(short link - http://goo.gl/sxDnw)
The Liberty Brothers - Mr. John C. Deming and Mr. Lee G. Deming
Liberty - The inherent freedom of individuals from outside compulsion or coercion, in which human beings are able to govern themselves, to behave according to their own free will and take responsibility for their actions.
(Green means included in Eau Claire Journal)
October 26, 2011
thehill.com - "Obama decision to send troops to Uganda comes under new scrutiny." For those of you keeping score in the Middle East, we are currently conducting military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, and Pakistan (in addition to other countries the CIA is conducting attacks in, including Syria). How many Muslim countries will we be bombing by the end of 2012? Uganda is 84% Christian, so maybe Obama is targeting that country so that he isn't viewed as attacking only Muslim countries. I guess he's an equal-opportunity warmonger. This time, it doesn't sound as though it is for the war on terror, but rather to save that country from the "Lords Resistance Army"...Here's what John McCain said, "I worry that with the best of intentions, that somehow we get engaged in a commitment that we can't get out of. That's happened before in our history and we need an explanation, and I'm very disappointed, again, that the administration has not consulted with members of Congress before taking such action." Those statements are strange, given his desire to intervene in Iran, Iraq, etc. Remember, he said we might be in Iraq for 100 years. How long does he think the Uganda intervention might be, if he thinks it might be longer than that? If McCain is beginning to worry about commitments we can't get out of, it might be time to re-think the entire policy of interventionism...
visiontoamerica.org - "Sharia law being used in U.S. courts to decide cases."
October 10, 2011
warincontext.org - "Presidency Rotten at its Core".
October 3, 2011
North Star Writers - "Economic growth surges, but Democrats ignore the truth again" - by Herman Cain. This article by Herman Cain describes how strong the economy is, just a week or so before the economic crash of 2008. His view of central economic planning is problematic, but understandable given his prior employment as a Federal Reserve bank chairman. His statements point out his lack of understanding of the underlying problems in the economy. If he believed the economy was strong in September of 2008, it is difficult to imagine that he would now be able to make the necessary changes to allow the economy to improve.
www.reason.com - "Operation fast and furious is just the tip of the iceberg." From the abstract, "Earlier this month, the Department of Justice was forced to reveal that the Drug Enforcement Administration had, in fact, been working with one of Mexico's largest cartels. As Associate Editor Mike Riggs reports, Vicente Zambada-Niebla, the son of a Sinaloa cartel bigwig now on trial for cocaine trafficking, forced the DOJ's hand when he claimed that Sinaloa's dealings with the DEA gave him immunity from prosection. While the DOJ denied in a court filing that it had promised Zambada immunity, the allegation, and another like it from border state law enforcement agents who say they were asked to receive shipments of narcotics without making arrests, suggest that the U.S.'s attempts to abolish Mexico's cartels is itself bordering on lawlessness."
August 17, 2011
globalpublicsquare - "Krugman calls for space aliens to fix the economy?"
nj.com - "The debate question Fox will never ask".
August 16, 2011
VisiontoAmerica.org - "First Libya, now sources say next country warned of NATO attack". Turkey now suggests that Syria is the next target in NATO's sights. Turkey indicated that Syria would be targeted if it didn't institute sweeping democratic changes. For those of you keeping score in the Middle East, we are currently conducting military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, and Pakistan (in addition to other countries the CIA is conducting attacks in). How many Muslim countries will we be bombing by the end of 2012?
August 15, 2011
israelnationalnews.com - "US helps pay PA terrorists who murdered Americans". We are actually paying salaries to convicted Palestinian terrorists who are jailed in Israel, even those who have killed Americans. The greater their sentence (years behind bars), the greater the monthly salary we pay. We also pay a monthly salary to their families. Does this make terrorism against Israel more or less likely? Should US tax dollars pay monthly salaries to terrorists who kill Americans? When will our foreign policy begin making sense? We can't simultaneously provide money and weapons to virtually every country in the Middle East and expect there to be peace.
August 14, 2011
OathKeepers.org - "FBI Handout Lists Purchase of Preparedness Items as `Potential Indicators of Terrorist Activities'"
August 11, 2011
War in Context - "Obama's secret war in Somalia where`the Americans are creating a monster'"
TomDispatch.com - "Could the Pentagon be responsible for your death?"
June 18, 2011
Washington times - "USDA gay sensitivity training seeks larger audience". From the article, "[USDA] activists want to impose their intense brand of homosexual sensitivity training government-wide, including a discussion that compares "heterosexism" = believing marriage can be only between one man and one woman - to racism."
Washington Times - "Government alters deportation program".
Washington Times - "What if Jesus ran as a Republican for president in 2012?".
Center for Individual Freedom - "`Operation Fast and Furious' - Obama administration endorses guns for Mexican drug runners, but not lawful Americans".
June 16, 2011
The Hill - "Criticizing Obama, Kucinich credits Bush for asking Congress to go to war".
President Obama's letter to Congress - "United States activities in Libya". This is the document President Obama sent to Congress to justify U.S. efforts in Libya. It is long, but it is important because it outlines his rationale for entering the conflict, as well as why we should continue involvement into September. Some interesting items are included. For instance, on page 15 he estimates that the cost of our military involvement through September will but over $1.1B. The report states, "The Department [Defense] does not plan to ask for supplemental appropriations and will pay for these costs using currently available Defense funds." Obviously, the Department of Defense would be able to prioritize and move funds around, but does the Department of Defense have enough extra money to take on $1.1B in spending in a six-month time frame? If so, that probably should be reduced in the next budget. As of June 3, 2011, President Obama suggests that humanitarian aid totals $81M (page 18-19). The discussion of the Interim Transitional National Council and suggested ties to terrorism is also included. (page 22-24). Although he suggests there is no known link between terrorist organizations and the TNC, this statement does not instill great confidence, "During the past two years, the Government of Libya had instituted a program to rehabilitate and release from prison members of the LIFG [Libya Islamic Fighting Group, a terrorist organization] who had renounced terrorism, and some of the former LIFG members in Eastern Libya had participated in this program." Might they have renounced terrorism to be released? The president claims to have Constitutional authorization and does not require additional authorization from Congress because the actions of the U.S. are not acts of war (his words say "the kinds of `hostilities' contemplated by the Resolution's 60 day termination provision"). He also lists the committee hearings, emails, and meetings with legislative personnel as evidence of his receiving approval from Congress. It will be interesting to see how Mr. Kucinich and the other members of the legislature respond. More interesting would be to ask candidate Obama how he would have viewed this document if it had been submitted by then-president Bush. My guess is that he would have determined this document does not meet Constitutional muster.
Washington Times - "Obama's `bundlers' appointed to key jobs".
Washington Times - "Kucinich demands international court probe of Libya mission".
The Freeman - "The Depression you've never heard of: 1920-1921". This article was originally included on this site on May 12, 2011, but it bears repeating today.
June 15, 2011
thefreemanonline.org - "Don't worry about the Yuan" by Roberty Murphy. This article does a good job of explaining the trade between China and the U.S. and the values of their respective currencies. One important note is that China has actually allowed its currency to increase in value relative to the U.S. dollar recently, even though our administration suggests that China is a "currency manipulator". This article is well worth the reading time, and you will most likely conclude that time with a new understanding of currency and trade. There is no smoking gun here. Murphy explains in detail what China's past currency efforts were, as well as giving reasons for their actions now. We are left with a simple thought that the Federal Reserve should stop devaluing our own U.S. dollars. This will do more for our economy than tariffs and more aggressive foreign policies.
LA Times - "Report describes gun agents' `state of panic'". This article is quite important. It illustrates the unwise federal government policy of "Project Gunrunner" and how the various agents attempted to stop it. In fact, multiple agents were told not to make arrests, effectively allowing firearms into Mexico. The point of the project was to track the firearms to find drug dealers and firearms dealers in central America. Some of the more than 1,700 guns allowed to move have been found at various crime scenes, including at the murder scene of Arizona border patrol agent Brian Terry. Remember The Early Show on March 26, 2009 with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? She said, "We have to recognize and accept that the demand for drugs from the United States drives them north, and the guns that are used by the drug cartels against the police and the military, 90 percent of them come from America." Factcheck.org suggests this number is much lower, possibly at 33%. However, has the government been counting these Project Gunrunner guns? In many cases, the American gun dealers did not want to sell to the individual, but were told to do so by the federal government. Are these guns now being used by the gun-control advocates in this administration as proof that America has a gun supply problem? Please read the article and then decide for yourself.
Washington Times - "Lynchpin in hunt for bin Laden back with al Qaeda". This is a troubling article. It illustrates the lack of understanding and appreciation of the situation by the Bush and Obama administration. If this individual was one of the al Qaeda senior operatives, and we had evidence of that fact, we should have brought him to the United States and prosecuted him in a court of law. If the evidence was as compelling as this article suggests, he would have been convicted and been sent to prison. Instead, the U.S. captured him and whisked him to secret "black sites" where he was interrogated. Interestingly, the article suggests that he provided critical information as to on of bin Laden's trusted messengers before being exposed to "harsh interrogation techniques". Pakistan kept asking for his release, and the U.S. eventually transferred him to Pakistani custody with the assurance that he would be imprisoned there. He was subsequently released. If we would have actually followed the Constitution, he would not be free to terrorize again. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Once apprehended, wasn't this individual "within the U.S. jurisdiction"? As with all detainees, they should be prosecuted in criminal court rather than being held in remote sites without charge or trial. Following the Constitution would have kept this individual in prison. Instead, our administrations' skirting of the Constitution has put us in an untenable situation that results in gaffes like this.
Campaign for Liberty - "The 22 children of Guantanamo" by Andy Worthington. We strongly encourage everyone to read everything Andy Worthington writes. He is the single-most reporting authority on Guantanamo, and his knowledge and attention to detail is unparalleled. In this article, Worthington uses evidence from the Pentagon and other sources to show how the Pentagon misrepresented the number of minors held at Guantanamo to the 48th Session of the U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child in May 2008. He provides exquisite detail of these events, and the prisoners in question. If you are interested in an extensive timeline and discussion of Guantanamo and the prisoners there, please read Worthington's book The Guantanamo Files. This book contains explicit details of some of the treatments that detainees received, making some parts difficult to read. However, any American suggesting that we continue our current practice of detaining people without trial in this environment must read this book. It will be the definitive history of Guantanamo well into the future.
moneynews.com - "CNBC: Housing crisis officially worse than Great Depression".
