Saturday, June 30, 2012

Food Stamps, Handouts, and the Ever-Expanding Welfare State « International Liberty

 

In their never-ending efforts to buy votes with other people’s money (see the first cartoon in this post), politicians have been expanding the welfare state and creating more dependency.

This is bad for the overall economy because it means a larger burden of government spending and it’s bad for poor people because it undermines their self reliance and self respect.

It also has very worrisome long-run effects on the stability and viability of a culture, as shown by these two cartoons.

Food Stamps, Handouts, and the Ever-Expanding Welfare State « International Liberty

Wednesday, June 27, 2012

The Mandate Represents What’s Wrong With Democrats | The Weekly Standard

The Mandate Represents What’s Wrong With Democrats | The Weekly Standard

The individual mandate is the apotheosis of the modern Democratic party’s way of doing business. In particular, it is the quintessential example of how, hiding behind a smokescreen of egalitarian rhetoric, the party has become deeply, perhaps hopelessly, anti-republican, happy to dole out favors to privileged groups while the rest of the country is left with nothing.

The individual mandate is an overwhelmingly unpopular item that requires a patently unjust transfer of wealth for the purpose of paying off the interest groups that have the biggest financial stake in health care. Considered next to Jackson’s veto message: It is a signal that the Democratic party has become the opposite of what its founders intended to be. The individual mandate is a testimony to the broken nature of the modern party. It is a symbol that, despite their egalitarian rhetoric, contemporary Democrats are ready, willing, and able to bend the policy needle toward the interests of “the rich… and the potent,” at the expense of the “farmers, mechanics, and laborers.”

You Don't Have to Support Universal Health Coverage to Support Caring for the Needy - Hit & Run : Reason.com

You Don't Have to Support Universal Health Coverage to Support Caring for the Needy - Hit & Run : Reason.com

Liberals often accuse opponents of universal health coverage legislation of wanting to let the poor go without coverage — and suffer and die as a result. Let’s be charitable and assume that liberals actually believe that this is the only possible alternative to universal coverage orchestrated by the government.

The problem, of course, is that it’s not.

It is possible to oppose both the current fiscally rotten entitlement system and expansions of that system — like the 2010 health care overhaul now awaiting a Supreme Court decision — and still favor a basic safety net for the truly needy.

Newt Gingrich: Balance of Supreme Court at stake in 2012 election

Newt Gingrich: Balance of Supreme Court at stake in 2012 election

In the next four years, enough new justices may be appointed either to strengthen decisively the current conservative majority or to shift to a very liberal majority on the Court.

Tuesday, June 26, 2012

America's Taxpayers Lost Big in UAW Bailout | Mercatus

America's Taxpayers Lost Big in UAW Bailout | Mercatus

The Treasury Department estimates the taxpayers will lose enormous sums in the auto bailout — more than $20 billion. That is more than Michigan spends on public education, more than the federal government spends on NASA, and more than America gives in foreign aid.

None of these losses were necessary to keep General Motors and Chrysler in business. The entire net cost of the bailout came from subsidizing the United Auto Workers' pay and benefits.

We Have Ourselves To Blame - The Daily Rant: Black Conservative Mychal Massie's Hard Hitting Commentary on Race, Obama and Politics

We Have Ourselves To Blame - The Daily Rant: Black Conservative Mychal Massie's Hard Hitting Commentary on Race, Obama and Politics

So who is it that is destroying our country? It is us. It is we the American people. How can that be, you ask? It doesn’t take a novella to explain; it happened because we allowed and encouraged it.

We the People, nearly a century ago, surrendered our right to think for ourselves. And we have continued on the path of blissfully abrogating same not unlike frogs in a pot of cold water on the stove. And now, not unlike the frogs, we are awakening to the fact that we are cooked.

Say “hell no” to this manipulative president, Part Two | Power Line

Say “hell no” to this manipulative president, Part Two | Power Line

As for Obama, he rejected the “false choice” between honorable, responsible behavior and irresponsible, cynical opportunism.

This president has demonstrated repeatedly that, in his manipulative mind, the rules don’t apply to him. Republican should say “hell no” to whatever this man happens to be peddling at any given moment.

Recall Reverberations « Intellectual Conservative Politics and Philosophy

Recall Reverberations « Intellectual Conservative Politics and Philosophy

The weariness of most Americans of the spectacle caused by those who don’t get their way transcends Wisconsin’s borders as well. There is an abiding sense in the nation that childish, anarchic, sometimes criminal actions of the likes of Occupy Wall Street and the Wisconsin Mobs have pressed the limits of public civil tolerance.

A failure of liberalism in Chicago | PrairiePundit

A failure of liberalism in Chicago | PrairiePundit

It is a city with one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the country and it has been ruled by liberals for decades.  While it is the home of Jesse Jackson, who went all the way to Florida to demonstrate against the murder of Trayvon Martin, in his own back yard young black men are killing young black men at a rate that exceeds combat deaths in Afghanistan.  There is a true failure of the liberal culture that dominates the area and keeps electing liberals.  But, the state of Illinois is a cesspool of liberalism, where tax and spend policies are pursued and promises are made to government employees that cannot be sustained.

Obama’s Using Our Tax Dollars to Leverage More Food Stamp Dependency « International Liberty

Obama’s Using Our Tax Dollars to Leverage More Food Stamp Dependency « International Liberty

In past posts, I’ve groused about food stamp abuse, including people using them to buy luxury coffee at Starbucks and to purchase steaks and lobster. I’ve complained about college kids scamming the program, the “Octo-Mom” mooching off the program, and the Obama Administration rewarding states that sign up more food stamp recipients.

Well, the Obama White House is doubling down on creating more dependency, spending tax dollars to increase the number of people on food stamps.

Monday, June 25, 2012

Why Republicans should say “hell no” to this lawless president | Power Line

Why Republicans should say “hell no” to this lawless president | Power Line

Given all of this, it’s quite clear that the Republicans should say “hell no” to Obama’s call for comprehensive immigration reform. Republicans must not permit themselves to be coerced into writing a new immigration law by Obama’s refusal to enforce the law we have.

Moreover, what is the point of legislating with a lawless administration? Legislation on an issue like immigration requires compromise, and that’s fine – I have no objection in principle to compromising. But suppose a compromise is reached. This president has demonstrated that his response would likely be to ignore the provisions the Republicans insisted upon – because ignoring them is “the right thing to do.”

Immigration reform, if it is to occur, must await the election of a president who, unlike Obama, is willing to enforce the law as written, not just the portions of the law he finds palatable. Indeed, I’m tempted to say that the passage of compromise legislation on any important issue should await the election of such a president.

FOUSESQUAWK: Obama is a Renegade President

FOUSESQUAWK: Obama is a Renegade President

What we have is a government unwilling to enforce the law and putting itself against the state of Arizona, the state most damaged by illegal immigration and its related crime.

Under Eric Holder, we have known for some time that we have a renegade Department of Justice. It must also be said that we have a renegade president who is determined to govern by fiat.

“Federal hotline set up on Arizona immigration” | protein wisdom

“Federal hotline set up on Arizona immigration” | protein wisdom

We are in the midst of a coup.  And unlike some who pretend to laugh dismissively at the “hysteria” of such a description, I’m not embarrassed to use the word — particularly when what is happening is that we are watching the Constitutional republic systematically dismantled.  Pretending its all much ado about nothing may be bien pensant among the pragmatic set, but in the end, smugness won’t prove a useful defense against tyranny, either.

The Supreme Court’s immigration decision — an affront to federalism and to common sense | Power Line

The Supreme Court’s immigration decision — an affront to federalism and to common sense | Power Line

The Supreme Court’s decision strking down, on preemption grounds, major portions of an Arizona law designed to help that State cope with the massive and unlawful influx of aliens is an affront to federalism and to common sense. Justice Scalia has it right in his dissent:

The Evils of the Muslim Brotherhood: Evidence Keeps Mounting :: Raymond Ibrahim

The Evils of the Muslim Brotherhood: Evidence Keeps Mounting :: Raymond Ibrahim

Egypt's longtime banned Muslim Brotherhood—the parent organization of nearly every subsequent Islamist movement, including al-Qaeda—has just won the nation's presidency, in the name of its candidate, Muhammad Morsi. That apathy reigns in the international community, when once such news would have been deemed devastating, is due to the successful efforts of subversive Muslim apologists in the West who portray the Brotherhood as "moderate Islamists"—forgetting that such a formulation is oxymoronic, since to be "Islamist," to be a supporter of draconian Sharia, is by definition to be immoderate. Obama administration officials naturally took it a step further, portraying the Brotherhood as "largely secular" and "pluralistic."

