Govt Shutdown - Report from Out Here: Day 3

DAY 3:

Looking out my windows, it is a little more overcast and dreary today than yesterday...not sure if this is an effect of the shutdown or not.

But, water continues to flow from my faucets, I have electricity, and my phone and internet services still work.  This is curious to me.  Why, I thought that without the Federal Government, all infrastructure just falls apart.  I thought the local water, power and telecom companies were just a front for Federal workers who busily went about making sure that all the important features of modern life were maintained...and yet three days into a Federal Government shut down there is no apparent impact on these vital services.

What I have heard about is government agents putting up barricades around federal landmarks, such as the WWII Monument.  These are monuments that many people visit every day without the need for government tour guides or  any interaction with government at all.  But, even during a horrible shutdown, the Feds do seem to have the ability to send agents to bar 80 and 90 year old WWII veterans from visiting their monument.  They also seem to have the ability to place barricades around Mount Vernon, which is privately owned and operated.

This is pretty pathetic, if you ask me.  This is a blatant attempt to use our monuments as a very visible sign of the effects of a government shut down.  One of the first things they bring up in every discussion of possible shutdowns over the last few years is the closing of national parks and monuments.  They want you to know that poor little school children may not be able to visit their favorite park.  Now remember, this is almost all they have...Parks and the fact that Federal workers may not get paid...except of course the big mean officers barring access to monuments.  What else are we seeing?  What other catastrophes have befallen us?

Once again I call on the States to take up this issue also.  Find for me in the Constitution...anywhere...the clause giving the Federal government the power to run tourist attractions.  In the last more than 100 years, the Federal government has confiscated millions and millions of acres of land within the boundaries of many States for the purposes of establishing parks.  They have no legal right to do this under the narrowly enumerated powers given them by the federation of States through the Constitution.  Don't get me wrong, I think many of these parks are beautiful and amazing places, but they should not be under Federal control.  Most, if not all States run and maintain their own parks.  They could also maintain the Federal parks instead of sending their money off to Washington to have sent back for this purpose after a large portion is skimmed off-the-top for bureaucratic overhead and graft.

So...Day 3 and no real noticeable effect for the VAST MAJORITY of the population..."curiouser and curiouser."

Related post:
Why Feed the Pig?

Aftermath

I'm a bit too shell shocked to go into any real analysis of the election, so I just wanted to get down some of my general thoughts:

• This is now the second presidential election in a row where the Republican party decided it was best to run a "nice" campaign.  They are so kowtowed by the threats of being called racist, that they would not deal directly and firmly with Obama's history and record.  They allowed the Democrats to continue to distort facts with very little response.  This is a complete lack of leadership and the Republican party deserved to lose.
• It seems to me that we have now become a country, as a whole, who is willing to follow Europe down the socialist debt hole toward insolvency.   Alexis de Tocqueville  is credited with saying, “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”  We seem to have reached this point.  We no longer ask what we can do for our country, but want only to know what our country can do for us.  We seem to be willing to sell our legacy for free health care, food stamps and Obama phones.
• The nation has reached a state of shallowness and vapidity from which I fear only truly hard times will shake us.  I saw polling information that said something like 43% of those responding to exit polling said that President Obama's handling of the hurricane Sandy disaster was "very important" to their decision.  This is absolutely astounding...and more than a little distressing...to me.  That someone could, after four years of broken promises, failed policy and nonexistent leadership, see the President acting "presidential" in a brief, staged photo-op after a storm and think that made him a good president is incomprehensible.  The fact that the response of the Federal government has been less than stellar since then means nothing to the Obama groupies with stars in their eyes.
• Half the country seems to be hopelessly invested in class warfare...just like the Russian people were before the communist revolution...or the Germans before the Nazi take over.  This has caused them to draw stark, black and white lines in their minds.  Corporations are always evil and Unions are always good.  Democrats always acts for the good of the people and tell the truth...Republicans are selfish liars who only care about what's best for them and their Corporate overlords.  The rich have stolen everything they have from the poor. They are blind to the fact that absolute power corrupts, absolutely...regardless of party, occupation or income.  They are easily fooled by 20 second sound bites and focus-group tested tag lines.
•  Facts and details mean nothing to many people.  They will not hear the truth that the largess they vote themselves is financed by trillions of dollars of indebtedness to our enemies.  They will not see that the policies of their chosen representatives have caused the financial woes we have been experiencing.   No discussion of corruption...no discussion of the rule of law moves them.  They mock, scoff at and ignore anything that does not agree with the approved party line...and this is on both sides of the political divide.  When confronted with hard issues, they do not answer them...they will only excuse, obfuscate or ignore them...but never deal with them.  If all else fails, they just blame Bush.
• There are no statesmen left...only power hungry politicians. 
• The Republicans are only marginally better than the Democrats...but we were unwilling to move even incrementally toward smaller, less intrusive government.
• I fear for our future.