AZCentral.com - "Phoenix studying future of food tax".
June 14, 2011
Campaign for Liberty - "Time to get out of Afghanistan".
Chicago Tribune - "Chicago loses car car expo to Vegas". This car care expo isn't the largest event to come to Chicago, but it is estimated that it would generate about $8.5M in revenue for the area. You would think that this revenue would be welcomed by any city during these economic times. However, the money is now going to be spent in Vegas, where the conference has been located for a number of years. The reason? Booth vendors bring electronics and other items to the expo to help them enhance their sales points. As you can imagine, most of these vendors want to employ their own people to set up the equipment, and have probably trained people to set up the equipment to their liking. This all sounds reasonable. The problem is that the vendors are not allowed to choose who sets up their equipment in their own booths for the Chicago expo. Keep in mind that the Illinois state legislature passed a law that would have allowed these vendors to employ people of their choice, but a federal court struck down the law. In effect, the federal court suggested that two unions, the Chicago Regional Council of Carpenters and the Teamsters Local #727 should have been allowed to negotiate any changes. Six major trade shows have now filed statements suggesting that they are also considering pulling out from Chicago. The Chicago area stands to lose millions of dollars annually until this is resolved.
LewRockwell.com - "Our Moral Dilemma" by Walter Williams.
Salt Lake Tribune - "FBI expands agents' investigative power".
Huffington Post - "Obama, Bush and the Patriot Act".
Reason.com - "Obama and the pursuit of endless war".
Chinapost.com - "Prosecutor's Office vows to crack down on food hoarding".
The Telegraph - "Shed owners warned wire on windows could hurt burglars". Here is an example of what our loss of liberties will eventually become. In this story, the property owners were trying to protect their property after a series of thefts. Thieves were mainly targeting mowers, power equipment, etc. in outbuildings and sheds. The property owners put up wire on windows to try to stop thefts, and the authorities warned the property owners that they might be sued for compensation if a burglar was injured. We have seen cases like this in the U.S. already, where a thief sues a property owner for being harmed while committing a robbery. Often, these cases involve self-defense shootings by the property owner, but they also include cases similar to this story. Have we lost all sense of property rights and an individual's right to protect what they own?
June 12, 2011
AZcentral.com - "Big employers are required to afford new moms privacy".
The American Conservative - "Non-interventionist conservatives go mainstream".
TownHall.com - "At least 4 good reasons to end the war on drugs".
MotherJones.com - "Herman Cain's Enron-esque Disaster".
June 10, 2011
Campaign for Liberty - "Fixing America begins with Foreign policy".
Washington Post - "Supreme Court continues to define what constitutes a `violent felony'".
Cato.org - "White House: Buy insurance or be poor".
Cato.org - "How police are turning military".
Washington Times - "Report: U.S. steps up covert strikes in Yemen".
LA Times - "Alabama enacts anti-illegal-immigration law described as nation's strictest".
Reason.com - "The cancer of government regulation: How occupational licensing laws hurt the poor".
June 9, 2011
Google.com - "Obama invokes U.S. history in spending fight".
LA Times - "Judges sharply challenge healthcare law".
LA Times - "U.S. can't justify its drug war spending, report says". From the article: "Reporting from Washington - As drug cartels wreak murderous havoc from Mexico to Panama, the Obama administration is unable to show that the billions of dollars spent in the war on drugs have significantly stemmed the flow of illegal narcotics into the United States, according to two government reports and outside experts...`I think we have wasted our money hugely,' agreed Bruce Bagley, who studies U.S. counter-narcotics efforts and chairs international studies at the University of Miami at Coral Gables, Fla. `The effort has had corrosive effects on every country it has touched.'"
Washington Times - "Haqqani terrorists threaten U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan".
Washington Post - "Obama and free trade: appease big labor".
Washington Post - "Senator Rand Paul: Congress has become an `irrelevancy' on war powers".
Washington Post - "GAO examines alleged assaults at VA facilities".
Cato.org - "Senate slams nation-building efforts in Afghanistan".
June 8, 2011
Washington Times - "Labor redoubles assault on Catholic colleges". Here a quote from the article, "Chicago regional director for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) declared that St. Xavier University, a Catholic institution established by the Sisters of Mercy, was not sufficiently religious to be exempt from federal jurisdiction." Have we now entered an era where the federal government can determine how religious an organization is? This is yet another problem associated with government interventions in private property rights. The Catholic colleges and universities are private property, and as such have the right to determine hiring practices, educational practices, etc. This is an attempt to force these colleges to follow federal labor laws, but the federal government's overreach should be argued from a property rights perspective rather than a religious one.
Washington Times - "One law for us, another for you".
dailymail.co.uk - "How EU spends ÂŁ20m a year promoting left-wing causes in the U.S.".
Chicago Tribune - "Couple, intruder slain in Marengo home invasion". This is a sad story of a couple in their 80's being killed by a home intruder who entered their residence at about 8:00 pm. The intruder attacked the residents with a knife; their son survived the attack and killed the intruder with a firearm. It remains to be seen if the son will be harassed by government officials over his use of a firearm, and it will be interesting to hear gun-control proponents try to spin this story. I expect they will be noticeably silent, and the mainstream media will be complicit. It will also be interesting to see if this family receives support for their constitutional right to protect their lives and property, given that they live outside of Chicago. Would they receive less support for this right if they lived within Chicago? The question is rhetorical, because Chicago's gun-control ordinances in the past targeted citizens who utilized firearms to protect themselves from home invasions. We've argued for years that these gun control measures intentionally restrict urban populations from their constitutional right to protect their lives and property, and Obama has, in an interview with Outdoor Life Magazine, basically agreed, "I know that what works in Chicago might not work in Cheyenne [Wyoming]...This right is not unlimited in the same manner that the Constitution confers private property rights, but local governments can establish zoning ordinances." Oddly, if a person purchases a handgun, it becomes his or her private property. If a firearm owner wants to sell her handgun to friend, this is a transfer of private property. Is a person in Chicago less trustworthy than a person in Cheyenne? Can a tyrannical majority in Chicago withhold a citizen's constitutional right to bear arms? President Obama believes so. As he said, he doesn't view the right to bear arms with the same regard as private property rights, even though the argument provided above can succinctly be boiled down to property rights. If the mayor of Cheyenne had stated, "We've developed a great program for enhancing students' ability to read, but it may not work in Chicago," he or she would have been crucified in the press for racism or classism (or both). Quite frankly, the gun control issue smacks of racism, and president Obama is on the wrong side of this one.
azcentral.com - "Stock prices fall again as Bernanke offers no stimulus". As we've stated before, stock prices are a poor indicator of economic health. If Bernanke infuses liquidity into the market in the form of monetary stimulus, stock prices will most likely rise. However, this is mainly due to inflation. What I mean is that if the Fed inflates the money supply (making more dollars available), the value of each individual dollar goes down. When the value of a dollar decreases, it takes more dollars to buy a commodity, stock, etc. Thus, the price in dollars of that commodity or stock rises. To understand this, look at the ratio of the Dow Jones average to the price of gold over time. It is also interesting to remember back to the days when a Canadian dollar was only worth about $0.75. The exchange rate was quite favorable for individuals interested in traveling to Canada. On January 1, 2007, $1 could be exchanged for 1.17 Canadian dollars. Today, $1 can only be exchanged for 0.977 Canadian dollars. This is a loss of 16.5% in the dollar's value over this time. More importantly, the Canadian dollar now has greater purchasing power than the U.S. dollar. Politicians in Washington suggest that America's economy is recovering, even though these numbers show no recovery in sight. Inflating the money supply creates false profits and false security, but devalues our currency. This devaluation hurts the poor and those on fixed incomes the most. It is the most regressive form of taxation, and yet liberals in Washington do nothing to stop it. Currently, democrats are pushing for a much more progressive tax policy. They argue that we need to tax the rich more that we do currently. However, a much more helpful solution would be to stop the inflation of our money supply. This would stop the regressive inflation tax, effectively protecting the poor and those on fixed incomes from a loss in purchasing power and wealth.
Washington Times - "Lack of buyers may force treasury to boost interest rates". Sometimes free market economics can elbow its way into the discussion of central economic planning. Federal bureaucrats, and Federal Reserve personnel, should ask, "Why would the treasury be forced to boost interest rates?" It seems the answer is not obvious. However, Austrian economists can easily provide insight on this question. We can view treasury bonds as a commodity that can be purchased and held over time. Generally, investors decide to purchase these bonds if they believe the return on their investment is high enough. In this case, the return on their investment comes from the interest they receive from purchasing and holding the bond. Since the Federal Reserve has been artificially depressing interest rates, investors are not likely to invest in these bonds. In effect, they need to be enticed to invest now by raising the interest rate. Once the interest rate is high enough, investors will renew their investing in treasury bonds. Notice, the interest rate has a profound effect on investing decisions. However, it also has a profound effect on business decisions. In the above example, the investors are motivated by a desire to make money. In contrast, what if a business owner is motivated to save money? Could the interest rate influence business decisions in that case? Business owners contemplating capital investments (e.g., infrastructure, building additions) are acutely aware of interest rates. When the interest rate is high, they put off capital investments because the long-term loans would cost too much. When the interest rate is low, businesses tend to make capital investments because they will save money over the longer term. When the free market sets interest rates, these types of business decisions are rational. In this example, the local economy might not have been able to sustain those capital investments. When the central economic planners (Federal Reserve) set the interest rates, all rational decision-making ability is lost. The interest rate is a critical time link between businesses and consumers. As the article states, it is also a time link for investors. The time link only works when the free market dictates the interest rate, though, and therefore any central economic planning of interest rates creates moral hazards.
LA Times - "Bernanke predicts stronger recovery in second half of year".
Washington Post - "Homeland Security Department curtails home-grown terror analysis".
