We are so often told by liberals that the United States should be modeled after Scandinavian countries. Liberals tell us that their socialistic societies should be revered. Evidently, Norwegians are singing a different tune. It seems that Norwegians are becoming less and less accepting of high taxes to finance their social welfare state.

Because of their welfare state, Norwegians are among the most heavily taxed people in the world. Consequently, the cost of goods and services in Norway is excessive. For example, a glass of wine at an everyday restaurant costs $16 U.S. A gallon of gas costs almost $9 U.S. The tax on cars doubles the cost of the car itself. The Big Government of Norway has determined that these taxes are necessary to help the environment, another reason to be against Al Gore.

Comically, many Norwegian citizens are claiming that they do not get anything in return for their taxes. Is it surprising that the Government is ineffective at providing services even with excessive taxes? Yet, we are still told daily by people like Michael Moore and Bill Maher that European governments are more efficient than ours. Clearly, big government is just as inefficient in Europe as the United States.

Finally, in a scientific study conducted by the Norwegian Tax Payers Association (Skattebetalerforeningen), it was found that 67 percent of the population think Norway's inheritance taxes are too high (Even Norwegians hate the death tax), while 63 percent think fuel taxes are too high. Norway's hefty 25 percent sales tax on nearly all consumer items is considered too high by 53 percent of the population.

The predictable Big Government liberals are back at it again. With a ploy to save the children, they are going to destroy the cigar industry in America through excessive taxation. Evidently, there is nothing that the Democrats won't try to fix with a tax hike.

The Democrats claim that their "destroy the cigar industry bill" will help generate an extra 35-50 billion in tax revenues that can then be used to pay for a children’s insurance program. The bill would also raise the federal tax on cigarettes from 39 cents to a dollar a pack. This raise apparently is not enough for the Dems as they have turned to target cigars.

Now the bill doesn’t have much chance to pass as the President has already indicated that he will veto any expansion of current entitlement programs. Let’s keep in mind, however, that congress currently wants to keep entitlement plans solvent while simultaneously increasing the size of them. We all see where this is going.

Moreover, Democrats are counting on the negative attitude the public has toward tobacco in order to bypass the outrage of cigar smokers. I do not believe this attempt at a sin tax will work however.

The public supports sin taxes when they actually work. The tax increase on cigarettes, though I disagree with it, will not cause much of an outrage because it is modest in its scope. The $10 tax on cigars will destroy the American cigar industry. (I thought liberals cared about losing American manufacturing jobs?) No sane person will pay $20 for a $10 cigar.

What’s more is that Democrats are flat out lying when they say they want to generate tax revenues from cigars to pay for their entitlement program. Their program is based on funds generated from this tax. Yet, where are these revenues going to come from when there is no more American cigar industry?

More so then anything, this demonstrates that congressional Democrats are unwilling and unable to lead seriously. Democrats told us that the reason we hadn’t seen their ideas is because they were in the minority. Fair enough. But they have been in the majority for 6 months now. In these 6 months they have only had tax increases and late night slumber parties to offer us. I guess that’s how you get a 14% approval rating.


Related Editorials
Liberals And Taxes
Bloomberg: The Biggest Little Man in Big Government
Compassionate Politicians

Amazingly, new polls show just 14% of Americans have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in Congress. That is the lowest rating ever. Nevertheless, yesterday, the Democrats engaged in the most shameful activity in a long time. In order to trick their base into believing they want to pull the troops out of Iraq, they pulled an all-nighter and now they want a pay raise. Yes, Congress thinks that by dragging cots into Congress and then sneaking out at night to go home, they will convince the public they are against the War in Iraq. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Contrary to popular belief, the resolution that Harry Reid claims will end the Iraq war will do no such thing. In fact, it simply seeks to attain meaningless redeployment. Many, if not most, troops will stay in Iraq. Since that is the case, I think I will leave it to the Generals to decide where our troops are deployed over Nancy Pelosi.

It is so pathetic that this Democrat Congress has managed to not take a stand on any issue since being in office. They are too worried that if they show their true liberal colors, they will lose the next election. So, instead they cater to their base with nothing but pure showmanship. But, I have to admit, nobody is a better showman that Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia). The “former” member of the KKK sure knows how to keep someone awake. Let me leave you now with Robert Byrd. Enjoy.

