In this short video from LearnLiberty, Steve Horwitz puts his finger on one of the many issues that are too frequently overlooked these days in discussions of income inequality. (At the end of this video, you’ll find a link to the full debate between Steve and Jeff Reiman on income differences.)
Writing in today’s New York Post – no bastion of non-interventionism on the foreign-policy front – Seth Lipsky vigorously defends Sen. Rand Paul’s recent filibuster on the Senate floor. Here are two slices (with a most-appropriate condemnation of Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham):
Those questions [regarding Pres. Obama's foreign policy] deserved to be pressed and debated out in the open, particularly because our president hasn’t deigned to make a public case for what he has been doing – neither for the drone warfare nor for his failure to seek a vote in the Congress before launching a war in Libya.
So Paul deserved an answer to the question he put to the Justice Department. He was comfortably within his prerogatives. And it’s outrageous for Sen. Lindsey Graham to assert – as he did yesterday – that Paul’s question is somehow offensive.
But, in sharp contradistinction to Sens. McCain and Graham, I find it nigh impossible to imagine a situation in which it is wrong for Rand Paul to press the president on a constitutional question. The Republican Party is lucky to have someone prepared to do so.