Electoral College Prediction

Okay...I'm going out on a limb and am going to predict a Romney win by 286 to 252 Electoral votes.  The map below, which I created from the Real Clear Politics Create Your Own Map tool, is how I'm calling it as of today.

Analysis from political science professors Kenneth Bickers of Colorado University (CU)-Boulder and Michael Berry of CU Denver actually gives Romney the win with 330.  Their analysis has been applied to all presidential elections back to 1980 and have accurately reflected the actual results of those contests.  Their model gives New Mexico, Colorado, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania to Romney, which I give to Obama...an additional 44 Electoral votes.

I believe that the anti-Obama vote has the most motivation...and the more people see of Romney, the more they like him.  In July, Gallup reported that Democratic voting enthusiasm is down sharply from the 2004 and 2008 election cycles.  In October, Forbes reported that one of Obama's biggest challenges was voter apathy.  The Forbes article points to analysis by NBC's Chuck Todd that showed "an ‘across the board’ advantage for Republicans in the enthusiasm race."

No one should take any of this for granted though.  It is highly dependent on voter turn out.  So, if you care about the future of your country:

GET OUT AND VOTE!

Top Priority? Really?

I always tell people in my business life that when everything is a priority...nothing is a priority.  Obama has done nothing positive for any of his many so-called "top-priorities."

Obama in his own words:

How Do We Balance The Budget?

Regardless of who wins the upcoming Presidential election, there are hard decisions to be made to avoid a financial disaster in our country.  Federal spending is out of control with no apparent end in site. At the time of this posting the Federal debt exceeds $16 Trillion.  That's:

$16,000,000,000,000

In past posts I have put this kind of debt in perspective (and that was in 2011 when the debt was only $14 Trillion)...I have shown that it is not a revenue problem, but a spending problem.  Raising taxes can't fix it, because you could tax corporations and everyone who is considered rich at 100% and still not have enough money to feed the government's spending habit.

Though everyone knows that we have an unsustainable debt problem...that our deficits continue to grow, government continues to expand programs...and therefore spending.  Not only that, but the government has been actively advertising and recruiting to get more people on the roles of programs like food stamps.  Today the Washington Times reported that "Overall, welfare spending as measured by obligations has grown from $563 billion in fiscal 2008 to $746 billion in fiscal 2011, or a jump of 32 percent."  While welfare programs were cut during the Clinton administration, the Obama administration has been redoubling their efforts to increase this spending.

We are headed in the wrong direction.   I agree with then candidate Obama when he said of the much smaller debt under Bush, "That's irresponsible.  It's unpatriotic." We must first stop the bleeding, and then begin to return to fiscal responsibility and prudence.  This can only happen through a return to the principles of limited and decentralized government.  Come on folks, let's get patriotic again.

Professor Antony Davies has another great video on the issue:

Obama: Redistributionist

Who can deny that Obama is a communist?  You might play semantics about the definition of communist, or socialist, etc, but these all come from the same root philosophers and thinkers.  Karl Marx did not make such distinctions.  To him, communism was just one type of socialism.

Obama's own life and words point to his communist beliefs.  His near idolization of his Marxist, anti-colonialist father...His childhood mentoring by communist Frank Marshall Davis...his Grandfather's move to Washington state to enroll his mother in an openly communist school.  In Obama's own words, he sought out Marxist professors in college...he surrounded himself in adulthood with Marxists.

And now, in the audio clip below, he admits that he believes in redistribution of wealth.  Taken along with his background and another interview where he complained that the Warren Supreme Court "never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society."  I think it pretty obvious that, no matter what you call it, Obama is a communist/socialist/central planner.

Two cornerstones of communism/socialism are central planning and redistribution of wealth.  The central planners are the ones who can make all the decisions about how to redistribute your wealth...who to steal from and who to reward with that stolen wealth.  Obama believes that he is the one who is smart enough to make these decisions...though I would remind him that "there are a lot of smart people out there."  So why are he and his cohorts any more qualified to decide where our money gets spent than we are?

Do Words Matter?

Obama says "Don't tell me words don't matter."  I agree...they do.  This video takes a look at Obama's own words...and the truth.

It's A Miraculous Life

No need to add anything.  Whittle nails it.

Obama Tax Hikes Will Cost Jobs

A study recently released by Earnst & Young, LLP says that if the Bush-era tax cuts for wage earners over $250,000 are allowed to expire, the country will lose 710,000 jobs while the economy declines by $200 billion.  The report's author, Robert Carroll wrote, “The higher tax rates will have significant adverse economic effects in the long run: lowering output, employment, investment, the capital stock and real after-tax wages when the resulting revenue is used to finance additional government spending.”

