The President is Not Good At Math

From Charles Krauthammer, in response to Obama's railing against corporate fat cats and their private jets:

"He himself, as we just heard, said you can’t reduce the deficit to the levels we need without raising revenues. Then he talks about the [tax break for] corporate jets, which he mentioned not once but six times.

I did the math on this. If you collect the corporate jet tax every year for the next 5,000 years, you will cover one year of the debt that Obama has run up. One year.

To put it another way, if you started collecting that tax at the time of John the Baptist and you collected it every year — first in shekels and now in dollars — you wouldn’t be halfway to covering one year of the amount of debt that Obama has run up.

As for the other one, he mentions again and again, the oil depreciation tax break — if you collect that one for 700 years, you won’t cover a year of Obama deficits.

And then here’s my favorite. I worked it out in the car on the way here. If you collect the corporate jets and the oil tax together — get all the bad guys and the fat cats at once — and you collect it for 100 years, it covers the amount of debt Obama added… in February!

And he pretends that he’s the serious adult at the table."

Obama knows this, but he is a liar, and wants to deflect blame from his horrifying rape of the economy. This is actually par for the course (Obama plays a lot of golf, get it?) with this president: pick an easy target and blame them for all of the country's ills. Then, hope that no one actually does the math.

Here is the truth, folks: our economic predicament is not because corporate fat cats have private jets. It's because in the mid-twentieth century, we decided as a nation that instead of families and communities being responsible for each other's well being, the federal government should do it. Unfunded liabilities for entitlements (Social Security, Medicare, WIC, Food Stamps, etc.) are projected to currently be over a hundred trillion dollars ($100,000,000,000,00.00). In conjunction with this decision, we also decided that we were going to create a military empire; a decision that results in the U.S. spending 46% of the global military budget.

I realize that Obama wants to present himself as the learned adult in the room, but don't let him bullshit you. Our problems have nothing to do with private jets, and everything to do with welfare and warfare. Fix those, and don't worry about the private jets.

You Know, I Already Have A Mom

...and even she never fussed over my safety this much:

"People who hope to beat the summer heat by swimming, floating or boating on rivers in King County must wear a life vest or face an $86  fine."

Proponents of this most recent case of government as your protector went with the classic "it's for your own good" justification:

"Supporters said the new rule will save lives."

Here is a novel idea: let's let grown-ups decide what is for their own good and in their own best interests, instead of allowing our elected leaders to act like a bunch of petty tyrants. Here is a particularly stupid quote from a council busybody, who is no doubt a blast at the office Christmas Secular Winter Celebration Party:

"Councilwoman Julia Patterson, a "yes" vote, said the same arguments Dunn made against the life vest ordinance were also made against laws requiring child safety seats in automobiles and banning smoking in public places.

"We are improving the health for everyone because of these laws that we pass," she said."

First of all, you are requiring adults to use life-jackets, not just children, you stupid waste of space, but you probably don't see any difference at all, do you Ms. Patterson? They are all just sheep for you to lead along, and show a better way. Second, since when is it the government's job to improve our health? I eat right and work out three times a week, but that's my own damn decision. I don't begrudge anyone who eats McDonald's seven days a week and thinks that getting out of bed in the morning counts as cardio. But I guess I'm just a live and let live kind of guy - wasn't that considered a virtue once, long ago?

This reminds me of a quote from C.S. Lewis:

"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive."

Amen. 

Another Day Older, and Deeper in Debt

Obama decided to put on his "I'm above all of this" pedagogue hat today, and the results are about what you would expect from a narcissistic man-child with a god complex:

"Amid ongoing frustration over a failure to reach a compromise on the debt limit, President Obama on Wednesday sharply scolded Congress, suggesting his daughters do a better job of getting things done ahead of time."

I'd encourage you to read the whole thing (it's not a long story). My response will be in two parts. First, the nitpicking:

"The president on Wednesday claimed that everyone has been willing to take on "their sacred cows" except Republicans--noting that Democrats are willing to examine "painful" spending cuts including to entitlements." (emphasis mine)

The way that this is worded, you are intended to get the impression that there is some broad-based agreement on what to do, but the Republicans are holding up the show. What the President is really claiming is that his side is doing all of the giving, and his political opponents are the bad guys. Let's not pretend that these are the words of some uninterested observer, not to mention the fact that it is a bald-faced lie. In a nation where we fund cowboy poetry festivals and 99 weeks of unemployment, there is no such thing as a 'painful' spending cut. Next up:

"If you are a wealthy CEO or a hedge fund manager in America right now, your taxes are lower than they have ever been. They're lower than they've been since the 1950s"

Taxes cannot be both 'lower than they have ever been' and 'lower than they've been since the 1950s' - Either they are at their lowest point ever or not. The answer, of course, is not - the federal income tax wasn't established until the Civil War (3% flat rate); before that, you actually got to take home all of your pay. It's a small point (hence the term 'nitpicking'), but it's dishonest nonetheless. 


