Quote :

"Bush Hopes to Expand the Size and Scope of Big Government William Redpath Provides Libertarian Response to the State of the Union Address. Redpath is the Chairman of the Libertarian National Committee. On Tuesday, January 23, President Bush delivered his 2007 State of the Union Address. While there were some things in the speech that were, on the whole, good, on most matters the President continued to show no appreciation for the concept of limited (particularly federal) government, and he continues to conflate the ideas of national defense and security with his stubborn continuation of his Administration’s tragic war of choice in Iraq. On the positive side, the President's health care proposal to replace an unlimited employer health care expense deduction with standard deductions for individuals, while not perfect, is a large step in the badly needed direction of breaking the link between employment and health insurance in this nation. It would stop federal tax discrimination against people who are not covered by employer-provided insurance. It would, as the President said, make health care more affordable for more Americans. Unfortunately, the President's proposal calls for a minimal tax increase for those Americans with the most expensive of insurance plans. Beyond this, various health care reforms should be the province of state and local governments. The federal government should not be involved; there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution granting it license for such involvement. Among this nation's political parties, only the Libertarian Party takes the Constitution and its limited powers for the federal government seriously. Other than that, the President's innocuous platitudes were the highlights of the rest of his speech. The President touched on another of his unpopular and failing big government solutions: No Child Left Behind. Not so very long ago, the Republican Platform called for the elimination of the federal Department of Education. Today, Republicans and Democrats compete over which big government programs and mandates can be forced on state and local governments. No Child Left Behind should not be reauthorized. Bush said he wants children in failing schools to have additional options. We agree, but that should be left to state and local governments to hash out. The Libertarian Party calls for an end to any federal government involvement in education, including the cessation of all grants to state and local governments and what the Republican Party platform called until the year 2000 - the closure of the federal Department of Education. The President applied his big government philosophy to our energy policy, too. Instead of trusting you and me to determine what sort of fuel economy we prefer in our private vehicles, the President is attempting to force new fuel economy standards on automobile manufacturers. Additionally, he is tampering with the free market in order to reach the probably unachievable goal of "energy independence." If we want the lowest possible energy prices and alternative energy sources to develop, we need to get government out of the energy business and let the free market work. Unfortunately, the President is disregarding the history that made America the great nation she is with his approach of intervention and regulation. The President indicated that he intends to exercise some spending restraint and to balance the budget. He also suggested reforms that are supposed to prevent billions of taxpayer dollars from being spent on earmarks. Those are fine words, but we should look at his actions, too. Since Bush has been in office, the Republicans have spent more, even discounting for terror and war related expenses, than even the Democrats had spent. And the President can't blame Congress; he never once vetoed a Republican bill for excessive spending. If he is truly opposed to earmarks, he could have used his veto power, but he didn't. If a Libertarian president had been handed such bills, they would have gone, unsigned, back to the Hill with a simple message attached: For the sake of the American people, become financially responsible now. The President and the GOP-controlled Congress had their chance to show fiscal restraint, and they badly failed the American people. Even after the criticism he has taken for his Iraq Surge Strategy from some of his strongest supporters, the President continued to promote his plan that places many of our citizens in harm's way. Clearly, the primary reason America rejected the Republicans this past November is because of the President’s failed policy in Iraq. But for the U.S. starting this unwise war, the President would not have to ask for 92,000 additional U.S. soldiers, as well as a Civilian Reserve Corps. When Bush stated that we need to take the war to the enemy, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was quick to stand and applaud. The question we need to ask ourselves is what specific enemy we need to pursue for the purpose of national security. There has been a great deal of controversy about so-called facts presented by the White House about the initial cause for military action in Iraq; it is time we look at some real facts. We are indeed nation building. We are playing policeman in a civil war. We attacked Iraq and triggered what is clearly a civil war that has killed tens of thousands of people in Iraq, all without a correct and coherent explanation of what our purpose and goals are from the Bush Administration. We have chased non-existent weapons of mass destruction instead of focusing on the terrorists who killed nearly 3,000 Americans on 9/11. We are creating more terrorists on a daily basis because of our intervention in Iraq. In short, we went after the wrong bad guys and are now stuck in the middle of someone else's civil war. Bush said that we need to "win" in Iraq, but he has never clearly articulated what a "win" would be. That is the least he owes the American people. The most successful outcome Americans can hope for is to withdraw from Iraq as quickly as is safely possible for our troops, before too many more of our sons and daughters are added to the ever growing list of casualties. We, in the Libertarian Party, still think there is hope for the advocates of limited government. According to an ABC News report, the President has only kept one third of the promises he made in his 2006 State of the Union address. Bush’s current approval ratings are lower than for any U.S. president the day before a State of the Union Address since President Richard Nixon in 1974. Hopefully, he will fail in turning his mostly big government solutions into public policy. Democrats tend to throw expensive big government solutions at health care and education, so it seems likely that the two older parties, acting in concert, will only continue their longstanding trend of making government bigger, less responsive and more expensive. In the eighties and nineties, Republicans ran on limited government platforms. Voters rightly rejected many of these Republicans last November for breaking their promises. But, in handing both Houses of Congress to the Democrats, voters weren’t screaming for radical liberal change, but for some semblance of government restraint - in terms federal fiscal policy, and ending America’s military involvement in Iraq. But, given the Democrats' multi-decade proclivity for larger and more expensive government, casting one's lot with them is not the answer. There is but one common-sense political solution remaining. If you are as upset as I am about the President’s plan to continue to increase our military involvement in Iraq and the size of government, I ask you to please join and become involved with the Libertarian Party, the only U.S. political party that is committed to - or even simply respects - the concept of limited government and freedom for all individuals in the United States."