Back in the real world, evidence that the Brotherhood is just another hostile Islamist group bent on achieving world domination through any means possible is overwhelming. Here are just three examples that recently surfaced, all missed by the Western media, and all exposing the Brotherhood as hostile to "infidels" (non-Muslims) in general, hostile to the Christians in their midst (the Copts) in particular, and on record calling on Muslims to lie and cheat during elections to empower Sharia:

Scalia’s Blistering Dissent - By Ian Tuttle - The Corner - National Review Online

Scalia’s Blistering Dissent - By Ian Tuttle - The Corner - National Review Online

Today’s opinion, approving virtually all of the Ninth Circuit’s injunction against enforcement of the four challenged provisions of Arizona’s law, deprives States of what most would consider the defining characteristic of sovereignty: the power to exclude from the sovereign’s territory people who have no right to be there.

The Netherlands to Abandon Multiculturalism | American Renaissance

The Netherlands to Abandon Multiculturalism | American Renaissance

The Dutch government says it will abandon the long-standing model of multiculturalism that has encouraged Muslim immigrants to create a parallel society within the Netherlands.

A new integration bill (covering letter and 15-page action plan), which Dutch Interior Minister Piet Hein Donner presented to parliament on June 16, reads: “The government shares the social dissatisfaction over the multicultural society model and plans to shift priority to the values of the Dutch people. In the new integration system, the values of the Dutch society play a central role. With this change, the government steps away from the model of a multicultural society.”

Jan Brewer Unloads on Obama - Gov. Jan Brewer - Fox Nation

Jan Brewer Unloads on Obama - Gov. Jan Brewer - Fox Nation

“The President’s action should be of concern to all Americans. This fight is not over. President Obama may disregard Congress. He may target individual states like Arizona. He may generally act with impunity. But he is not above judgment – and the American people will have theirs very soon.”

How academia ruined America

How academia ruined America:
Prolific author David Gelernter has covered subjects ranging from technology to Judaism, but America-Lite: How Imperial Academia Dismantled Our Culture (and Ushered In the Obamacrats) is his first unabashedly political book.
Gelernter opposes Barack Obama primarily because Obama is one of the “Airheads” produced by the U.S. educational system.
“Obama is an Airhead and no ordinary ideologue,” writes Gelernter in America-Lite, “but he is certainly a left-liberal; he repeats the doctrine he learned from left-liberal intellectuals.”
Gelernter, a professor of computer science at Yale, said his teaching experience has contributed enormously to his pessimistic assessment of American culture. “Every year I see a new class of smart kids, motivated kids, who are just ignorant,” said Gelernter.
“We educators have a responsibility,” said Gelernter, “and we’re failing.”
America-Lite shows “how we lost control of our own culture,” and how the “sullen, seething contempt for Western culture” that characterizes many educators is producing generations of ignorant citizens (dubbed “Airheads” by Gelernter) who accept liberal ideology because it is all they’ve ever known.
Gelernter called out conservatives, saying Republicans are focusing on secondary issues and avoiding the “deeper problems” in American culture.
“Conservatives are letting the country down,” said Gelernter.
Gelernter offered a measured, unenthusiastic endorsement of Mitt Romney. “I think Romney is a good man,” said Gelernter. “I trust his common sense.”
America-Lite begins with the Second World War, lauding the participation of Ivy League students in the armed forces and the educated, patriotic middle class that flourished in the 1950s.
As the 1950s drew to a close, however, the old WASP establishment was fading away, and the skyrocketing college attendance rates gave the intelligentsia new power to shape American culture, Gelernter writes.
By the late 1960s, post-religious globalist intellectuals (assigned the acronym “PORGI” by Gelernter) had thoroughly entrenched themselves as the arbiters of American thought.
Sarcastic parenthetical asides pepper America-Lite: “(Thomas Jefferson insisting that children must learn facts about history? The left reels. Was he drunk, or just kidding?)”
Gelernter’s acerbic writing is stylistically similar to Mark Steyn, and Gelernter praised Steyn, calling him, “One of the very best writers in the English language today.”
Gelernter, however, is less brash than Steyn. While Gelernter says he does not “give a damn” about liberal pundits misconstruing his opinions on issues such as Title IX or forced busing as sexist or racist, he was reticent to write America-Lite because of the possible blowback from his colleagues at Yale.
Gelernter said that computer science is a field largely devoid of politicized teaching, but also noted that, “there is no subject that cannot be taught in a biased way,” pointing to “science professors swearing fealty to Greenpeace” as evidence of a “slow creep” of liberal ideology into the hard sciences.
America-Lite focuses on the problems in American culture; Gelernter hinted that a second book might detail his ideas for fixing those problems.
Gelernter, whose 1991 book Mirror Worlds predicted many elements of the modern Internet, pointed to technology as a possible remedy for America’s ills.
“The cure is staring us in the face,” said Gelernter. “Our grade school system is so deeply rotten, there’s no saving it. We need something completely different.”
Gelernter envisions Internet-based education that would declaw teacher’s unions and allow children to be taught, rather than indoctrinated.
“The internet is not a panacea,” said Gelernter, “but it allows us to start again from scratch.”
Gelernter spoke positively of homeschooling, calling the homeschooling movement the “cutting edge” of the shift towards Internet-based education. But he also stressed the fact that not all families can homeschool, so a broader technological solution must be sought.

Articles: SCOTUS Derails the Democrats' SEIU Gravy Train

Articles: SCOTUS Derails the Democrats' SEIU Gravy Train

Make no mistake.  Thursday was a very bad day for the public employee unions and the Democratic Party.  How ironic that the SEIU's victory in its war against Proposition 75 has led to defeat not only in California, but in the entire United States.  And how appropriate that the SEIU's bad faith has become the poster child for the "opt-in" system of non-member exemptions.

Belmont Club » Why Things Don’t Work — and How They Can Again

Belmont Club » Why Things Don’t Work — and How They Can Again

In explaining his action plan, Leo examines each attempt at reforming the system (people have known it has been broken for a long time).  He looks at curtailing gerrymandering, enlarging the house, instituting term limits, and “reforming campaign finance” and concludes that none or even all of these together will do the job.

Interestingly Linbeck comes to the same conclusion as DeLong on campaign finance: Citizens United, rather than being a vehicle for corporations to dominate the fund raising process is actually one of the few steps taken in recent times to break the actual financial stranglehold the incumbents have girded the system with.

Prager Treatise - A Must Read - Bruce Bialosky

Prager Treatise - A Must Read - Bruce Bialosky - Page 1

Prager has clearly and cogently evaluated the three greatest forces of societal thought today – Leftism, Islamism, and America – to convincingly argue why America stands out as the greatest force for mankind. Dennis presents a detailed explanation of the weaknesses of both the Left and Islam – not only today, but throughout their history. After effectively dismantling both cultures as a beneficial conduit for man’s hopes and dreams, Prager takes you into an explanation of American principles – where they derive from and why they have provided more people of all races, creeds, and religions with the greatest wealth and lifestyle in the history of the planet.

The Arithmetic of Shale Gas: Consumer Benefits from Technology of Shale Gas Exceed $100 Billion

The Arithmetic of Shale Gas: Consumer Benefits from Technology of Shale Gas Exceed $100 Billion:
It's been well-documented now that falling prices for natural gas (see chart above) and the resulting drop in utility rates have saved consumers billions of dollars (see CD posts here and here).

A new study by researchers at Yale University, "The Arithmetic of Shale Gas," provides some additional evidence of the consumer benefits of shale gas using a cost-benefit approach, here's an excerpt:

"The Henry Hub spot price in 2008 was $7.97 per mcf and in 2011 was $3.95 per mcf (see chart above) so that the difference in price over three successive years was $4.02 per mcf. Gas production in 2008 was 25.6 tcf so that the surplus to consumers by the price reduction from shale gas equaled $102.9 billion.

