Thursday, April 30, 2009
The evidence of the past two decades is unimpeachable: the political right in America no longer stands for individual rights, limited government and capitalism. The "rightists" now advocate expanding the welfare state, increasing government intrusion into our intimate private affairs, and sacrificing American lives to foreign paupers. They call it "advancing the cause of freedom."
This is not what the right once stood for. Fifty years ago one could recognize serious problems in their positions, but also that by and large they favored individual liberty, opposed the growth of government beyond necessity, and advocated a strong military defense. In contrast, the left wanted socialism, the welfare state, and, following Vietnam, military humility.
Historically, and in broad terms, the right often tried to uphold the virtues of productiveness, independence, self-reliance, and American self-interest. They opposed the New Deal and the Great Society, as well as foreign wars that were not in America's interests, as assaults on freedom. It was Democrats such as Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman and Johnson who brought America into such wars, and who institutionalized massive redistribution of wealth at home. The right co-opted many statist measures of the left—such as anti-trust—but they generally saw America's proper condition as peaceful production and free enterprise.
When the socialist assault began, the right became the opposition, facing a tide of motivated leftists who claimed that science and history were on their side. But what arguments, and what moral principles, did those on the right have for their own programs? Only vague statements of American ideals and virtues, held as floating ideas rather than with secure understanding. Consequently, "normalcy" in the 1920's was accompanied by huge increases in foreign aid, and ever larger infringements on domestic, especially economic, affairs.
They called on "Rugged Individualism" as an ideal—but could not say why this was morally right. They said "the business of America is business," but had no answer when told this was rule by robber barons. They proclaimed that "what is good for GM is good for America," but could not defend GM's profits. They spoke up for "capitalism" but wilted when told that it did not make everyone equal. They often maintained that America should pursue its own interests, but could not say why those interests did not include American soldiers dying for foreigners overseas...(READ at Capitalism Magazine).
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Following is the courageous British MEP Daniel Hannan speaking to and about the England's Prime Minister Gordon Brown who is doing the exact same thing to his country as our President is doing to his own country - sellling it down the road to the highest bidder.
“Prime Minister,” MEP Hannan said, “I see you’ve already mastered the essential craft of the European politician, namely the ability to say one thing in this chamber and a very different thing to your home electorate.
“You’ve spoken here about free trade, and amen to that. Who would have guessed, listening to you just now, that you were the author of the phrase ‘British jobs for British workers’ and that you have subsidized, where you have not nationalized outright, swathes of our economy, including the car industry and many of the banks?
“Perhaps you would have more moral authority in this house if your actions matched your words. Perhaps you would have more legitimacy in the councils of the world if the United Kingdom were not going into this recession in the worst condition of any G-20 country.
“The truth, Prime Minister, is that you have run out of our money. The country as a whole is now in negative equity.
“Every British child is born owing around 20,000 pounds. Servicing the interest on that debt is going to cost more than educating the child.
“Now, once again today you try to spread the blame around; you spoke about an international recession, international crisis. Well, it is true that we are all sailing together into the squalls. But not every vessel in the convoy is in the same dilapidated condition.
“Other ships used the good years to caulk their hulls and clear their rigging — in other words, to pay off debt. But you used the good years to raise borrowing yet further. As a consequence, under your captaincy, our hull is pressed deep into the waterline under the accumulated weight of your debt.
“We are now running a deficit that touches 10 percent of GDP, an almost unbelievable figure — more than Pakistan, more than Hungary, countries where the IMF have already been called in.
“Now, it’s not that you’re not apologizing; like everyone else, I have long accepted that you’re pathologically incapable of accepting responsibility for these things.
“It’s that you’re carrying on, willfully worsening our situation, wantonly spending what little we have left. ... In the last 12 months, 100,000 private-sector jobs have been lost, and yet you created 30,000 public-sector jobs.
“Prime Minister, you cannot carry on forever squeezing the productive bit of the economy in order to fund an unprecedented engorgement of the unproductive bit.