Now, on to the real point. Obama 'scolded' Congress over the following:

"The president has been overseeing the negotiation of a compromise between the White House and lawmakers that would pave the way for Congress to agree to increase the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling by the current ceiling's Aug. 2 deadline--the time when economists, the president and others say the government will no longer have tools at its disposal to pay its bills."

According to Obama, coming to an agreement over raising the debt ceiling is Congress' job, and is akin to his pre-teen daughters doing their homework. However, this begs the question: should the debt ceiling be raised? In my mind, the answer is no. As far as I am concerned, any member of Congress who opposes this madness is doing precisely what they should be doing, and no amount of scolding from our god-king will change that.

Correlation and Causation

On CNN.com this morning:

"Metro economies struggling the most to recover from the Great Recession typically lost government jobs, a new Brookings Institution report found.

Fourteen of the 20 metro areas that have performed the worst since the start of the nation's economic troubles lost government jobs, according to the report, published Wednesday."

These two sentences contain facts. However, the way they are constructed is intended to push a conclusion on the reader's part. In fact, the conclusion you are supposed to reach is in the headline:

Government Job Cuts Hurt Cities

This conclusion is intended to get you to believe that cutting government will further damage the economy, thus promoting a progressivist political philosophy. This way, the next time you hear some evil conservative or libertarian talk about cutting government, your response will be, "Those jerks are trying to wreck the economy! What we really need is more government!"

This argument, though, is actually a perfect example of the Cum Hoc fallacy. The latin phrase "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" means "with this therefore because of this" and describes, along with the Post Hoc fallacy ("after this therefore because of this"), the faulty conclusion that because two things occur either together or in sequence, that causation can be assigned.

A simple refutation of this fallacy was given by humorist Dave Barry in one of his excellent books (I just can't remember which one). Barry noted that global tensions were on the rise, while at the same time sales of Coca-Cola were increasing. Therefore, one could conclude that consumption of Coca-Cola was causing a rise in global tension. This conclusion is obviously absurd, and demonstrates the weakness in this line of thinking.

If we are really to take a look at the information in the article, isn't it more reasonable to conclude that the economic woes of these cities led to lower tax revenues, which forced the layoff of public employees? Of course it does, but that doesn't give the writer the opportunity to argue that smaller government leads to a weaker economy.

 

 

Church and State

In an interesting story on CNN.com's belief blog today, Mennonite pastor Mark Schloneger explains why he supports his alma mater's decision not to sing the National Anthem at sporting events:

"To Mennonites, a living faith in Jesus means faithfully living the way of Jesus. Jesus called his disciples to love their enemies and he loved his enemies all the way to the cross and beyond. Following Jesus and the martyrs before us, we testify with our lives that freedom is not a right that is granted or defended with rockets’ red glare and bombs bursting in air. True freedom is given by God, and it is indeed not free. It comes with a cost, and it looks like a cross.

...Mennonite beliefs and practices seem bizarre to some and offensive to others. But it’s life in this strange tribe that keeps me faithful to what I believe. I love my country, but I sing my loyalty and pledge my allegiance to Jesus alone." 

This is similar to a caller to the "Stand to Reason" radio show on May 31, who asked if it was appropriate as a Christian to say the Pledge of Allegiance. The caller's concern was that in pledging our allegiance to a nation, we were lessening our allegiance to the Kingdom of God. Greg Kokul's response was that he believed it entirely appropriate for a Christian to pledge allegiance to a republic and the ideals that this nation were built on, because they are righteous ideals. He also made the point that being a citizen of a country is somewhat like being part of a family, and while you do not always support what members of your family do, you remain dedicated to the family itself.

My take? I'm torn on this one, because while I think that our founding principles are compatible with a Christian worldview, so much of what this nation stands for today is at odds with Christianity. We have abandoned the republic, and headed down a road to Marxism, which is as opposite to a Christian worldview as one can get. I also sympathize with Schloneger's position that as Christians, our loyalty and allegiance are to Jesus alone. I guess the bottom line is that I have reached a point in my life where I am no longer reflexively patriotic. My allegiance is to Christ and to the ideologies that I believe support His kingdom. To the extent that my country supports those ideologies, I will support my country, and when it strays from that path, I will agitate for change.

Ron Paul Wants The ATF Abolished...

...and so do I.


In case you are unaware of the scandal surrounding the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms' Project Gunrunner and Operation Fast and Furious, here is a brief summary:

"The programs arranged for the sale of thousands of AK-47′s and 50 caliber sniper rifles to be sold to smugglers in order to put them in the hands of Mexican drug cartels so that the weapons could be traced by serial number when they were confiscated at crime scenes."

The entire point was to be able to trace illegal weapons sales from point of sale to point of confiscation in order to try and determine the illegal distribution networks. The problem is, the ATF knowingly allowed weapons that they knew would be used in murders across the border to be sold illegally in order to complete the project. This operation is an embarrassment to the United States, but it's hard to believe that the ATF will be all that embarrassed, since incompetence and/or stupidity of this type is all in a day's work for them.