LA Times - "Supreme Court allows California to grant in-state tuition to illegal immigrants". This is an interesting article, no matter which side of the debate you support. That will be a topic of future discussion, and therefore we won't go into detail on the specific issue here. However, it is almost impossible, in my opinion, to determine what the federal government's official policy on immigration entails. President Obama has deported a record number of illegal aliens since taking office, enraging liberals. The federal government has also sued Arizona for trying to enforce an immigration policy modeled after the federal law, while simultaneously allowing sanctuary cities to thwart federal laws. When the swine flu panic was raging, and the media illustrated that the danger of spread was coming from Mexico, our government did nothing to close the border. Instead, the government pushed Americans to vaccinate their children in huge numbers. States on the southern border have been requesting federal intervention at the border, but the federal government still remains unresponsive and even dismissive that there is an uncontrolled border. Now, the Supreme Court has agreed that illegal immigrants graduating from state schools can receive in-state tuition in post-secondary education. What is our federal government's policy on illegal immigration? Has the Supreme Court actually acknowledged that the states can determine how to handle immigration on their own? I doubt it. However, this ruling might be difficult to overlook when Arizona makes its argument.
The Independent Institute - "What price war".
June 7, 2011
Cafe Hayek - "Text of Rockefeller's letter to Dr. Butler". Although this letter was written in 1932, it speaks eloquently about the inherent problems often associated with good intentions. In this letter, Rockefeller is suggesting the Republican party endorse the repeal of alcohol prohibition even though he and his family had been consistent supporters of the idea originally. We suggest you supplant "alcohol" with "marijuana" in this article, and then determine if a letter from a similar voice today would carry the same weight. Often, political posturing and rhetoric cloud the issues facing lawmakers today. Although many conservatives view drug use as an scourge in America, few can argue that the our federal drug policies have been successful. Our crime rates have increased since the "war on drugs" began. Is it unrealistic to question whether or not this problem would be better handled by the states? After all, states have a greater interest in promoting safety and liberty for their citizens than the federal government. Rockefeller also quotes the articles being considered for inclusion in the Republican platform and voices his support for their inclusion. All conservatives should read this article and question whether or not these ideals are still upheld as part of the Republican party platform, if they are given mere lip service, or if they have been disregarded by a more "big government" or neo-conservative model.
Charlotte Observer - "Albemarle Road church fined $100 per branch for excessive tree pruning". Here's a small portion of the article: The fine [$4000] will be dropped if the church replaces each of the improperly pruned trees, said Tom Johnson, senior urban forester for city of Charlotte Land Development Division. "When they are nonreparable, when they have been pruned beyond repair, we will ask them to be replaced," Johnson said. "We do that for a number of reasons but mainly because they are going to come back unhealthy and create a dangerous situation down the road." Charlotte has had a tree ordinance since 1978, and when trees are incorrectly pruned or topped, people can be subject to fines, Johnson said. Here is another example of tyrrany of the majority. Mr. Johnson clearly states that the city believes all trees on private property are the property of the city. What if the church had cut down those trees? Would they have to be replaced? Cutting down an entire tree could be viewed as an extreme case of tree pruning to a bureaucrat. What if a family was inspired to trim their hedges in the shape of Disney characters after visiting Disney World? After landscaping for years, I always disliked the bushes trimmed into small balls, as if they were balloons on a string. They were always neatly trimmed, but they didn't look much like actual bushes anymore. Would those be frowned upon in this city? More importantly, why should a private property owner's property be transferred to the city? Proponents of this ordinance will suggest that it was democratically decided and therefore acceptable. However, in a democracy the majority wins. This is why our founding fathers devised a constitutional republic. They were just as concerned with the potential for tyranny by the majority as for tyranny of a strong federal government. As Mr. Johnson said, "The purpose of the tree ordinance is to protect trees. Charlotte has always been known as the city of trees." I've never been to Charlotte, but I'm sure the trees are beautiful. However, Charlotte is now known as a city that excessively fines churches for maintaining their landscapes, and that takes control of people's private property. It seems the tyrannical majority was willing to accept this vision of Charlotte.
Washington Times - "States balk at illegals program". Also see this update, "ICE: Secure communities not optional". A few days ago, we openly questioned the federal government's illegal immigration policy. In these articles, we see first that some liberal states are pushing back against Obama's illegal immigration efforts, while in the second we see that the federal government believes that states must comply with increased federal intervention in immigration due to national security concerns. Why, then, is this stance, "Alabama enacts anti-illegal-immigration law described as nation's strictest" so controversial? Alabama's anti-illegal-immigration law is much more broad than Arizona's, but contains some of the Arizona provisions. Is it that the federal government does not believe states should make immigration decisions? This comes on the heels of our recent news item on in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. Again, what is our federal government's policy on illegal immigration? Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) seems to be pushing communities to do more to determine immigration status, but Arizona (and soon Alabama and other states) is being sued by the federal government for precisely this action. What's more disturbing is that ICE says that communities who choose to "opt out" of the Secure Communities program must obtain permission from their state. Doesn't this suggest that the governor of a state and/or its legislature have the latitude to enforce immigration status checks? As with all bureaucracies, these news items illustrate inefficiency and the conflicting suggestions by various bureaucrats. It is time to stop the merry-go-round. States are fed up with the federal government's lack of direction, and have begun to pass laws that reduce ambiguity on this issue.
Campaign for Liberty - "Raw milk mania".
TownHall.com - "Accusation that voter ID is racist demeans blacks".
June 6, 2011
LA Times - "What happened to L.A.'s boycott of Arizona?".
Campaign for Liberty - "Worse than a third Bush term?". This is a good synopsis of president Obama's hawkish agenda.
mises.org - "A primer on the never-ending bust" by Robert P. Murphy. Anything Murphy writes is essential reading for those interested in understanding sound economic principles.
June 4, 2011
hastingsgazette.com - "Kicked out for doing good". Mike Haege owns Custom Cut, a tree-trimming business in Hastings, MN. After a tornado ripped through north Minneapolis on May 22, 2011, he figured the area could use his help. He had the day off, so he signed up with the Urban League to be a volunteer. Some other volunteers were sent with him into the area. He brought in his own bucket truck and wood chipper, and began working on residents' homes who didn't have insurance. This all sounds like a good Samaritan tale, although it is all true. Mr. Haege should receive recognition of appreciation from the city of Minneapolis, as should all those wonderful individuals who donated their time and resources to the cleanup effort. In something that can only be described as absurdity run amok, however, Mr. Haege was ordered to leave and was eventually fined $275. The reason? A city inspector forced him to leave immediately for not having a license. When he showed the inspector his volunteer license, she didn't believe him. At this point, we should be asking why a person has to obtain a license prior to volunteering at a time of disaster (or at any time for that matter). Do we really need to ask a city for permission to follow the Bible's teachings? In many cities, the answer is "yes". However, Mr. Haege did ask for permission in advance, and the people in the area were grateful. The inspector did not believe him though. The inspector was concerned that Haege was charging the residents for his services. We should pause again and ponder this concern. If the residents had wanted to contract Mr. Haege for his services, shouldn't they have been allowed to do so? A few years ago, Five mature trees were blown down at my house due to straight-line winds, and the cleanup costs were estimated at $8,500. This was a disaster at my home, but I was free to contract the cleanup if I wanted. Fortunately for me, some friends helped us in much the same way that Mr. Haege did. Volunteerism brings out the best in people, when it isn't choked out of existence by bureaucracy. In Mr. Haege's case, the residents pleaded with the inspector, but to no avail. He was forced to leave. As he was driving away, other residents waived him down and asked him to help get a tree out of the way, which he did. It was at that point that he noticed the police were "escorting" him out of town. At one point, they even threatened to arrest him. Residents continued to scream in his defense, but the police said his fine would double if he stopped again. That's the response a good samaritan gets in Minneapolis. On behalf of rational people everywhere, we thank you Mr. Haege and all of the unnamed volunteers whose efforts, in spite of government regulations, make our communities a better place.
Washington Times - "Bipartisan congress rebuffs Obama on Libya mission".
LA Times - "Coffee prices are getting a jolt".
June 3, 2011
Cato.org - "Bush II goes to war whether congress likes it or not". Part 1 of a series originally published in the Washington Examiner. This link contains all three parts of the series. This series of articles describes president Obama as the proposed vision of Constitutional restoration after the Bush II policies, only to describe even greater threats to our liberties. In fact, part of this article describes Obama's proposed expansion of National Security Letter (NSL) authority to electronic transactions including browser histories. This is in contrast to candidate Obama's campaign promise, "No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime." Each of these articles in the series are important, because they outline the bipartisan anti-liberty policies of both Republicans and Democrats, as well as illustrating the partisanship exhibited when choosing whether or not to criticize policy.
WashingtonExaminer.com - "But he's our imperial president!".
Washington Times - "Obamacare's unlimited power".
Reason.com - "Government against blacks: How the state perpetuates poverty".
Washington Post - "Moodys: If debt deal fails, U.S. risks credit downgrade". In one of the most telling signs of economic incompetence recently, Moodys actually suggested that the U.S. credit rating will be downgraded if we do not increase our debt ceiling. It is difficult to imagine a credit rating agency actually encouraging a borrower to increase his or her debt limit without increasing income, especially when the debtor is already borrowing money at an alarming pace. No doubt lawmakers in Washington will use this as a scare tactic to support raising the debt ceiling. A more important question should be asked, however. Why do we have a debt ceiling? If it is true that it will be a economic catastrophe if the debt ceiling isn't raised, then it seems there shouldn't be a ceiling. We should just be able to borrow as much as we want to pay for both our foreign and domestic interventions. Would Moodys agree with a $100-trillion ceiling? The suggestions by Moodys, and lawmakers who espouse these principles, are absurd. Increasing your debt-to-income ratio doesn't make you more likely to pay your debts, it makes you less likely to do so. However, this article points out the problem with international credit ratings of governments. The U.S. is not likely to be able to pay all of its current and future obligations in social security, medicare, and medicaid. We are also unable to pay back our foreign creditors with dollars that have not been devalued by inflating the money supply. Moodys seems to be suggesting that we devalue our currency in order to pay back our obligations. But isn't that a default? When our social security payments to seniors are worth half as much as they should be due to dollar devaluation, isn't that a default? Moodys seems to think these types of defaults are acceptable. In reality, the U.S. must not raise the debt ceiling, and must cut back on spending and taxes to reduce its debt-to-income ratio. The Moodys rating system is fundamentally flawed, and we should use common sense instead.
LA Times - "Pushing for a return to the gold standard".
