Big corporations don’t merely sell out Chinese dissidents to their government

One telecom company said “no.” It was Qwest. The Qwest response to overtures was simple: “We’d love to work with you on this. But you do need to change the law so we can do it legally.” Apparently as soon as that happened, Qwest lost a series of important government contracts. And the next thing you know, the Justice Department was feverishly working on a criminal investigation looking at Qwest’s CEO on insider trading allegations—amidst very strange dealings between the Justice Department and the federal judge hearing the case. Of course, this is all the purest coincidence. Or maybe not. What kind of society does this sound like?

Here’s a confession: I actually don’t know what I think about Ron Paul when I think of all the responsibilities of a president. And I, frankly, get tired of hearing about what a perfect document the Constitution is and how it should be followed forever and ever world without end.

But sometimes I don’t care. I just want to vote for the guy who will spend his term trying to destroy these bureaucracies. Just promise you will raise unemployment in the Virginia and Maryland capital suburbs by, say, ninety percent, and you will have my vote.

The question is now before the Senate for a vote on the telecom amnesty bill. As usual, the White-Flag Democrats are abandoning opposition to the Administration’s initiative and are laying the foundation for it to be steamrolled through the Senate. Harry Reid’s conduct in particular has been reprehensible and spineless. This vote is a milestone on the road to serfdom. It’s time to put up a roadblock instead. Write or phone your senator immediately and advise them that you oppose the grant of amnesty for warrantless surveillance to telecommunications companies and that you expect them to do the same.

6 thoughts on “Big corporations don’t merely sell out Chinese dissidents to their government

  1. David

    While I don’t think Ron Paul is credible, I would think he is more credible if he actually spelled out a plan of what he was going to cut and how he was going to do it. For example: “I will eliminate 100% of all block grants and correspondingly reduce income taxes by the same amount.”

    Paul was actually running radio ads in New Hampshire that ended by saying “… and there will still be enough money to help those who need it.” Since when do libertarians believe that the Federal government is supposed to provide welfare to anyone?

    Of course, in eight weeks, Ron Paul will simply be an obscure footnote in Presidential politics.

    There is one encouraging take away: A lot of people have been willing to volunteer and donate money to someone who symbolizes a diminished federal government. Perhaps a better candidate will be able to build on this in 4 of 8 years.

    Reply
  2. Xon

    David, you know how soundbytes are. Incomplete by their very nature. In a one minute radio commercial, or a 30 second tv spot, there is only so much you can say. Paul spells his position out much more clearly elsewhere.

    He doesn’t believe in welfare, but he also doesn’t believe in ending it overnight. And, let’s face it, we all know what would happen if he DID advocate ending it all overnight. He says that people who have become dependent upon these policies can be supported with money we save by pulling back our military empire, all while allowing the younger generation to opt out of the system. He wants full privatization, but he is realistic about having to set goals and move incrementally. So he starts with the thing a president has most control over, which is foreign policy. He will need Congressional support for most other things, and so he can hardly come in saying “In my first week I will end all welfare.”

    His plan, more or less, is to use his executive authority as commander in chief to pull back our military empire. That will save us hundreds of billions of dollars every year, and will allow us (with a few other immediate cuts in spending) to eliminate the IRS and the income tax, and to float old people’s soc security through while we get younger people into private alternatives.

    And if you are waiting for someone better than Ron Paul, you’ll be waiting a lot longer than 4 to 8 years. He is Reagan on steroids. He will actually do things Reagan only said he wanted to do. And he’s backed up his talk for 10 terms in Congress.

    I agree with Mark, though, that the constitution is not divine. But for crying out loud, it’s clearly better to follow it than to follow cynical men with power, who float every which way as if on the breeze. We have established this document as our supreme civil law; we should have the integrity to follow it or else to admit openly that it’s insufficient and do something else.

    Reply
  3. Andrew

    If it helps ease your potential for concern, Mark, it is very easy to choose Dr. Paul solely by a process of elimination: of the big 5 (Giuliani, McCain, Huckabee, Romney, and Paul), only three are socially conservative, and only three are what most would consider fiscally conservative. Of them, only Paul and McCain are both. So choose from those two; for me the choice is easy since back in 2002 Ron Paul accurately predicted what would happen in this war.

    Of course this assumes you won’t be voting Democrat; but if you are, I can give you some great reasons why they will all be horrible presidents as well.

    Reply
  4. Jon Luker

    And I, frankly, get tired of hearing about what a perfect document the Constitution is and how it should be followed forever and ever world without end.

    Just like I’m sure you get tired of TRs treating the WCF the same way. 🙂 But seriously, I have heard Ron Paul several times say that the Constitution is not a perfect document. But, it’s what we have, it’s pretty darned good, and it provides for its own amendment. And sticking to this imperfect document is a clearer path to the founders’ intention of a free and prosperous country than the lawless tyranny we enjoy now.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.