Of course, the Democrats are rushing to dismiss the report's assumptions, methodology, and conclusions because it does not fit their tax-and-spend doctrine.   White House spokeswoman, Amy Brundage posted analysis from Jason Furman of the National Economic Council which says that the report “fallaciously assumes that the tax cuts are used to finance additional spending, ignoring the benefits of what the president actually proposed, which was to use the revenue as part of a balanced plan to reduce the deficit and stabilize the debt.”  Even if all of the revenues raised by this tax hike went to helping reduce the deficit, it is only estimated to raise enough to fund the deficit for about eight days...not eight days of government spending, mind you, just the deficit spending.

Furman claims that Obama's plan "includes $2.50 of spending cuts for every $1.00 of revenue."  What in the history of Obama, or the Democrats...or the Republicans, for that matter...would lead anyone to believe that they won't continue to increase spending?  This president has presided over the largest accumulation of national debt in the history of the country, by far.  Debt has increased by more than $5 TRILLION in less than four years.  This claim is eerily familiar to when the Democratically controlled Congress promised President George H. W. Bush three dollars in spending cuts for every one dollar of tax hikes. Bush famously capitulated, breaking his "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge.  What he got was not spending cuts, but...you know what's coming, don't you...that's right, increased spending. 

Frum says that the study "leaves out the President’s proposed new tax cuts for business hiring and investment."  This is proposed, of course, and not actual, enacted tax cuts. Obama's cuts will, supposedly provide a "10 percent tax credit for business hiring and wage increases and allowing immediate write-offs of new investment through the end of 2012."  So, with these cuts, Obama is trying once again to micromanage the economy.  Businesses do not hire because they get tax credits for doing so; they hire when demand for their products and/or services is high enough to justify adding head count.  In prolonged downturns of the economy, businesses are even more hesitant to hire, due to the uncertainties of the market.  Instead, they make due with the employees they have working more and more overtime before hiring.  This is why hiring is always a lagging indicator for economic recovery.

In a May article on the NPR web site, columnist Fred Barnes said there are problems with, what he calls
"Obama's phantom tax breaks." Here's what he said:

"There are three big problems here. The first is that his 17 tax cuts have had little if any impact on small businesses or the economy. Basically, they failed. Second, his new cuts are much like the earlier ones. They're temporary, narrow, and not what small business owners are asking for, which are fewer regulations and a permanent cut in the personal income tax rate or at least no hike in that rate. Third, they have no chance of being enacted in 2012."

Frum continues by saying that even the Earnst & Young report acknowledges "that the short-run impact of extending the high-income tax cuts will be proportionately less than the impact of the middle-income cuts, noting that a 'disproportionate share of the tax change is likely to be channeled through savings for taxpayers facing the top tax rates as compared to other taxpayers.'  As I have been prone to saying a lot lately, SO WHAT?  This is just basically saying that raising taxes on the middle-income earners is also a bad idea.  It does not negate the claims that there will be job loss and economic downturn.

The main reason for the job loss seems to be that a large number of small businesses file at an individual rate rather than a corporate rate.  Obama claims that he will be giving "tax cuts for 97 percent of all small-business owners in America." and his proposal "isn’t about taxing job creators, this is about helping job creators.”  But, the businesses under $250,000 a year are not job creators.  These are mostly small, one or two person shops...consultants and freelancers.  The Heritage Foundation calculated that "the average American with $250,000 or more in income can expect an average $24,888 tax increase next year under Obama’s proposed policies."  Looking at Treasury Department data they determined that "1.2 million small businesses both had employees and earned more than $200,000 in 2007. So the President is putting about 1.2 million jobs—perhaps even more—at risk with this tax hike." 

Obama is a big-government socialist.  He claims that, in his words, "It is only government that can break the vicious cycle where lost jobs leads to people spending less money, which leads to even more layoffs."  He believes that not raising taxes on Americans is spending by the government.  And so far, all of his policies that are supposedly aimed at fixing the economy through big-government solutions have been complete failures.  So please excuse me if I might tend to accept the conclusions of the Earnst & Young report over anything this failed president or his minions might offer as evidence supporting their plans.   Expecting more of the same to work this time is the very definition of insanity.

Government Exploitation

In light of the ridiculous statements Obama has been making about the nature of success in this country, which I covered in my previous post, I thought I would share this video by Matt Zwonlinski, PhD on the subject of whether capitalism exploits workers.  He gives a very well reasoned and succinct coverage of the topic.

