Wednesday, August 20, 2014

My response to the execution by beheading of James Foley and others | protein wisdom

My response to the execution by beheading of James Foley and others | protein wisdom: "So.  To all the preening liberals who may choose to point to this as evidence of bloodthirsty xenophobia or a thrill for war, I offer a preemptive response:  fuck you and the sophistry you’ll use to condemn me.  I hate war as much as anyone.  I’m just not stupid enough to think we can simply wish it away — particularly against an enemy who takes such joy in showing their trophies, be they the heads of children on pikes or the digital video recording of executions.  I don’t care why they do what they do.  I care that they’re made to stop.  By whatever means necessary.
That’s the real moral stand to take, unpopular amongst the finger-wagging nuanced crowd.  And no, I don’t care about them, either.

'via Blog this'

McConnell’s Govt Shutdown? Don’t Make Me Laugh!

McConnell’s Govt Shutdown? Don’t Make Me Laugh!:

When I heard reports this morning that if “Republicans” get control of the Senate they might next year give President Obama the choice of signing responsible bills or allowing him to shut down the government, I laughed.  I didn’t get time to share my thoughts with you, Dear Reader, but I had some.
Now Allahpundit at Hot Air has expresses my thoughts pretty accurately.

Does anyone actually believe this?…

To repeat: Does anyone actually believe this? McConnell was one of the sharpest Republican critics of the “defund” strategy that produced a government shutdown last fall.
What a joke. Mitch McConnell couldn’t win a shadow boxing contest with his own shadow; he’d be too busy surrendering to himself.

Of course, Democrats are already attempting to use it as a tool to fearmonger the election of Republicans (whether those “Republicans” actually stand for Republican values or not). Just like everyone knows the feckless RINOs running things lack the backbone to impeach the Lawbreaker-in-Chief, everyone knows they lack the guts to allow President Obama to shut down the government rather than behave constitutionally. After all, Senator Ted Cruz handed the leadership a golden, winnable opportunity to defund ObamaCare last year…and the “leadership” peed its pants.

In fact, any threat or so-called promise McConnell or anyone else in “Republican” leadership wants to make will be met with laughter from the Democrats. “Republicans” have proved too many times that they have no guts, so why should Democrats take them seriously (for that matter, why should the American people)?

A national Tea Party leader recently asked me whether I and South Dakota Tea Party patriots would support RINO Mike Rounds for the U.S. Senate this year.  After I gave her an earful about the reasons why I didn’t expect Hell to freeze over anytime soon, she asked about the need for “Republicans” to get control of the Senate.

I told her I had no realistic expectation that they’d do anything at all with control of congress, even if we gave it to them. After all, they’d shown absolutely zero signs of having the anatomy to stand up to Barack Obama and the Democrats so far.  The Tea Party handed the U.S. House to “Republicans” in 2010 and what did they do with this gift?  They wasted no time in urinating on it with their worthless “debt deal“, refusing to defund ObamaCare, and trying to shove amnesty down our throats.  And these guys are in charge of their own chamber!  The Senate “Republican” “leadership” has been even worse.

Why should I get excited about the idea of sending to the U.S. Senate a feckless RINO who has proven with his words and deeds that he will betray Republican values at the drop of a hat?  Especially when the feckless squish would be going to join other proven feckless squishes like McConnell and Boehner?

There’s an old principle of stewardship, that when you are entrusted with something, you have to prove yourself worthy of using it wisely before being considered worthy of more or future responsibility. Jokers like Mitch McConnell?  They deserve to be cast into outer darkness.

Allahpundit sums up the idea of Mitch McConnell carrying through on this quite aptly:

It’s the purest nonsense.
Indeed. Like pretty much anything that comes out of the mouth of a “Republican” who has already proven he lacks the testicular fortitude to actually stand firm for conservative principles.

When “Republican” leadership considers it important enough to actually start behaving like Republicans and establishing a record of conservative leadership, let me know. Until then, I’m out of legs to be pulled. Other patriotic Americans and I have been way too serious about trying to save this great nation for way too long to waste our time being impressed by empty promises from a bunch of candy-*** jokers.
The post McConnell’s Govt Shutdown? Don’t Make Me Laugh! appeared first on American Clarion.

The Revolting Truth: The Real Racism in America

The Revolting Truth: The Real Racism in America:

Great analysis of the fiasco in Ferguson, Missouri and the real “race war” going on in America.
The “mainstream” media makes sure we always hear about “white on black” crime…but never hear about “black on white” crime. Why, it’s almost as if they try to hide the truth (I know: couldn’t be).

But I bet you’d be amaze to find out that “black on white” crime vastly outnumbers “white on black” crime. (Why, to hear liberals tell it, to even state such a thing must be inherently racist!)

America, here’s a novel idea: how about we ignore the color of everyone’s skin and treat each other like Americans. Game? I am.

The post The Revolting Truth: The Real Racism in America appeared first on American Clarion.

Who-d a-thunk it? Game ranching and private ownership of wildlife for hunting, tourism and meat are saving rhinos, etc.

Who-d a-thunk it? Game ranching and private ownership of wildlife for hunting, tourism and meat are saving rhinos, etc.:

There’s a pretty interesting and stark contrast between the two approaches to saving wildlife in Africa (rhinos, elephants, lions, leopards and African buffaloes, etc.): a) ban the private ownership and all commercialization of wildlife except for eco-tourism vs. b) allow the private ownership of wildlife, establish a commercial value for wildlife by legalizing game ranching, tourism, and meat production. Most African countries like Kenya take the first approach – individuals are not allowed to own or profit commercially from wildlife. A change in South Africa’s law in 1991 legalizing private ownership of wildlife and private game ranching provides a natural experiment to compare the two approaches.

A recent Bloomberg article provides these details:

1. South Africa’s private game-ranching industry, which is $1.1 billion a year and growing at 10 percent annually. Foreign hunters, about 60 percent of whom came from the U.S., spent $118.1 million on licenses to hunt in South Africa in 2012.

2. Private game ranches have increased fivefold to 10,000 since South Africans were allowed to own and profit commercially from wild animals. The game ranches cover 20 million hectares, or about 16 percent of the country’s land.

So what’s happen to the number of wild animals in South Africa?

3. The private game industry is largely responsible for boosting the country’s large mammal population to 24 million, the most since the 19th century, and up from 575,000 in the early 1960s. For example, South Africa now has more than 20,000 white rhinos, 80 percent of the world’s total, up from 1,800 in 1968 when limited hunting was first introduced.

4. South Africa’s law change has also led to a commercial trade in wild animals with captive-bred species ranging from sable antelope to wildebeest sold at wildlife auctions.

And what about the situation in Kenya?

4. Kenya has lost 80 percent of its wildlife since it banned hunting in 1977 and large-mammal numbers are declining by 4.2 percent a year. The country’s elephant population has dropped 76 percent since the 1970s, while rhinos are down 95 percent.

MP: As counter-intuitive and paradoxical as it might seem, the best way to save African elephants, lions, leopards and rhinos from extinction is to kill them and eat them – in limited numbers of course. That is, by allowing private ownership and game ranching in South Africa, wild animals like the rhino have a commercial value that naturally results in greater conservation and protection efforts (“sustainability”) than in countries like Kenya.

As Steven Landsburg reminds us in The Armchair Economist, “Most of economics can be summarized in four words: People respond to incentives. The rest is commentary.” It shouldn’t be surprising then that wild animals are increasing in numbers in South Africa and decreasing in Keyna – private property rights, commercial use, market pricing, and the profit motive are the incentives that make all the difference in the world.