The Hill - "Bernanke faces a crucial decision as economy teeters". This article describes QE2's lack of success, and points out the potential remedies the Fed might choose this time around. However, each of these remedies have downsides, and all of the Fed's actions up until now, as well as those they are considering in the future, are based upon discredited Keynesian economic principles. In contrast, Austrian economists predicted these outcomes. Austrian economics described the business cycle as an artificial creation of boom-bust cycles by monetary intervention. For example, in a normal free-market system, there is a time link between consumers and businesses - the interest rate. As consumers in a community begin saving (e.g., to put additions on their houses), more money is stored in the community bank. The bank then has more capital on hand, and will want to loan some of that money out to earn money on it. In order to entice groups, usually small businesses, to take out loans, the bank lowers the interest rate. The businesses see the lower interest rate and decide it is a good time to make large capital investments, usually in infrastructure, which are the most expensive and can be much cheaper with lower rates. Another feature of the free market system is that prices of goods (e.g., boards, construction supplies) increased in supply due to lower demand, and therefore prices go down. Once the consumers begin spending again, the bank raises interest rates and signals that long-term investments are not appropriate at this time. That's essentially how the time-link works in a free market economy. In this case, the small businesses saves money because materials are cheaper and because rates are lower. However, if the Federal Reserve artificially adjusts interest rates, the time-link is lost. In the Fed's non-free market scenario, lower interest rates cause businesses to take out capital loans, but consumers have not suggested they are putting off current consumption for future consumption [the BOOM]. Therefore, materials and supplies are now scarce, causing their prices to rise. We often see the results of this problem when businesses complain of cost overruns on their investment. Often, not all of the projects will be completed due to lack of resources. Furthermore, capital investments are only warranted if the business has a reasonable expectation of a future increase in sales, and the consumers have not suggested that in a Fed-created system. Therefore, even if the business completes its project, it will not likely see a proportional return on its investment. At some point, all this malinvestment is no longer able to be sustained, and the Fed's artificial market economy retracts (the BUST). Sadly, the Bust is not the problem, the boom is. The bust is just the market cleansing all the malinvestment from the economy. If you want to see how this plays out historically, look at the Depression of 1920-1921 (and the Federal Reserve's and the President's response), and then look at what happened in the 1920s with Fed policy. The Fed encouraged malinvestment, which supercharged the economy for the decade of the "roaring `20's" (the boom). However, this malinvestment was not based on free market economics, and therefore had to be cleansed from the economy. Then came the Great Depression (the bust). By attempting all of the stimulus in the 1930's, FDR simply prolonged the Great Depression. If you don't believe that, please compare the numbers from 1920 with 1929. The initial depression numbers were worse in 1920, and yet we recovered much more quickly. As far as the article is concerned, this description should help you understand some of the Fed's options and why those will only result in prolonging the recession and making the inevitable depression that much worse.
June 2, 2011
Reason.com - "A war fit for a king". As with most Reason.com articles, this one provides an extended narrative that clearly articulates its point. It uses then-senator Obama's own words to contrast his current efforts in Libya, and describes our administration's new-found subservience to NATO and the UN. As we've stated before, it is interesting that Democrats who railed against Bush's foreign interventions are now silent, even though president Obama's foreign interventions are even more extreme than Bush's. Was it principles or partisanship that they were using when deciding whether or not to endorse a particular foreign intervention? You decide. As for the Republicans, they have been conservative in self-stated name only. Very few have actually followed the Constitution during either the Bush or Obama years. We now have a bipartisan effort to allow president Obama the very imperial powers we fought a revolution to end. The founding fathers authored a contract between the states to protect the citizens from these types of statist tendencies. The federal government is obviously uninterested in following the contract; therefore, it is time for states to enforce it.
TownHall.com - "The factory of selective moral outrage".
Campaign for Liberty - "The struggle against the Patriot Act". This article provides a detailed timeline of the events leading up to the Patriot Act extension, including video links for each major point. It really illustrates how heroic Senator Paul's stand against this Act was. It also notes the actions of the GOP, and the inaction of the NRA, which led to the insurmountable opposition. If you are interested in a fact-based discussion of the Patriot Act's latest legislative efforts, complete with video and printed evidence, then this article is for you.
Washington Times - "NATO extends Libya mission by 90 days".
mises.org - "Do we need a weak dollar?" by Robert Murphy.
CBS Baltimore - "MTA officers detain man for taking pictures".
Bloomberg - "Fed's QE2 failed to boost U.S. spending".
The Hill - "Ron Paul warns of dictatorship in Washington D.C.".
new.yahoo.com - "Major panel: Drug war failed; legalize marijuana". The Global Commission on Drug Policy suggests that repressive strategies have failed, and that governments should acknowledge this and adopt other policies instead. From the article, "Political leaders and public figures should have the courage to articulate publicly what many of them acknowledge privately: that the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that repressive strategies will not solve the drug problem, and that the war on drugs has not, and cannot, be won," the report said. The 19-member commission includes former presidents of Mexico, Brazil, Colombia, Greece's prime minister, former U.N. Security-General Kofi Annan, former U.S. officials George P. Schultz and Paul Volcker, the writers Carlos Fuentes and Mario Vargas Unsa, and British billionaire Richard Branson."
June 1, 2011
Washington Times - "Karsai: No NATO airstrikes on houses".
New York Times - "Reconstruction lifts economy after disasters". We said after the recent destruction that someone would argue that it would be good for the economy. It makes sense that it would be the New York Times. It is such a nonsensical notion that few people seem to question it. After all, it was in the New York Times, but let's review. The article states, "reconstruction can help rebuild local economies as well as neighborhoods.'' The article goes on to say, "No one would suggest that disasters are a desirable form of economic stimulus. But economists who have studied the impact of floods, tornadoes, and hurricanes have found that after the initial anguish and huge economic disruptions, periods of increased economic activity frequently follow as insurance money and disaster relief flow in to jump-start building." Which of these statements are true (if either)? It seems as though the article is suggesting that reconstruction isn't a desirable economic stimulus, but it does act as a stimulus. The article describes many aspects of this philosophy, including an argument against raising prices at this time (aka price gouging). It describes people working and money being paid for goods at Home Depot. The problem here is that the author suffers from the broken window fallacy (starts on page 11), which was eloquently described by Henry Hazlitt in his book "Economics in One Lesson". In this example, a child throws a rock through the window of a bakery in town. At some point, someone suggests that it will provide work for the glass company. The glass company wouldn't have had this business opportunity (stimulus) if the kid hadn't broken the window. However, what is forgotten is that the baker will now have to pay for the window instead of something he or she might desire (like a new mixer). Even if the window is covered by insurance, there still may be a deductible and the baker's insurance premiums might rise. The fallacy is that the stimulus creates wealth in the economy. If the kid hadn't broken the window, the baker would have a window and a mixer with the money now spent on the window. Capital is lost. The baker is less well off than before, and although the glass company might be better off, the company that makes mixers is less well off. As the broken window fallacy clearly illustrates, these types of stimuli actually hurt the economy. There are no new jobs created here. The hiring of people at Home Depot to handle the latest rebuilding needs comes at the expense of jobs lost elsewhere. If capital is being destroyed, then wealth is being lost, not gained. There's no getting around that fact. Bastiat described this in the essay "What is seen and what is not seen: The bad economist confines himself to the visible effect". In a strange twist, Hazlitt was the principal economic editorial writer for the New York Times from 1933 - 1946. F. A. Hayek and Milton Friedman, both Nobel Prize winning economists, praised his work. We strongly encourage everyone who is interested in learning more about economics to read Economics in One Lesson. The irony of this story should not be lost on its readers. Hazlitt's weekly columns described the economics of the Depression, as well as the interventions that came later. He argued against government interventions, and was able to predict outcomes by applying Austrian economic principles. His columns helped discredit Keynesian economic thinking. We now find a broken window fallacy espoused in the New York Times, as well as Paul Krugman rallying everyone in support of the discredited Keynesian economic theories. These columnists would do well to read historical columns from their own newspaper. Better answers were printed generations ago.
mises.org - "In a relationship, and it's complicated". This is an important essay on the dangers of corporatism and federal power.
mises.org - "What's not to like about a regulatory nudge?".
beforeitsnews.com - "18 signs that life in U.S. public schools is now essentially equivalent to life in U.S. prisons". Often, we read "news" that seems too outrageous to be true. Would a federal judge really rule that TSA agents must be present during security searches at high school proms (#3)? Would school districts secretly record webcam images of students from laptops students were given to use at home (#2)? Would a public school ever ban parents from sending their children to school with home-packed lunches (#5)? Would public schools ever get so paranoid (of vandalism and other problems) that they would actually install cameras in student bathrooms (#12)? During the original Patriot Act discussions, we argued that giving up liberty for the sake of security was a slippery slope into statism. I think many people, however, did not believe these security measures would have any impact on daily life. This article seems to suggest otherwise. We now have an environment where the "authorities", whether local, state, or federal, seem to think they have unrestrained control over our lives. What does this mean? Simply this, people in power (at any level) tend to believe they are better equipped to make decisions about our lives, liberty, and property than we are. Don't look now, but Leviathan is already here.
May 31, 2011
TomDispatch.com - "Welcome to post-legal America". This article is really interesting. It discusses the formerly illegal torture techniques becoming legal, as well as other matters. Here's an interesting excerpt, "To put it another way, every CIA torturer, all those involved in acts of rendition, and all the officials who okayed such acts, as well as the lawyers who put their stamp of approval on them, are free to continue their lives untouched. Recently, the Obama administration even went to court to `prevent a lawyer for a former CIA officer convicted in Italy in the kidnapping of a radical Muslim cleric from privately sharing classified information about the case with a Federal District Court judge.' (Yes, Virginia, elsewhere in the world a few Americans have been tried in absentia for Bush-era crimes.) In response, wrote Scott Shane of the New York Times, the judge 'pronounced herself `literally speechless.''"
Campaign for Liberty - "Hidden inflation and debilitating deficits".