1/25/2007 11:18:07 AM

The Libertarian Party: your one stop source for free guns, drugs, and hookers.

hey? how come no one takes us seriously?

1/25/2007 12:10:54 PM

"Free"? Frack no, you're going to pay for that shiite.

1/25/2007 12:16:45 PM

As a former -- and I stress FORMER -- member of NCSU Campus Libertarians I have this to say about the Libertarian party: at first they seem like a good idea, but about two weeks into supporting them, they begin to sound like a broken record. Basically, the Libertarian party's ideology can be summed up quite accurately as follows:

Government = bad.
Free market = good.
Applying the two statements above to all social and economic policy without exception of any kind will solve all social problems.

Sadly, the same can be said to William Redpath's statement above. It's basically a long elaborate way of saying "Waaah, waaah, the president wants to expand the size of the government! No one is taking our little party seriously!", which is the same song and dance that the Libertarian Party produces every time one of its members speaks. This is basically why I am no longer a Libertarian. (Well, my reasons are a bit more complex than that, but this is a good summary.)

1/25/2007 12:26:00 PM

Liberitarians love personal responsibility, unless of course its responsibility for the situation they're in, in that case everything is the government's fault.

1/25/2007 1:29:17 PM

Quote :

"Applying the two statements above to all social and economic policy without exception of any kind will solve all social problems."

Incorrect and you know it. The Libertarian party has no problem with the federal government becoming involved in places specifically allowed by the Constitution. Otherwise, leave it to the states.

1/25/2007 1:39:18 PM

^^ or we could just blame the capitalists for everything. Either way.

1/25/2007 2:24:47 PM

^^bingo

The feds find all kinds of "creative" ways to steal from the states powers expressly reserved for them in the constitution. I agree with libs in that sense.

1/25/2007 2:28:08 PM

Quote :

"Incorrect and you know it. The Libertarian party has no problem with the federal government becoming involved in places specifically allowed by the Constitution. Otherwise, leave it to the states. "

Except, of course, the 16th Amedment to the Constitution.

1/25/2007 3:13:33 PM

^ well, *cough*, that wasn't a real amendment.

1/25/2007 3:47:48 PM

Quote :

"Incorrect and you know it. The Libertarian party has no problem with the federal government becoming involved in places specifically allowed by the Constitution. Otherwise, leave it to the states."

It seems a majority of the time libertarians bitch about state things and try to claim the federal government is involved.

The libertarian party is the party for people who never paid attention in civics class.