CNN Explodes After Larry Elder Says Racism ‘Is Not A Major Problem In This Country’ [VIDEO]

CNN Explodes After Larry Elder Says Racism ‘Is Not A Major Problem In This Country’ [VIDEO]: 'We've been training black people to think racism is a bigger deal'

9 Out of 10 Best Job-Producing States Run By Republican Governors

9 Out of 10 Best Job-Producing States Run By Republican Governors:

Yet more evidence that policies based upon the basic premise of freedom/liberty and smaller government produce the greatest amounts of opportunity and upward economic movement for ALL Americans.  Imagine how much better the economy would be if the nation had been run by a more conservative administration the last six years?  All the more reason to vote out the Democrats from Congress this November…

(Source: Bureau of Labor and Statistics)

North Dakota, enjoying a greatly expanding natural gas and oil industry, led all states with a +8.4 job growth rate in the last quarter of 2013. Those jobs in turn create more jobs, higher wages, and a thriving economy and prospering Middle Class.

By contrast, six of the ten worst states for job growth had Democrat governors. Those economies remain stagnant, dependent upon handouts and federal government assistance.

And imagine how poorly state economies, and thus the national economy would be doing, if there were fewer Republican governors?

The facts make it clear – thank God for smaller government and fewer regulations so that the foundational spirit of the Free Market is still allowed to flourish in some places throughout America!

November 2014 – Remember to vote!!!!!





The post 9 Out of 10 Best Job-Producing States Run By Republican Governors appeared first on

The Mayor of New York Encounters Something Known as Reality

The Mayor of New York Encounters Something Known as Reality:

A friend who teaches economics points out this headline in today’s New York Times:

De Blasio Encounters Rising Friction Over Liberal Expectations

“It is amazing.” my friend writes, “what having to balance a budget in the face of pension and wage demands from the teachers union, the police union, etc., will do to temper one’s liberal dreams.”

It is indeed.

Note the last line of the article, which quotes Mitchell Moss, who teaches urban studies at New York University. Words worth savoring — particularly for the Ricochetti who live in the five boroughs:

“Inequality is not something that a mayor of New York can solve, but public safety is,” he said. “You can never make the liberals happy. Because when you ask them what they want, the answer is always: M-O-R-E.”
The post The Mayor of New York Encounters Something Known as Reality appeared first on Ricochet.

While The Titanic’s Orchestra Plays On: CBO Says Social Security Deficit Has Increased 4X Since 2008

While The Titanic’s Orchestra Plays On: CBO Says Social Security Deficit Has Increased 4X Since 2008: By Andrew G. Biggs  On July 15 the Congressional Budget Office rolled out updated projections that show a precipitous decline in Social Security’s solvency. The program’s 75-year deficit has nearly quadrupled since 2008, and the trust fund’s exhaustion date has moved forward by nearly 20 years. Remarkably, the response by progressives is to expand Social…

Johns Hopkins Psychiatrist: Transgender is a ‘Mental Disorder’ – Sex Change is ‘Biologically Impossible’

Johns Hopkins Psychiatrist: Transgender is a ‘Mental Disorder’ – Sex Change is ‘Biologically Impossible’: Cybercast News Service, by Michael W. Chapman Posted By: KarenJ1- Wed, 20 38 2014 10:38:34 GMT Dr. Paul R. McHugh, the former psychiatrist'in'chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital and its current Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry, said that transgenderism is a “mental disorder” that merits treatment, that sex change is “biologically impossible,” and that people who promote sexual reassignment surgery are collaborating with and promoting a mental disorder. Dr. McHugh, the author of six books and at least 125 peer'reviewed medical articles, made his remarks in a recent commentary in the Wall Street Journal, where he explained that transgender surgery is not the solution for people who suffer a “disorder of ‘assumption’” – the notion that their maleness

Obama Is Wired All the Wrong Way

Obama Is Wired All the Wrong Way:

Our own Max Boot, whose commentary has been indispensable on all things national security related, wrote this earlier today:

What is needed now is not strongly worded condemnation of [James] Foley’s murder, much less a hashtag campaign. What is needed is a politico-military strategy to annihilate ISIS rather than simply chip around the edges of its burgeoning empire. In the Spectator of London I recently outlined what such a strategy should look like. In brief, it will require a commitment of some 10,000 U.S. advisors and Special Operators, along with enhanced air power, to work with moderate elements in both Iraq and Syria–meaning not only the peshmerga but also the Sunni tribes, elements of the Iraqi Security Forces, and the Free Syrian Army–to stage a major offensive to rout ISIS out of its newly conquered strongholds. The fact that Nouri al-Maliki is leaving power in Baghdad clears away a major obstacle to such a campaign. Now it is simply a matter of resources and resolve on the part of the U.S. and its allies. That, of course, remains the big unknown–how far will President Obama go?
That is, I think, the operative question. I dearly hope Mr. Obama will do what’s necessary, and go as far as he needs to, given the stakes involved. I will admit I’m quite skeptical. That skepticism is based on the entire arc of the Obama presidency, which is itself the manifestation of Mr. Obama’s deepest convictions. All of his training and education, all his political and moral reflexes, all his actions as president, indicate he won’t do what is needed at this moment in time. He is simply not up to the challenge.

Mr. Obama is the most dogmatic person to serve as president that I can name. He seems arrogantly settled in his ways, always alert to invent an excuse for his multiplying failures. So far he’s shown he doesn’t have the cognitive flexibility, the proper regard for empirical data, or the wisdom to change as circumstances do. For Mr. Obama to meet the rising threat of the Islamic state, as well as the disorder sweeping the world, will require him to reverse course, to re-examine his core suppositions, to alter his most cherished beliefs (the most important one being that Obama was right from the start).

We’re asking him to do what I don’t think he is emotionally able to do. He’s wired all the wrong way.

I hope I’m proved wrong. I rather doubt I will be.

A fatal blind spot for sheer evil

A fatal blind spot for sheer evil: Good people refuse to accept the possibility that human beings could use children as human shields

Media, Mobocracy Ensure That Injustice Will Be Done In Ferguson

Media, Mobocracy Ensure That Injustice Will Be Done In Ferguson: Those of us who admit we were not there, and do not know what happened when Michael Brown was shot by a policeman in Ferguson, Mo., seem to be in the minority. We all know what has happened since then -- and it has been a complete disgrace by politicians, the media and mobs of rioters and looters. Despite all the people who act as if they know exactly what happened, nevertheless when the full facts come out, that can change everything. This is why

The Medicare Money Pit of Waste, Fraud, and Abuse

The Medicare Money Pit of Waste, Fraud, and Abuse:

Since I primarily work on fiscal policy, I normally look at the budgetary impact of entitlement programs. And the numbers are very grim.

But I’m also an economist, so I periodically comment on how government intervention undermines the efficient functioning of markets in the healthcare field.

Last but not least, I’m also a taxpayer, so I can’t resist occasionally expressing my frustration at how the government is a giant pinata of waste fraud and abuse. And government-run healthcare seems especially vulnerable.

Huge amounts of money bilked from taxpayers for supposed counseling sessions financed by Medicare and Medicaid.
Medicare getting scammed to pay for plastic surgery.
Russian diplomats scheming to get their healthcare costs covered by Medicaid.
We now have another example to add to the list.

The Washington Post has an excellent expose on how government incompetence has made Medicare a prime target for fraudsters and other crooks.