“You cannot spend your way out of recession or borrow your way out of debt. And when you repeat, in that wooden and perfunctory way, that our situation is better than others, that we’re ‘well-placed to weather the storm,’ I have to tell you (that) you sound like a Brezhnev-era apparatchik giving the party line. You know and we know — and you know that we know — that it’s nonsense!”
Monday, April 27, 2009
If you don't think government bureaucrats can make questionable decisions, then you haven't dealt with many government bureaucrats.
It is one thing to deal with bureaucrats when you are at the Department of Motor Vehicles and in good health. It is something else when you have to deal with bureaucrats when you are lying on a gurney and bleeding or are doubled over in pain on a hospital bed.
People who believe in "universal health care" show remarkably little interest -- usually none -- in finding out what that phrase turns out to mean in practice, in those countries where it already exists, such as Britain, Sweden or Canada.
For one thing, "universal health care" in these countries means months of waiting for surgery that American get in a matter of weeks or even days.
In these and other countries, it means having only a fraction as many MRIs and other high-tech medical devices available per person as in the United States.
In Sweden, it means not only having bureaucrats deciding what medicines the government will and will not pay for, but even preventing you from buying the more expensive medicine for yourself with your own money. That would violate the "equality" that is the magic mantra. (READ)
Saturday, April 25, 2009
"From health care to global warming, financial regulation, spending and tax policy, Mr. Gregg doesn't pull any punches in his criticism of the new president. He may be "a charismatic person" with "a very strong understanding of who he is and what he wants to do," but when it comes to the substance of what Mr. Obama seeks to accomplish, Mr. Gregg is less charitable. "They have a goal," the senator says, "and he's very open about it. They are going to grow this government."
Mr. Gregg believes the stakes are high. "This is the first time a budget's had real meaning in a long time," he says. In recent years, presidential budgets have been formulaic exercises. Even if Congress went on to adopt them, they would only serve, at best, as rough guidelines for the real work of crafting the appropriations bills that actually set discretionary funding levels. But this budget "is real, and he [Mr. Obama] intends to push it."
That's bad news, in Mr. Gregg's view, because "We're headed on an unsustainable path. The simple fact is these [budget] numbers don't work and the practical implications of them are staggering for the nation and the next generation."
His "main concern," he says, "is that if you look at the Obama budget, it projects on average about a $1 trillion deficit [every year] over the next 10 years." And as a result of all that spending, "You see the size of government growing from 21% [of gross domestic product] to 22%, to 23%, 24%, 25% . . . toward 30%." (READ WSJ)
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Larry Elder writes: The New Deal, launched almost 80 years ago, represented a giant leap toward collectivism. But only in the last few weeks, as a result of President Barack Obama's New Deal Reloaded, have some 20 states rediscovered the Constitution and the 10th Amendment.
Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution sets forth the limited duties and obligations of the federal government.
The Founding Fathers designed a federal government that focuses primarily on national security, the rules of naturalization, and a handful of other matters. And the Ninth and 10th amendments to the Constitution leave all other rights and powers to the people and to the states, respectively.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry, standing with members of his state Legislature, said: “The 10th Amendment was enacted by folks who remembered what it was like to have a very oppressive government — to be under the thumb of tyrants in an all-powerful government. Unfortunately, the protections it guarantees have melted away over the course of the years.”
During the early days of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal, the Supreme Court actually ruled that the Constitution meant what it said and said what it meant...(Larry Elder at The Atlasphere).
Walter Williams writes: Our Colonial ancestors petitioned and pleaded with King George III to get his boot off their necks.
He ignored their pleas, and in 1776, they rightfully declared unilateral independence and went to war.
Today it’s the same story except Congress is the one usurping the rights of the people and the states, making King George’s actions look mild in comparison.
There’s speculation that they will be joined by Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Nevada, Maine and Pennsylvania...
The Founders tried to limit that power with the 10th Amendment, which reads: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” (READ)
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Friday, April 17, 2009
Whether they are aggressors like Russia, proliferators like North Korea, terror exporters like nuclear-armed Pakistan or would-be genocidal-terror-supporting nuclear states like Iran, today, under the new administration, none of them has any reason to fear Washington...