TheAtlanticWire.com - "Egyptian general defends `virginity checks' on protesters". This is a shocking continuation of a news story that seems to have go underreported in the mainstream media. One disturbing revelation is the view of women, as described by an unnamed Egyptian general, "The girls who were detained were not like your daughters or mine. These were girls who had camped out in tents with male protesters...." Allegedly, the virginity checks were done because the authorities were worried that these females would suggest they were sexually assaulted after being detained, and "so we wanted to prove that they weren't virgins in the first place." This is a troubling revelation, and yet describes the types of "logic" that are used when people's liberties are not valued and protected.
Reason.com - "Obamacare's disastrous new long-term care entitlement". We often hear federal legislators describing how "the Congressional Budget Office scored the budget". The CBO is charged with officially determining the fiscal projections of a particular piece of legislation. However, they must trust the lawmakers' promises, including future spending cuts or other items. This is important because it shows how problematic these projections are, and also provides a mechanism for lawmakers to alter the CBO's projections by including unnecessary and/or unwise budget items. For example, the authors of Obamacare included a $70B long-term care entitlement, acronym CLASS, to specifically alter the CBO's projections. Remember when these lawmakers said that Obamacare was fiscally responsible, and that it would help reduce the deficit? They even suggested that the program would be self-sustaining for the next 75 years. Now it seems that within 20 years the program will be spending far into deficit. Additionally, the CBO scored the $70B in premium payments during the first ten years as deficit reduction, even though those premiums will eventually be used to pay out benefits. This is nothing more than a shell game, and those supporting Obamacare were quite willing to manipulate the shells to put their proposal in the best possible light. As Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in February, "While the law outlined a framework for the CLASS Act, we determined pretty quickly that it would not meet the requirement that the act be self-sustaining and not rely on taxpayer assistance." Furthermore, the requirements of Obamacare point to an insurance "death spiral". The article does a fine job outlining the death spiral, as well as these other problems with Obamacare.
Reason.com - "Big trouble in Little Hoover".
New York Times - "A post-9/11 registration effort ends, but not its effects".
May 30, 2011
TownHall.com - "Crying Rape".
AZcentral.com - "Limit on illegal-immigrant lawsuits faces test of constitutionality".
May 28, 2011
Washington Times - "G-8: $40B sought to help fund Arab Spring".
May 27, 2011
The Freeman - "The goal of freedom: Lawless government".
KOAT.com (an ABC affiliate) - "No TSA agents at prom despite court ruling". A federal judge ruled that TSA agents be present at school district pat-downs. The ruling stems from two female students who suggested they were touched inappropriately during a recent dance. There are a number of problems with this ruling. First, the TSA was not formed to handle all security items nationwide. Second, it is inappropriate to give the TSA more power and influence, especially given the recent public outrage to their pat-downs. Third, putting these controversial pat-downs in place in schools, where minors would be the target, is problematic. As we are finding in the airports, people do not believe they should have to agree to these invasive techniques that would be criminal if a stranger on the street used these same actions. Obviously, we can't look to the federal government for help here, because the federal courts are complicit in this reduction of our rights. Therefore, it is even more important now for states to follow Texas' example and begin to fight back against this unconstitutional government agency. They are currently suggesting the TSA be involved in school pat-downs. If we don't fight back now, where else will we find TSA agents in the future?
May 26, 2011
Reason.com - "Big brother is watching you". This article on civil liberties is quite important. A disturbing trend has emerged in the wake of anti-terrorism efforts. Back in 1991, George Holliday released the Rodney King videotape and changed the landscape of police-citizen interactions. It was freely acknowledged that this videotape was essential because it gave the private citizen, in this case an African-American, protection from abuse by those in power. Most people in America probably felt as though the videotaping of police officers was a safeguard on our civil liberties. Fast-forward to today. In many states, if the same situation occurred today, George Holliday would be prosecuted and imprisoned for wiretapping. We need to remind lawmakers that the Constitution protects the privacy of individuals, not the privacy of those in power. Otherwise, we will move into a much more dangerous time.
Washington Times - "House lawmakers push to get U.S. out of Afghanistan".
The Independent Institute - "Where'd the Patriot Act malcontents go?".
Washington Post - "Obama to scale back regulations in effort to spur growth". To quote the article, "`The purpose of the review was to identify rules that need to be changed or removed because they are out-of-date, unnecessary, excessively burdensome, or in conflict with other rules,' said a statement by the Office of Management and Budget, which is coordinating the review. `It was an ambitious first step toward ensuring that all regulations on the books are having the intended effect, and at the lowest possible cost to American businesses, states and individuals.'" This is a welcome development, because businesses are consistently stifled by burdensome regulations. However, this may be just a smokescreen for the Obama administration, since they have not been viewed by American businesses as friendly. The most important development here might be that this administration acknowledges the adverse effect of governmental regulations on business growth. What many people do not realize is the amount of resources (e.g., money, people-hours, legal fees) required absorb much more business capital than originally intended. The public sector is not immune from these costs either. For example, some universities are required to work with their state department of education to re-certify their teacher education programs. During these re-certification efforts, each department with a teacher education program is required to submit state-level paperwork, and the people-hours alone most likely will be more than 100 hours. This is 2.5 weeks of work that is siphoned from productive capacity into regulatory compliance. If you add this up for a reasonably-sized institution, this re-certification would require an estimated 85 weeks of labor. There is no way that it can be argued, as Obama's administration argues, that this can be fixed by simply attempting to streamline the regulations. Instead, Americans must look to reduce the regulatory requirements so that businesses aren't losing productive capacity at all times, not just in times of recession.
LA Times - "A man's castle, under code enforcement seize".
USA Today - "Supreme court upholds Ariz. employer sanctions law". This is an interesting article, but not for the obvious reasons. Arizona's appeal to the Supreme Court on this case sets a bad precedent. The state should not ask the federal government for permission here. The states have rights as well, and the states need to exert these rights. We suggest that anyone interested in states' rights should read the book `Nullification' by Tom Woods.
May 25, 2011
tenthamendmentcenter.com - "Warning from D.C.: No Fly Zone For Texas?". This is a critical article. It describes the extent to which the federal government is willing to infringe upon a state's sovereignty. During the original Real ID debates, a few governors stood up to the federal government and said that the requirements were too strict. One such governor, Brian Schweitzer (D-MT), went on Meet the Press and described how the state of Montana was not going to follow the federal Real ID law. Other states held similar positions. The result was that the federal government was unable to enforce the Real ID law. In this article, Texas is attempting to push back against the TSA security procedures. The federal government seems to be willing to engage the states now, and so we can expect more challenges to state sovereignty in the future. If the state of Texas wants to interpose between the federal government and its citizens, it should pass legislation such as the Federal Tax Funds Act. This Act requires that all federal taxes to first come to the state's department of revenue to be held until they are released to the federal government. Before being released, however, a panel of legislators would determine what percentage of the federal government's budget is Constitutional, and then they would forward only that amount to the federal government. That way, the federal government would not be able to hold back funds when states decide a particular law is unconstitutional. Additionally, if the federal government sues the state government, as it did in Arizona, the state would be able to withhold the funds necessary to mount the legal challenge. However, we would argue that fighting a legal battle at the U.S. Supreme Court, when a state is arguing that a federal law is unconstitutional, is not appropriate. Instead, the states should model the "Principles of '98" and use the language provided by Jefferson and Madison. In effect, they argued that the states should simply nullify these unconstitutional laws.
LA Times - "Male circumcision opponents propose ballot measure in Santa Monica". This article describes a ballot measure which attempts to make it a misdemeanor to circumcise a boy under the age of 18, regardless of religious affiliation or parental wishes. Judaism requires all males to be circumcised, and this measure openly targets circumcision for religious (and other) reasons. The ballot authors argue that they are attempting to give boys the same protections that are currently afforded girls under California state law. However, this article describes the belief among some people that the government should take over the role of making these types of decisions for the family. If the sovereign unit is an individual, or a family for children under age 18, then the family's liberties must be protected from the will of the majority. We do not live in a democracy where majority wins - we live in a Constitutional Republic where the rights of the individuals and families are protected from both the will of the majority and governmental overreach.
C-SPAN (on YouTube) - Rand Paul's discussion on the floor of the senate regarding the Patriot Act. Whether or not you agree with the Patriot Act, you should watch this video. It describes some of the lesser-known portions of the Patriot Act. As senator Paul said, "Right now, if you have a Visa bill that's over $5000 and you choose to pay for it over the phone, which is a wire transfer, the government is probably looking at your visa bill. They don't have to show probable cause, and they don't have to have a judge's warrant. And this does apply to U.S. citizens." It also describes some of the problems associated with indiscriminate monitoring. More importantly, Senator Harry Reid leveled a shocking accusation against Senator Paul, suggesting that he wants to arm terrorists. You can hear Senator Paul's response to this wildly inappropriate accusation here. If anything, Senator Reid's statement shows just how far federal officials will go to obtain additional federal power. Here's what then-senator Obama wrote on December 14, 2005, "In the last week of the session, the Senate is being asked to reauthorize the Patriot Act without adequate opportunity for debate... We should not just make permanent or, in the case of three provisions, extend for another four years the most controversial provisions of the Patriot Act. The sunsets this year provide our best opportunity to make the meaningful changes to the Patriot Act that the American public has demanded. Now is the time to fix these provisions." This is eerily similar to what is happening now, and yet the difference is that this time both the Republicans and Democrats are pushing this unconstitutional act.
biggovernment.com - "Family facing $4 million in fines for selling bunnies".
The Hill - "Reid says Paul is fighting to protect terrorists". Partisan politics have reached a new low.
