Benjamin Franklin is supposed to have said, quite presciently, “When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” Americans found out in a big way during the 20th century that they could rob their neighbors via the voting booth. And senior citizens, among the most regular and outspoken voters, made sure they got the lion’s share of the loot with two huge entitlement programs: Medicare and Social Security.
When the House of Representatives announced new rules for the Congress that convenes on Wednesday, the mainstream media immediately called them “strict” and even “unprecedented.” The first new rule to take effect will be the reading of the Constitution of the United States and its 27 amendments on the floor of the chamber.
CBS News writer E. J. Dionne has asked if 2010 was "Liberalism's Waterloo." First, let's consider the term. What exactly is “liberalism”? Our Founding Fathers would have considered the term rationally. The root of the term “liberalism” is the Latin word for liberty or freedom. Who today associates liberalism with liberty? In the minds of its present-day adherents, the word may stand for “fairness,” “security,” “social justice,” “progressivism,” or several other phrases which, superficially, seem benign.
Within the next few weeks, the law-abiding citizens of the State of California will find that their constitutionally guaranteed rights to self-defense and to be secure in their personal records against "unreasonable searches and seizures" have been violated once again. On February 1, the provisions of a 2009 law — AB 962 — will go into effect, with new reporting requirements for the purchase of ammunition, and the essential elimination of the rights of Californians to order ammunition from out of state.
Tea Party support helped coast a number of congressional candidates to victory in the 2010 midterm elections. However, whether those victors will stay true to their alleged Tea Party values remains to be seen. For example, politicians affiliated with the movement have come under harsh criticism for their hypocritical stance on earmarks, as many of the same people who lashed out against earmarks have requested a number of them.