I am so sick of seeing Republican candidates pretend to be fiscally conservative and then spend more money than John Edwards at a salon. John McCain voted for Medicare Part D, which has become a fiscal nightmare. Moreover, John McCain’s campaign is almost broke, demonstrating just how fiscally responsible he is likely to be with our money.

Where did the money go? I do not know about you, but if I have to ask that question now, I am for sure that I will have to ask that question if he is President. At lead the Democrats tell us up front that they are going to tax and spend us like crazy. I appreciate the honesty, but $2.9 trillion is beyond abominable.

Mitt Romney is not without shame either. He spent $31,500 to rent the Boston Red Sox’s Fenway Park for a barbecue, $300 for makeup work, and $4.9 million in television ads. If he claims he is going to cut discretionary spending to minus 1% of inflation, maybe he plans to fund the rest of that 1% with his own money, just like he is doing with his own campaign. Romney had to lend his committee $6.5 million recently, allowing him to cover the difference between $20.5 million he spent and the $14 million he raised.

That brings us to Fred Thompson. Thompson seems to have taken my advice and waited even longer to enter the race. It not only saves money, but it makes him into a mythical candidate without getting into the muckraking. Nevertheless, the fact that he has barely spent any money and is in the lead in some polls demonstrates he is exactly what we need in Washington.

We need a “lazy” politician like Fred Thompson to cut spending, do nothing, and go home after a job well done.

A recent article in the Guardian makes some interesting points:

It is in the nature of court cases that findings of guilt lend an artificial certainty to the world. Black will now find himself spoken of as another Robert Maxwell. But while Black's detractors were quickly out of the traps to say "we told you so", it became clear during the trial that nothing going on at Hollinger was in the same league as the Mirror under Maxwell. Before his trial the result had been seen even by Black's circle as a foregone conclusion. "There's no way a blue collar jury in Chicago can let a man who looks like Conrad off every charge," said one of his friends to me, before the trial began.

Given that the central charges failed, it does make me wonder if he was convicted of being unapologetic about being rich and being called Lord Black? Perhaps the verdict had as much to do with the jury selection process and where the prosecution chose to hold the trial than whatever Lord Black actually did or did not do. In that vein, could this be some foreshadowing of the American Left's war on success and prosperity?

Related Editorials:
Democrats Declare War 0n American Prosperity
George Bush Appropriately Commutes Lewis "Scooter" Libby's Sentence
Liberal Media Perpetuates Ignorance about the Seattle School District’s Supreme Court Case

CNN posted a list of Hollywood celebrity campaign donations recently. As expected, they are all a bunch of liberals. What I found interesting, however, was not necessarily who contributed to each candidate, but who CNN highlighted.

Instead of highlighting liberal celebrity idiots who contributed to multiple Democrat candidates, CNN posted a big picture of Tony Sirico, actor, “Paulie Walnuts” on “The Sopranos.” Sirico was one of only two people on CNN's list that contributed to a Republican.

No sane person looking at the list below could possibly think that talking about Tony Sirico should have been the story. The story was clearly the absence of Republican celebrities. But, I guess CNN would not want to acknowledge the fact that Hollywood is filled with a bunch of left-wing lunatics.

Now, it should be mentioned that CNN actually had to physically input each name that they posted on their site into the government database, so it is possible that many republicans were left out by pure chance. However, this does beg the question, "What led a balanced network like CNN to leave out Republicans in the first place?" There has to be at least one celebrity who contributed to Fred Thompson. For god's sake, he is a celebrity.

Here is the list if you would like to examine it for yourself. (source)

HILLARY CLINTON (D)
* Ruby Dee, actress: $250
* Danny DeVito, actor: $2,300
* Fran Drescher, TV’s “The Nanny”: $2,300
* Joely Fisher, actress $4,600
* Tom Hanks, actor: $2,300
* Ed Helms, actor, “Andy Bernard” in NBC’s “The Office”: $250
* Sharon Lawrence, “NYPD Blue” co-star: $1,000
* Tobey Maguire, actor $4,600
* Marla Maples, actress: $1,000
* Paul Newman, actor: $4,600
* Rhea Perlman, actress $2,300
* Pauly Shore, actor $1,000
* Ben Stiller, actor $6,900 ($4,600 is the legal limit)
* George Takei, actor $1,000
* Lily Tomlin, actress $2,000
* Rita Wilson, actress $2,300
* Joanne Woodward, actress $4,600

CHRIS DODD (D)
* John Lithgow, actor: $1000
* Christy Romano, actress, singer, voice of “Kim Possible”: $300