May 24, 2011
Cato.org - "Illegal wars? Congress doesn't care". This article is a must-read for both liberals and conservatives. Quoting the article, "The president sent a letter to congressional leaders insisting - bizarrely - that drone attacks and `suppression and destruction of air defenses' don't qualify as `hostilities' under the resolution. `The U.S. role is one of support,' an Obama adviser told ABC News, `and the kinetic pieces of that are intermittent.' There's no senate action scheduled on the WPR, Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, D-Mass., says it's because `we're deferring to NATO.'" This is the most compelling reason given yet to hold all elected officials accountable to their oath to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution. At this point, our elected officials have transferred sovereign power to an international community. If our elected leaders, both liberals and conservatives, shirk their responsibilities in our Constitutional Republic, we must take the necessary steps to insure our sovereign rights are protected.
mikechurch.com - "Indiana Sheriff: If we need to conduct RANDOM HOUSE to HOUSE searches, we will".
rutherford.org - "Free Speech Violation: Park Ranger Orders Visitor to Leave National Military Park, Citing Objection to Ron Paul Decals on Car". This article is a reminder of a February 20, 2009 secret report, issued by the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC), that "specifically describes supporters of presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr as `militia' influenced terrorists and instructs the Missouri police to be on the lookout for supporters displaying bumper stickers and other paraphernalia associated with the Constitutional, Campaign for Liberty, and Libertarian parties." After the report surfaced in the media on March 11, 2009, the Missouri Highway Patrol issued an order on March 25, 2009 to "permanently cease distribution." In this rutherford article, it is clear that these groups are still being targeted, and that they are being targeted in South Carolina as well. MIAC is a "fusion center", which combines resources from the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies to combat terrorism. This is a clear indication that some of the efforts endorsed by the Patriot Act are not constitutional. Missouri has since passed legislation protecting against this type of political profiling, and the legislation will remove funding for the MIAC if they continue this unconstitutional profiling. Those interested in protecting liberty should make themselves aware of the actions of any fusion centers in their geographic area.
AZCentral.com - "Arizona officials to put medical pot program on hold".
LA Times - "U.S. Supreme Court orders massive inmate release to relieve California's crowded prisons".
Washington Post - "From China, an end-run around U.S. tariffs".
Mises.org - "The conquest of the U.S. by Spain".
Campaign for Liberty - "It's the missions, stupid".
Washington Times - "Senate debates president's power during cyber attack".
TomDispatch.com - "Pakistan's other partner".
May 23, 2011
Time - "Calif. to cut prison inmates by 30K".
Town Hall - "ABC's Partial Birth Hero". This describes one show from Private Practice. In it, one of the doctors seems to encourage a pregnant mother to have an abortion, while another doctor argues against it. In this show, the pro-life doctor is portrayed as the outsider. The article provides a good analysis of this apparent policy change in Hollywood.
Washington Times - "U.S. quietly expanding defense ties with Saudis". One of the projects here is to develop an elite force to protect oil and "future nuclear sites". It is probably important to remember that most of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, not Iraq or Afghanistan, and yet we've been bogged down in two wars with amorphic missions. This project might be an attempt to calm tensions between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia after the ousting of Egyptian president Mubarak. Government officials suggest this alliance is essential in our Israel-Palestinian efforts, as well as our oil needs. However, these types of alliances are problematic at best.
USA Today - "Ireland's debt crisis, austerity offer lesson for Obama".
Reason.com - "Moralizing against McDonalds".
Reason.com - "The facts about social security".
May 22, 2011
The Blaze - "Gold and silver coins to be legal currency in Utah". Constitutional currency is alive and well in Utah. Amazingly, Utah is the only state in the Union that allows gold and silver coins as currency, as required by the Constitution. This is an example of Constitutional Tender Legislation. Montana had a similar bill fail in the House (48-52), while Iowa, South Carolina, and Georgia have pre-filed or active bills under consideration in 2011. Basically, the law provides a method to protect its citizens from government policies to inflate (and therefore devalue) the currency supply. One difficulty that will arise in Utah is that citizens choosing to protect their wealth from inflation by purchasing these gold and silver coins will have to pay capital gains taxes on them. This exacerbates the problems associated with making the choice to return to a sound currency. Another concern is that, just like during the 1930s, the federal government might confiscate these coins. Therefore, Utah should pass legislation such as the Federal Tax Funds Act. This Act requires that all federal taxes to first come to the state's department of revenue to be held until they are released to the federal government. Before being released, however, a panel of legislators would determine what percentage of the federal government's budget is Constitutional, and then they would forward only that amount to the federal government. With this Act in place, Utah would be able to return all capital gains taxes assessed on gold and silver back to the citizen. Finally, Utah will need to pass Sheriffs First legislation. "A `Sheriffs First' bill would make it a state crime for any federal agent to make an arrest, search, or seizure within the state without first getting the advanced, written permission of the elected county sheriff of the county in which the event is to take place." In effect, any agent acting on behalf of the federal government to reacquire these capital gains funds would be arrested by the county sheriff and charged with theft, illegal search/seizure, kidnapping, etc. as appropriate. Utah has taken a bold and necessary first step, but they still need to protect their citizens from the unconstitutional overreach of the federal government here.
The Hill - "Obama meeting Netanyaho after call for '67 borders as deal starting point".
Wall Street Journal - "Lawmakers agree to Patriot Act extension". They didn't include oversight provisions, however.
Washington Times - "DeMint rips labor board, Democrats in Boeing flap".
May 21, 2011
emergency.cdc.gov (Center for Disease Control and Prevention) - "Social Media: Preparedness 101: Zombie Apocalypse". Yes, this is not a typo. This is an example of a "catchy and innovative" method employed by the CDC to promote preparedness. If we haven't realized that the CDC might have gone far beyond its usefulness, this might help us arrive at that decision.
May 20, 2011
Biggovernment.com - "Joe Biden to impeach Barack Obama tomorrow?". During an interview on Hardball in 2007, Biden described why he believed that the president did not have the Constitutional authority to target Iran without congressional authorization. Obviously, the target of this warning was then-president Bush. Biden also acknowledged that he had a number of Constitutional scholars involved in the writing of a memo stating this position. Additionally, then-senator Obama said on December 20, 2007, "The president does not have the power under the constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." These statements seem clear that both the president and the vice-president have acknowledged that congressional approval is required prior to military intervention. Back in 1998, Clinton bombed Iraq, Sudan, and Afghanistan without congressional approval. On December 16, 1998, Representative Ron Paul argued that the impeachment proceedings moving forward against Clinton should have included this unconstitutional executive decision. Paul said during a press conference, "I wish the Congress would address the unconstitutionality of presidents waging war. That to me is a lot more serious than Monica Lewinsky...It [waging war in Iraq] has nothing to do with national security." What is most alarming about the current situation is that very few in Washington seem to be concerned about our current actions in Libya, even though we have continued those interventions for more than 60 days without any Congressional authorization. Could it be that the neo-conservative position of aggressive war actions has infiltrated both parties? What if President Obama orders all combat operations in Libya to cease for a period of two days? Can he "restart the 60-day clock" then? These are the questions that arise when Congress does not enforce their position of authority to wage war.
May 18, 2011
Washington Post - "Supreme Court affirms police action in Kentucky drug case".
Washington Post - "Lawmakers defend french fries as government limits potatoes in school lunches".
The Hill - "Actuary: Cost-cutting trumped policy in key medicare regulation".
The Hill - "Groups worry DHS is pushing EU to weaken privacy protections".
Washington Times - "NLRB takes unconstitutional stance on Boeing's expansion".
NewsMax.com - "Santorum: McCain doesn't understand interrogation". This is tough sledding, even for the most neo-conservative politicians. McCain spent 5 1/2 years as a prisoner of war, enduring harsh interrogation. However, even if he hadn't, he still has the evidence on his side. This is an example of how neo-conservative policies have taken over the mainstream Republican agenda, and it is obviously neither conservative nor constitutional.
May 17, 2011
WeMeantWell.com - "State Department censors websites China allows". Although the title of this piece seems alarming enough in a "free" society, more detail is necessary to fully explain the situation. On May 15, 2011, Peter Van Buren's article on warrior pundits (included below) was posted on TomDispatch. As Tom Engelhardt points out, "The next morning, at his We Meant Well blog, Van Buren put up a post discussing the fate of TomDispatch on the State Department's computers. (Hint: it's banned)." This is obviously an attempt by the government to control access to information not aligned with its pro-government policies. Strangely, one justification forwarded is that some of the content of Wikileaks can be found on the site. However, there is much more detail on Wikileaks information on larger, mainstream news sites. Besides, the Wikileaks information is accessible from dozens of internet sites, regardless of whether or not the government continues to list the information as classified. Therefore, it is not reasonable to suggest that the Wikileaks information is the reason for the blackout. We have seen our government, cloaked in secrecy, target the media when it doesn't portray the government's actions in the best possible light (e.g., Rolling Stone and embedded journalists, Wikileaks private Manning, TomDispatch). This is dangerous, not only for the current stories, but because other media outlets may be unwilling to publish newsworthy items (or might modify their delivery) in order to continue receiving favorable government treatment. This changes the dynamic from a free and independent press to a controlled propaganda machine, and it sounds as though the machine is just beginning to rev up.
WarinContext.org - "Obama's war against whistleblowers". Again, this shows how the Obama administration is attempting to control the flow of information.
Mises.org - "The Google Pharm Case". This is a really good article. It outlines the problems with government intervention into the prescription drug arena, including out-of-control costs. It also describes the coercive tendencies of the federal government when targeting Google in this case. They are attempting to hold Google accountable for advertisers' actions on its site. It is difficult to imagine the federal government holding the New York Times accountable for the actions of one of its advertisers, but this is what the government is doing to google. It is clear in this case that interventionism leads to a variety of anti-liberty consequences.
Arizonacentral.com - "LED bulbs hit 100 watts as federal ban looms". Traditional light bulbs of 100w or higher will be banned in 2012. Here is yet another example of government regulation gone wild. The government's preferred replacement bulbs have an estimated cost of $50 each. That's right, $50 for one light bulb. These preferred light bulbs also contain small amounts of mercury, making them more difficult to dispose of. Will the government also legislate a disposal method to save the environment from the mercury increase? It is probably true that most people would like to save energy if given the opportunity. However, the government should allow the free market to determine how to do this, rather than legislating preferred areas. This has the opposite effect of a free market. In this case, the preferred areas receive a virtual monopoly on the market, which suppresses innovation while increasing prices.
Arizonacentral.com - "Arizona aims to build a border fence".