1/25/2007 3:53:08 PM

Quote :

"It seems a majority of the time libertarians bitch about state things and try to claim the federal government is involved. "

Such as? I think we would be hard pressed to find things that are not in some way infiltrated by the federal government. They regulate everything that moves, everything that does not move, and everything in between.

I'm not saying this is a bad thing, just curious what you believe the FG is not influencing.

1/25/2007 3:57:13 PM

damned interstate commerce!!!!!!!!!!

1/25/2007 4:03:07 PM

Quote :

"Such as? I think we would be hard pressed to find things that are not in some way infiltrated by the federal government. They regulate everything that moves, everything that does not move, and everything in between. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, just curious what you believe the FG is not influencing."

property taxes for one.

1/25/2007 4:04:31 PM

Quote :

"Such as? I think we would be hard pressed to find things that are not in some way infiltrated by the federal government. They regulate everything that moves, everything that does not move, and everything in between."

You guys are always bitching about not being on the local ballots.

1/25/2007 4:17:51 PM

But the libertarians are on the local ballots. There is a libertarian city councilman in my home town.

nutsmackr, are libertarians really often blaming property taxes on the Federal Government? That was your assertion, that libertarians are often blaming the federal government for local governmental interference.

1/25/2007 4:49:27 PM

yes, i've witnessed this. Time and time again, libertarians talk about state and local rights and they don't want the federal government messing with their property, but it all comes back to property taxes.

libertarians need to take a civics lesson.

1/25/2007 5:50:48 PM

Quote :

"Except, of course, the 16th Amedment to the Constitution."

I have defended the right of the Federal government to collect income tax even on this board. Some Ls think its an improper amendment and I think they ought to be arrested if they refuse to abide by it.

Quote :

"yes, i've witnessed this. Time and time again, libertarians talk about state and local rights and they don't want the federal government messing with their property, but it all comes back to property taxes. "

Yes, and your anecdotal evidence is admissable in logic.
I think Lone has you on this one, I've never heard a Libertarian or libertarian complain about the Federal government charging them that property tax. I know my anecdotes aren't any more admissable than yours, but I bet I concerse with an order or magnitude more Libertarians/libertarians than you do.

1/25/2007 6:28:53 PM

Quote :

"they begin to sound like a broken record. "

What political party doesn't?

Basically, the Libertarian party's ideology can be summed up quite accurately as follows:

Freedom= Good

I'm not much of a fan of the national Lib. party. But this critique of Bush's speech hits a chord with me. You may dislike libertarians. So just pretend this wasn't written by one and tell me, specifically, what part of Redpath's comment on the speech is off the mark?

1/25/2007 10:39:45 PM

^ A better question would be what part of it is on the mark? Let me hit on just a few points

Quote :

"On the positive side, the President's health care proposal to replace an unlimited employer health care expense deduction with standard deductions for individuals, while not perfect, is a large step in the badly needed direction of breaking the link between employment and health insurance in this nation. It would stop federal tax discrimination against people who are not covered by employer-provided insurance. It would, as the President said, make health care more affordable for more Americans. Unfortunately, the President's proposal calls for a minimal tax increase for those Americans with the most expensive of insurance plans. Beyond this, various health care reforms should be the province of state and local governments. The federal government should not be involved; there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution granting it license for such involvement. Among this nation's political parties, only the Libertarian Party takes the Constitution and its limited powers for the federal government seriously. "

First of all Redpath doesn't understand how the Constitution works. The way it works is by limiting the government's powers by explicitly stating what it cannot do, rather than listing the things it can do. That's why the Bill of Rights lists things that the government is not allowed to do. Second, our healthcare crisis is a federal problem, so the federal government should get involved.

Quote :

"The President touched on another of his unpopular and failing big government solutions: No Child Left Behind. Not so very long ago, the Republican Platform called for the elimination of the federal Department of Education. Today, Republicans and Democrats compete over which big government programs and mandates can be forced on state and local governments. No Child Left Behind should not be reauthorized. Bush said he wants children in failing schools to have additional options. We agree, but that should be left to state and local governments to hash out. The Libertarian Party calls for an end to any federal government involvement in education, including the cessation of all grants to state and local governments and what the Republican Party platform called until the year 2000 - the closure of the federal Department of Education. "

A strong public education system is an absolutely essntial party of a democratic society, not to mention a healthy economy. The federal government absolutely must ensure that every child has a chance to get a good education. Certainly, the local and state governments are responsible for school systems within their own jurisdictions, but the federal government must do everything in its power to ensure that these governing bodies are doing their jobs.