…in a Los Angeles courtroom, Bonilla described the workings of a peculiar fraud scheme that — starting in the mid-1990s — became one of the great success stories in American crime. The sucker in this scheme was the U.S. government. …The tool of the crime was the motorized wheelchair. The wheelchair scam was designed to exploit blind spots in Medicare, which often pays insurance claims without checking them first. Criminals disguised themselves as medical-supply companies. They ginned up bogus bills, saying they’d provided expensive wheelchairs to Medicare patients — who, in reality, didn’t need wheelchairs at all. Then the scammers asked Medicare to pay them back, so they could pocket the huge markup that the government paid on each chair. …The government paid. Since 1999, Medicare has spent $8.2 billion to procure power wheelchairs and “scooters” for 2.7 million people. Today, the government cannot even guess at how much of that money was paid out to scammers.
Wow. Billions of dollars of fraud and the government to this day still can’t figure out the level of theft.

And wheelchair fraud is just a small slice of the problem.

…while it lasted, the scam illuminated a critical failure point in the federal bureaucracy: Medicare’s weak defenses against fraud. The government knew how the wheelchair scheme worked in 1998. But it wasn’t until 15 years later that officials finally did enough to significantly curb the practice. …Fraud in Medicare has been a top concern in Washington for decades, in part because the program’s mistakes are so expensive. In fiscal 2013, for instance, Medicare paid out almost $50 billion in “improper payments.”
You won’t be surprised to learn that fraud is so lucrative because the government routinely over-pays for items.

…The original equipment scam had sprung up in the 1970s, at a time when Medicare was young and criminals were still learning how to steal its money. Doctors, for example, could bill Medicare for exams they didn’t do. Hospitals could bill for tests that patients didn’t need. The equipment scam was the poor man’s way in, an entry-level fraud that didn’t require a medical degree or a hospital. …“Let me put it to you this way: An $840 power wheelchair, Medicare pays close to $5,000 for. So there’s a huge profit margin there. Huge,” said one California man who participated in a recent fraud scheme involving wheelchairs.
So this isn’t just a story about government incompetence and taxpayer ripoffs, it’s also a story which shows why third-party payer is a recipe for excessive healthcare spending.

The good news is that the wheelchair scam is slowly fading away.

The bad news is that the overall problem of a poorly designed entitlement system ensures that scammers and other crooks will simply come up with other ways to pillage taxpayers.

Today, even while the wheelchair scam is in decline, that same “pay and chase” system is allowing other variants of the Medicare equipment scam to thrive. They aren’t perfect. But they work.  In Brooklyn, for instance, the next big thing is shoe inserts. Scammers bill Medicare for a $500 custom-made orthotic, according to investigators. They give the patient a $30 Dr. Scholl’s.

When examining entitlements, I’ve  argued that Medicaid reform is the biggest priority.

But perhaps the rampant fraud means Medicare should be addressed first.

Though the right answer is to reform both programs, which is why I’m so pleased that the House of Representatives has approved the Ryan budget for four consecutive years, even if each new proposal allows more spending than the previous one. What matters most if that Ryan’s plan block grants Medicaid and creates a premium support system for Medicare.

Those reforms won’t eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse, but the structural reforms will make it harder for crooks to take advantage of the programs.

P.S. If you want more background information on Medicare, here’s a post that explains why the program is so costly even though seniors don’t enjoy first-class benefits.

P.P.S. And here’s my video explaining why Medicare desperately needs reform.

But keep in mind we also need reform of Medicaid and Social Security.

NFL Legend Mike Ditka Sums Up Redskins Controversy: ‘Political Correct Idiots’

NFL Legend Mike Ditka Sums Up Redskins Controversy: ‘Political Correct Idiots’:

No one will ever accuse Mike Ditka of mincing his words.

The former NFL player and Super Bowl-winning coach for the Chicago Bears is known for his outspoken, uncensored opinions almost as much as he is for his Hall of Fame career. So it shouldn’t be a surprise that he had some pretty strong words for the kerfuffle over the Washington Redskins.

“It’s so much horse****!” Ditka told Mike Richman at the RedskinsHistorian website.  “We’re going to let the liberals of the world run this world.”

Ditka’s stance is  in stark contrast to fellow NFL analysts Tony Dungy (NBC) and Phil Simms (CBS), who have announced they will not use the name “Redskins” when covering the team this season. Ditka, who works for ESPN, seems perfectly fine with the nickname and he praised team owner an Snyder for his vow to “never” change the name, despite the firestorm that has erupted over it in the past year.

“I admire him for it,” Ditka said of Snyder. “Really, I think it’s tradition, it’s history, it’s part of the National Football League. It was about Sammy Baugh and all the guys who were Redskins way back then. I didn’t think that Lombardi and Halas never had a problem with it, why would all these other idiots have a problem with the name? I’m sorry.”

Here’s more of Ditka’s unapologetic stance on the Redskins: (You can listen to the full audio at RedskinsHistorian.)

“What’s all the stink over the Redskin name? It’s so much [expletive] it’s incredible. We’re going to let the liberals of the world run this world. It was said out of reverence, out of pride to the American Indian. Even though it was called a Redskin, what are you going to call them, a Brownskin? This is so stupid it’s appalling, and I hope that owner keeps fighting for it and never changes it, because the Redskins are part of an American football history, and it should never be anything but the Washington Redskins. That’s the way it is.”

“It’s all the political correct idiots in America, that’s all it is. It’s got nothing to do with anything else. We’re going to change something because we can. Hey listen, I went through it in the 60s, too. I mean, come on. Everybody lined up, did this. It’s fine to protest. That’s your right, if you don’t like it, protest. You have a right to do that, but to change the name, that’s ridiculous. Change the Constitution — we’ve got people trying to do that, too, and they’re doing a pretty good job.”
Do you think Ditka’s support of the Redskins name will give cover to other players and coaches to buck the PC trend and come out in support of it?

The post NFL Legend Mike Ditka Sums Up Redskins Controversy: ‘Political Correct Idiots’ appeared first on Independent Journal Review.

Original enclosures:
Ditka.jpg?de9c64 (image/jpg)

ISIS Must Be Terrified of Obama Now That He Gave a Speech & Immediately Retreated to the Golf Course

ISIS Must Be Terrified of Obama Now That He Gave a Speech & Immediately Retreated to the Golf Course:

President Obama had strong words for ISIS in a press conference Wednesday afternoon after their despicable beheading of American photojournalist James Foley. But his actions mere minutes later had many questioning his focus and resolve on tackling the terrorist threat:

major garrett on obama golfing

Obama’s press conference was terse and brief, and he took no questions afterward. He made vague promises that America would bring the terrorists to justice, but mostly stuck to condemning their actions without clearly laying out what he would to as Commander-in-Chief.

The golf outing was confirmed by a Washington Examiner White House correspondent as well. The following was tweeted out by stunned journalists.

The New York Times‘ Ross Douthat:


Dylan Byers of Politico responded:

2Ben White of Politico chimed in (apparently he has failed to notice other inopportune times Obama has gone golfing):


Another “working vacation”?


Obama didn’t even have time to mention the second journalist kidnapped and under threat by ISIS, Steve Sotloff, who was abducted in mid-2013 and worked for TIME Magazine. In a gruesome video recently released, ISIS executed photojournalist James Wright Foley:


So, what is Obama going to do about this besides hold press conferences and go golfing with celebrities?

Editor’s note: This post was supplemented with additional information after initial publication.

The post ISIS Must Be Terrified of Obama Now That He Gave a Speech & Immediately Retreated to the Golf Course appeared first on Independent Journal Review.

Original enclosures:
Obama-golfing-isis1.jpg?de9c64 (image/jpg)

More Government Help That Really Hurts: Employers Hire More Part-Time Workers Due to Obamacare

More Government Help That Really Hurts: Employers Hire More Part-Time Workers Due to Obamacare:

Here’s a solid example of when the government tries to help in the form of excessive rules and regulations, those who are supposed to receive the help often end up paying the price.