The Hill - "HHS: Pelosi had no influence on healthcare waivers to her district". Most conservative news agencies are going to focus on the issue that about 19% of the waivers granted by HHS in April went to Pelosi's district. This seems to show bias. Steve Larsen, the director of the HHS Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight, said, "These temporary waivers are necessary to help ensure that the waiters, dishwashers, maids, home health aides, and other hardworking people can keep the health coverage they have, while we transition to 2014, when they will have access to affordable coverage in a competitive marketplace." However, we are more concerned with another quote from that blog. In it, Pelosi's spokesman is quoted as saying, "It is pathetic that there are those who would be cheering for Americans to lose their minimum health coverage or see their premiums increase for political purposes. The complaints coming from this crowd that supports ending Medicare is just another example of putting politics first." This quote should be analyzed in detail. First, why are waivers necessary? If what we were told when the healthcare debate was raging was true, people could keep their current insurance. Why are the waiters, dishwashers, etc. losing this insurance? If this seems to be a widespread problem, why are only certain groups being protected? Second, why are premiums rising? Opponents of this healthcare reform package argued that the inclusion of pre-existing conditions would drive up premiums. They also argued that many businesses would drop their healthcare packages if they were forced to insure everyone at the same rates. We don't believe either side is cheering for Americans to suffer hardship to make a political point. However, we also think that some of this fallout was a foreseeable consequence of the government takeover of healthcare. It might be that Pelosi would have known about these foreseeable problems if she had read the bill before she passed it.
CourierPostOnline.com - "New security features for driver's licenses". A direct quote from the article, "State officials can tell you all about why they're introducing a new digital driver's license with enhanced security features. But what's changed? Well, that's a secret." Is this an attempt by the federal government to circumvent the states' unwillingness to enforce RealID? Only time will tell.
May 16, 2011
USA Today - "Justices ok warrantless searches".
Indiana Supreme Court - "Barnes v. State of Indiana".
The American Conservative - "Who's a Republican?" by Jack Hunter. This link takes you to a YouTube video that contains images to go with Mr. Hunter's narrated column. His column discusses the recent questions by pundits regarding whether or not Representative Paul is running for the right party's nomination. Mr. Hunter's eloquent narrative provides a framework for assessing conservative policies in the future.
The Telegraph - "Cancer sufferer's shotgun confiscated after traveller `throat slit' threat". Although this news item comes from the U.K., it illustrates the potential problem associated with requiring individuals to ask for permission from the government (in the form of registration lists) to own and/or carry firearms for protection. In this case, the victim's property was being stolen and abused, while she was threatened, and she called the authorities for protection. The result was that they disarmed her after the fact, and have not apprehended the suspects. She is now less safe than before she called the authorities, and yet many people in the U.S. still argue that these types of fears are unfounded.
Washington Post - "Exclusive: Private letter from CIA chief undercuts claim torture was key to killing Bin Laden".
Washington Post - "Treasury to tap pensions to help fund government".
Newsmax.com - "Gingrich backs Obamacare's individual mandate requiring health insurance".
The Hill - "Conservatives' bill aims for strict spending limit of 18% of GDP".
Campaign for Liberty - "The End of Bernanke's `End Game'".
LA Times - "Hague prosecutor seeks indictment for Kadafi".
Business week - "Governor says business eminent domain bill to become law". This is an extremely important topic. It shows the utter disregard of property rights in these current eminent domain arguments. In this particular case, private property rights are being transferred from one private individual to a private business and not to the public. Notice, the argument in favor of this transfer is still one "for public good", but the actual transfer involves taking private property from one private landowner and giving it to another. Essentially, the argument is that the second owner will "make better use" of the land. There is nothing Constitutional about this type of transfer, and citizens must challenge their lawmakers to write clear, unambiguous state laws that do not allow this practice.
May 15, 2011
New York Times - "At deadline, U.S. seeks to continue war in Libya".
Nationalinterest.org - "The Obama Administration's artful evasions over the War Power".
Washington Times - "Rising food and gas costs push up consumer prices".
TomDispatch.com - "Peter Van Buren, warrior pundits, and war pornographers". There is some reasonably strong language in this piece, but it is quite remarkable. It acknowledges the difficulty reporters have remaining objective as they embed with military groups. It is an important work, especially considering our media's emphasis on hiring former military personnel as "experts" and embedding journalists at various sites around the world.
May 14, 2011
Tenthamendmentcenter.com - "In public statement, TSA lies about the Constitution".
Washington Times - "Social security benefits now `permanent'".
Washington Times - "Libyan rebels seek cash, recognition at White House".
Washington Times - "Rising food and gas costs push up consumer prices".
Politico.com - "GOP struggles for Patriot Act votes".
LA Times - "Legal maneuver will not thwart attempts by teachers union to undo charter-school conversion". Here's the real tragedy of the situation - the current public school has an extremely poor track record of student academic success, with only 18% of students scoring as proficient or above in English and only 9.9% of students scoring at proficient or above in math. The district is attempting to change this by converting the school to a charter school. Incidentally, the company being granted the charter, Green Dot, acknowledges teachers unions. The difficulty might be that the union available for teachers in the Green Dot charter school is not the same as the current public school teachers' union.
May 13, 2011
Daily Caller (Op. Ed. by Rep. Rob Bishop) - "14 trillion reasons for a repeal amendment". This is a step backward, not forward, in our quest for States' Rights. This is even more alarming given that its authors are Republicans. Here's how Bishop describes it, "If adopted, the Repeal Amendment would bring a careful but powerful shift in the balance of power between state representatives and federal officials. The amendment would force the federal government to reconsider provisions of law that no longer have support around the nation. It would bring one element of decision-making power out of Washington and return it to the people. It would also provide states with a tool to address federal encroachment by reversing congressional acts and regulations so long as a two-thirds consensus is reached nationwide." Make no mistake, this is a bad idea, because it suggests that the federal government can still overrule the states, and minority states have to relinquish their sovereignty unnecessarily. Instead, these lawmakers should focus on the proud States' Rights tradition of Nullification, which truly keeps the power in the hands of the states and the people.
The Freeman - "About those oil company tax breaks" by Sheldon Richman.
Mises.org - "The pricing politburo slams shampoo". Yes, this is an article about the regulation of $1 shampoo. It contains a very detailed analysis of how the federal government chooses to litigate antitrust cases, and why these efforts are unnecessary. It is a lengthy article, but is well worth the read. In the end, the government suggests that it saved consumers from a 5% increase in price (which would amount to $0.05). As for the current prices, the article describes difference in neighboring stores of $0.23. Therefore, even if we acknowledge that the government saves us $0.05 (which we don't), that is an insignificant amount when taking into account the price range in a local market. This is another example of wasteful government intervention and regulation leading to a more constrained, and therefore less free, market.
Wall Street Journal - "Ugly modeling".
wired.com - "Battle brews over FBI's warrantless GPS tracking".
YouTube - "Hearing on monetary policy and the debt ceiling". This is a long video (about 1.5 hours) but contains some interesting perspectives on the economics of enforcing or raising the debt ceiling. You might want to instead find this hearing on iTunes and listen to is as a radio program instead.
YouTube - Here are two very important videos from the CPAC 2010 and 2011 conventions. The point of the first video is to show how Fox News incorrectly airs 2010 video footage (showing crowd disapproval of Ron Paul winning the 2010 straw poll) and suggests it contains the 2011 straw poll results (which Ron Paul won again). The point of the second video is to show that Fox News acknowledged the air. This is important, if only to show how mainstream media can, either unintentionally or intentionally, sway public opinion simply by covering a story a certain way.
May 12, 2011
Washington Post (Op Ed by John McCain) - "Bin Laden's death and the debate over torture". This is an extremely important article because McCain outlines the information he received from the government regarding how the information leading to Bin Laden was acquired. In fact, he shows that NONE of the initial information regarding the courier came from KSM, and was NOT acquired through enhanced interrogation techniques. Obviously, neo-conservatives have been quick to support torture because their "ends justify the means". As McCain points out, our use of enhanced interrogation techniques on KSM might have slowed our process due to false statements. For more detail, the Washington Post provides another article here.
Cato.org - "Monetary policy and the debt ceiling: Examining the relationship between the Federal Reserve and government debt" by Bert Ely. Testimony was delivered on May 11, 2011 to the Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology Committee on Financial Services, United States House of Representatives.
USA Today - "Obama: Full recovery will `take us several years'". It is important to remember that interventionist monetary policies, endorsed by both major parties and implemented by the Federal Reserve, create boom-bust cycles. This description is one of the profound achievements of Austrian economics. In an free market economy, the interest rate is the time-link between consumers and businesses. When consumers save, they put off purchasing now in order to purchase in the future. As capital accumulates in local banks, they will want to loan out this capital to earn more money. To induce groups (usually small businesses) to take out loans, the banks lower the interest rate. Now, the business community is enticed to take out capital loans because the long-term interest costs are lower. Additionally, since the consumers are purchasing less, raw material resources build up and the cost of raw materials (e.g., boards, cement, bricks) go down. In this scenario, the businesses taking out capital loans benefit from lower building costs as well as low interest rates. When the consumers begin spending again, the banks have less capital on hand and they begin to raise interest rates, telling the business community that capital investments are not feasible now. That's how it is supposed to work. However, when the Federal Reserve artificially manipulates interest rates, it removes the time-link between consumers and business. In that scenario, both consumers and businesses are enticed to take out large loans because "money is cheap", which then causes the prices of raw goods to go up due to increased demand. Additionally, there are no more raw goods available in the economy, and therefore there are cost overruns and not all projects can be finished. Businesses make poor choices regarding capital investment because they are no longer able to determine what consumers' time preferences are for future purchasing. This leads to periods of booming economy, followed by busts as the market readjusts and cleanses itself of the malinvestment. Knowing this, any politician who says these recoveries should take years should refer to the Depression of 1920-1921. For a reminder, see Robert Murphy's powerful essay, "The Depression You've Never Heard Of: 1920-1921".
The Hill - "Business groups: Up debt ceiling now". Many conservatives argue that we need to help the business community in general, and small businesses in particular, in order to stimulate the economy. However, faulty monetary policies help neither, and cause the boom-bust cycles that decimate business and individual wealth. In this article, business groups argue that the government should increase the debt ceiling because "It's critically important that the U.S. stands fully behind its legal obligations." However, the "too big to fail" businesses have not stood fully behind their obligations, and were bailed out by our government. Remember the results of these bailouts - more debt for the U.S. and record profits for business. An inflationary monetary policy, and a distorted business cycle due to artificial interest rates, spell disaster for the economy. However, most business people and politicians do not understand this. We've been watching the ratio of the value of the Dow Jones Industrial Average versus the price of an ounce in gold since December, 2008. If you watch this ratio, you will see how many ounces of gold would be required to "purchase the value of the Dow." In December 2008, this ratio was 10.31. The average value in 2009 was 9.13. In 2010, 8.72 ounces of gold would purchase the Dow, while so far in 2011 the Dow could be purchased for 8.56 ounces of gold. As you can see, any increase in the price of stocks during this time is due to the inflation of the supply of dollars. We are not in an economic recovery, and Austrian economics supports these positions. Upping the debt ceiling will result in more inflation, more federal spending, and more problems for our economy. The only way to fix the economy is to drastically cut spending and reduce taxes on corporations and individuals alike. To appease both conservatives and liberals, we suggest reducing all personal income tax rates to zero percent.