Dr. Zwonlinski concludes that while capitalists want to exploit workers, they can't very well in a free market society because of the competition for good labor.  Interaction between business and labor is voluntary and mutually agreed on.  Government, however, has the coercive power to exploit the ordinary citizens.  It is, in fact Government that poses the most danger of exploitation...and, therefore, danger to our liberty.

“The accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands, whether of one, a few or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” – James Madison; Federalist No. 47.

Obama Care and the Death of a Republic

Today's Supreme Court ruling on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka Obama Care, is a huge disappointment for anyone who cares for the Constitution and the rule of law.  This law was shoved through Congress against the will of a strong majority of the people in this country.  It gives unprecedented power to the central government to control the lives of individual citizens.   This has been done over the objections of several States.  It also gives the central government control over approximately one-seventh of the economy...in effect socializing a  whole segment of the private industry.

One of the most troublesome aspects of this law, the so-called "individual mandate," which forces individual citizens to purchase health insurance, whether they want to or not, under the penalty of being fined, was held to be constitutional under Congress' taxing power.  Chief Justice Roberts found, in writing the majority opinion, that "In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress's power to tax."  This flies directly in the face the wording of the act and of what was continually claimed by Obama and his minions.  He claimed that the individual mandate was "absolutely not" a tax.

Rather than interpreting the law, as is the mandate of the Supreme Court, Justice Roberts and the other assenting members have legislated from the bench.  The mandate language in the law did not call for a tax, but rather a penalty.  Roberts and the others changed the law by judicial fiat.  In writing for the dissenting members,  Justice Kennedy explains that, "In a few cases, this Court has held that a 'tax' imposed upon private conduct was so onerous as to be in effect a penalty. But we have never held—never—that a penalty imposed for violation of the law was so trivial as to be in effect a tax. We have never held that any exaction imposed for violation of the law is an exercise of Congress’ taxing power—even when the statute calls it a tax, much less when (as here) the statute repeatedly calls it a penalty. When an act adopt[s] the criteria of 'wrongdoing' and then imposes a monetary penalty as the “principal consequence on those who transgress its standard,” it creates a regulatory penalty, not a tax."  But that's what the majority clearly did in this case...they interpreted a penalty as a tax.

Justice Kennedy, also explained:

"As for the constitutional power to tax and spend for the general welfare: The Court has long since expanded that beyond (what Madison thought it meant) taxing and spending for those aspects of the general welfare that were within the Federal Government’s enumerated powers, see United States v. Butler, 297 U. S. 1, 65–66 (1936). Thus, we now have sizable federal Departments devoted to subjects not mentioned among Congress’ enumerated powers, and only marginally related to commerce: the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The principal practical obstacle that prevents Congress from using the tax-and-spend power to assume all the general-welfare responsibilities traditionally exercised by the States is the sheer impossibility of managing a Federal Government large enough to administer such a system."

"The Act before us here exceeds federal power both in mandating the purchase of health insurance and in denying nonconsenting States all Medicaid funding. These parts of the Act are central to its design and operation, and all the Act’s other provisions would not have beenenacted without them. In our view it must follow that the entire statute is inoperative."

The truly frightening part of this decision is that it sets precedent that will likely allow the central government to control any activity or sector of the economy they wish through their seemingly unlimited power to tax. Rep. Jeff Landry, R-La. had it right when he spoke on the steps of the Supreme Court after the ruling,  “They basically have said Congress has no limit to its taxing power. This is the largest tax increase on the poor and the middle class in the history of this country . . . it was sold to the American people as a mandate and not a tax.”


The short-term solution is to vote Obama and all of his central planning, socialist cronies out of office and push the new president and Congress for a total repeal of this bad law.  But this is not enough.  The problem is systemic...the government given to us by the founders has rotted to the core.  The central government can not be trusted to act on the principles of the founding and the original intent of our bedrock legal document, the Constitution.  Neither can Supreme Court be counted on to take up the cause.  As I wrote in a previous post:

Where are the checks and balances that safe guard our liberty? The Supreme Court? This is only a small group of politically appointed lawyers, with tenure for life, who have a history of rubber stamping government expansion. No, the only real hope is to return to America's founding principles, and it is The People who must demand the changes necessary.

Notice that throughout this post, I have referred to the "central government" rather than the Federal government.  I do this with a purpose.  The founding fathers provided us with a federal republic form of government.  It was a republic in that ultimate power originated from "the People."  It was federal in that there was a small body that was to represent the interests of the federation of the sovereign United States of America.  This central government was to be very limited in scope and power and, derived it's power from the States and the People.  The chief check on the power of the Federal government was to be the sovereign States.  With this ruling, and many before it, we no longer have a federal form of government in practice, we have a national one with the States now being subservient to the central body.  This is why I will no longer refer to this body as federal.  There are no sovereign States, and soon, if we don't make a change, there will be no republic.

