Skip navigation

Tag Archives: Hillary Clinton

I was reminded last week about this saying: “Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.” A friend of mine was bemoaning high gas prices. Now, that by itself is not very remarkable. After all, isn’t everyone doing that these days? What was interesting, however, was the solution he proposed for this problem. He suggested that President Bush should issue an executive order to begin drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, better known as ANWR. I should make clear at this point that I have no problem with drilling in ANWR. I do, however, have a major problem with “executive orders.”

In a nutshell, here’s my friend’s take on this matter. He believes drilling for oil in the ANWR would benefit everyone in our country. Everyone else who doesn’t happen to share his opinion, he believes, is just too naive on this matter. So, according to my friend, it’s up to the president to take action and force everyone else to go along. Well, I believe drilling for oil would be beneficial as well, as it would probably lead to drastically lower gas prices at the pump. Additionally, if we combined drilling for oil in the ANWR with the repeal of the environmental regulations that have resulted in the manufacture of ZERO oil refineries in the United States since 1976, that would be even better. But, it would be a major violation of my libertarian principles to favor an executive order that would compel all Americans to accept my views as the only correct ones. We should never allow the president to assume dictatorial powers. Whether the president is a Republican or a Democrat, unchecked Executive power will lead us down a slippery slope to totalitarianism. We already have a president who has referred to himself as “The Decider.” Is this not a suitably poignant illustration of the dangerous direction we are taking in this country?

Of course, there could also be some unintended consequences when a politician my friend doesn’t support comes to power as president. My friend despises Hillary Clinton and all Democrats, for that matter. Well, suppose Hillary receives her party’s nomination and wins the general election in November. What if, upon taking her post in the Oval Office, Mrs. Clinton issues an executive order to stop drilling in the ANWR? She could cite the actions of the Bush administration and say they set a precedent that she is simply following. And just like that, it’s all over.

Furthermore, Mrs Clinton has made it perfectly clear that she favors universal health care. I know my friend does not support this type of insurance but, so what!? Hillary wouldn’t have to worry about anyone who doesn’t want universal health care. She could simply issue an executive order to make it all happen.

Unfortunately, my friend, who most of the time sounds “libertarian-esque”, seems to be calling for a dictator in this instance. With a catch, however. If the dictator forces everyone else to do things he (my friend) believes are correct, then there’s no problem. We’ll then have a nice, happy dictatorship. Turn the tables around, however, and then we have a problem.

Basically, what it boils down to is this: Republican dictators are acceptable. Democrat dictators are not.

Anyone who values their freedom, though, rejects ALL dictators, regardless of their party affiliation.


There’s a new twist in the slugfest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination. Faced with stiff competition from the Illinois senator, Mrs. Clinton appears to have borrowed a page from the neoconservatives’ handbook on election strategy. That page has “you must create fear” written all over it. It’s simple really. When you can’t beat your opponent in a straight fight, you must try to convince the voters that, if elected to office, your opponent would spell imminent doom for the country, the world, and of course, think of the children! Mrs. Clinton has attempted to play the experience card, but the results have been less than stellar. Obama just continues to build momentum, winning in state after state, despite his lack of experience that is so often cited by Mrs. Clinton as the number one reason why he should not be President.

But now the Clinton camp has taken the experience card to the doomsday level. In this campaign ad we are presented this hypothetical situation: It’s 3 a.m. Your kids are safely asleep in their beds. But there’s a phone ringing in the White House. Something is “happening” out there in our dangerous world that demands immediate attention from the President of the United States. Do we want the “wet behind the ears” Obama to answer the call and attempt to deal with the problem? Or would we rather have Mrs. “experience is my middle name” Clinton in charge?

Certainly this ad will spark much debate and controversy. And yes, it’s pretty obvious that this is the type of ad your campaign runs when you are desperate. And yes, it is flagrant fearmongering. But I imagine that most of the debate concerning this ad will center on the question of whether Clinton or Obama would be more qualified to handle the doomsday scenario. It’s just assumed that the President of the United States is required to be the world’s savior. It’s part of the job description. But why? Why is the President of the United States expected to be the world’s savior? Why don’t we expect the President of Switzerland to solve all of the world’s problems? Well, I submit once again that our government’s foreign policy is to blame. The United States began it’s foreign policy of expansionism in the late 19th century and continues it apace to this very day. In short, the United States government has bought much of the world over the last hundred years or so. Is it any wonder then, that their problems are our problems? They are all part of the American empire. And until we have a president who will dismantle the empire, the United States will never be safe from the doomsday scenario. Instead of debating who is better qualified to handle “that” call at 3 a.m., perhaps we should be examining the reasons why we are always concerned that the call could be made in the first place. Maybe if our government would stop meddling in so many other countries’ affairs at all hours of the day, we could stop worrying about “that” call at 3 a.m.

By now we all are well aware of the crisis in the subprime housing market. Much blame for the mess has predictably been placed on unscrupulous lenders. When do we ever hear that our government may have actually caused the problem? Of course, we just don’t hear that. After all, protocol requires that we blame the private sector for all of society’s problems. To remedy those ills we are told that we need more government regulation of those greedy, blood sucking capitalists lurking everywhere in the business world.

No one ever seems to mention legislation like the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) which made it mandatory for lenders to issue loans to subprime borrowers. Tom DiLorenzo has written an excellent article on the effects of the CRA here.