Healthcare costs for employers have risen by about 10 percent as a result of Obamacare mandates, causing employers to hire fewer full-time workers.

According to the US Chamber of Commerce, as reported by the Washington Free Beacon:

Over 21% of manufacturers and nearly 17% of service firms say they reduced the number of employees because of the law, while only about 2% of each have hired more workers. 

What’s more, nearly 20% of both manufacturers and service firms say that Obamacare has pushed them to increase their proportion of part-time workers, but just under 5% of each type of firm said they have lowered them.

The sad truth is the health care law is pushing higher health costs onto employers and incentivizing them to hire more part-time workers. Despite passing a law in 2010 loaded with rules, regulations, mandates, and taxes, health care reform is needed more than ever.
Government can’t saddle companies with extra costs and regulations and expect no change in the way they do business. Extra costs must be dealt with in some way, whether through increasing prices or cutting expenses.

If Obamacare teaches America any lesson, it should be this: If you want big government, you’re going to have to pay for it.

The post More Government Help That Really Hurts: Employers Hire More Part-Time Workers Due to Obamacare appeared first on Independent Journal Review.

Original enclosures:
2014-08-20_1509.png?de9c64 (image/jpg)

Govt Meddling Creates Auto Loan Mess

Govt Meddling Creates Auto Loan Mess:

Should we worry about a crisis in subprime auto loans? That question has been asked in the financial media lately.

As I said recently on CNBC, my answer is yes, with caveats. While there are important differences in the auto and mortgage markets, there are similar government interventions that have the potential to fuel a bubble in car loans the same way they did for home loans.

First, the differences. So far, thankfully, there is no auto equivalent of a Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or other government-sponsored enterprise to inflate the car loan market. Sure, there have been lots of bailouts in the auto industry in general, but the secondary market in car loans has developed largely on its own.

And without a government backstop, it is much smaller than the mortgage market ever was. An otherwise alarmist front-page story this week by New York Times conceded, “the size of the subprime auto loan market is a tiny fraction of what the subprime mortgage market was at its peak, and its implosion would not have the same far-reaching consequences.”

Also, unlike with mortgages, there is no expectation among the vast majority of lenders of borrowers that a car’s value will appreciate. Most folks know that a car will be underwater the minute it is driven off the lot, and the loans are priced with that reality in mind.

Yet, there are some striking similarities. But not the ones the New York Times or other nannyists point to. They are:

The Federal Reserve’s easy money and zero interest rate policies.

The New York Times repeatedly points to demand for subprime auto loans among investors but neglects to give a reason for this demand. Fortunately, a Reuters piece from March laid out the main cause: Just as with mortgage-backed securities, the Federal Reserve’s quantitative easing and other inflationary policies that set interest rates at essentially zero have fueled demand for yield among even the most conservative investors.“It's the Federal Reserve that's made it all possible,” Reuters reporter Carrick Mollenkamp explains in the enlightening article.

Mollenkamp continues, “The Fed's program, while aimed at bolstering the U.S. housing and labor markets, has also steered billions of dollars into riskier, more speculative corners of the economy. That's because, with low interest rates pinching yields on their traditional investments, insurance companies, hedge funds and other institutional investors hunger for riskier, higher-yielding securities - bonds backed by subprime auto loans, for instance.”

Whether it’s mortgages, auto loans, tulips, or any other product, easy money and bubbles go together like gasoline and matches

“Liar loans” and blatant fraud by borrowers.

The New York Times story begins with what the reporters likely intend to be a sob story about a man whose car was repossessed after he was put into a clearly inappropriate loan.

But in reading the story closely — it appears his woes are mostly his own doing.

It turns out his car loan application listed his salary as $35,000 a year as a hospital technician even though he hadn’t worked at that job or any other for more than three decades. And while he claimed to the Times that he told the auto dealer the truth about his employment his history, he apparently never disclaimed knowledge that his loan application was false.

“Liar loans” like these were ubiquitous leading up to the subprime mortgage crisis. And based on the fact that folks are not only lying to get car loans, but feel comfortable telling newspapers, they are doing so, shows that many borrowers still feel they can commit fraud with impunity.

Even the most ardent libertarian will say it’s a core function of the government to punish fraud. But for the rule of law to function, all fraud must be punished whether it is by borrowers, lenders, or those in between.

The government’s creation of a "Community Reinvestment Act” for car loans due to bogus charges of discrimination.

Among the causes of the mortgage meltdown was the Community Reinvestment Act. In an attempt to remedy real and imagined discrimination, the law and its regulatory expansions forced banks to make loans to uncreditworthy borrowers. While many progressives have attempted to dismiss this law as a factor in the crisis, a definitive 2012 National Bureau of Economic Research study found that the Community Reinvestment Act led to substantially riskier lending.

Now the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the unaccountable bureaucracy created by Dodd-Frank, may be creating a new Community Reinvestment Act by making bogus charges of discrimination any time there is a statistical discrepancy among ethnic groups in car loans. Through a guidance not even subject to the safeguards of a proposed regulation, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has said that “disparate impact” among groups receiving loans and the interest rates they are charged is unacceptable, even if no actual discrimination is proven.

As with the Community Reinvestment Act, this policy could incentivize auto dealers and lenders to take shortcuts in underwriting loans to avoid having any type of disparate impact.

The result could be similar to the mortgage disaster.

Dodd-Frank’s prohibitive mortgage rules that have choked off credit for even responsible borrowers and lenders should show us what not to do in response to heading off a potential subprime auto bubble. We should not have any impossible-to-meet ability-to-repay rules for auto loans, as we do with mortgages.

Automobility is important for everything from getting to work to raising a family, and there should be a vibrant, competitive market for credit to responsible borrowers.

The good news is that if we correct easy money policy, stop the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s “disparate impact” mandate, and prosecute fraud from every source, the auto credit market should be firmly planted on the right road.
Tuesday, August 19, 2014
John Berlau
Publication Type: 

More Govt Waste - Light-Rail Pitch: One-Fifth the Capacity of Roads at 10 Times the Cost (PJTV Special)

Light-Rail Pitch: One-Fifth the Capacity of Roads at 10 Times the Cost (PJTV Special):

Why are politicians driven to support light-rail projects that nearly nobody needs, that cost a lot, and that won’t solve traffic congestion or pollution?

Congress Members Who Approve Militarization of U.S. Police Receive 73% More Money from Defense Industry

Congress Members Who Approve Militarization of U.S. Police Receive 73% More Money from Defense Industry: Congress Is For Sale to the Highest Bidder.

“Pension Smoothing” To Pay For Roads And Bridges: A New Low In Washington Fiscal Deceit

“Pension Smoothing” To Pay For Roads And Bridges: A New Low In Washington Fiscal Deceit: The measure provides $10.8 billion for infrastructure projects around the country, with more than half of the money supplied not by any real increase in revenue or reduction in spending but by an egregious budgetary gimmick known as “pension smoothing.”

Americans sick of government regulation

Americans sick of government regulation:

Most Americans want government off their back. A whopping 59 percent say they’d like to send a “leave me alone” message to Washington, whereas only 32 percent say their message is “lend me a hand.” People are fed up with government’s bossing them around. This, according to an Aug. 14 Fox News poll of registered voters. It suggests Republicans have a good shot at wresting House and Senate seats from Democrats in the fall elections, provided GOP candidates boldly commit to scaling back the mountain of laws and regulations smothering John Q. Public.

Almost 200 years ago, French observer Alexis de Tocqueville warned Americans about a new kind of despotism, not the tyrannical kings of Europe but rather the tyranny of too many laws. He predicted that the people’s own elected lawmakers would generate stifling regulations meant for their own good. Such a network of “complicated rules,” he warned, “enervates, extinguishes and stupefies a people.” That’s precisely how Americans feel.

