This all started on Sunday morning as I switched through the TV channels I caught an exchange on This Sunday between Al Sharpton, Ron Brownstein, and George Will. Ron Brownstein said that there are many people who are attending Tea Party events and Town Hall meetings to express their anger over a government that is trying to take control of too much of their lives and spending too much. Al Sharpton said that people are right to want protection by the government. Brownstein answered that there are people who want protection from too much government. George Will agreed with Brownstein, but Al then said that debate is over since there was an election and we won. Then George Will answered that is why the founding fathers had the wisdom to make an election occur every two years.

This little exchange got me thinking about services and controls and the corresponding tax burden put upon taxpayers for it. I thought that in addition to an election occurring every two years there are also people voting with their feet. By that I mean that people are just moving out of a state that bundles numerous high-quality public benefits with high taxes and into a state that offers packages of low benefits and low taxes. They are not waiting on an election to get a government that best satisfies their set of preferences.

I came across an excellent column at the City Journal, The Big-Spending, High-Taxing, Lousy-Services Paradigm. This column compared the two most populated states in the US, California and Texas. California became the nation’s most populous state in 1962; Texas climbed into second place in 1994. They are broadly similar: populous Sunbelt states with large metropolitan areas, diverse economies, and borders with Mexico producing comparable demographic mixes. They are broadly different: California bundles numerous high-quality public benefits with high taxes and Texas offers packages of low benefits and low taxes. While Texas’s share of the nation’s population has steadily increased, from 6.8 percent in 1990 to 7.9 percent in 2007, California’s has barely budged, from 12 percent to 12.1 percent.

This is growing evidence that the low-benefit, low-tax alternative succeeds not only on its own terms but also according to the criteria used by defenders of high benefits and high taxes. Whatever theoretical claims are made for imposing high taxes to provide generous government benefits, the practical reality is that these public goods are, increasingly, neither public nor good: their beneficiaries are mostly the service providers themselves, and their quality is poor. The beneficiaries are mostly the service providers themselves is what got me to thinking about the consequences of term limits.

With tax revenues scarce and voters strongly opposed to surrendering more of their income, Texas officials devote a large share of their expenditures to basic services that benefit the most people. In California, by contrast, more and more spending consists of either transfer payments to government dependents (as in welfare, health, housing, and community development programs) or generous payments to government employees and contractors (reflected in administrative costs, pensions, and general expenditures).

The resistance to making California more like Texas comes from sitting state legislators, that like California’s public sector just fine the way it is and see reform as a threat to their comfortable, lucrative arrangements. It turns out, for example, that all the pointless boards and commissions are bulletproof because they provide golden parachutes to politicians turned out of the state legislature by California’s strict term limits. Until reading this column I had not considered this consequence of having strict term limits. I do recall Art Chance saying how these folks stay on the government gravy train in this labyrinth of government bureaucracy when they do not win elections. They have extra reasons to grow the government that I had not considered.

Then I went to look at the states with strict term limits, and see how they compare to California. I discovered this excellent website state health facts dot org. For State budget shortfalls in 2009 they ranked the 50 states and Washington DC with 51 being the highest budget shortfall and 1 being the lowest.

Here are the results of some of the states that have strict term limits:

51. California
49. Florida
47. Arizona
42. Nevada
40. Ohio
38. Michigan

Here are the results of some of the states that have no strict term limits:

1. Texas
1. North Dakota
1. West Virginia
6. Alabama
6. Alaska
6. Indiana

I have never lived in any of these states with strict term limits, and if any resident disagrees with my thinking that this term limits idea is not working to get you a responsible government, then bring it. I do not think term limits will yield good government, nor do I think McCain-Feingold laws are going to yield good government. It is left up to We the People to be vigilant in electing folks of good character. We are in danger of losing more and more of our sweet liberty if we think the government should be providing more and more services to us. Those services are too expensive and are mostly beneficial to those elected instead of being beneficial to the voters.

Today Walter Williams writes and excellent column, American Idea. I encourage you to read the entire article. He basically describes how the major difference between Americans and the rest of the world is the healthy distrust and suspicion Americans have had for government. Unfortunately these sentiments are not shared as much by today’s Americans.

This distrust is evident in the Bill of Rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, Electoral College, and constitution amendment process requirements. The creation of this nation’s framework was not designed out of a desire for speed, efficiency, and good intentions impulses, but rather out of a suspicion and distrust of government.

It certainly has worked out well to grow a collection of diverse colonies into the most powerful nation on the planet. Unfortunately, the debates we have these days does not include as part of the debate the question in my title.

As we lose the healthy suspicion and distrust of government, then we move toward less liberty and greater governmental control of our lives.

Barack’s America is a land in which women would be forced into having abortions, conservatives would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down conservative talk-radio hosts’ doors in raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about American exceptionalism, conservative writers and artists would be censored at the whim of government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of conservatives citizens for whom the judiciary is often the only protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy.

The recent action of Dave Checketts to drop Rush from a group seeking to buy the St. Louis Rams angers and saddens me. I do not see this action as any violation of rights, but rather a misguided business decision. This reflects on our society and culture with respect to how ALL authentic conservatives, not just Rush are being characterized and treated.

A business decision can be sound or a failure. The coming weeks of NFL football game attendance and TV audience size will tell us if it is a sound business decision to disrespect football fans who are also conservative or not. I really don’t know from a business perspective what the outcome will be.

This nation, from the beginning, has been divisive in nature. At first there was a divide between loyalists and patriots. The patriots won. After this victory the nation grew in size, strength, and wealth for about 130 years. Then some ideas from Europe began showing up in America. Teachers, artists, writers, and newspaper columnists started asserting the ideas of the nation’s Founding Fathers are just old-fashioned and no longer apply in modern times. Americans have slowly accepted these assertions in a fashion that Robert Bork lays out in his book, Slouching Toward Gomorrah. In Barack’s America the slouch has turned into a sprint.

Rush’s brother David wrote an excellent column today, This isn’t about Rush, that I encourage everyone to read. The only part I disagreed with David is when he writes that a smidgen of our outrage should be for those lukewarm conservatives who contribute to the destruction of race relations and advancement of liberal causes by pandering to false characterizations of authentic conservatives. My disagreement is that I think the outrage should be more than just a smidgen.

Rush is not afraid to stand up to the people Ken Hutcherson calls poverty pimps who are nothing but slave sliders and pushers to get their way. To be afraid and pander would be a racist condescension that is just not Rush. I especially liked this comment by Hutch on Rush’s Thursday radio program:

How in the world can the NFL — and I’m going to tell you something else, brother, straight from me, who played football. Those African-American brothers who talk about they wouldn’t play? That is the biggest lie on this side of the universe. Not only would their wives get on them and make ‘em go — and their girlfriends, and their moms; they would beat ‘em all the way to the 50 yard line and tell them, “You better get out there and get that game check.” And why don’t they talk to the hundreds of African-American players that would be excited about you owning a team?

It’s just sad that there are not people like Hutch running the NFL in Barack’s America.

I am thinking that some of you folks or your staff in the US House and US Senate read conservative blogs. I know. I know. You have not asked me for any advice, but that brings me to my first bit of advice.

Nancy, Harry, and Barry are not asking you for any advice. Why do you couch your speeches as though you have some good advice for them? They didn’t ask for it and don’t want it. Instead, you ought to just spell out what you would do yourself as what is the best action on behalf of the people. You have been making these suggestions that Nancy, Harry, and Barry need to go slower and try a more modest change in the status quo. If that is your position, and not just what you are advising for Nancy, Harry, and Barry to do, then thanks for informing me so I can work at opposing you.

The second bit of advice I have for you is do a better job of refuting the suggestion that the GOP is just a Party of No that supports doing nothing to alter the status quo. This is difficult to refute in a thirty second sound bite, but it is necessary to refute it by explaining rules to people.

The first rule that needs to be explained is that all spending bills must originate in the US House. The US House has a Rules Committee that decides which bills may be introduced on the House Floor. This Rules Committee has not allowed any GOP bills on health insurance reform to be introduced on the House Floor. There are House GOP Reps who have bills to do something instead of nothing, but they are not permitted to introduce them. Now since the US Senate can’t originate a spending bill, Harry is going to pick out of all of the US Senate health insurance reform work that he likes and drop it into an existing bill passed by the US House and awaiting US Senate action. This will be the vote to watch for in the US Senate.