Quote :

"The President applied his big government philosophy to our energy policy, too. Instead of trusting you and me to determine what sort of fuel economy we prefer in our private vehicles, the President is attempting to force new fuel economy standards on automobile manufacturers. Additionally, he is tampering with the free market in order to reach the probably unachievable goal of "energy independence." If we want the lowest possible energy prices and alternative energy sources to develop, we need to get government out of the energy business and let the free market work. Unfortunately, the President is disregarding the history that made America the great nation she is with his approach of intervention and regulation. "

There Redpath goes again with the typical Libertarian "free market will magically fix everything if you just keep the government from interfering with it" bullshit. The free, relatively unregulated, fuel market is what got us into the mess we're in in the first place. I will not discuss my views on this issue in detail here, but let's just say that our energy crisis is a tragedy of the commons issue which necessitates the government to step in and regulate. Also, look at Redpath's word choice!

Quote :

"Additionally, he is tampering with the free market in order to reach the probably unachievable goal of "energy independence." "

and

Quote :

"If we want the lowest possible energy prices and alternative energy sources to develop, we need to get government out of the energy business and let the free market work."

The tone behind the quotes is that to this guy tempering with the free market is like tempering with the will of God -- i.e. that the free market is absolutely flawless and all-powerful like God and that if we humans just stop interfering with His divine will, the world will be wonderful and everyone will live happily ever after. This is what I said my biggest problem is with the Libertarian party all along.

In addition, I have an issue with this statement

Quote :

" Unfortunately, the President is disregarding the history that made America the great nation she is with his approach of intervention and regulation."

Redpath would be served well to study some U.S. History and learn that it is because of government regulation that we enjoy the standard of living and the quality of life we have today. American workers worked long hours in unsafe conditions for pennies on the dollar and lived with a polluted environment before the federal government stepped in and created agencies like EPA, OSHA, and the like and passed laws concerning labor safety, minimum wage, environmental pollution, etc, not to mention the Sherman Antitrust Act, and other similar laws.

That's all I'm willing to type for now, but I hope you get my point that my problem with Redpath has A LOT more to do with his specific ideas than the fact that he's a Libertarian.

1/26/2007 1:51:55 PM

Quote :

"but I bet I concerse with an order or magnitude more Libertarians/libertarians than you do."

I'd be willing to take that bet.

1/26/2007 2:14:33 PM

only read the first claim of ^^ that idiot

Quote :

"First of all Redpath doesn't understand how the Constitution works. The way it works is by limiting the government's powers by explicitly stating what it cannot do, rather than listing the things it can do."

Let's take a look at the Constitution...

Quote :

"Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

Quote :

"Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

What's that?

[Edited on January 26, 2007 at 6:14 PM. Reason : .]

1/26/2007 6:13:17 PM

^ It's something not nearly as relevant to the discussion as this:

Quote :

"The Congress shall have power …To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

1/26/2007 6:19:03 PM

Boone 1, Bakunin 0



[Edited on January 26, 2007 at 6:30 PM. Reason : ]

1/26/2007 6:29:23 PM

[Edited on January 26, 2007 at 6:30 PM. Reason : ]

1/26/2007 6:30:19 PM

Quote :

""The Congress shall have power …To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.""

Not exactly sure what Boone's point is... but this quote is the last part of Section 8. The "foregoing powers" it is addressing are the 17 specific powers of the Congress- none of which is to ensure everyone gets an education, healthcare, or retirement money. The General welfare clause means the general of the country as a whole and not the specific welfare of special interests such as children, sick people or retirees. The country wasn't set up to fix everyone's problems or fulfill their every want and desire.

Quote :

"study some U.S. History and learn that it is because of government regulation that we enjoy the standard of living and the quality of life we have today."

This is a sad but all too common belief these days. That government is the reason people are successful in the US, not individual achievement and liberty. All goodness flows from politicians to the masses.