Andrew Puzder, CEO of CKE Restaurants, says the regulatory maze has gotten so bad that it’s easier to open a restaurant in Siberia than in California. His U.S. franchises have increased in number by only 2 percent over the past three years, but overseas they’ve increased by 53 percent.

Anthony Davies of Virginia wanted to open a microbrewery, but the startup regulations dissuaded him. Regulations have been dampening entrepreneurship for decades. U.S. business startups and expansions have declined every year since 1989, according to a Brookings Institution report in May. That’s a quarter-century of stagnation!

Regulations also reduce Americans’ purchasing power. New Obama administration regulations add $44 to the price of a dishwasher and a whopping $1,357 to the price of a car, according to the American Action Forum.

The biggest regulatory assault on personal freedom is Obamacare, which compels you to buy health insurance and dictates what it covers and how doctors treat patients.

Get ready for more intrusions. The Clean Water Act was passed to protect rivers and lakes — a good thing — but a proposed expansion would apply to property that floods during heavy rains, even your backyard.

So far, proposals to stop this loss of freedom are lame half-measures. Philip Howard, author of the interesting new book “The Rule of Nobody,” says Congress should appoint independent commissions to review regulations and cull useless and pesky ones. Don’t count on that to work. Members of Congress don’t read bills before they enact them and don’t read reports by the commissions they appoint.

The federal government needs to be downsized with an ax, not a scalpel. Start with eliminating several departments of government that the U.S. Constitution didn’t intend, such as Education and Interior. It’s perfectly legal. In 2013, the Congressional Budget Office reported on eliminating these and other federal departments as a way of reducing the deficit. But the bigger benefit would be sweeping away the thousands of regulations enforced by these departments and precluding more from being churned out. Ronald Reagan proposed eliminating the federal role in education in 1980, but since then, it’s gotten larger.

State and local lawmakers are compounding the public’s distress. New York and California are the worst offenders, according to Chief Executive magazine. New York is tagged the “least free state” by the Mercatus Center.

New Yorkers dodged a liberty-killing bullet in June, when a court denied New York City’s final attempt to ban large sodas. The city had argued that its health department should be able to ban anything, as long as its rules are based on science.

Scary thinking. It’s what Republicans need to loudly repudiate. On Aug. 7, Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., introduced a bill in the House of Representatives to slap a tax on sweetened drinks — yet another strategy to control what we eat. It won’t pass any time soon, but she proudly says it’s just a matter of time.

Latter-day “tyrannical kings” like DeLauro, who presume to know what’s best for all of us, ought to be ridiculed, not re-elected. Reagan put it well: “Government’s first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.”

Betsy McCaughey is founder and chairwoman of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths at

Original enclosures:

What glories this capitalist free market thing hath wrought

What glories this capitalist free market thing hath wrought:

There’s nothing worse than being exploited by some running lackey pig dog of a capitalist, as Deirdre McCloskey reminds us:

The aim of the true Liberal should not be equality but “lifting up those below him.” It is to be achieved not by redistribution but by free trade and compulsory education and women’s rights.

And it came to pass. In the UK since 1800, or Italy since 1900, or Hong Kong since 1950, real income per head has increased by a factor of anywhere from 15 to 100, depending on how one allows for the improved quality of steel girders and plate glass, medicine and economics.

In relative terms, the poorest people in the developed economies and billions in the poor countries have been the biggest beneficiaries. The rich became richer, true. But the poor have gas heating, cars, smallpox vaccinations, indoor plumbing, cheap travel, rights for women, low child mortality, adequate nutrition, taller bodies, doubled life expectancy, schooling for their kids, newspapers, a vote, a shot at university and respect.

Never had anything similar happened, not in the glory of Greece or the grandeur of Rome, not in ancient Egypt or medieval China. What I call The Great Enrichment is the main fact and finding of economic history.
It’s that penultimate sentence which is so important. There have most certainly been many attempts at designing economic systems: there have been even more that just sorta happened out of voluntary interactions. But there’s only one of them that has actually managed what we are all the lucky, lucky, beneficiaries of. That is, one economic method of organisation that has led to a substantial, sustained, increase in the standard of living of the average woman on the Clapham Omnibus.

Nothing else, nothing planned nor nothing unplanned, has managed this. And that really is the main fact and finding of economic history. It’s the one unique even in it too. McCloskey, you and I, we might differ on the details of how it all happened but we shouldn’t allow minor disagreements over precedence between the flea and the louse to obscure the manner in which we’re all feeding off that larger truth. That nothing else does work as well as those largely bourgeois virtues plus economic and social liberty.

Tuesday, August 19, 2014

Why Is Obama Hiding ObamaCare Enrollment Data?

Why Is Obama Hiding ObamaCare Enrollment Data?: Cooking The Books: It's been 110 days since the last "monthly" report on ObamaCare enrollment, when the president bragged that 8 million had signed up. What are they hiding? Since then, the administration's claim that 8 million enrolled for health care through an ObamaCare exchange has looked increasingly dubious. A Government Accountability Office report found that the enrollment numbers were unreliable because they haven't been reconciled with

Obama's Ferguson Remarks Ignore Bloody Chicago Weekend

Obama's Ferguson Remarks Ignore Bloody Chicago Weekend: Malignant Neglect: The president talks about Ferguson, Mo., but not about a Chicago weekend where three dozen people were shot, seven of them killed, including a 16-year-old black girl who wanted to be a doctor. To his credit, President Obama was more judicious than usual talking about the shooting of Michael Brown outside St. Louis. He did not say the police acted stupidly. He actually made a rare attempt at acknowledging individual

White House Courts Business On Immigration For Political Purposes

White House Courts Business On Immigration For Political Purposes: Imperial Presidency: Secret scheming between the White House and Big Business on immigration is all about political cover for unconstitutional executive action. Cheap labor now isn't worth socialism tomorrow. If high-tech giants such as Cisco, Intel, Microsoft, Oracle and Accenture endorse President Obama's impending executive orders giving amnesty to multitudes of illegal aliens without congressional assent, America will in essence have

Destroying The Traditional Family Is Leftist

Destroying The Traditional Family Is Leftist:  Political junkies will remember how former Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels was being groomed to run for president in 2012 before he made his foolish statement that the next president should "call a truce on the so-called social issues." Americans do not want a leader who is unable or unwilling to articulate and lead on important social issues. Four years after Daniels' misstep, many fail to learn that lesson. The New York

Satanic Evil Personified | CNS News

Satanic Evil Personified | CNS News: "It seems it's hard for some people to accept the fact that there is an evil in this world that goes far beyond criminal behavior or just plain meanness, an evil so demented and so unrepentant that it knows no depths and no bounds.


'via Blog this'



A REDISTRIBUTIVE GOVERNMENT IS INHERENTLY A GOVERNMENT THAT SIDES WITH SOME CITIZENS AGAINST OTHERS: The Sinestro Theory of The Administrative State. “Over the past decade, we’ve witnessed a decline in the level of trust in government, and a rise in distrust, to levels unprecedented in American history. But to think this is an entirely new phenomenon is a mistake: trust in government has steadily declined since the Great Society and the Vietnam War under Lyndon Johnson. This graph from Pew with data running through the fall of 2013 shows how people answer the question: ‘How much of the time do you trust the government in Washington?’ The answer is pretty clear: not much at all.”

Immigration and Charity

Immigration and Charity: State has a responsibility to protect its own citizens.