The final bit of advice is just try and keep your personal opinions about conservative celebrities on radio, TV, and internet to yourself. Lindsey, I don’t care if you agree with Glenn Beck or not. You need to to focus your attention on who you agree or disagree with who are also serving in the US Senate or in the US House. Those are people with the power to cast votes that can have serious consequences. The attacks on conservative celebrities who do not hold office is misguided and disturbs me. Of course someone like Rush can rally conservative solidarity, but this should be appreciated instead of complained about by GOP members of the US Senate and US House.

Some may ask why don’t you give some advice to some former members like Bill Frist? It is not worth the effort for me. Folks like Bill Frist do not have the vote casting power any more. The battle I choose to engage is with the folks who currently possess the vote casting power.

I don’t expect any of you folks to heed my advice that you did not ask me for. I do expect that voters in the upcoming election are more engaged in looking at what you are doing and how you present yourself than they have been in a long time.

This Hoosier has packed up after 57 years of living at the crossroads of America. Thirty-six of those fifty-seven years involved working in the belly of the beast as a state government employee. Now this transplanted Texan residing in the Permian Basin region can get back to writing about this sweet land of liberty that he has always been proud of.


So while my writing was put on hold, my brain continued to collect my thoughts about what is going on. I discarded the meme that America is divided in the same way as it was in 1860. This is not a north vs south regional conflict. This is not quite a conflict between sympathizers to the national government vs sympathizers to state governments because there is some degree of dissatisfaction with all levels of government. What we have now most closely resembles the American Revolution era.


During the American Revolution in the colonies of New England, as well as in the southern plantation colonies and mid-Atlantic colonies, you were either a loyalist or you were a patriot. If you were a loyalist then you were a loyal subject to his majesty King George III. Knowing that his majesty commanded a force to protect you as long as you obeyed him was all the comfort you needed. You were willing to serve and obey the king, and feel protected and cared for in return from him.


If you were a patriot, the life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that God had endowed you with were cherished more than anything any ruler on earth could offer. You would rather die than live under any tyranny that oppressed your God-given rights.


Fast-forward 233 years to the present day, and many of the same issues exist. They are packaged and presented differently, but it is basically the same content. Whether it is a king or a political party elected into office, the desire to hold on to and grab as much power as they can over each individual is the plan. Each individual has to choose between liberty and their divine rights by God, or being provided for by the state. This choice goes a lot deeper than political party affiliation. One can find politicians in both parties who love to hold on to and grab more power by promising goodies provided for you by the state. However, I do think the Republican Party represents the best opportunity for people who cherish their liberty and divine rights by God to take over the control and the leadership positions.


I have chosen to be a patriot instead of a loyalist, and I have also discovered in Texas I am not alone. There is so much less regulation by state and local government in Texas. I’m used to living under laws and regulations written to restrict and limit the distribution of utilities, cable TV, insurance, and beer. For example, here in Texas I had a choice between around one hundred different electric utility providers. I love it!


People I have met so far have been very helpful with tips about where to buy, and what to watch out for. I think this word of mouth process in the market place is a much better deal than the government getting its nose into my personal business. The only personal negative I have heard anyone say about President Obama is that they are annoyed by seeing his face every night on their TV set.


The motto down here is “Don’t mess with Texas.” This motto is a way of saying “We love now and always this sweet land of liberty, so please do not meddle into our lives.” As a tranplanted Texan I sincerely and whole-heartedly endorse this motto.

This first aired on TV in 1976, and I love it. It helped, by using a music jingle, for people to know what is written in the Preamble of the United States Constitution. My favorite couplet was

Secure the blessings of liberty To ourselves and our posterity

Those 7 year olds listening to this jingle in 1976 are 40 year olds today, and I think many of them are the ones who are attending Town Hall meetings and Tea Parties. They are not political party activists, and are more concerned as individuals about who of their elected officials are working to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.


People want the liberty to be free to work and produce and be rewarded. People want the liberty to worship in a manner of their own choosing. People do not want authorities to intrude into their lives. But since about 1978 the federal authorities have intruded into work and production in the energy field.


Federal authorities have blocked the development of new sources of petroleum.
Federal authorities have blocked drilling in ANWR.
Federal authorities have blocked drilling off the coast of Florida.
Federal authorities have blocked drilling off of the east coast.
Federal authorities have blocked drilling off of the west coast.
Federal authorities have blocked drilling off the Alaskan coast.
Federal authorities have blocked building oil refineries.
Federal authorities have blocked clean nuclear energy production.
Federal authorities have blocked clean coal production.


We are told that we need to sacrifice our liberty for the good and survival of the planet. This is what they are telling us, while at the same time, they are approving of the development of nuclear energy programs in the UAE. They are also lending money to a Brazilian oil company to drill for oil off the Atlantic Coast. I am happy for Brazil being able to get money to drill for oil in the Atlantic. I do not want them stopped, but I am not happy that We The People of the United States are blocked from energy production. Who is securing the blessings of liberty for us and our posterity? When people go to vote in the US this question needs to be on their mind. They really need to trust that the person they are voting for has the correct answer to this question.
Cross-posted at The Minority Report

All honor to Jefferson–to the man who, in the concrete pressure of a struggle for national independence by a single people, had the coolness, forecast, and capacity to introduce into a merely revolutionary document, an abstract truth, applicable to all men and all times, and so to embalm it there, that today, and in all coming days, it shall be a rebuke and a stumbling block to the very harbingers of reappearing tyranny and oppression.

Abraham. Lincoln 1859

All that we ask or desire is permission to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle. Some citizens of this country have never got beyond the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence did not mention the questions of our day.

Woodrow Wilson 1912

If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions.

Calvin Coolidge 1926

America, this is our moment. This is our time, our time to turn the page on the policies of the past, our time to bring new energy and new ideas to the challenges we face, our time to offer a new direction for this country that we love. This was the moment, this was the time when we came together to remake this great nation…

Barack Obama 2008

We don’t need to remake America, or discover new and untested principles. The change we need is not to turn the page on the policies of the past, but a great renewal of these permanent truths about man, politics, and liberty—the foundational principles and constitutional wisdom that are the true roots of our country’s greatness.

pilgrim 2009

I whole-heartily agree with Abraham Lincoln’s assertion that the words written by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of independence are a rebuke and a stumbling block to the very harbingers of reappearing tyranny and oppression…ie today’s Democratic Party leadership. I do not desire to have only one political party in America, and I do think some of the rank and file still hold in their heart the beliefs of Andrew Jackson.

Today’s Democratic Party leadership repudiate the Founders’ principles, holding that there are no self-evident truths—in the Declaration of Independence or elsewhere—only change in the constant search for progress without final goals. There are no permanent rights with which man is endowed, but endlessly evolving rights that develop and grow based on new demands (and polling data). Our fidelity must be to a “living” Constitution that adapts to fit the demands of the times. The way forward is to control social conditions and engineer a better society, redistributing wealth through a distant and patronizing welfare state that regulates more and more of the American economy, politics and society.

The scales are gradually coming off the eyes of the seasoned citizens who have previously given their votes to Democratic Party candidates. Now, more than ever, is the time to relearn the meaning and contemporary significance of the Declaration of Independence and recognize that modern liberalism has explicitly rejected the truths it proclaims. This recognition has surfaced especially now because these older folks have read HR 3200.

Cross-posted at The Minority Report

It is really coming down to the wire whether or not the House is going to pass a health care bill before the August recess. The Republicans are not plentiful enough to be an issue for Speaker Pelosi to even take into consideration. They only need 218 votes in the House to pass a bill, and there are 257 member in the Democratic Party House caucus. The only problem Speaker Pelosi has is if 40 Ds will vote with the 178 Rs. If that happens then she loses.

I actually agree, surprisingly enough, with those who assert that there has been a lot of time spent debating on this issue. There have been debates on this issue since the time of FDR and HST to the present. The framing of the narrative of what are the choices and what are the opposing views should be more clearly spelled out. This fight is essentially coming down to the question of whether or not our elected members of Congress are going to Let Freedom Ring.