But while the media couldn't get enough of the new US leader, America's most stable allies worldwide began a desperate search for a reset button that would cause the administration to take back its abandonment of America's role as the protector of the free world...
Tokyo was distraught by the administration's reaction to North Korea's three-stage ballistic missile test. Japan recognized the betrayal inherent in Defense Secretary Robert Gates's announcement ahead Pyongyang's newest provocation that the US would only shoot the missile down if it targeted US territory. In one sentence, uttered not in secret consultations, but declared to the world on CNN, Gates abrogated America's strategic commitment to Japan's defense.
India, for its part, is concerned by Obama's repeated assertions that its refusal to transfer control over the disputed Jammu and Kashmir provinces to Pakistan inspires Pakistani terror against India...
Then there is Iraq...
Hearing Obama's statements, and watching him and his advisers make daily declarations of friendship to Iran's mullahs, Iraqi leaders are considering their options for surviving the rapidly approaching storm.
Then there is Europe... his words were anything but music to the ears of the leaders of former Soviet satellites threatened by Russia. The Czech, Polish, Georgian and Ukrainian governments were quick to recognize that Obama's strong desire to curry favor with the Kremlin and weaken his own country will imperil their ability to withstand Russian aggression...
And as for Russia, like Iran, which responded to Obama's latest ode to the mullahs by opening a nuclear fuel plant and announcing it has 7,000 advanced centrifuges in operation, so Moscow reacted to Obama's fig leaf with a machine gun, announcing its refusal to support sanctions against North Korea and repeating its false claim that Iran's nuclear program is nonaggressive.
Finally there is Israel. If Obama's assertions that Israel must support the immediate establishment of a Palestinian state, his declarations of support for the so-called Saudi "peace plan," which requires Israel to commit national suicide in exchange for "peace" with the Arab world, and his continuous and increasingly frantic appeals for Iran to "engage" his administration weren't enough to show Israel that Obama is sacrificing the US's alliance with the Jewish state in a bid to appease the Arabs and Iran, on Tuesday Vice President Joseph Biden made this policy explicit.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Friday, April 10, 2009
Is this an sign as to how Mr Obama will address future attacks on us? Can we count on this President to defend our interests? Isn't this THE MOST IMPORTANT JOB an American president has - TO DEFEND AMERICANS AND OUR HOMELAND? Well, maybe he's too busy plunging us into this mountain of debt we will be trying to shovel our way out of for the next few decades than to concentrate on the evils that confront us everyday. The following are comments from a former CIA agent.
"The American response to date has been incredibly naïve and woefully ineffective. Now, predictably, you have an American taken hostage. All of which should have been prevented. You’ve got a failed state in Somalia and pirates operating in an area of ocean that is larger than the state of Texas but we’ve been trying to deal with this from the ocean side, by sending the navy and with a limited application of technology, such as satellites and drones. We can’t afford to patrol that big a piece of the ocean; it’s too expensive to leave a naval task force out there."
"...The pirates have a base of operations and infrastructure. They’re not going out 400-plus nautical miles from shore in shitty boats; they have fuel supplies, docks, mechanics, and support infrastructure, on the beach. It’s all findable and disrupt-able. We need a contingent of agency personnel in Ethiopia and Somalia to go after this infrastructure, leadership and control elements in Somalia, and an aggressive humint [human intelligence] effort in Lebanon to follow, and choke off the money.
This is a challenge to confront, but it has to be dealt with. A band of thugs are tying up international shipping along a gigantic stretch of Africa that’s an approach area for the Suez Canal. Last year, the hijackers made $80 million, which is a staggering sum of money in that country. Up until now, little has been done to deal with it because of the expense, complexity and necessary commitment of manpower and resources required. Also, given the long history of Al Qaida in Somalia, no one wants to discuss the possibility that it may have a role in this pirate activity as a revenue stream. That’s a question that could be answered if we had better humint (human intelligence) in Somalia.