This very large amount of consumer gain—over $100 billion—from the new technology induced price reduction in gas is the elephant in the room. It comprised a substantial majority of total expenditures on this fuel nationwide. In past years those expenditures were limited by the higher costs of production of gas produced from vertical wells. These were in part producer surplus but most were the costs of sustaining well operations in the old technology. Even so it is startling to acknowledge that consumer benefits from the technology of shale gas drilling and new gas production can be expected to exceed $100 billion per year, year in and year out as long as present production rates are maintained."

The authors then account for the possible environmental costs to society and compare that to the consumer-savings of $100 billion per year:

"How then do we extrapolate individual disaster scenarios across an entire industry to determine the social cost of possible contamination from fracking in order to deduct it from the consumer surplus of $100 billion for each year? We consider that the reported instances of contamination from fracking relate, at most, to an extremely limited minority over hundreds of thousands of wells. Assuming the worst—that the accidents occur in one year; that the cleanup requires a new water well at $5,000; and that one hundred spills occur at $2.5 million per spill given then that the industry drills 10,000 new wells per year. The cost of frackwater contamination is $250 million. Economic benefits, as estimated in as limited methodology as is reasonable, exceed costs to the community by 400-to-1."

And they also estimate the consumer benefits of switching from oil to natural gas:

Replacing 1.0 million bbls per day of crude oil with the 6 billion cubic feet (bcf”) equivalent of natural gas, would generate approximately $25.6 billion ($70/bbl*1 million bbls*365 days) of consumer surplus for the US economy over one year." 

Note: There are also gains to shale gas producers from increased production, and while those are less than the gains to gas consumers, they are significant and are estimated be multi-billions of dollars per year.

Here's a Forbes article that summarizes some of the key findings of the Yale study. 

The Times, They Ain’t a-Changing: Why the N.Y. Times Is No Longer a Real Newspaper « The Greenroom

The Times, They Ain’t a-Changing: Why the N.Y. Times Is No Longer a Real Newspaper « The Greenroom

At some point in the distant past, I’m sure the New York Times must have rightly been considered a real newspaper, if not a great one. It still brags of being “America’s newspaper of record,” serving up “all the news that’s fit to print,” according to their pompous and self-delusional motto.

But the rag long ago ceased even to pretend to objectivity or journalistic integrity; over the decades, it twisted itself into nought but a mouthpiece megaphone for millionaire liberals, retweeting any cockamamie policy pronunciamento issuing from the current leaders of the Democratic Party. (Which, for many years now, has generally been the most ideologically radical-Left branch of that party.)

FREEDOM! This Is Incredible! US Catholic Church Rolls Out Major Offensive Against Obama’s Attacks on Religious Liberty | The Gateway Pundit

FREEDOM! This Is Incredible! US Catholic Church Rolls Out Major Offensive Against Obama’s Attacks on Religious Liberty | The Gateway Pundit

For the first time in history the US Conference of Catholic Bishops has declared a Fortnight for Freedom in direct response to the attack on the Catholic Church and religious freedom by the Obama administration.  The US bishops are asking the faithful to pray, say the Rosary, fast, sacrifice, take action and attend rallies in support of religious freedom. The Fortnight began on the Feast of Saints John Fisher and Thomas More–July 22–and will continue through July 4th.

Poverty Rate Unchanged After Gazillion $ Spent - Welfare - Fox Nation

Poverty Rate Unchanged After Gazillion $ Spent - Welfare - Fox Nation

Study: More Than Half a Trillion Dollars Spent on Welfare – But Poverty Levels Unaffected

“The vast majority of current programs are focused on making poverty more comfortable … rather than giving people the tools that will help them escape poverty.”

Lie to me

Barnhardt.biz - Commodity Brokerage

A little confluence of events this week has brought to the fore of my mind the sad, sick reality that most people in this culture are so far gone that they WANT to be lied to, and will seek out and attach themselves to liars. While it is nauseating to behold, it is also interesting in a clinical sort of way.

NetRight Daily » Supreme Court decision protects workers, deals another blow to public employee unions

NetRight Daily » Supreme Court decision protects workers, deals another blow to public employee unions

The Supreme Court deserves praise for their 7-2 decision today in the Knox v. SEIU case, which determined that a state cannot require its employees to pay a special union fee that will be spent for political purposes without first giving the employees information about the fee and a chance to object to it.

It is simply an unconscionable violation of public employee worker rights for any state to compel their civil servants to pay special political fees into a union, so that union can pump that money into the pockets of politicians.  The Supreme Court got it 100 percent correct when they protected workers from this abuse.

Free Excel Retirement Planner

Politics et al

Free Excel Retirement Planner

RubinReports: If You Don’t Stand Up for Western Civilization It Will Fall: A Case Study

RubinReports: If You Don’t Stand Up for Western Civilization It Will Fall: A Case Study

A small incident in an obscure court case in Minnesota shows why we need to understand properly the debate over Islam, Islamism, and Islamophobia.

The Cult of Obama | RSN Pick of the Day Right Side News

The Cult of Obama | RSN Pick of the Day Right Side News

The Obama campaign never sold Obama; it sold the idea of Obama. The illusion that was more than the sum of his false biography, his chin up speeches full of momentous pauses and stolen poetry, or the typography of his posters. It was the sense of imminence, the perception of a transformative figure who could change the country and the world. That magnetic tug wasn't Obama, it was the confused mess of desires, fears, hopes, dreams and wishes that the people were encouraged to project onto him.

The essential product of every cult is the promise of global transformation through personal transformation. Years later, few people can say that their lives are any better, and while many are still willing to echo Jim Jones and blame that on outside enemies, there is no real faith that the program can work.

Whether or not Obama wins again, his cult has failed. It failed because it was not able to deliver on its promises of transformation, nor was it able to place the blame on its followers. Most of those who voted for Obama will drink the Kool-Aid one more time, but there will be little enthusiasm in the drinking of it.

Bigotry, David Blankenhorn, and the Future of Marriage « Public Discourse

Bigotry, David Blankenhorn, and the Future of Marriage « Public Discourse

But here’s what I want to say to David and to you: a comity that is bought by surrendering principle is submission, not comity at all. The truth about something as important as marriage cannot be the price we pay to live with each other.

The challenge of our time—and it is a deep challenge, not an easy one—is to find new ways to combine truth and love. Giving up marriage is too high a price to pay. And it is not the last good we will be asked to surrender, unless we find the courage to stand.

Message to Barack Obama: Unlike you, the Entrepreneur is a bona fide hero.

Message to Barack Obama: Unlike you, the Entrepreneur is a bona fide hero.

Watching the U.S., the EU, Japan, and other once prosperous countries going broke is a sad sight to behold.  And what they all have in common is that they’ve tried state capitalism — a shotgun marriage between capitalism and socialism — and found that Margaret Thatcher was right when she said, “The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.

Now, spoiled parasites everywhere are angry because their hosts have run out of other people’s money.  The message of the parasites is straightforward:  “We don’t give a damn if you don’t have enough money to pay our entitlements.  We want them anyway!”

For convenience, in this article I will lump together all left-wing state capitalists — liberals, progressives, socialists, communists — under the umbrella of “progressivism.”  In fact, let’s make that “retrogressivism,” because the term progressivism is a misnomer.  Progressives are really Retrogressives, because their words and actions make it clear that they hate progress.

By contrast, the Entrepreneur thrives on progress.  As a result, his creativity, efforts, and willingness to take risks have resulted in Western civilization having the highest standard of living mankind has ever known.

Obama looks to kill a million defense jobs, 91,000 in Texas | PrairiePundit

Obama looks to kill a million defense jobs, 91,000 in Texas | PrairiePundit

Obama would rather gut defense than take a responsible course toward deficit reduction and focus on the true drivers of the deficit, Medicare and Social Security.  He wants to raise job killing taxes on people who are already paying more than their fair share.  He is easily the most irresponsible President in history.