This issue of health care legislation comes down to answering the question of containing the costs of providing health care. Obama and his minions would have you believe that the only way to contain the costs is to have a strong central government plan to put the maximum set of detailed and specific restrictions and mandates on the medical services that USA residents may receive. This plan will include punitive measures toward any physician or hospital that attempts to profit by attending to people outside of the rules and mandates that they impose. This path eventually leads to services that are scarce, and by law are illegal to buy outside of their rules at any price. This is a plan that takes freedom away from each individual US resident.

Now the supporters of Obama argue that under the status quo people are losing freedom to be provided health care from the rules in place by health insurance companies and hospitals and physicians affiliated with them. The flaw in this argument is that while it can be expensive and difficult today for some people to receive health care it is not illegal.

There is another way to have health care legislation that answers the question of containing the costs of providing health care and let freedom ring. There are four essential freedoms that US residents and health care providers need.

1. The freedom to try
2. The freedom to buy
3. The freedom to sell
4. The freedom to fail

The way to do this is to allow a competitive free market of medical service providers the freedom to create their own products for providing medical services that are not restricted by a particular State’s set of coverage mandates. Instead there should general guidelines that are the same in every State. Then the residents in every State can have the freedom to choose the product that is the most worthwhile for their family’s needs. This way the large company has got to compete with the small company on the merits of the product they sell instead of eliminating the smaller competitor with unfair regulatory laws. The profit motive in this system makes it worthwhile for each company to strive to provide a service people find worthwhile to purchase. This path eventually leads to services that are cheaper and in abundance.

There also needs to be some clarity in the debates in describing how health care services are delivered, and what is the purpose of health insurance. Health insurance does not, and was never intended to insure you will have wellness and good health. The major function of a health insurance plan is to help you to pay the medical expenses in the event of a catastrophic and expensive medical procedure. In this respect it is the same as car insurance. One major difference, however, is that you can purchase any car insurance plan no matter where you live.

For there to be any important health insurance legislation passed and signed into law our elected officials are going to need the courage to rebuke and ignore influential and powerful special interest groups who have skin in the game. These special interest groups include trial lawyers, unions, political parties, large health insurance companies, and large pharmaceutical industries. I am for health care reform legislation as long as it is designed with one major requirement - Let Freedom Ring!
Cross-posted at The Minority Report

It was the original intent of the Founding Fathers to carefully limit the areas of responsibility of the federal government. James Madison pointed out that the Constitution was structured so that the powers delegated to the federal government are few. He also pointed out the number of individuals employed will need to be smaller than the number under the State.

Six Areas of Constitutional Responsibility for POTUS
1. Chief of state over the Nation.
2. Commander in chief over the military.
3. The chief executive officer of the whole executive branch of the federal government.
4. The chief diplomat in handling foreign relations.
5. The chief architect for needed legislation.
6. The conscience of the Nation in granting pardons or reprieves when justice requires.

Nineteen Extra-Constitutional Areas of Discretionary Responsibility for POTUS
1. The responsibility of maintaining full employment for the Nation.
2. The task of ensuring a high level of agricultural prosperity.
3. The task of developing a national housing program.
4. The task of supervising the exclusive distribution of atomic energy resources.
5. Underwriting mega-bucks in private loans and private insurance programs.
6. Providing federal relief for the victims of natural disasters.
7. Administrating a national welfare program.
8. Administrating a national Medicare and Medicaid program.
9. Administrating a national social security program.
10. Allocating mega-bucks for education.
11. Settling major union labor - management disputes.
12. Administrating a network of health agencies.
13. Administrating the EPA.
14. Administrating nearly 40% of the nation’s land area and resources.
15. Administrating control over the discovery and development of energy resources.
16. Regulating of all major United States industries.
17. Supervising all radio and TV broadcasting required to issuing a license.
18. Administrating the FDA.
19. Initiating various federal programs on a regional basis to replace many powers and activities originally reserved sovereign to the States.

Four Major Drawbacks of the aforementioned Central Planning
1. It is unbelievably expensive.
2. By its very nature and intended design the federal government is sluggish and inefficient. The Founding Fathers engineered a system of checks and balances to impede changes because they feared a future efficient tyranny.
3. It places mega-bucks at the disposal of the executive branch which can be and have been used to intimidate both the members of Congress and the Governors of the States.
4. It is virtually impossible for one human being to effectively administer everything assigned to the POTUS.

The constitutional provision that created the basis for the President’s cabinet

The President may require the opinion, in writing, of the principle officers who superintend the various bureaus and agencies, or other services of the executive department. Such officers shall be required to report to the President any pertinent information he may desire concerning those duties and responsibilities assigned to any office.

In 1789 the cabinet posts created
1. Department of State
2. Department of Treasury
3. Department of War
4. Office of Attorney General

The current fifteen cabinet posts and when they got created
1. The Department of State
2. Department of Treasury
3. Department of Defense *In 1947 the Congress formed the National Military Establishment (NME) headed by the Secretary of Defense. The NME combined the Department of War with the Department of Navy (created under J. Adams in 1798) and the Department of Air Force (created under Truman in 1947). In 1949 the NME was renamed the Department of Defense.
4. Department of Justice *In 1870 under Grant the post-Civil War increase in the amount of litigation involving the United States necessitated the very expensive retention of a large number of private attorneys to handle the workload. A concerned Congress passed the Act to Establish the Department of Justice, setting it up as “an executive department of the government of the United States” with the Attorney General as its head.
5. Department of Interior *In 1849 under Taylor Congress created Interior and charged it with duties ranging from issuing patents to running Washington’s jail. In 2003 the department even owned Nevada’s Mustang Ranch brothel, prompting Interior Secretary Gale Norton to observe:

It gives the phrase “Madame Secretary” a whole new meaning.

6 Department of Agriculture *After lobbying from the U.S. Agricultural Society (1852), Congress established the Department of Agriculture in 1862 (raised to cabinet level in 1889) under B. Harrison.
7. Department of Commerce *This cabinet level department was first created as the Department of Commerce and Labor under T. Roosevelt in 1903. It split up in 1913 under Wilson as the Department of Commerce.
8. Department of Labor *In 1913 under Wilson the Department of Labor was split away to be a new cabinet level post.
9. Department of Health and Human Services *In 1953 Congress created the Department of Health, Education, and welfare under IKE. In 1979 under Carter Congress split away education and HEW was renamed Department of Health and Human Services.
10. Department of Housing and Urban Development *In 1965, under LBJ, Congress created this agency.
11. Department of Transportation *In 1967, under LBJ, Congress created the Department of Transportation.
12. Department of Energy *In 1977, under Carter, Congress created the Department of Energy.
13. Department of Education *In 1979, under Carter, Congress created the Department of Education.
14. Department of Veteran Affairs *In 1988, under Reagan, Congress made the Department of Veteran Affairs a cabinet level post.
15. Department of Homeland Security *In 2002, under George W. Bush, Congress created the Department of Homeland Security in the aftermath of the sneak attack by terrorists on September 11, 2001.

The Founding Fathers designed the office of President to give the President all the power and independence needed to carry out the six specific functions they assigned, but they required the President to operate within a carefully circumscribed sphere of limited authority. It is not true that they wanted a weak executive branch. They did want a strong executive, but with a limited sphere to work in.

The fact that the executive branch has now acquired gigantic dimensions of discretionary power is a matter of the most profound importance to this and all future generations of Americans.

Fortunately, something is built into the Constitution so that any unauthorized usurpation of authority can be dismantled by peaceful means. We the People have the RIGHT to vote into power those who recognize the problem, and are willing to do something about it. History may very well record one day that taking those corrective measures was one of the most important challenges that We the People met.
[Update]Even before we vote we also have a RIGHT to support candidates who recognize the problem. To do this go here.
Cross-posted at The Minority Report

It is getting down to crunch time for President Obama to get a bill through the Congress that drastically changes how residents in the USA will get medical services. They have tried in vain to convince everyone that they only need some more money from the super rich, and they can create a new system with an outcome of affordable medical services for everyone. The number do not add up. With just additional money from ultra rich there is still not enough money to pay for their plan. This leaves them with figuring out a way to contain the costs of medical services.