But here is a good question: why exactly do we even have an ATF? This is a federal, gun-toting law enforcement agency that enforces federal regulations related to alcohol, tobacco, and firearms. I'd like for someone to tell me what business the federal government has regulating any of these things. Neither alcohol nor tobacco are mentioned in the Constitution's enumerated list of federal government powers, and firearms are specifically identified as off-limits to the federal government in the Second Amendment. Take a look at the Second Amendment:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." (emphasis mine)

To infringe is to violate. Therefore, the federal government is specifically prohibited from violating the right of the people to keep and bear Arms. And yet, if you look here, there is an entire list of people prohibited by the federal government from owning a firearm. I have no doubt that many of these people should not be in possession of a gun, but according to our founding document, that is left to the states to decide.

The only argument that I have ever heard regarding the Constitutionality of such regulation is Congress' authority to regulate 'interstate commerce.' Here is my response: I challenge anyone to read Title 27 CFR Chapter II, Part 646, which regulates 'contraband cigarettes' and tell me where in the regulation any interstate transportation is mentioned. According to this regulation, a distributor in Virginia that buys cigarettes from Phillip Morris' Virginia operations, using tobacco grown in Virginia, is subject to federal oversight. This has nothing to do with interstate commerce, and everything to do with federal control of every aspect of your life. Furthermore, according to the regulation:

"Any appropriate ATF officer may enter the business premises of any distributor of cigarettes to inspect the records required by §§646.146 through 646.147 or to inspect any cigarettes stored on the premises—

(a) Pursuant to duly issued search warrant or an administrative inspection warrant; or

(b) Upon the consent of the distributor to enter his premises." (emphasis mine)

In case you have never been subject to federal oversight, an administrative inspection warrant is issued by a regulatory agency, not a judge, and there does not have to be any probable cause for such a warrant to be issued. Criminal penalties can result from either refusing an inspection or from regulatory violations discovered during such an inspection. Now, let's take a look at the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." (emphasis mine)

Since administrative inspection warrants do not require probable cause, they are in direct violation of the clear meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and are therefore unconstitutional, as is the entire purpose and mission of the ATF. So, we have an incompetent federal agency with an unconstitutional mandate. According to Rep. Paul:

"My hope is that the recent hearing will further expose the ATF’s and Attorney General Eric Holder’s assaults on law-abiding gun owners, and more people will start questioning the need for unconstitutional agencies like the ATF that exist solely to infringe on American citizens’ God-given right to keep and bear arms,"

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Forget the Constitution, We've Got A War Going On!

North Africa has long been a source of trouble for the United States. One of the first foreign affairs problems that the fledgling nation had to address was the Barbary Pirates, who operated from Tripoli, among other North African ports. The pirates made a living attacking merchant vessels, or through the tribute that was paid to ensure safe passage. President Jefferson sent U.S. naval vessels to protect merchant vessels travelling through the area, but recognized that he was Constitutionally prohibited from taking any action other than defense without an express declaration from Congress. In a letter to Congress:

"I communicate [to you] all material information on this subject, that in the exercise of this important function confided by the Constitution to the Legislature exclusively their judgment may form itself on all knowledge and consideration of every circumstance of weight.” (emphasis mine)

Congress never passed a declaration of war, and Jefferson restricted his actions to self-defense, although pirate ships which attacked U.S. merchant vessels were seized.

This 200-year-old example is important, because we are once again focused on Tripoli. The difference is, we now have a President with no respect for Constitutional roles, and several members of Congress are more than willing to enable him. On ABC's "This Week" this past Sunday, Arizona Senator John McCain had this to say:

"We cannot repeat the lessons of the 1930s when the United States of America stood by while bad things happened in the world,” the Arizona Republican said. “We are the lead nation in the world and America matters and we must lead, and sometimes that leadership entails sacrifice, sadly."

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), McCain's partner in all things warmonger-related, put it this way on NBC's "Meet the Press":

“If you don’t think [Libyan strongman Muammar] Qadhafi surviving doesn’t affect American national security interests, we’re just on different planets. If this guy survives, it’s the end of NATO, our standing in the world goes down, Egypt gets overrun by refugees, and the mad dog of the Mideast, Qadhafi, is out of his cage, and you will see oil prices double.”

Graham then turned his tough-guy act on fellow members of Congress:

“So from my Republican point of view, the president needs to step up his game in Libya, but Congress should sort of shut up and not empower Gadhafi,”

McCain and Graham were out banging the war-drums Sunday for a reason: Sunday marked the end of the 90-day 'anything goes' period that the President has to conduct military operations without Congressional approval, according to the War Powers Act. To this day, the President, in his arrogance, has yet to request approval, and it seems that many members of Congress find this complete lack of respect for the rule of law troubling. McCain and Graham, neither of whom ever met a war they did not like, are worried that their colleagues may let a little thing like Constitutional prerogatives get in the way of killing foreigners and blowing shit up. Graham is right in one thing: admitting our error and pulling out of Libya now would affect our standing in the world, but maybe when you continue to act like the world's policeman violent asshole, your reputation deserves to take a beating.