JOHN EDWARDS (D)
* Oliver Stone, director: $500
* Mary Steenburgen, actress: $2300
* Ben Stiller, actor: $4600
* Peter Coyote, actor: $1054
* Sharon Lawrence, actress: $1000

MIKE GRAVEL (D)
* Mark Ruffalo, actor: $700

BARACK OBAMA (D)
* Adam Arkin, actor $250
* Paul Dooley, actor $2,300
* Jodie Foster, actress $1,000
* Jamie Foxx, actor $2,300
* Martha Hackett, “Star Trek” actress $2,300
* Bruce Hornsby, singer $2,300
* Anna Horsford, “Amen” actress $500
* Cedric “The Entertainer” Kyles, actor $2,500
* Eriq La Salle, actor $500
* Paul Newman, actor $4,600
* Tom Skerritt, actor $1,000
* Jean Smart, actress $4,600
* Jada Smith, actress $4,600
* Will Smith, actor $4,600
* David Sutcliffe, “Gilmore Girls” Actor $1,250
* Isaiah Washington, former “Grey’s Anatomy” Actor $2,300
* Joanne Woodward, Actress $4,600

DENNIS KUCINICH (D)
* Shelley Morrison, actress (“Rosario” on “Will and Grace”): $1600
* Alexandra Paul, actress, “Baywatch” co-star: $1300
* Deirdre Hall, “Days of Our Lives” actress: $1000
* Hector Elizondo, actor: $300

BILL RICHARDSON (D)
* Michael Douglas, actor: $3100
* Val Kilmer, actor: $2300
* Paul Newman, actor: $2300
* Edward James Olmos, actor: $2300
* Wendie Malick, “Just Shoot Me” actress: $500
* Steven Spielberg, director: $2300
* Kate Capshaw, actress, wife of Steven Spielberg: $2300
* Jodie Foster, actress: $1000
* Christie Brinkley, self-described as “Model/Mom/Environmental activist”: $500
* Bette Midler, actress/singer: $4600
* Sherry Lansing, former film executive: $2300
* William Friedkin, director: $2300
* James L. Brooks, producer/writer: $1000

RUDY GIULIANI (R)
* Tony Sirico, actor, “Paulie Walnuts” on “The Sopranos”: $1000 <-----------Here's CNN's Story!!
* Melissa Gilbert, actress: $4600


Related Editorials
Celebrity Experts
Bono and the Myth of Forced Compassion
Fred Thompson: Gaining Political Momentum Without Leaving His Chair
Paris Hilton: Liberal Activist in the Making
Hillary and The Sopranos
A Quick Word About "The Sopranos"

Given the Libertarian slant of this web page, I think it most appropriate to push a book that discusses certain elements of this country and their attempts at eradicating personal responsibility and instituting a nanny state. David Harsanyi is releasing a new book called “Nanny State: How Food Fascists, Teetotalling Do Gooders, Priggish Moralists, and Other Boneheaded bureaucrats are Turning America into a Nation of Children.”
Harsaanyi describes the book in this following message:

“Nanny State details the rise of the busybody -– those who act as our parents, making decisions for us in the name of health, safety and decency. Nanny State asks: Why are we allowing politicians, bureaucrats, and social activists to dictate what we eat, where we smoke, how much we drink or what we watch and read? The book argues that allowing government intervention in its citizens' private lives not only denies us freedom of choice, but also erodes our national character by promoting a culture of victimhood and dependence.

The target of the nannyists are never-ending: It could be Girl Scout cookies, swing sets, bicycles, cigarettes, alcohol, cartoons … In some Massachusetts towns, school-yard tag is banned. San Francisco has passed laws regulating the amount of water you should use in dog bowls. In California, some towns now ban smoking -- outside. Each day a new, more intrusive, law is proposed. And each day we lose a little more of our freedom.”

This book will know doubt address some of this website's greatest fears. The American left aims to create a generation of people who are forced to be helpless. This is why they relentlessly pursue gun control, tax hikes, limits on personal property and free speech. Of course their reasons for prmoting such initiatives are completly disengenuous (unless your name is Barney Frank). It’s all about forcing you to be reliant on them and their big government. This book will prove to be more evidence that the urge to reform is a disguise for the desire to control.

UPDATE:

Liberals used to tell us that the poor did not eat as well as the rich. Well American prosperity (which the left has now declared war on) eradicated that problem, so now the left has moved to saying that the poor did not eat as nutriciously as the rich - that there was a "diet gap. Well it turns out that that isn't even true. Again, these are all attempts at controlling us.