This problem they have is like a fork in the road. The one path they do not want to go down to contain costs is the capitalist model created by Adam Smith. The way of this path is to allow a competitive free market of medical service providers the freedom to create their own products for providing medical services that are not restricted by a particular State’s set of coverage mandates. Instead there should general guidelines that are the same in every State. Then the residents in every State can have the freedom to choose the product that is the most worthwhile for their family’s needs. This way the large company has got to compete with the small company on the merits of the product they sell instead of eliminating the smaller competitor with unfair regulatory laws. The profit motive in this system makes it worthwhile for each company to strive to provide a service people find worthwhile to purchase. This path eventually leads to services that are cheaper and in abundance.


The other path they want to go down to contain costs is the economic model created by Karl Marx. The way of this path is to have a strong central government plan to put the maximum set of detailed and specific restrictions and mandates on the medical services that USA residents may receive. This plan will include punitive measures toward any physician or hospital that attempts to profit by attending to people outside of the rules and mandates that they impose. This path eventually leads to services that are scarce, and by law are illegal to buy outside of their rules at any price.


Barack Obama in his own words…

And we have urged Congress to include a proposal for a standing commission of doctors and medical experts to oversee cost-saving measures.

pilgrim’s translation…

NO SOUP FOR YOU!!!

Cross-posted at The Minority Report

Chapter 8 of W. Cleon Skousen’s book is titled Prosperity Economics. I have read thirteen chapters out of thirty-one, but I feel compelled to write this diary before I finally finish the book.

The Founding Fathers made this country a land of fantastic economic opportunity because they wrote a Constitution with the free market principles set forth in the book Adam Smith wrote in 1776, The Wealth of Nations. There are four fundamental economic freedoms which the constitutional structure of this Nation provide to perpetuate an economic system that works efficiently.

1. The freedom to try.
2. The freedom to buy.
3. The freedom to sell.
4. The freedom to fail.

There are four situations where governmental intervention is legitimate.

1. To prevent criminal invasion of the market.
2. To prevent invasion of the market with deceptive trickery.
3. To prevent destruction of free trade of the market.
4. To prevent exploitation of the vices to the detriment of the community.

The fourth situation should be local instead of Federal government intervention.

The profit system is the key to success under the free market system because profits make it worthwhile for somebody to do things or make things better and cheaper.

While the Founding Father’s’ greatest fear was big government, they did not extend that fear to the private sector free market. They believed Adam Smith’s realization that true wealth is not an accumulation of silver and gold but the development of farms, factories, homes, clothes, cheap fuel, good streets, good schools, hospitals, efficient transportation, and universal access to various types of communications. How we get these things is develop a free market system that makes everything abundant and cheap. Market competition is the most frugal and economical way to provide a product or a service. In the field of economics, they were striving for bigness. If it takes bigness to make a product abundant and cheap, so be it.

The fear of bigness did not clearly emerge in the US until after the Civil War. By the end of the nineteenth century the formula for economic opportunity from the Founding Fathers was beginning to give Americans the highest standard of living in the world. With less than 6 percent of the earth’s population, they were producing more than half of just about everything. So how did this happen that this formula would be abandoned, according to W. Cleon Skouser?

The beginning of the twentieth century saw many prominient and influential leaders losing confidence in the system. These included wealthy industrialists, heads of multinational banking institutions, leaders in the academic world, and some of the innovative minds in the media. The same feverish restlessness was taking hold in similar circles in Europe.

It was true, as it is with all systems, that the free-market economy was in need of some adjustments and fine-tuning, but these leaders were getting ready to throw the entire system over-board. The problems of the day included a number of large-scale strikes, the rise of powerful trusts, the mysterious recurrence of boom and bust cycles, and the rise of a new Populist movement in which certain agriculture and labor groups were demanding that the government get involved in the redistribution of the wealth.

If I had to sum up how did this happen in just one word, that word would be ENVY.

The author concluded this chapter with this conclusion…and please bear in mind that he wrote this book in 1985:

The western world was astonished when the Red Chinese leaders suddenly abolished their bare-subsistence communes and invited the peasants to “get rich’ as private property farmers. Of course the Chinese communists did not dare call their new policy “free-enterprise capitalism.” They called it “enriched Marxism.”

But regardless of the name, if people are allowed economic freedom it will tend to gradually open up the channels for political freedom in the years to come. This is why the the message of freedom - both economic and political - should become America’s greatest export.

I heartily agree with this author in the context of President Ronald Reagan’s America.
I heartily reject President Obama’s statement in his inaugural address:

Starting today we must begin the work of remaking America

I reject the plans and intent that Tim Geithner gave to Charlie Rose about regulation and legislation.

ROSE: Whatever you can do in terms of regulation and legislation will take place during the next three years?

GEITHNER: Yes, within that period of time. Within that period of time. But, again, these things are about preventing the next boom.

I especially reject Robert Reich’s prediction that this economy can never recover because we must have a new economy.

My prediction,then? Not a V, not a U. But an X. The X marks a brand new track — a new economy. What will it look like? Nobody knows. All we know is the current economy can’t “recover” because it can’t go back to where it was before the crash. So instead of asking when the recovery will start, we should be asking when and how the new economy will begin.

Instead of remaking America I want America restored to the Prosperity Economics upon which it is founded.
Cross-posted at The Minority Report

Lately I have been reading a book I borrowed from my public library written by W. Cleon Skousen, This is the author of a recent bestseller, The 5,000 Year Leap. The book I am reading is The Making of America (888 pages). I have only read 202 pages, but I am moved to write before I finish.


Politicians, especially conservative ones, will utter a phrase about the founding of our Nation being based on Judeo-Christian values, and trolls will rise up to try to claim that this is false. The Founding Fathers were very knowledgable of books written through the ages. I confess my ignorance in thinking that Judeo-Christian values were only a reference to scripture and verse from the Torah and Holy Bible, and now I know it actually went to detailed political structure and process.


The Founders knew that ninety-nine percent of the human race has had to live out their lives under tyranny. The author listed twelve characteristics of tyranny.

1.Government power is exercised by compulsion, force, conquest, or legislative usurpation.


2. Therefore all power is concentrated in the ruler.


3. The people are treated as “subjects” of the ruler.


4.The land is treated as the “realm” of the ruler.


5. The people have no unalienable rights.


6. Government is by the rule of man rather than the rule of law.


7. The people are structured in social and economic classes.


8. The thrust of government is always from the ruler down, not from the people upward.


9. Problems are always solved by issuing new edicts, creating more bureaus, appointing more administrators, and charging the people more taxes to pay for these “services.” Under this system, taxes and government regulations are always oppressive.


10. Freedom is not considered a solution to anything.


11. The transfer of power from one ruler to another is often by violence - the dagger, the poison cup, or fratricidal civil war.


12. Those in power revel in luxury while the lot of the common people is one of perpetual poverty, excessive taxation, stringent regulations, and a continuous existence of misery.

Jefferson found that ancient Israel was the first nation in history to have a system of representative government According to chronologists, the Israelites came out of Egypt between 1490 and 1290 BC. These freed slaves were led by Moses to the lower part of the Sinai Peninsula along the Horeb range. Moses’s father-in-law, Jethro, visited him there and was astonished to see Moses trying to handle the problems of all these people alone.


Jethro talked to him and gave him some advice for dividing up the administrative tasks and having people elect people to assist in handling the people’s problems, and this advice led to an efficient and practical government. The more than three million in 600,000 families were combined into groups of ten families to each elect a leader. This first step alone gives Moses 60,000 newly elected leaders to assist him. These new groups were combined in groups of fifty families to each elect a leader, and this move gave Moses 12,000 additional assistants. These new groups were combined in groups of one hundred families to each elect a leader, and this move gave Moses 6,000 additional assistants. These new groups were combined in groups of one thousand families to each elect a leader, and this move gave Moses 600 additional assistants. Instead of trying to rule over people alone, Moses suddenly found himself with 78,600 elected leaders to help him administer the affairs of the people.


In addition to the administrative structure records indicate that “elders” from the people met at various intervals as a type of house of representatives. There was also a permanent council of seventy chosen men who acted very much like a senate. Moses, himself had the benefit of two immediate assistants as a type of vice-president. Aaron had charge of internal affairs and Joshua was in charge of the military and defense related matters.