Law is force and it should be used very minimally and with good reason. As Bastiat said:
"The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty and property of others"

I think we all would agree that people are not perfect. We make mistakes, we take advantage of situations, we can be weak of will and moral strength. That is precisely why we, as a whole, should never give to much power over us to other people.

1/26/2007 9:46:19 PM

This "demonization" of government is only fairly a recent development in American history, starting mainly in the Reagan administration. It's counterintuitive that less of a government "of the people, for the people and by the people" is a good thing. The only people who really believe in a significantly weakened federal government are business and corporate interests who would rather the government didn't regulate oppressive and an unethical behavior towards citizens. Be it government or private interests, someone will fill the vacuum left when power is dissolved, and at least government has some semblance of accountability and public interest. Its bad enough the degree of influence that lobbyists have in this country.

1/26/2007 10:00:41 PM

^
People have been suspicious of government power much longer than the Reagan presidency.
The gov't we have today is hardly of the people...more like of the politicians and their lust for power.

And even if we grant your feeling that business world wants to be oppressive and act unethically, there is still a big difference. Only the government is granted the power of force, the power to take your property, liberty and life.

"We still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping at the spoil of the multitude. . . . It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without a tribute" - Thomas Paine

1/26/2007 10:45:07 PM

wtf is with all the hippies in this thread.

1/27/2007 10:58:42 AM

Quote :

"That government is the reason people are successful in the US, not individual achievement and liberty. All goodness flows from politicians to the masses. "

that's a bit mellow-dramatic

1/27/2007 11:26:59 AM

they call me mellow yellow

1/27/2007 12:09:43 PM

Quote :

"The General welfare clause means the general of the country as a whole and not the specific welfare of special interests such as children, sick people or retirees."

So promoting the general welfare of individual US citizens has nothing to do with promoting the general welfare of the nation?

1/27/2007 12:14:34 PM

"The Congress shall have power …To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

What part of that does the shit you keep in your skull misunderstand as "limiting the government's powers"?

1/27/2007 1:06:07 PM

So if I demonstrate that divolving into a totalitarian dictatorial government "promotes the general welfare" then I don't need to modify the constitution to do it? Thanks! That's been bothering me for awhile.

1/27/2007 1:34:08 PM

^^It doesn't limit the government's powers; it expands them.

That was my point.

^ That would violate a large portion of the Constitution. Welfare doesn't violate anything.



[Edited on January 27, 2007 at 1:37 PM. Reason : .]

1/27/2007 1:36:09 PM

^ well, that was also my point, so there...

1/27/2007 2:02:22 PM

Interstate commerce is the justification for the feds stealing many of the states governing rights. according to the constitution, the feds can regulate anything that has to do with interstate commerce, and now-a-days, almost everything can be tied to interstate commerce.

1/27/2007 2:07:09 PM

Well, we interpret that way because we want to. It says we can regulate interstate commerce, not anything that impacts interstate commerce. This is not a misinterpretation, it is law by court. We feel the Federal Government should regulation everything that impacts interstate commerce, so we do so.

1/27/2007 3:32:55 PM

EarthDogg:

Quote :

"The General welfare clause means the general of the country as a whole and not the specific welfare of special interests such as children, sick people or retirees."

What? Since when are "children, sick people or retirees" (sic) a special interest group? Every adult was a child once, and the majority of the population is comprised of families with children, so promoting the welfare of children is part of promoting general welfare. The same can be said for the sick (since everyone gets sick every so often) and retirees.

Quote :

"This is a sad but all too common belief these days. That government is the reason people are successful in the US, not individual achievement and liberty. All goodness flows from politicians to the masses. "

I never said that. All I said was that U.S. history indicates that the quality of life that we enjoy today in this country would be much lower were it not for some government regulation. I was trying to back up my statement that it is wrong for Libertarians to view the free market the way Christians view God -- as an all-powerful force that is absolutely perfect and has the power to fix all problems, and should, therefore, not be tempered with. And let's not forget that many, if not the majority, of us in the U.S. DO owe much of our success to the government. Notice I said "much of" so I am not trying to downplay the value of hard work, determination, making the right choices, etc. What I am saying, however, is that, just as an example, I am one of many successful professionals in the U.S. who wouldn't be where they are today without the government's help. I attended public school, and then a public university, where I got my degree. All of the cost of my primary and secondary education and much of the cost of my higher education was paid with tax money (i.e. by the government) and the rest by student loans borrowed at a low interest rate from... you guessed it... the government. Now I have a good job and make good money -- money that would have no value if it weren't backed by -- can you guess? -- that's right, the government. I drive to and from my job as well as other places on public roads maintained by -- could it be? -- the government. I could go on, but you get my point.