Jefferson, who was ten times the man that Obama, McCain, or Graham will ever be, understood his role in the Republic. Perhaps these three should take a lesson from history.

 

Fear is the Soul-Killer

Our sermon this week was all about fear, and how being afraid is a sin. The most frequent command in the Bible (366 instances) is "fear not!" but it doesn't seem that we recognize this for the command that it is. Fear paralyzes us, and keeps us from moving in the direction that we should be going. Life is difficult, and if we succumb to fear, we will never have the strength to complete the tasks that God has laid out before us.

Personally, I have a lot of fears:

• I fear that I am not good enough at my job, and that someday, those around me will take notice.
• I fear that I won't be able to provide for my family.
• I fear that, as my wife and I go through the adoption process, I won't be able to adjust to the role of father.
• I fear that I will go through life without doing something that really matters to the Kingdom of God.

Maybe these fears are founded, and maybe they are not. What I am trying to realize is that it is my responsibility to do the things that I am tasked to do, and do them well. 

Following service last night, I took my wife to see Green Lantern. It was fitting, because in the Green Lantern story, fear is the enemy, and can only be combated through the force of will. Although it is just a silly comic book movie, I think that it reinforced the idea that we cannot be all that we are created to be when we let fear control us.

The central scripture for the service was 1 John 4:18:

"There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love."

Followers of Christ should not have fear of punishment, or of the trials of this world. Instead, we should take courage in the love that Christ has for us, and recognize that all of the trials that we face are either of our own making, or Christ working to improve our character and prepare us for the work ahead.

Check out the sermon here (will post in a few days, but check out the archives anyway)
Check out pastor J.D. Greear's blog here

Cognitive Dissonance

My cousin-in-law (is that a thing?) was promoting this site on her Facebook page, and included some of my 'about me' information in her description, specifically my claim that I am a 'crazy fundamentalist Christian, and a Libertarian.' Someone commented on her post that Libertarianism and Christianity cancel each other out. I would like to take this opportunity to explain why I think that this is not the case, and why Libertarian views are the best option for those who want to see the name of Christ spread.

First and foremost, a culture based on liberty guarantees religious freedom. I do not see any need, nor do I think it preferable, for government to force religious views, even those that I hold to be true. I believe that Christianity holds its own in the marketplace of ideas, and I am not at all uncomfortable defending my views.

Second, believing that it is wrong for the government to regulate or prohibit something does not mean that I endorse the behavior. What it means is that I place a higher value on liberty than on forcing a behavior that I view as moral. I think that prostitution is a good example of this. Morally, prostitution is wrong, but that does not mean that we should spend money and resources prosecuting it. We allow two consenting adults to have sex for every other reason, so why is it that allowing money into the equation suddenly makes it illegal? I also believe that regulating things because we find them morally wrong sets a bad precedent, because in our system, those who agree with us are not always in power, and when the other side wins, I don't want them forcing their morality on me. Again, I think that the marketplace of ideas is the best place for these issues to be addressed.

Finally, and most importantly, is the example that Jesus Himself left us. He could have easily established a theocracy, with Himself as the supreme leader, but He didn't. Instead, He spent most of His ministry surrounded by sinners. His solution was not to compel behavior, but to allow His spirit to transform lives. This does not mean that He endorsed sinful actions, just that He valued genuine conversion over compelled behavior.

Liberty as a political philosophy does not mean endorsing things that we find morally objectionable, it merely means that we value freedom as the greatest possible good that government can provide, and are willing to address all of our other beliefs in the marketplace of ideas, where hearts and minds are truly won.

Violent Christian Militants

This week, during a Congressional hearing about the radicalization of Muslims in U.S. prisons, Texas representative Sheila Jackson Lee voiced her concern that it is really Christians that we should be worried about:

In an exchange with witness Patrick Dunleavy, the former deputy inspector of the criminal intelligence unit, New York Department of Correctional Services, Rep. Jackson Lee mentioned the case of a man who blew up an abortion clinic and proposed that this perhaps was an attempt to undermine U.S. law that allows a woman to procure an abortion.

Rep. Lee then said, “As we look to be informational, we should include an analysis of how Christian militants or others might bring down the country. We have to look broadly, do we not?”

If I were to dedicate a post to the idiocy of Rep. Lee, I would be here all weekend. This is a woman who once asked where she could find a picture of the flag that Neil Armstrong put on Mars, and who referred to "two Vietnams, side by side, North and South, exchanging and working. We may not agree with all that North Vietnam is doing, but they are living in peace." I'm pretty sure she was referring to the two Koreas; maybe she just thinks that all those people over there look alike.