These Founding Fathers had been reared and trained under the canopy of English law and British culture, yet they rejected much of the government structure of the mother country. The author lists eleven parts of their mother country that they rejected.

1. They rejected the entire concept of a monarchy.


2. They rejected the idea of a prime minister selected from the members of Parliament.


3. They rejected the idea of a cabinet selected from among the members of Parliament.


4. They rejected the idea of the members of Parliament serving as the executive administrators of the government in a cabinet.


5. They rejected the idea of parliamentary supremacy in favor of constitutional supremacy.


6. They rejected the British idea of a “living constitution.”


7. They rejected the idea of an upper House of Lords occupied by a body of lifetime aristocrats.


8. They rejected the idea of a unitary republic with all power in the central government.


9. They rejected the idea of the national government having the power to nullify the laws of the local governments.


10. They rejected the power of the executive to dissolve the legislature.


11. They rejected the British coinage system for a decimal system.


The maintenance of the vertical separation of powers between the ward, the city, the county, the state, and the President is a key factor in the successful continuation of this great republic based on constitutional supremacy. Thomas Jefferson made a very wise and prescient observation.

When all government, domestic and foreign, in little and in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.

Cross-posted at The Minority Report

Michelle Malkin has posted an analysis by one of her readers, MINER51. He took the time to break down the House members who voted Aye for the Cap and Trade bill by coal producing state, and he put it in a spreadsheet. I took the time to list from largest to smallest the coal producing states who had House members voting Aye on this bill.

16 Top coal producing states with House members voting Aye on Cap & Trade bill

Kentucky
Pennsylvania
Texas
Colorado
Indiana
Illinois
Virginia
New Mexico
Ohio
Arizona
Mississippi
Tennessee
Maryland
Kansas
Missouri
Arkansas

62 Top targets from these top coal producing states

John Yarmuth
Ben Chandler
Allyson Schwartz
Michael Doyle
Paul Kanjorski
Patrick Murphy
John Murtha
Henry Cuellar
Lloyd Doggett
Charles Gonzales
Al Green
Gene Green
Ruben Hinojosa
Sheila Jackson-Lee
Eddie Bernice Johnson
Silvestre Reyes
Diana DeGette
Betsy Markey
Ed Perlmutter
Jared Polis
Baron Hill
Andre Carson
Melissa Bean
Debbie Halvorson
Phil Hare
Mark Kirk
Daniel Lipinski
Janice Schakowsky
Rick Boucher
Gerald Connolly
Jim Moran
Tom Perriello
Bobby Scott
Martin Heinrich
Ray Lujan
Harry Teague
John Boccieri
Steve Driehaus
Marcia Fudge
Marcy Kaptur
Mary Jo Kilroy
Tim Ryan
Zack Space
Betty Sutton
Gabrielle Giffords
Raul Grijalva
Ed Pastor
Bennie Thompson
Steve Cohen
Jim Cooper
Bart Gordon
Donna Edwards
Steny Hoyer
Frank Kratovil
Dutch Ruppersberger
Chris Van Hollen
Dennis Moore
Russ Carnahan
Lacy Clay
Emanuel Cleaver
Ike Skelton
Vic Snyder
Now on moral grounds alone I can understand the argument all 211 Ds and 8 Rs that voted Aye for this bill should be defeated, but I am not making a moral argument. I am talking about House members whose votes take money out of their constituents’ pocketbooks by destroying the coal industry in their State that provides jobs and income. This kind of vote is like biting the hand that feeds you. I hope that payback is in order.

Cross-posted at The Minority Report

I ran across a blog by a Honduran that is titled What We Hondurans Want. I encourage you to read the entire article, and Digg it if you deem it worthy. While it is very helpful in getting an understanding about life in Honduras, I believe there are lessons from this article for also understanding life in the USA.


[Update]The blogger, rschenkel, has written an open letter to President Obama. It is written in Spanish, and if anyone finds an error in my summary translation, I will appreciate the corrections. He compares what transpired in Honduras to the medical procedure of removing cancer tumors from a brain. He then compares the international community to a doctor scolding them for performing the operation. It reminded me of the moment when John Dean talked about the cancer in the Nixon White House.

Our doctor (the international community), on having seen this, gives us an enormous scolding, and isolates us and says the following thing to us: “What happens to him (Honduras)? Insert this tumor again in his head! Surgical procedures exist to do that”. But doctor? If it does not hurt me already. It was difficult, but I managed to do it. “It does not matter for me” - says the doctor - “The medical conventions like that dictate it”

In the closing of this open letter the blogger adds to a recent comment by President Obama.

I want to close completing a thought that the president Barack Obama showed today: “We cannot return to the dark years of the past”, and I complement: “WE DO NOT WANT TO LIVE IN the DARK YEARS IN THE FUTURE”.

Mr. Zelaya was elected because he opposed death penalty, and he promised to continue his party’s work on improving the situation on our country’s education, health and social situation, while promoting democracy and swearing to protect our Constitution. He also promoted a so called “Citizen’s power”, which was supposed to be a channel for the people to express their thoughts to the government.

Apparently the promises and oath he took to protect the Constitution, much like promises Obama made, had an expiration date.


The blogger lists four crimes committed by Mr. Zelaya against the Republic of Honduras.


Crime #1:

Zelaya starts also to take a populist stance, first approving a huge increase in government workers’ wage, then approving a general increase to the minimum wage to levels where small and medium business were not able to cope with. He uses his “Citizen’s power” initiative to promise the poor areas of Honduras a thousand and one benefits with the integration to the ALBA. This all seems good, but in the background, he is asphyxiating our country’s air-thin budget with these initiatives, and forgoing such responsibilities such as the fight of crime, drug trafficking, diseases, the World’s economical crisis, and many other social matters. With this strategy, Zelaya “purchased” the support of some in-country blocks, such as peasant and indigenous organizations.

Am I the only one seeing a similar strategy being employed by the O?


Crime #2


His purpose was of gathering support for his new project: to dispose of the current Constitution, over which he was sworn in, and create a new one, similar to ones crafted by Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador, with which he would be allowed to be re-elected.


Crime #3

In trying to create a legal and “democratic” facade for his project, Zelaya used one of the statutes of his “Citizen’s power” initiative, which is the “Law of Citizens’ participation”, in which the people can put request to the government to conduct surveys about the peoples opinion. The problem is that no one to be asked about their will to change the constitution. This was fabricated by Zelaya, by threatening public employees to fire them, if they do not bring in a quota of “voluntarily” signed requested for this inquiry. So public employees, trying to safeguard their jobs, started forcing people to sign this if they wanted to be treated at hospitals, sold needed medicines, and even have a phone line repaired.

Does the phrase “conduct surveys about the peoples’ opinions” bother only me?


Crime #4

After gathering a certain number of “requests”, he started moving for the installation of a popular inquiry, in which he would ask if the people wanted a new constitution, and which was going to take place today. The issue here is that this “popular inquiry” was not sanctioned by any independent and legal body, such as the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, and, furthermore, was declared illegal by the Supreme Court of Justice, on the grounds that our Constitution forbids anyone on changing the basic, or petrous, articles of it, which state the form of government and the impossibility of re-election.

Conclusion

I do believe some things were done incorrectly, such as the extraction of the president to Costa Rica. He should have been placed under arrest here at Honduras, for him to face proper trail and sentencing for his crimes. But I believe he was taken out of the country due to imminent threat of Hugo Chavez. Chavez has vowed to reinstate Zelaya, “no matter what it takes”.


I finalize this long report, by stating that I voted for Zelaya on November 2005, and after talking to several of friends and family that voted for him, we agree that we profoundly regret that, and feel we have been betrayed us. This is also shown in numerous polls taken along the last two years.

The answer to the title of his blog

We ask the international community to take a closer look of our situation, and not allow other states such as Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua and Ecuador, to interfere with what we have chosen. We, the people of Honduras, have chosen: that is Democracy.

We The People of the United States of America should not allow other countries to provide an example of a policy for the US to adopt. Are there lessons here that we can learn from a Honduran blogger?