Related Editorials
Bloomberg: The Biggest Little Man in Big Government
Bono and the Myth of Forced Compassion
Milton Friedman and Why Limited Government Helps the Poor
The Wall Separating Economics and State

The United Nations recently claimed that rising food prices has hindered it from fighting famine in Africa and other regions around the world. It simply can no longer afford it as a result of environmentalists pushing biofuel and ethanol. One of the United Nations’ bureaucratic heads was quoted saying, “In a world where our contributions are holding fairly steady, this [cost of grain] means we are able to reach far less people.” This was so predictable it is astounding. But, I guess liberals will keep trying to push their big government policies and killing people as usual.

On paper you clearly did not need Nostradamus to tell you this plan would lead to disaster. First, the environmentalists encourage people in growing populations to use their food supply as fuel, thereby reducing the supply. People still need to eat, so the price rises. When poor people cannot afford the food they starve. Then add to this brilliant plan a massive bureaucratic nightmare known as the United Nations to use forced compassion to tax citizens and bring food to poor countries. This destroys any agricultural businesses in the poor countries because no business can compete against an influx of “free” food to their region. Those businesses fail because of the United Nations’ aid relief and this further perpetuates the mass starvation.

So now the United Nations is officially worthless. It is ironic, however, that the United Nations has become ineffective as a direct result of liberal environmentalists who are often the United Nations greatest supporters. We can all thank Al Gore and the Green fanatics for yet again killing people in Africa. It is rather sad, though, how fast it took them this time; it took Rachel Carson at least a couple of years before her plan led to the death of millions.

The Democrats may have unleashed a hornet’s nest of harsh criticism that may be impossible to impede. This time the condemnation is not coming from Conservatives, but from the liberal lunatic base. Recently, after realizing that the Democrats only care about power, Cindy Sheehan announced the possibility of running against Nancy Pelosi for the House of Representatives in the next election. Sheehan conditioned her running on whether or not Nancy Pelosi impeaches George Bush and brings the soldiers home from Iraq. While this threat will never cause Nancy Pelosi to bend, it does have very important implications for the 2008 Presidential Election.

Like Ralph Nader’s impact in the 2000 election, Sheehan and her supporters may stay home in 2008 or vote for an unelectable third candidate. Consequently, the Democrats will be forced to seek independent voters to come to their side, which often leads to disappointment.

Moreover, this recent phenomenon with Sheehan and Pelosi is very ironic. Pelosi understands that she must take baby steps in order to prevent public backlash in the next election. Nancy Pelosi knows that the Democrat takeover of Congress in 2006 was not a push for an increase of progressivism, but for an increase in competence and integrity. However, without Pelosi drastically pushing the liberal agenda, she risks losing her base.

To add to the recent attacks from the fringe base liberals, Dennis Kucinich blasted John Edwards and Hillary Clinton on Friday, for demonstrating “a constant lack of integrity” by attempting to exclude candidates from the presidential forums who have no chance of being elected. Kucinich even went so far as to say that Edwards was trying to rig an election.

This feud started when John Edwards approached Hillary Clinton and whispered in her ear. Edwards said, "We should try to have a more serious and a smaller group." Hillary Clinton agreed saying, "Our guys should talk," and whined that the large format that included numerous candidates had "trivialized" the discussion.

Subsequently to Kucinich’s outrage, Edwards made an excuse that he was not in favor of barring anyone from future gatherings. Rather, he said he wanted to see them separated into two groups of four each, chosen randomly. Kucinich did not buy it. In fact he said, "I accept their offer to participate in a debate with just the two of them…John should be happy with this, since he wants a small group." For having no chance of winning, Kucinich is pretty cunning if you ask me.

Nevertheless, Kucinich and Sheehan are likely to mean trouble for the Democrats in 2008. The Democrats with Bush Derangement Syndrome are not going to want Hillary Clinton being elected as “George Bush Light.” Instead, they are going to want a total lunatic like Dennis Kucinich. This is going to be hilarious when all their demands ultimately lead to a Republican President more conservative than Bush.

In an act of pure arrogance and stupidity, Senate Democrats on Friday blocked an amendment that would have prevented the return of the Fairness Doctrine, a federal rule that gives the government, not only the ability to license and regulate the public airways, but allows government control of political content as well.