Because the central government has become so corrupted, we cannot hope to restore it from within.  We must return to the principles of federalism.  The States must retake their rightful role as the check against usurpation and aggression by the central government.  To do this, we must repeal the Seventeenth Amendment (see these post for more information on this topic: Repeal the 17th Amendment ; Like the 10th Amendment? Repeal the 17th!).  The states must then nullify unconstitutional laws and rollback the central government to it's rightful scope.  Without these steps, the republic is truly dead.

See the following posts for background on Federalism:

Balance of Power

The Utility of Federalism

The Road Back to Federalism - Part 1

The Road Back to Federalism - Part 2

The Road Back to Federalism - Part 3

The Road Back to Federalism - Part 4

That's Irresponsible. It's Unpatriotic.

By Bob Gorrell - June 14, 2012

In the video below, Candidate Barack Obama blasts President Bush, and rightly so, for adding $4 Trillion to the national debt.  He said, "...we now have over nine trillion dollars of debt, that we are gonna have to pay back.  Thirty thousand dollars for every man, woman and child."

Today, with less than one term in office, compared to Bush's two terms, the U.S. national debt is more than $15 Trillion.  That is more than $50,000 for every man woman and child.  This is a $6 Trillion increase over the debt level that candidate Obama railed against.

Once again, we should take President Obama at his word:

"That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic."

A One Term Proposition

"I will be held accountable, you know, I've got four years...A year from now, uh, I think people are gonna see, uh, that we're starting to make some progress, but there's still gonna be some pain out there.  If I don't have this done in three years, then there's gonna be a one-term proposition." ~ Barack Obama, 2009.

The economy is in such a bad way that we should certainly take Mr. Obama at his word, hold him accountable and make him a one-term president.  He hasn't gotten it done!  We can't afford to give him another shot at it, hoping that maybe, just maybe, this time he can improve things.

I am not a big Mitt Romney fan, and would rather see someone else running in opposition.  But he can not do worse than this current president has done.  If Romney doesn't get it done, he should likewise be a one-termer.  Then, maybe we will all get serious about voting for serious candidates...statesmen instead of politicians.  We should have this same attitude about our Senate and House candidates..and state and local candidates for that matter.  This is not a game, folks.  This is our lives, our future, our liberty at stake.



Thanks to VideoSeattle.

Competing Money

Friedrich A. Hayek, famous economist and author of The Road To Serfdom, said the following concerning money in an interview:

"Oh, I am absolutely convinced that no government is capable of...politically or intellectually...of providing the exact amount of money that is needed for economic development. And, I should be all in favor...in fact, I'm convinced we shall never have decent money in name before we take from government the monopoly of issuing money and allow competing institutions...of course under different names...not issue the the same money, but competing monies...and let people decide which kind of money they prefer to use."

This may seem pretty radical.  Many people think that if the government doesn't control the issue of money,  poverty and anarchy will ensue.  But, we already have competing monies on a global basis and it all works fine. The markets decide, based on many factors, what the exchange rate is between the Dollar and the Yen...or between the Yuan.   In fact, when the European Union decided that they needed to consolidate their monies into a single currency, the Euro, it helped some countries and hurt others...so less currency competition is not necessarily best.

A century ago we had competing monies in this country. As Lawrence H. White writes on the Library of Economics and Liberty, "Much more competition in money has existed in the past. Under 'free banking' systems, private banks competitively issued their own paper currency notes, called 'bank notes,' that were redeemable for underlying 'real,' or 'basic,' monies like gold or silver. And competition among those basic monies pitted gold against silver and copper."

But, some will say, we had to get to a single currency to stop the cycle of bank panics and boom and bust.  The way we attempted to do this  is to give the Federal Reserve a government-granted monopoly on creating money.  And how has that worked?  Well, as Dr. Thomas E Woods Jr. points out in his book Rollback, "Since the Fed opened it's doors in 1914 following the passage of the Federal Reserve Act in December 1913, the dollar has lost more than 95 percent of its value, after having held its value in tact from the beginning of the republic until the creation of the Fed."  That is not a very good track record of itself, but what about the Fed's stabilization of the economy?  As you might guess, this also isn't necessarily the case.  "Some recent research finds the two periods (pre- and post-Fed) to be approximately equal in volatility," says Woods, "and some finds the post-Fed period in fact to be more volatile, once faulty data are corrected for."  So, taken as a whole, the Federal Reserve, and its monopoly on money creation, has been a over-all negative.