Cross-posted at The Minority Report

So often it seems like there is a sickness in politics that spreads a belief the Federal Government is a delightful sugar daddy able to provide for our every want and need. This is especially true of the Democratic Party, but is also evident to a degree in the Republican Party. As much as I admire Ronald Reagan, even he was unable to stunt the growth of power and scope of the Federal Government bureaucracies. He makes up for this failure big time for me by his success in crushing the Soviet Union. Actually the Soviet Union is easy compared to halting the growth of government.


It’s a shame that instead of looking back only to the era of FDR that folks don’t look back to when Grover Cleveland took office.


Stephen Grover Cleveland fell into politics without really trying. In 1881, local businessmen asked Cleveland, then a young lawyer, to run for mayor of Buffalo, New York. He agreed and won the Democratic nomination and the election. As mayor, Cleveland exposed city corruption and earned such a reputation for honesty and hard work that he won the New York gubernatorial race in 1882. Governor Cleveland used his power to take on the Tammany Hall, the political machine based in New York City, even though it had supported him in the election. Within a year, the Democrats were looking to Cleveland as an important new face and pragmatic reformer who might win the presidency in 1884.


In the election of 1884, Cleveland appealed to middle-class voters of both parties as someone who would fight political corruption and big-money interests. Many people saw Cleveland’s Republican opponent, James G. Blaine, as a puppet of Wall Street and the powerful railroads. The morally upright Mugwumps, a Republican group of reform-minded businessmen and professionals, hated Blaine and embraced Cleveland’s efforts at battling corruption. Cleveland also had the popularity to carry New York, a state crucial to victory.


But Cleveland had a sex-scandal to live down: he was accused of fathering a son out of wedlock — a charge that he admitted might be true — owing to his affair with Maria Halpin in 1874. By honestly confronting the charges, Cleveland retained the loyalty of his supporters, winning the election by the narrowest of margins. After Cleveland’s election as President, Democratic newspapers added a line to the sound-bite used against Cleveland and made it:

Ma, Ma, where’s my Pa? Gone to the White House! Ha Ha Ha!

Cleveland’s administration might be characterized by a quote from his inauguration address:

I have only one thing to do, and that is to do right

. Cleveland himself insisted that, as President, his greatest accomplishment was blocking others’ bad ideas. He vigorously pursued a policy barring special favors to any economic group. Vetoing a bill to appropriate $10,000 to distribute seed grain among drought-stricken farmers in Texas, he wrote:

Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character….

In December 1887, he called on Congress to reduce high protective tariffs. Told that he had given Republicans an effective issue for the campaign of 1888, he retorted,

What is the use of being elected or re-elected unless you stand for something?

He often opposed the Republican-controlled Senate.


Cleveland won the election of 1892 in part by blaming Harrison for the downturn in the economy. By February 1893, the economy was in a depression. Seventy-four railroads and six hundred banks failed that year. Meanwhile, thousands of Midwestern workers known as “Coxey’s Army” tramped toward Washington to demand government action to relieve the economic hardships of war veterans and the unemployed, which Cleveland declined to give. He vetoed hundreds of private pension bills to American Civil War veterans whose claims were fraudulent. When Congress, pressured by the Grand Army of the Republic, passed a bill granting pensions for disabilities not caused by military service, Cleveland vetoed that, too. Cleveland used the veto far more often than any President up to that time. As the price of silver dropped, there was a rush to redeem the declining silver certificates for gold, touching off a run on the U.S. treasury. He dealt directly with the Treasury crisis rather than with business failures, farm mortgage foreclosures, and unemployment. He obtained repeal of the mildly inflationary Sherman Silver Purchase Act. With the aid of J. P. Morgan and Wall Street he maintained the Treasury’s gold reserve. Critics accused him of being unfeeling and heartless, but Cleveland believed that the nation’s finances had to be maintained in sound condition.


He was an adamant opponent of strikes that interfered with interstate commerce and the operation of the government, as shown in his disapproval of the Pullman Strike. When railroad strikers in Chicago, Illinois violated a court injunction, Cleveland sent Federal troops to enforce it, since interstate commerce was involved, including mail delivery under the auspices of the federal government.

If it takes the entire army and navy of the United States to deliver a postcard in Chicago, that card will be delivered.

Cleveland did not see himself as an activist President with his own agenda to pursue, but as a guardian or watchdog of Congress. While several important pieces of legislation became law during his terms — most notably bills controlling the railroads and distributing land to Native Americans — he did not initiate any of it.


Cleveland will be remembered for protecting the power and autonomy of the executive branch. His record-breaking use of the presidential veto earned him the deserved moniker of the “guardian President” and helped balance the power of executive and legislative branches. But he did not think that the President should propose legislation and he disliked using legislative solutions to address America’s growing social and economic difficulties.


America’s social and economic accomplishments occurred with no meddling by Cleveland’s executive branch or by Congress. These accomplishments include Basketball, braille typewriter, Coca-Cola, cotton candy, Eastman Kodak Co., the escalator, the fountain pen, the zipper, the revolving door, X-Rays, and the gasoline-powered tractor. I do not think that this is too shabby of a list of accomplishments that occurred with no government assistance or interference whatsoever.


We need another guardian President who dislikes legislative solutions to America’s cultural and business endeavors.


Cross-posted at The Minority Report

Monday, June 15th Ayaan Hirsi Ali wrote this article, Obama Should Speak Truth to Islam Because Others Can’t. I encourage everyone to the read the entire article for the knowledge you’ll get about the Muslim world as well as the excellent political analysis.


One thing I learned is that there are the three men (pictured above) who have a compelling claim to represent the heart and soul of the umma. From left to right these three men are Muhammad Sayyid Tatawi, Ali Khamenei, and Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz. The three men hail from Egypt, Iran. and Saudi Arabia.


Muhammad Sayyid Tatawi is the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar Mosque and Grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar University in Cairo. This University is one of the most influential in the Muslim world.


Ali Khamenei is the grand ayatollah supreme leader of Iran, and the highest authority for Shia Muslims.


Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz is the King of Saudi Arabia and is the protector of the holy shrine of Islam (Mecca).


President Obama has met the Saudi King, and when he gave his speech in Cairo he met the Grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar U. and the ambassador of Iran to Egypt. Here is an excerpt of her column-

They have their differences. The king is the protector of the holy shrine of Islam and a political leader. The grand sheik has no formal political power, but it is not an exaggeration to say his institution is one of the most influential in the Muslim world. And Iran not only claims spiritual power but pursues political and military dominance. The issue of who speaks for Islam is perhaps the worst nightmare for the US; this is not fully appreciated by the crafters of American foreign policy.


This makes a discussion of the relationship between Islam and the West much more problematic than the president’s speechwriters realise.


The courtship articulated in his speech was peppered with false praise (”. . . it was innovation in Muslim communities that developed . . . our mastery of pens and printing.”), feigned common principles and made ridiculous promises to fight negative stereotyping of Islam wherever he encounters it.


This is all part of political rhetoric, but it really doesn’t lead to concrete change. This, in my view, is the wrong strategy. Instead of pretending that Muslims invented printing, the President should be confronting them with the key products of the Western printing press. And it’s here that Kindles could be of use.


I imagined him offering the king, the sheik and the ayatollah each a Kindle with Abraham Lincoln’s case against slavery and for equality. Obama reminded the Muslim world that “black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the centre of America’s founding.”


I would include Thomas Jefferson’s improvements on the New Testament. The king, the sheik and the ayatollah have the authority to rule that parts of the Koran no longer apply in the modern world. For instance, the edicts of sharia law that reject scientific inquiry and order all Muslims to spread Islam.


And of course, no reading selection would be complete without a copy of the US Constitution, highlighting (because you can do that in a Kindle) the Eighth Amendment banning cruel and unusual punishment.


And for good measure, I would also add John F.Kennedy’s inaugural address: “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. . . . To those peoples in the huts and villages across the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required. . . . To those nations who would make themselves our adversary . . . we dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed. . . . Ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.” Not to mention woman.

I think Ayaan Hirsi Ali is smart enough to know that this idea of hers will not happen. While the Ds have played a masterful political game of giving lip service to caring about women, children, and minorities this is not what they are most passionate about. They are most passionate about seizing power and control over every aspect of your life that they can acquire. In a way they can have envy for the Muslim world leaders not being restrained by that Bill of Rights thingy in the US Constitution.