South Dakota Sen. John Thune, Minnesota Sen. Norm Coleman and other Republicans have been attempting to mirror the actions of Mike Pence (R-IN). Pence effectively thwarted the reimplementation of the Fairness Doctrine in the House of Representatives. We should all be proud to have politicians working for the American people as diligently at him.

Sadly, however, when Coleman (R-Minn.), tried to bring up his amendment Friday to a defense authorization bill, Democrat Senator Carl Levin objected.

More frightening, Senator Levin is not the only communist who supports the Fairness Doctrine. For example, Senator John Kerry, Senator Dick Durbin, and Dianne Feinstein support this Stalinist legislation as well. In fact, Senator Dick Durbin and John Kerry have been very open in saying that it is time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine.

Dick Durbin went on the Senate floor Friday to spout socialistic rhetoric. Durbin said, "The airwaves belong to the American people." Consequently, he thinks he should be in charge of banning conservative viewpoints of which he disagrees. He went on to say, "Those who profit from them do by permission of the people through their government." What nonsensical blabber. Saying that companies on the radio airways only profit “by permission of the people through their government,” is reminiscent of the Soviet Union or the recent media takeover in Venezuela by Hugo Chavez.

Evidently, it is not enough that 90% of all university professors identify themselves as liberal and openly attempt to indoctrinate students. It is not enough that virtually all journalists in the mainstream media also identify themselves as liberal, and consequently skew their news stories to meet their liberal templates. Now liberals seek to use government power to attack the last conservative stronghold in the media, the radio airways.

It is amazing how far liberals have gone in this Country. They used to say, “I may disagree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Moreover, John F. Kennedy stated, “We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.” We clearly have no more liberals in this Country, only communists.

At a recent International Women's Peace Conference in Dallas, Betty Williams said, "Right now, I could kill George Bush. No, I don't mean that. How could you nonviolently kill somebody? I would love to be able to do that." As a result of these detestable comments, some member of the audience cheered; others laughed. It is nice to see what actions are promoted at a Women’s Peace Conference.

While some may think it is ironic that this violent rhetoric was spouted at a venue that promoted peace, by a Nobel Peace Prize Winner, none of this surprises me. It is in fact very typical.

The reason why this does not surprise me is because I have researched past nominees and winners of the Nobel Peace Prize. Past nominees include: Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Benito Mussolini, Fidel Castro, and Tookie Willaims. Jimmy Carter even won the Nobel Peace Prize; being objectively the worst American President automatically awards someone first place. Had they added Rachel Carson to the list, think they could have nominated people responsible for 80% of all the involuntary deaths over the last century.

It is about time that people on the left start admitting that they are only nonviolent when it is expedient. Cindy Sheehan said she had fantasies about killing George Bush. A liberal movie maker made a movie about the “hypothetical” assassination of George Bush. A liberal blogger just advocated the assassination of Rush Limbaugh and Ted Nugent. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said that people who disagree with anthropogenic global warming are traitors and should be treated like traitors; the penalty for treason is death.

So, liberal peace activists demonstrate that violence is never the option. It is never an option at least until the situation gets so bad that it is time to beg for the United States’ military to come to the rescue. Let these militant peace activists be a lesson to you all that this will not be the last time where liberals are hypocritical. In fact, it is what makes them liberals in the first place.

The always well written Peggy Noonan column today suggests that she is uncomfortable with President Bush’s lack of gloominess with respect to his current difficulties. Noonan makes references to Lyndon Johnson and Abraham Lincoln and refers to the struggles they faced at the lowest levels of their Presidencies. Noonan apparently is not satisfied with the President’s level of suffering and self pity. As if having a bad attitude somehow corresponds to being an effective leader.

Though Carter was a horrible President he struggled as well with his Presidential problems. Did this inner doom make him a better President? Where is Noonan on this? Where was Noonan on Harry Truman’s lonely days in the Oval Office? I find it quite ironic that the woman who wrote President Reagan’s uplifting and optimistic address to the nation after the Challenger disaster now has a problem with George Bush’s positive outlook.

Noonan is usually dead on but accusing the President of being too optimistic is just plain weird. Perhaps all those leftist Columbia Journalism grads that fill all sections of the Wall Street Journal (except for the usually reliable editorial page) are starting to get to her. Perhaps the woman who accuses politicians of spending too much time in Washington has spent too much time in Manhattan.


Related Editorials
George Bush is Our Jimmy Carter
Kick 'em While They're Down?
President Bush Outwits Team Clinton