Many economists believe that we should return to "hard money" in the United States, and indeed across the world.  Hard money is a currency that is based on something with an intrinsic value, such as gold or silver.  What we have now is known as "fiat money."  Investopia defines fiat money as, "Currency that a government has declared to be legal tender, despite the fact that it has no intrinsic value and is not backed by reserves. Historically, most currencies were based on physical commodities such as gold or silver, but fiat money is based solely on faith."  Investopia further explains that, "Because fiat money is not linked to physical reserves, it risks becoming worthless due to hyperinflation. If people lose faith in a nation's paper currency, the money will no longer hold any value."  If the markets lose faith in the paper money you get what we have now, a greatly devalued dollar and lowered credit ratings.

Since fiat money is not based on any real assets, the government monopoly is free to just print more to finance their increasing lust for power.  They don't really care if it devalues, they can just print more.  It's "monopoly money" anyway, so to speak.  What do they care?  But we should care.  Every time they devalue our money by printing more, the value of your savings and investments go down, your purchasing power goes down and the over all economy declines as corporate investments and purchasing power also suffers.

So, government has had its monopoly for 97 years now and have done a terrible job at it.  The only real solution for monopoly is...wait for it...COMPETITION!  Imagine that.  And the market and States are beginning to take matters into their own hands.  Dan Armstrong of ConnectMidichigan.com reports that "New types of money are popping up across Mid-Michigan and supporters say, it's not counterfeit, but rather a competing currency."  The International Business Times reports that "Utah just became the first US state to recognize gold as legal tender. Its Legal Tender Act of 2011 allows U.S. minted gold and silver coins to be recognized as legal tender in the value that reflects the market price for gold and silver."  Minnesota, North Carolina South Carolina, Idaho and Georgia are also considering similar  legislation.  I believe this is a good sign that the States are willing to do what is necessary for the welfare of their own people.  Competition is good.

Hayek said, "Abolishing the government monopoly on issuing money would deprive governments of persuing monetary policies...that's what I want to see."  And, so do I.

Osama Bin Laden: Dead

Bye bye, bin Laden

Osama bin Laden, head of the al Qaeda terrorist network, is dead.  GOOD! We should be happy that the man responsible for the death of thousands of innocent people through directing cowardly acts of terrorism has been killed.  We should be thankful for the dedication of the hundreds of people in our military and intelligence organizations...for the skill of our Navy SEAL warriors who took him down. 

Last night in President Obama's speech, he said, "Over the last 10 years, thanks to the tireless and heroic work of our military and our counterterrorism professionals, we've made great strides in that effort. We've disrupted terrorist attacks and strengthened our homeland defense. In Afghanistan, we removed the Taliban government, which had given bin Laden and al Qaeda safe haven and support. And around the globe, we worked with our friends and allies to capture or kill scores of al Qaeda terrorists, including several who were a part of the 9/11 plot."

But, then, he would have you think that nothing really happened until HE got there: 

"And so shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of our war against al Qaeda.. I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden...I met repeatedly with my national security team...And finally, last week, I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action, and authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice."  And on it went. "I've made clear, just as President Bush did...Over the years, I've repeatedly made clear that we would take action...These efforts weigh on me every time I, as Commander-in-Chief..."

He did spend two short paragraphs thanking and recognizing the "countless intelligence and counterterrorism professionals who've worked tirelessly to achieve this outcome."  And also "the men who carried out this operation, for they exemplify the professionalism, patriotism, and unparalleled courage of those who serve our country" who he said have "borne the heaviest share of the burden since that September day."

Truth be told, Obama had little or nothing to do with this victory.  It has been a long 10 year slog by the intelligence, counterterroism, and military personnel.  Obama just happened to be in office at the time.  So while he is quick to blame all of his problems on his predecessor, George W. Bush, he seems more than willing to assign himself credit for something that was in the works through most of the Bush administration.  But, I guess this is not much different than what many politicians do...and that's the problem.  We need Leaders, not politicians.

I do agree with parts of his speech, especially when he said. "The cause of securing our country is not complete."  Bin Laden is dead!  Good.  But he is just one man...an important man to the cause of radical Islam, no doubt...but, one man only.  So while I'm happy that this murderer is gone, I worry that, to his followers it will be a martyr's death with a martyr's cause.

Obama Releases Long Form Birth Certificate - Finally!

The Wall Street Journal reports that Barack Obama has FINALLY released his long form birth certificate.  If he would have just done this two years ago, we wouldn't have had all of this non-sense.  I have said all along that he brought all of this on himself by not just releasing it.

Now maybe we can stop having to hear from Donald Trump.  Of course he is taking credit:

"I'm taking great credit and you have to ask the president, 'why didn't he do this a long time ago? Why didn't he do it a long time ago?' When Hillary Clinton was asking, when everybody was asking, why didn't he do it? It's shocking. It's shocking," 

Let's not have this issue again in the future.  We need laws in place that specifically details what we mean by "natural born" and requires proof of that status.  I posted on this in a previous post. 