The other reason it will not happen is that it requires President Obama to promote the wonders, greatness, and achievements of the United States of America that are based on its founding ideals. This kind of promotion runs counter to his self-promotion as the first one elected for the purpose of remaking a nation that is fatally flawed from the start.

Cross-posted at The Minority Report

I just finished reading New Deal or Raw Deal? written by Burton Folsom, Jr. So much of what he writes about is so applicable to the current Obama administration plans with respect to the economy. He asks the question why would they be so eager to manipulate the market for higher wages and and prices without an increase in production? He answered that they believed that artificially higher wages meant greater purchasing power. If people earned more they could buy more, and that would stimulate industrial and economic recovery. In this “high wage” theory, the efficient businessman, the innovator, and the price cutter are evil because they are believed to be violators of ‘fair competition.’ His gain was not just the loss of his competitors, but of the whole country. By creating codes of ‘fair competition’, we’re giving all existing businesses a chance to make profits, to pay high wages, and to survive those evil efficient businessmen, innovators, and price cutters. The good intentions are to put people back to work at a decent wage to let them buy more products.


All of these good intentions have very bad consequences that even an economist like John Maynard Keynes could see. By carving up markets among existing producers and by fixing prices and wages assumes all industry is stagnant and unchanging. Almost no industry fits this model.


When Andrew Carnegie founded Carnegie Steel in 1872, he was the smallest producer in America–and England far outsold the US in the world steel market. Carnegie cut costs by using the Bessemer process and open-hearth method of making steel; he innovated in accounting with double-entry bookkeeping. Unlike his competitors, if Carnegie found a cheaper way to make rails, he would rip out a factory and rebuild the improved version immediately. Andrew Carnegie is just one evil dude, a violator of ‘fair competition.’ As a result, in 1900 Carnegie was the largest steel producer in the US and larger than all the major steel producers in England put together. By this time he could make steel rails that had cost $56 a ton in 1872 for only $11.50 a ton.


Cheaper steel meant cheaper cars, and Henry Ford took advantage of that. He took the cheaper steel, and innovated an assembly line making Model Ts. Just another evil dude, a violator of ‘fair competition.’ By 1920 he had captured over one-half of the American car market and had cut cost of a car from $3,000 to $300.


The dynamic and changing instead of stagnant and unchanging nature of steel and car industries shows three things.
1. Competition is necessary for new and cheaper products to appear on the market.
2. Competition is a sensible way to arrive at prices and wages.
3. Many established big businessmen want to avoid competition–to them ‘fair competition’ is letting them set prices, wages, hours of work, and market share.


If codes of creating ‘fair competition’ had been in place in 1900 we would have had higher priced steel, no assembly line, and a small car market with few Americans rich enough to buy expensive cars. The makers of carriages and buggy whips would have been delighted. The street cleaners in NYC who cleaned 1.3 million pounds of horse manure daily all would have had protected jobs. I just don’t personally believe the US could have been such a great country if it were not for those violators of ‘fair competition’ like Andrew Carnegie and Henry Ford.
Cross-posted at The Minority Report

Ayaan Hirsi Ali wrote an article for AEI, It’s Time Lily-Livered Europe Stood Up to Muslim Bigots, that makes a compelling argument that Europeans are lily-livered weenies that will not stand up to Muslims. There have been a lot of news stories about the suppression of freedom of expression, the rise of antisemitism, and the rise of violence against women and gays in Europe from Muslim immigrants. Ms Ali reads about this, and asks some questions.




Why do European countries give citizenship to individuals who feel no obligation to share in their societies for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer and in the event of a catastrophe, sacrifice themselves? An excerpt -

In this way, they evade one of the chief criteria of citizenship. Political allegiance to the constitution of your country is the minimum requirement. It is this state of affairs that makes Christopher Caldwell’s book Reflections on the Revolution in Europe: Immigration and the West (Allen Lane, £17.99), which opens with the sentence, “Western Europe became a multi-ethnic society in a fit of absence of mind,” a chilling read.




Caldwell discusses this theme in an interesting light: he does not overlook the Europeans who feel that Islam is a danger to European values but asks, “How can you fight for something you cannot define?” And this is Europe’s problem–insecurity about who we are, what our various flags mean, why, with every turn, we spend less and less on the military.




Europe has become a place for new religions, new creeds, multiculturalism, cosmopolitanism, transnationalism. Everything is thus relative. This is an uncertainty that the Muslim does not share. The Muslim ethic and tribal spirit are far more resilient and fierce in war than the protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism.

What happened to the European value of freedom of expression? an excerpt -

Take the debate on freedom of expression. In 1989 and afterwards, the provocations in the name of Islam were greeted with a confident, “No way! This is Europe, and you can say what you like, write what you like,” and so on.


Two decades later, Europeans are not so sure about the values of freedom of expression. Most members of the media engage in self-censorship. Textbooks in schools and universities have been adapted in such a way as not to offend Muslim sentiment. And legislation to punish ‘blasphemy’, if not passed, has been considered in most countries–or old laws that were never used are being revived.

What happened to the sensitivity and guilt Europeans felt about the Holocaust? an excerpt

Take anti-Semitism in Europe. The sensitivity and guilt Europeans feel about the Holocaust is comparable to the sensitivity and guilt that Americans feel towards black Americans. A decade or two ago, it was unthinkable for Jews to be slandered openly and be targeted for no other reason than their Jewishness.



Today, in the name of Islam, synagogues are vandalised. There are open denials of the Holocaust. There is an active network of Muslim organisations lobbying to curtail or even get rid of Israel. There are incidents of Jews being harassed, beaten, even killed. All this is met with grim silence and rationalisations that it’s not really anti-Semitic but anti-Israel.

What happened to Europe’s Women’s Liberation values? an excerpt

In the 1970s, women were burning their bras, abortion was legalised almost everywhere and rape in marriage was penalised. Today, more and more European elites, including some feminists, argue that it might, perhaps, just be better to respect the culture and religion of a minority.

What happened to Europe’s Gay Liberation values? an excerpt

Ten years ago, it would have been unthinkable that anti-gay sentiment would pass without condemnation. In Holland, for instance, we pride ourselves on allowing gays to have the exact same rights as heterosexuals. Yet today, they are beaten on the streets of Amsterdam. To be on the safe side in certain neighbourhoods in Europe, it’s advisable to conceal your identity if you are gay or lesbian.

What happened to the descendants of Franks, Saxons, Vikings, and Normans? an excerpt

In reality, if Europe falls, it’s not because of Islam. It is because the Europeans of today–unlike their forbears in the Second World War–will not die to defend the values or the future of Europe. Even if they were asked to make the final sacrifice, many a post-modern lily-livered European would escape into an obscure mesh of conscientious objection. All that Islam has to do is walk into the vacuum.

I wrote a previous diary, They Are Not Monsters, that touched on this problem. Ms Ali did a better job than I of clarifying where the blame for this problem really lies. I also really hope and pray that Europe is not the precursor of what America will one day become. We need to know our values and what we stand for so we can stand up and fight to preserve our identity. We are Americans and we know what it means to be an American.


Cross-posted at The Minority Report

I just stumbled upon an article in The Brussels Journal, Wilders causes another row. Pre-captivity Stockholm-Syndrome.

In a speech in the Dutch Parliament last Thursday, the Dutch opposition leader Geert Wilders referred to Joanie de Rijke’s case.


“She was raped, but she was not angry. The journalist who went looking for the Taliban in Afghanistan saw her curiosity end in a cruel ordeal of multiple rape. While this would make others angry or sad, this journalist shows understanding. She says: ‘They also respected me.’ And she was given tea and biscuits.”



“This story” Wilders said,

“is a perfect illustration of the moral decline of our elites. They are so blinded by their own ideology that they turn a blind eye to the truth. Rape? Well, I would put this into perspective, says the leftist journalist: the Taliban are not monsters.

The article went on to describe the reaction to this speech.

Wilders’ words caused instant fury on all benches except those of his own party. Parliamentarians and government ministers reacted furiously to his reference to Joanie de Rijke. “You should be ashamed of yourself,” Femke Halsema of the far-left Green Left Party yelled. Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende, a Christian-Democrat, called Wilders’ statement “extremely painful and tasteless.”