Why Originalism Needs the Virtues

Why Originalism Needs the Virtues:
For a little over the past decade, scholarship utilizing virtue ethics’ insights has appeared in the contexts of private law, such as contract and property, legal ethics and, more recently still, constitutional law.  Of particular note is Professor Larry Solum’s extensive and path-breaking work, culminating most recently in an edited collection titled Virtue Jurisprudence.  This scholarly movement is a manifestation of the broader revival of virtue ethics in the philosophy academy occurring since at least 1958, when Elizabeth Anscombe published Modern Moral Philosophy.
Virtue ethics has a long and storied past that includes its two foundational figures, Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas.  Its basic insight is that human ethical life is best understood as focusing on virtue and character, not rules or consequences.  Virtue is an entrenched disposition of character that enables one to act, to live, and to be well.  For instance, Ebenezer Scrooge was an unhappy miser because he lacked the virtue of charity and, once his character changed (through being shown the examples of other, virtuous people), he became happy.
Shortly before virtue ethics began impacting the legal academy, originalism was undergoing tremendous ferment in response to withering criticism lodged by nonoriginalist critics, such as Paul Brest.  I’ll focus on three of the critics’ arguments: (1) the Constitution’s original intent was either impossible, in principle, to recover or, in practice, too difficult to ascertain; (2) the original intent that did exist and was discernable frequently “ran out” and left judges with little guidance; and (3) originalism’s dramatic inconsistency with nonoriginalist precedent raised the specter of harmful legal instability.
In response to these criticisms, originalists transformed originalism.  First, originalists moved from an original intent focus to original meaning.  Second, originalists acknowledged that the Constitution’s original meaning “ran out” and articulated the concept of constitutional construction.  Third, originalists argued that originalism preserved at least some nonoriginalist precedent.  (My claim here is not that all originalists adopted each of these moves.)
Each of these transformative changes to originalism opened originalism to judicial discretion.  For example, a judge deciding which nonoriginalist precedents to overrule, limit, or follow will have, depending on the circumstance, a choice.  Modern critics of this transformed originalism have not failed to pick up on this.  The most prominent such challenge has come from Professors Thomas Colby and Peter Smith who argue that originalists have sacrificed originalism’s “raison d-etre”: “judicial constraint.”
In Originalism and the Aristotelian Tradition: Virtue’s Home in Originalism, I recently argued that virtue ethics provides originalists with the tools to parry Colby’s and Smith’s criticism.  Instead of undermining originalism, I showed that this transformed-originalism is more descriptively accurate and normatively attractive once it takes on board virtue ethics’ insights.  Indeed, it was this admission of judicial discretion that made originalism more porous to virtue ethics in the first place.
First, originalism’s incorporation of virtue ethics will give it greater explanatory power in at least four ways: (1) originalism will be more hospitable to and paint in a better light common practices; (2) originalism will be able to embrace the widespread and attractive conception of judging as a craft; (3) originalism will be able to emphasize the fact that constitutional interpretation is a human practice; and (4) originalism will better fit the Framers’ and Ratifiers’ plan of constitutional government, which embodied their virtue-infused assumptions.  Let me focus on the last claim.
The Framers and Ratifiers lived in a world where virtue ethics was taken for granted.  In late-eighteenth century America, education, literature, religion, political theory, and popular culture all generally assumed that some form of virtue ethics was correct (though perhaps not the sole mode of ethical analysis).  Given this background, one would expect that both the underlying theory and original meaning of the Constitution would bear virtue’s imprint.  James Madison reflected this milieu in Federalist 57: “[t]he 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.”  Hence, incorporating virtue ethics into originalism will enable it to better fit the Constitution’s background theory and original meaning.
Second, virtue ethics also makes originalist constitutional interpretation more normatively attractive.  It does so by enabling judges, in each case, to give the Constitution’s original meaning its due, while also giving other factors—such as the practical workability of legal doctrine—their due, all in their proper proportion.  I’ll use the context of nonoriginalist precedent to exemplify this.
Nonoriginalist precedent is precedent that incorrectly articulated and/or applied the Constitution’s original meaning.  Some originalists have argued that federal judges are required by Article III to give constitutional precedent, including nonoriginalist precedent, significant respect.  In particular, I have argued that a judge must utilize three factors to decide whether to overrule a nonoriginalist precedent: (1) the extent of the precedent’s deviation from the Constitution’s original meaning; (2) the harm to Rule of Law values caused by overruling the precedent; and (3) the extent to which the precedent creates a just social ordering.  However, this analysis opens originalism to the criticism that originalism gives judges too much discretion.
Originalists can respond that a judge with the judicial virtues will appropriately evaluate the three factors and come to the correct conclusion—the conclusion that gives the Constitution’s original meaning its due regard while, at the same time, taking into account other important values. First, the virtuous judge will possess the virtue of theoretical wisdom, which will enable the judge to accurately ascertain the Constitution’s original meaning. For instance, when faced with a case that requires a judge to ascertain the Commerce Clause’s meaning, this virtue will permit the judge to perform the necessary research into the historical data.  The judge will also review pertinent originalist precedent.  Then, the judge will synthesize those legal materials into the authoritative constitutional meaning. At the same time, the judge will ascertain the meaning of the nonoriginalist precedent(s) in question.
Second, a judge with the virtue of justice-as-lawfulness has the disposition to give the Constitution’s original meaning, and binding originalist precedent, their due regard: to treat them as controlling. This means that the virtuous judge will be inclined to overrule nonoriginalist precedent. For example, Wickard v. Filburn is a nonoriginalist precedent because it incorrectly articulated the Commerce Clause’s meaning. Coming to this conclusion will incline the virtuous judge to overrule Wickard.
Third, the virtuous judge will utilize the virtue of practical wisdom to ascertain the extent of harm to Rule of Law values that the judge would cause if he overruled a nonoriginalist precedent. This will frequently be a difficult task. For instance, in evaluating whether to overrule (or limit) Wickard, the judge faces the daunting challenge of calculating the reliance interests built on Wickard.
Additionally, practical wisdom empowers a judge to articulate legal doctrine that will accurately connect the Constitution’s meaning to the facts presented by a case. In the context of nonoriginalist precedent, this will frequently be a challenging task if the judge determines not to overrule the precedent but, instead, to limit it. The judge will then have to modify existing (nonoriginalist) doctrine in a way that moves constitutional law toward the original meaning while, at the same time, ensuring that the doctrine is as coherent as possible.  Practical wisdom gives the judge the ability to make the best of this difficult situation.
Fourth, in evaluating whether the nonoriginalist precedent in question creates a just ordering, a judge must utilize the virtue of justice-as-fairness.  The virtue of justice-as-fairness enables the judge to determine whether the precedent otherwise—that is, despite its inconsistency with the original meaning—properly orders relations.  Again, taking a constitutional challenge to Wickard as our example, the virtuous judge will decide whether the increased scope of Congress’ Commerce Clause authority increases or decreases just relationships. One place where this inquiry may have bite is the federal antidiscrimination laws that are premised on Wickard’s expansive reading of the Commerce Clause.
Each of the decisions made by a judge in the process of evaluating the continued vitality of a nonoriginalist precedent is augmented by a virtue. Having these virtues, by hypothesis, makes it more likely that these decisions are the best they can be. Therefore, although a judge has discretion, that discretion does not undermine the originalist project because the Constitution’s original meaning is given pride-of-place. Indeed, the virtuous judge’s discretion provides the opportunity to arrive at the best decision, all things considered.
Today’s originalism needs the virtues.  Incorporating virtue ethics permits originalism to successfully navigate its transformation by maintaining the original meaning’s pride-of-place and harnessing judicial discretion to serve the common good.