Dan Rooney: A Mind Is a Terrible Thing to Lose

Well, it pains me to say so since I have been a life-long Steeler fan, but it looks like Dan Rooney's choo choo has finally gone around the bend. In a recent interview with the Irish Times, Rooney said that he is thinking of resigning his post as Ambassador to Ireland to campaign for Barack Obama's re-election.

“I would probably have to resign to campaign for President Obama’s re-election,” Rooney said. “I think that would be the number one thing I can do for him, and I’d be willing to do so.”

So, okay...when Rooney first campaigned for Obama, I thought, well, he has been caught up in all the hype of electing the first black president like so many others. Then I thought that he was just blinded by his desire to be the Ambassador to Ireland, since he claimed to have such a love of his ancestral homeland, and Obama was promising him the post.

But now, after Obama's abysmal record in his first term, for Rooney to say that, Obama is "the best man for the job, without question.” Now I just say...cuckoo, cuckoo.

As Egypt goes...so goes the Middle East?

by Clay Bennett

As the world watches events unfolding in Egypt, it is very unclear as to who all the players are and what the outcome will be.  Certainly there are many different interest groups at play.  We as Americans want to believe that everyone in the world longs for some sort of democratic government that will provide for rights and liberty...but this may not be the case.

One of the groups vying for power in this struggle is the Muslim Brotherhood.  The Muslim Brotherhood began in Egypt in 1928 as a reaction to secularization in Egypt that, among other things, gave increased rights to women.  The Brotherhood's credo is “Allah is our objective; the Quran is our constitution, the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations.”  The Muslim Brotherhood has ties to many Islamist organizations such as al-Qaeda and Hamas.  The number two man in al-Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri, is an Egyptian and has been a member of the Muslim Brotherhood since age 14.


Many observers wish to down play the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood, claiming that they are only a  minority of the Egyptian population.  Others see them as just one of the groups who want democracy.  This, I think, is either ignorance of history in general and the stated goals of the Brotherhood in particular...or a willful distortion of the facts.  As far as general history, it does not take a majority to take over a country...the Nazi Party in Germany was only a minority of the German population.  And for stated goals, the Brotherhood's second-in-command, Rashad al-Bayumi, stated in an interview on Japanese television that the Muslim Brotherhood would participate in a transitional government with the goal of canceling the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt because it "offends the Arabs' dignity and destroys the interests of Egypt and other Arab states." 

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton welcomed the Muslim Brotherhood to the talks by saying that, "Today we learned the Muslim Brotherhood decided to participate, which suggests they at least are now involved in the dialogue that we have encouraged."  She said that "The Egyptian people are looking for an orderly transition that can lead to free and fair elections. That is what the United States has consistently supported."  But, what is the goal of the Muslim Brotherhood in this regard? Jonathan D. Halevi explains:

• The Muslim Brotherhood does indeed participate in political activity and defend the democratic process. That is not, however, because it has accepted the principles of Western democracy, but rather because the democratic process can be exploited to establish an Islamic regime which will then render democracy unnecessary. 

• The Brotherhood's official website notes that jihad is Islam's most important tool in effecting a gradual takeover, beginning with the Muslim countries, moving on to reestablishing the Caliphate over three continents in preparation for a conquest of the West, and finally instituting a global Islamic state.

So, the goals are not narrowly focused on Egypt, but on world conquest.  Egypt is just one of the first to tumble.  Trouble is also being fomented in Jordan, Yemen and Saudi Arabia.  The goal of the Islamists in all of these countries is to eliminate the secular governments and bring about theocracies.  And then to set their sites on the destruction of western culture.  For these reasons, the United States should not participate in any discussions with the Muslim Brotherhood.  This would be akin to sitting down to negotiate with the Nazis for control of Europe in the early 1940s.

Former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, offers good insight in this CNN interview.  (sorry for the commercial at the beginning.)

Hypocrisy! - REDUX

In March of last year, I posted an article about the hypocrisy of the Democrats in the Senate.  I had attached a video that I think needs to be pulled out again in light of the Democrats' latest hypocrisy. Last March the issue was the use of reconciliation.  The video documents the response of several prominent Democrats in the Senate to George W. Bush's request for the use of this procedural device to approve judicial appointments with a simple (51 vote), rather than a "super" (60 vote) majority.  That he asked the Senate to change the rules to fill vacant judicial seats was decried as the most heinous assault on the republic that could be imagined  The Senate rules and traditions, they screeched, were sacrosanct and cannot be changed.  However, when they wanted to use it to pass Obamacare, it was fine...just common sense and good government.