As in the case of Rush’s comments about Sonia Sotermayor, they do not dispute his conclusions. They just think it is so politically incorrect for him to state these conclusions.


This 43 year old lady journalist traveled from Flanders to Afghanistan to interview some Taliban fighters who had killed ten French soldiers last August. When she arrived for the interview the Taliban fighters abducted her and sent her interpreter back to Kabul with the message that 2 million dollars in ransom must be paid or they would slit her throat. The Dutch and Belgian governments refused to pay the ransom. The magazine she worked for offered $100,000 Euros, and the Taliban leader accepted the money after holding her hostage for six days.

In her book In de handen van de Taliban, which she published last month, she writes that the Taliban commander

“could not control his testosterone. I had the impression that afterwards he regretted what had happened. He knew it was wrong.”

The noble savage even “invited her to a threesome,” i.e. to have sex with him and one of his three wives.


After her release, Joanie de Rijke, too, criticized the Dutch and Belgian authorities for their refusal to pay ransom. “The Belgians have done nothing. They said it was a matter for the Dutch. And the Dutch authorities said they never pay ransom. In Afghanistan they know well enough that Western governments pay up after an abduction. Germany, Italy and France have all paid ransoms.”


Though de Rijke was angry with the Dutch and Belgian authorities, she told the Dutch media in interviews given after her release that she was not angry with her abductors. “I do not want to depict the Taliban as monsters. I am not angry with Ghazi Gul. After all, he let me live,” she said. About the rape ordeal she declared that though the experience had been horrible, she was also shown respect.


De Rijke, too, said she was appalled at Wilders’ statement. “I did feel angry because of the rape,” she explained, “what I tried to make clear was that the acts of the Taliban cannot be reduced to rape. The fact that I wanted to stress that aspect of my feelings is not the same as the Stockholm syndrome people like Wilders like to talk about. In a war situation people seem only able to think in black and white. I wanted to refine the story. A person is not a monster because he calls himself Taliban.”

Her reaction confirms precisely what Wilders was trying to say. In reality the Taliban are not monsters because they call themselves Taliban, but because they behave like monsters. People like de Rijke, however, no longer judge people by their behavior and their actions, but condone them for the noble motives which they imagine have driven them to commit their acts.

This sickness is not just something one can find among the Dutch elites. This sickness of being so blinded by your ideology that you turn a blind eye to the truth can also be found in Bakersfield, CA. March 30, 2009.


The story comes from KGET:

The woman had just left the Babies R Us store when she noticed a man in a tattered military coat lurking in the parking lot, she told police. The woman told detectives she was worried because the man looked like a thug, but she didn’t want to seem racist.


So, not wanting to seem racist, the Bakersfield, California woman proceeded to her car, where the man held her up at gun point and threatened to kill her 11 month old daughter if she didn’t do what he told her. He had her to drive to an ATM where he stole $500 from her, then he had had her drive to a junior high school parking lot where he raped her in front of her child.

These are disturbing stories for a couple of reasons. Reason number one is the outrage over merely identifying a moral decline evidenced by these incidents. Have we gotten to point where reporting the incident is more disturbing than the incident itself? I hope not. Reason number two is the fear that this sickness of being so blinded by your ideology that you turn a blind eye to the truth is a spreading sickness. Once again, I hope not.


Wilders understates the problem because this kind of sickness is far worse than Stockholm-Syndrome.
Cross-posted at The Minority Report

Russia in terms of land mass is the largest country on the the planet.  Its size spans ten different time zones, and overlaps two continents (Europe and Asia).  This country introduced to the rest of the world the concept of a Czar, and President Obama has moved with lightening speed on this concept.  The appeal of the czar rests on the belief that if we could just figure out the right smart, competent, well-intentioned person to put in charge, everything would go more smoothly.  The big problem with this belief is that the very thing that defines the Russian czars is total control over the lives of their subjects.

In 19th century America it was considered a political insult to be called a Czar.  When Andrew Jackson referred to bank president Biddle as Czar Nicholas he was not complimenting him.  When in 1890 the Speaker of the House, Thomas Reed, was referred to as Czar Reed he was not being complimented.  It was only years after the last Russian Czar was killed by the Bolsheviks that some Americans had a more fuzzy acceptance of the term.  The Commissioner of Baseball, Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis was considered the Czar of baseball in a good way.

It’s too bad IMO that the word Czar became an acceptable word in the American lexicon because it really is just an odious four-letter word.

Mark Twain had initially favored the Russian Czar, Alexander II, because he had issued an emancipation Manifesto in 1861 that abolished Russian serfdom.  Alexander II’s reforms which began with the 1861 emancipation of the serfs were not satisfactorily fulfilled. Peasants thought that they would be freed together with the plot of land they worked. Such was not the case. Although they were free, peasants were often denied an opportunity to purchase fertile land on which they had lived a lifetime. Instead many were offered poorer quality land that could not be farmed. Demands for a more democratic form of government and basic freedoms continued to be denied. When Alexander II was assassinated by a bomber in 1881 his son Alexander III succeeded him as Czar of Russia. Alexander III proved to be a more repressive monarch than his father.

Mark Twain changed his attitude about Russian Czars.  A reading he delivered at the Hartford Monday Evening Club on March 22, 1886 indicates his opinion of the Russian aristocracy changed:

Power, when lodged in the hands of man, means oppression — insures oppression: it means oppression always: … give it to the high priest of the Christian Church in Russia, the Emperor, and with a wave of his hand he will brush a multitude of young men, nursing mothers, gray headed patriarchs, gently young girls, like so many unconsidered flies, into the unimaginable hells of his Siberia, and go blandly to his breakfast, unconscious that he has committed a barbarity …

His autobiographical dictation on December 5, 1906 shows he was still very much an anti-Czarist:

Cruel and pitiful as was life throughout Christendom in the Middle Ages, it was not as cruel, not as pitiful, as is life in Russia today. In Russia, for three centuries, the vast population has been ground under the heels, and for the sole and sordid advantage, of a procession of crowned assassins and robbers who have all deserved the gallows. Russia’s hundred and thirty millions of miserable subjects are much worse off today than were the poor of the Middle Ages whom we so pity. We are accustomed now to speak of Russia as medieval and as standing still in the Middle Ages but that is flattery. Russia is way back of the Middle Ages; the Middle Ages are a long way in front of her and she is not likely to catch up with them so long as the Czardom continues to exist.

Mark Twain died in 1910, and never knew that the 1917 Revolution ended Czar rule in Russia without ending ending the practice of a ruthless tyranny grinding the vast population under their heels.

Eighty years to the day after the last Czar of Russia was killed, July 18, 1998, Nicholas II and his family were reburied in St. Petersburg. Boris Yeltsin’s speech at the funeral was a plea for nonviolent methods of change:

We must end the century, which has been an age of blood and violence in Russia, with repentance and peace, regardless of political views, ethnic or religious belonging.

This is our historic chance. On the eve of the third millennium, we must do it for the sake of our generation and those to come.

More than ten years after that speech I see no evidence of a Russia of repentance and peace.  The USA seems more likely to me to unravel the tyranny of living under Czars than Russia.  I wish the unraveling of Czarist tyranny in the US could begin now,  but it will not end until Obama is out of office.

The 18 Czars installed in the USA by Obama include the following:

Carol Browner - energy czar
Cass Sunstein - regulatory czar
Daniel Fried - Guantanamo closure czar
Adolfo Carrion, Jr. - urban czar
Joshua DuBois - faith-based czar
Gary Samore - non-proliferation czar
John Brennan - terrorism czar
John Holdren - weather czar
Van Jones - green czar
Nancy Ann DeParle - health czar
Alan Bersin - border czar
Vivek Kundra - tech czar
?- cyber security czar
Herb Allison - TARP czar
Earl Devaney - stimulus czar
Steve Rattner - car czar
Gil Kerlikowske- drug czar
Kenneth Feinberg- pay czar

None of these eighteen czars need confirmation by the US Senate.  The House and Senate do not have any oversight role for any of these czars.  There is no Supreme Court judicial review process created for these czars compared to the judicial review process for Congress.

We were told by candidate Obama that he promised to bring change if he were elected President.  I do not think this is the kind of change his voters had in their mind when they voted for him.

Cross-posted at The Minority Report