesting chart, "Lowest Percent Ever Received By A Winning Gubernatorial Candidate," in which he shows the lowest percentage for each of the 50 states.

Guess which state came in first. Mississippi! In 1831, the National Republican[1] Abram Scott was elected governor with 30.5 percent, evidently because of a rift between two factions loyal to President Andrew Jackson. One Jackson Democrat received 28.6 percent of the vote, while the other got 22.4 percent.

Back then, ballots were printed and distributed by candidates and their supporters instead of the government, so these two Jackson Democrats clearly had the wherewithal to do so. It was not until the late 1800s that state governments began providing the ballots.

Today, of course, when the state requires party primaries for an office, each party can only have one candidate on the general election ballot. It is only nonpartisan offices-- such as Mississippi's state and county judges-- for which it is possible for more than one candidate from the same party to oppose each other in an election which may decide who will hold the office.

Washington state was a close second on Winger's chart. In 1912, the Democratic nominee was elected governor with 30.6 percent of the vote. The Republican got 30.4 percent, and the Progressive Party nominee received 24.4 percent.

I picked up some other tidbits from the chart. Georgia's record-holder is the Democrat Lester Maddox, who won in 1966 after getting 46.2 percent. A write-in campaign garnered 7.3 percent for former Governor Ellis Arnall and prevented anyone from receiving 50-plus percent. The Peach State then had a proviso that, in such a situation, the state House of Representatives made the decision. The heavily Democratic House elected Maddox, despite the fact that the Republican nominee had received more votes-- 46.5 percent.

It was the 1966 election that led to Georgia's enactment of runoff general elections. The most recent such runoff in a statewide race came last December, when U. S. senator Saxby Chambliss(R) was re-elected.

The Republican Alfred M. Landon, who won in 1932 with 34.8 percent, holds the record for Kansas. The Democrat received 34.1 percent and an independent 30.6 percent. Landon, to be sure, was the GOP presidential nominee against President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1936, when Landon only carried two states, Maine and Vermont.


[1] Andrew Jackson was the first president to call himself a Democrat, and the National Republicans had broken away from that party earlier. When the Whig Party was started in 1833-34, most National Republicans joined it. Today's Republican Party, of course, was founded in the summer of 1854.