Conservative Canadian commentator, Ezra Levant, offers a detailed critique of Mr. Obama’s decision not to approve the Keystone pipeline project. Mr. Levant certainly covers all the bases. Note the map documenting existing pipelines running through the same areas as the Keystone project.

David Brooks has a recent piece in the New York Times in which he advocates political relativity.

Mr. Brooks uses phrases like “the ultra-free market Club for Growth,” “Wingers fight to take over the party,” “Republicans on the extreme ferociously attack their fellow party members,” and more.

His characterization of “extremism” in the Republican party may well be used by Democrats and Mr. Obama to get reelected. It would, however, be nonsense. To wit:

• The $789,000,000,000 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (a.k.a., stimulus) passed the House of Representatives 243-183 with not a single Republican voting for it. The bill passed the Senate 60-38 with three Republicans voting for it.
• The 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (a.k.a., Obamacare) passed the House of Representatives 219-212 with not a single Republican voting for it. The bill passed the Senate 60-39 with no Republicans voting for it.
• The 2011 Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act passed the House of Representatives 237-192 with 3 Republican voting for it. The bill passed the Senate 60-39 with 3 Republicans voting for it.

The original enactment of Medicare in 1965 was certainly partisan but by no means to the extremes seen in the “signature” legislation of Obama’s first term noted above. Medicare passed with 70 Republican votes in the House and 13 Republican votes in the Senate.

The fact is that the Obama “signature” bills dramatically impacting our society, your rights, and the economy were rammed down the throats of dissenters with great partisan gusto. The combined impact of these bills make Medicare look like a college tuition program. Extremism, anyone? So let’s ask Mr. Brooks to reassess “Republican’s on the extreme” and to give credit to those who rightly push back against our progressive masters taking over DC, and our lives and our rights. Is that last sentence extreme or does it reflect reality?

“The ultra-free market Club for Growth” is a misnomer. Can there be “mini-free market” or “partially-free market” advocacy? Personal liberty (a.k.a., freedom) is relative only to extent it is exercised against the rights of another person or a person’s property. You know, a crime: theft, fraud, arson, embezzlement, kidnapping, extortion, violence, etc.

The free market and freedom should be exactly that, free. It cannot be qualified absent criminal activity.

Each of us is free in this manner, but only to the extent we insist our government’s purpose is to protect our liberty, and not to protect us from the exercise of liberty by others. Wherein lies personal responsibility and the limited role of government in enforcement against those who violate the liberties of others.

Which brings us back to Mr. Brooks and his suggestion that political relativity wins elections. What kind of future is there in the road we are now traveling? Let’s hope the electorate demands “extreme” candidates who will lead us into a future with a quality education and productive jobs for our children, with economic growth, with a rollback of our $16,000,000,000,000 Federal debt, with  restructuring that reduces our $60,000,000,000,000+ unfunded entitlement liabilities, and much more. Both distant and recent history, and our instincts, tell us no such future exists absent policy changes from a government purposefully protecting our freedoms, rather than one claiming those freedoms for its own purposes.

In a February 25, 2012 editorial in Barron’s Thomas Donlan refers to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner as Mr. Obama’s “financial twerp.”

Originally concerned that Mr. Donlan had put his journalistic credibility at risk, I now come across today’s commentary by Lawrence Lindsey in the Wall Street Journal with the title, “Geithner and the ‘Privilege’ of Being American.”

Every citizen should read both pieces.

You have a decision to make in November. I hope these articles help you clarify your position on the issues that will justify your vote.

February 8, 2012

The Obama administration has ordered that all health insurance must cover the full cost of certain female preventative health services including contraceptives for free; no deductibles, no co-pays, nothing, free.

See the HHS News Release.

See this explanation from the Whitehouse Press Secretary.

See related Wall Street Journal Editorial.

See Wall Street Journal Opinion piece in Defense of the Mandate.

The media thinks the controversy is over non-profits having to comply with this order, including religiously affiliated universities and hospitals. I think there is a deeper problem, conceit.

The explanation of the policy boils down to Mr. Obama’s belief that all people who pay for health insurance coverage must subsidize free services including contraceptives for those women who want them.

Should the government require all people who pay for health insurance coverage to subsidize free blood pressure medicines for those people who want them?

Should the government require all people who pay for health insurance coverage to subsidize free Weight Watchers programs for those people who want them?

Should the government require all people who pay for health insurance coverage to subsidize free smoking cessation programs for those people who want them?

Should the government require all people who pay for health insurance coverage to subsidize free abortions for those women who want them?

Recently, but before the Greek reality check, some European Union official was proposing that every citizen should have vacations at five star resorts subsidized by taxpayers. Really!

What is going on here? Why are we, as health insurance customers, being required to subsidize free stuff and why shouldn’t each of us pay the fair market price for health insurance that covers what we want it to cover? Where are the limits of what government will mandate as free stuff?

The government should have one simple rule requiring all people to pay for what they wanted out of their own pockets. If some people wish to subsidize free stuff for some people they can start a 501(c)3 non-profit, solicit voluntary contributions and distribute the money to those whose wishes they choose to serve. What we have now is forced government charity using your money.

As Woody Allen has noted, when you are sure you are right you will have a moral obligation to impose your will upon those who disagree with you, that is, if you have no understanding of individual liberty and responsibility and no understanding of the proper role of limited government.

These mandates simply reflect conceit exercising political power.

December 20, 2011

Here is a video every government employee needs to see. The founder of RyanAir at a Brussels “Innovation” conference, December 2011:

__