Archive for the ‘alexander hamilton’ Category

“Ben Bernake fancies himself as a student of the Great Depression,” says renowned investment broker, global strategist, author, and Austrian economist Peter Schiff, “but… if he were my student he would have gotten an F.”

During a lecture entitled “The Fed Unspun: The Other Side of the Story”, Schiff responded to Bernake’s recent four-part college lecture series, rebutting many of the Federal Reserve Chairman’s claims about the cause of the housing crisis, the role of the Federal Reserve, the value of the gold standard, and more.

Cosponsored by the FreedomWorks Foundation and hosted at Reason Foundation’s DC office, the lecture was followed by a lively Q&A with the assembled audience, including students who attended Bernanke’s George Washington University lectures.
Vodpod videos no longer available.

Advertisements

The Constitution cannot be understood because it’s so old?

The canard that the Constitution cannot be understood is a favorite of those who wish to find things that aren’t there and deny things that are. The 1803 Marbury vs. Madison case, in which the Supreme Court set itself up as the arbiter of the Constitution, and the following cases where the Court ignored the letter of the Constitution in order to find new provisions and dismiss existing ones has led directly to this.

The six pages of the constitution are simple enough that a high school student that couldn’t figure it out should not graduate. Is the language a bit archaic? Yes, I’ll grant that, if you’ll grant that the failure of the public schools to teach English. It’s certainly easier to understand than the deliberately obtuse 2500 page bills passed in the dead of night designed to restrict the liberties protected by the Constitution, in order to elevate “pubic servants” to the new aristocracy.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

 

Vote for the Witch! You would think that would endear her to all those moonbeam atheist Dhimmicretins, wouldn’t you? I guess their worship of the omnipotent state takes precedence. She actually understands that the “separation of church and state” is not in the First Amendment to our Constitution. To them that’s a bigger heresy than witchcraft that they would under all other circumstances they would approve.

Also:

Palin, O’Donnell Speak, Dhimmicretins Expose Ignorance

Mark Levin Rips A New One On Moron Caller About Separation Of Church And State

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Nick Popaditch running for Representative for CA51 opens his debate with the incumbent Pelosi-bot Bob Filner by expressing his four qualifications for legislation.

1.What does his constituancy want?
2. Is it Constitutional?
3. Is it moral?
4. Is it ethical?

Now normally when a politician says anything remotely resembling this, I feel it is time to grab your wallet and jump into a bomb shelter. However Gunny Pop is a retired (not ex) Marine Gunnery Sergeant with a Silver Star, so I’m prepared to take him at his word (officers are occasionally political weasels but senior non-coms usually say exactly what they mean). And it is possibly the best concise statement of what a Representative should be doing that I’ve ever heard actually proposed.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Donate to help end wasteful deficit spending at http://www.cagw.org. This new ad is part of an ongoing communications program in CAGW’s decades-long fight against wasteful government spending, increased taxes, out-of-control deficit spending, and a crippling national debt that threatens the future and survival of our country.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Chinese Professor, posted with vodpod

To hear the Obama administration tell it, there are few things worse than anonymous political activity. Just recently, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told the Christian Science Monitor:”The untold story of 2010 is not the “tea party” or not the health-care bill, or a number of these issues. It is the amount of money that is flowing in districts around the country and particularly the amount of anonymous money….I haven’t been any place where there aren’t dozens of ads now being run and nobody knows who is behind them…I am used to a political system where people engage in battles and you know who brought them to the dance.”

But is anonymous political speech really that new – or that bad?

Indeed, anonymous political speech isn’t just a great American tradition. It helped create the United States of America. The Federalist Papers, the series of essays that influenced the adoption of the Constitution, were published under the pseudonym “Publius” (in reality James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay). The anti-Constitution position was in turn articulated by “the Federal Farmer,” whose identity remains a mystery.Former Federal Election Commission chair Bradley Smith lays out other arguments in favor of anonymous political speech in a contemporary context:”[Election] disclosure regulations are some of the most burdensome. Disclosure limits free speech because it allows the government to retaliate against people. The Supreme Court has consistently held that people do have a right to anonymous speech. The cases speak for themselves.The most prominent one is probably NAACP v. Alabama (1964), when Alabama wanted to know who was funding the NAACP’s activities. We can see how that would be intimidating. Then there’s McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission (1995). McIntyre was doing anonymous brochures against a school tax, which all the school officials supported. She had children in the schools who needed grades and access to such things as athletic teams and bands. She didn’t necessarily want her name known, even though it was important for her to fight this issue. Another major case was Brown v. Socialist Workers ’74 Campaign Committee (1982). The socialists rightly said, “If we have to reveal our donors, they won’t give us money. They will get harassed. Their businesses will get blackballed and that sort of thing.” Disclosure can be more inhibiting than people think.”Which is something to think about when people already in power push legislation such as The DISCLOSE Act, which would force groups to list donors and reveal their names in advertisements. The DISCLOSE Act is in part a response to this year’s controversial Citizen’s United v. Federal Election Commission ruling by the Supreme Court. Hyperbolically likened by critics to the infamous Dred Scott decision, Citizen’s United dealt with a documentary film censored by the government and broadened the speech rights of corporations, unions, and nonprofits. Far from opening American politics up to undue influence by unspecified foreigners (as President Obama has charged), the ruling makes it easier for smaller groups and individuals to spread their messages.

As with many political firestorms, the current one about “dangerous” anonymous speech generates more heat than insight. Anonymous speech is fully in the American grain but it also comes at a price. When the source of political speech is not known or disclosed, voters tend to discount it, or at least look for corroboration elsewhere. Which is exactly how it should be. And if you don’t in the end trust voters to make informed decisions, then all the mandatory disclosure in the world can’t help them.

“Who is Publius?” is written and produced by Meredith Bragg and Nick Gillespie. Approximately 45 seconds.

For downloadable versions of all our videos, go to http://reason.tv. To receive automatic notification when new material goes live, subscribe to Reason.tv’s YouTube Channel.

Vodpod videos no longer available.