...In 1803-05, Jefferson sent Captain Eaton to conduct a covert action attack against the pirates and their infrastructure and leadership on the beach. Captain Eaton assembled a handful of of U.S. Marines and a group of Arab, Greek and North African mercenaries and attacked the Basha from the desert, overland side, while the Naval task force bombarded the sea side. (READ)
Thursday, April 09, 2009
"Would to Heaven we had a navy to reform those enemies to mankind, or crush them into non-existence," said George Washington in 1786. Said one American envoy, "There is but one language which can be held to these people, and this is terror."
... It was 19th century colonialism that finally put an end to centuries of North African piracy, just as it was the Western nations that finally ended the Slave Trade.
Unfortunately the slave trade, taking of captives for ransom, and terrorism lives on Islamic societies (Read the rest of this most interesting history of the epidemic of pirates in the 1800's).
The pirates in the water's off Africa are not new what's new is the the fact that Western nations have done nothing to rid us of this evil. For America, it appears this is the first time an American ship, carrying aid to Africa by the way, has been hijacked. Now ask yourself, why now? Under Obama's tenure?
- 'It was believed to be the first US merchant ship hijacked since the North African Barbary Wars in the early 19th century, underlining the anarchy raging off Somalia despite an international naval effort against piracy.' (Read)
Monday, April 06, 2009
Rob Tracinski at TIA Daily writes: "In every dictatorship, there is a tradeoff between power and prosperity. Every strongman takes actions that clearly and obviously diminish his nation's ability to produce wealth, but which increase his regime's ability to control the lives of the people. Iran, Venezuela, and Russia, for example, are all notorious for exercising political control over oil production—their main source of wealth—even when that has resulted in a decrease in foreign investment and thus in long-term output. "
Saturday, April 04, 2009
...The above interpretations ignore the plain fact that America today does not enjoy a free-market system—let alone a free-market financial sector—nor has it enjoyed one for most of the past century. Only through a profound misunderstanding of what constitutes a free-market system could anyone honestly blame capitalism for the financial crisis. For decades the American politico-economic system has been a mixed system—a combination of some freedom of choice and action offset by large (and growing) coercive interventions. It was precisely these coercive elements—the regulation, taxation, and subsidization—that caused today’s financial crisis. Washington’s recent and massive interventions did not follow from free-market “failure”; they followed from the market distortions caused by prior government intervention in the economy. Government interventions have both instigated and aggravated the latest financial crisis.
By surveying the government interventions that caused the latest turmoil and wealth destruction in housing and banking, this article will demonstrate that the current financial crisis was caused not by a return to free markets or pro-capitalist policies in the past decade, but by a tragic progression toward socialism. More importantly, it will demonstrate that altruism—the notion that being moral consists in sacrificing oneself for the needs of others—is the basis for this government intervention, and thus the root cause of the crisis.
Of course, in order to recognize that capitalism is innocent of the latest charges against it, we must bear in mind what capitalism is. Capitalism is the social system of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.11 Capitalism upholds the rule of law and equality before the law, forbids government favors to any person or group (including businesses), entails the complete separation of state and economics, and thus leaves each individual free to act on his own judgment for his own sake. With that in mind, let us consider the relevant facts surrounding the financial crisis.
...Perhaps no single U.S. government intervention has destroyed more capital or wasted more taxpayer funds in recent years than the establishment of “Fannie Mae,” “Freddie Mac,” and “Ginnie Mae”—“government-sponsored enterprises” (GSEs) that for years have been used by politicians to secure campaign funds and votes by promoting artificially cheap home mortgages and “the American dream of home ownership.” The quaint, disarming nicknames for the GSEs actually stand for the Federal National Mortgage Association, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, and the Government National Mortgage Association. Read more if you want to know the history and reason for why we are where we are today.
Yesterday when Barack Obama met with the Queen of England in the Queen’s Palace in the United Kingdom, he merely offered her a handshake. However, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, a man who presides over a nation where women are considered to be less than 3/5 human, got a whole bow from Barack Obama (READ).