David McElroy

When discussing NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg, I have trouble deciding whether “arrogant” or “condescending” is a better word to describe him. Based on his latest statement at the UN last week, it’s only fair to use both, at a minimum.

What do you believe government’s “highest duty” is? If you still believe coercive government is legitimate, what is its top priority? When he’s not being hugged by giant hotdogs, Bloomberg apparently believes it’s government’s primary duty to make sure you that you make healthy decisions for your life, including forcing you to eat as he thinks you should eat:

Speaking on the government’s role in diet and health last week, Bloomberg told the UN General Assembly, “There are powers only governments can exercise, policies only governments can mandate and enforce and results only governments can achieve. To halt the worldwide epidemic of non-communicable diseases, governments at all levels must make healthy solutions the default social option. That is ultimately government’s highest duty.”

Bloomberg has been known for years for his efforts to force restaurants to cut down on the amount of salt they use, even though there’s never been a real scientific basis for the recommendation to cut salt intake. But once food nannies get something in their minds, the actual facts don’t matter. All that matters is forcing you to obey them.

Keep Reading

We’ve been told over and over that nobody could have reasonably predicted the 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States. The people who say this believe the terrorists “hate us for our freedom.” If it was so hard to predict that we were going to be attacked, why did Ron Paul warn the nation about it almost three years before it happened?

I remember Dec. 16, 1998 very well. President Bill Clinton was in the middle of impeachment hearings in the House of Representatives. For the crime of lying under oath about a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky, congressional Republicans were trying to throw him out of office. Clinton’s actions were slimy, unprincipled and illegal, but hardly qualifying of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Clinton was the ultimate political animal, so he did what politicians like to do when they’re in trouble. He wrapped himself in the flag and took invented an excuse to attack a country.

Although most people saw through the political motivations for the air attacks on Iraq which killed hundreds of innocent Iraqis, U.S. Rep. Ron Paul stood virtually alone in opposing the attack for the right reasons. At a news conference at the House, Paul laid out his arguments very clearly. He seemed quite angry. Take the four minutes or so to watch this video clip from that news conference. Right around the three-minute mark, you’ll hear Paul explaining that U.S. policy was not only killing innocent people, but it was also making it more likely that U.S. military personnel were going to be killed and that the United States would be attacked by terrorists.

Keep Reading

When someone we care about hurts, it’s natural to feel the pain ourselves. That empathy is one of the most important parts of being a loving person. In our action-oriented Western culture, it’s hard to remember that understanding is frequently more important than solving someone’s problem.

This issue has been on my mind this morning because of something I found out late last night. Someone I care about greatly is going through a tremendous amount of pain, and I’m not in a position to do anything about it. What do you do when you can’t make someone’s pain stop and you can’t fix everything that’s wrong?

Keep Reading