In any case, Lee would be hard-pressed to find any Christian militant activity that violently threatens the United States. The abortion clinic bombing she references was a crime, no doubt, but all indications are that the perpetrator acted alone, with no larger revolutionary designs. The go-to example for most people making this argument is the Oklahoma City bombing; unfortunately while Timothy McVeigh was a militant, he was also a self-described agnostic.

But perhaps Rep. Lee does have a point. After all, I am a Christian, and I am committed to undermining and bringing down the repulsive Leviathan that she serves. Many of my Christian brothers and sisters are in agreement with me, having come to the conclusion that a government that supports endless war and occupation, the murder of innocent children, suffocating regulation, police-state thuggery, and anti-capitalist cronyism that allows mega-corporations to win at the expense of small business is a government that cannot be supported with a clear conscience. What Lee does not grasp is that we do not intend to resort to violence to affect the change we desire. We believe that ideas are important and have consequences. The ideas that Lee and other like her support may make us miserable, but they have already sown the seeds of destruction for those that put them into place. Those of us who are liberty-minded Christians merely need to promote a better way, and when Lee's world collapses under its own weight, we will take the lead, building something better.

Read the Whole Thing

I have written before about state attempts to re-assert sovereignty through bills that allow in-state manufacture and sale of incandescent light bulbs. Previously, it was South Carolina; now it's Texas:

"Texas could soon be in a position to turn the lights off on a federal plan to phase out certain light bulbs.

State lawmakers have passed a bill that allows Texans to skirt federal efforts to promote more efficient light bulbs, which ultimately pushes the swirled, compact fluorescent bulbs over the 100-watt incandescent bulbs many grew up with.

The measure, sent to Gov. Rick Perry for consideration, lets any incandescent light bulb manufactured in Texas - and sold in that state - avoid the authority of the federal government or the repeal of the 2007 energy independence act that starts phasing out some incandescent light bulbs next year."

My take on this issue is pretty simple: the federal government has absolutely no constitutional right to regulate energy standards for light bulbs (or any energy policy, for that matter), and the tenth amendment specifically leaves this right to the states. What I am more interested in here is a greater issue - that of context. This quote from the article provides a great example:

"Opponents say the health risks of the mercury are minimal. And they say the bill violates the constitutional clause that states the federal law is the 'supreme law of the land.'"

As usual, I have a number of problems with this statement. Let's look at the two big ones:

First, the phrase 'supreme law of the land' is taken out of context. The full text surrounding this phrase (from Article VI) is as follows:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." (emphases mine)

Reading the entire section makes it clear that it is only federal laws made pursuant to the constitution that are supreme. This clause was not meant to mean that the federal government could do any damn thing it wants to. Don't take my word for it, see here for a full transcript of the Constitution.

Second, if this clause did mean that the federal government could do anything that it wanted, then it would have been superseded by the tenth amendment, which restricted federal laws to specifically enumerated powers.

Later in the article, we are treated to these arguments (and I use 'argument' in the loosest sense of the word):

"They say the state can't prevent a light bulb from being taken across a state line, which would make it subject to interstate commerce rules and federal regulation. They also say incandescent bulbs are archaic and have been replaced by fluorescent bulbs that last longer, are more environmentally friendly and don't create the same fire hazards incandescent bulbs do."

I have two objections to this comment as well:

First, outlawing something because the state cannot prevent a tangentially related 'crime' amounts to prior restraint. Prior restraint restrictions themselves are illegal. In order to prosecute a crime, it requires that a crime is actually committed, not that it might be. In order to use the Commerce clause, the government would have to make transporting these lightbulbs across state lines illegal, and then prosecute such transportation as a crime (even this is effectively raping the constitution, but whatever. It's not like anyone really cares, right?).

Second, being 'archaic' is not illegal, either in Texas or across the entire Socialist Republic of America, at least last I checked. Seriously, people need to realize that 'unconstitutional' and 'shit I really, really, don't like' are not synonyms.

(Story via Mike Church)

Those Damn Infernal Machines

Apparently, the problem with our economy is not suffocating regulation and boneheaded central planning, but the efficiency that modern technology brings:

"President Obama explained to NBC News that the reason companies aren't hiring is not because of his policies, it's because the economy is so automated. ... 'There are some structural issues with our economy where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers. You see it when you go to a bank and you use an ATM, you don't go to a bank teller, or you go to the airport and you're using a kiosk instead of checking in at the gate.'"