Sen. Sessions: CEOs ´Scheming with WH to Extract by Executive Fiat´ Amnesty Congress Denied

Sen. Sessions: CEOs ´Scheming with WH to Extract by Executive Fiat´ Amnesty Congress Denied: Cybercast News Service, by Craig Bannister Posted By: KarenJ1- Tue, 19 06 2014 05:06:15 GMT Sen. Jeff Sessions (R'Ala.) today accused executives at some of the world´s largest corporation of "scheming with the White House" to circumvent the law during their closed'door meeting with Pres. Obama today. "We have now arrived at a crisis point in American politics. Politico reports that the White House is meeting with the world´s largest corporations to discuss how executive actions on immigration could benefit them financially. The Administration has solicited ´a list of asks for the tech sector´ and ´provisions for low'skilled workers for industries, like construction´'including green cards and work authorizations'in order to ´get them on board´ with the

MO Governor Authorized Military Equipment For Cops, Now Acts Surprised

MO Governor Authorized Military Equipment For Cops, Now Acts Surprised:

Missouri Governor Jay Nixon is another Democrat who has a problem with the truth, or at least remembering recent history. He said he was “thunderstruck” by all of the military equipment used by police, but he signed off on it all, as recently as January.

Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon, who yesterday said he was “thunderstruck” to learn how militarized police in Ferguson had become, signed off  as recently as January on statewide participation in a Pentagon program providing local police departments with surplus equipment.
In authorizing Ferguson police and other local law enforcement agencies to apply for firearms and other equipment, Nixon also directed his administration to “conduct management and oversight of the program,” documents show.
Should Nixon, a Democrat elected in 2008 and re-elected in 2012, have been surprised? Participating jurisdictions, including agencies in St. Louis County, received weapons and equipment as early as 2010 and again in 2012, 2013 and this summer. Ferguson is a St. Louis suburb. (Read More)
In related news, here are the latest headlines from Drudge.
Yesterday a reporter was on the news talking about the people he spoke to in Ferguson. He followed some of the looters and rioters around. Some of them told him they would keep rioting until the policeman who shot Michael Brown was arrested. Others said they were rioting because they want jobs. As if looting a rioting will help someone get a job. Good grief.

Whistleblower: ‘The VA System Is A Perfect Example Of Cronyism’

Whistleblower: ‘The VA System Is A Perfect Example Of Cronyism’: Is Crony-Hiring At The Core Of The VA Scandal?

Monday, August 18, 2014

What Obama's anti-Americanism has wrought

What Obama's anti-Americanism has wrought: (Alan Keyes) - Just recently, I read a WND article reporting an interview with Clare Lopez, a former CIA operative who now "manages the counter-jihad and Shariah programs at the Center for Security Policy" (a national security affairs think tank directed by my friend Frank Gaffney, who was assistant secretary of defense for international security policy under President Ronald Reagan). In the interview, Lopez says bluntly that Barack Obama's actions reveal that he has the same goals for the U.S. as Osama bin Laden and all jihadis...

The Rise of Progressive Oligarchy

The Rise of Progressive Oligarchy: Progressive historians have taught four generations of Americans to regard the American founders with suspicion--as would-be oligarchs seeking to protect their own class and economic standing. As we argue in our latest essay, it is the Progressive movement, rather, that threatens to create an oligarchy in the United States by centralizing power in the hands of administrators several degrees removed from popular accountability and using that power to help its friends. In Federalist 57, James Madison argues that the "vigilant and manly spirit" of American republicanism is the best security against a self-serving government. Reviving that spirit, we argue, is the political challenge of our day. ~ Matt Parks

Reviving the 'vigilant and manly spirit' of American republicanism.
Drs. David Corbin and Matthew Parks: In what might have appeared to be a minor political event a few weeks back, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) called congressman Tom Marino (R-PA) “insignificant” and “inconsequential” in a debate on the House floor. Why would the former House Speaker insult a colleague in such a manner?

She didn’t count her way to this assessment; Democrats do not hold a majority of the House. Nor did she reason her way to this position, as there was nothing in Rep. Marino’s argument on the immigration issue that raised empirical red flags. Perhaps it was a momentary lapse in judgment in the midst of the partisan give-and-take on an important political issue. But what if Pelosi was simply saying what she believed to be true and acknowledging what ruling class Americans think about their non-ruling class counterparts? Namely, that there are people like Pelosi, the highest-ranking female politician in American history, who get it, and people like Marino, merely a second-term congressman from “gun- and religion-clinging” northeastern Pennsylvania, who don’t.

What is the “it” they don’t get? The Progressive dogmas that Pelosi has internalized and Marino rejects. A hundred years ago, the first group of progressives concluded that this country needed to change in a big way. They argued explicitly for a refounding of the United States on the grounds that the only absolute in political life is that absolutes are material and economic rather than moral in nature.

Translating theory into practice, those thinkers and political storm troopers on the Right Side of History have increased the power of the state so as to produce the greatest amount of material pleasure and moral-ideational relief for society–to leave the populace, as Machiavelli put it, both “satisfied” and “stupefied.”

Convincing the American people to abandon (or at least qualify) their deep, longstanding regard for the founders was no easy task for the Progressives. It required making them over in far less heroic terms: to frame the Founding as a grand enticement, if not quite a crime, and the founders as crafty oligarchs, if not quite criminals.

No thinker advanced this thesis with greater confidence than Columbia economist Charles Beard, who wrote of the founders in his An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States (1913):

If we examine carefully the delicate instrument by which the framers sought to check certain kinds of positive action that might be advocated to the detriment of established and acquired rights, we cannot help marvelling at their skill. Their leading idea was to break up the attacking forces at the starting point: the source of political authority for the several branches of the government. This disintegration of positive action at the source was further facilitated by the differentiation in the terms given to the respective departments of the government. And the crowning counterweight to “an interested and over-bearing majority,” as Madison phrased it, was secured in the peculiar position assigned to the judiciary, and the use of the sanctity and mystery of the law as a foil to democratic attacks.In Beard’s formulation, the framers’ emphasis on the rule of law, checks and balances, federalism, and “equal rights for all, special privileges for none,” was simply patriotic cover for a system that would prove impenetrable to the forces of economic and material progress. To accomplish their task, the founders had to artfully construct a noble lie in which our love for republican norms (embodied in the Declaration of Independence and institutionalized in the Constitution) would be greater than our disgust at the injustice of natural and circumstantial inequality.

Beard’s charge was not, in fact, wholly new. Even in their own day, the founders had been accused of hiding an oligarchy beneath republican robes. When Anti-Federalists first leveled the charge, James Madison reacted, in Federalist 57, with righteous indignation, challenging the critics to show just how the Constitution favored the few at the expense of the many:

Who are to be the electors of the federal representatives? Not the rich, more than the poor; not the learned, more than the ignorant; not the haughty heirs of distinguished names, more than the humble sons of obscure and unpropitious fortune. ….Who are to be the objects of popular choice? Every citizen whose merit may recommend him to the esteem and confidence of his country.

This, of course, does not mean that everyone who can vote today could vote in 1789 or that James Madison expected women, for example, to serve in the House. However, there has been no change in the formal qualifications for voters–at any point in our history–that required changing the Constitution. There has been no de facto expansion of the pool of candidates for office that has encountered the least constitutional resistance.

Publius argues throughout The Federalist that the original Constitution is strictly republican. But, as Publius also argues throughout The Federalist, this is no guarantee that the people at large will enjoy the blessings of republican liberty and equality before the law or that their leaders will pursue the common good, rather than the advantage of the well-connected.

All founders, in essence, take up an impossible task. As Madison put it:

The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first, to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous, whilst they continue to hold their public trust.Better forms of regime better contribute to these purposes, but there is no form of regime that intrinsically achieves them. In a republic, the “elective mode of obtaining rulers” is the “characteristic policy”–and limited terms “the most effectual” among “numerous and various” means “for preventing their degeneracy.”