Quote :

"I think we all would agree that people are not perfect. We make mistakes, we take advantage of situations, we can be weak of will and moral strength. That is precisely why we, as a whole, should never give to much power over us to other people. "

I agree with this 100% in principle. The only thing we don't agree on is how much power is too much. See, I am not advocating a totalitarian regime here; all I'm saying is that the extremely limited government that Libertarians envision is inpractical in this day and age.

Let me also say this: I was a Libertarian for years, so I know where you're coming from. However, as I said earlier, I am not one any more. And do you know when I stopped being a Libertarian? I can't name a specific time, since changing my political views was a process that took months if not longer, but I started having strong doubts about my then Libertarian ideas around the time I got my first real job after graduating from NCSU and started supporting myself. Libertarian ideas seem great when mom and dad are paying all your bills while you take classes in college, but once you get out into the real world and start supporting yourself and paying bills like your mom and dad do, you find out that Libertarian ideas are utterly inpractical in the real world. (Just to clarify, by you, I don't mean EarthDogg specifically, but anyone in general.)

1/27/2007 5:17:08 PM

Quote :

"U.S. history indicates that the quality of life that we enjoy today in this country would be much lower were it not for some government regulation"

I'm glad you said "some", when I first read this sentence I was kinda eager to lash out at you... But now that I realize even you believe U.S. history indicates the quality of life we enjoy today would be much higher without "most", which is what is left over after you exclude "some", of the current regulation.

But I'm left wondering why you felt it necessary to drop this uncontroversial statement. Libertarians join you in praising "some government regulation", such as laws with penalties against force and fraud.

Quote :

"I attended public school, and then a public university, where I got my degree. All of the cost of my primary and secondary education and much of the cost of my higher education was paid with tax money (i.e. by the government) and the rest by student loans borrowed at a low interest rate from... you guessed it... the government."

Without the Government all these things would still exist. The argument most libertarians make is that a Society free of the hindrance and dead-weight-loss created by government would be quite a bit wealthier. Yes, you have a great salary today, but without the government that salary would be quite a bit larger (before taxes, not just after). So, even at a higher interest rate you could have easily borrowed all the money you did at a higher interest rate and even paid for your own primary education (unlikely to be necessary since your parents would also have been richer) and been easily able to pay it off.

[Edited on January 27, 2007 at 6:12 PM. Reason : .,.]

1/27/2007 6:06:40 PM

Quote :

"....paid with tax money (i.e. by the government) "

Remember that the government didn't generate the money you used for your education. Gov't can only appropriate money from someone else. That means the money you got was taken from another. That is money that they could've spent on their hopes and dreams instead of yours.

Taking money from one person and transferring it to someone else (or a business, or another country) is not promoting the general welfare.

Quote :

"money that would have no value if it weren't backed by -- can you guess? -- that's right, the government."

The government has been pretty much responsible for the dollar losing about 95% of its buying power since 1913. Eventually, there will be nothing left to back.

As L-Snark stated, I am not against all gov't. You need the police to deal with internal crime, the army to protect us from foreign threats and a justice system that protects us from force and fraud. The State should be collective force used to protect the individual's life, liberty and property.

I'm not saying you want a totalitarian state. But things ran along fairly smoothly before there was the plethora of regulation minutia that intrudes into our daily lives. People are so used to the stranglehold gov't has us in, they forget the blessings of freedom, they reject the responsibilities that a truly free citizen must face. Many today would rather have the gov't control their lives so they don't have to.

Our country used to be a sea of liberty with small islands of gov't control. Today we are a sea of go'vt control with very few islands of liberty.

1/27/2007 10:52:50 PM