Washington Times - "Congress presses Obama on Libya decision". Congress has long since voluntarily transferred its Constitutional powers to the Executive branch. With each administration, more power is accumulated. At this point, Congress must read and review our founding documents - the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution - and remind themselves why our Founding Fathers were so critical of a strong Executive branch.
USA Today - "Missouri farmers return to lands ruined by blown levee". Our Founders argued that the role of the government should be to protect and individual's life, liberty, and property. In the debates on whether to form a republic or a democracy, one essential point was that the an individual must be protected from harm by majority rule. What we see in this article, as well as many other areas, is that property rights of some people are infringed upon to benefit others. Look back at the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927 for perspective. The business community of New Orleans got together and convinced the city to flood some of the poorer neighborhood to save the city. Of course, the property owners were assured they would receive compensation. As you can probably guess, most were not compensated. Shockingly, that intentional flooding was unnecessary due to other breaches further upstream. This is a property rights argument, and the government's arbitrary protection of some people's property by ruining other people's property is impossible to align with our Constitution.
AZcentral.com - "Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne testifies about border".
May 11, 2011
Newsmax.com - "Steve Forbes: Gold standard to return in five years".
Paul.senate.gov (press release) - "Sen. Paul calls for action on federal budget"
Campaign for LIberty - "Let the Patriot Act expire", by Philip Giraldi, a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer.
Reason.com - "False forbearance: Obama breaks his promise to respect medical marijuana laws".
Washington Times - "Obama says border is secure enough to begin legalization".
Washington Post - "Romney focused on outraising - by far - Republican presidential competitors". It is sometimes instructive to look where most of a candidate's funding comes from. In Romney's case, most comes from Wall Street and the banking system. Keep that in mind when you evaluate his answers regarding fiscal policy, bailouts, and the Federal Reserve.
Washington Post - "Postal Service loses $2.2 billion in second quarter".
Washington Times - "U.S. policy hastens Chinese ascent".
Washington Times - "New open-shop Boeing plant sparks uproar". In the interest of consistency, our view on this issue is that a National Labor Relations Board violates some fundamental principles that we think all Americans should hold dear. Among these is the concept of Federalism. It should be the right of all people of a state to decide for themselves what actions, if any, to take with regard to regulation of corporations. It should also be the right of every individual, no matter in what state they may reside, to decide what types of contracts into which they should enter. For instance, if the unionized employees of the Washington State Boeing plants want to continue contracting with the company through collective bargaining, they have that right. It should never be within the power of the Federal government or any other government to either advance nor inhibit that right. On the other hand, if the new South Carolina workers wish to work for Boeing under a non-union agreement, they have that right as well and it should be up to them and Boeing, not the government, whether or not that occurs. The only role any government should take in this matter is to help enforce whatever contract the two parties may decide to agree on. It might be interesting, in this economy, to ask yourself whether this plant would be desired in your area. Should the people of South Carolina have less opportunity to obtain these jobs because they do not support the unions from other areas? Shouldn't the communities of each area decide how they plan to recruit these types of businesses, rather than being forced to align with the unionized views of others?
USA Today - "Lawyer: Iran postpones trial of 3 Americans accused of spying". Oddly, we seem to know that it is not acceptable that our people do not receive an expedient trial, and yet we do not offer that model to those detained in Guantanamo. It might be that our policy there will influence how our own citizens are treated when apprehended abroad.
New York Times - "Federal retreat on bigger loans rattles housing".
wealthcycles.com - "How the Hunt brothers capped gold...Yes GOLD".
Politico.com - "GOP seeks to redefine war on terror".
May 10, 2011
Washington Post - "Bin Laden's killing requires new look at Afghan strategy, Kerry says".
Washington Post - "Rise in FBI use of National Security Letters".
Mises.org - "When Capital is No Longer in View".
May 9, 2011
Reason.com - "Tortured Logic".
Tenth Amendment Center - "Nonsense - Analyzing the Heritage Position on Nullification".
Independence Institute - "The Enumerated Powers of the States".
May 7, 2011
Huffington Post - "It's time to audit the Fed".
Huffington Post - "Nearly half of Detroit's adults are functionally illiterate, report finds".
The Hill - "Obama administration floats draft plan to tax cars by the mile".
Newsmax.com - "Arizona Sheriff: Feds order release of illegals to phony up numbers".
May 6, 2011
Washington Post - "Dollar diplomacy: Public policy calls for `strong' currency, but strategy may not". Notice Treasury Secretary Geithner's double-talk here. We have been systematically devaluing our dollar, while simultaneously accusing China of being a "currency manipulator". Interestingly, China's yuan is pegged to the U.S. dollar, so it seems as though our accusations are mere political posturing. Instead of allowing our dollar to slide further, we need to push our dollar to strengthen, so we can reverse the inflationary trends of the last decades.
May 5, 2011
New York Times - "Falling grades on civics exam called a 'crisis'".
mises.org - "Why everything is dirtier". This is a great description of how government interventionism actually makes us worse off.
Campaign for Liberty - "The attack on the washing machine".
Washington Post - "House approves ban on tax funding for abortions".
Washington Post - "Gray wolves in N. Rockies losing endangered species protections".
Washington Times - "Department of Homeland Security wants new yardstick for improvements".
May 4, 2011
CBS - "Expert: Security checkpoints near soft targets may soon become the norm".
Foreign Policy - "A radical plan for cutting the defense budget and reconfiguring the U.S. military". - Colonel Douglas MacGregor, retired
Foreign Policy - "Lean, mean fighting machine" - Colonel Douglas MacGregor, retired
Reason.com - "No Surrender: Does Bin Laden's death vindicate Obama's policy of targeted killings?"
Washington Times - "Debate flares anew on harsh interrogation". Please note how quickly neo-conservatives jump to support torture. Do the ends justify the means? Many military personnel (e.g., Colin Powell) don't think so, because they know that other countries will now treat our military people the same way upon capture. We must realize that we have now dramatically altered our trajectory as a nation. Our Constitution protects the natural rights of all people under our jurisdiction, regardless of their citizenship status. Such blatant disregard for these God-given rights is a tipping point toward a very slippery slope.
Los Angeles Times - "Indiana opening new front in abortion battle". This is precisely why states need to pass legislation like a Federal Tax Fund Act that includes a Federal Tax Escrow Account.
May 3, 2011
Reason.com - "The Arab Spring - the middle east's breathtaking liberalization is really not about us".
National Inflation Association - "Osama Bin Laden to cause U.S. hyperinflation".
Tom Dispatch - "War Redux", by Adam Hochschild.
Wall Street Journal - "New Mideast turns away from a terrorist." Please note this quote: "Pro-American governments in Egypt and Tunisia fell this year at the hands of a new generation of peaceful protesters. They demanded democracy, human rights and social justice, not the return to puritan Islamic rule espoused by bin Laden." [emphasis added]. As with most foreign interventionism, our efforts might not be in the best interest of the people in the region, or for America for that matter. This quote makes it clear that we were not supporting democracies...
Washington Post - "Bin Laden’s death may give Obama new authority on Afghan war".
Washington Post - "Finding an alternative path in Afghanistan".
Washingon Times - "Myths of tax cuts for the rich, spending cuts for the poor". A really instructive article regarding the actual amount of taxes paid. When legislators say the rich should "pay their fair share", one should ask what "fair share" means. What percentage of the total income tax paid should be the burden of the top 20% of taxpayers? These are important questions, especially considering the discussion of removing the Bush tax cuts in addition to various tax increases.
Washington Times - "Even with cuts, borrowing will grow by trillions."
Campaign for Liberty - "Constitutional Questions" by Ron Paul.
Campaign for Liberty - "Why progressives might enjoy Atlas shrugged" by Tom Mullen.
May 2, 2011
Campaign for Liberty - "The Sphinx Speaks" - by Robert Murphy
May 1, 2011
Tom Engelhardt - "Are we still on an imperial planet?"
News Max - "NRA's LaPierre calls for Holder to resign as Attorney General"
April 30, 2011
Washington Times - "Feds sting Amish farmer selling raw milk locally"
April 29, 2011
Washington Times - "States leaving Feds behind on school reforms"
New York Times - "Classified files offer new insights into detainees"
April 28, 2011
The Economist - "What's Wrong With America's Economy"
The Economist - "The Revolt in Syria"
The American Conservative - "Democrats' War on Women (and everyone else)", by Jack Hunter, the Southern Avenger.
Tenth Amendment Center - Healthcare Nullification in North Dakota
Cato Institute - "The Ben Bernanke Variety Hour"
Cato Institute - "The Case Against President Obama's Health Care Reform: A Primer for Nonlawyers"
Campaign for Liberty - "Rescue the Republican Party from the Interventionists"
Fox News - "America's Third War: Is the U.S. Arming Mexican Cartels?"
New York Times - "Reconciliation Deal by Rival Factions Forces U.S. to Reconsider Aid to Palestinians". Another example of the unintended consequences and pitfalls of our foreign interventionism.
April 27, 2011
War in Context - "The epic Arab battle reaches Syria"
The Freeman - "Quantitative Uneasiness"
"Rescue the Republican Party from the Interventionists" by Doug Bandow click here. Bandow is a former special assistant to President Reagan.
New York Times - "No prosecution seen for Official in N.S.A. leak".
New York Times - "Detainee's lawyers can't click on the leaked documents". The absurdity of our "war on information".
Washington Times - "Obama presses Assad; Syrian violence rises".
Washington Times - "British firm offers spy software to Egypt".
Washington Times - "Fed likely to quit buying bonds, putting Congress in debt corner".
Campaign for Liberty - "Chalmers Johnson and U.S. Foreign Policy" by Anthony Gregory, Editor-in-Chief of C4L.