As Obama’s political troubles multiply, the “racism” excuse begins to emerge

As Obama’s political troubles multiply, the “racism” excuse begins to emerge:
Michael Barone notes something I’ve been watching happen over the past few months:
As Barack Obama’s lead over Mitt Romney in the polls narrows, and his presumed fundraising advantage seems about to become a disadvantage, it’s alibi time for some of his backers.
His problem, they say, is that some voters don’t like him because he’s black. Or they don’t like his policies because they don’t like having a black president.
Barone goes on to explain what that’s such a bankrupt excuse:
There’s an obvious problem with the racism alibi. Barack Obama has run for president before, and he won. Voters in 2008 knew he was black. Most of them voted for him. He carried 28 states and won 365 electoral votes.
Nationwide, he won 53 percent of the popular vote. That may not sound like a landslide, but it’s a higher percentage than any Democratic nominee except Andrew Jackson, Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson.
Democratic national conventions have selected nominees 45 times since 1832. In seven cases, they won more than 53 percent of the vote. In 37 cases, they won less.
That means President Obama won a larger percentage of the vote than Martin Van Buren, James K. Polk, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, Grover Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman, John Kennedy, Jimmy Carter and (though you probably don’t want to bring this up in conversation with him) Bill Clinton.
Those are facts.  Those that didn’t vote for him or support him, for whatever reason the last time, are even more unlikely to support him this time, given his record.  If race was the reason for not voting for him in 2008, you’re probably going to find 99% of those type people in this bloc of voters in 2012 as well.
So if he loses, he’s going to lose because his support eroded among those who put him over the top the last time.  Some aren’t going to vote for him this time and others are going to support the opposition candidate.
Is the left really going to try to sell that as a result of “racism”?
Yes.  That is a developing theme.  The fear, I suppose, is that the white guilt the race war lords have tried to instill and exploit for years has been assuaged by his election and thus can no longer be exploited for his re-election.
Thus the push to reestablish the meme.
It’s all over the place.  Joy Behar and Janeane Garofalo provide a typical example.
How absurd has it gotten.  Well, the Congressional Black Caucus is always a good place to go to figure that out:
Angela Rye, Executive Director of the Congressional Black Caucus, argued that President Obama has struggled during his first term due to racially-motivated opposition from conservatives who dislike having a black president.
“This is probably the toughest presidential term in my lifetime,” Rye said during CSPAN’s Q&A yesterday. “I think that a lot of what the president has experienced is because he’s black. You know, whether it’s questioning his intellect or whether or not he’s Ivy League. It’s always either he’s not educated enough or he’s too educated; or he’s too black or he’s not black enough; he’s too Christian or not Christian enough. There are all these things where he has to walk this very fine line to even be successful.”
She said that “a lot” of conservative opposition is racially-charged, citing the use of the word “cool” in an attack ad launched by Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS superPAC.
“There’s an ad, talking about [how] the president is too cool, [asking] is he too cool? And there’s this music that reminds me of, you know, some of the blaxploitation films from the 70s playing in the background, him with his sunglasses,” Rye said. “And to me it was just very racially-charged. They weren’t asking if Bush was too cool, but, yet, people say that that’s the number one person they’d love to have a beer with. So, if that’s not cool I don’t know what is.
She added that “even ‘cool,’ the term ‘cool,’ could in some ways be deemed racial [in this instance].”
“Cool” is racist?  Who knew?  They’re essentially making this stuff up on the fly.  Racism has become, for some, the tool of choice to stifle debate and muffle free speech.  Don’t like what you’re hearing?  Claim it’s racist and they’ll shut up.  How “cool” is that?
By the way, speaking of “blaxploitation”, what would you deem this ad?
More examples of racially charged words you never knew about?  Well, consult the ever knowledgeable Ed Shultz for the latest:
On his MSNBC program last night, Schultz referred to Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), someone Herman Cain would seriously consider as a running mate, as “the guy who used an old Southern, racist term when talking about defeating President Obama during the healthcare debate. Below is the offending statement:
DeMint (Audio, July 9, 2009): “If we’re able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.”
“Break” = racism.  Of course Ed Shultz, “racism” authority, was also the guy who edited a tape by Governor Perry of Texas to make a perfectly innocent remark sound racist.  He later apologized for it.
Chris Matthews is not averse to making the racism excuse, or at least, interviewing those who will:
MSNBC’s Chris Matthews asked former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown if House Chairman Darrell Issa’s treatment of Attorney General Eric Holder was “ethnic.” Brown agreed, and Matthews said some Republicans “talk down to the president and his friends.”
Because, you know, lying to Congress and the death of two federal agents as a result of a horrendous operation has nothing at all to do with Issa’s inquiry.
Finally there is this nonsensical “correlation is causation” study that the NYT saw fit to print.
Oh, yes, the racism charge is fully loaded and ready to be used, no question about it.
Obama’s possible failure to be re-elected couldn’t be because he’s been a dismal failure as president and a huge disappointment even to those who elected him could it?
Nope, it has to be because he’s black.
Back to Garafalo and Behar for a wrap up:
“And I don’t understand why so many people are reticent to discuss race in this country. We are not a post-racial society,” she added.
“No, not yet,” Behar said. “Not in our lifetime. There‘s no country in the world that’s post-racial yet, I don’t think.”
“Until the human condition changes, we won’t be,” she added …
Actually, it won’t change until some among us quit finding racism as the primary motive behind everything that happens when there are much more plausible reasons available.  The fixation on racism comes from the left and is its fall back position whenever it encounters political or electoral reverses.  It is convenient.
But racism is an excuse, not a reason. This goes back to the almost religious belief on the left that it isn’t their message (or performance) that is being rejected, so it must be something else.  The means of message delivery must be deficient or the race of the messenger is causing a racist public to reject it.
It couldn’t be because he has been a terrible president or that the message sucks.
Nope, it has to be racism.
~McQ
Twitter: @McQandO

Insider Trading Thrives at Congress

Insider Trading Thrives at Congress:
I’ve been to townhall events where House members and their staffers complain about the level of distrust and anger aimed their way. This disconnect between a lot of members and the people they represent is as wide as it can get in many cases. While it should be openly obvious, a lot of members just don’t understand why we don’t trust them, don’t like them and generally would rather see them replaced as quickly as possible. Granted, not all members are in on the game we’re about to describe, but all are aware of it, and very few talk about it in detail to their constituents. The blatant refusal to discuss truth, regardless of party or “respect for fellow members” is exactly why we’re all angry.
And let’s face it… this madness isn’t hard to find either. It’s right in front of our faces. Let’s start this post off with a Tweet.
Congress is disgusting. Americans should be outraged at this kind of stuff washingtonpost.com/politics/membe… (via @DafnaLinzer)
— Blake Hounshell (@blakehounshell) June 24, 2012
The tweet is referencing this post about insider trading among members of Congress.
One-hundred-thirty members of Congress or their families have traded stocks collectively worth hundreds of millions of dollars in companies lobbying on bills that came before their committees, a practice that is permitted under current ethics rules, a Washington Post analysis has found.
The lawmakers bought and sold a total of between $85 million and $218 million in 323 companies registered to lobby on legislation that appeared before them, according to an examination of all 45,000 individual congressional stock transactions contained in computerized financial disclosure data from 2007 to 2010.
Again, that is a total of between $85 million and $218 million in trades going on, all with possible conflicts of interest. There is no party clean of the act.
Almost one in every eight trades — 5,531 — intersected with legislation. The 130 lawmakers traded stocks or bonds in companies as bills passed through their committees or while Congress was still considering the legislation. The party affiliation of the lawmakers was almost evenly split between Democrats and Republicans, 68 to 62.
Some will argue it’s unfair to expect members to forfeit their ability to openly trade in the economy. The thing is, no one forces anyone to run for Congress. It’s a choice that has consequences. Once elected, you are entrusted to operate your life free of conflicts of interest. You are expected to not abuse the position or use it for personal profit.
The fact that so many now use the position for personal gain and profit also explains why so many are willing to cave on important legislation because they fear the next election. This is a financially rewarding position for many, so they don’t want to give up the position. When this is the case, decisions are made based on possible election outcomes, not on what is right vs. wrong.
The tweet is correct. Congress is disgusting. And we are outraged.
H/T: Outside the Beltway




Genesis Poly, Yet Another Green Company that Bombed

Genesis Poly, Yet Another Green Company that Bombed:
Last week we published a post about A123 Systems, a green company that got big “stimulus” money and is now failing on all fronts. Unfortunately, we’ve got another one to show you today. This time it’s Genesis Code, a company that promised to take garbage and make a profit from it. As it turns out, that doesn’t work so well.

Notice how at about the 1:00 minute mark the CEO describes how many jobs the green company will create. He says about 40 new jobs right away, and about 120 within a couple of years. Here’s a part of the transcript.
The city pulled out plenty of stops… acting as an intermediary of sorts, by purchasing the property at 480 North Industrial Road for $850,000, money acquired through a grant with the state’s Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED). The old Spartech site would be rented out to Genesis Poly. Along with the site purchase, Mankato lent Genesis Poly half a million dollars for equipment.
That $500,000 was stimulus money given to DEED, and applied for by the city of Mankato. Once paid back, the city could lend it out to another company. At least that was the plan.