Obama has repeatedly shown that he is either ignorant regarding economics, or desperately hopes that we are. His latest bullshit, though, borders on the ridiculous. First, I'd like to share a little anecdote. I got my first part-time job in 1996. Along with that part-time job, I opened my first checking account, complete with one of the evil aforementioned ATM cards. Since then, I'm pretty sure that I could count on my fingers the number of times that I have gone to a bank teller for cash or paid inside for gas. Now for the point: in 1996, the unemployment rate was 5.4%. In fact, the unemployment rate was 6% or below from 1996 all the way through 2009, when Obama took office. Since then, it has remained over 9%, with no real indications of improvement. It's nothing more than an excuse, and a piss-poor excuse at that. It's actually eerily similar to Ayn Rand's dystopian novel of a socialist future, Anthem, where the protagonist, Equality 7-2521, violates the law and re-discovers the electric light:

"'Should it be what they claim of it,' said Harmony 9-2642, 'then it would bring ruin to the Department of Candles. The Candle is a great boon to mankind, as approved by all men. Therefore it cannot be destroyed by the whim of one.'"

According to his logic, Obama should also be railing against the loss of incandescent light-bulb manufacturers, but that doesn't seem to be keeping him up at night. 


And, on a related note, Obama does seem to be able to generate some economic activity:

"Destiny Mathis, a young woman in Indiana, reached out to President Obama for a sign of hope in tough economic times, and was initially thrilled to receive a handwritten reply from the president. Now, however, the same economic hardships that prompted her to write to Obama last November have prompted her to put up the letter for sale on an auction website--marking the ninth such sale of an Obama letter that the online auction service has handled."

Ahhh, the delicious irony in having to hock a letter from an economy-destroying president you supported in order to make ends meet in his economy. 

Corporatism

President Obama was in my hometown of Durham, NC this week to pay lip service to creating engineering and manufacturing jobs. This coincides with the report from his Jobs and Competitiveness Council, released this week. The council is a hand-picked group of Fortune 500 CEO's, union leaders, and CEO's from utilities, railroads, and airlines, assembled with the purpose of recommending job growth strategies for government. 


The entire council is a joke, for a couple of reasons. First, while the stated purpose of the council is job creation, the companies represented on the council have been shedding jobs (at least domestically):

• GE's domestic workforce shrank by 25,000 — almost 16% — between 2001 and 2010, according to the company's annual reports. (The number of overseas GE jobs climbed over those years.)

• AmEx employed 28% fewer workers in 2010 than it did a decade ago.

• Kodak's workforce cratered to just 18,800 last year from 75,000 in 2001.

• Xerox's employee base shrank by nearly a third between 2001 and 2009, before it acquired Affiliated Computer Services and its 74,000 workers in 2010.

• Even Intel has trimmed the number of workers it employs over the past decade.

Second, never in the history of the universe has government created any job other than a government job. Finally, a trillion dollars in 'stimulus' and 1.9 million fewer jobs later, even Obama has admitted that there is no such thing as a 'shovel-ready job' (pretty funny joke, huh, America?).

One thing that the council does, though, is highlight the fact that while Obama, along with other progressives, continually demonize big business, they are really in bed together. The truth is that Fortune 500 level businesses do not get where they are without colluding with the government, usually at the expense of their smaller competitors. This is not free-market capitalism; in fact, it is the beginning stages of fascism, where the government controls the means of production through mega-corporations.

If Obama and the Congress really wanted to stimulate the economy, the process would be simple: STOP. That's it - just stop. Stop the regulations, dismantle the executive bureaucracies that enforce them, stop 'investing' in things no one wants, stop the corporate income tax. The economy would skyrocket if government would just stop 'fixing' things. But somehow I doubt that stimulating the economy is really the intention of either the president or the members of his council.

(My first headline for this post was "Move, bitch, get out the way" - I'd like everyone to congratulate me for my restraint)

Three steps forward

I want my readers to try a thought experiment with me:

Imagine that you are near a fifteen foot high cliff. Two steps, and you are at the edge; three and you fall fifteen feet. Imagine that behind you is a gradual slope; if you take three steps that way, your elevation will be fourteen and a half feet.

Now, imagine that you find out that you cannot survive at a fifteen foot elevation. In fact, you cannot survive at any elevation higher than three feet for more than ten minutes, but you can only take three steps every five minutes. Which way do you go? If you want to survive (albeit with a few broken bones), you have to choose the direction of the cliff.

Now you understand where I stand politically. I do not relish the idea that America is dying, but we need to recognize that we are, in fact, dying. We are drowning in debt, regulation, and a tyranny that is quickly changing from soft to hard. Taking three steps backward will not save us; we will die before we get to a three foot elevation. I see three possibilities for America:

1. We elect one of the Republican front-runners. Romney, Gingrich, or Pawlentey are the political equivalent of taking three steps down the hill. They are better than Obama, but they will not get us where we need to be. They will compromise, and we do not have time for compromise.
2. We re-elect Obama. This is the political equivalent of taking three steps forward, and falling off of the cliff. Fifteen feet will hurt, but we will not die. Obama is almost certain to push us to the point that the union falls apart. Yeah, we will have to mend our wounds, but we are likely to end up in a position after the collapse where we have liberty, even if there is no America.
3. We completely undo the last 175 years in a single legislative period. This is equivalent to sprinting down the hill. It keeps the union intact, but it violates the rule of three steps. While the most desirable, it is also about as likely as Lance Bass getting married (to a woman).