Now they are at it again.  Now that the Democrats don't have as firm a grip on Congress that they had before the November elections, it's no big deal to change the rules to suit their needs.  What they want to do now is change the rules so that the minority party in the Senate (currently the Republicans) cannot hold up legislation through the use of the filibuster.  Notice in the video that they specifically say that the filibuster is needed and that the minority party should be able to slow progress of a bill.

Once again, the hypocrisy is stunning.  Do these people have no idea of the age in which they live?  Do they not know that the documentation of their past statements and actions is easily found on the Internet...or do they think we are all too stupid to see it?  Or...is this the reason they want Net Neutrality so bad...so they can limit the access to such evidence?  I'm not sayin'...but I'm just sayin'.

A Little Perspective

Two recent articles brought home the importance of keeping a little perspective through all of the current political and economic turmoil. The first one, The American 21st Century by Victor Davis Hanson makes the point that we have seen bad times before, and somehow survived...even thrived. He gives examples of times, such as the Great Depression, when Americans and others were perdicting doom on America. These were times when we began to doubt our future and standing in the world...as many do today. Hanson helps our perspective with two important points:

"Amid all this doom and gloom, two factors are constant over the decades. First, America goes through periodic bouts of neurotic self-doubt, only to wake up and snap out of it. Indeed, indebted Americans are already bracing for fiscal restraint and parsimony as an antidote to past profligacy.

Second, decline is relative and does not occur in a vacuum. As Western economic and scientific values ripple out from Europe and the United States, it is understandable that developing countries like China, India, and Brazil can catapult right into the 21st century. But that said, national strength is still measured by the underlying hardiness of the patient — its demography, culture, and institutions — rather than by occasional symptoms of ill health."

The second article, Apocalypse, a video blog by Paleofuture.tv, reminds us that people have been warning about the collapse of society and the end of the world for a long time. It discusses how old, dystopian classics like The Late Great Planet Earth, Future Shock, and The Population Bomb have become seen as "campy" today because, of course, none of the predictions came anywhere close to being true.  So Al Gore's, An Inconvenient Truth or movies like The Day After Tomorrow and the myriad of shows on the 2012 Prophecies are nothing new...and will probably be seen as campy in the not-too-distant future.

So, yes we go through bad times periodically.  There are pockets of economic downturns and regional disasters from time-to-time.  But, if we can keep a wider perspective, beyond a current catastrophe to a broader historical view, we can take comfort that things will probably get better.  This is an observation I've made many times...people seem not to be able to see the forest for the trees...cannot see more that a few months in the past or future.  This myopic view of events can cause people to seem silly and just a little schizophrenic. As Matt Novak put it so well at the end of the video:

"Every generation has it's own challenges. Climate change, hunger, homelessness...all these things are very real problems we need to address.  But, if you're going to be making predictions about how we're getting dumber because of technology, or that we need to stock up on spam and gold bars and guns for apocalypse bunkers, don't be surprised if some smarmy punk from the future pulls out your old clips and we all get a good chuckle out of them."

Both of these articles remind us that, as the saying goes, there is nothing new under the sun.  We've seen it before...we've been through it before...and we survived.  But that doesn't mean that we should simply say que sera sera and ignore everything that is happening around us either. Part of the advantage of gaining a broader, historical view is that you can see trends and cycles that take years and even decades to play out.  It is not usually the short-term actions or occurrences that cause the most damage, but the long term.

One constant in the history of America, through good times and bad, is the trend toward larger, more powerful and more intrusive government.  This trend usually happens very incrementally.  Many don't even recognize it when it is happening...it's a death by a thousand cuts. Sometimes, as with the Health Care bill (and the Obama administration in general) they try to accelerate the trend. But, this usually elicits a strong response from the voters.

No one act, law or regulation by government will cause the end of our freedom or the collapse of our economy...but look back over the years and see how our freedoms have been eroded...see the usurpation of power...the corruption that has taken over government.  It is in this view that you can truly see what we have lost...not in apocalyptic, destructive occurrences, but by the constant pounding  of the waves against the foundations of our society.

This is why we, as citizens, must insist that government expansion be not only stopped, but reversed.  This goal will only come about with diligence and a long-term view and commitment.  It will not be accomplished in one or even a few victories.  But, if we are to stop the erosion of our rights, we must move back toward our founding principles and rebuild the shores of our liberty.  Don't get defeated by one loss, or bill, or issue.  Don't get too comfortable or cocky with one win.  Take the wins you can get; learn from the losses and keep your eye on the ultimate goal.

So, Chicken Little, take heart.  The sky is not falling...today.  But keep a wary eye on the shores.