Reality however, begged to differ.
Mankato City Councilman Mike Laven says, “I don’t think anyone of us saw a 2-month window and that closing. That wasn’t our process.”
In the spring of 2010, Genesis Poly went belly up. And with it went Mankato’s money. Along with a $100,000 loan from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and another $7.44 million through a loan with U.S. Bank… 70% of which was backed by the Department of Agriculture.
Genesis Poly was in talks with the Minnesota USDA well before they went to U.S. Bank, and small government advocates are saying the USDA’s involvement could have played a role in U.S. Bank’s willingness to throw money at Genesis Poly.
To make matters worse, this is the second time the company filed bankruptcy. Indeed the company had gone “belly up” back in 2008 as well. So why on earth did government, local, state and federal, give this company so much money? To the rest of us it seems glaringly obvious this was a terrible use of money to begin with.




German Finance Minister Smacks Obama Upside the Head: “Herr Obama should above all deal with the reduction of the American deficit”

German Finance Minister Smacks Obama Upside the Head: “Herr Obama should above all deal with the reduction of the American deficit”:
Obviously this guy is racist. Doesn’t he realize that you are only supposed to publicly fellate the failed president?
In a sign of tensions between Berlin and Washington, German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble said on Sunday that President Barack Obama should focus on cutting America’s own budget deficit before advising Europe on how to tackle its debt problems.
German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble rebuffed recent criticism of Germany’s handling of the euro crisis from Barack Obama, telling the US president to get his own house in order before giving advice.
“Herr Obama should above all deal with the reduction of the American deficit. That is higher than that in the euro zone,” he told German public broadcaster ZDF on Sunday night. It is easy to give advice to others, he added.
Obama, worried about the impact of the debt crisis on the global economy and financial markets — and on his own prospects for re-election –has been urging Europe to step up its efforts to tackle the problem.
Actually, all he’s concerned with is his own re-election. Nothing else matters to this clown other than bitterly clinging to power.

The Euromess, Distilled

The Euromess, Distilled:
We’ve been tracking the slow-motion car crash that is the European Union for a while here at Via Meadia, and it gets to feel like we’re writing the same post over and over again. The buck-passing, the institutional paralysis and the general denial that anything is systemically wrong seems to be so ingrained in European politicians that their wrong-headed policy responses have become depressingly predictable.
The past week, two briefstories encapsulated the current state of play in Europe perfectly. The first, coming via Brad Plumer, was this collection of quotations:

The second, appearing in the New York Times late last week, starts off like this:
For most Europeans, almost nothing is more prized than their four to six weeks of guaranteed annual vacation leave. But it was not clear just how sacrosanct that time off was until Thursday, when Europe’s highest court ruled that workers who happened to get sick on vacation were legally entitled to take another vacation.
Nice work, if you can get it.

Spitting on the Crucifix

Spitting on the Crucifix:
In the coming months we will learn whether America’s long experiment in ordered liberty must finally be declared dead.

The horrible secret is that the American people may well no longer wish to be free, because the practice of the virtues is too difficult.  The teachings of the Catholic Church threaten them; they are openly gleeful when they can point to priests and laymen who violate those teachings.  They prefer the servility of sexual license, made comfortable by levies from their neighbors.  They are thus at the point of cheerfully giving away their most precious liberty, just so that they may do as they please with the zipper.  Words cannot describe the baseness of it all.

Sunday, June 24, 2012

The Age Old Power Struggle: Chapter 2012

The Age Old Power Struggle: Chapter 2012: A Muslim cleric introduced Egypt’s new President, the Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohamed Morsi by saying: Our Capital ‘shall be Jerusalem, Allah willing’.  For his part, Morsi pronounced: Abroad women are ‘free,’ but not here. These types of proclamations do not bode well for Egyptian minorities, which includes members of the Coptic Church community, who make up [...]


Reverse Stimulus— Massive Obama Debt Bodes Ill for Long-Term Growth - Investors.com

Reverse Stimulus— Massive Obama Debt Bodes Ill for Long-Term Growth - Investors.com

Anyone who's checked the latest jobless data knows President Obama's massive stimulus failed to stimulate anything but $5 trillion in new debt. Now it turns out this debt could hamper growth for years to come.

The study, published recently by the National Bureau of Economic Research, looked at 26 episodes in advanced economies since the early 1800s where gross public debt levels exceeded 90% of GDP for at least five years.

What they found was alarming: When countries run debt levels that high, average growth rate is significantly below low-debt years — 2.3% on average vs. 3.5%.

Worse, the study also found that once countries run debt up to that level, it can take years, if not decades, to bring it back down. In fact, 20 of those high-debt episodes lasted more than a decade, and the average duration was 23 years.

Combine the two, and what you get is "a massive cumulative output loss," according to the study's authors.

Where does that leave the U.S.? Thanks to Obama's fiscal policies, the U.S. gross public debt is now more than 100% of GDP. And, according to the Congressional Budget Office, under current policies there's no end in sight.

Obama Is Not For Anyone But Himself « Intellectual Conservative Politics and Philosophy

Obama Is Not For Anyone But Himself « Intellectual Conservative Politics and Philosophy

He is not "for" the poor. He is not "for" the middle class. He is not even "for" the rich. Well, he's not "for" any of these groups unless they can be bought off to vote for him that is.

America’s Plan to Cut Carbon: Frack Now | Via Meadia

America’s Plan to Cut Carbon: Frack Now | Via Meadia

As activists in Rio and around the world mourned the failure of yet another useless summit to do anything about climate change, good news on the CO2 front was coming from the country greens love to hate: the US.

While Europe has adopted a plethora of expensive laws without any significant effect on CO2 emissions, the US is substantially reducing its emissions even as air pollution levels drop. As a CNN report puts it:

Despite there being no real effort by Congress to address global warming and America’s longstanding reputation as an energy hog, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions are falling.

The lackluster economy has something to do with it. But it doesn’t fully explain what’s happening. Consider that even factoring in a stronger economy, forecasters see greenhouse gas emissions continuing to fall.

It’s possible the country may meet its pledge to reduce emissions 17% by 2020.

The secret isn’t laws, green activism or regulations (although these do have roles to play). Innovation is the force that is enabling the cut in US carbon emissions. Specifically, the new ways of extracting natural gas that make have driven a natural gas boom in this country and dramatically cut the cost of the cleanest hydrocarbon energy source of them all.

Friday, June 22, 2012

Bailouts Won’t Save Europe, Only Reform Will

Bailouts Won’t Save Europe, Only Reform Will

As European leaders panic over bailouts for Southern Europe, they miss an important reality. Comprehensive structural reform is the only long-term solution for recovery. Perversely, bailouts disincentivize governments from undertaking painful but necessary reforms and thereby support fundamental problems—such as overtaxation, overregulation, and broken public sectors—that precipitated the current financial mess in the Eurozone periphery.

Prevent illegal immigrants from receiving federal benefits

Prevent illegal immigrants from receiving federal benefits

Did you know that according to one recent study, over $10 billion per year in federal government benefits go directly to illegal immigrants? Most Americans would call this cheating. It’s also illegal. So how does it continue to cost American taxpayers so much? Amazingly, there is no requirement that federal benefit programs (like food stamps or Medicaid) confirm an individual’s immigration status before giving out benefits. Recently, I introduced a bill to fix this problem called the VERIFI Act.

It’s a pretty simple idea: before giving an individual a government benefit check a federal agency or department must make sure they are a U.S. citizen or are in this country legally. It’s already illegal for them to receive these benefits, it’s just the government does not check. President Obama could actually implement this common sense requirement. Instead, the President is implementing liberal immigration policies by fiat.

Obama’s Money Advantage Dwindling | The Rightnewz

Obama’s Money Advantage Dwindling | The Rightnewz

President Barack Obama continues to raise more money than Mitt Romney, but Romney’s surrogate groups outraised their Democratic counterparts in May as Romney continues to shrink the president’s financial advantage, the latest federal election filings show. At the end of May, Obama and surrogates had $115 million on hand. Romney and his surrogates had $86 million

Texas bank challenging Dodd-Frank, consumer bureau in court - The Hill's On The Money

Texas bank challenging Dodd-Frank, consumer bureau in court - The Hill's On The Money

A Texas community bank and two advocacy groups are filing suit in U.S. District Court to challenge the constitutionality of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law.

In particular, the suit will contend that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), created by the law, lacks sufficient checks and balances and, in the words of the CEO of State National Bank, is "simply unconstitutional."