Plainly Madison understood that even if broadly popular elections are the best means of attaining good legislators and ongoing electoral accountability the best means of keeping them honest, these are imperfect instruments.

As a result, Progressives, from the beginning of the last century down to the present day, have never lacked for opportunities to reconstruct the American regime by craftily employing a language of democratic populism.

The result, intentional or not, has been the creation of the very oligarchic state Progressives claimed to oppose. By arguing and governing as if politics is principally about the distribution of wealth (“who gets what, when, and how,” as leading Progressive political scientist Harold Lasswell put it), they managed to assemble, in the federal government, all the means necessary to control that distribution. As a result, controlling the state means controlling wealth.

In such circumstances, the rich will certainly have good reason to seek–and, no doubt, find some success in achieving–political power. But, more importantly, political power has become an essential (if not the exclusive) means to acquiring wealth. Rather than an oligarchy of market winners, we get an oligarchy of the well-connected–and, with the rise of the permanent administrative state, one that is largely immune to any meaningful popular accountability.

The convergence of intentional (mostly Democratic) and accidental (mostly Republican) progressives and the happy peace between the bohemian cultural left and financial elites has deepened and institutionalized the difference between the “ins” and the “outs.” The move from Occupy Wall Street-type community organizer to Martha’s Vineyard celebrity has proven to be unexpectedly easy, at least for President Obama. A few true believers aside, at the end of the day most progressive elites have come to accept that Chappaqua mansions are built on welfare state mudsills and willingly assumed their place in the new oligarchy.

The best moral and political response to self-serving progressive cynicism is summarized by Madison near the end of Federalist 57:

If it be asked, what is to restrain the House of Representatives from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of the society? I answer: the genius of the whole system; the nature of just and constitutional laws; and above all, the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America — a spirit which nourishes freedom, and in return is nourished by it.See how plainly and powerfully Madison asserts the fundamentally moral character of the American founding. Discriminatory laws violate the “genius” of our republic, its constitutional principles, and the natural rules of justice. That these ideals are not self-enforcing requires the introduction of the most important check on privilege: the people, guided by a “vigilant and manly spirit” nourishing and nourished by freedom.

The political challenge of our day is the revival of that spirit among the American people – and those who champion this task, like those they champion, are anything but “insignificant.”


Drs. David Corbin and Matthew Parks are Professors of Politics at The Kings College (NYC). They are contributors to the ARRA News Service. They edit and write for The Federalist and are on Facebook and Twitter.

Tags: Progressive Oligarchy, Progressive dogmas, Nancy Pelosi, economist, Charles Beard, Progressives, democratic populism, distribution of wealth, James madison, Federalist 57, David Corbin, Matthew Parks,  To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!

We’re better off with free trade, so why do we have tariffs?

We’re better off with free trade, so why do we have tariffs?:

David Friedman explains in a post titled “Why Improving Things is Hard“:

There are good economic arguments to show that we would be better off if we went to complete free trade. That seems puzzling—if we would be, why don’t we?

The answer is provided by public choice theory, the branch of economics that deals with the workings of the political market. A tariff makes the inhabitants of the country that imposes it worse off but the politicians who pass the tariff better off, since it benefits a concentrated interest group at the cost of dispersed interest groups. More concentrated interest groups are better able to pay politicians to do things for them.Trade policy is optimized, but for the wrong objective.

Too bad we can't trade Obama for Netanyahu

Too bad we can't trade Obama for Netanyahu:

Random thoughts on the passing scene:

I don’t know why we are spending our hard-earned money paying taxes to support a criminal justice system, when issues of guilt and innocence are being determined on television – and even punishment is being meted out by CNN’s showing the home and address of the policeman accused in the Ferguson, Missouri, shooting.

One of the big differences between Democrats and Republicans is that we at least know what the Democrats stand for, whether we agree with it or not. But, for Republicans, we have to guess.

It is amazing how many otherwise sane people want Israel to become the first nation in history to respond to military attacks by restricting what they do, so that it is “proportionate” to the damage inflicted by the attacks.

Amid all the things being said on all sides about the massive, illegal influx of children from countries in Central America, we have yet to hear some American parent saying, “I don’t owe it to anybody to have my child exposed to diseases brought into this country, no matter what problems exist in other countries!”

Two headlines in the Aug. 10 New York Times speak volumes about Barack Obama. The top headline reads: “Iraq Strikes May Last Months, Obama Says.” A secondary headline reads: “No Ground Force Will Be Sent, He Repeats.” Time was when enemy spies had to risk their lives to acquire such information. Now all they have to do is read the headlines.

It is amazing how many people think they are doing blacks a favor by exempting them from standards others are expected to meet.

If you want to know who was the greatest baseball player of all time, please check out the pitcher who led the American League with the lowest earned run average in 1916. He was the only ballplayer who could do it all, including stealing home.

British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain was a hawk compared to Barack Obama. At least Chamberlain was building up his country’s military forces while trying to appease Hitler. Obama is cutting back on our military forces while our enemies around the world are expanding theirs.

Medical authorities who are trying to reassure us that safeguards will prevent the spread of Ebola in the United States may be unconvincing to those of us who remember how they lied about whether AIDS could be transmitted by blood transfusions. They may be telling the truth this time, but credibility is one of those things that are far easier to maintain than to repair.

Too many people in Washington are full of themselves, among other things that they are full of.

However common it may be in politics to “split the difference” when making decisions, it is unconscionable to send American troops into a war zone in numbers too small to defend themselves.

The smug and smirking contempt of IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, when he began testifying before a Congressional committee in the IRS scandal investigation, told us all we needed to know, even if we never get the information that was supposedly “lost” when Lois Lerner’s computer supposedly crashed.

Ted Williams’ great career was interrupted twice by military service – once during World War II and again when he returned to the Marine Corps during the Korean war. What sports star today would voluntarily interrupt a Hall of Fame career to go fight for America, after having already served in the military?

Despite TV pundits who say that public opinion polls show Barack Obama is in trouble, the president is not in the slightest trouble. He is doing whatever he feels like doing, regardless of the Constitution and regardless of how many people don’t like it, because he is virtually impeachment-proof. The country is in huge trouble and real danger because of his policies, but he is not.

One of the most frustrating aspects of watching television news programs that feature debates is the guests who sidestep any question that gets to the heart of the issue at hand, and just go off on a tangent, repeating their standard talking points. That’s usually a good time to change the channel or turn off the TV.

If politics were like sports, we could ask Israel to trade us Benjamin Netanyahu for Barack Obama. Of course, we would have to throw in trillions of dollars to get Israel to agree to the deal, but it would be money well spent.

Receive Thomas Sowell's weekly commentaries in your email

BONUS: By signing up for Thomas Sowell’s alerts, you will also be signed up for news and special offers from WND via email.
  • Name*

  • Email*
    Where we will email your daily updates
  • Postal code*
    A valid zip code or postal code is required

  • Click the button below to sign up for Thomas Sowell's weekly commentaries by email, and keep up to date with special offers from WND. You may change your email preferences at any time.

Larry Elder: If Ferguson Police Dept. must represent racial makeup of city, then Obama can’t be president

Larry Elder: If Ferguson Police Dept. must represent racial makeup of city, then Obama can’t be president: Larry Elder said today on CNN regarding the suggestion that ...