This is why I do not care if Obama is re-elected over a Romney (or Gingrich) presidency. I would prefer to lick my wounds in the aftermath of America's collapse than continue to live in what amounts to 95% of the tyranny that we experience today.

Punishing the Producers

Via my brother, who provided both the title and the story, comes news out of our hometown of Durham, NC regarding Durham Public Schools' policy on student-to-teacher ratio:

"The Durham Public Schools system is reworking student-teacher ratios to give more resources to elementary schools that serve poorer communities...

 ...Under the previous formula, system officials allocated K-5 teachers based on how many students at a school received a free or reduced-price lunch. For example, the K-3 student-teacher ratio where more than 65 percent received free or reduced lunches was 17-to-1. For those with less than 65 percent of its population on free or reduced lunch the ratio was 21- or 22-to-1...

The new formula divides elementary schools into five bands..."

And all of these bands result in a lower student-to-teacher ratio for schools where a high percentage of kids receive free or reduced lunch as a result of economic need. According to the Education Resources Information Center, the wealthiest school districts in North Carolina have 32% of their students on free or reduced lunch programs, while the poorest districts have 65% of their students on free or reduced lunch programs. Most of the lunch program money comes from federal grants.

As for education itself, most of the money comes from state and local sources. In North Carolina, state sources means income tax revenue, while local sources means property tax revenue. In NC, you pay property tax on any real estate owned, along with vehicles (cars, boats, aircraft). NC employs a progressive income tax system, meaning that the more money you make, the higher percentage of it you pay in income tax.

All of this information sets up three points:

1. The WEALTHIEST school districts in NC have 32% of their students on free or reduced lunch programs. Are we really saying that a third of all families in wealthy districts, and TWO THIRDS of families in 'poor' districts cannot afford to feed their kids lunch? I'm sorry, but I see a whole lot of fat poor kids in Wal*Mart, so I'm not buying it.
2. If you live in NC, the more money you make, the more income tax you pay. Additionally, the more money you make, the more likely you are to have an expensive house and expensive cars, meaning that you pay more in property tax as well. This means that you are paying more than those with lesser incomes for the educational system. You are also likely to live in a 'wealthy' school area.
3. If you do live in an area defined by Durham Public Schools as 'wealthy,' you are paying disproportionately more in federal and state income taxes, as well as more in property taxes. The result is that the federal government is using your money to buy lunch for kids that probably don't need it, and DPS is deliberately giving your kids a shittier education in order to send your money to a 'poor' school.

I would point out that Durham has some excellent private schools, so you can avoid the shitty education part (if you can afford it after buying other families' kids lunch and all), but be aware that you will still be looted in order to subsidize a Marxist school system.

A Debt to Society

Forget 'Recovery Summer' version 2.0. Some economists are now predicting that we are in the early stages of our own lost decade:

"Many experts say private debt owed by households, as well as businesses, is an even bigger problem than the government debt that's getting so much attention lately. And it won't be solved without a difficult stretch of high unemployment and slow growth that will likely last for six or seven more years, producing America's own version of Japan's 'Lost Decade'."

The argument here is that American households have spent so much more than their income over the last few years that household debt is now restricting the amount of money that households can spend. This reduction in economic activity is the cause behind our high unemployment. This story, however, doesn't address the problems that led to high consumer debt. There are two primary root causes that I can identify:

1. Household spending power has been stagnant for decades, and has decreased since the 1980's. This is the result of inflation, combined with rising commodity prices. For example, in 1955, the minimum wage was $0.75/hour, and a gallon of gasoline cost $0.23. Today, the minimum wage is $7.25, while a gallon of gas averages $3.75. This means that at minimum wage in 1955, it took less than 20min to earn enough to buy a gallon of gas, while today, it takes more than 30min. This reduction in buying power is the direct result of federal monetary policy.
2. Americans continue to expand their standard of living, despite a reduction in buying power. Additionally, they continue to vote for politicians that support policies that cause point 1.

So, the government is to blame for our lousy economy, and we are responsible for government. Congratulations, America: our shitty economy is all your fault.

Feature, Not a Bug

According to a new survey, 30% of employers will at the very least seriously consider dropping health benefits once ObamaCare is fully implemented:

"According to the survey, at least 30 percent of employers would reap financial gain from dropping coverage even if they compensated employees for the change through other benefit offerings or higher salaries."

 Of course, the White House can't let the cat out of the bag that this was the whole point just yet, so it has to transparently lie:

"History has shown that reform motivates more businesses to offer insurance."

History, of course, has shown that all government reforms lead to higher operating costs and less choice. No one with a right mind actually believes that ObamaCare, or any broad government 'reform' actually creates competition or makes business operate more efficiently. But that isn't really the point, anyway. The whole point of ObamaCare is not to improve private-sector care, but destroy it, so that the government will have 'no choice' but to step in and replace it with a single-payer system. This is what government always does - slowly foul up a free-market enterprise to the point that it doesn't work anymore, and then step in to fix what 'capitalism' broke.

