Over the last week, I was laid out in Charlotte recovering from surgery, and whenever I would wake up from my periodic Percocet naps, I would catch glimpses of news segments that had me convinced that maybe I needed to lower my medication intake. I honestly thought I was dreaming, as there was no way our political process could be this absurd and disorganized. I was wrong, and for those in the Upstate or living or working across the border in Charlotte, it is likely you know of this snowballing embarrassment.
Currently over 7600 American taxing bodies have a discretionary right to tax us on our purchases, income, or activities. Despite this, the internet has been one entity that has maintained a tax free status. This is not by chance, however. The internet has remained tax free because currently there is the Internet Tax Freedom Act, which makes it illegal for any federal, state, or local entity to levy a tax that can only be applied to the internet.
Sadly, the Internet Tax Freedom Act is not permanent. In fact in a matter of days (November, 1st) the law is set to expire, leaving it wide open to taxation. Last week the House voted to extend the law, however, refusing to make the taxation ban permanent. Now we must wait for the Senate to push the extension through.
Imagine a world where the internet is taxed - Emails, bandwidth, e-commerce, broadband access, MP3s, ISP access – all taxed. This would be horribly expensive, regressive, and arguably unconstitutional. Please contact your senator ASAP and let him know to get it together and pass the bill.
Well the price of oil is continuing to get worse, and I can assure you its not going to get better any time soon. Here is an article I wrote back in July about the looming crisis.
Our personal freedoms took another step down the slippery slope yesterday, as the Belmont, California City Council passed an ordinance that extends its smoking ban in public locations and privately owned restaurants to multi-unit and multi-level residences.
I will be honest, I hate cigarettes, and I think it requires a special kind of self-loathing, moron to knowingly suck on one. In fact, if I was an employer, I would refuse to hire smokers because they are less productive, would be a drain on our health insurance premiums, and generally smell bad. Despite this, I will be the first to stand up on behalf smoker’s rights when the government tries to limit them.
Moreover, I think it is obnoxious and rude to smoke in a in a public setting; however, if that public setting is owned by a private entrepreneur, who consents to the smoking, then the government has no right to regulate it. That is the beauty of our free market society; if you don’t like the smoky setting, then you, as a consumer, can go to another restaurant or just go home.
At least in the case of restaurants, the government can justify the regulation on public health concerns, stemming from second hand smoke. What the Belmont City Council has done is inexcusable, however. The threat of smoke leaking through the walls and into an adjoining unit is non-existent, and the government knows this. This is just another example of the nanny state thinking it knows what is better for you than you do.
As I alluded to above, personal liberties cannot be discriminately chosen based on inclinations. Every time we give up a right, even where the majority favors it, our Republic is skidding a little further down the slippery slope towards fascism. Even if you hate smoky restaurants, stay true to the principle of freedom and quit being so haughty that you think your preferences supersede others’.
I am currently the President of The Charleston School of Law’s chapter of the Federalist Society, and along with Charleston’s lawyers chapter, we are hosting the highly controversial John Yoo for a speaking engagement, book signing, and luncheon on Monday, September 24th at noon. If any of you will be in the area on that date, we would love to have you in the audience for the event. If you are interested, RSVP to fed-soc@charlestonlaw.org. Admission is free and seating is limited, so hurry and RSVP if interested.
John Yoo is a current professor at the University of California-Berkley, an author, and former clerk for Justice Clarence Thomas on the U.S. Supreme Court. Most notably however, is his role as a former member of the U.S. Department of Justice’s legal counsel. While with The Department of Justice, he co-authored The Patriot Act, wrote the infamous “Torture Memos,” where he practically gave President Bush the “go-ahead” on torturing enemy combatants, and he became a strong advocate of the Unitary Executive Theory, which among other things, claims military force, like veto and pardon power, is a right that is unique to the President and is unreviewable by other branches. Yoo has also been charged with war crimes in connection with the treatment of international detainees.
Let me be clear. I am against The Patriot Act and for the most part, I reject the Unitary Executive Theory as dangerous to separation of powers. Despite this, I am very excited to hear a great legal mind and key figure in The War on Terror justify his positions and share with us some of his experiences.
I really wish someone would just sucker punch John Edwards. The man is the most self-righteous, hypocritical, pretty boy to ever pay his way into a presidential election. His latest contention that not only is everyone entitled to healthcare, but every citizen should be federally mandated to have preventive check-ups, is ludicrous. Why doesn’t he just go and defecate on James Madison’s grave and then use the Federalist Papers and Constitution to clean himself up?
To catch you up on some of Edward’s most recent antics, let’s recap.