Hamas Invested $90 Million in Tunnels to Attack Israel While Their People Live in Squalor

Hamas Invested $90 Million in Tunnels to Attack Israel While Their People Live in Squalor:

Rational and objective human beings ask themselves many questions, research non-revisionist history, interview survivors of wars, or search authentic and official documents before they form an opinion or take sides. Liberal progressives seem to view the world, knowledge, and revisionist history through the tinted glasses of government doctrine promoted by the mainstream media.

Denis MacEoin calls the western pro-Hamas supporters the new Romantics. They chanted by the thousands in London recently in support of this terrorist organization, in support of the "myth of Islam as the path to peace."

Thousands of deranged individuals harboring anti-Semitic hatred were demonstrating against Israel and chanting, "Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the Gas." What history have they studied in school?

People have forgotten or deny what happened to 6 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the handicapped, the not-so-perfect humans who were dehumanized, maligned, cartooned, mistreated, tortured, gassed, burned, and buried in mass graves while the world witnessed the atrocities from afar, turning a blind eye. The music got louder in homes and churches to drown out the wailing from the passing cattle trains filled to capacity with suffering humans.

The Office of the Historian at the U.S. Department of State describes the establishment of the State of Israel on May 14, 1948, recognized by President Harry S. Truman on the same day.

"Although the United States supported the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which favored the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine, President Franklin D. Roosevelt had assured the Arabs in 1945 that the United States would not intervene without consulting both the Jews and the Arabs in that region. The British, who held a colonial mandate for Palestine until May 1948, opposed both the creation of a Jewish state and an Arab state in Palestine as well as unlimited immigration of Jewish refugees to the region."

What was Palestine exactly? Was it ever a country? Why would the Jews claim the land of Israel as their own? Was it because God promised them the land to Abraham? Was it because the Jewish people settled and developed the land? Was it because the land was captured in defensive wars? Was it because political sovereignty was granted by international decision to the Jewish people in Palestine? How many lands and territories have been redrawn, granted, and resettled around the world as a result of war, conquest, and reparations?

The Twelve Tribes of Israel founded the first constitutional monarchy in Palestine around 1000 B.C. King David made Jerusalem the nation's capital. Jewish independence lasted 212 years, then it was split into two separate kingdoms.

Linguistically, "Palestine" is thought to have derived from Philistines, an Aegean people who settled around the Mediterranean coast in the area known today as Israel and the Gaza strip. The Arabic word "Filastin" is believed to have derived from the Latin name. The Romans applied the name "Palaestina" to Judea, the southern portion of today's West Bank, in the second century after crushing the last Jewish revolt in an "attempt to minimize the Jewish identification with the land of Israel."

The Jewish people did not just disappear in the year 70 A.D. after the destruction of the Second Temple and reappeared in the 20th century demanding their lands back. They have kept strong connections to their homeland for 3,700 years, a national language, and a distinct civilization. Jewish life and presence continued and flourished even after the destruction of the temple in the form of communities in Jerusalem and Tiberias through the 9th century and in the 11th century in Rafah, Gaza, Ashkelon, Jaffa, and Caesarea.

For centuries, in spite of the fact that Jewish people were forced off their lands or massacred, rabbis and Jewish pilgrims immigrated to Jerusalem and the Galilee and established communities in Safed and Jerusalem for hundreds of years. By 19th century more than 10,000 Jews lived throughout what is considered Israel of today.

"When Jews began to immigrate to Palestine in large numbers in 1882, fewer than 250,000 Arabs lived there, and the majority of them had arrived in recent decades. Palestine was never an exclusively Arab country, although Arabic gradually became the language of most the population after the Muslim invasions of the seventh century. No independent Arab or Palestinian state ever existed in Palestine. When the distinguished Arab-American historian, Princeton University Prof. Philip Hitti, testified against partition before the Anglo-American Committee in 1946, he said: "There is no such thing as 'Palestine' in history, absolutely not." In fact, Palestine is never explicitly mentioned in the Koran, rather it is called "the holy land" (al-Arad al-Muqaddash)."

Palestinian Arabs did not view themselves as a separate identity. The first Congress of Muslim-Christian Association which met in February 1919 to elect a Palestinian representative for the Paris Peace Conference adopted this resolution:

"We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria, as it has never been separated from it at any time. We are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographical bonds."

Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, a local Arab leader, told the Peel Commission in 1937, which suggested the partition of Palestine: "There is no such country [as Palestine]! 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was, for century's, part of Syria."

Who were the Zionists and what is Zionism? It is a nationalist movement that promoted the formation of a Jewish homeland. Theodor Herzl is believed to be the founder of the Zionist movement in his 1896 book, Der Judenstaat, in which he envisioned the formation of a Jewish state. The common denominator of Zionists is thought to be a claim to Eretz Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish people.

Zionists defend their national liberation movement for the repatriation of a dispersed socio-religious group. Its members have been forcibly converted, exiled, oppressed, forced into generations of Diaspora, and invaded and occupied by the Ottoman Empire in Judea and Samaria.

Anti-Zionists criticize Zionism as a "colonialist and racist ideology" that caused the denial of rights and expulsion of the "indigenous population of Palestine."

There are many myths circulating among anti-Semites who cover their hatred with the phrase, "We respect Judaism but are against Zionism." One such myth is that "Israel discriminates against its Arab citizens." That is hardly the case when, in a population of 6.7 million, 1.1 million are Muslims, 130,000 are Christians, and 100,000 are Druze. Arab women can vote and Arabs hold 14 seats in the Knesset, the unicameral lawmaking body in Israel.

There is the myth that "Jews are building settlements on Palestinian land." There is no Palestinian land, and the statement, "Palestine, the country, goes back through most of recorded history" is convenient propaganda. Yashiko Sagamori asked very pertinent questions to elucidate the mystery of this non-existent country, and I added a few of my own:

  • When and by whom was Palestine founded as a country?
  • What were its borders, capital, official language, and major cities?
  • What were its economy, major industries, and GDP?
  • What was its form of government and leaders prior to Arafat and his PLO?
  • What was the name of its currency and exchange rate against other currencies?
  • With whom did it engage in international trade?
  • What were its famous places, museums, universities, operas?
  • Who were its famous scholars and inventors, painters, sculptors, musicians, architects, engineers?
  • Since Palestine no longer exists, presumably because of the Jews, what caused its demise and when exactly did it occur?
If you look at a map of Israel, it is a tiny nation surrounded by vast Arab lands, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan, Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Egypt, Libya, Sudan, Turkmenistan, etc. Sagamori wonders "if the people you mistakenly call 'Palestinians' are anything but generic Arabs collected from all over—or thrown out of –the Arab world, if they really have a genuine ethnic identity that gives them right for self-determination, why did they never try to become independent until Arabs suffered their devastating defeat in the Six Day War?"

Jerrold L. Sobel eloquently destroys the myth that "The Palestinian Authority protects Jewish holy sites." "Forget about protecting these sites – in textbooks, speech, and daily life, the Palestinians and their supporters absurdly deny any Jewish connection at all to these ancient landmarks." (Jerrold L. Sobel, There Was Never a Country Called Palestine, February 12, 2012)

While the western world is donating billions each year to help build a prosperous society on the Gaza strip, develop the economy, and elevate citizens from poverty, Hamas has been busy over the last four years building very expensive and intricate tunnels, an underground city in which bizarre weddings take place side by side with military operations aimed at ultimately destroying Israel and wiping it off the face of the earth.

Israel Defense Forces (IDF) found 30 such tunnels. Their construction was estimated at $3 million each. Hamas could have invested in the people of Gaza. For each tunnel, it could have built 86 homes, 7 mosques, 6 schools, and 19 medical clinics. Instead, it invested in terrorism.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.

You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.

The post Hamas Invested $90 Million in Tunnels to Attack Israel While Their People Live in Squalor appeared first on Freedom Outpost.