In the midst of all of this fallout Democrat wunderkind Barack Obama has been calling for more government regulation to rein in loose lending practices. This seems to be just a tad disingenuous of Mr. Obama, as he has recently been endorsed by the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). Here’s an excerpt from DiLorenzo’s article that explains how the ACORN doesn’t fall far from the CRA tree:

So-called “community groups” like ACORN benefit themselves from the CRA through a process that sounds like legalized extortion. The CRA is enforced by four federal government bureaucracies: the Fed, the Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The law is set up so that any bank merger, branch expansion, or new branch creation can be postponed or prohibited by any of these four bureaucracies if a CRA “protest” is issued by a “community group.” This can cost banks great sums of money, and the “community groups” understand this perfectly well. It is their leverage. They use this leverage to get the banks to give them millions of dollars as well as promising to make a certain amount of bad loans in their communities.

Are we actually supposed to believe that ACORN would endorse Obama if they believed he was going to put an end to the “lending practices” that have been so lucrative for them?

But what of Mr. O’s challenger, the incorrigible Mrs. Clinton? Well, naturally she understands that it’s standard procedure for a government person to blame the market for every problem we encounter in this country, so that’s what she does regarding the subprime mortgage situation. She criticizes unfair lending practices and talks about holding lenders and brokers accountable in her speech before the National Community Reinvestment Coalition(NCRC). By the way the NCRC offers this explanation of what it is, and what it does:

The National Community Reinvestment Coalition is a national not-for-profit with over 800 membership organizations with constituents in every state in the country. The Coalition has spearheaded a proactive community reinvestment movement with the goal of ending discriminatory banking practices and increasing the flow of private capital and credit into traditionally underserved communities. (emphasis added)

UPDATE: I must thank a reader of this post for pointing out that the NCRC does NOT state that they increase the flow of private capital and credit into “undeserving” communities. Unfortunately, I missed the letter “r” that actually made that word “under-served.” Sorry about that.

This, of course, is not to say that I now find the NCRC more palatable. Since the gist of this post was mainly to highlight the disruptive nature of government regulation like the CRA, I should mention that the NCRC has called for the strengthening of the CRA. At the same time, however, the NCRC has also called for more accountability within the banking industry. But herein lies the problem.  The CRA that is so strongly supported by the NCRC forces banks to be accountable ONLY to federal regulatory agencies, NOT the people who are trying to procure a loan.

Super Tuesday was, indeed, frustrating for those of us who are supporting Ron Paul for the Republican nomination for president. We know that the mainstream media is blatantly ignoring him. We also know that if only more people actually HEARD what Dr. Paul has to say, they would be impressed. I understand that not everyone will like him, regardless of how much media exposure he receives. And that’s fine. But, shouldn’t anyone who actually values freedom of expression and freedom of ideas be appalled that such obvious censorship should exist in the so called “land of the free?” So what if 99.9% of Americans totally disagree with Ron Paul’s positions? No one will know if ANYONE disagrees with his positions if our various media outlets continue to hide him from the public. Don’t the American people deserve to hear EVERY political opinion from EVERY candidate during an election season.
To be fair, how many people really got a chance to become familiar with Dennis Kucinich on the Democrat side? The Dems have the anti-war reputation, but the heroically anti-war Kucinich was virtually ignored. Anyone who thinks that Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama will actually demilitarize the Militant States of America is deluding themselves. After all, the top five arms makers in the U.S., Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, Northrop-Grumman, Raytheon, and General Dynamics gave Democratic presidential candidates $103,900 as opposed to $86,800 for Republicans. Most of that money went to Clinton, but Obama got his share as well. Seems like they’re betting on a Dem to win and they sure don’t want to back the wrong pony. After all, there’s always a war going on somewhere.
Now, I will admit that I don’t agree with Mr. Kucinich’s economic beliefs, but I respect him for sticking to his principles. As for Ron Paul, well, most people will immediately tell you he has no chance as soon as you mention his name. And that is most likely true. It is also a great shame. Here is a man who espouses the very same principles of governance upon which this country was founded. And today, we are informed that these principles are irrelevant, outdated, and stand no chance. How would Thomas Jefferson react if someone could tell him that all of HIS principles no longer apply in America? What would he say if he found out that our president is now more like a king? Then again, perhaps he wouldn’t be surprised at all. Perhaps he just would have said something like “Well, I knew it would happen sooner or later. It always does.”
So how should a Ron Paul supporter feel about this campaign so far? Sure, it looks pretty bleak, but there are lots of positives! Just think about this for a moment. How many people knew about Ron Paul or the freedom movement just one year ago? How many people now feel like there’s actually something worthwhile in politics? How many people realized that a Republican can be anti-war? How many people realized that anyone who favors limited government is necessarily anti-war? Of course, no one knows an exact number of people, but one can rest assured that there are thousands more now than there were one year ago. This is going to be a long fight. As Dr. Paul has said many times, this movement is not about him. It’s about the message. The message is spreading everyday. It’s all over this very world wide web. And even with the limited time he is allowed in the “debates,” Ron Paul eloquently communicates the message to everyone watching around the country.
This is just the beginning. But, it is indeed a good beginning. So far in 2008 nineteen states have held primary elections. (I’m not including caucuses here) Ron Paul’s vote total, according to the numbers I compiled from CNN’s website is 533,290. In the general election of 1988, when he ran as a libertarian he received only 431,750 votes. He’s already surpassed that number, and there’s a long way to go. The freedom movement is most certainly not at its end. On the contrary, it has just been given a shot of adrenaline by the good doctor!