The man lives in a $6 million dollar, 30,000 square foot home – the largest in Orange Co., NC, and has the audacity to preach his “Two America’s” theory, which blasts the government for allowing its citizens to become excessively wealthy. When speaking on “Two America’s,” Edwards has proven he has no grasp on reality. In one speech, he claimed that “One America [the middle and lower class] does the work, another reaps the reward. One America pays the taxes (again, the lower and middle class); the other receives the tax breaks.”
Is he serious? Is he really implying that Americans, who have made something of themselves, have done so without working? Does he not realize that top 52% of income earners pay virtually 100% of all federal taxes? How dare he say that the under privileged pay all the taxes, and the upper class reaps the benefits.
John Edwards also loves to take positions that are popular amongst his Socialist constituents, and he even concedes that his paternalistic views will require sacrifice by others. The problem is he just doesn’t believe the sacrifices should apply to him as well. Over the last year, he has demanded that we give up our SUVs, despite owning two, himself. He has also blasted sub-prime lenders who are engaging in predatory lending practices. He then failed to mention that he has $16 million invested in Fortress Investment Group, which not only takes part in predatory lending, but does so to Katrina victims in New Orleans. Oh, and despite being called out for this investment, he is going to keep it.
Do you want more examples? Edwards is an outspoken critic of Wal-Mart, because it is a company which engages in unfair business practices and treats its employees poorly. Despite this, not only does he shop at Wal-Mart, but, this past Christmas, he contacted Wal-Mart and asked them to help him out, and let him jump to the head of the waiting list on the season’s hottest gift, the Playstation 3. What a jerk.
Finally, there is health care. Edwards adamantly claims that it is too expensive, and frankly, I agree with him. What he fails to remind us of is that he is partly responsible for the excessive cost. His career of making millions off of medical malpractice, namely in questionable birth defect theories and ill-advised fault finding, has indubitably caused the cost of healthcare to increase.
Now back to his most recent demand, which states we have a right to healthcare and that we don’t have a right to refuse preventive care. Where does he get the idea that everyone has a right to have healthcare provided for them? Is healthcare now somehow in the penumbra of our only natural rights (life, liberty, and property)? Lastly, who does John Edwards think he is to require us to go to the doctor? Does he now have some kind of ownership interest in us? I have said it before, and I’ll say it again, government dependence is a prerequisite for government bondage.
Oh and for your viewing pleasure, the result of a $400 haircut:
Last week I blasted the United States’ public school system; however, I am sure most readers shrugged it off with a “not at my child’s school” attitude. Well, if your child attends South Carolina’s own Lexington High School, then you can no longer hide behind that sentiment.
This past weekend, Lexington High School student and Miss Teen USA contestant, Lauren Caitlin Upton set our nation’s perception of South Carolina back another twenty years.
Before watching this video, bear in mind that at Lexington High, she is a member of the National Technical Honor Society, a recipient of the “Star Student” award, and the student body president of Skills USA (whatever that is).
This week, students all over the United States are beginning their first day of class. In related news, millions of parents around the nation should be wholeheartedly ashamed of themselves, as they are allowing their children to receive their education from the government. In other words, parents are entrusting the government - history’s most inefficient failure in providing goods and services – to take care of providing their children with the necessary tools to survive and succeed in our society. (more…)
I took this picture while in Gulf Shores, AL this past week. Apparently this resident is fed up, and I do not blame him. Eminent domain, even in its original intent under the 5th Amendment is a shaky principle, but the way courts have applied it over the last few decades is a complete disregard for private property rights.
The city of Gulf Shores recently started a project in which it is requiring all beach front property owners to allow an easement through their private beach property. On this easement the city will build a sand berm in order to stop erosion. Not only is Gulf Shores not going to compensate the homeowners for its plunder, but it is also making the homeowners, pay for the construction in front of their house. The City has decided to charge each beach front home up to $2,000 in order to cover the cost. Because this will obviously not be enough money, the taxpayers will have to cover the rest.
For homeowners refusing to sign the easment, the City is successfully seizing their land under eminent domain - again, without just compensation (as required under the 5th Amendment).
I am not against the idea of the City trying to prevent sand erosion. What I am against is it doing so on private beaches. Gulf Shores could just as easily build this berm fifteen yards closer to the water, where it would be on public beach.
Finally, this particular dredging technique doesnt work. Sand berms like this last only a couple of years at most and all it takes is one strong tropical depression to flatten it.
On Saturday, the House approved a temporary bill (lasting 6 months) that will allow our government - without a warrant, to eavesdrop on foreign phone calls, emails, and other communications that pass through the United States. More specifically, the bill will give the Executive Branch the right to wiretap Non-United States citizens, when it “reasonably believes” the communication is coming from a suspected terrorist who is outside of our nation’s borders. (more…)