Enjoy your 6 month wait for a dentist appointment (or heart surgery), suckers.

Risky Investment

It was inevitable - China has divested 97% of its U.S. debt holdings:

"China has dropped 97 percent of its holdings in U.S. Treasury bills, decreasing its ownership of the short-term U.S. government securities from a peak of $210.4 billion in May 2009 to $5.69 billion in March 2011, the most recent month reported by the U.S. Treasury.

...Since October, however, China has also started to divest from longer-term U.S. Treasury securities. Thus, as reported by the Treasury Department, China’s ownership of the U.S. national debt has decreased in each of the last five months on record, including November, December, January, February and March."

The United States has continued to pretend that there is nothing wrong with its long-term economic prospects, and that we are recovering from a recession. In fact, both of those beliefs are false. Long-term, the U.S. plans on racking up between $26 trillion and $45 trillion in debt over the next 15-20 years, and the $26 trillion is based on a budget plan by Congressman Paul Ryan that Republicans, including presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, have called 'extreme.' All of the money that has been borrowed over the last few years has gone to fund immoral wars, entitlement programs, and Keynesian stimulus that has made the economy worse, not better.

It is clear that the U.S. government, and the American people themselves, are not serious about financial solvency. If we were, Ryan's plan would be mocked for not being responsible enough, and Americans would demand a balanced budget. This refusal to recognize reality will soon result in catastrophe when the nations like China that have been financing our madness stop loaning money to the U.S. out of concern that they will not be paid back. At that point, one of four things will happen:

1. The U.S. government will attempt to force 'the rich' to foot the bill for our continued fiscal insanity. Since 'the rich' for the most part are not rich, the entire economy will collapse under the weight of the tax burden. Chaos and violence will ensue as we plunge into a depression that makes the mid-20th century seem like an economic boom.
2. The U.S. will balance its budget. This will result in the end of nearly every entitlement program, including Medicare, Social Security, and WIC/Food Stamps. Many of those currently receiving these handouts, unable to cope with this sudden dose of reality, will begin stealing directly from the productive sector instead of having their federal enablers do it for them. Violence will ensue as people attempt to defend their private property.
3. The U.S. government will attempt to print enough currency to float the economy. The resulting collapse of the dollar will bring about conditions similar to those of Zimbabwe, where purchasing a loaf of bread requires a wheelbarrow full of cash. Violence will ensue as people begin to starve to death.
4. Several of the states with more-or-less sound economies will recognize the writing on the wall and decide that liberty and financial stability outweighs the so-called benefits of remaining in the Union. A second secession will occur; at this point, the U.S. will either cease to exist, or those states remaining will be reduced to 3rd world status.

In any case, we have gone too far down the road of economic madness to correct, I fear. Mark my words, we are witnessing the end of America. For our sake, I hope the end is quick, so that we have the opportunity to rebuild.

Just War

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in response to the deaths of 14 Afghan civilians caused by U.S. air strikes:

"General Petraeus has consistently emphasized that we have to do everything in our power to reduce the number of civilian casualties," she said.

Clinton said the U.S. will continue to "do everything' it can to express its "deep regret" when civilians are injured or killed. (emphasis mine)

We have reduced ourselves to trying really hard to say we're sorry when we kill innocent people in air strikes. She also tried to draw distinction between U.S. forces killing civilians and 'insurgents' killing civilians:

"I would only underscore that that stands in stark contrast to the indiscriminate killing, the suicide bombing, the improvised explosive devices that are used by the insurgents without regard for any human life", she added."

There is a difference between civilian deaths as a byproduct of war, and the intentional deaths of civilians as a target of war, but I doubt the innocent civilians themselves see much distinction.

I do believe that war can be justified, but only within the confines of the 'Just War' doctrine. This doctrine has four key requirements:

1. the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
2. all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
3. there must be serious prospects of success;
4. the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. 

The original campaign in Afghanistan, with the stated goal of crippling the terrorist infrastructure that facilitated the 9/11 attacks, met these criteria. The attacks on U.S. soil were lasting, grave, and certain. The ruling party in Afghanistan refused to turn over those responsible for the attacks. U.S. military power virtually guaranteed a crippling of Taliban and al-qaida infrastructure. Today, however, this equation is very different. Afghanistan lacks the capability to inflict any direct damage on the U.S. There are virtually no serious prospects of success, because there is no specific goal other than that of 'democratizing' a country that has never been democratic. And continued killing of civilians that we can only quantitatively, not qualitatively, differentiate from our 'insurgent' opponents clearly shows that the evils and disorders produced by our continued involvement are not justified by the evil we are attempting to eliminate.

Our continued involvement in military conflicts in the middle east are not Just War, they are just war.