“No other federal agency or commission operates in such a way that one person can essentially determine who gets a home loan, who can get a credit card and who can get a loan for college,” said bank head Jim Purcell. “Dodd-Frank effectively gives unlimited regulatory power to this so-called Consumer Financial Protection Board, also known as CFPB, with a director who is not accountable to Congress, the President or the Courts."

Two conservative groups, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the 60 Plus Association, have also signed on to the suit, which will be filed against the nation's financial regulators.

Unreal: EPA Mandates Oil Refiners Use Fuel That Doesn’t Exist | Liberty News Network

Unreal: EPA Mandates Oil Refiners Use Fuel That Doesn’t Exist | Liberty News Network

Only someone working for the government would mandate the use of a material based on the assumption that if they were forced to use it, someone would create it.

Obama Presidency in Tailspin » Right Pundits

 

May was a bad month for the incumbent president, and as a veteran political pundit I didn’t think things could get any worse for Obama. They have. The jobs numbers are terrible, his poll numbers are tanking, his foreign policy is in shambles, and even his Commerce Secretary was forced to resign this week. And on top of all that, his signature piece of legislation is about to get thrown under the bus in a devastating Supreme Court decision next week.

 

Today’s Gallup poll shows the president at his worst job approval rating of the year at 43%. His reelection chances have gone from a slight chance of winning to a slight chance of losing. It’s still a tossup race for November, but the trajectory is looking terrible for President Obama. Meanwhile, most recent nationwide polls show the president slightly trailing, including Gallup’s own poll which over-samples minority and Democrat voters. And all of the swing states are trending in the wrong direction. There was one small bit of hopeful news that Democrats clung to earlier in the week — a Bloomberg poll — but the seriously flawed assumptions in it have caused everyone to discard its results. At this point in the race, Obama is trailing Romney, and he is falling in the polls while Romney is rising.

There was no worse moment for the President than his photo op with Russia’s Putin. There was a confident Putin and a sagging Obama, famously known for happy faces collapsing his shoulders in resignation and refusing to even make eye contact with the veteran leader. A picture is worth a thousand words, and in that photo we see what is wrong with the president’s foreign policy and in a larger sense President Obama himself. He carried with him into office the naivety of liberals everywhere who thought the world would love us more if mean old America were somehow nicer. Instead, the world is now experiencing more strife than at any time since the second world war. The middle east is collapsing, the president is losing the Afghan War, and yes, even his naive “reset” policy with Russia has made him a laughing stock in that country.

Obama Presidency in Tailspin » Right Pundits

Abortion Is the Ultimate Child Abuse

 

Outrage is expected from both liberals and conservatives on the issue of child abuse, but what about the ultimate child abuse of abortion? Liberals are usually strangely silent. As horrible as neglect, molestation, beatings, and desertion may be, murder of the helpless and innocent through abortion is worse. Though abandoned and abused children suffer, at least they still have life and, hopefully can be taken by someone who will really love them. No such chance for the murdered unborn innocents.

Abortion Is the Ultimate Child Abuse

Obama's failed Iran policy is obvious to nearly all | PrairiePundit

 

Even former Obama adviser Dennis Ross, who certainly participated in formulating Iran policy, confessed to the New York Times, “The issue here is, ‘How do you deal with a process that’s going to be harder and harder to justify?’ If it looks like you’re engaging in a process for the sake of process, that’s a bigger problem.” But Ross is no longer in the administration and he may be trying to distance himself from a disastrous policy that has gone on far too long....

Obama's failed Iran policy is obvious to nearly all | PrairiePundit

PJ Media » Amateur Hour at the White House

 

Recent events seem to reinforce that view. Mr. Obama’s economy is failing. Our country’s secrets are being leaked onto the front pages of left-wing papers. And our esteemed president either doesn’t have a firm grasp of the limits of his power as outlined in the Constitution even after three years in office, or doesn’t care that he is violating those limits.

PJ Media » Amateur Hour at the White House

PJ Media » The Punk President and His ‘Gangster Government’ Go All In

 

That moniker came not from whim but from study. By Election Day in 2008, the question was no longer whether our new president was a punk. It was only whether he would only fit the word’s relatively benign definition as a “young, inexperienced person” or would be much worse than that, namely a “petty criminal or hoodlum” whose administration would abuse its awesome power and access to the treasures of the richest and greatest country on earth in ways previously unseen.

PJ Media » The Punk President and His ‘Gangster Government’ Go All In

oftwominds-Charles Hugh Smith: The Master Narrative Nobody Dares Admit: Centralization Has Failed

 

All centralized systems, open and shadow alike, act as heavy taxes on the society and economy. This is why they cannot compete with the forces of networked decentralization.

The primary "news" narrative may be the failure of the euro, but the master narrative is much, much bigger: centralization has failed. The failure of Europe's "ultimate centralization project" is but a symptom of a global failure of centralization.

Though many look at China's command-economy as proof that the model of Elite-controlled centralization is a roaring success, let's check in on China's stability and distribution of prosperity in 2021 before declaring centralization an enduring success. The pressure cooker is already hissing and the flame is being turned up every day.

oftwominds-Charles Hugh Smith: The Master Narrative Nobody Dares Admit: Centralization Has Failed

Rep. Trey Gowdy: Pelosi’s Statement “Mind Numbingly Stupid” (Video) | Liberty News Network

 

Rep. Trey Gowdy: Pelosi’s Statement “Mind Numbingly Stupid” (Video) | Liberty News Network

Thursday, June 21, 2012

The Trouble with Multiculturalism - Clifford D. May - National Review Online

 

Most of those who advocate multiculturalism no doubt mean well. But their intellectual myopia is striking. The truth is, some cultures value freedom of religion; others see no virtue in granting free rein to what they regard as false religions. Some cultures prize free speech; others believe it is dangerous to permit open discourse and opt instead to censor many ideas. Some cultures believe that women and minorities should have the same rights as the majority; others consider that a blasphemous notion. Some cultures are willing to compromise to achieve peace; others are willing to fight and die for conquest and victory.

But the big trap of multiculturalism is simply this: If all cultures are equal, why defend your own? The culture that replaces it will be just as good, won’t it?

The Trouble with Multiculturalism - Clifford D. May - National Review Online

Obamanomics: $10 Billion to Create 355 Jobs! | blogs4mitt

 

Yes, Obama is the worst President of the last 50 years.  Literally:

Asked by Rep. Cory Gardner (R., Colo.) “how many jobs were created” in 2009 and 2010 under the 1603 renewable energy grant program authorized by the Obama administration, a CRS specialist in public finance admitted that $10 billion was spent to create 3,666 construction jobs over a two-year period–and only 355 jobs per year going forward.

Awesome!  But even if the money was spent on the larger number, the 3,666 construction jobs cited as being created in the first year, then that’s still  $2,727,769 per job.

That’s right, $2.7 million per “green job” created by the Obama administration!!

Obamanomics: $10 Billion to Create 355 Jobs! | blogs4mitt

Thursday, June 7, 2012

oftwominds-Charles Hugh Smith: Is Capitalism Incompatible with Democracy?

 

In a sustainable system of democracy and capitalism, the Central State's sole role is to protect the commons and enforce and enable competition, transparency, accountability, open markets and dissent. It cannot redistribute funds, as those disbursement streams will quickly fall under the control of wealthy Elites, nor can it distribute entitlements, as those will soon attract super-majorities that demand the rules be changed to protect their share of the unsustainable swag.

The Central State cannot be in the "business" of "managing" the economy, as the mechanisms of this management will quickly fall under the control of wealthy Elites or demagogue politicians promising "too good to be true" riches to a super-majority.

Those in the super-majority are delighted to blame the Elites for everything rotten while holding themselves blameless in the subversion of capitalism's key mechanisms (transparency, accountability, failure, loss and clearing the market) to protect their share of the "too good to be true" swag.

oftwominds-Charles Hugh Smith: Is Capitalism Incompatible with Democracy?

Wednesday, June 6, 2012

The “People United” Go Down In Flames | Via Meadia

 

There has never been a greater need for the American faith that leads us to embrace change. The old certainties don’t work anymore, the old institutions are too expensive and too slow, and the old economy isn’t coming back. In Wisconsin, the left embraced the visions and the hopes of the past, but the voters were ready to move on.

Voters in Wisconsin didn’t reject a role for the state in regulating the economy and easing the harshness of life in a market economy. But they turned decisively against the argument that well-paid armies of life-tenured bureaucrats can produce enough good government to justify the cost. And the lesson of the election isn’t that the right has too much money; the lesson is that while the left still has plenty of passion and fire, it has, thanks in part to the power of public sector unions, largely run out of compelling ideas.

The “People United” Go Down In Flames | Via Meadia

To Stand upon Hallowed Ground | Via Meadia

 

But whether you go to Normandy or not, remembering those brave people who stormed the beaches under withering gunfire, their friends and comrades falling around them, is something we should all do on this hallowed day.

To Stand upon Hallowed Ground | Via Meadia

Drain the swamp: House Ethics Committee paves the way for Maxine Waters trial | Twitchy

 

Drain the swamp: House Ethics Committee paves the way for Maxine Waters trial | Twitchy

What Scott Walker’s Victory Signals « Commentary Magazine

 

Scott Walker’s crushing win in Wisconsin – which occurred only 154 days before the presidential election — has a similar feel to it. Wisconsin ain’t Utah; it is the home of Robert La Follette and a state with a strong progressive tradition. Barack Obama carried Wisconsin by 14 points in 2008 and it hasn’t gone Republican since 1984. For Governor Walker to win by the margin he did, based on the agenda he’s enacted, is a sign that the political currents in America strongly favor conservatism and the GOP. Even in Wisconsin.

Intelligent Democrats know that. Which is why panic is spreading throughout their ranks this morning. They see another huge wave forming and growing. And right now, they have no idea how to avoid it.

What Scott Walker’s Victory Signals « Commentary Magazine

Krauthammer: Humiliating defeat signifies beginning of decline of public-sector unions » The Right Scoop -

 

In the state that birthed public sector unions in 1959, Krauthammer says their humiliating defeat last night in Wisconsin signifies the beginning of the decline of public-sector unions:

Krauthammer: Humiliating defeat signifies beginning of decline of public-sector unions » The Right Scoop -

Jumpstart the Economy! | Hoover Institution

 

The best way to understand the problems confronting the American economy is to go back to the first principles of economic freedom upon which the country was founded. As these principles developed over the years, we can see periods when careful attention was paid to them and alternating periods when they were neglected. And we can draw clear conclusions from this history: When policymakers stuck to the principles, economic performance was good. When they ignored or compromised on the principles, economic performance deteriorated.

Our problem now is that we are paying too little attention to these principles, and even worse, we are moving in the wrong direction. The good news is that if we begin to apply these principles to our current circumstances, we can restore America’s prosperity and our confidence in the future.

Jumpstart the Economy! | Hoover Institution

Jumpstart the Economy! | Hoover Institution

 

The best way to understand the problems confronting the American economy is to go back to the first principles of economic freedom upon which the country was founded. As these principles developed over the years, we can see periods when careful attention was paid to them and alternating periods when they were neglected. And we can draw clear conclusions from this history: When policymakers stuck to the principles, economic performance was good. When they ignored or compromised on the principles, economic performance deteriorated.

Our problem now is that we are paying too little attention to these principles, and even worse, we are moving in the wrong direction. The good news is that if we begin to apply these principles to our current circumstances, we can restore America’s prosperity and our confidence in the future.

Jumpstart the Economy! | Hoover Institution

Tuesday, June 5, 2012

CARPE DIEM: The Supply-Side Solution for a Real Recovery

 

"To achieve a real recovery, government policy should focus on individual incentives to work, produce and invest. Central here are tax rates and regulations, including especially clarity about future policies. In a successful policy package, the government would get its fiscal house in order and make meaningful long-term reforms to entitlement programs and the tax structure.

The Obama administration seems to think that individual incentives and serious fiscal reforms are of no great importance and policy should emphasize Keynesian-style demand stimulus (public works, prolonged benefits) along with bits of industrial policy (loans and grants to "green" energy companies). This approach has failed for three years."

~Harvard economist Robert Barro in today's WSJ

CARPE DIEM: The Supply-Side Solution for a Real Recovery

Monday, June 4, 2012

Obama Administration Security Leaks May Be Politically Motivated - Investors.com

 

From leaks about Osama bin Laden to those detailing cyberattacks on Iran, a disturbing pattern of publicly disclosing classified material to give Barack Obama a political boost is emerging. Under this president, our enemies don't need spies.

Obama Administration Security Leaks May Be Politically Motivated - Investors.com

A Jewish pathology | Melanie Phillips

 

One of the most shocking aspects of the campaign to demonise and delegitimise the state of Israel is the part played in this diabolical endeavour by Jewish and Israeli academics on the political left. We’re not talking here about people who are merely critical of Israeli policies. We’re talking about people who lend their names and academic credentials to lies, libels, distortions, fabrications, misrepresentations and other malicious fantasies in order to demonise and delegitimise Israel, treatment they afford to no other country.

A Jewish pathology | Melanie Phillips

Obamacare Killing Affordable Student Insurance | Via Meadia

 

With summer vacation upon them, students probably aren’t thinking much about their health insurance at the moment, but when they go back to school in August they may be in for a nasty surprise. Many schools are discontinuing affordable student insurance programs, citing new Obamacare regulations that would render these programs prohibitively expensive.

Obamacare Killing Affordable Student Insurance | Via Meadia

Equal Opportunity vs. Equal Outcome | Values & Capitalism

 

This is part of a series on Milton Friedman's "Free to Choose."

In the fifth chapter of his book "Free to Choose," Milton Friedman discusses the three different ways that humans are considered to be equal. Yes, for those that have been faithfully following along, we are only in the fifth chapter.
Friedman has three categories for human equality: equality before God, equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. He thinks the first is the Founders’ use, the second is compatible with liberty, and the third is socialism.

Equality before God was not something the Founders took literally. "They did not regard 'men'—or as we would say today, 'persons'—as equal in physical characteristics, emotional reactions, mechanical and intellectual abilities." Jefferson himself was a remarkable man: He designed and built his own house, was an inventor, scholar, statesman, founder of the University of Virginia, governor of Virginia, and became the president of the U.S. Hardly equal in all senses to a white-collar, working class man.

So what did Jefferson mean when he wrote that, "all men are created equal?" The answer is found in the proceeding phrase, "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." This is how all persons are created equal, because God created us and gave us intrinsic value that we speak of in terms of 'rights' language.

Equality of opportunity more simply describes some of our rights and how we are all equal before the law. This type of equality is not inconsistent with liberty, but "an essential component of liberty." Friedman notes that if someone is denied a job they are qualified for based on their ethnic background, color or religion, then they are being denied equal opportunity.

Equality of outcome is the problematic view. This is the idea that everybody should literally be equal. There are many problems with this idea.

First of all, 'fairness' is not an objective concept when dealing with wealth. One man’s garbage is another man’s treasure. Second, the passion behind this idea is that it isn’t fair for some kids to have advantages over others just because of the socioeconomic status of their parents. The focus against those who are advantaged is based on one’s property such as home or business values. However, property can also take the form of talents: musical ability, strength and intelligence. From an ethical standpoint, is there really any difference between the two? Many people resent the inheritance of property like houses and businesses, but don’t resent the inheritance of talents. I wish I could play basketball as well as Kobe Bryant. I’d be a multi-millionaire if I had that type of talent.

But let’s consider where this leads. If we were to really try and equal the outcomes, then less advantaged kids would be given the greatest amount of training and the advantaged kids would be given the least amount of training. That’s fair, right? Not for the advantaged kids. The fact is, life is not fair. It is important to realize how we benefit from things being unfair. I take great pleasure in watching the best of the best play against the best of the best. That’s why we pay money to go to sporting events or watch movies with the best actors. "What kind of world would it be if everyone were a duplicate of everyone else?"

To close, I want to take up a point with Friedman. It’s true today that religion is something that you cannot judge an applicant on. But why think this? Couldn’t someone’s religious beliefs disqualify them? Why can’t we judge someone based upon the values that they uphold and praise? For example, if religion X holds that laziness is a great virtue, why would an employer want to hire someone who strives to become lazy? But let’s take this a next step further. Suppose there is a Christian family who owns a small business. And suppose there is an applicant who is a Satanist, something that Christians believe is evil. In fact, Satanism distorts the true Christian message, and that is insulting to this family. The Christians have a right to call evil by its name and to have no part of it. Government policies must protect employers, too.

Equal Opportunity vs. Equal Outcome | Values & Capitalism